Let’s Meet at Starbucks and Discuss Killing Capitalism

By Kevin Schmidt

            “Kill capitalism before It kills you”. That was the headline of many fliers posted around campus, and around the Social Science building. It was followed by facts on income inequality and certain readings that should be read like Marx and Engels (although I applaud whoever wrote in John Locke).

            Socialism means government ownership (instead of private) of the means of production. It has been implemented in many different ways. The Soviet Union used central planning (instead of market forces: supply and demand) to “plan” their economy, and Great Britain and much of Europe nationalized many of their large industries after World War II. The latter being dubbed the “mixed” economy.

            With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, many figured that communism/socialism would die out. From walking around campus this is not the case. Before the wall fell, many prominent economists and intellectuals also believed the Soviet system to be a success. In 1981, Nobel Laureate and MIT professor of economics Paul Samuelson said: “It is a vulgar mistake to think that most people in Eastern Europe are miserable”. Apparently abandoning their comfort, the East Germans rushed to West Germany when the wall fell, and Solidarity risked their lives in Poland to get rid of the Soviet-supported Communists.

            If Al Gore was talking about whether or not market economies are better than planned economies he would say: “the debate is over”. The 20^th century has seen countries that have adopted a capitalist approach achieve political and economic freedom. Why hasn’t opening up to be more capitalist oriented (especially trade) killed China, Japan, South Korea, and Thailand as socialists would like you to believe? The fact of the matter is that free markets and trade have brought prosperity in terms of economic growth, employment, and a higher standard of living than those living under socialism.

            During the 1980s in Britain, Margaret Thatcher took Britain down the path of privatization of previously government owned sections of the economy. The coal industry was losing vast amounts of money and was barely surviving with 1.3 billion dollars of subsidies a year. Without privatization, the whole industry would have gone under, and possibly taken the economy with it. As with many government-run industries, it was costly, inefficient, and not observant of supply and demand.

Millions have difficulty getting a dentist in Britain. In fact, the BBC reported a story of a man pulling out his own teeth because lines went for blocks. He used vodka and pliers. Perhaps Britain is tougher because of these lines.

In India in 1991, The Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation had been open for twelve years. The only problem was the machinery that was bought for it when it opened never fit together. The workers had just been clocking in and not producing anything for twelve years.

In 2006 17% of Canadians didn’t have a primary care physician. Many have to wait for months for certain procedures, and end up the U.S. to get them.

In the mid 20^th century, the Soviet Union allowed a tiny portion of arable land for private farming plots. Although tiny in comparison to the state run and collective farms, they produced 25 percent of the meat and 50 percent of the potatoes. The Soviet economy worked well for the military-industrial complex and the government, but did nothing for the standard of living for the average person.

If one is to look around the world now and find the poorest economies and places to live, many of them will or have been socialist countries. North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are all economically struggling with a large block of their populations living in poverty. Venezuela is the best out of the three because of oil prices, but the economy is beginning to crack.

When Deng Xiaoping proposed market based reforms to communist China he broke with Mao’s tradition by saying: “I have two choices," said Deng. "I can distribute poverty or I can distribute wealth."

Ronald Reagan described communism best in 1981 by saying: “we’ll dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are now being written.” Only problem is that the socialists are stuck on the afterword of the book, refusing to close it for good. They cling to failed, “voodoo economics” because of perceived injustice. Their once highly regarded and followed theories have sunk; it’s only a matter of time before they go with them.

            Until then, they can sit in Starbucks talking about Marxism and materialism. There’s nothing like planning how to make the “workers of the world unite!” with a four dollar cup of coffee.