Is cooperation an answer to the economic mess world
is in today
The basic difference between capitalism and communism lies in the nature of ownership of the property. Capitalist argument is that when the ownership of the property is in the private hands there is a greater chance of growth in the property and the best efforts made by each individual for his well being results in the development of the society as a whole through an invisible hand in the free market.
On the other hand communists say that when the ownership of the property is with the community instead of the individuals there is greater chance of development.
Now suppose that there is a piece of land which has to be owned by five individuals. The ownership of the land can be held in two ways. First could be if the land is divided in five equal parts and the ownership of each part is given to one individual and this individual is free to develop his land in the way he wishes. In such a scenario there is a greater chance of development of each part of land because each individual will work at his best to grow his property as he feels that he is the sole owner of this property which could result in the development of the whole piece of land. But there is also a chance that each individual will try to grab the land of others since he is not satisfied with his own land and want to become more and more rich which would result in unemployment and exploitation.
is in today
The basic difference between capitalism and communism lies in the nature of ownership of the property. Capitalist argument is that when the ownership of the property is in the private hands there is a greater chance of growth in the property and the best efforts made by each individual for his well being results in the development of the society as a whole through an invisible hand in the free market.
On the other hand communists say that when the ownership of the property is with the community instead of the individuals there is greater chance of development.
Now suppose that there is a piece of land which has to be owned by five individuals. The ownership of the land can be held in two ways. First could be if the land is divided in five equal parts and the ownership of each part is given to one individual and this individual is free to develop his land in the way he wishes. In such a scenario there is a greater chance of development of each part of land because each individual will work at his best to grow his property as he feels that he is the sole owner of this property which could result in the development of the whole piece of land. But there is also a chance that each individual will try to grab the land of others since he is not satisfied with his own land and want to become more and more rich which would result in unemployment and exploitation.
In the second scenario where the whole piece of land is owned jointly by all the five of them nobody will try to grab the whole land because he believes that the whole property is already owned by him. But again the risk here is that nobody would give enough attention towards the land as everyone feels that the land is not only his responsibility.
So we can conclude that both models have their positives and negatives and neither one is perfect. That's why a hybrid model was needed. As capitalism failed in its pure form we shifted to the model of "public corporations" which is a hybrid of the capitalistic and communistic models. In such corporations ownership is in the hands of shareholders and not any one individual. At the same time such a corporation is free to compete in the market. This model can work well if the public corporations start understanding their responsibility towards the society and stop competing with each other just for the sake of monetary benefit only and keep in view the larger goal of the development of the society as a whole. Imagine what will happen when the shareholders of a corporation start competing with each other instead of cooperating. Can't this principle of cooperation be applied to the humanity as a whole? Can't we treat the whole planet as a corporation and work towards its well being as shareholders of this grand corporation?
Sandeep Anand
So we can conclude that both models have their positives and negatives and neither one is perfect. That's why a hybrid model was needed. As capitalism failed in its pure form we shifted to the model of "public corporations" which is a hybrid of the capitalistic and communistic models. In such corporations ownership is in the hands of shareholders and not any one individual. At the same time such a corporation is free to compete in the market. This model can work well if the public corporations start understanding their responsibility towards the society and stop competing with each other just for the sake of monetary benefit only and keep in view the larger goal of the development of the society as a whole. Imagine what will happen when the shareholders of a corporation start competing with each other instead of cooperating. Can't this principle of cooperation be applied to the humanity as a whole? Can't we treat the whole planet as a corporation and work towards its well being as shareholders of this grand corporation?
Sandeep Anand
No comments:
Post a Comment