by Chandresh Shah

Created on: March 03, 2009

We are into 2009 and Dow Jones Industrials falling below 6800. It is bound to invoke an age old debate of Capitalism versus Socialism.

Today's problems make us think again. Debates will be revived. As a matter of fact, deep thinking has already been going on about the pros and cons of Extreme Capitalism. There is no worthy opponent yet. No will wants to, perhaps rightfully so, talk about socialism as it evokes the Soviet era socialism leading to communism.

The alternatives being debated and presented; ranging from distribution of wealth (taxing the wealthy to subsidize tax cuts on poor and middle class), to bailouts to nationalizing banks, none of these are Republican/Fiscal Conservative style Capitalism. We don't have a name for it yet, perhaps it is Social Democracy, Responsible Democracy, Responsible Capitalism, etc.

What seems to be happening is the inevitable quest for a balance.

What is the Cost of a Free market?

How much Free is Free?

Role of Government intervention - from regulation to ownership?

Just as private sector cannot regulate itself because greed takes over, can the Government regulate itself? After all, government is us - humans.

Can we evoke a higher authority or power to motivate and drive individuals to be socially responsible without killing the innate desire for individual drive to excellence? We know how extremesocialism tried to evoke comradeship and national interest at the expense of the individual "I". Failure to recognize that the common interest of 'we' is made up of smaller 'I'. Somewhere, that comradeship did fuel and fulfill the 'I' of the Elites rulers, and that is not sustainable.

The extreme capitalism is in some respects very similar. The elite rulers are replaced by the elite wall street rich. The common comrade is replaced by the helpless common man driven by greed, but finding the common greed woefully inadequate and wholly consumed by the elite greed.

In both cases, absolute concentration of greed and power brings the system down because unless the roots that drives the economy; the common man, the middle class is pulled along and benefited from the overall progress of society, that same root foundation will pull the tree down when it starts rotting or does not get enough nutrition.

I will raise the question in a different way - what is more important; society or individual. When asked that way, I imply that both are mutually exclusive. Therein lies the fault of this thinking. Can the two coexist? Can a social experiment sustain itself where the individual progress aspredominant as the growth of the society at large without implying that focus on the individual will automatically cause upliftment of the society without the malaise it havos of ethics, family values and a healthy society. Can a social experiment sustain itself where the common good of the society is all that matters and an individual ego must be sacrificed?

Of course, anything can be tried in an autocratically ruled society, but there are only two methods to try to bring a balance in a democratic way.

a) Promote a fervent national spirit to foster an individual growth towards a healthy society, and this one is controversial in today's environment

b) A common religion binding society that promotes individual growth with a balance for healthy society.

It is time for a healthy debate that is not colored by current events, learning from history but not hesitating to try something different.

Learn more about this author, Chandresh Shah.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.