An Answer to Mr. McKeigue/Socialism vs. Capitalism

Mr. McKeigue asks the question, "Has there been a discussion within the community as to why we choose to live in a capitalism society as opposed to a laborism, or better yet a humanism society ?"
The answer is yes, there was a discussion within the community and it is commonly known as the Cold War. It's interesting how proponents of socialism can't use that word anymore. They hide behind goofy, made-up words such as "laborism" because no one actually wants to live under a socialist system. And there's the rub: if you let people decide what they want, the collectivist model falls apart. It has to. Choice and centralized planning go together like Sambuca and Jägermeister. Don't try it. Trust me.
Of course there are outposts of socialism still skulking about like moldering 8-track tapes. I suppose rather than enjoying our freedoms and the beautiful west end of St Croix, Mr. McKeigue could take his pick among some of the remaining laborist redoubts:
The worker's paradise of North Korea. If you're going all the way, this is the place for you. As the most intentionally wretched place on Earth, it is the logical conclusion of collectivism because nothing actually gets collected. Interestingly, it turns out that centralized planning is exceedingly efficient at organizing the mass starvation of its own people. But these good socialists weren't first to market: Stalin used the starvation ploy to keep his people in line.
Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe. This is Afro-Marxism at its finest. During the 2002 G8 summit, Zimbabwe's government ordered commercial farmers to cease all operations. The government withheld food aid from supporters of opposition parties and prevented opposition candidates from accessing the media. "Comrade" Mugabe (as he likes to be called) then announced plans to nationalize half of the remaining white farmland in the country, without compensation.
Much of the best land seized by the government wound up in the hands of Mugabe's cronies; farm laborers were left unemployed and homeless; once productive farms now lay fallow; and Zimbabweans who were given plots were not given legal title but were simply allowed to subsist as squatters.
The result of socialism in Zimbabwe? The currency lost nearly half its value overnight; international investors bolted. Zimbabwe used to be a huge net exporter of agricultural products and now it's reliant on UN food aid to survive. The life expectancy of Zimbabweans has fallen by about fifteen years to forty during Mugabe's rein. Sixty per cent of Zimbabweans are unemployed, and those who have jobs earn, on average, less than they did at independence twenty five years ago. The rest of the population gets by on less than a dollar a day.
Mr. McKeigue wonders, "While there has always been discussion about the minimum wage has their [sic] been discussion about maximum income?" I guess the only good thing about suffering under laborist systems is that maximum income is something you really never have to worry about.Jay CraftFrederiksted, St. Croix

Editors note:We welcome and encourage readers to keep the dialogue going by responding to Source commentary. Letters should be e-mailed with name and place of residence to

Print Friendly, PDF & Email