jayeff

In broad discussions of this nature, political-economic labels are largely irrelevant. The only real difference between capitalism and communism in this context is who rises to the top and what attributes they need to get there.

Two trains of thought have kept recurring in my mind over the years. The first is that even if I made exactly the same money as a guy hauling garbage, I would still much rather be running a business. I suspect that even if inequalities of income were removed, we would be just as competitive in chasing the careers of our choice. We could even end up with better people in jobs such as teaching, which many would like to do, but avoid because as things are they can earn more in other professions. In short, I don't believe that financial incentives have to be on offer.

My other recurring thought has been that no political-economic system is fundamentally flawed per se, regardless of whether it is democratic or not, left or right wing. Rather, history is littered with upheavals because of the flaw that is always introduced by people, namely when those in power fail to exercise restraint and take too much for themselves, mindless of the cost to others and how many people pay the price for their excesses.

We do not live most of the time in largely peaceful, functioning societies because of the power exercised by the police and military, but because that is the way we prefer to live, even when our lot is at the bottom of the economic pile. And so long as our societies offer even a small prospect of improvement to most of the people, pretty much any system can roll along indefinitely. But because those at the top always seem to think that because they can take more and more for themselves it is okay to do so, we keep arriving at the point when enough people see no purpose in continuing to support the status quo and turn on it.