The downside of socialism
Firstly, when property belongs to everyone, many people start to think that it belongs to no one.
Simply put, if there is no owner, then it can be taken. In other words, stealing from the state was not regarded as a crime, especially in details.
Secondly, if everything is good, then there is nothing else to achieve. It leads to a comic situation when chiefs ask their employees to work, to raise their awareness and to change their attitude. Some of them even take such idlers under patronage. It is hard to imagine, isn’t it?
Professions are regarded as prestigious when they give people a certain freedom, for instance, polar explorers, geologists and scientists.
People are divided into “important” and “not very important” not on the basis of money (incomes are roughly equal and provide the standard of living, typical of a middle class), but perks, such as holiday packages (already paid!) or products in short supply (sturgeon, black caviar, mellow cognacs and many others). Moreover, these products are given at the “state” prices, which are much lower than regular ones. Valuable workers also get company-provided vehicles while ordinary people are waiting in a list for several years to buy a car.
Although ordinary people get holiday packages and other perks as well, they are much smaller.
Furthermore, severe purges, conducted by a new government, do not favour the stability within the upper classes. A new ruler brings his own team and its members form groups of their supporters…
Why do we wage a real war, when it can be lost? Bingo! Then a war can be invented. It is particularly easy when propaganda works well or the archetype of the enemy has taken root in the consciousness of the masses.
It is vital to increase expenditures, so some people can raise their incomes and solidify their favourable position. The American movie “Wag the Dog” (1997) gives a good overview on such a situation. Are there any examples in a real life? Watch the movie and leave your comments.
We should not forget about communism or utopia. In socialism, citizens give all they can to their society and get a fair payment in accordance with their results. In communism, people get their pay in accordance with their needs.
For example, mathematicians, physicists and chemists are very valuable for the society. However, they cannot sleep in two beds at once.
The same refers to physically-challenged people. They have great needs (special equipment, means of transportation, food and so on) but they cannot repay them to the full extent.
Communism can deal with it, since pay-off from other members of society, who do not keep “spare” benefits, will always surpass real needs.
Well, well… It seems we have seen it before. Some billionaires, gifted scientists and engineers (North America) live according to this model. In some capitalistic countries (Northern Europe) the financial support is arranged in exactly the same way. While a part of society plays in capitalism, the other lives in “the bright communist future”, is it so?
In fact, it is not as easy as it seems. We have talked about capitalism but the current interests of the upper class go beyond the borders of certain countries and branches. Nowadays, there are global financial and economic groups, which “divide and rule” – they replace governments or technological waves with new ones, accelerate or restrain technological development, change the values of whole generations, living on the Earth (!), and many other things. Perhaps, the growth of the middle class in the countries of “the Golden Billion” is mere crumbs from the upper class’ table.
Revolutions, coups… One should not cherish any illusions. Although the winning party makes slogans and ideologies sound heroic, the lower class and the middle class do not get anything but the reduction of living standards and a real threat to their lives. As a famous Chinese proverb says, “God forbid to live in a time of change”.
However, any act of destruction is atoned by an act of creation. While this tendency prevails, our faith in the future of humankind remains, with the development model being of no importance. We still believe that someday the upper class will not build its success on large or small oppression of others.