Pocket psychology

One of the main arguments that critics of communism and socialism use is that these, as organizational systems, stop progress. The idea is that they slow down competition and entrepreneurship. Even assuming a non-corrupt socialist system, when people have all their needs covered, there is little incentive to develop and look for new ways of doing things. So the argument goes.

Papafritadas, if you ask me. The most advanced societies today are socialist. True, they have their problems, and that is mainly that some people attempt to take advantage of the system, laying back too much. They also have those famous (marginally) higher suicidal rates which, some theorize, are due to the lack of reasons to strive.

On the other hand, societies that lean towards strict capitalism tend to have a lot more violent crime and much more marked class divisions. One thing is not to struggle enough, but quite a different one is to have to struggle all the time, because you know you're on a slippery slope with a hole at the bottom. In capitalist societies, money is your main tool, and the paradox is, the needier you are, the less you are able to provide for yourself.

As for entrepreneurship (be it commercial, tecnological, social, artistic, etc.) as far as societies allow some room for it, there will always be a number of people that will take those directions. Clear limits need to be set though: nobody should be allowed to amass enough money nor influence to get above the societal contract, that is, to impose their rights above those of others. That is criminal, yet it happens in all societies, even the more socialist ones that pride themselves in their equality and their humanitarian principles.

This phenomenon can be best observed as it is played out in the global arena. One example in point is the canadian mining company Northern Orion Resources, which uses in Argentina environmentally unsound mining practices that would never be allowed in Canada. Yes, we all know that this is partly the fault of the corrupt argentinean system, but it also points at the corruption of the canadian one. Basically, Northern Orion pays a lot of money in taxes, and Canada cannot afford to lose such a big chunk of their revenue. Thus, principles are thrown out the window, and the result is that, whereas so called underdeveloped nations produce damage at their own national level, developed ones, because of their scope, produce it internationally.

Anyway, going back to this idea that socialism puts a break on development... Let's take a short look at how capitalism acts in two different cases, namely show business and technological development.

Imagine you own Viacom. Of course, you don't own it whole. You're one of many investors, but you've put in enough money that you're in the board of directors, or at least enough to have a vote in deciding who should be hired to be on that board. Do you give a damn about the quality of the movies and TV programs produced by your subsidiary --say-- Paramount? Well, yes, insofar as quality is defined by the factors that bring money into your pocket. That artsy stuff has no bucks in it, for instance. Do you care about how socially progressive, how groundshaking your movie is? Of course you do! Too much social progressivism and market patterns might eventually be altered and cost you a lot of money in market research, trying to figure out what to sell next. After all, the media has a lot of power to influence society; it's better not to shake things too much, so think carefully about what you buy from writers! Finally, you should make sure to screen out anything that's too original. Originality does not sell. People take a while to get used it. I mean, look at that Van Gogh guy, for instance. What did he get out of it? Let others be as original as they want. You can always buy or copy their stuff later, when it's less original...

Tsk... You don't like this. After all, you're a good guy, and you have the best education your parents' money could buy: you DO appreciate art. You've been to many of Tiffany's auctions and the walls of your studio are plastered with valuable paintings and stuffed with incunable editions. You look at TV and feel responsible, so you take your money out of show biz and put it into Silicon Valley. I mean, development of new technology really is cutting edge, right?

Poor soft-hearted creature you, soon it's evident that if you want to keep making money, it's better for you not to use all your researchers' work at once. Exploit feature by feature. Besides, to put out a fundamentally new product would mean too much money invested in changing the production process. Better to pace research then, too. Parse out the money, make them beg for it. Who knows what they'll come up with! And then, what if they quit and take their ideas elsewhere? You MUST pass laws that allow you to buy not only their thinking, but also their silence.

You finally learn your lesson: don't get involved in these things! Just pay a manager to look after your money. It should be someone motivated, someone ambitious, someone who would like to be like you someday.

Why don't those critics from the first paragraph ever focus on how capitalism does this kind of stuff? Perhaps because for them development is simply that state that allows the most unrestricted accumulation of money. Wealth cannot be measured in any other way, apparently.