In the current political sphere along its rhetorical voyage, we all can meet face to face with buzzwords such as Capitalism, socialism, liberal, or social Democracy. Those words are often within the legit context. Yet, too many times, the intuitions behind those topics used are indeed beyond what their actual definitions. Such misrepresentation as to what the true meaning of each political term is nowadays evolving into scale epic proportions. Whether due to change of public sociopolitical perception through the propagation of selected oratory slogan; or the dictation of semantic drift, that is not the focus of this dialogue. What I intend to attain here is to bring out some of the pitfalls that would ensue if we fail to acknowledge their existence. The latest is something that we witness day in and day out in our lifetime.
Let’s touch in a few definitions.
Capitalism is an economic and socio-political process. It allows private individuals or businesses to own assets of goods, services, and properties while maintaining its domination. Capitalism was founded on the theory of pure market supply and demand. Also called the market economy, Capitalism tends to function in distinction to the strict central planning or planned economy. Hence, it is also called the command economy of socialist policies.
Laissez-faire capitalism is the purest form of Capitalism where trades between private parties are devoid of government intervention in any shape or form, such as regulations, privileges, imperialism, tariffs, and subsidies. According to the laissez-faire economy, the notion rests on the fact that an individual is the basic unit of society, with a natural right to sovereignty.
The market economy is always liberating to private individuals. Thus, Every person in the system may determine where to capitalize or what products to sell. And he must also establish as at which prices to exchange goods and services.
The laissez-faire marketplace operates without central checks or controls even though they must follow a particular high-level regulation that is primarily to endure good market penetration and opportunity for everyone.
Today, many countries across the works practice some form of governmental oversight that incorporates a limited market economy. That includes various levels of administrative regulation of business and holding of preferred enterprises.
Origin of Capitalism
Even though the Origin of Capitalism may seem to be recent to a bystander, nonetheless dates bank to the ancient world, where pockets of Capitalism were present during the later European Middle Ages. The development of Capitalism was commenced by the growth of the English cloth trade during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, when the use of accumulated capital was utilized to sway productive capacity instead of investing in economically inefficient industries, such as pyramids and cathedrals.
The crucial characteristic of Capitalism is the motive to bring in a profit. Adam Smith, the 18th-century philosopher, once said: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their interest.”
Both parties to a spontaneous trade have their interest in the finding, but neither can attain what he or she expects without honoring what the other projects. It is this rational self-interest that can lead to economic prosperity. In a capitalist economy, property such as factories, mines, and the railroad can be privately owned and regulated, labor for wages, capital earnings accrue to private owners, and prices allocate capital and labor between competing intentions.
Some shape of Capitalism has been the ground for virtually all modern economies for much of the last century. It was but one of two primary strategies for the economic institution. In socialism, the state owns all the means of production, where state-owned enterprises seek to maximize public welfare rather than profits.
Populism and its integration within the socialist ideology
Historically, it has been the common belief that populism and socialism are as different as apples and oranges, and by no means, they share a commonality in their missions. Such an opinion may have been valid for most of the era before the 18th century. Nonetheless, during the past century, supporters of the socialist system and populists have discovered several grounds where they share their common interests. Examples of such shares are such issues as anti-corporatism and pro-welfare programs. Therefore, Their symbiotic existence has united them against the concept of a free-market economy.
Socialists and populists in the past have ascertained sufficient reasons to differ from private property to trust-busting. Still, their shared commitment to fighting corporate authority has brought them together, as we see today. Current status of political doctrines, the emergence of populist values, and socialism is descriptive of strong alliances that are instructive for pondering today’s leftwing politics. Today, the political stances of the ordinary citizen stand more government intervention in almost every aspect of people’s lives. It is the widespread political rhetoric that Capitalism is thwarting the interest of ordinary people.
The concept of modern democracy, democratic socialism and republic, and free market
Republics and democracies both provide the kind of political system where citizens are represented by sworn elected officials to safeguard their interests. The main difference between the two is that in a genuine democracy. That law is created directly through the vote of the majority relinquishing the liberties of the minority.
In a republic, on the other hand, laws are made by proxies chosen by people where they must comply with a constitution that mainly guarantees the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
In a republic, an official set of fundamental laws, like the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, limits the government from taking away the sacred rights of the people. That is even if a majority of the nation willingly appoints the administration. In a pure democracy, the voting majority possesses virtually limitless power over the minority.
It is worth noting that the concept of modern democracy automatically disregards the significance of human individuality. It has the propensity to override it by further consolidating the mainstream majority.
The concept of democratic socialism
The emergence of democratic socialism, it’s the primary focus of utilizing the shared attitude to confirm everyone into their interest has Formed into an anti-capitalist campaign.
Social Democracy is relatively new. It stands for the belief that both the economy and society should be run democratically. They also ought to meet public wants, and not to bring about dividends for a few. It upholds to achieve a more just society. In another sense, later ideology sees the few wealthy as an imminent threat to the majority” popular group.”
The social-democratic vision
They foresee that Myriad of structures within a government and economy must be radically transformed. Popular believes; greater economic and social democracy is mandatory so that ordinary Americans can participate in the decision makings that affect their lives.
It is the prevailing impression of the populist that democracy and socialism go hand in hand. Today, all over the world, wherever the idea of freedom has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken hold too.
It is a growing trend among the democratic party within the United States instead of uniting the civic by commonality; it further divides them. This has, in turn, fueled chaos and hostility amid its citizens. The fact that the united states are a diverse society and vast, it is hard to find a robust unifying peculiarity among the common. Because of this, many fallacious arguments about socialism have evolved in the U.S. political arena.
It is the common belief among many factions to protect the interests of everyone. They even believe in providing an opportunity for the mass to live in prosperity. But not all end up realistically sustainable. The source problem for such an uncertain outcome is on the fact that, to a substantial extent, they have the propensity to overlook humans as an individual being. For example, in social democracy, personal values vary—most of all, confines within the boundaries set by the social commonalities.
Individual values within the context of Capitalism, Democracy, and socialism
Democracy is a system of cleansing conflicts. The outcomes of solutions depend on what partakers of the society do. In a democratic order, no sole force governs what materializes or is the outcome. The uncertainty of consequences is the core of any democracy. It must make all forces strive continually to realize their interests and wither power from groups of people to sets of rules defined by a group of people.
Democracy and its divergent vision of individual Merrit
Within the context of a given framework of democracies that is divergent, a view of its own merits will vary based on the prevailing norms of the majority. Undoubtedly History has taught us that the values of many leftwing scholars are contradictory. The current opinions verge to shift with their established political and social circumstances of the particular era. In defiance and exclusion, savants would encircle egalitarian or that all people are equal, henceforth, deserve equal rights and opportunities. The left scholars accept democratic values in theory but only occasionally in practice.
The socialist society recognizes values by having a dialectical relationship to socioeconomic interests. For example, Housing, recreational facilities, health, education, sports, cultural activities, and livable income must be available to all. These opportunities must be equally distributed parity of physical circumstances.
Chances are the fundamental values of a socialist society. Socialism is nothing but a process and not an isolated event. In a socialized process, the benefits and enlightenment involve continual interaction. It pertains to collective human status in a diversity of realms of life over time.
Socialist, capitalist hybrid
In the modern world, everyone has partly experienced socialist and capitalist societies. The only exception is by that of the capitalist culture and values. Yet, challenges and trends within Capitalism are kinds of expenses within which to acquaint and understand socialist values are not spontaneous; as The modification of property structures furnishes a context for the adaptation of social connections is not automatic. There within rests the issue of administration, goals, construction. And that priorities of collective property can only lead to a socialist society if the collectivities which authorize it are within the fundamental of socialist values.
On the other extreme, Capitalism often represented as forfeiting some people to benefit others in a cold-hearted utilitarian person. Realistically, No economic policy will ever work to everyone’s advantage. But Capitalism at least provides most folks the opportunity to flourish. Henceforth, the resultant society under Capitalism is the wealth attainable, even for the losers.
The Left anti-capitalism rhetoric is a paradox. Based on that, any individual striving for advantage serves the common good. But they are overlooking the fact that the idea of achieving justice by taking away what people have earned And that this also nurtures poverty rather than solving it.
Capitalism is not flawless, as No economic system ever can be, and the pursuit of utopia has never elicited miracles. But if we ratify human imperfection, a free market economy is as good as it buys. Pure Capitalism necessitates the recognition of its individual.
The political system and The contrast of attitude
According to a study of 259 Germans randomly picked to play a simple dice game, The longer people live under a socialist system, the further their value system fails. Within the study, the researchers from the University of Munich and Duke University asked participants to throw a dice forty times. Every single time dice rolled subjects had to write the result down on a piece of paper. In the end, those with the most significant sums earned winnings of up to $8. The twist was that each participant had to engage in selecting the top or bottom number before rolling the dice. And they should do without telling anyone beforehand which side they favored, allowing them to lie when they saw which way the dice had turned up.
According to the design, If no one had defrauded, there should have been a roughly equal mixture of rolls from one to six. Instead, researchers found out there were disproportionately more high rolls than low. Players were told they’d picked in advance more fours, fives, and sixes than possible, meaning many were cheating. That correlated with; The longer people lived under socialism, the more their value system erodes.
Participants were then asked their age and the part of Germany where they lived throughout their lives. Some participants had spent years under communist East Germany. But the rest had only known life in a unified post iron curtain Germany.
Dishonesty defined by the social arrangement
Researchers placed dice rolls outcome next to where and when the participants had been born. The result came as stunning findings. Those who lived in socialist East Germany were twice as likely to cheat as those of West German peers. Besides, the longer a partaker had resided in a socialist structure, the bigger their likelihood of being dishonest. Those who had lived for twenty years or more in East Germany were sixty-five percent more likely to cheat than their West German peers. Conclusion; The ill-effect of socialism lingers in people’s values long after its extinction.
Semantics drift of capitalism definition and corporate personification and social populist
Throughout the last century, Capitalism has faced numerous semantic shifts. One such tendency is the late modern Capitalism, even though it is the subject of even more semantic assaults upon personification of the corporation. As a result, The Late stage capitalism has become an established phrase among populists. And while at it, majority leftwing populists have taken influence by targeting the disservices of modern-day Capitalism. This trend utterly depicts the hypocrisy and lunacies of Capitalism. It even sifts its burial under the intellectual perceptions of what a pure free-market economy should entail. Social media website Reddit interprets it as “the horrible things capitalism forces people to do to survive.”
The merger of Leftwing democracy and populist hardliner
Today leftwing European style social democracy is giving way to the populist stances that underscore the idea of the ordinary people and juxtapose the latter group against what they consider as” elite.” The contemporary populist commonly embraces a significant portion of leftwing ideologies, undermining individual identity, still without equating all citizens.
Populists, in many ways, are socialist while holding the semantic drift of their own. They perpetually negate the merit of Capitalism by comparing it to corporatism. The populist utterly fails to envision that Capitalism is about a person and an equal independent opportunity for everyone.
Significance of corporate personification
The declaration of corporate personhood within the framework of” the democratic representative” system has shifted the semantics of Laissez-faire notion. For instance, the United States is a democratic representative system with a type of democracy that is founded on the tenet of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy. Although yielding, however, democratic representative inclines to build distrust among its citizens. It tends to make the system vulnerable to trends like corporate kickbacks through lobbying networks, eventually empowering corporations. It most of all emphasizes on the majority, yet only indirectly recognizing individual autonomy.
Capitalism is not corporatism! Socialism is about the unification of masses under unanimous majority ordeals through the mandatory consolidation. The emergence of hybrid models has merely led to the loss of the true meaning of Capitalism and the notion of Free market capitalism. Therefore, I can say without hesitation; today, pure Capitalism is nonexistent.
The real problem needs a realistic solution.
The world, in general, is suffering from an extreme form of hypocrisy. Establishing democracy through profiling, defining individual rights via populist endorsement, or associating everyone through majority vote is nothing short of ludicrous.
If Capitalism is not the answer to today’s socioeconomic challenges, then definitely hybrid models won’t come close to being an ideal option. Realistically speaking, no two persons are the same, and no one-size-fits-all solutions exist.
The real answer lies within the grassroots of every society. That is where every individual has the chance to learn, teach, practice, share, compete, and thrive towards a decent life. Within the process and as an outcome, a healthy environment is created that is transparent and accountable to everyone. The free-market economy is the one where the grass has the same green color on either side of the wall if everyone puts effort into maintaining it.