Introducing the Idea of a New Economic System

In a capitalist system, one in which there are free markets with very little government intervention, wealth is able to be hoarded and distributed unevenly. Intergenerational wealth may be accumulated, meaning that people can have it in their will that their house, car, and possessions are to be given to a certain person after the owner’s death. Life insurance money goes to the next of kin to pay off any debts, and the leftovers may be kept to pay for other things. In these systems, individual rights are prioritized, personal accomplishments or misdeeds are seen as personal issues, and success is mainly measured in wealth and fame. Some people cannot find work, or business owners do not want to hire them for whatever reason, and some people are homeless. It is obviously difficult for those who are homeless to get jobs because they do not have an address, often do not have transportation, may not have a desirable work history, and do not have professional work attire. The largest disadvantage of this system is that it takes already having money to be able to make money in the future. Grants and loans are there to help, but these are not prominent in capitalist systems because the government does not intervene in the issues of the market. However, the majority of individuals have self-determination capabilities and have individual agency over their work, body, and property. This system often has a large wealth gap between the rich and the poor, and it will keep getting wider and the middle class will continue shrinking as the markets progress. However, there is a baseline of power that an individual possesses that allows them to behave as they wish in most situations. 

In communist systems, however, there are some issues that come from doing the exact opposite of capitalism. Markets are strictly controlled by the government, if there are any markets at all, meaning that food, hygiene products, and other necessities are only able to be obtained in quantities that the government thinks are sufficient for people. In this system, wealth is not concentrated among citizens, and is instead used by the government in areas that they decide need it most. This involves people working in jobs they are told to do, almost if not all of their pay being transferred to the government, and the wealth being redistributed to other people. Those people who work only get the benefits of a portion of their work, and people who do not work still gain roughly the same benefits of those who do work. Personal property is not a thing. People share spaces, objects, wealth, and food. Wealth is theoretically evenly distributed, and theoretically all regular citizens of the working class (which means everyone not in government positions) have the same amount of power and agency over their labor, bodies, and health – none. Everyone gets the same treatment, which would definitely eliminate the marginalization common in capitalist societies (Iris Marion Young’s “Five Faces of Oppression”, 1990), but this treatment is decided by a few people with most of the power concentrated among them. People are theoretically able to protest the actions of the government, but I don’t recommend that since the government is in control of your food supply, home, and life. So, even though this is theoretically a good thing to do, it is not meant for large populations of people, especially in parts of the world where self-sufficiency is difficult due to climate and technology.

In newer versions of communism/socialism, there are some modifications to the original idea. First, instead of sharing everything, objects, spaces, and tools will be rented from the government. Everything is owned by the state, and people are only permitted to use things if they pay for it. In this system, taxes are still substantially heavier than those in capitalist societies, and above those taxes people must also pay each month or each use for certain things needed in daily life. This means that vehicles, homes, furniture, and household appliances are rented by people for personal use. Eventually, all money goes to the government, and the government uses that money to purchase necessities for all its people and to pay its working people their wage, which they then obtain all the money for again. However, there is a problem with this system. If all things are owned by the government, including the means of production, the government is essentially making and giving away things to citizens for free. If the government wanted to use any foreign materials, have its means of production in other countries, or gain investment from foreign institutions, they would need to delegate their currency to those other countries in return for goods. Many foreign investors will be extremely hesitant to invest in socialist countries because they are generally not sustainable in the long run according to history. So, in order to gain foreign materials to make the objects and food that the citizens of a country need, there is a limited amount of money and wealth that may be used. The country will eventually run out of money unless it is 100% self-sufficient, which we should know is virtually impossible given the large populations of societies today. We would need extremely high yields of crops, large amounts of farms, and huge numbers of people working on these things in order to maintain a sustainable country. 

Some countries are successfully blending the two economic approaches together along with social norms to give people a good life, such as Norway and Sweden. However, most countries and political parties in the world have either goals of being as free market as possible or as communist as possible. If one were to be achieved, people would have little mobility between classes but relatively high levels of agency, and in the other people theoretically have their needs provided for but are at the mercy of relatively few people in power. One risks celebrities and rich people running the place but the other risks a harsh dictator coming into power. One can lead to the exploitation of thousands of workers, but the other can lead to the devaluing of all citizens and inflation. In one it is seen as a life goal to work yourself to death, but the other values being at the mercy of someone else’s productivity. One is forced by the judgment of other countries to be leaders in environmental healing and social progression, but the other is forced by the competing market to always be productive and innovative and see everything as a race. I don’t see how either one of these is understood by politicians to be more desirable than the other, because they both have shown us the inequities and issues associated with them. 

Instead of thinking that we need to ban all currency and share everything with everyone, or that it is always every person for themself, we should instead adopt a new but also old type of economic system that encourages productivity but also allows for downtime. One that allows power and life chances to be distributed equally even if wealth cannot be. One that prioritizes the local community inside of a broader scope of global communication so that many issues of increasing importance can be fixed instead of worsened. 

Neither of these extreme systems work, and neither are sustainable. If we wish to help the planet, the economy, and the people and animals living on it, traditional solutions are not going to be sufficient. Instead, there are a growing number of scholars who are thinking about ways to improve social circumstances while also improving our economic situation. What works for one country may not work for another, which is why we need local scholars from all different fields and local citizens to work together to come up with a socially, environmentally, and economically responsible solution to the hardships and challenges we are facing. Division is not the way to go; diversity is valued in these situations. Diverse opinions coming together to find a happy medium is what we need right now in many parts of the world. All that needs to happen to prepare us is opening our minds and becoming dynamic thinkers. 

Until next time, keep thinking outside the box, and keep reading in between!