Breaking News: Loughborough University swine flu epidemic interrupts Tony Hayward's history lesson...
You Are Here: Home » Opinion » Capitalism, communism, or nothing

Capitalism, communism, or nothing

The Union of Soviet Socialist AmericaCapitalism isn’t perfect, but what’s the alternative? Surely not communism, the tired old socialist malarkey that spawned Joseph Stalin and Ed Miliband?

Don’t be silly. Communism failed really badly and lots of people were held in slavery and were worked to death. Which never happens under capitalism, obviously.

Communism was dark and dreary and everyone was made to wear the same boring clothes and eat the same boring food. At least under capitalism everyone can afford to dress well and eat healthily.

That’s not to say that capitalism doesn’t have any flaws. Of course it does. The boom and bust of the financial markets can sometimes cause an inconvenience for people,  the rioting can sometimes cost a lot of money to deal with, and the exhaustion of our natural resources might one day annoy our children.

But you wouldn’t rather live in an organised, planned society, would you? At least riots are unpredictable.

Thing is, whether you like it or not, there’s no choice. Capitalism won the Cold War. There won’t ever be a Second Cold War. So get over it.

Truth be told, the only people who really complain about capitalism are the people who can’t be bothered to work hard. You see, unlike communism, if you work hard you get your reward. Always.

Capitalism proportionately rewards people based on how talented they are and how hard they work. These are the only two factors determining whether or not someone succeeds. It is the basis of how capitalism works. Just ask George Bush.

Now, I know what you’re going to say. In Britain we still have a few state-funded public services. Like healthcare and education and stuff. Which is kind of a bit socialist, right? Well, there’s some truth in that argument, sure, but you need to look at the bigger picture.

Some capitalist countries, like the United States, are able to get away with very few public services. Others, like Germany and France, still retain quite a large chunk of socialist nonsense. In Britain, we’re sort of halfway between the capitalist heaven of America and the capitalist compromise of the continent.

So what’s the rationale in each of these countries? We’re talking about the difference between small-state capitalism and big-state capitalism. But it’s still capitalism. At the end of a war, governments are beholden to the people who won it for them. They must decide how many public services to provide in order to prevent an uprising.

But that level will be different for different populations.

Americans are, on the whole, very smart people. Which is why they’ve recognised the benefits of small-state capitalism and free-market fundamentalism. And now they are clearly reaping those benefits.

In Europe it’s a bit trickier because the French and the Germans and all that are a bit more stupid. But at least they’re still capitalist.

In Britain we went along the European route for a while, but eventually we realised that we’d over-egged it slightly. Once the war generation died off, we started to cut the state back. And we’ve kept going ever since.

This is called opening up your economy. Some people call it privatisation, but they’re just bitter because they’re not the ones who will be owning any of it.

Now, what’s the point in explaining all this? Well, a lot of people have started to complain about the liberalisation of our economy. They say that small-state capitalism is not the way to go.

These people are clearly communists. Because to move in the other direction – that is, to socialise – is to move further from freedom and closer to suppression.

You see, public services are inherently bad. Stalin proved that. Thatcher and Blair and Cameron, on the other hand, have proved how wonderful life can be when we shrink the state.

Capitalism and communism are our only choices. And one of them is very obviously shit. There’s no mistake about that.

Societies and economies must be constructed around one or other of these radical ideologies, rather than by independent assessments of what it would or would not be a good idea for the government to control.

Instead of saying, for example, that anything vital to public life should be state-run, we must apply the same rules to the production of champagne as we do to the production of drinking water.

I don’t see a problem with that.

Capitalism is capable of compromise, as Britain has shown previously, but it’s not something that’s going to be tossed around willy-nilly. The people must first threaten communism. Any other type of threat just isn’t going to be scary enough.

And that’s why any ridiculous talk of there being an alternative to capitalism or communism is just that. Ridiculous. As soon as you reject the contrasts of black or white, and introduce colour, it becomes too confusing. No-one can see what’s going on anymore.

So rather than find some sort of cack-handed alternative to two flawed ideologies, we must continue to perpetuate the same trusted, reliable system.

After all, capitalism seems to be working pretty well right now.

web design by clickcreations
Scroll to top