Why are most people afraid about Socialism?

The self-identification of US senator Bernie Sanders as a socialist has aroused fear and suspicion among some Democrats. Whereas many voters, previously fed up from the long run ineffective system of capitalism have embraced the concept of a change, with a hope that the new policies of the government might do what the older one couldn’t. Whatever may be the case, the scene is such that neither the opposing community have any clear conscious of what the new system might mean, nor the supporting voters have known and understood the potential change very well. They are either just afraid of change, that is quite understandable given the monopolistic form of government in most of the socialistic countries. Or, they are just restless of waiting and want a change that might deal with their concerns.

Anyway the main point is that the people in favor of socialism are desperate and the people against it are fearful. So, neither of the choices they are making is actually rational. Many people even consider socialism as contrast to democracy, which is not. There are also varying definitions of Social democracy and Democratic socialism. The distinction is mainly in the stringiness of the socialism aspect in the democratic system of government. I will not go very deep into that because the exact dividing line between their definitions is always changing. It should suffice that either way we are talking about a democratic government with a socialistic economy in nature.

Democracy as per the traditional definition is a system with a governing authority of people’s choice. It may either be attained by directly electing a head of government and other governing members. Or, the directly elected head of the government may nominate members of his cabinet by himself. There are also other forms of democracy. In every such case the people’s choice of by whom they are going to be governed is of vital essence. Socialism is completely different but not an opposite thing. Unlike democracy, socialism is not about who is going to rule the people. It’s about how the appointed ruler is going to rule the country, and how the economic issues of production, distribution and raw materials allocation is to be dealt with. So, the assumption that a socialist system is always anti-democratic is untrue.

And that’s what these self-proclaimed socialist candidates are talking about. Being an economic student, I can personally vouch for the productivity and justice in distribution in a socialistic economy. People in support of capitalism mainly support it because they think that the private ownership and accumulation of wealth would be a good motivation for higher productivity. But you have to agree that there are other motivations besides increased wealth like, social recognition and communal praise. After all the wealth we like to accumulate is not an end in itself but just a mean for other ends. And if an economic system were to guarantee to fulfill maximum desires of its human components, why not give it a chance. And that’s just the thing that socialistic economy promises in theory. Socialism form of economy will neither have any products with poor bargaining power, and so nobody (theoretically) would be extorted by economy.

But even the wisest of people do miss some critical points. And so did the inventor of socialism. The system has some faults. The main fault of the system is it ignores the power and hence integrity of the people in the authority who will be charged to supervise the distribution of wealth. Most people in against of socialism are afraid that the government or any other supervising authority may unequally distribute the wealth, not based upon the work done but biased by personal favors and affections.

If you are afraid of socialism for this reason just take a look at the present system of capitalism. Do you think that the personal relations of a president don’t get special favors above others? That is the defect of the people in authority not of the form of economy. Of course you will say that that’s where the present democratic government will help. If you find or even suspect that somebody is misusing their power for personal benefits, you can remove their credibility and remove them from the power using your voting rights. So, then open your ears, we are not saying that the socialistic form of economy will be governed by supreme warlords. We are speaking here about the Democratic Socialism.

We are criticizing capitalism not democracy. And even so, we are criticizing very gently. We are after all Gentle Critics.

Should Women Serve in Military?

This doesn’t even make a debate. I’m not against the equal rights and equal representation argument. Neither am I doubtful about the many difficult situations our women could face and even conquer. But the main question here is not about whether women are equally able as men but whether women are likely able as men. Politically, intellectually and even in military situations the women of our country in the past have shown great caliber and presented even men with superb examples. But even so, I think the women candidates should not be admitted in the military just for the sake of equal representation.

The arguments of the presidential candidates does not matter, because basically they all are saying the same thing, in a different way of course. The Republican Ted Cruz, despite acknowledging women’s capabilities in different sectors, thinks that women, due to their physical built are utterly unable to serve as the defensive rocks of the country. He also cites the recent marine studies where the presence of the women caused more damage than good. On the other hand Democrat Hillary Clinton, disregarding the traditional assumption of women’s incapability in combat positions, encourages the women of the country to break any barriers that may be holding them back. But even she acknowledges the fact that this is after all a job of death and life and of a great responsibility. She further points out that such women willing to join military jobs should do so only after showing their full capacity to do so, and not solely by arguing for the equal representation. Even Ted, I don’t think, would have anything to say against the women in military positions, if they were there as per their standards and capability, not unlike men.

So, why should I be against any such provision? Because I know well, as do you, that these potential women soldiers wouldn’t be camped in the same barracks as of the men soldiers. They will always be a divided unit and the integrity and the discipline that our military unit so boast about will remain intact if they were to share the barracks. And if somebody proposes distinct barracks for the distinct genders, then will there will remain the question of their synchronization in the moment of action.

We here aren’t doing a debate for our school assignment, no. We are talking about the defense of our country, and I do think it is of more importance than the equality movement. We surely can’t risk our safety and sovereignty (yes that day may also come, just try to think a bit farther) for some social reforms.

If anybody could ensure that the safety will remain intact, we will gladly send our daughters to military school. Remember we are not against any social reforms, and we are in no way traditional. We are just protesting the proposition that we think will not be practically feasible and that may even be dangerous. Yes, we’re criticizing, but gently. We are Gentle Critics.

Technological Unemployment is not just a hypothesis, its a prominent future.

Greater Productivity: Smaller GDP

The issue is not very new. The debate about whether the technological advancements will create unemployment has been going on since the time of Aristotle. Yet somehow I can’t see how could any economists deny that when the work done by humans would start to being done by machines, the humans will have no or reduced work to do.

I’ve even found some arguments that were economically theorized beyond the practical feasibility. Well this matter is of a deep nature and so requires such concern. So, let’s examine the available arguments carefully & try to answer them. Somebody recently pointed out to me that we should rather focus on the long term effects than the immediate ones of the technological advancements. The immediate ones, he said were the reduction in demand of labour, which no one could dispute. But then he said, after a period the employment would again rise. Now this is the point I don’t agree with.

First I will tell you why some economists think that the long term employment will increase with the increase in technological advancements. They will first give you the example of some technologically advanced countries today and show that how the people there are satisfactorily employed. Then in theory they will tell you that the reason behind this is because with the technological advancements the need of labour to produce, mantle and repair machines will increase & so will the employment opportunities.

Men working in the presence of technology

Well, that is a good argument. But if you also considered it a sound argument, then either you are not an economics’ student or you’ve already forgotten to analyze and think.

The theoretical facet of this argument is rather a childish one. If the labour costs reduced by employing the machines were lower than the maintenance costs of those machines, do you think the elite entrepreneurs would even consider the technology for their production. No, they would do everything manually. Time, quality, etc. are some factors that could make us choose technology over labour but never at the cost of our profitability. So now basically, if the machines aren’t eradicating all the labour force, they are at least reducing them.

Now, about the examples of the technologically advanced countries that they are showing us. Let’s see China. Yes, I agree that the employment there also increased with the technological advancement but not due to the technological advancement. The main reason for their increasing work force is the unproductive population of the rest of the countries. Yes, that’s it. It’s like saying that china developed because other countries degraded. Well, face this fact because this is the only ultimate truth of the Global Economics.

So, until & unless we could be assured that whatever comes out of such advancements will be fairly distributed or otherwise that our current living standards would not be compromised for these technological advancements, we will keep protesting and criticizing the unequal advancements, but we will criticize gently. We are Gentle Critics!!!