Personal Wealth in Socialist and Post-Socialist Countries - Essay Example

? Lecturer Political Anthropology: personal wealth in socialist and post socialist countries. Political Anthropology refers to the study of humanity in relation to political systems and societal structures. The onset of political anthropology is the nineteenth century and was led by Lewis Morgan and Sir Henry Maine who traced the evolution of human society on what would be later referred to as ethnocentric, speculative and racist approaches as indicated in African Political Systems (1940). It was about primitive and savage verses advanced societies. During those early times every writer had his/her own understanding on political institutions. Others like Fortes and Evans-Pritchard argued that, “…a systematic study of opinionated associations must be inductive and relative and intend exclusively at instituting and accounting for the consistency found with them and their mutualism with other characteristics of group association” To them societies were defined entities that only sought to maintain their equilibrium and social order. But according to Political Systems of Highland Burma (1954) there is need for understanding the transformation of societies at different times. With a totally different view was Gluckman who said that conflict maintained the stability of political systems through the establishment and re-establishment of crosscutting ties among social actors. He said that a society can be upheld by a conflict so long as the conflict is of a certain degree. In the United States political anthropology was approached on Marxist ideologies which called for an understanding of the origin and development of inequalities in human society. The ideas was also shared in France in the 1960s. In 1970s, Europe became victim of political anthropology when its edifying structures became issue of study (Boissevain and Friedl, 1975). The civilized Europe’s norms and political course with anthropology as explained (Haarmann, 1996) continued to take a different direction with different anthropologists taking a u-turn in their ethnographies by turning to cultural/political identity construction, ethnicity and nationalism (Barth 1969 and anticipated Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism). PRE-SOCIALIST, SOCIALIST AND POST-SOCIALIST TIMES Socialism is the transitional state between the overthrow of capitalism and realism of communism (Marxist theory). It was the French Revolution of 1978 which was as a result of Industrial Revolution that gave birth to socialism. Karl Marx and Eagle’s conception of socialism in their Communist Manifesto resulted into formation of social democratic parties in Europe drawing from Marxism with the Australian Labor Party being the first to get into government. The Soviet Union and other communist parties employed the Soviet model of economic development thus creating planned economies run by the state owner of the means of production like in United Kingdom; the public directed all that it owned. The long Vietnam War (1959-1975) forced some countries to go on their own and formed the New Left and pushed for decentralized collective ownership through cooperatives and councils for workers. Goods and services were produced directly for thus eliminated the market-induced needs bringing about enough demand for products to be sold at a profit. This socialist economy allowed for self-management and self-governance of enterprise activities with equal power relations, hence, maximized occupational autonomy. Every member of the hierarchy was involved in the decision-making process and participated fully in establishing the overall policy objectives. However, some socialist states had bureaucratic economies where the micromanagement of a worker at workplace was based on scientific management which is capitalistic in nature. During the post-socialist times like in East and Central Europe, there were restructuring processes that took place. The urban housing sector is faced with problems of affordability, communal housing is marginalized, and there is increased segregation and intensified decay in the old housing stock. This shows a parallel pattern of urban development in the entire Europe (Darling, 2006). The socialist era resulted into fundamental problems that are far from ending in East Central Europe for example in Hungary housing policy the segregation levels show similarities to the kind of pattern development in Anglo- America. The end of the communist party rule gave room for emergence of national movements that threatened the peace in countries such as Slovenia, Croatia, Slovakia and other Soviet republics. Conflicts were experienced almost in all countries. Blood was shed and anti-Semitism cold be felt. This communism had suppressed people indeed that people branded others ancient and inferior thus promoting the imagery of tribalism. It is almost impossible to use a communism theory in a socio-cultured society for it is like forcing “OTHER” people into sharing the same resources with the natives. In China for example it was and still successful because more than two thirds of the inhabitants of that country are Chinese save for a state like the USA where the black Americans are the dominant yet they are considered ‘outsiders’ therefore making mandatory for the whites and blacks to co-own property is kind of mission impossible unless in extreme cases. PERSONAL WEALTH IN SOCIOLIST AND POST-SOCIOLIST COUNTRIES Personal wealth is the ownership of goods, property, money or valuable possessions privately, individually and exclusively. During the Socialist times in Europe it is the society as a whole and an individual that enjoyed competing freedoms that later resulted to social justice for everyone. There was equality of humanity and productivity by all individuals, hence, there were no avenues for poverty, unemployment, social inequality and laziness among individuals. Socialism here encourages individual responsibility and fosters economic security and as In a country like the Republic of Hungary, in 1945 the youth and the workers due to their perseverance of the totalitarian government which had crushed the workers’ democracy went into the streets protesting. The working class suffered a lot for there was no responsible leadership that could listen to their concerns; the one in place had neglected them by giving them peasants forcing the entire population to starve. The unconcerned government of Kremlin was making it difficult for workers; punishment was meted out by the AVO police. The war forced the country’s capitalist to flee to Germany for they felt unsecure. By the early 1950s, life was unbearable; however, the death of Starlin in 153 raised people’s hopes. Workers moved in to take control of things in their hands. Those who had been imprisoned were released, emphasis was given to consumer goods and forced collectivization was abolished. The working class pushed for more improved living standards having experience capitalism to the extreme, and as witnessed by Peter Fryer in his account (Hungarian Tragedy) they were so determined in changing their livelihoods in that they formed committees like those formed by factory workers that later played a major role in pursuing their demands during the revolution. The committees went to an extent of supplying food for the embattled city workers. They got a boost in their struggle when the state security teams joined them when the army also set up revolutionary committees that listed their set of demands for example they called for a withdrawal of all Soviet troops from Hungarian soil. The socialism struggle bore fruits when the communist party that had been in power during the struggle disintegrated paving way for the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party and the withdrawal of the Russian forces under Nagy’s reign. In pot socialist Hungary, according to Dr, Lisa Pope ( Time, Ritual and Post Socialist change in Hungary, 2008) the socio-economic frame of the Hungarian society influenced the people’s everyday practices in terms of memory, social relations and identity. The embracing of capitalist market economy meant a reconstruction of time. Privately owned businesses facilitated equal and free society; the power was in the hands of individuals who were to work hard for profits to be made. This individual effort is important like Horato Algers indicates in his novel, despite any obstacles one should face, there is the belief that as long as one works hard enough one will succeed since people are paid as per the work. You work faster you make more profit, time is valuable and should be constructively used, thus, “time is money” As opposed to socialist times where housing or home ownership’s role of in welfare provision and the systems of providing the welfare was confined to shelter and investment with the latter being minor, in post socialist times which was characterized with wide social changes the role of housing assets changed. The shelter function of housing reduced where as the investment role shot up and was characterized with large-scale privatization of housing assets. The privatization increased the economy efficiency of the housing system which even enriched some citizens. The people owned the wealth not the government as was before and as Struyk (1996, p.23) observes,“ the transfer of wealth from the government to the people was clearly popular” Another country that was hit by the socialist theories is the Czechoslovakia as it was formally known now called Czech Republic and Slovakia respectively. Though its economy had been stabilized by the Soviet Union which cancelled all the debts, provided economic aid and increased subsidies, the people formed dissident movements to champion for their total independence. Countries that were lagging behind in economic development overtook it for they produced their own. The locals wanted to take control of their communities so that they could direct themselves than receiving orders from the “foreign’ top that was advancing its own agenda. However, the Soviet Union started encountering economic challenges that it could no longer sustain the helping hand toward its “host”. Though its soldiers still remained there, for sustainability of its economy forced the Soviet Union to cut short the support and as a result stopped supporting Czechoslovakia for there were no more subsidies to be supplied. In post socialist times, there were profound changes not just in political and economical sphere but all aspects affecting life (Brauduel, 1982). Local democracy, social movements, work collectives gradually improved. The privatization of the pay-as-you-go security system helped a lot where a majority of the people opted for the personal retirement accounts to concentrate on personal businesses. The adoption of the nineteen percent flat personal income and corporate tax rate by the government of Dzurinda improved the country’s economy. All this reforms resulted in the country being ranked among the top countries with the best business conditions. Unemployment that previously posed a challenge greatly improved where it had fallen to eleven percent in two thousand and five up from eighteen percent in two thousand. Given that capitalism is both economic and political thus encouraging development of personal wealth where as socialism emphasizes on wealth distribution so that individual needs are meant collectively, during socialism those who had wealth could combine and buy a property together or invest in real estate to enjoy the benefits that came with these types of investments or people could star t up their own businesses and as a result the earnings could be used to satisfy societal needs. People had to ensure that their neighborhoods s were provided with its necessities so that the all the people could benefit. For example the setting up of a football pitches where all the members of the community would be using for various activities. Socialism as much is criticized did have an impact in Europe specifically Scandinavia where the government regularized the industries and nationalized the bigger ones. The enforcement of high taxes resulted in economic equality, a system preferred by the workers over communism. When countries moved from socialism to capitalism the sharing of personal wealth to cater for the society was put aside meaning individuals got a chance to create their own wealth. People owned businesses independently and the success of these businesses was determined by how much effort in terms of investment could an individual put in place. If one wanted a bungle for example he/ she were required to have the required amount of money for that kind of luxury to be met. According to Freeman (1978) satisfaction is the major determinant of market mobility since it reflects the aspects of work place, however, it is not clear if capitalism really pins workers down or not. Given that individuals run their business when it comes to hiring and firing labor one is likely to use the advantage and without considering the legal position in firing employees anyhow thus negatively impacting the business. Measures of employment are related to job satisfaction, therefore, an employer should allow the employee to access reasonable capital. This motivation al and positively impacts the operation of the business but when the measure are poor the employees will not work wholeheartedly and as a result hamper the economic performance of the job. Works Cited Brauduel, Fernand, Civilization and Capitalism: The perspective of the world, University of California Press, 1982. Print Darling, Robert: The Story of Us Humans, from Atoms to Today’s Civilization, iUniverse, 2006. Print Haarmann, Harald, Early Civilization and Literacy in Europe: An Inquiry into Cultural Continuity in the Mediterranean World, Walter de Gruyter, 1996. Print Podolefsky, Aaron and Peter Brown. Applying Cultural Anthropology: An introductory Reader: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2001. 5th ed. Print Ricci, Gabriel. Culture and Civilization: Cosmopolitanism and the Global Polity, Transaction Publisher, 2012. Print. Ritzer, George, and Atalay Zeynep. Reading in Globalization: Key Concepts and Major Debates, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. Print Fortes, Meyer, and Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard. African Political Systems. New York: Oxford University Press, 1940. Print Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Germany: Ngims Publishing, 1998. Print Read More