Monday, September 01, 2008

Socialism or Capitalism or So-capitalism ?

Given an option of staying static or being dynamic, most of us would prefer the dynamic state. No doubt capitalism aids dynamism, but socialists are against capitalism because of the increasing gap between the rich and the poor and also the means used by the capitalists to achieve the end result. The means used often result in tweaking the system, which in turn results in dilution of the system, aids corruption and ultimately results in crashing of the system (like Enron).

On the contrary consider a situation, where the society as a whole embraces a ‘static’ system where people live of (only) natural resources. For food they rely only on naturally available fruits and nuts. They are not allowed to store. A ‘static’ system is created is such a way that no one need to aspire for more or compete with each other for tomorrow. That would be an ideal state to live in.

But nature has other intentions. It is not in the control of human beings. We may come across a Tsunami, a Hurricane, Drought or a change in course of a river like the Kosi.

In such emergencies, such a ‘static’ system would collapse. A river like Kosi may submerge their entire food belt as well as their habitation. Here comes the need to store food and to build dams. Not many will take that as a responsibility (in a ‘static’ world), unless suitably rewarded. There starts the capitalism.

Some may suggest state controlled socialism as an option here. Unfortunately it has failed. Man by nature is individualistic (at the extreme point) and prefers a higher reward (competitive) for his hard work. That is why socialism has failed in most of the countries.

Apropos, Capitalism has come to stay. But the issue is the greed, which drives the capitalist force to amass all the wealth by tweaking the system and in turn weakening the fundamental structures of the system.

What’s the alternative? A controlled capitalist economy; where an individual’s share of profit is reduced after they reach a comfortable limit. A person may require ‘X’ amount (say $1 Billion, excluding company assets) to lead a luxurious life and to take care of his future generation (upto 2nd generation). Anyone who crosses that limit shall be automatically placed in a slab where the excess profit is routed to the employees & government (ie the net savings is always maintained at ‘X’ limit). 50% of the money thus ‘forcefully saved’ shall be disbursed to the company workforce & shareholders and the remaining 50% be routed to the government for education, health, infrastructure and other public use.

This might stop big corporations & industrialists from influencing the policy decisions of the government covertly. The successful businessmen who continue to create wealth (irrespective of their wealth being routed for social cause) for their shareholders and government shall be suitably awarded with public posts. Their expertise would transform the local bodies as best administered. As they have enough wealth and are further restricted from making more, their effort will be more focussed towards public service and gaining recognition. When more such successful public service oriented businessmen join the system, public service will see a transformation, which in turn will have a positive cascading effect on the society …

previous post >>> Cricket in Olympics

No comments: