 |
 |
Re: Why I think that Communism is the way(Score: 1)
by bettie_x(strangersangel@hotmail.com) on Jun 13, 2005 - 10:41 AM | It's been a few days but I've put some thought into this, so here goes.
When dealing with matters of material wealth, you have three classes (as of now, tho there is quickly becoming two classes as the gap between wealth and poverty continues to widen, especially in america.) Poverty level, middle class, and upper class. The poorest having nothing to look forward to, as things cant usually get any worse, will most likely rally to anything that promises to put food on the table and pay the rent. They have the most to gain from a system set up to bring them up to a comfortable living level. They also have the least political power within the system. The middle class who is quickly becoming poor but who still have the comforts of "middle class life" will be fence walkers, as they still have memories of "something better" and will balk at not being able to achieve greater things with their lives. Still, as I said, they are quickly becoming poor in this administration, and in time may join the poverty class's desire for SOMEONE or SOMETHING to "fix" things. Then you have the wealthy. I have nothing against most wealthy people. Some of them earned it themselves, worked hard for it, but a majority of our political leaders and socialites and people who carry the most clout in political affairs are second, third, fourth generation wealthy class, and have never known or tried to understand the life of someone who lives paycheck to paycheck. They don't make up a majority of the country, but they rule it in it's entirety. The elite class is the group of people you will have the most problem with, as unlike the rest of the country, they will not be elevated, but reduced, and I know not a single wealthy person with a penchant for "slumming" in the truest sense of the word. From my point of view, easing my financial troubles through a socialist govt seems rosy....doing away with systems in place that make the rich richer and the poor poorer. However, if I was in a position of financial freedom, I would hang you from the highest tree.
When Martin Luther King Jr began his civil rights movement to bring equality to those of non caucasian skin tone, he raised one hell of a stir. He caused the worst kind of problem to those who were "elite" simply because of ethnic heritage, he wanted his children to be able to use the same bathroom, eat at the same tables, go to the same schools, and enjoy the same freedoms and peace of mind in public that people of lighter skintones were able to enjoy. A lot of people think he was gunned down for this reason alone. Fact is, he was able to continue his campaign for civil rights to a point of no return without anyone picking up a gun to remove the "problem". There were death threats, resistance, and all the ugly responses we've seen in history class, don't get me wrong. The real "problem" started when he began preaching equality to POOR southern people of ALL colors, for SOCIAL and ECONOMICAL equality. Back then, the black population of the country was about 1/3 (if I'm correct, it's an estimate) and the poor population (especially in the south and midwest) was about the same, if not greater. The greatest threats to his life were made when he began preaching to these two groups together against the elite, which is a rather small percentage of the population but which holds the most control. He in essence was taking a majority of the country (the poor and the non caucasian) and starting a revolution against ALL who oppress for ALL reasons. And he was shot for it. The nation lamented the loss of JFK, the last gunslinger, but the TRUEST loss of the real gunslinger, a man who truly believed in equality for all, economically, and racially. Morevoer he didn't want to depose the rich upper class...he just wanted the same rights for all as they have, and the same peace of mind of knowing where your next meal is coming from if you can't make your ends meet, that you have a roof over your head, access to education, just as they had.
These are reasons I am FOR a socialist economy. Allow financial gain, but leave nobody behind. Let the rich make money, but eliminate the poorer class, and make education and personal advancement available to all who can learn and work, and care for those who can't. Either flat tax the entire nation so all is paying their share, which means all are caring for those who can't provide for themselves, or have a higher tax different from the flat tax when your gains are of a certain amount.
Now as for the past examples of communism where the elite have taken control, who do you propose run this new age socialism? Do we elect our leaders in our last act of democracy, are they pre appointed or will it be a King of the Hill squabble until the most determined stands alone with is accolytes? What are the criteria, and I ask this because as someone who's interviewed for jobs before, it's easy to fake a resume. I don't know a single person who'd take on the burden of running a country let alone the world to be bringing home the same check and driving the same car as the guy next door. They might want the power, and once have the power they'll have the ability for the more human of their natures (ie: gain) to take over. Of course they could have an altruistic nature in mind, but altruism is a sham. Nobody does anything for free.
Material greed or envy will always be replaced by other sorts of envy, as I outlined before. A fat girl dresses outrageously so people will say she dresses wierd instead of just calling her fat. If she worse the latest fashions, they'd call her fat. Which is worse. The problem with most people in this country is that they just refuse to be happy, to get along, and to deal with what they cannot change. I cannot change the fact that everyone I work with likes rap and r&b, as much as I generally dislike that sort of music. So I deal with it. Socialise the govt, or at the very least, socialise the economy, and people will still bicker and fight and envy each other, be jealous of each other. Economical equality? Someday, but social equality? Never. It makes me sort of sad to say it, but never. People will war because they will always think that their way of holding a fork or spoon is the ONLY way, and everyone who does it differently is WRONG. There are better ways to do things than what they are now, I whole heartedly agree with you on that point, but I just don't think that overall socialism as a world govt is going to do the job. |
|
|
