I have recently been given cause to ponder on why I oppose Socialism. So I thought it would be a good time to address something I see as inherent in socialism of any kind. Socialism blurs the lines between one person and another by neglecting the importance of individual growth and personal responsibility.
My wife and I are reading, Boundaries in Marriage by
“If we can see that the problem is our problem and that we are responsible for it, then we are in the driver’s seat of change.”
If the intent of Judeo-Christian marriage is that the two become one, why is it important to clarify where one person ends and the other begins. The answer can be found in understanding the difference between codependent relationships and complementary or synergistic relationships.
Codependent relationship can be characterized by a three part cycle:
- Rescuing and enabling
- Attempts to control others
Codependence is a major obstacle to a couple developing a healthy relationship because there is a confusion of the boundaries between where one person ends and the other begins. This results in a relationship that eventually consumes one partner and leaves the other without the ability to function independently.
“Codependents are people who let the feelings and actions of another person affect them to the point that they feel like they have lost control of their own lives.”
(“The Latest Definition of Codependency.” DIG & Codependency Therapy)
Socialism promotes equality through redistribution of resources, justifying it with the characterization of over-worked employees who are compensated less and have less control of how resources are used than their employer who is unqualified to perform their tasks. Most people relate easily to this characterization, but it really nothing more than victimization. It creates a victim of the employee rather than empowering them.
The redistribution of property solution is also attractive to many people, but is really just rescuing and enabling and attempting to control others. When reduced to it’s foundation, socialism is a codependent relationship applied to society.
In contrast, a complementary or synergistic relationship, which is deceptively similar to codependence, is founded on this cycle:
- Identifying a need or a want
- Problem solving to create a sustainable solution*
- Inspiring and incentivising participation in the implementation and duplication of the solution
*By sustainable solution, I mean one that does not consume the resources of the problem solver, but renews and increases the well-being (wealth) of all involved.
There is a saying, “The greatest gift you can give someone is space to be themselves, without threat of leaving.” The only way for a married couple to truly become one is by first recognizing where one partner begins and the other ends, and then by each individual taking responsibility over who they each are – what is their responsibility to do and to feel, they can then start to develop a synergistic relationship. The same concept is applied to any other relationship.
Hard work, when combined with a Plan, Do, Check, and Adjust (PDCA) approach over time, will always increase the influence and resources available to those who employ it. But this process is undermined by the codependent thinking of socialism, which focuses the blame for the problem on life not being “fair.”
I am reluctant to give a name to what I see is the solution to economic inequality. I have used the phrases “character based leadership”, and “communities building.” Orrin Woodward uses the phrase “Compensated Communities” and I think that fits as well, however I’m less concerned with what it’s called, than I am with what principles are applied. The application of capitalism often begins well, but too often evolves into corporatism and ends up more concerned with superficial credentials and maintaining power through political means than in the process of a complementary or synergistic relationship.
Reader, I would love to see your input. What problems do you see in your culture and society? What would your ideal solution be?