Celebrating Labour Day

Honouring the Systems that Sustain Us

Labour Day has always been about honouring the people whose work builds our societies — the hands, minds, and hearts that keep everything moving. But beyond just a long weekend, it’s also a chance to pause and ask bigger questions: What kind of system are we all working within? Are we building prosperity that truly supports people, communities, and the planet — or are we stuck in cycles that drain us more than they nourish us?

This Labour Day, I want to explore the tension between capitalism and socialism, not as an academic debate, but as a real conversation about what works, what doesn’t, and where we can go from here. Because I believe there’s a way forward that takes the best of both systems, while evolving into something new — a circular economy that allows us to prosper, thrive, and regenerate - but it's going to take effort and a willingness to shift into sustainable lifestyles to get there.

Western Pragmatists vs. Social Idealists

I asked Sora to generate a picture split in half — one side showing a society under socialism, the other under capitalism — and the two images it produced perfectly illustrate just how different people’s perspectives on these systems can be.

Western Pragmatists

Western Pragmatists support capitalism, free trade, and democratic societies and often react strongly to the word “socialism,” because it’s frequently equated with “communism.” For many of them, socialism is almost synonymous with authoritarian regimes, and they immediately connect it with countries like China, North Korea, Venezuela, or Cuba. In their eyes, these places represent suffering under strict government control, loss of freedom, and the struggles of ordinary citizens who can’t access the same opportunities we might take for granted. Their perspective is shaped by decades of headlines, Cold War narratives, and real stories of hardship that make the idea of socialism feel threatening rather than liberating.

For this group, capitalism represents not only economic opportunity, but also personal freedom and the ability to carve out one’s own path.

Many of them have carved out a life where they feel useful and secure — contributing to society in a way that allows them to build a home, support their loved ones, and enjoy the everyday pleasures of life. Whether it’s sharing meals with friends, raising a family, attending festivals, or simply relaxing comfortably at home, their sense of fulfillment comes from the stability they’ve created. From this perspective, socialism or communism can feel like a direct threat to the life they’ve worked so hard to build.

Sora's interpretation of the Western Pragmatist perspective

Western Pragmatists value democracy and individual freedom, and often see socialism or communism as inseparable from authoritarian regimes, largely because the most visible examples in modern history (e.g., USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela) involved heavy state control and repression.

Yet Social Idealists argue that socialism, in its truest form, has never been given a fair chance. To them, if allowed to flourish authentically, it could create a society where everyone stands on equal ground — a kind of modern utopia rooted in fairness and collective abundance. They often envision socialism as a fairer, cooperative system where equality and well-being come first.

Social Idealists

Social Idealists champion socialism as the most ethical and fair way to organize society. For them, a truly socialist system ensures that everyone starts on a level playing field, with opportunities to thrive without being exploited or left behind.

They often view capitalist societies as extractive, prioritizing profit over people and the planet, while concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few. Social Idealists believe that, if implemented thoughtfully and with accountability, socialism has the potential to create a society where fairness, community, and shared well-being guide how resources and opportunities are distributed.

Sora's interpretation of the Social Idealist perspective

Many Social Idealists live their values in tangible ways, seeking a life that prioritizes community, sustainability, and shared prosperity. They may focus on careers or projects that contribute to society rather than just personal profit, support local and ethical businesses, or engage in volunteer work and activism. Their sense of fulfillment often comes from knowing their choices help others thrive — whether it’s building cooperative spaces, protecting the environment, or advocating for fairer policies. For them, true success isn’t measured by personal wealth, but by the positive impact they can have on the lives of others and on the world around them.

They often put immense energy into creating spaces for connection, sustainability, and shared well-being, even when financial rewards are limited. It really highlights the tension between values-driven work and the realities of making it financially sustainable in a system that rewards sales, profit and impact more than positive intention.

---

1 Capitalist vs. 20 Anti-Capitalists

In honour of Labour Day, I thought it was the perfect time to watch Jubilee’s latest Surrounded episode: 1 Capitalist vs. 20 Anti-Capitalists. The timing felt almost uncanny — I’ve been deep in an online conversation with a friend on Facebook about the current state of Venezuela last weekend, and then on Monday, I saw this video pop up. I really tried to stay out of the comment section, but I couldn’t resist speaking up... It made me reflect all weekend on how these discussions about capitalism and socialism aren’t just theoretical — they affect real people and real lives.

The reason I share these Jubilee debates is that they often reflect what we see in social media comment sections — the thoughts and opinions that shape entire groups and communities. I really appreciated what Patrick Bet-David said at the end of the episode: since the pandemic, society has become more polarized, and what we’re truly missing is unity and cohesion. I just wish that those participating in these debates — on both sides, me included — would take a moment to really listen to one another, instead of talking over each other or immediately judging the person in front of them as being “wrong.”

It can be difficult for capitalists to take the opposition seriously when they see them using services like Uber Eats, shopping on Amazon, or scrolling on smartphones — all products of capitalist innovation — while at the same time calling for a different system. For many, this raises the question of whether those criticisms come from lived experience, or from ideals shaped without fully experiencing life under a poor, socialist country.

Here is the video of the Jubilee episode for your viewing pleasure:

Both sides made compelling points, though each occasionally avoided certain issues when challenged. Patrick Bet-David’s perspective reminded me of people I’ve worked with in business and if I'm being really honest, my own godfather (literally, lol) - individuals that came from very poor countries to North America with almost nothing, and worked hard to understand the system and how to prosper.

The panelists, on the other hand, reminded me of friends and acquaintances who lean toward the far-left, that I've gone to school with or who I've met in the city - those that use their voice to fight oppression and to stand with those they feel don't have a voice. Listening to the debate felt almost like stepping into conversations I’ve had with people I know personally.

Patrick focused on how, within a capitalist system, he was able to build a good life for himself and secure a future for his children, even though his family came to the U.S. as refugees, fleeing the war in Iran when he was a child. He emphasized that the freedom to pursue one’s goals is a major advantage of capitalist societies — a freedom that, he argued, is often limited in socialist countries.

The panelists, meanwhile, stressed that capitalism can be fundamentally unfair and doesn’t always reward merit in ways that benefit society as a whole. They argued that wealth and power are often concentrated in the hands of a few, while many others work long hours just to maintain the system. Their concern was not that people lack freedom entirely, but that the opportunities and benefits of that freedom are distributed unevenly, creating systemic inequities that leave many struggling.

I found myself agreeing with Patrick when he said that anyone can create something amazing in this society if they truly put their mind to it. His argument is that everyone in this society has the freedom to make choices, and it’s the accumulation of those choices that shapes one’s outcomes. At the same time, I also see the panelists’ point in defending those who face more difficult circumstances, making it harder to succeed. . They argue that the system is rigged: only a select few can truly prosper, while many others are exploited — both as workers and as stewards of the planet.

I’m not sure there was a clear winner in this debate — just people with very different perspectives shaped by their knowledge, experiences, and values. One argument, however, stood out to me as particularly compelling: while the panelists critiqued the U.S. and other capitalist countries, Patrick countered by asking, if America is so bad, why do so many people strive to come here for opportunities — and why aren’t they leaving to go to the socialist countries they advocate for? A counter-argument raised by the panelists was that many developing countries have been historically exploited by the West. While there is some truth to that, it doesn’t apply in every case, and the issue is more complex than a single explanation can capture.

One of the panelists tried to use Patrick's own business as an argument as to why capitalism doesn't always equate to meritocracy, as he says Patrick's agency is set up as a multi-level marketing company, and claims that the company reported to make more money through recruitment rather than actual sales of insurance policies. Patrick describes the business as akin to franchising, where someone will invest to learn about the company and how to sell the products, then it's up to those individuals to take that model and make something out of it.

To the person that was using it as an argument, I imagine he views Patrick's company (and capitalism in general) kind of like the image below:

To many free-thinking progressives, this is how they see the western capitalist society sustain itself in a nutshell; to an immigrant that has come from poverty that no one in North America could even fathom, they see the west as a symbol of hope.

Neither capitalism nor socialism is inherently “evil.” They’re just systems — frameworks for how we organize resources, labour, and prosperity. The real issue is how humans operate within them.

• Capitalism at its best → innovation, prosperity, choice.

  • At its worst → exploitation, monopolies, wealth hoarding.

• Socialism at its best → equality, safety nets, shared wellbeing.

  • At its worst → authoritarianism, inefficiency, suppression of freedom.

What turns these systems toxic is not the system itself, but the greed, corruption, and power grabs of those who dominate them — whether that’s billionaire oligarchs in capitalism, or authoritarian governments in socialism.

How can we move more towards what I like to call creative capitalism — a system where the creatives and innovators of the world develop solutions not to exploit, but to uplift? Imagine a world where capitalism is used to distribute life-enhancing products and services on a mass scale, while also reinvesting profits to fund new ideas that continue to help others. In this kind of system, success wouldn’t be measured by extraction and domination, but by contribution and regeneration. The marketplace could become a vehicle for scaling solutions that improve lives, restore balance to the planet, and empower communities.

In a capitalist society like that, we wouldn’t just be surviving within the system — we would be shaping it, redirecting its momentum toward a future where abundance is shared, creativity is valued, and progress truly benefits everyone.

---

Can Ethical Billionaires Exist?

Many of the Social Idealists and Progressives are calling for the end to all billionaires - their argument is that no one person should be able to hoard that much money while so many other people on that planet are suffering. Many of the Western Pragmatists argue against this, as they do not believe the government should have the ability to limit what a person can make.

Here's the thing: for some billionaires to exists, that means they have created a company or companies that have served and impacted enough lives (whether you agree with the companies or not), and have been in business long enough for them to have accumulated that money. Where the government(s) should step in (since the government's main job is to serve the people) is to audit these big companies honestly, and ensure that their workers (even and especially those in foreign countries) are being compensated properly, and that the companies are following environmental regulations.

So can ethical billionaires exist?

On one hand, there’s a case for it. If someone builds wealth by creating real value — say through a life-saving technology, regenerative agriculture, or renewable energy — and then shares that wealth through fair wages, reinvestment, philanthropy, and sustainable practices, their billions could be seen as a reflection of positive impact. Some even argue for the idea of “impact billionaires,” people who fund climate tech, eradicate diseases, or advance human knowledge, using their wealth as a tool for collective good.

On the other hand, there’s a case against it. To become a billionaire almost always relies on systems of exploitation somewhere along the chain — cheap labour, tax havens, monopolistic control, or environmental externalities. And in a world where billions of people live in poverty, many argue that hoarding billions is inherently unethical, regardless of how it’s earned, because those resources could transform millions of lives if redistributed.

There’s also a middle ground. Some thinkers suggest the issue isn’t the existence of billionaires, but rather how they use their wealth and whether their empires are built on exploitation or regeneration. If wealth is seen as temporary stewardship — something meant to flow back into society, the planet, and the systems that supported its creation — then it could be ethical. But if it’s treated as permanent accumulation and power-hoarding, it tips into unethical territory.

So is it possible? Maybe. But it’s rare. It would require a billionaire who builds wealth without extraction (which is incredibly difficult in today’s global systems), distributes power instead of consolidating it, and keeps wealth circulating in regenerative ways rather than locking it away.

This actually ties beautifully into the idea of a circular economy — because in a circular model, wealth wouldn’t stagnate in the hands of a few. Instead, it would flow, regenerate, and multiply value across communities.

Coming Full Circle

Over the last five years, I think people have become increasingly aware of the state of the world — the injustices, inequalities, the climate crises, and systemic failures that were once easier to ignore. Alongside this awareness, there’s a growing disillusionment with the wealthy and celebrities whom society once admired. Many now feel that these figures are out of touch with the “common person,” disconnected from the realities and struggles of everyday life.

This shift in perspective is important because it signals a collective awakening: people are beginning to question not just individual behaviour, but the systems that allow a small few to accumulate extreme wealth while so many others struggle.

So is it possible to blend the best of both worlds? To take the efficiency and innovation of capitalism, while ensuring that everyone is cared for and that no one — including the planet — is harmed in the process? How can we go from a PYRAMID to a CIRCLE?

While the debate highlighted the differing values and priorities of Western Pragmatists and Social Idealists, it also made me think about what we can do as individuals to create a more ethical and sustainable society, regardless of the system we live under. This is where the concepts of the circular economy and conscious consumerism become important. I discussed these ideas in an earlier post that you can read here.

A circular economy is a system designed to minimize waste, extend the life of resources, and keep materials in use for as long as possible — essentially creating a “closed loop” where nothing valuable is lost.

Conscious consumerism, on the other hand, is about making intentional choices as buyers: selecting products and services that are ethical, sustainable, and aligned with our values.

By embracing these approaches, we can actively support businesses that prioritize the planet and people, encourage innovation that serves society rather than just profit, and take personal responsibility for reducing our impact on the world. In other words, we don’t have to wait for large-scale systemic change — we can begin shaping a better society through the choices we make every day.

Reflecting on Labour Day, I found myself thinking about the “labour of love” that Opulence Vision has been for me over the past 12 years, and especially the past year. At its core, Opulence Vision is about shifting toward sustainable, conscious lifestyles — from the choices we make about what we buy, to how we earn money, to what we eat. It’s a space where I explore and share practical ways to live in alignment with our values, while inspiring others to do the same. By integrating the principles of the circular economy and conscious consumerism, Opulence Vision aims to show that small, intentional actions can ripple out, creating a society that is healthier, more equitable, and more connected to the world around us.

"Imagine a world full of humans that had the freedom and sovereignty to know and understand themselves, and lived with the purpose of using their skills and talents to enhance and improve the world.  Humans that use their creativity, innovation, and desire to help the planet to build their careers and design their lifestyle.  A world full of people that truly loved themselves and others, that understood the gift it is to just be alive, especially in a life where they have the freedom to choose what they get to eat, how they want to contribute, and how they want to spend each day. Imagine people who feel deeply connected to the earth and grateful for its resources, using them with care and reverence rather than excess. People who take joy in simplicity—finding beauty in a sunset, fulfillment in the relationships they nurture, and purpose in the work they choose to do. In this world, success isn’t measured by accumulation, but by the quality of each experience and the positive impact one leaves behind. Imagine communities where kindness, collaboration, and innovation flourish, where people are driven not by competition but by a shared desire to uplift one another and restore the natural harmony of the planet. A world where abundance means more than material wealth—it means richness of spirit, connection, and a profound appreciation for the journey of life itself." - excerpt from Creating Opulence

---

What if the capitalists of the world used their skills, resources, and drive to uplift creatives, companies, and entrepreneurs who are working to heal and enhance our world, rather than deplete it? Imagine if the systems that reward innovation and efficiency were channeled toward regenerating our planet, empowering communities, and creating technologies that truly serve humanity. Capitalism’s strength lies in its ability to mobilize people, capital, and ideas — so what if those strengths were directed toward building a sustainable, thriving future for everyone?

I believe there’s a place for all of it — capitalism’s efficiency and innovation, paired with socialism’s emphasis on care and fairness. When we learn how to blend the best of both worlds in harmony, we open the door to a future where prosperity doesn’t come at the planet’s expense, and where every person has the chance to thrive.

The key here — and I will die on this hill — is capturing the hearts of everyday consumers and redirecting their purchasing power toward companies and entrepreneurs who are making a positive impact. Businesses that genuinely care for the environment, treat people with respect, and are transparent in their practices deserve to be the ones we support. One of my dreams for Opulence Vision is to create content that shines a spotlight on these businesses, making it easier for people to discover and support them. Because when enough of us start voting with our wallets, we shift the system from within.

And with that, I wish you a wonderful weekend. May your labour of love become the legacy this world so deeply needs.