Capitalism, Socialism, and other Confusions (en)

To this day, people ponder about what the best form of political system might be. Is socialism really as social and humane as all these far-left activists seem to believe? Is there a better alternative? Or is capitalism still the most viable approach in the end? These discussions are not only matters of professional politicians but also occur between friends at a picturesque lake on a Sunday afternoon. For whatever reason.

Nevertheless, this particular conversation among my fellow students sparked by the elections in Venezuela and the possibility of a system change urged me to think and write about this overestimated question of which political system is the best.

First of all, I must notice that the general idea of trying to fix the problems of our human condition by cooking up some concept for organizing political power is quite weird and avoidant. If a political system is, simply put, an approach to organize the power of decision-making (e.g. by the power of "the market", elected authorities, or planning by a central entity) then it seems obvious to me that the quality and success of this system is directly dependent on the virtue of the people in the positions of power. Independent of in which kind of position these people sit, may it be in the central governing party (socialism), in the banks and capital holders (capitalism), or in the polling stations, it is always individual people, who make these decisions. Focusing on an ideal concept of organizing political power misses thereby what is most relevant, namely the quality of character of the individuals that the particular group consists of. It is avoidant of this individual issue which demands painful self-reflection and development.

To clarify this point I want to think about two extreme scenarios: The wise and benevolent king with wise and benevolent subjects on one side and ignorant, mischievous democrats on the other side. In the scenario of the wise king, only one person possesses all the political power, which might seem like an unfair horror scenario, yet the society functions well as the king makes all the right decisions for the benefit of all and his subjects are of equally fine character, working together for the common good. In the scenario of the ignorant, mischievous democrats, the political power is equally distributed between all members of society, and all decisions are made by direct vote in a perfectly fair and equal manner, yet because of their mischievous character the society soon sinks into chaos or (civil) war as people mistrust each other and gain satisfaction out of the suffering of their fellow citizens. These two examples show plastically that the success of a society is clearly not determined by its "organization scheme" (and the same applies to companies of course). After all, it is human beings who experience life, make decisions, and act them out, not artificially curated symbols that we call words, concepts, or rules of a 'political system'. Discussions about the perfect construct already imply that constructs, i.e. abstract ideas, are what matter in the end, and not the human beings living with each other. Such fights thereby miss the most essential part of human life, i.e. the humans themselves, and are consequently inhumane.

Secondly, ideologies such as capitalism or socialism run into the problem that they try to define a final highest goal or value, such as capital or equality. These shall guide all design decisions of the political construct but only end up constricting the human experience to the value that they favor. In capitalism, for example, everything that cannot be quantified in monetary terms or that cannot be bought, such as empathy, friendship, authenticity, humbleness, or love and compassion are seen as worthless and are consequently neglected or even punished in a system that implies that life is about big numbers on your bank account. The purpose of society becomes an ever-growing turnover, ever-increasing production and consumption in an endless competition of everybody against everyone else. Life's emotional richness becomes constricted to mere egoistic money-making. Life becomes dull and mechanistic, like the life of the grey men in "Momo".

In real socialism on the other hand, human life is constricted to equality, e.g. making people into equal farmers with equal incomes. Everything that does not fit into this picture of the equal man, any kind of individuality or talent is neglected or actively suppressed. Similar to the soulless, lonely men of capitalism, socialism creates a grey mass of identical, broken people deprived of their need for self-expression and authenticity.

From a bird's-eye-view, both ideologies can be seen as (desperate) attempts to find an easy fix to the problem of human suffering. They try to find an easily adjustable variable to attain happiness. For a capitalist, happiness is becoming rich. For a socialist, it is becoming indistinguishable from everyone else. Both try to find an easy answer to the question of the good life and both are supported by many people for particularly that reason. They (seem) to give an easy, executable answer to the head-wrecking problem of happiness.

The same function does every other (political) ideology have. The aim is to reduce the uncertainty and its consequent discomfort created in us by the problem of happiness. Unfortunately, all ideologies fail thereby in the same way. By getting rid of the uncertainty of life, they get rid of life as such. By trying to find an easy fix to happiness, they only increase the suffering. Fighting against the uncertainty and discomfort of life is causing the very suffering we try to eradicate. Uncertainty is an immutable part of the human condition. Accepting our fundamental powerlessness and learning to live with it, remains the only sensible option.

In doing so we might have to give up many of our illusions, especially the one of control, but we might gain something far more beautiful: The experience that we do not need to control and force everything to be happy. We might discover that life supports us if we trust it, in the same way, the air carries the bird or water carries the one who relaxes into it.

This new, trusting attitude toward life goes naturally with less serious handling of political constructs or any concept of right or wrong. It does not mean to not use words anymore, but simply to be chill about them, to use them as what they are: tools, that can be used in practical and playful manners, not something that we should smash our heads about.

So in the end, we see that the more tensely serious we are about such political 'solutions', the more intolerant, inhumane, and hateful we become. The more flexible we are about them, the more playful, alive, and appropriate we can encounter each other. Conclusively, there seems to be no perfect construct for organizing society in general but only temporary agreements in correspondence with the individuals the society consists of. Put in reverse we can say that the organization and appearance of a society does always resemble the collective state of mind (or character) of the members of that particular group of people. When we look outside we see the manifestations of our collective attitude towards life. What is outside will change, when the attitudes of the people change which make up this collective. That is why only internal change is real change. Only internal growth is real growth. Paradise is not achieved by fighting over ideas, but if at all, by reflecting upon one's attitude towards life and oneself.