“Is there truly a final solution to the fundamental problems of humanity?” This question, I think, had been mulled over and over again by many social philosophers in the past in their quest for a perfect social system that would truly eradicate inequality in the world. Yet, it seems that the most apparent solutions to the fundamental human problems often bring in novel problems due to the new and emergent social conditions. Hence, it appears that the final solution to the fundamental human problems is still very much elusive at this point.

Is Capitalism Flawed?

 Many people nowadays are quite aware of the immoral and unjust basis of capitalism. In fact, many among the better-off classes have already realized the basic flaws intrinsically inherent in capitalism, hence, some of them had already shifted to socialism as their political philosophy. Capitalism would surely lead to inequality, for privatization—the very basis of capitalism—is more of a disease than a solution to the human social problems. If we want, therefore, to achieve a higher economic equality within a society, we should never relent in altering the capitalistic status quo and instead should begin to embrace socialistic values and philosophy. Of course, you would readily contend that the complete socialization of everything would be next to impossible, given the fact that the different stakeholders in a society often sport different social paradigms. Moreover, running a government is a complicated endeavor.

The British government, for example, must spend for defense, funneling several billions of taxpayers’ money to the strengthening of the British military so that our nation—a previously imperious Great Britain—can still project militarily to the outside world. However, many among us who are socialists at heart would surely regret this channeling of taxpayers’ money to military usage, and we would instead wish that this apparent need to bolster the defense capability of this country would someday become irrelevant and be deemed a waste of capital resources. We also succinctly understand that money spent for militarization would surely be doubly useful if used for actualizing a truly universal health care system and other projects designed to build higher standards of living for the citizenry.

The Rule of the Jungle and the Need for a Paradigm Shift

 The so-called pundits would surely not readily change their paradigms. Even in the scientific field, for example, physicists before Einstein had deified Newtonian physics to a point that it became the unbreakable paradigm in physics. However, when Einstein presented his Quantum Theory and Theory of Relativity, those physicists who were inured to Newtonian physics—although slow to react—soon realized that it was impossible to debunk Einstein’s theories, and that Newtonian physics was no longer tenable in accounting for all the phenomena in the universe. Hence, if they want to be relevant as physicists, they must alter their scientific paradigms and embrace quantum physics. If physicists could change their paradigms when presented with a better paradigm, would it not be appropriate too for the so-called social scientists to change their paradigms when presented with a better social paradigm?

The paradigms of the ordinary British businessmen are never different from the usual paradigms sported by the “man of the jungle.” Ordinary businessmen still have the same five senses and the same instinctual tendencies which our primitive human ancestors had used to fend off wild animals. These primitive paradigms still exert their effects on many of us and still motivate most businessmen to gobble up every profit they can make in their business. Hence, it is still safe to say that most businessmen are relatively selfish and territorial. This is the reason why there is still so much inequality in the world, because some more intelligent and cunning business people among us still could amass great wealth that has no value for the majority of citizenry.

On Marriage and Divorce

 A good family, for example, is a typical microcosmic example of what socialism really wants to achieve. Within a stable marriage, the socialization of properties for the common good of family members is generally practiced. However, our society is more complicated than a family. Moreover, the bond among the members of the society is not comparable to the bond of consanguinity within the family. Yet the family, despite being bound by blood, is usually threatened with divorce. In fact, with the present rate of divorce nationwide, it is not unreasonable to state that the family is completely threatened from within.

Some social scientists, however, maintain that this increase in the divorce rate in the UK may have some economic implications, for despite the fact that the divorce process UK is expensive, many still want it as a solution. This surge in the rate of divorce in our society may be indicative of how difficult it is to agree on a specific idea and of how difficult it is to compromise paradigms.

If within the microcosmic familial institution it is apparent that husband and wife really find it hard to agree on certain principles, what more can we expect among the people within the society at large? It would surely be very difficult for many minds (of loose bonding) to conscientiously zero in or agree on a socialistic value and rally behind that specific value. Despite the inherent difficulty in changing our own paradigms, if a social value is worth-fighting for—like those of the socialist ideals of equality and universal health care program—we as a nation should be willing to debunk our existing paradigms in favor of a better social paradigm.

 

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 829 other subscribers.

Follow us on Twitter