FA+
Shop
A Fish Tale
5 years ago
I think everyone has heard the old proverb "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he eats for a life time." The wording may change occasionally, but that's the basic gist of the story. I've heard so many conservative/republicans use that story to tout the merits of capitalism over socialism. I would imagine that most people would become numb to the argument, but if you truly look at the story AND if you truly understand socialist premises, you'll probably begin to see the story in a different light. Allow me to explain.
The traditional view of socialism is that people get things for free from the government. That makes them dependent on the government for their survival and well being. That's a very simplistic and overgeneralized viewpoint, but that's basically what capitalist supporters think of socialism. That being said, a more accurate understanding of socialism is that it's a system where the people's basic needs (education, healthcare) are taken care of and that no one should need to go on the verge of bankruptcy if an unexpected illness should befall them or their family. It does NOT mean that everyone can just wish or expect everything they want to be given just because they want it. That is nothing more than misinformation by capitalists who don't want their precious system to fall.
Now, if we understand that premise that socialists want to have the basic needs of healthcare and education taken care of for everyone, we can review the proverb and see it in a different light.
The socialist might offer the hungry man a fish to help him get through the day. The socialist, however, WOULD be the one who worked to teach the man how to fish. Education is important to socialists, and they strive to ensure that everyone has the education they need to be successful in whatever they want to pursue. The capitalist, on the other hand, would NOT be the one who would try to teach the man how to fish. The capitalist would see the man as competition. The capitalist would likely push the man in the water, and walk away with his fishing rod and tackle. It's a completely individualistic philosophy, so it's only "me" that matters and to hell with everyone else.
So the next time some high and mighty capitalist tries to use the teach a man to fish line, you can offer this more accurate interpretation and see how they like it.
The traditional view of socialism is that people get things for free from the government. That makes them dependent on the government for their survival and well being. That's a very simplistic and overgeneralized viewpoint, but that's basically what capitalist supporters think of socialism. That being said, a more accurate understanding of socialism is that it's a system where the people's basic needs (education, healthcare) are taken care of and that no one should need to go on the verge of bankruptcy if an unexpected illness should befall them or their family. It does NOT mean that everyone can just wish or expect everything they want to be given just because they want it. That is nothing more than misinformation by capitalists who don't want their precious system to fall.
Now, if we understand that premise that socialists want to have the basic needs of healthcare and education taken care of for everyone, we can review the proverb and see it in a different light.
The socialist might offer the hungry man a fish to help him get through the day. The socialist, however, WOULD be the one who worked to teach the man how to fish. Education is important to socialists, and they strive to ensure that everyone has the education they need to be successful in whatever they want to pursue. The capitalist, on the other hand, would NOT be the one who would try to teach the man how to fish. The capitalist would see the man as competition. The capitalist would likely push the man in the water, and walk away with his fishing rod and tackle. It's a completely individualistic philosophy, so it's only "me" that matters and to hell with everyone else.
So the next time some high and mighty capitalist tries to use the teach a man to fish line, you can offer this more accurate interpretation and see how they like it.
The UK for example
Education: up to 16 mandatory, higher education funded for 3 years or till the course is completed. Only additional courses and university costs but even then there's support in place.
Healthcare: The basic heath services are fully accessible to any UK citizen, and more complex procedures they will send you to a specialist without charge. Only a few things aren't covered under the NHS and most are vanity based I.E botox
Basic needs: The government will cover a persons basic needs if there circumstance require it by providing house, and funds. The idea of not living of government support is encourage but there is a safety net in place.
I disagree that these make a nation socialist, i believe they are the best parts of the socialist system.
To me socialism is defined by the idea that the means to produce wealth are solely controlled by the government. I don't use the Fish story unless the person I'm disagreeing with has clearly stated they support the soviet or Maoist style system where everything was controlled by the government, even then though it's not a prefect fit.
I like to think European nations as have reached something of a happy middle between the two systems by providing the opportunity to pursue ones own passion as business and a safety net for those who've fallen on rough times.
I can't speak about America however.
I think the essential problem is that "socialism" is a theoretical economic system. However, there are dozens of varieties of "socialism", and you can't lump them all together, as tends to be the case with people who aren't fully aware. Also, since it is essentially a theory of economics, there is virtually no way that the pure form of any of those varieties of socialism would be practical. I think when you say the Soviet style, you're basically referring to communism. The funny thing is that so many of those capitalist supporters think that socialism is a slippery slope into communism. When I challenged someone to come up with just one example of a country that fell from socialism into communism, they were unable or unwilling to take on that challenge. There have not been any countries that went from socialism into communism. Communism is a reaction (and extreme one, granted) to decades of class oppression, which is a feature of monarchies and hyper capitalist systems.
It's like you said, there has to be a happy balance between "socialist" programs and a capitalist marketplace. Being completely against anything that is called socialism just because it is called socialism is just ridiculous. That's the mindset I can't understand. Thanks for your comment.
Well I think the issue is socialism is defined differently for everyone as proved we have different definitions of it yet are able to agree only parts of it are practical to apply.
However I can see why people would thing it's a slippery slope as Socialism, Communism and Fascists all stem from Marx's work, and many times in history groups said socialism but ended up with Communism such as in the case of Russia.
But fact that Communism and Socialism are both commonly used inter-changeably. Another part of the issue is the fact that plenty of countries refer to themselves as socialist when they're really practicing something which is more like Communism due to it's extreme nature.
I tend to stick to the definition I used above as that way when i talk about it most people know I'm talking about the core idea of socialism not some of the other systems which it can bring with it.
Honestly it's nice to talk about political and economics like educated adults
That doesn't sound very good for the UK. I find it hard to imagine there will be a lack of regulations in England simply because they left the EU. I wonder if there's a lot of misinformation being spread over there too. After all, that's essentially how the vote turned out the way it did. Lots of misleading information spread ... combined with several other factors as well, of course.
Its why me and many other Scottish people want independence. So we can get out while we still can and not be dragged kicking and screaming by our, ahem, 'friends' of the south.