What I think, so far. I’m still learning…
https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/what-is-social-capitalism-2/
https://findingapeacefulplace.wordpress.com/2023/02/12/c-32/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#
https://mises.org/library/book/conquest-poverty
Key ideas: mixed economy; social capitalism; welfare capitalism; social democracy; eradication of poverty; wealth redistribution; welfare state; regulated market economy; social market economy; capitalism without exploitation.
key points: I believe in a mixed economy, where you have both capitalism and social welfare. | And we should encourage generosity and altruistic giving amongst the wealthy in society, the top 40% or so. And in order to give a lot, you have to have a lot. So that’s why we shouldn’t discourage prosperity. You have to earn a lot before you can give a lot away to the poor and disadvantaged, I guess. The best way to help the poor is to not be one of them.
| As long as you give a lot away (whether through taxation, or privately, via charitable donations, philanthropy, and altruistic giving); then it’s mostly a positive thing to be rich. In my opinion.. *I’m still learning about life and how best to live it, I really don’t know much about anything. | But I myself tend to go for this general mantra: “You did earn it for sure; but be as generous as you possibly can with your money and resources. Don’t keep it all for yourself.” They surely didn’t steal the money, the profits, from a bank or something; nor from the employees’ rightful wages. That tells me that they earned it fairly. That’s the beauty of business and enterprise; it can possibly generate tons of surplus revenue, excess wealth. But be as generous as you can, for moral reasons.
| **And maybe the monetary and financial help, and the overall social welfare, should be way stronger for people. It’ll help them move into what they want to do in life, and it’ll help them plan and live out their ambitions and dreams. I’m a political Independent, or just unaffiliated. (I’m not a democrat or a republican, at this time.) And I think the key to a good life lies in individual effort and responsibility just as much as community effort and social welfare. It’s not either/or; it’s both at the same time. A mixed economy, and that sort of thing. Find your balance. God will bless.
I’ve always sort of believed that as long as there’s a strong welfare state, effective social welfare for the poor and needy; and redistributive policies; and public education so that everyone can attain a good education and become prepared to enter the adult world and the world of work; and as long as there are public libraries, public parks, public community centers and etc. that the population can avail themselves of and reap benefit from; and good grants and financial aid packages for in-need students to attend college and university; and free/reduced-cost medical care/health insurance for needy families/people, which is called medicaid, I think; and as long as there is good retirement care, social security funding so that senior citizens can live well in their retirement; (and all of these are public services paid for via taxes on the general population, and especially via the rich in society, the well-off)—then I guess we live in a good society. And so I don’t necessarily agree with the more-extreme political and economic stances that exist. I know there are a lot of beliefs out there that are completely against capitalism, etc. etc. But I’m not sure if I’m really of that persuasion, though. As long as the wealthy themselves pay their fair share in public taxes, which should be quite a lot of money every year; and they treat the employees and the customers and etc. very well (they care for the health and safety of the employees); and it’s honest transaction, and they’re selling good products and services; then I actually don’t have a problem with it, I guess. And I guess we live in a coexisting society nowadays, wherein everyone is free to live how they want, and individual responsibility//community responsibilities hold sway. *I know there are a lot of suffering people in the US and the world at large. And I think the most correct solution to the suffering is the community helping the individual to attain self-sufficiency and a healthy, fulfilling life. Employment; giving back to one’s community; and receiving social support and social welfare whenever/wherever one needs it. In this way, the individual and the collective go hand-in-hand, and there’s no tension between individual rights and responsibilities and collective rights and responsibilities.
And so the social welfare, monetary relief, and social services are on an as-needed basis, of course. People who are already affluent and well-off shouldn’t receive anything, I guess. And the social welfare, the help for the poor, should probably be a lot stronger and more effective than it currently is. *From what I understand, the goal is to help the poor towards self-sufficiency and healthy, productive, fulfilling lives. “A hand up and not just a handout.”
And so I actually like the current system. It could use lots of improvement, but I like the core idea, the general idea. A mixed economy, and that sort of thing. Most developed countries and economies around the world are mixed economies, already. It could use a lot of improvement, but the core idea is correct, to me. But I’m always seeking further clarification, of course. I’m always ready to change my mind if need be.
And as long as there’s no political corruption or anything going on, as long as there’s no bribery and intermingling between businesses and political power, government power–then free-enterprise is ok, I think. I really don’t mind it.
Extreme wealth differences might be some type of issue, I guess. But as long as everyone has genuine abundance, relative financial and material abundance; and as long as the poor have easy access to all the resources in society that help them out of poverty “once and for all,” then the rest might be irrelevant. And so we shouldn’t obsess over the extreme wealth differences that do exist, admittedly. There’s already high taxation and a lot of public regulations on wealth and the wealthy, I think. So maybe this wealth gap is more of a wealth difference, rather than wealth inequality or any type of injustice that requires correction. Maybe it’s a natural and normal feature of economic life. It’s economic variation, which is natural and normal. | And so there’s no antagonism towards the rich, or towards those who were born rich, or towards anyone in society, actually. And equalizing the wealth, or ‘making everyone wealthy’ or equally wealthy, doesn’t work. It’s monetarily and economically impossible, I think. And so it’s a moot point anyway, because it’s unworkable. It doesn’t work anyway. | The way to achieve a good life and societal wellbeing is through economic development, education, career development, job creation, wealth creation, and individual and community-level prosperity, personal success. These are all hallmarks of capitalism, actually. But social welfare is still extremely necessary, of course. Helping people who need help. And none of these facts are controversial, convoluted, or even new or surprising. Most people have known these facts for a long time, I think. And so “the solution” is usually infinite shades of grey, somewhere in-between the two extremes–rather than being black-and-white, either/or. The solution is some form of a mixed economy, or social capitalism, as I like to call it. **And maybe there does need to be a more equitable (re)distribution of wealth, in society. I don’t think this will result in everyone becoming wealthy per se, because I don’t think that’s feasible, even… But money is really important in life. Maybe we need a greater amount of redistribution, a redistribution of wealth/money—for wellbeing’s sake, for people’s financial security and wellbeing. May god help all of us to understand, may he give us enough patience to understand.. -ameen.
And as I get older and learn more about economics, I’m beginning to understand that an extreme redistribution of wealth is not good, either. It reduces the incentive to work. And so the wealth redistribution—most of which should be reserved for the poor and lower middle class—is not supposed to be a whole lot of money, or anything. That’s what I understood.. Rather, it should be a moderate amount so as to help ppl gain traction in their career pursuits and educational pursuits, and to help them offset the cost of living. It’s not like it’s a million dollars per person, or something.. That wouldn’t be general welfare liberalism, anymore—it would become an extreme egalitarianism that I don’t think most ppl even recognize or identify with. They don’t subscribe to that; I personally don’t. You earn what you earn in life; and if you are poor or otherwise disadvantaged, there should be all sorts of help for you to get back on track, in your life. -This is what I was mentioning earlier about ‘mixed economy, welfare capitalism, social capitalism; and working our way out of dependency…’
| In another life, I might have worked in economic development, somehow. I might have become involved in economic empowerment and development in developing countries, in the developing world. I believe in the power of the free market to lift people out of poverty. No one should have to wait for handouts or for foreign aid–there are brilliant people in each poor country in the world. And the cure to poverty and the way towards prosperity is largely found in the free market, I think. Business creation, job creation, wealth, economic growth, opportunity, entrepreneurship, economic development. I’m from Sudan, I’m Sudanese. And so I care about economic development on the African continent, in particular. The poorest continent on earth, and yet the richest in natural resources, I think. And the African continent has tremendous potential to be a thriving, prosperous part of the world. It can be really great.
And: most people do live in a free, liberal society for the most part, where they’re supposed to make a living for themselves. But that’s not anyone’s fault; it’s not the rich’s fault. And so helping the poor and the disadvantaged is very important, of course. But the general idea is to get back to normal and get back on one’s feet so as to not need very much assistance anymore. That’s what I’ve understood.. And there’s always gonna be a bottom class who needs support and assistance. There’s always gonna be social classes in society, I think. There’s always gonna be ppl who are very rich, and people who are middle class, and people who are bottom class, or the least well-off. I don’t think this aspect of things is going to go away. -I think Emile Durkheim stated in The Division of Labor in Society that once a society has reached a mixed economy, something like a combination of individual responsibility and social welfare, or a mix of capitalism and socialism—a free, liberal society with very strong social welfare, a social safety net—then that is the final stage, and they’re not going to evolve past it. There’s nothing else to logically evolve past or move past. They’ve reached the final stage, loosely speaking. And so his theory is that there’s not going to be a new system (like communism, or whatnot) that will save us from labor, that will save us from “the division of labor in society.” There’s not going to be a new system that will save us from having to support ourselves individually–assuming that there’s a lot of help, charity, welfarism, financial assistance, social support, housing support, food assistance, etc. How is anything supposed to get done if no one does it? The division of labor in society is not only for individual survival’s sake, but for society’s overall functioning. If everyone stopped working, nothing would get done, most definitely. If everyone gives up/throws in the towel, then nothing would ever get done anymore. And that’s a fact(!) Unfortunately. And so we have responsibilities, and we have to honor that. And so “the division of labor in society” is pivotal. -This is what I’ve partially gathered from Durkheim’s thesis so far. I’m reading his books right now, and I hope to expand my understanding of everything, of how society works.
And so free-enterprise capitalism is acceptable, and even a very positive thing, as long as there is strong regulation, like environmental regulation and labor laws; enough income redistribution; a welfare state paid for via taxation; and etc. *Life is give and take, as it should be. Meaning: you work, you put in; and you receive all the social welfare that you’re entitled to in order to access the necessary goods and services that you can’t pay for by yourself. You have no way of acquiring these through your own funds. Housing, food, health care, etc. But if you can afford it, you should pay for your own necessities. We don’t really want to have a lot of people dependent on the government for basic goods and services. These benefits are only paid for through taxation, I think. They’re paid for by society as a whole, through taxing the citizens. And so that’s why government welfarism is not an ideal solution to poverty. It’s taking from Peter to help Paul. We do it because we’re a compassionate society. But if we were truly compassionate, we’d help Paul take care of himself. We’d help Paul to get into the swing of things and take care of his own affairs, as an adult and an able-bodied, able-minded person. *And so “free money, free housing, free healthcare, etc.–free goods and services, government-subsidized goods and services”–always means taxpayer funded. Perhaps they’ll raise taxes on the rich and the affluent, in order to help pay for it. It always comes out of someone’s else’s pocket. Those “free” goods/services are paid for by the rich. And it’s the same thing with public schools, public clinics, public libraries, and etc. We all pay for them via taxes, but the wealthy pay most of it, since they pay the most in taxes. And so this country is mostly funded by the rich, from what I understand. | This is what I’ve gathered so far. **But I’m still learning about everything, I’m still learning how the world works. And I’m a political Independent, or unaffiliated.
(“I used to be a fan of the minimum wage hikes, especially back when I was into leftwing socioeconomic ideas. But these days, I’ve understood the flaws of this simplistic practice. I used to wonder why we didn’t simply mandate a high(er) wage, why we didn’t simply increase the minimum wage to a high(er) wage. But then I eventually realized that this practice helps poor people who happen to get hired; it doesn’t make the job market any less competitive, though. A lot of people will find it harder to find work, I’ve understood. And so I’m more aligned with helping the population of people who are financially distressed//economically disadvantaged, in particular–more so than (simply) mandating a high wage on all businesses.”
“I think people often look at the big corporations, and they conclude that a high wage for the employees is only fair, only natural. Everyone should be paid a high wage, something that can cover all their living expenses. But I’ve read quite often from my readings on economics and etc. that the minimum wage law isn’t meant to produce a comfortable middle-class wage. The higher the ‘minimum wage’ becomes, the more competitive the hiring process becomes. Also, the price of goods and services goes up, I think. (Inflation.) Places like Starbucks, McDonald’s, and Walmart probably can pay all the employees a reasonably high wage due to their high revenues; but other companies can’t do the same, due to low(er) revenues. (They’ll have to lay off workers, or not hire as many people, etc.) *I think the late great economist Walter Williams said “I once supported things like the minimum wage laws, because I thought it helped the common man, the average person. But then a professor challenged me to look at the actual longterm effects of such laws, and I eventually changed my mind.” | It seems that a lot of economists and other social scientists are more aligned with redistribution, taking from the rich to give to the poor and the middle class,–more so than they are for a high(er) minimum wage. And moreover, they support things like career help, career facilitation, education, and etc.—they support these resources for the poor and the working class. And they’re right; the way out of poverty is career attainment and increased education and skills. And monetary support and redistribution is also very necessary, of course, while people get situated with things. Monetary support is necessary as people go through the process of attaining education, job training, and career development. And so redistribution is for a specific category of people—it’s not given to everyone, I think. The rich and well-off get nothing—people who are already relatively rich and well-off get nothing. This is how you allocate resources in society, this is the proper method of wealth (re)distribution. It’s really simple. It’s mainly about getting people on track with life. And so there’s no antagonism towards the rich, or anything. There’s no takedown of the rich.”) -an excerpt from an essay I wrote explaining my socioeconomic journey, my journey towards understanding accurate economics, social studies, and etc.
And so I don’t think the answer is anti-capitalism, or anything. The answer is more like job creation, industrialization, redistribution of wealth, and ultimately, helping people become self-reliant. And I’ve actually heard this same sentiment many times before, from many different people. They see that poverty is a severe issue; but they don’t think the solution is getting rid of capitalism, or getting rid of a regulated market economy. Not all rich ppl are immoral and bad, and they’re not causing poverty in other ppl, as I used to believe when I was in my adolescence and young adulthood. Third way economics; a mixed economy; social capitalism; welfare capitalism; strong cohesion between the private, public, and nonprofit sectors; a regulated market economy; welfarism; wealth redistribution; helping people towards prosperity and independence.
It turns out that capitalism is the way out of poverty, when intertwined with socialism and social welfare. Capitalism creates jobs, industry, careers, self-reliance. Markets, trade, free exchange, business ownership, wealth creation, innovation, upward mobility, moving up in life; that’s all capitalism. But it has to be tempered by regulations and social welfare, and other restraints. It can’t go unchecked; otherwise there’d be no fairness and no balance, I guess.
* See, the thing is; you can’t stop greatness. You shouldn’t stop greatness. Look at Madam CJ Walker. Look at most people who made it big, whether through private business ownership; or selling creative work that ppl want to buy, like novels/songs/music/artwork; or whatever. *But after you succeed, then please go and help the wider world//your community//the disadvantaged ppl. Don’t just keep everything for yourself. So yeah, you can do it, you did earn it—but just don’t keep it all for yourself. You should help enrich other people, too; you should help other people out. And you should help your community. Good is as good does. It’s really that simple. And I honestly think that’s the solution. It’s sort of like a compromise between capitalism and socialism/social welfare.
And when you talk about capitalism, socialism, economics, socioeconomics, and etc., you have to include black capitalists/black business owners; Black Wall Street; Islamic economics; free trade and free markets in the ancient, wealthy African civilizations; and etc. This is all “capitalism,” or some variation thereof; but it’s within a framework of social justice and uplift. It’s basically a mixed economy that features income redistribution, welfarism, and etc. It’s both “capitalism” and “socialism,” so to speak, or what we would call a mixed economy. Social capitalism, a mixed system.
I think people conflate “capitalism” with corporatism, corruption, and money earned the wrong way. And they conflate it with greed, hoarding wealth, etc. But this is all evil and corrupt, nobody supports that. So there’s an element of capitalism that can go wrong when it’s not kept in check by strong regulations, laws, income redistribution, taxation, etc. But that’s not the whole picture; it’s not like corporatism is capitalism. The essence of it is free enterprise, private companies selling/competing in a free-market. That’s the definition, I guess. So this is what I’ve arrived at so far in my humble research and analysis; a mixed economy. Yeah, “capitalism” is acceptable, but there are a lot of caveats. Don’t hurt people; care for the health and safety of the employees; pay your fair share in taxes; give as much as you can to disadvantaged ppl. In this way, “capitalism” becomes tempered by “socialism.”
Since certain ppl have more than they need, they should give up a lot, I think. It’s a moral imperative. So, capitalism: the basic idea of it is fine, I think. Private business ownership; small businesses; big, successful enterprises; it’s all acceptable. They’re not hurting anyone, and it’s their individual right to be business owners. But the more you make/earn, the more you owe back to your community and society. Very simple.
From what I understand, capitalism is largely about production; producing goods, services, wealth, and so on. And socialism/social welfare is about sharing the fruits of capitalism in a more-equitable manner. Capitalism and socialism. The two systems/ideologies complement each other; they’re meant to coexist harmoniously. This is what I’ve gathered so far in my academic journey.
At the end of the day, I do believe in self-sufficiency, being financially stable, and being independently wealthy enough, without help from the government or charitable organizations. I believe in financial stability, without any dependence on the government or charitable organizations. The only system that lets you do this is capitalism/free enterprise/job creation/wealth creation/earning income. And so I believe in capitalism, just as much as I believe in social welfare for people who can’t make it and who need ongoing help. E.g., the disabled; people stuck in generational poverty; folks whose prospects are not good; and so on.
I honestly think being financially stable, having enough money, is a must. If the individual person can’t attain this on her own, then society has to help. | *I like how Islam says “Cursed is the worshipper of money; the one who worships/hoards money, is lost.” *But it also says “S/he who manages to avoid poverty and begging–s/he who manages her affairs and is strongly responsible–is guaranteed paradise, provided s/he’s also a good person and fulfills her other religious and worldly duties.” And “The giving hand is far superior to the receiving hand–being financially stable is superior to being in a needy state.” Don’t be in a needy state, if you can help it. *And it doesn’t have to be a “big” career, by any means. Any kind of job, anything that supports you and your family, is blessed by Allah. And so we have responsibilities in this life. This is one of my main takeaways from my readings and analyses.
I guess I believe in upward mobility and the prosperity that comes with that, more than I believe in ‘corrective measures’ like income redistribution and welfarism. But we need both of course. We have to encourage hard work, individual success, and prosperity; and social welfare. It’s like a two-way street, or a two-part system, I think.
I don’t really link poverty and financial hardship intrinsically to free-market capitalism. I think much of it is because of lack of opportunity and lack of investment into needy areas and people. Lack of effective societal support. But I don’t really link it to “the rich” and their successes, if that makes sense.
At the same time, the government, the nonprofit sector, and the private sector should all do a lot more to address this issue. I think redistribution of wealth is a big part of the solution, here. And I think poverty and financial difficulty is highly fixable. And the solution is practical and empowering for the beneficiaries and for society.
I think capitalism is the main vehicle through which we live and produce. Companies and organizations produce all kinds of goods and services; and we consume them. But we have to be generous with our wealth, with the profits. And we have to pull each other out of poverty, and etc. And so we definitely can’t have unregulated capitalism, I think. We have to have regulations; enough income redistribution, money redistribution; social welfare programs for low-income families; and etc.
Another thing I sorta noticed; a lot of people seem to think that “capitalism is evil,” and therefor capitalists are all evil and corrupt, etc. But I can’t help but notice that this is a stereotype and an oversimplification. It reminds me of people who think that religion (like Islam, Christianity, etc.) is inherently bad, and all of its leaders were bad, etc. It’s painting everyone with a broad brush… And it paints the institution of religion itself as inherently bad, rather than mostly good and/or malleable. The criticism of religion as a whole ignores all the good, and focuses only on the bad. As if religion can only produce bad—as if it is bad, in itself. Well,—both religion and regulated capitalism, social capitalism, are mostly good, I think. As long as it’s a mixed economy; and as long as religious faith is personal convictions, and not imposed on other people in any way—then it’s mostly a good thing I think. Alhamdulillah, may Allah swt help me see the truth of the matter and bring me closer to an optimal understanding of everything. -ameen.
And (the criticism of capitalism) reminds me of people who think that the nuclear family is inherently bad. “The nuclear family is the institution of the oppression of women, by and large. It’s mostly bad,” etc. etc. Not necessarily, though! Doesn’t it all just depend how you implement it? Doesn’t it depend on how you run your family; how you allocate tasks; how you live together; etc. etc.?
In fact; religion, social-welfare capitalism, and family are some of the most important institutions ever. They’re of similar significance as schools/educational institutions, nonprofits, governments, etc.—if not more important. So yeah, these are all very complex institutions and systems. And when handled with justice, love, compassion, they are positive things. Not everything is always good or always evil.. It all depends how you do it, how you go about it. Subhan Allah..
~
Lastly; I don’t think the reason we’re here is to overcome oppression, or anything. Even with all of our sociopolitical systems and societal problems, I don’t see battling evil as the main point of life. I think there has to be something beyond our immediate existence, something positive to make peace with. The point of our existence can’t be a resistance to something evil, it can’t be a constant struggle against something. None of us even asked to be here; and so our purpose can’t be a struggle against bad people and bad systems, and stuff. Where’s the fairness in that. And where does evil come from…
And so I don’t think that socioeconomics, politics, and “oppressed vs oppressor” is a good enough theme to justify existence. I don’t live for any of that stuff. I think there has to be something (or someone) beyond our immediate world; there has to be a universal presence, a loving, compassionate source. Otherwise, I don’t think this life makes any sense, without that. Why are we here? How did we get here? What are we even doing here (to begin with)? What’s the point of anything? Where are we headed, where’s it all headed? Where did we come from, and where are we going? It gets really scary and depressing after a while. But I’ve solved it for myself by believing in a good and compassionate God, a very peaceful and loving source. It honestly means everything to me, I need Allah in my life. I can’t function without it, without a compassionate spiritual being that I believe in.
And there are a lot of martyrs who died for their religious faith, for their belief in god; just like there are a lot of martyrs who died for their political and economic ideologies. We all have to die sometime, anyway. But I like to pick my battles wisely.. I don’t wanna die (or live) for baatil, or for a nonsensical ideology, or for a hollow belief system. I need a strong reason for my existence. It has to be pristine, golden.
a portfolio 