Often, in discussions relating to high brow concepts such as the type of government we should have, or the infrastructure of the country, we get lost within the details of the specifics of their implementation instead of starting within the core roots of the psychology that makes up the individuals within that society, and then develop an optimal system of regulation upon this base framework. This makes sense, for no matter what regulations are put in place, if society can be looked at as a stream, if enough drops wish to move in another direction, it will eventually splinter, and the unified society collapse.
The context within which we examine the psychology of the individual should be with respect to the optimal goals of that society; that is to say, if we want a society that is imperialistic, then we want the psychologies of the individuals to funnel into imperialistic mechanisms. If we want a society to be altruistic, we then must regulate it in a way to direct our base psychologies into that direction. Of course, we are limited by the scope of what people’s intrinsic natures actually are, and so within these basic rules, we must then make determinations about how best to manipulate them for the optimal goals we wish our society to have.
Clarifying this concept is important at the advent, as it is safe to say that both capitalists and socialists have the same goals for their respective societies: to maximize the productivity and therefore welfare of the most number of individuals within that society over the long term, as this will lead to the most likely scenario where it will continuously grow and not self-destruct.
The Optimal Result
Taking away the means, if we examine the ends, we re-iterate: the goal is to maximize the productivity and therefore welfare of the most number of individuals within that society for longevity. We say the most amount of individuals, as this calculation is not linear; that is to say, if one person enjoys 5x the amount of welfare while 4 others reside in destitution, the cumulative welfare experienced by that society would be less than if all 5 individuals enjoyed the same amount of welfare. Of course, the idea that all individuals will experience the exact same amount of welfare is unrealistic within any estimation, but it is safe to say that society as a whole is optimally successful when the ratio of welfare between different individuals is not incredibly skewed on an average basis.
This is consistent with the concept of diminishing utility, as on average, as one individual gets more welfare, they will appreciate it less, and so, the most amount of people that receive the most amount of welfare optimizes the cumulative enjoyment of said welfare for society as a whole, minimizing the destructive effect of diminishing utility en mass.
Productivity & Welfare
It is clear that there can exist no welfare without productivity, but as transacting becomes more and more abstracted, with supplier and consumer rarely ever encountering one another, this inexorable link has become muddled. Again, we assess the psychology of the individual: as government and corporation looms large in comparison to the individual, these sources of welfare have become faceless, and it may appear to many that welfare seems to simply self-generate from these infinite pools of wealth.
The truth is, however, that all the welfare distributed must be produced. And so, on a quantitative basis, the more production there is, the more welfare there is.
The Optimal Ratio
Self-evident within the conclusion that there can be no welfare without productivity is that productivity must always out-pace the consumption of welfare, else the cumulative pool of welfare will begin to wane, less and less people will produce, individuals begin to hoard welfare or worse, steal it from each other, and society, once again, collapses. Therefore, whatever the consumption of welfare, it must result in at least an equal amount of production in order to be sustainable. And optimally, it should result in the maximum amount of production on a sustainable basis.
There then follow two questions in our pursuit of the optimal society: how do we maximize production and how do we ensure that the welfare created from this production reaches the maximum amount of people?
Let us begin by examining the first question: how do we maximize productivity? Yet again, we go to the psychology of the individual.
The Reward Response
Productivity can be reduced to any action an individual takes to produce something, whether it be a product or service, that serves to benefit the lives of those within society in some capacity or another. This can be planting a tree, drawing a picture, constructing a chair, or writing articles such as this one. And although there are an innumerable number of motivations that cause people to produce, even when those motivations are in opposition, the base drive is identical for all living creatures: the reward response.
You can learn more about it here. Overall, the reward response is a system that nearly all living creatures posses: it is a mechanism within our brains that serves to release dopamine upon stimulus. It serves to incentivise organisms towards survival, and when we are born, we arrive with some base frameworks that trigger this process. Most living creatures are born with one basic reward response: food. When we eat, dopamine is released, as our brains are wired to perceive nutrition as a reward, and this is done to help promote survival. This is why most animals and small children can be taught to behave in certain ways through snacks or treats a lot easier than they can through the promise of university tuition, as that pathway has not been fully realized yet.
Now, there are a few important things to note here. Firstly, the reward response is highly malleable, and being the advanced creatures that we are, our brains adapt to whatever our environment teaches us to maximize our chances of survival. That means, if we are fed when we slam our heads against the wall, our brains will naturally adapt to release a reward when we slam our heads against the wall, and we can even get addicted to this in order to release dopamine. Seems silly, but this explains the large variety of activities some people may find enjoyable that others may find reprehensible. Secondly, as just exampled, the reward system does not automatically lead to production. We can be trained to release dopamine for highly unproductive things, and even things that are destructive (such as theft, abuse, masochism etc). This is important to note, as though by definition it is called the reward system, and this suggests a productive bias, it can be attributed to just about any action or inaction.
The Ideal Reward Pathway
If productivity maximizes the welfare pool for both socialist and capitalist societies, and the central difference between these two systems is how this productivity is distributed, then these societies must mutually first determine how best to increase productivity. As our base psychology relies on the reward response for motivation, it then becomes clear that individuals should be trained to produce, and upon production be rewarded in some capacity or another, and if effectively implemented, individuals will be eager to continue production. The more individuals that are programmed in this way, the more likely they are to produce, and the more production there is. Distribution then follows.
Therefore, upon production, individuals must be rewarded. This can take the form of other goods or services, money with which to purchase goods or services, a hug, a smile, or even the simple knowledge that someone else benefited from that production. Any reward that can be attributed to the production will strengthen the ideal reward pathway we want to create in as many individuals as possible.
The Efficiency of Personalized Rewards
To maximize the incentivization of individuals towards production, we must encourage individuals using the reward response: that is, that upon production, they are rewarded, and this encourages them to produce more. However, just as there are a dizzying variety of colors that make up the clothing choices those in society make to optimize how they feel on a given day, so too will there be different rewards for different people, and so, it would be inefficient to make arbitrary determinations about what rewards are provided to different people in exchange for production. Though we may think we know what makes another individual happiest, the truth is, this arbitration of our perspective, even if embraced by the individual, will never be as accurate as the individual’s own perception on the matter. Therefore, to the degree that this decision is taken out of the individual’s control, to that extent does the efficacy of their reward suffer, and therefore, lessen the strength of their reward response, and therefore, hinder their incentivization towards production.
Therefore, to optimize production within society, individuals should be provided the maximum ability to make autonomous determinations about how to formulate their own rewards for said production in order to incentivize them towards maximum production. An example of this would be for individuals to be provided money in exchange for production, and for them to then use this money to purchase goods and services which form the basis of their rewards. An example of the opposite would be for individuals to produce, and for a centralized entity to deliver them a set amount of food, clothing, shelter, and entertainment. In the latter case, this would only be ideal and optimal towards production where it, by chance, overlaps the exact desires of a certain, small percentage of the population (akin to a centralized entity choosing that on Monday, everyone should wear black – some people will be happy about this, while others will not).
Another caveat of this is that just as personal tastes evolve and change, so too will the optimal composition of reward, especially when we mix in the same law of diminishing utility; that is to say that the optimal reward for any individual may vary from day to day, week to week, year to year, and so, this further strengthens the idea that to the degree the malleability of reward is removed from the individual’s control, to that degree will their reward response towards production be retarded, and to that degree will production be harmed.
With regards to supply, the availability of an eclectic mix of reward would be necessary to further optimize the incentivization towards production, as combined with the varying degree of personal tastes, along with the law of diminishing utility, we are left with a populace of individuals whose base psychology requires different rewards at different times, and the more varying these rewards are, the more maximum utility they will derive from them. Therefore, production within society is further enhanced by having as much supply of different reward as possible so as to provide individuals as much choice as possible so they can optimize their reward composition, thereby increasing the strength of their reward response, optimizing production.
An example of this would be a society where there are thousands of companies producing different variations of different products and services, providing individuals within that society a large plethora of different rewards to tap into in exchange for production (such as 10 Indian restaurants, all catering to a different type of Indian cuisine, served in different manners, at different price points). The opposite would be one central entity producing all the goods and services for individuals, and producing a limited variety (one restaurant chain that serves only white toast).
We see here then that production is maximally enhanced when there are a large number of different suppliers of goods and services, and when these same producers are as free as possible to individually choose what goods and services they wish to consume using the rewards they generate through their production. And when production is maximized, so too is the cumulative welfare of the society.
As explored above, we now have an idea on how to maximize the production of each individual. Through this production, society will then enjoy the greatest amount of cumulative welfare. However, how this welfare is distributed is, in a way, more critical than the production itself. This is because the sustainability of production is directly proportional to the effective distribution of welfare. That is to say that even if all citizens are encouraged to produce at a 100% level, without sufficient motivation in the form of distributed reward, and therefore welfare, production will drop.
The Ideal Distribution
Ideally, as mentioned earlier, society aggregates the most amount of welfare when it is distributed to the most amount of people. This is because the more welfare any one individual receives, the less it will impact them due to the law of diminishing utility. And so, to maximize the overall utility within a society, the most amount of people should receive the most amount of welfare, and ideally, an equal amount.
However, arbitrating an equal amount of welfare to every individual counteracts our first goal, which is to maximize productivity. As explored earlier, we determined that reward must be proportional to production in order to maximize the reward response; that is to say, if welfare is distributed evenly, it no longer relates itself to the act of production, and the reward response training we want our citizens to undergo is broken. This will necessarily hamper production and lead to a less than optimal society, with both less productivity and therefore welfare. Therefore, the only way to distribute welfare in a sustainable manner is to allocate it to individuals proportional to their productivity in order to maximize that productivity.
A Second Economy
Great – so we now know how to maximize productivity, and know that in distributing the reward produced from that productivity to those that produce, we create a society with the maximum amount of productivity and ideally distributed welfare. This production can take the form of goods and services, such as producing food, the service of teaching, lawn-mowing, child-minding, and a variety of other transactions that involve both suppliers and consumers within an economy. However, there is one very special commodity that is both produced and consumed, and though it follows the same laws of diminishing utility, of personalized consumption, and of maximizing production, it is not exchanged in the same manner as other goods and services. This product is called goodwill.
The Goodwill Economy
Debates between socialists and capitalists generally digress into the argument on the socialist side that capitalism leads to a lack of empathy towards those that cannot produce. And though capitalists generally do not agree with this argument, there does not seem to be a concise explanation as to how those less fortunate within a capitalist society are to clearly escape what appears to be a ruthless, Darwinian system of profit.
And at an initial glance, based on our discussion thus far, it appears that socialism addresses a problem that capitalism doesn’t. Yes, a free market economy leads to maximal production, leading to maximal welfare, but this relates only to those that are able to produce. Socialism aims to provide those less fortunate with a means of attaining welfare even when they can’t produce, and this humanitarian mechanism is desirable within society. Why? Because transacting goodwill creates cohesion within the individuals in society, serves to reduce friction, increase cooperation, and, in the end, increase productivity. The increase of communal goodwill leads to a boost in productivity, as it reduces individuals from pursuing isolated endeavors, promoting cooperative production that is healthy for the community rather than production that is healthy for the individual at the cost of the community.
In this capacity, the intent behind socialism is quite pragmatic; it sees that in order to create a sustainable society that will not self-destruct, goodwill must be produced and distributed just as readily as material commodities are, else the pursuit of profit on an individual basis can lead to destructive production and practices which would inevitably be unsustainable in the long term. That is to say, a thriving goodwill economy keeps that society’s production moving in a direction that is productive for society, and not just the individual producers within it. In the latter case, these individual producers would become both large and segregated, and in using the same water metaphor, splinter the stream simply by the sheer weight of their influence and lack of cohesion with the rest of the stream.
Back to Basics
Our discussion thus far with regards to maximizing production and therefore welfare is based on the psychology of the individual, and namely, funneling the reward response towards production. However, aside from the materials humans desire, such as vehicles and massages, there is also an innate desire to trade in goodwill. That is, humans are desirous of goodwill, and wish to attain it just as they do a monetary reward. What is goodwill? It can be plainly described as the satisfaction one derives from helping another. Now, remember – in this case, though it appears as though the individual helping another is providing the product or service, and this is the case within the context of the monetary economy, the opposite is true with regards to the goodwill economy. That is to say, the individual providing assistance is actually the consumer, and the individual receiving the assistance is the supplier.
There is an innate satisfaction derived through the act of charity, and so, when an individual is provided the opportunity to actuate such charity, they are in fact purchasing this satisfaction through being charitable. And depending on if the individual receiving the charity wishes to accept it or not, they will then supply this satisfaction to the buyer.
We are deconstructing this mechanism which is usually not viewed from such a transactional standpoint, but when it boils down to it, humans do what is in their best interests – this is a natural thing, and again, a mechanism of the base reward response. And in nearly every human, there is a level of satisfaction derived through the act of helping another, and this is performed in an effort to attain that satisfaction. So although it appears to be selfless, from a transactional standpoint, it is, like all else, based in self-interest. What is the root of this self interest? As mentioned above, it is to minimize a sense of isolation, and in providing goodwill, individuals succeed in feeling more connected to others. In feeling connected, there is a mutual sense of increased security with regards to survival, and we are hard-wired towards this.
Maximizing the Production of Goodwill
It is therefore optimal for the production within society to be beneficial for society and not just the producer for long term sustenance. In order to facilitate the direction their chosen production goes, they must be encouraged to transact in goodwill.
If we look at the exchange of goodwill from the same light as we do the monetary economy, the first way to produce the maximum amount of goodwill is to increase the supply; that is, we must encourage those that are able to provide goodwill to those that should supply welfare to make their willingness to provide goodwill as apparent, clear, and communicative as possible.
Yes, this seems oddly counter-intuitive – and let’s be clear about a few things. We’re talking about true goodwill; if a person does not have a genuine need, those that provide welfare to them are not actually receiving goodwill from the supplier. And so, in the goodwill economy, that rare supplier is someone that genuinely requires assistance, and will genuinely provide goodwill in exchange.
Another way to produce goodwill is for the individual seeking to help another to volunteer such help even when the receiver of that welfare did not ask for it. This can take the form of gifts, assistance, or general unsolicited acts of kindness.
So, in order to maximize goodwill, we must clearly find those suppliers of goodwill that are in genuine need of welfare, and we must also encourage those with welfare to be desirous of consuming goodwill. Both of these behaviors will maximize the amount of goodwill created within society, and in doing so, increase the cohesion within individuals, and therefore, steer production in a direction that is beneficial for the survival of society as a whole.
Localization is Key
Goodwill is unique in that the greater the distance between the purchaser and supplier, the less goodwill can be effectively delivered. The line of delivery is directly proportional to the amount that can be transacted, and quickly degrades as this distance is increased. This is exampled by the ultimate goal of boosting the goodwill economy: cohesion. If one individual provides anonymous charity to another, the recipient has no real way of delivering goodwill unto the purchaser, and so, despite the fact that welfare was delivered, there is no goodwill returned. This breaks the transaction and will, over time, weaken the benefactor’s attraction to the goodwill economy.
Therefore, in order to maximize the amount of goodwill that can be exchanged between individuals on a sustainable basis, both the benefactor and receiver of welfare must be as local to each other as possible. In this manner, the receiver “advertises” their product (goodwill), and the benefactor purchases goodwill through the donation of welfare.
There are many benefits to it being localized: firstly, if the goodwill is false, the benefactor may more readily discover and react to this. Where it is not localized, the purported sellers of goodwill can sell “counterfeit” goodwill by falsifying their need, in which case the benefactor will not be able to discover this. Over time, this will cause the benefactor to lose faith in the goodwill economy, and cease transacting.
Secondly, it is much easier for the sellers of goodwill to advertise their products locally: by definition, those that require welfare should not be able to compete in the real marketplace when it comes to advertising their wares, and so, it is by definition a product that has no competitive advertising medium. As a result, it is only through low cost mediums that those in need can express this need, seeking buyers of their goodwill. And low cost (including free) mediums are generally all local, whereas the larger the audience, the more costly the message.
Thirdly, as mentioned above, the maximum amount of goodwill is exchanged when the distance between the buyer and seller is smallest. Think of it as a perishable food that may only be of value when it is just finished cooking; if one were to deliver it across the country, it would lose nearly all value. Whereas if it were to be delivered to someone next door, it is still consumable. In this same capacity, those that receive charitable welfare are most able to deliver goodwill, and the benefactors are most able to consume goodwill, when the exchange is very close. Why? Because the evidence of the genuine nature of the product must nearly always be witnessed. Where it is assumed, it is less trustworthy. Where it is written, more, but still not as much. Where it is communicated over the phone, more, but still lacking. Whereas when goodwill in the form of appreciation or consumption of welfare is witnessed in person by the benefactor, the goodwill is most effectively authenticated, creating the most effective transaction, and therefore, social cohesion.
The Perfect Composition for Benefactors and those in Need
The law of diminishing utility is not lost to the goodwill economy either, and, like other items of consumption, humans will enjoy and transact less the exchange of goodwill where it is not customized to their ideal wants and desires at any given time. For example, if one were to purchase goodwill by feeding the poor for three weeks, it is possible that they might want to read stories to orphaned children the next. This is because as they feed the poor week after week, the satisfaction they might derive from that may lessen over time, and so, to keep their interest in consuming goodwill optimized, it may be beneficial for them to purchase a different form of it.
As well, what forms of goodwill each person wishes to consume will vary from person to person, and so, their own customized mix of it will perform the best with respect to keeping them encouraged to transact. Some individuals may want to always fight crime, while others will want to educate, while others may want to make inspirational speeches. If an individual has a proclivity for one over the other and is forced into one not so potent, they will necessarily transact less, and the goodwill economy suffers.
Therefore, not only must individuals be local to those they transact goodwill with, but they must also have access to the greatest amount of individual suppliers of said goodwill with which to personalize what mix brings them the greatest satisfaction so as to maximize the overall production of goodwill. This parallels the normal economy as discussed earlier.
We now know that for our ideal society, we want to maximize production of goods and services. This is achieved through the reward response, where producers are provided reward for their production, and the more personally they are able to spend this reward, the more they are encouraged to produce. One of the commodities they can purchase with this reward is goodwill, and when individuals transact in goodwill, they strengthen the overall cohesion of society. And with a stronger society, production will always steer towards what is best for society, making the goodwill economy integral for the long term viability of the society.
Goodwill is maximized through transactions on an individual basis, and when as many people in need are clearly accessible to as many benefactors as possible. In this manner, the real value of this transacted goodwill can be authenticated, and a trust in the goodwill economy is increased, leading to more investments within it. Further, individuals that are able to maximally personalize what goodwill they purchase and in what amount strengthen their ability to sustain the consumption of goodwill as it minimizes the destructive effect of the law of diminishing utility.
Finally, goodwill, like food, is an integral consumable within most humans, and they will naturally seek to both consume and produce it as it increases their sense of security towards survival.
The Optimal Society
Let us now take all we have learned to construct the optimal society.
Production & the Reward Response
Firstly, we want to strengthen the reward response towards production – this is achieved by maximizing the amount of reward individuals receive for their production, and allow them to customize how that reward is then used. This suggests firstly that they should be taxed the least so as to provide them control over the most reward possible for their production. Secondly, they must have the freedom to purchase whatever they want using this reward, and this suggests that the freedom to personally consume anything they want will further enhance their incentivization towards production. Both of these are satisfied within a libertarian free-market society, as they are taxed the least and provided the freedom to behave and consume in any manner that suits them as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. Within a socialist society, a portion of their reward is withheld by the government, lessening the strength of the reward response, retarding production. Further, as health care and other integral services are managed by the government, it must then force its citizens to behave in a manner that is conducive to minimizing their burden on these centralized services, inhibiting their ability to customize their consumption to their ideal preference, as some manners of consumption will be prohibited by law.
Therefore, when it comes to maximizing production, a true libertarian society would out-produce a socialist society.
The Distribution of Welfare
Welfare distribution is optimized when goodwill is maximally transacted, as it encourages those with excess reward to use it to purchase goodwill. Goodwill transacting is increased when individuals transact on a localized basis, meaning it is more desirous to be charitable to your neighbors than strangers in another city. Further, the more eclectic the mix of those in need, the less the law of diminishing utility degrades future transactions, and so it is desirous for there to be many small specialized groups to be charitable towards rather than one large entity. Finally, customizing the amount of goodwill each individual will wish to transact provides an optimal method of sustainable goodwill, as not every individual will wish to transact goodwill at the same level as others, and forcing them to do so will inhibit even the natural levels they would normally express.
In this capacity, again, a libertarian free-market society satisfies our needs. Without a centralized welfare state, individuals must make their own cases for charity, and as individuals (or individual groups), these cases will be necessarily eclectic. As well, without obligatory welfare, those in need of welfare will have to advertise their needs, and would only be able to do so on a local basis to minimize the cost of said advertising, increasing the chances that the goodwill transaction will be local. Finally, without centralized taxation and redistribution, those with excess reward can pick and choose what mix and amount of charity they wish to contribute to, optimizing the sustainability of their participation.
Within a socialist society, welfare is not distinguished between different purposes, and it is one central pool that is then distributed according to internal rules. Accordingly, benefactors and recipients never get to directly transact, and the distance between them is extreme. Recipients need not make their cases to the benefactors, but rather the government, which is incapable of transacting in goodwill. Therefore, benefactors never really get satisfaction for their contributions, as they really have no idea who or what it helped, if any. There is no way to authenticate the purpose of their contribution. Further, as it is one central pool, benefactors never get to customize who they give their charity to, hindering their ability to maximize their satisfaction of the transaction, reducing the likelihood of welfare to be transferred from benefactor to the needy as effectively as possible. Finally, as the rules behind the amount required to be contributed are mostly arbitrary, it leaves little room for the individual to personalize the level of their contribution to one that is sustainable for them.
As this began with an analysis of human psychology, it is natural for us to resume analysis through that perspective. It is undeniable that in most countries with high taxes, those that generate the most wealth do everything in their power to minimize the amount they contribute to the government, and rarely will one discover individuals that happily over-commit their wealth to the central body. Yet, though they are taxed, many wealthy individuals still decide to pursue charitable means that are almost always outside the scope of the governmental, managed by themselves or people they trust. This is a testament to the fact that no matter what society is imposed on people, they will always gravitate towards their base psychology. That is, that people want as much control of their money as possible, so they can decide what to do with it, and that transacting in goodwill is an innate desire (as this occurs even when people are taxed, we can only imagine how much grander the goodwill economy would be without taxes!).
And though we may think it ideal to arbitrate how much people should contribute, it is, in the long term, not a sustainable mechanism, as is clearly demonstrated by the increasingly heavy handed control the government has to impose on those that attempt to evade taxation. In fact, the idea that government tax collection is an act of genuine charity is so spurious now, that those that evade tax are rarely ever viewed as uncharitable, but rather non-conformists.
There is no clear answer to the perfect form of society, however one that maximizes both goodwill and production on a sustainable basis is the only place we should hope to start, and this is only achieved through a libertarian free-market society, where individuals are free to choose what they do with as much of their earnings as possible, with as much social freedom as possible. Where the government intervenes, there is introduced inefficiency and rebellion, which can never be expected to garner positive results in the long term.
- An interesting exploration of the reward system in totalitarian socialist systems, where there is very little monetary reward distributed for production, is the use of propaganda. Propaganda is an integral tool used to keep reminding those that produce of the goodwill reward they are receiving for their production, as without a quantifiable monetary reward, incentivization will always drop which will reduce the effectiveness of the reward response tied to production. This is a key example of the compensatory efforts any government must implement in direct proportion to the level of revenue withheld from producers by the central governing body. This also suggests that without said propaganda, production will drop, which further supports the notion that all the analysis we have discussed above holds true, in that if individuals within a society do not receive a quantifiable reward that they can use to improve their lives in exchange for production, which includes goodwill that is non-local, they will cease to produce efficiently. Another interesting thing to note is that historically, though these societies have had the ability to encourage workers to produce through force, they have almost unanimously relied on the reward of patriotic duty as a more efficient means of incentivizing production. This also supports the reward response analysis above, suggesting that negative incentivization is far less effective than positive incentivization. This is directly related to the effect of taxation in socialist societies, as indirectly, by taxing individuals, they are forced to work more for the same money under threat of imprisonment. This asserts that to the degree that individuals are taxed, to that degree will their production suffer without propaganda, and as propaganda is not a sustainable means of reward, it directly supports the notion that people will produce more as they are taxed less.
- It is important to create productive dialogue in the discussion between socialists and capitalists, and one will discover that they tend to gravitate towards certain common arguments. To escape the drudgery of these traps, we will outline them here, and provide angles with which to productively bridge them: a) it must be agreed upon that there have been varying degrees of true socialist societies in the past, from communist societies to quasi socialist ones. Similarly, it must be pressed that there are no true examples of capitalist societies, and that many purported capitalist countries are, in fact, socialist countries insomuch that the government has the power to restrict and control what would otherwise be a free market economy. Without this acknowledgment, many socialists tend to example countries in the latter category as examples of failed capitalism, when they are, in fact, arguing against the effect of capitalism within socialism. b) socialists tend to be impassioned proponents of protecting the weak from the strong, and it is important for capitalists to both sympathize and agree with this ideology. Many socialists will, in fact, have some personal experience that drives their perspective, whether it be injustice or poverty at the hands of what they perceive to be capitalist power houses. What must be bridged is the knowledge that their suffering was not the result of capitalism, but rather the result of capitalism within socialism. c) perhaps the most important point to agree upon is that a country that is truly socialist is more productive than one that purports to be capitalist but where the government has significant influence over the market. And further, that this is, in fact, simply a synonym for socialism, albeit masked as something else altogether. The anger within socialists, therefore, exists simply because they have not yet witnessed the hand-shaking that occurs behind the scenes, making both corporations and the government a part of the same whole. It is through this point that both capitalists and socialist may in fact find themselves on the same side, arguing against the power of any one organization to dictate pain and suffering unto another, and join in finding solutions to that mutual struggle.