by MrScotland

Created on: January 30, 2007   Last Updated: May 08, 2007

Socialism is not synonymous with altruism. Indeed, they are incompatible in my view, as are any other kinds of theories that require the State to have enough power to veto the actions of individuals.

Traditional altruistic views would equate to the increase in the rate of taxation, in order that the government may spend more on public services. This is assumed to be for the greater good. However, if penalising rates of taxation deter industry from establishing it's self in the Socialist nation, then the government will soon enough lack the tax receipts necessary to keep the vessel afloat without running a severe budget deficient, and in time, high rates of inflation which excasserbates the already poor economic climate.

This is the situation Britain found it's self in back in 1979, when rubbish piled up in the streets, bodies lay in bags unburied and the electricity supply was as erratic as the value of the Pound Sterling.

Socialism is often seen as the only other alternative to ultra-libertarian economic policies, such as that seen during the Thatcherite era. The lesson to be learned is in fact extremes of both kinds are to be avoided, as it is possible to marry the concept that a healthy private sector benefits the greater good, in that it can provide high levels of tax revenue and provide plentiful amounts of meaningful employment opportunities.

Thanks to technological advances that have facilitated globalisation, such as mass transit, the jet engine, telecommunications, as well as a relatively calm geo-political climate, globalisation "just happened". While Socialism had a place in a world without globalisation (i.e. if British steel was overpriced, British industry simply had to accept it as there was no other alternative), in a future where globalisation has increased the amount of competition every person is subject to, across every sector, in every nation in the world... it will face a dying death in the 21st century because Socialist principals are incompatible with principals of competition.

For instance, if one set of employees refuse to work for $8.00 an hour, there are always willing migrants who will work for $7.50. If Venezuelan oil becomes too expensive as it is manufactured by heavily unionised, therefore well-salaried, workers, then it will fall victim to competition from the Middle East and elsewhere.

This is not to say unrestrained Capitalism must simply be accepted as the status quo, for that is not in the best interests of any consumer. We need a future where corporations as well as workers take on responsibility themselves - responsibilites on employers such as treating workers fairly and paying a decent wage; responsibilities on workers such as accepting redundancy and retraining for another job when it's the only way forward and not asking employers for unrealistic working terms - or else the masses will simply backlash against mainstream society as we see it.

The situation in Britain today, where only marginalised far-Left parties still champion traditional Marxism - as compared to the mainstream Labour party back in the early 1980's - is testament to this because pure Socialism is now only the realm of the "stop the world I want to get off brigade" rather than realistic people who live on Planet Earth.

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