Wikipedia says “Socialism” is best defined as:
Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources. As an economic system, socialism is a system of production based on the direct production of use-values by allocating economic inputs (the means of production) and investments through planning to directly satisfy economic demand. Economic calculation is based on either calculation-in-kind or a direct measure of labour time, output for individual consumption is distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on individual merit or individual contribution.
And defined like this I’d say – sure, Socialism is not a system that is long term sustainable, because it doesn’t contain a feedback mechanism that corrects for human nature, and as such socialism as an exclusive system is nonviable. But hey.I am just a parrot with no real ideas of my own, right. But on that note let’s look at capitalism.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the market rather than by central planning by the government; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies. There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor how the term should be used as an analytical category. There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism. There are a variety of historical cases to which the designation is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture. Some define capitalism as where all the means of production are privately owned, and some define it more loosely where merely “most” are in private hands —while others refer to the latter as a mixed economy biased toward capitalism. More fundamentally, others define capitalism as a system where production is carried out to generate profit, or exchange-value, regardless of legal ownership titles. Private ownership in capitalism implies the right to control property, including determining how it is used, who uses it, whether to sell or rent it, and the right to the revenue generated by the property.
Now if I were to state almost the same about ‘Capitalism’ as I were to state about socialism, I’d get staunch denials from either side. Capitalists being denounced would regard me as a pink-o commie, and if I were to denounce ‘paleolithic Socialism’ then I am suddenly blasted being a vile corporate shill. And sure, it doesn’t add much that I am in fact member of the SP in the Netherlands (The Socialist Party) and either vote for them (for lack of a better alternative) or for Groenlinks.
What I would say is that we are offered two products, as southpark has indicated – we are offered to choose for a Douche or a Turd. It’s Product A or product B. It is Black or White. Changing this would be like climbing the Himalayas, and I’d either have to select a party and become involved – or I’d have to start my own party. Maybe I could lobby a little but it’s clear that for someone in my position anyone making any statement ‘onto’ a political party is held in nothing short of hateful contempt or at best dismissive passive-aggressive impatience.
I’d argue that even in the bastion of personal freedom, politics is locked down and only ass-kissing docile slaves can enter it effectively. Politics in the entire world has become the equivalent to being governed by eunuchs.
I don’t want product A or B. I don’t want a quantum state of having to select either A or B. I want ranges of options. I want slider bars.
But what is more important – I assert that both ‘socialism’ and ‘capitalism’ have failed miserably, and have become overrun by assholes and their entitlements. One can argue that I am also another whining bitch who is entitled in the same manner – after all I am dependent on disability – but the point of the system is that it does three things:
1 – The current political systems makes different ranges of citizens dependent on entitlements,
2 – It then plays the voting citizens against another as to maximize static, unchanging entitlement-centered voting pools,
3 – It then closes the system down from change, and minimizes any chance an alternative might emerge.
All this is gearing up for nothing short of catastrophic collapse of our modern political systems. The end of work, automation, pension entitlements, immigration, outsourcing, insane taxation pressures, foreign wars, oil depletion, climate weirding, racism, populists, assorted tea party movements, resource depletion, immigrant xenophobia, animal species dying going extinct worldwide, slave labour in most of the world continuing and most western world consumers not giving a flying fuck that they are complicit in completely unacceptable exploitation, nuclear proliferation, terrorism – these are all symptoms of a dualistic two party political spectrum that is doing the world indescribable harm.
The best solutions would be to implement far more radical democracy, and implementing a fact based international economic paradigm along the lines of the Venus Project. Personally I favor transhumanist policies, but that is so far outside the mainstream I won’t even begin arguing this.
In the end the only solution to this stalemate is to control or manage societal stupidity. Why I am not advocating ‘”exterminating stupid people’ (with some exceptions) we must constrain competence. The only way to do this is by introducing ways to make yourself more autarchic as a citizen.
In plain facts that means – making education free and expenses for education tax deductible insofar the skills they bestow would generate income independence – giving all citizens free medical care insofar it empowers their health – making investments on financial self-sustainability (houses, house insulation, private sources of income, private means of growing food, energy independency) tax deductible. Also it might mean (and this would be extremelyu politically distasteful right now) we disallow people with no income to have children. The point would be is to implement measures that are both humane, and foster independence. It would also mean that we do not deconstruct things like welfare (because we are human beings with compassion) but we also plan how to make people not need it as soon as possible. We keep welfare, or even improve it, but we implement measures that as soon as possible people have no need for it.
Also we should make having debts an actual bad thing, contrary to how economy now operates.
This will, as soon as it starts working, castrate the power big energy, big corporations and eunuch career politicians have over us. This flies subtly in the face of current political extremes – who like their voters and citizens begging for scrap like trained dogs. But fuck them, these dinosaurs are destined for the slaughter anyway, the sooner we take them out back of the shed and get rid of them, the better.
Final statement? I’d say Revalucion!
Let’s bring back value to our societies.