Capital versus Socialism - Essay Example

Capital versus Socialism Capitalism and socialism are diverse political, financial, and societal arrangements engaged in nations around the globe. Capitalism may be explained as an economic system where the activities of production are controlled by individuals comprising resources such as money and other forms of capital. In a capitalist economy, the economy is managed by persons who possess and control private enterprises. Choices concerning the use of resources are taken by the person or persons who own the enterprise. The motive under the principle of capitalism is mainly profit. All enterprises have owners and executives. At times, particularly in small industries, the owners and executives are the same individuals. As the industry grows, the owners might appoint executives with or without any ownership stake in the firm. The work of the administration is more multifaceted than merely creating revenue. Under the capitalist culture, the aim of the industry is to take full advantage of shareholder affluence so as to make every investor as rich as possible. It is the governments responsibility to take care there is a level playing field for privately owned enterprises by implementing rules and guidelines. The prevailing laws and guidelines in a specific manufacturing industry normally subject to the potential for misuse in that industry. The capitalist system is as well termed as free market economy or free enterprise. In a socialistic nation, the economic system the means of production, for instance money and other forms of investment, are retained by the government or the community. Within a socialist system, all works for prosperity of the community that is dispersed to one and all. Whereas, in a capitalist nation everyone working for his own prosperity. The essence of socialist economic system is that what is good for one is good for all. Every person works for their own virtuous and the virtuous of one and all. The government resolves how wealth is dispersed among the publics. There is no market in a socialist economy. The government is responsible for providing the people. The government taxes are generally greater than in a capitalist system. There might be health care system maintained by government and a comprehensive system of government-managed education. People pay for these services through higher taxes. Socialist systems highlight equal sharing of affluence amid the individuals (Peavler, ND). The aim of socialism is that a society that would agree for the complete progress of human potential. Friedrich Engels explains that socialism is to establish a society in such a manner that each member of it can progress and use his entire skills and powers in total freedom and without thereby invading the basic settings of the society. Marx summed it all up and said that the aim is an association, wherein the free progress of everyone is the condition for the free progress of all. In other words a society wherein certain people are able to progress their abilities and others are not allowed is not the concept of socialism; all are symbiotic, all are associates of humanity. The total progress of all human potential is the goal. Thinking about capitalism, the logic of capital dictates; and that logic drives against to the desires of human beings for their own progress. In entrepreneurship, the objectives of production are the goals of capital for revenues. In the sense, people and nature are merely means to that objective. When learning the nature of capitalist dealings of production there are two dominant features, the capitalists and workers. There are capitalists, the holders of capital and the holders of material resources of production. And their direction is headed for the progression of their prosperity. Capitalists procure commodities with the aim of making more money, added value, excess value. For a capitalist, the growth of his capital is vital. Conversely, there are workers, who do not possess the material means of manufacturing the things they want for themselves. Lacking those capitals of production, they are not in position to produce the commodities to trade in the market to exchange. Hence to get their needs fulfilled they have to sell their ability to work. They can choose anyone who wants their work; however they are not in position to select whether or not to sell their power to do labor if they are to subsist. Capitalism necessitates publics to sell their power to work so as to get the money to purchase the stuffs they want. However the separation of the means of production from workers is not sufficient for worker -power to be sold. In case workers are separated from the means of production, there are two options: first one, workers trade their labor capability to the owners of means of production or secondly workers lease means of production from the owners. But only the first situation makes the settings for capitalist production. The capitalists owning the means of production make certain that he has the power to decide. He can choose how to use their possessions to attain the objective. The capitalist purchases the worker’s capability to carryout labor accurately to accomplish his objective, profits. As the capitalist has bought the worker’s capability, he is in the situation to force the worker to create profits. There is a base for an exchange among two groups in the market, the owner of money, and the owner of labor power. The wage earner wants money and the capitalist wants the worker’s power. It appears like both will acquire something out of that transaction. This market deal is different from the sale of any other product because the worker has no other option but to trade what he has however that is habitually factual of a farmer too. Something thought-provoking occurs to both parties to that deal. Formerly the money-owner has become a capitalist; the holder of labor-power follows as his worker. They are arriving at the work place where the capitalist now has the privilege to use that property right which he has acquired.Subsequently the capitalist’s objective is excess value; he simply secures labor-power to the level that will produce that extra value, since his motive is profit. The capitalist has no concern in circumstances where labors work just adequately to get their equivalent. But the capitalist desire is that workers do excess work so that the work done by workers exceeds the level of needed labor. This is the required condition for production of surplus value. The capitalist having control of manufacture and his possession of the product of labor, will make sure that workers enhance more value in production than the capitalist has rewarded them. The discrepancy concerning the total labor they complete and the labor equivalent in their wage is exploitation. That is the characteristic logic of capital. The essential inclination of capital is to raise the abuse of labors. Consider the type of individuals that capitalism creates. It is argued that capitalism cripples individuals in the course of production. Instead of making the situations in which people can progress all their capabilities, capital consider people as means to its objective, profits. Capitalist production is a procedure that produces penurious humanity. One can notice evidently the vicious circle of capitalism. The Individuals who are alienated from the means of manufacture and with wants which they need to accomplish. Such people need to go into the labor market to trade their labor power, challenging with other people in the same situation. They have to go into capitalist manufacture, which yields as its value poor workers with both the need and the means to consume, within controlled limits. After consuming these products they are again without the means to keep themselves and compelled to go themselves again to capital and they have to again produce for capital’s objectives. This is a spiteful circle, and its stages are symbiotic and cannot alter one without altering them entirely. The substitute is that from the rationality of human development. People have struggled long for that alternative and they have argued against the logic of capital with the logic of social progress. The fight for self-respect and social fairness, in all scuffles for improved salaries and working environments, contrary to discrimination and patriarchy, for safeguarding the living environment, and for the rights to satisfactory health, education, and accommodation, the idea of human progress is understood. These are the obstructions to the total human development. It is understood that the joint tussles is the idea that all are related and that all need each other, that certainly the free development of every one is the prerequisite for the free development of all. Therefore the alternative is a society founded upon love and harmony, upon the union as a human family. Certainly this society can’t be one where the state resolves and where there is the perpetuation of the separation between thinking and doing. It is argued that the human progress alternative can only be democratic, sharing, and protagonist society, where everybody’s involvement, practice, is the requirement for safeguarding the comprehensive progress for all, both individual and collective. In order to have a democratic manufacture for the requirements of society, there is an indispensable condition that there cannot be control of the goods of human effort by individuals, groups, or the government. Hence, the prerequisite is social ownership of the means of production. This is basis for concept of elementary triangle of socialism where social productions structured by workers so as to fulfill collective needs and common commitments. Social possession of the means of production is vital for the reason that it is the only way to make sure that the collective, social production is focused to the free progress of all instead of used to please the private objectives of capitalists, groups of persons, or government officials. Gratification of collective requirements and purposes emphases on the significance of building the creative activity upon the acknowledgment of shared civilization and the needs as associates of the human family. Consequently, it emphasizes the significance of going afar from self-centeredness to consider of the community and society. And, further idea of solidarity is vital as it is explaining that all people and all fragments of the communal worker are permitted to share upon the common, social productivity. The idea is not that one has the specific right to consume things without any restriction but identify the significance of the worker’s own requirement for progress. In place of vicious circle of capitalism, socialism comprises a ‘virtuous circle.’ Producers being the part of the society categorized by solidarity that people who know their unity based upon dissimilarities. Such manufacturers enter into a relationship so as to produce for the requirements of society and this system progress and increase their capabilities as cultured social beings. Hence the object of their activity is producers who identify their unity and their want for each other. Therefore they go back into this evolution of the virtuous circle of socialism. Similar to the vicious circle of capitalism, virtuous circle is also expanding. Yet, its progress is not going by the logic of capital, which stresses more production, larger consumption of the earth’s possessions, and bigger consumption. Quite the reverse, the progress is accomplished by the logic of people’s development and it is not a quantitative progression however, a qualitative progress that is the development in every aspect, which creates rich social persons. One can think of the socialist triangle - social property, social production, and social needs and about the capitalist triangle - private ownership of the means of production, abuse of workers and the ambition for profits and can decide which is ideal, capital or socialism (Lebowitz, 2009). References Lebowitz, M.A. (2009). The Path to Human Development: Capitalism or Socialism? Monthly Review Available at: http://monthlyreview.org/2009/02/01/the-path-to-human-development-capitalism-or-socialism Accessed on November 21, 2012. Peavler,R. (ND).The Characteristics of Capitalism and Socialism, How Capitalism and Socialism Differ as Economic Systems. bizfinance.about.com. Available at: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/smallbusinessissues/qt/CapvsSoc.htm Accessed on November 21, 2012 Read More