Part 02
Previously, I cited the ecology of leadership and the unholy trio of Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini as Socialist leaders. So, what about the strategic planning of leaders operating in the area of economics of a Socialist System? If the ecology of leadership is important, for the answer to this question to be meaningful, a contextual background is required.
First, the three traditionally recognized factors (or means) of production are land, labor and capital. (In a literal sense, of course, anything that contributes to the productive process is a factor of production.)
Second, although Socialism is a relatively recent phenomenon, it has a history of variation. It came into being as a result of the Industrial Revolution and it was Karl Marx who defined it. Over time, other "practitioners" have come up with "improvements," or variations, on the theme.
Third, to many people, the concept behind the term "socialism" is similar to the concept behind the term "god." In this respect, everybody can have a different take on the meaning and implementation. So, Socialism is an article of faith for many, perhaps for most, of its adherents.
Fourth, the term describes a system characterized by centralized government planning and control of the uses of national resources, private as well as public, operating "in the name of the people." Lenin said, "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything." The function of a leader under this kind of system must be quite different from the function of a leader under a market economic system.
Fifth, although it is true that leaders have made certain "corrections," to the "original," or "pure," form of socialism, it is also true that the resultant forms diverge only in non-essentials. We can describe it more accurately if we start from the stated goals of socialists. They want to control the factors of production. Their ideal is not "equal economic opportunity" but "equal economic results." This has serious implications because, to that end, in the name of fairness, they plan to take from the more productive and give to the less productive, or to the nonproductive. This idea used to be called, "leveling". More modern usage calls it the "welfare state," or "spreading the wealth," or "redistribution of income." Among other measures, the expropriation mechanism of taxation is to be used to accomplish the "redistribution."
The essence of the foregoing points is, whatever the individual "takes" or descriptions, none of these can avoid the central point, which is: the aim of Socialism, no matter the variation in form or label, is its further propagation and, because the two systems are incompatible, ultimately and inevitably, the destruction of Capitalism.
The implications for leaders and their exercise of leadership and strategic planning are enormous. For example, those who do not consider themselves to be Socialists fail to realize that, given the pernicious nature of Socialism, their advocacy of so-called progressive political interventions in some economic matters must imply the ultimate establishment of full government supremacy in all economic matters; in short: Socialism.
How does a leader function, and what are the indicators of successful leadership, when Communism, Fascism, Socialism, State Capitalism, Authoritarian Economy, Planned Economy, Corporatism, Welfare State, etc., are rooted in the same concept? And what is the "magic ingredient," the resource that leaders doing Strategic Planning in a Socialist economy have available to them that those in a Capitalist economy do not have? This ingredient is one of the most attractive reasons that persons embrace Socialism; the veritable flame that attracts the moth.
Some will say, "this all sounds so confusing." Others will ask, "how can it be true when I have been taught otherwise?" We'll look into these issues in Part 03.
Previously, I cited the ecology of leadership and the unholy trio of Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini as Socialist leaders. So, what about the strategic planning of leaders operating in the area of economics of a Socialist System? If the ecology of leadership is important, for the answer to this question to be meaningful, a contextual background is required.
First, the three traditionally recognized factors (or means) of production are land, labor and capital. (In a literal sense, of course, anything that contributes to the productive process is a factor of production.)
Second, although Socialism is a relatively recent phenomenon, it has a history of variation. It came into being as a result of the Industrial Revolution and it was Karl Marx who defined it. Over time, other "practitioners" have come up with "improvements," or variations, on the theme.
Third, to many people, the concept behind the term "socialism" is similar to the concept behind the term "god." In this respect, everybody can have a different take on the meaning and implementation. So, Socialism is an article of faith for many, perhaps for most, of its adherents.
Fourth, the term describes a system characterized by centralized government planning and control of the uses of national resources, private as well as public, operating "in the name of the people." Lenin said, "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything." The function of a leader under this kind of system must be quite different from the function of a leader under a market economic system.
Fifth, although it is true that leaders have made certain "corrections," to the "original," or "pure," form of socialism, it is also true that the resultant forms diverge only in non-essentials. We can describe it more accurately if we start from the stated goals of socialists. They want to control the factors of production. Their ideal is not "equal economic opportunity" but "equal economic results." This has serious implications because, to that end, in the name of fairness, they plan to take from the more productive and give to the less productive, or to the nonproductive. This idea used to be called, "leveling". More modern usage calls it the "welfare state," or "spreading the wealth," or "redistribution of income." Among other measures, the expropriation mechanism of taxation is to be used to accomplish the "redistribution."
The essence of the foregoing points is, whatever the individual "takes" or descriptions, none of these can avoid the central point, which is: the aim of Socialism, no matter the variation in form or label, is its further propagation and, because the two systems are incompatible, ultimately and inevitably, the destruction of Capitalism.
The implications for leaders and their exercise of leadership and strategic planning are enormous. For example, those who do not consider themselves to be Socialists fail to realize that, given the pernicious nature of Socialism, their advocacy of so-called progressive political interventions in some economic matters must imply the ultimate establishment of full government supremacy in all economic matters; in short: Socialism.
How does a leader function, and what are the indicators of successful leadership, when Communism, Fascism, Socialism, State Capitalism, Authoritarian Economy, Planned Economy, Corporatism, Welfare State, etc., are rooted in the same concept? And what is the "magic ingredient," the resource that leaders doing Strategic Planning in a Socialist economy have available to them that those in a Capitalist economy do not have? This ingredient is one of the most attractive reasons that persons embrace Socialism; the veritable flame that attracts the moth.
Some will say, "this all sounds so confusing." Others will ask, "how can it be true when I have been taught otherwise?" We'll look into these issues in Part 03.
No comments:
Post a Comment