BY DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI NEWS AND COMMENTARY

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, MONDAY FEB. 25, 2019) — This year, with ideologues such as Alexandria Ocascio-Cotez, Kamala Harris, and Bernie Sanders presidentially chirping from the extreme left-leaning branches, THE PLANET offers a few thoughts on a topic often mentioned by commentators on this board when debating the merits and demerits of socialism and capitalism. These musings are by no means exhaustive, nor are they complete. We offer them as the tinder to spark the flames of discussion.

———- ooo ———-

Such organizational systems were the inevitable offspring of civilization. Once people began leaving the hostilities of competing and warring small tribes to form true communities, it quickly became clear that some form of corporate organization of power (politics) and production (capital) would be necessary. No one sat down to invent these systems. Rather, they were given birth by social necessity and evolved according to social need.

Communal consideration requires a huge amount of individual surrender, since no one or two or any small number of people can provide the products and services needed to sustain a village, town, or city. Humans inherently crave freedom, but only after the basic needs of food, drink, shelter, safety, and clothing have been addressed. That provides the essence of the communism v. capitalism debate. How much freedom should the individual have? How much security should the State impose?

Communism puts the group over the person with the promise of security. Capitalism elevates the person over the group with the pledge of liberty. In each, there has to be compromise, because pure systems don’t work in “real life.” In some ways, China is more capitalistic that America, and the U.S. is more socialistic than China.

The systemic left-to-right range covers full-flown communism from the left and all-out capitalism from the right. Complete group control or no group control. In the middle, we find socialism. In their purest form, which only exists in theory, communism touts central planning without local input; capitalism offers individual enterprise free from governmental constraints, the only control being provided by the free market. Both pure forms are unrealistic in practicality. They exist without blemish on the flipchart or whiteboard, but when implemented, they fail, as any good reading of history shows. They fail because of greed.

Authentic communism, the kind practiced by the early Christians, lies beyond human ability once the number of people goes beyond a certain (and small) number. One will never achieve equality of the masses. To pretend such a feat only ends up with an elite ruling class lording it over a wretchedness of the masses. Dictatorships of the Proletariat might looks good on parchment in a statement of principles, but they never work. We get the nightmares of Orwellian Big Brothers. Unchecked capitalism without exception ends up rewarding the cheaters, schemers, and those who carpetbag their way to wealth, the rest be damned. It’s clear, then, that the left and right must both move toward center if society has any chance of order and stability as well as a modicum of liberty.

Capitalistic economies have been by far the more successful because, unlike communism, it accounts for human greed, that universal impulse of the human heart. It stands to reason, then, that for all practical purposes, the best system leans off center but decidedly to the right. This avoids authoritarianism (totalitarianism, fascism, dictatorship, or monarchy) and the unprincipled odysseys of unchecked freedom.

Consequently, if we think of the comm-cap scale as a continuum, with total communism as 0 on the left and unmodified capitalism as 100 on the right, probably a 75 would be optimal. For comparison, we would put Massachuetts probably at 40, with Pittsfield being hooked on public treasuries of city, state, and federalism at 25, maybe below, reflective as it is of a political economy with far too few good-paying jobs, oppressive taxation, central planning, and out-of-control government spending. As that “25” keeps falling, it spells the inevitable collapse of a once fine small city.

We’d love to hear your thoughts.

————————————————————————————

“Few things are less necessary when walking around the moon than knowing what time it is in Houston, Texas” — Buzz Aldrin, second man to walk on the moon.

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”

LOVE TO ALL.

The views and opinions expressed in the comment section or in the text other than those of PLANET VALENTI are not necessarily endorsed by the operators of this website. PLANET VALENTI assumes no responsibility for such views and opinions, and it reserves the right to remove or edit any comment, including but not limited to those that violate the website’s Rules of Conduct and its editorial policies. PLANET VALENTI shall not be held responsible for the consequences that may result from any posted comment or outside opinion or commentary as provided in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and this website’s terms of service. All users of this website — including readers, commentators, contributors, or anyone else making use of its information hereby agree to these conditions by virtue of this notice. When PLANET VALENTI ends with the words “The Usual Disclaimer,” that phrase shall be understood to refer to the full text of this disclaimer.