Considerations on Capitalism

Why Socialism is good

I take issue with people instantly rearing the ghost of Stalinism whenever socialism is mentioned. And contrary to seemingly popular belief, socialism and capitalism are not diametrically opposed or totally incompatible.

Without social safety nets capitalism results in pollution, sweatshops, natural resource decimation, unworkable public facility organization and infrastructure, and vast social inequalities. Capitalism definitely needs to be counterbalanced by environmental laws, labor laws, antitrust laws, civic long-term planning and coordinating bodies, and yes, anti-bribe laws when it comes to political spending (in the latter case, unbridled capitalism actually poses a threat to the very idea of democracy.) Equally importantly, all those laws must actually be enforced.

When people point out the prosperity of the West while crediting it to capitalism, they forget to factor in that the West is literally feeding on the rest of the world. As it stands, the vast majority of humans are devastatingly poor. However, the available resources of our planet are unlikely to be sufficient to bring them up to the same standard of living as the top western nations of today -- at least not without major technological change. Yet such a change can only be anticipated and prepared by long-term, far-sighted social programs. Capitalist institutions, on the other hand, are entirely too focused on the near term and typically on a very limited slice of the world's complexity.

Another area where socialism definitely comes in, is equal opportunity. And I'm not talking about "affirmative action" of any traditional sort. What I'm saying is that eventually free societies might want to respect one of their most fundamental (if often non-binding legally) premises: that all individuals are born equal. As it stands, simply being born into a poor family severely hampers one's chances of success compared to rich-family children. That is fundamentally unfair. At least up to adulthood (when personal decisions and fiscal autonomy kick in), even the poorest of the poor must be given a sporting if not equal chance when compared to the rich.

While one marvels at the American success, one also has to realize that in some ways it is a failure. Americans are the most overworked people among all industrialized nations. Compared to the rest of the Western world, Americans have no life despite their impressive fiscal standing. America is a nation of workaholics (whether voluntary or not), and it is getting worse all the time. Eventually, social action will have to kick in to reverse this unwelcome trend -- or we'll end up working ourselves to death. There is more to quality of life than mere possessions, and the overall quality of life in America is declining.

With respect to the poor in America, one has to note that the current poverty line is something like 20 years old, while the current percentage of the poor in the population is actually higher than 20 years ago. That means due to inflation today's poor are much poorer than the poor of the 1970s. And that is despite the massive recent economic boom. So much for the trickle-down effect.

When one talks of opportunity and the failure of individuals to pursue it, one glosses over the many showstoppers in that overly simplistic depiction. In the increasingly technological and globalized economy, it becomes increasingly difficult for some trailer park Joe to start and grow a successful business when he can't even so much as read and write at a fourth-grade level. His children (and likely there'll be many of them) won't have much of a better chance. And this is even before globalization truly kicks in and business goes truly international and forsakes expensive Western labor in favor of a cheap (nearly free!) third-world workforce. This will tend to deplete the western countries of manual jobs, and will further disadvantage the poor segments that are ill-equipped to succeed in a service/high-tech economy. Without a socialist framework to level the playing field opportunity-wise, the poor segment of the population is destined to remain poor and even to grow as it had over the last couple of decades.

There are other benefits to socialist policies. For example, every time we rely on business for our basic needs and services, we end up paying 200% of the cost (after all, the business is geared toward making money.) That's one reason why American medical care, for example, is so exhorbitantly expensive. One could argue that a government-driven medical care system would be mired in bureacracy and inefficiency, in addition to being sluggish when responding to technological advances. That, however, depends on the actual architecture and modus operandi of any such system. Perhaps a government/business hybrid could both retain the advantages of private health care and keep the price of care reasonable. As it stands, however, Americans are among the most deprived in the western world when it comes to health care. In most other western countries, for example, people get hospitalized for free until they are healthy enough to leave; in America, hospital care is prohibitively expensive and people are routinely thrown out of hospitals to recuperate at home after what most other western countries would consider inadequately short stays. In a purely capitalist medical establishment, patients are treated as business customers instead of people who need help and cannot necessarily afford it. In the current system, people pay 200% for the cost of services, plus an extra 200% on top of that to their health insurance company (which, after all, must make profit too.) If instead people paid as much money in taxes to the government as they spend on private health care, with the government then distributing the money to those who actually need care and using more cost-efficient care providers, a much better standard of care would be possible.

Another demonstrable disaster in the making is the nightmarish emergent combination of suburbia and the car culture. This is arguably purely a product of market forces -- but it is responsible for huge areas of land being sacrificed to roadways, and nevertheless ever-present and ever-growing congestion. Concomitant are pollution, road maintenance, expansion and policing expenses, and people spending increasing hours stuck or crawling along to/from work. People don't walk as much any more, as even a minor shopping trip involves driving to the nearest suburban mall 5 miles away; as a result we have the infamous obesity epidemic. There's been a decimation of urban high culture; the replacement apparently is MTV and the couch. Yet it didn't have to turn out this way. Instead of now facing the headache of fixing the unfixable problems, the society could have planned its growth and urban architecture a little better. This is a prime example of how long-term, far-sighted social policy could be superior to the short-sighted, fix-it-when-it-breaks capitalist mentality.

This post is already too long, so I'll wrap it up. The last thing I want to emphasize is that despite the fact that socialism has the potential to correct for the failures of capitalism, the two are not mutually exclusive. They can coexist and be balanced for optimal quality-of-life effect. In fact modern America has already come quite a way toward such a balance when compared to the old, laissez-faire capitalism of the nineteenth century. And people should stop denying the fact that U.S. is right now, already, a mildly socialist country. But the point is that more could be done -- and should be done, for all our sakes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Capitalism versus Plutacracy

Bambi:

I beg to differ. You are confusing Capitalism with Plutacracy which have as much to do with each other as Socialism has to do with Totalitarianism.

The Wall Street Journal has copies of ALL their newspapers back to the mid 1800's I suggest you READ them, and you'll find that the social abuses you are decrying are all found to be a result of "special" status given to the owners to ignore skirt, abuse labour laws, OR that labour laws were passed to prevent such. The abuses you are decrying come from legislation allowing it. The monopoly the utilities currently enjoy would be another example of legislated monopolies abusing their status. It was supposed to 'simplify' things and got out of hand.

Pullman OH EXISTS because Pullman built it. He abused his workers. They sturck for higher wages and LOWER prices in his company stores, and ultimately BURNT his company town to the ground. Things got better when Pullman went bankrupt and Carnegie bought him out, and paid fairer wages and reduced the profits of the company stores. The point being that Pullman CANNOT abuse his workers indefinitely IN A FREE MARKET PLACE.

You, like so many, confuse greed with capitalism, alturism and socialism. If I can't feed my family, do you think I give a darn about how many deer there are--or are not? Or, am I going to shoot THAT deer, eating my rose bush, so I can feed my family?
Now, it's the same way as you keep scaling it up. I get paid x cents per pound for copper ore. I own the land the mine is under. Do I give a darn about the trees on the land--heck no, I want the money from the ore.
IF YOU don't like the WAY I'm STRIP minning the ORE, YOU can buy the land from me, when I am DONE. YOU can pay to plant TREES if YOU want to--I don't like trees they don't pay as much as copper ore... SEE?
NO, I don't owe humanity, the green party, nor anybody else ANYTHING. I earned the money to buy the land, discovered the ore, found a buyer, and paid for the equipment to get the ore to the buyer. I get paid to produce ore, not plant trees. If YOU want trees, you can pay for them AFTER I'm done strip mining the land. and I sell it for 3cents on the dollar of what I paid for it in the first place because I've destroyed it.
We'll discuss the tax man on a later date...

YOU are NOT required to stay in the coal town and get black lung disease mining coal. You can always MOVE... You don't have to sit in Seatlle jobless on the public dole, after being laid off. You can move to LA and work for MacDonald Douglas, move to Wichita and work for Cessna, or move to Atlanta and work for Gulfstream, maybe, if they need your services...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

mrk,

Yes indeed, plutocracy; the opposite of which is socialism. So let me restate: in the absense of socialism plutocracy is the end-result and capitalism coexists with it just fine; i.e. capitalism does not in itself combat or counteract plutocracy.

Your example of striking workers is an example of a socialist movement. A plutocratic system would forbid the worker strikes. Similarly, when workers burn down factories they commit crimes and therefore fail to further their own cause by ending up in jail (or worse, brutalized by police in the employ of the plutocrats.) Only with built-in social protections that legalize such things as strikes and labor unions, could the workers successfully counteract the business owners' tendency to exploit the workforce for maximum profit.

As far as legislation, it should be ovious that abuses come precisely when there is no legislation to provide social protection. Just look at Malaysia, Indonesia, India, or any other favorite third-world country.

That's the point. You WILL shoot that deer if you have to feed your family and you have no other choice. It is the goal of socialism to give you an alternative route of action that would be more benign with respect to everyone else.

I don't think so. What if someone lives on that land of yours? What if your strip mine pollutes the ground water table for miles around? What if the forest you destroyed was a unique ecosystem and no amount of money or restoration will get it back? The land is not YOURS, even when you bought it. It is merely temporarily under your control. The problem is that the land supports others; others than you -- and will be needed to support others in the future. Grievous harm comes when people only focus upon themselves. Socialist policies serve to refocus the attention on the big picture and the common good.

But you do. You are part of humanity. You were nurtured by humanity to your adulthood. Throughout your life you enjoyed the fruits of past labor of others.

You obey society's laws because you owe society your cooperation. That much is required of you in order to maintain your membership in society. If you think you can hack it on your own, then you better first think real carefully.

And in case you do or plan to have children, your perspective might change a bit. You wouldn't want to saddle your progeny with a strip-mined, polluted, disfigured, impoverished, dying world; you wouldn't want them to curse your name and your memory every day of their miserable lives.

Finally no matter how grizzled an egotist you are, you do sometimes have to contemplate your place in the universe and how your existence affects the large scheme of things. Are you really content to live behind nothing but destruction in the wake of your selfish indulgences?

Not necessarily. What if family circumstances anchor me where I am? What if I cannot afford the cost of living in that other place? You cannot always move. You do not always have a choice.

And what if I'm a child?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Captialism v. Socialism

Bambi:
If I own the land, I inform MY tenants of my intents to strip mine, and evict them. Strip mining does not pollute (unless I am refining, which in this instance which was used only for explanatory purposes of the ideal, there was NO mention of refining, only processing e.g.: crushing raw ore.
You can be a socialist, but YOU cannot be one BY YOURSELF. The rest of us have to agree to SUBSIDIZE/PAY it/for it. I CAN be a solitary capitalist. I won't, and you can't (except with threats of incarceration, or death) make me.
I earn my way and pay for it. I only thing I want from my national government to enforce the Bill of Rights (which they suspended last month, and almost no one noticed--of course yelling it about it would be "unpatriotic", right now). I don't need the DEA, (I KNOW what to do when some jerk teaches my kid how to stick a needle of poison in his arm, thank you) EPA, OSHA, SSA, or any of the rest of their superfluous agencies which, to me are excuses to employ the incompetent. I am NURTURED by my OWN sweat and work. I have zero debt and no credit cards. I don't owe humanity ANYTHING because "humanity" provides me with NOTHING. Humanity does not provide me with O2, H2O nor food. I buy my meat and veggies from the grower, literally, (I'd buy my grains directly, too, but, instead I PAY Pillsbury to grow/pay to grow and grind it for me)...
You missed the point on the Strip mine as usual. I use it for that reason, btw. It really gets to the greeners. I OWN the land and the mineral rights (including the water), because I bought it with MY money. IF I pollute MY water, it's MY problem, unless I expect SOMEONE ELSE e.g.: Super FUND (Gee, where'd that come from, besides my back pocket) to pay to clean it for me. THAT IS MY POINT ABOUT SOCIALISM.
Socialism is about the abdication of responsibility! Capitalism, in its "pure", which can be seen on many street corners in the USA, form is about acceptance of it. As a capitalist, I am responsible for my welfare. I am responsible for feeding, clothing, and educating my children (and designing their curriculae). I am responsible and decide every facet of my life. Yes, I may well CHOOSE to pay others to provide various services for me, but that would be my CHOICE, not that of some bureaucratic fool who couldn't pass a basic English course, or who employs "teachers" who cannot distinguish between objective and subjective personal pronouns, and don't know their basic rights under the Constitution. I have a public school teacher living next to me-those are just some of her deficiencies, and is why I won't send my kids to public school, ever, and seriously resent paying for them.
In socialism, YOU give up YOUR rights and power to someone else to decide these things for you. Read George Orwell's 1984, again, and you'll find out what happens when Socialism is deteriorated to its lowest forms. Everything is fine as long as there are no "greedy" people running it. The minute you do have greedy people running them, well, they called him Stalin in Russia, or Hitler in Germany. Hitler was a totalitarian FACIST-same difference-the Party was supposedly Socialist and sold that way. They need living space, which why they invaded Austria which folded the same day... In ALL socialist societies, it is about THEM (whoever them is) providing SERVICES for ME to use at NO cost to me. Yeah, right. Well, someone sometime, somewhere has to GIVE them altruistically, or PAY for them, or they do not exist, just as Pullman OH didn't exist until Pullman BUILT it. Another point missed, almost. His "workers" burned it to the ground in an, as you pointed out, illegal fit of rage (when all they had to do was MOVE). They did not HAVE to strike and burn the town. They could have QUIT! They CHOSE to use violence against their employer rather than bankrupt him in a mass walk out.
Now, I went to private schools, where I received a better education than I could have at public schools (Rand was on the compulsory reading list, btw, as was Marx--who was a far better accountant/economist than he ever was a communist. Before you start yapping about how it was my
PARENTS and not me who paid for it, you're right, THEY did, I didn't. But when I was 18, I was asked to take out the trash, and found they'd packed my bags and changed the lock while I was out. :0
I have provided EVERYTHING for myself, since, with NO help from anyone including the TAX man, thank you very much. In point of fact, LBJ's Great Society's costs have greatly impeded the process for me, because some bleeding heart liberal wants to provide "social" services for the "downtrodden" poor who won't budge from watching Jerry or Oprah in their trailers.
Sweden is the ONLY country I know of where Socialism half-way works, and it COSTS 70% of your gross pay, to get it. I'd rather pay CASH for my "services", thank you, than allow an inept bureaucracy 'administer' them for me, thank you.
Yes, Socialism is "nicer" system for "all" including the undeserving--those who refuse to work. I would as soon let them starve, but I am "cruel" and "heartless" and as demanding of all as I am of myself.
Laws exist for those who WILL follow them--period. Have you NEVER broken a "law"? There are more than few who do it every time they fire up their bongs, and don't even think (or care) about how they are violating one of million unenforceable laws the feds have on the books, that we DON'T need. The only way of enforcing them is with the threat of incarceration (if that is a threat, and currently in "developed" nations it isn't much of one) or death. Three hots, a cot, and Oprah, what more do you want, if you WON'T work? OH, I forgot conjugal visits, well, in Europe I understand that's a right, too (rightly or wrongly--correction gratefully accepted, btw) unlike most of the US.
So if you're going to kill me for REFUSING to feed people too lazy to get up off their butts and do something to feed themselves besides sit in front of a begging bowl, shoot me, bill my family, if you can find them, for the bullet, and be done with it. But, that isn't socialist, it's totalitarian.
I was trying to point out that you were comparing capitalism the ideal, by using Plutocracy as the example as many socialists do, instead of capitalism (btw, a Plutocracy is a government run by the rich, not necessarily a capitalist government, at all). In Rhetoric classes, it's called a non sequitor (That's Latin for doesn't follow).
Socialism provides all of the same services to all that capitalism does, except you add in the cost of a bureaucracy to administer it "fairly" at the expense of the productive, and deprive the citizen of his CHOICE to participate, BY LAW.
Why do I have to pay for YOUR kid to eat? WHERE is the logic in this? What benefits shall I (Yes, I, personally) derive from it--If I LIKE you and I feel sorry for YOU and the rug rat, I may CHOOSE to support you. On the other hand, maybe we can work out a deal where you give me something I want and I give you the coin for your kid to eat... Gee, I wonder why Harry S. Truman was looking for a ONE handed economist? Gosh darn, we're back to capitalism, in it's purest form, again, now aren't we...?
BTW, I doubt you can find very many POOR, and working, socialists in the USA. If they're poor and WORKING, they want to KEEP every dime they make, not pay it out for "social" welfare they don't qualify for BECAUSE they work.
YOU ALWAYS have choices. Yes, you MAY choose to live with the choices of your parents for a time, but as soon as their choices are no longer yours, you CHANGE them, you grow up, sometimes faster than they. YOU ALWAYS have a choice in the USA.
If I must choose between your socialism, which is too easily perverted (as has the capitalism of the 18th Century) and it requires me to PAY for YOUR social services and death, then by all means, shoot me, now...

Accepting human frailties rather than attempting to CHANGE them to your (subjective) perception of "Right", is one of the turning points of life. I don't require others to accept my points of view, but I would like to be left in peace to live them as I see fit. Paying for social welfare is not among things I would do, left to myself, even unto paying for public education (which does, in some ways benefit me), however, that is not the case. Somebody who typically is registered at Yahoo-gee, go figure-is always screaming about the poor down trodden. Well Christ talked about that 2000 years ago or so, and He told us that THEY are ALWAYS with us, so I take his Semitic view, and ignore them as much as possible. If they WANT more, let them WORK more and buy it themselves.

"When a gun is held to the head of a man who thinks, and told, 'Don't Think!' the man replies, 'Pull the trigger [, fool {text added, mine}]'." Ayn Rand.

 

Separating wheat from chaff...

mrk,

I just want to say that I appreciate your thorough and thoughtful responses (even though as you can clearly see I disagree with much of what you say.)

As a prelude to my response to your last post, let me say that sometimes you seem to come across as if you are attacking some perverse, imaginative caricature of socialism. You seem to ascribe to it qualities and policies which really are not idempotent with the philosophy and sometimes even counter to it. Surely, you can have a corrupt and/or ineffective organization under any overriding philosophy; that in itself does not imply that a given social philosophy is in principle untenable, subversive or ineffective.

Originally posted by mrk

You know, it's funny you decided to pull out that quote. What's happening here is that I'm not holding a gun to your head, and I'm actually telling you, 'Think!'

What is a law? A piece of binding legislation passed by a majority that "makes" everyone, even dissenters, obey. Perhaps I can't convince you, the individual. But maybe I can convince a majority. That's point number one.

You cannot be a solitary capitalist. With no other people present on the earth, all alone, capitalism means nothing. The problem is, Earth is full of people and we all have to live together somehow. That is called society; it is a collective thing. Point number two.

What you call "pure" capitalism is as naive and dysfunctional as "pure" socialism (Stalinism, Nazism, etc.) It is an abstract, idealized economic theory that ignores many social realities. While it can be used as a policy guide, by the virtue of its idealization and abstraction it cannot be the singular backbone of a healthy society. Which concludes my third point.

You might want more than that. Perhaps an army to protect you from invaders? How about national standards to enable you to interoperate with others across the state? How about alliances and treaties with foreign nations? Law enforcement and crime prevention/suppression? How about someone to go to when a neighborhood oil refinery is dumping dioxins into your garden? Which brings us to:

I'm sorry that there are incompetent people employed in the government. Just like in any other large business where every single employee cannot be personally accounted for by the top supervisers. But you are right, government inefficiency is a problem and the government can definitely benefit from adoption of management practices from efficient businesses. However, an agency does not become unnecessary or useless due to inefficiency. What is needed is reform (real reform as opposed to political half-measures), not destruction.

That's fine, but the comfy high-technology, democratic society you live in today comes on top of millennia of hard labor by others. Incidentally, this really has little to do with arguments for socialism; rather, it is an invitation to consider the world beyond yourself as an actual part of you.

I don't think I missed your point at all. But you did miss mine. First of all, "greeners" are not concerned about YOUR water or YOUR land or YOUR air because there are no such things. If you pollute "YOUR" land, the pollution can travel over and under the surface to poison others very far from your original crime. If you destroy a unique ecosystem on "YOUR" land, you are robbing the entirety of humanity of its biological heritage for all time to come. If you burn down too many rainforests on "YOUR" lands, you might even cause a local if not global climate catastrophy. And finally, a lot is to be said for public land that is forever secured from development and reserved for clean environment, biological sanctuary or public enjoyment; even if you might not appreciate that very many others do.

With respect to the general attitude of the "greeners", protecting nature from abuse is merely a special case. The overarching principle could be summed up as "global responsibility". It is a postulate recognizing that your actions affect not only yourself but many others and sometimes the entire planet -- just like do the actions of many others affect you and some actions of all others affect you. It is really a generalization of the "golden rule".

We are talking about two different kinds of responsibility. One can be responsible for something. At the same time, one can be responsible (as opposed to irresponsible.) The word has multiple meanings, which is why you may have confused the issues.

Socialism does not abdicate your personal responsibility to take care of yourself. However, as a generalization of the intention present in any body of law, it in addition requires you to be a responsible member of your society in particular and the world in general.

With respect to personal responsibility, what socialism does propose is giving you tools to make your job easier or to even do your job for you when you become incapable of doing it yourself for whatever reason. Note that this does not mean socialism is all about dysfunctional wellfare systems that actually encourage their participants to form a dependence on them. One wellfare system can succeed where another one failed.

What about orphans? What if you work 14 hours a day just to make ends meet, and have no energy or time left for taking care of your children? What if in your absense your children are "taken care of" by the neighborhood gangs in the ghetto where you live because you can't afford a better place?

Generally speaking, you sound as if you really don't know what it's like to be poor or to grow up poor. You sound as if you are incapable of imagining yourself in another man's shoes without transplanting your entire background and life's history in the process.

And that's good, and socialism is not against it but indeed for it. It is a philosophy of empowerment, not of inhibition. If you are capable of taking care of yourself without social assistance, great! You won't get the assistance. However, those who need assistance should be given it.

You have to realise that while you may be in control of your life at any given moment, things can quickly change. You can control your personal choices, but you can't control your fate. Tomorrow, you can be stabbed in a mugging and paralyzed for the rest of your life. What will you do then without social assistance, if you don't have a personal fortune or supportive family to rely on?

I wholeheartedly agree that the current state of public schools is horrendous. My position, however, would be to fix them rather than axe them. Instead of resenting having to pay for public schools, perhaps you should be resenting the fact that these schools are as rundown and dysfunctional as they are. They can be A LOT better. Just visit any other western country's public school for an example.

Not really. Socialism does not preclude or impede democracy. Of course, if you are arguing against democracy (and for anarchy) then it's a whole new issue.

Come on, let's not get boggled down in caricatures. Socialism is only obligatory in that it relies on taxes to support its programs. That's it. It cannot force you to participate in any of its programs; as soon as it tries it is no longer socialism but something else (totalitarianism comes to mind.) One has to guard against totalitarianism no matter what starting policy: socialism, communism, capitalism, feudalism, you name it. As was famously said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Of course, socialism is NOT free and nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. Social programs are paid for by taxes. All members of society are expected to contribute their share in taxes according to their ability. All members of a democratic society are also expected to keep an eye on those programs to make sure their money is getting put to use as efficiently as possible.

Now give me one good reason why public schools cannot have a quality curriculum. Demonstrate why Rand or Marx are incompatible with public schools. And if you can't, then the problem is not with the public schools but in how they are being run. The need is for massive reform and restructuring -- just exactly what you do for an ailing business.

It is good for you and your parents that they were able to afford to pay for you and send you to a quality private school. Not everybody is so fortunate.

As far as the coming-of-age story, right on. Despite what you might have imagined, it does not go against socialist principles. As a matter of fact, I wholeheartedly agree that is precisely how success should be passed from one generation to the next.

You assume too much. You assume that everyone will have it as good as you did. And before you launch into a laundry list of all the hardships you had to endure, let me tell you they are nothing compared to how bad it really can get. You also assume too much about the poor and why they are the way they are. Clearly, you haven't lived among them or ever bothered to even take a look for longer than it takes to spit on them.

Yet Swedish people are among the happiest and most comfortable on this planet. I believe they even work only something like 30 hours a week.

No, that is not what socialism is about. Providing those who refuse to work with social services is just plain stupid. Those people, you just let them go live on the street until they decide to change their minds. However, if you really looked you would discover there are very few such people. The reason the old U.S. wellfare system was dysfunctional is because it failed to demand personal progress either via job training or actually working an available job while the participants received assistance. Tying encouragement of self-sufficiency to social assistance is crucial to the success of any wellfare system.

Overcomplication or illegitimacy of a legal code is not a counterargument against socialism. Socialism does not imply unnecessary and/or ineffective laws.

Agains, the services are for all who deserve them by holding up their own end of the bargain (as long as they are capable of doing so.) With respect to social laws, individuals never have a "CHOICE" to participate, under any social system or philosophy. In democratic settings, they do have the choice to advocate for different laws.

As I already said, treat others as you would have them treat you. Quite simple. You can think of your investment in social programs as a downpayment on a rainy day, as your insurance. The rainy day may never come, but in case it does there will now be a net there to catch your fall.

But also alleviating the pandemic of poverty would reduce crime and increase security. You would like to live in a more peaceful, harmonious, secure country -- wouldn't you? Or would you rather have an actual reason for arming yourself to your teeth?

First of all, socialism enjoys its strongest support among the poor because they would be the ones most likely to benefit from it. Secondly, any social program that disqualifies people from benefiting because they are capable of supporting themselves is perverse and counterproductive.

You live in a fairytale land. Talk to any long-time cop to get an insight into the real complexities of USA life.

Exactly. It is not perverted any more easily than any other policy of government. If you think otherwise, give reasons why (which wouldn't apply to other social philosophies.) It is too easy to cite the examples of past socialist failures. However, you already pointed out yourself that in Sweden it is successful. Similarly, one can point out many instances where non-socialist government systems are perverted, and yet other instances when the perversion is avoided.

 

Economy ad nauseam: links & comments

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations: http://www.cpm.ehime-u.ac.jp/AkamacHomePage/Akamac_E-text_Links/Smith.html

Marx & Engels' Communist Manifesto: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/26/176.html

Engels Socialism Utopian and Scientific: http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1880-SUS/sus92a.html

Wilde's The Soul of Man Under Socialism: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/wilde_soul.html

In the end, the reason Capitalism seems so attractive to people is that it is easy. The capitalists I know in daily life treat each other horribly by convention. If I seem a little sensitive about that, it's because I just spent a weekend listening to it. And therein lies a question: is Capitalism restricted to how we view money and the potential of money, or does it bleed over into other relationships--How do you profit by your friendships? (Note: If it seems insignificant, it's because it is common--think of the hypocrisy of a parent who calls their infant child a "blessing" yet in later years demands that the child "earn their keep in the family"; frankly, if it's that much of a hardship, why did the idiots choose to raise children? Yet we hear people talk to their kids like this daily; everyone's value becomes their financial worth regardless of their contribution to the greater human endeavor.) But yes, Capitalism is easy: it means you expend no investment toward friendship without guarantee of a greater return. It's no different than giving a woman the wrong phone number and a hybrid of your best friends' name (Hi, my name is Chan-Huan Jones!) just to get her into the sack. Seriously: What happens when we apply Capitalist mores to human associations?

Please remember: I live in a locality where the constituency frequenly votes against school and basic emergency funding because the individual voters don't feel enough of a financial profit from such community endeavors. Seriously, we spent $500+ million on a baseball stadium, and we're amid a similar--perhaps taller--expense for a new football stadium; why can we cough up $1 billion in civic funds for sports arenas and not schools? The potential financial impact of a pro sports team is documentable on paper. When comes the generation of students too stupid to read that documentation will also come that generation of students too stupid to understand why such documents are important. But remember: when it comes to education, we must economize our investment and maximize our profit. Is it any wonder schools are considering allowing corporate takeover? It's capitalism; it needs $5.00/hour peanut vendors and does not need public education.

I wanted to comment on a couple of MRK's points. First and foremost, for the purposes of illustration, I would like to inquire by what means did you acquire the strip mine?

Secondly: in the United States, there is only one pure capitalism--black market. It is only beneath the cover of criminal activity that capitalism operates without the veneer of human conscience capitalism so despises. Which brings up the counterpoint, from the aforementioned Oscar Wilde:

Which responsibility does Socialism ask you to abdicate?

The only reason any Utopia is impossible is because people choose that it should be. We're the human species: we can get to the moon, broadcast a half-watt back through the solar system, replace your heart with a machine, get erections from pills, reshape the landscape, extinct species and, if we choose, destroy ourselves. Who here is going to tell me that the one thing the human species can't do is operate according to the integrity of its better conscience? Neither economic prosperity nor religious blackmail nor simple appeals to what is obvious and demonstrable seem to work. It is simple greed for excess that prevents any Utopia under any label.

Would somebody tell me why murder is illegal? If it's for the cholera threat, we need to revoke the prohibition.

Ah, it's better for society? Well now, it looks like we're not exactly Capitalists if we won't personally kill for profit, eh? That thing about respecting life is a little to pinko, y'know

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There are better things to aspire to; I always wonder why we don't.

thanx much,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I love it!!(CAPITALISM) & I'm not even rich..

Warning quite long!!.

Theory
Capitalism is a social system vased on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.
The recoginition of individual rights entails the bansihment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the goverment in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e. , the task of protecting him from physical force; the goverment acts as the agent of man's right of self-defence, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the goverment is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control. "What is Capitalism?Pg.19" Ayn Rand


When I say "capitalism," I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism--with seperation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the seperation of state and church."The Objectivist Ethics" Ayn Rand

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the alturist claim that it represents the best way to achieve "the common good." It is true that capitalism does--if that catch-frace has any meaning-but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, and that its ruling principles is: Justice."What is capatilism Pg.20"

The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival.
Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man's survival requieres that those who think be free of the interference of those who don't. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgement. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man's mind. (Ibid.,17)

The above is just a little, Trully one has to examine the concepts of capitalism through the eyes of Ayn Rand.

Capitalism did not cause poverty it inhereted it. Ayn Rand.

 

So...?

Godless,

I'm not sure what your point was. If you weren't responding to any recent posts but to the first post of the thread, I would understand. However, what are your thoughts on socialism (to be explicit, not as an alternative to (popular misconception), but a complementary gap-filler for, capitalism?)

 

Re: So...?

Well Banbi since I came late in this I was refering to the first post on capitalism. However my thoughts of socialism!. and the way that you are trying to explain is what it exist in the US, it's not socialism as a gap-filter, it's called a "mixed economy" that is capitalism with goverment control, and as seen it does not work well!.

____________________________________________________

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to "him", but belongs to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good. ("For The New Intellectual" Ayn Rand)

The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use & disposal) is vested in "society as a whole," i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the goverment.
Socialism may be stablished by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics--or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in "Formal" Rusia-or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.
The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure--terrifying, that is if one's motive is men's welfare.
Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly. ("The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand)

These are just a sample of her writting, on the topic of Socialism, if you would like to know more, read some of her books. Start with "Capitalism The Unknown Ideal"

 

Re: Re: So...?

Interesting to hear Ayn Rand's opinion on the issue. Even though I was asking for yours. But since I'm apparently talking to Ayn Rand, then let me address her points:

First of all, we seem to be defining Socialism as an extreme philosophy first and then varying the degree to which this extreme postulate is approximated to account for reality. Sort of like trying to define Christianity as a religion of raving lunatics, and then proceeding to state that in actuality most Christians are merely a moderate manifestation of that religion.

Secondly, where does she get off concluding that "Theoretically, the differences are superficial"? I'm sorry, but the sort of socialism I've been arguing in my posts is more than theoretically, superficially different from the extremism she appears to foist upon her readers. Then again, what is this: "The basic principle, in all cases, is the same" ? Stalinist Russia and democratic Sweden are based on the same basic principles? Hello?

I'm sure the European Union is a manifest disaster in progress. At the same time, has anyone really taken a careful look at the alleged American "success"? I've already provided some simple statistics in my previous posts that argue quite the opposite.

What I think Rand has done, is deliberately confuse the issues. She took what in essense is a very limited slice of Socialism and infused Capitalism with it, redefining the latter in the process. At the same time, she selects the extreme right-wing outliers on the Socialist spectrum and redefines them as Socialism. I'm sure it's very convenient to mix terminology like this when pushing the elitist, plutocratic agenda of the endowed rich while pulling the wool over the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the not so well-endowed.

 

"So?" ...Ummm...Bambi...?

~~~

Where does she get off?

Or perhaps you're wondering where does Godless get off?

Or, where does anyone get off making such bold statements?

Such would not be unusual reactions from (most) people who haven't read Rand.

But....

~~~

~~~

Your statistics may be quite factual. Or not.

A couple of us who have posted on this thread have made simple or polite suggestions that it might be interesting or enlightening for others to read Rand's works. Mere snippets of her writings have been quoted here. Scarcely enough material, I think, to justify such a harsh reaction.

Godless may respond as he/she chooses, of course. But I fail to see any cause for the tone of your last post. You aren't pleased that Godless (or others) aren't debating in a fashion you like? Providing information of a sort that you prefer? It's a public forum and people will offer whatever they think relevant--including you. Still, and with all due respect, I think you've missed a point or two here. There is a bigger picture, indeed. Have you taken in as much as you can of the view?

As for reading Rand, you might be surprised to discover the level of insight this woman philosopher and writer had; insight not only into Capitalism, but into man, into what it is to be a human.

If you have already read Rand and have formed your opinions on discoveries already made, then so be it. If not, maybe the opinions of others who have don't quite deserve such an impatient rebuff?


Your right to post as you please. Your tone or choice of target however may lead others to misinterpret your purpose.

~~~

Counterbalance

 

Capitalism is an economic system.

Capitalism ...

Capital: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=capital

Capitalism ...

-ism: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=ism

Capitalism: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=capitalism

Interestingly, however, and to get away from dictionary.com, it is worth noting that Capitalist.org shares Godless' opinion that capitalism is a "social system", and also banners that moral altruism quote from page 20 of Rand. I took the children's tour, and saw a bunch of indoctrinating BS that makes capitalism into a full-blown political platform, including military policy. Strangely, there were a bunch of patriotic American pictures in the "Visual Tour", but the site described a society that is not the United States.

I'll stop there because I'm just flipping through the tour and lifting a sentence here and there. It's an amazing set of assertions, and no wonder they keep referring to it as the unknown ideal.

One thing of note is that Capitalism.org, whose definition of Capitalism very nearly reflects Godless', stresses that it operates by a broader philosophic definition. It is, essentially, a different Capitalism than the economic theory. This is important to bear in mind when defending Capitalism against classic criticisms.

The FAQ is hilarious:

You know ... you'll notice that the author of the FAQ doesn't really address what happened to India under the British and the long-term consequences of that period.

I'd drag Aldous Huxley into it, but it's late and I need sleep. But consider that a prosperous nation has no need for history, and a poor nation has no vision of the future.

I'll have to read more into http://capitalism.org to find out what they think of Disney paying 29 cents an hour for the Pocohontas pj's to be made in Central America. I'll bet you that created some well-paid American jobs.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Re: "So?" ...Ummm...Bambi...?

Counterbalance,

I just read your post and was about to reiterate the point that Capitalism is merely an economic philosophy, not a social one. By that time Tiassa beat me to it, I guess. But please consider the point made.

As for Ayn Rand, I've read a little. Can't claim to be a Rand specialist, but I've read enough to know that her "amazing" insight does not appeal to me. Frankly, reading her I find so many questionable assumptions and phony arguments, that I cannot read her for extended periods of time without ending up wanting to strangle something. Reading her makes me want to write my own series of books specifically targeted at dispelling all the idiocies she comes up with. Of course, I'm not a very good book writer whereas she is -- that much I will give her.

In the specific quotes Godless provided, I've already pointed out a few problems. Let me just focus on the most egregious error: equating Socialism with Stalinism. Rand, like so many after her (undoubtedly many being her fans), makes the basic mistake of assuming that Socialism is incompatible with Democracy and/or Capitalism. It is compatible. I'm not carrying out an either-or argument. Rather, the question is why are we content to have Capitalism and Democracy without Socialism.

The principal reason for economic failure of the Communist bloc was bad economic policy (DUH!), not bad social policy. Experience has shown that market-driven capitalistic economy is by far superior to state-driven, 5-year-plan, artificial, bureaucratic "economy" of the Communist countries past and present. That should have been a lesson learned decades ago; by now one thinks we should have moved on...

The issue now is social, not economic, policy. With respect to the economic superiority of market-driven Capitalism over other economic policies, there is no contest, there is a hands-down clear winner. Now can we focus on the social policy, please? Have I made it clear enough?

I'm sorry if I come across as rude. That's not my intention. I just want to 1) get to the heart of the matter, and 2) hear peoples own thoughts rather than regurgitation of Rand.

 

A parting thought before you turn in for the night, tiassa...

If you're referring to any of Rand's assertions, (which might be part or parcel of the underpinning doctrines of these sites) recall one of my previous posts where I pointed out that Rand's ideas might need some time to "breathe" in a back cellar of one's mind for a spell? More importantly, and regardless of what one's final opinion might be of her philosophy, it isn't possible to truly grasp where she's coming from UNTIL one of her works, like Atlas Shrugged have been read and digested. This is where you will find the rationale and the examples, I think, most useful in aiding understanding.

Frankly, and I would say this to anyone... whether you wanted to dispute or to support her notions, the best, most fair way, would be to truly familiarize yourself with her works.

~~~

Counterbalance

 

Well ....

Actually, Counterbalance, I was lifting those assertions from the childrens' propaganda tour at capitalism.org. What I think is crushing about the couple I that this capitalism being promoted in this topic is different from that addressed by Communism or that addressed by the topic citation regarding Boeing.

When it comes to Rand, why are we taking a novelist's view of capitalism instead of a social scientist's? (Capitalism.org chooses to call Rand a novelist; I would have said social philosopher, but let's take the capitalists' version of it.) I noticed very little from Adam Smith or other fundamental capitalist writings on the site (Hirschmann?); it seems they're devoted entirely to Rand.

But specifically:

This assertion of what Capitalism creates makes me laugh. First of all, compare it to the topic post and the quote from the Dain Rauscher representative. Secondly, compare that to where Oscar Wilde wrote of Socialism: The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. Seems less than antonymous, doesn't it?

When you wrote that ditching capitalism is not the way to go (a sentiment I agree with), are you referring to the Dain Rauscher (topic-associated) perspective of capitalism, or the unrecognized ideal of capitalism.org? Or are you referring to simple concepts like Smith's Wealth of Nations and Hirschmann's passions and interests?

It's hard to ditch something we don't have. Depending on which Capitalism you refer to, it becomes a largely subjective assertion that ditching it is not the way to go. Economic capitalism as classically defined has its merits. Rand's vision seems pleasant. But neither is in place, and neither refers to the more commonly-respected version of capitalism reflected in the Dain Rauscher quote in the topic post.

I could care less, actually. What strikes me about the current focus on Rand is that people seem to be sick of capitalism but are afraid to admit it, so they're focusing on this unknown, unrecognized ideal and defending that. Great: you're now on par with those who defend Communism against the Bolshevik failure.

Capitalism tries to spare you from your conscience. Socialism tries to spare you from those things that set it off. Capitalism is about the individual. Socialism is about the human species. It's great to be greedy, I admit. But at some point, this noble arrgoance of capitalism needs to get a serious attitude problem. Capitalism requires poverty to support it, and there's no way around that. Socialism seeks to eliminate poverty, and there's no way around that, either. I think it's one of those things where Capitalists are right, though: if people are so poor they have to beg for food and cut each other's throats for basic necessities, it's much better for the human race than having people fed, educated, and inspired toward better standards for society.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Capitalism FAQ

I'm having fun with the Capitalism.org FAQ. Check out some of these entries: http://capitalism.org/faq/history.htm

I won't go so far as to ask, What facts? but it is a valid question. I think one of the observable facts is that Capitalism has, thus far, fallen victim to one of the same key assumptions which brought down Communism: human will. Communism, by nature, assumes naturally that the citizens will provide according to their ability. Many Capitalists point out the failure of Communist-Russian products: there is little or no incentive to work hard. This assumption of goodwill (providing according to their ability) is similar to the assumption of goodwill inherent in Capitalism. In example, trickle-down relied on those at the top allowing money to trickle down the pyramid in a certain fashion, and did not account for greed. Specifically, there's a part on the Capitalism.org Visual Tour that asks you to imagine A society where one man's gain is never at someone else's sacrifice, but at best is to the mutual benefit of both.

Never at someone else's sacrifice? Show me. I'm not talking the "sacrifice" of capital in exchange for goods and services. Consider how Americans sell things: minimum investment, maximum return. Tell me, please, how that works in terms of the Boeing jobs referenced in the topic post, or, more directly, how the profit of my company's outgoing CEO ($5m package) isn't at the sacrifice of the 15% workforce reduction necessitated by his incompetent efforts to accommodate investors in the manner described in the topic post citation. (Seriously, in responding directly to investor demands, the executives nearly sank the company by shattering product quality and service quality.) I dispute the claim that a Capitalist world will profit without sacrifice.

And it's true that the capitalism described at the site has never existed. It's potential and metaphysical possibility I grant. But this idea of capitalism being advocated has no factual merit. Which brings me back to the question I wasn't going to ask about. But proper, manifesto communism has never existed, nor proper, doctrinal socialism. Economic theories are largely like religions: pick the one that leads to your best idea of human benefit and go with it. I like the fact that the site is taking theoretic fancy and using it to characterize and criticize something for existing in the same metaphysical state. Seems pretty damn silly, to me. I would have thought they had something better to go on.

And if it is allowed to go far enough, we can shoot each other for money. Sure, there's that bit about no sacrifice and abolition of the initiation of force, but those are as metaphysically potential as any utopia, and just about as real. The more they spread this out into a political theory, the more it sounds like Anarchism with a fixation on currency.

This is almost cute. First off, it assumes that Capitalism is the sole factor in the human condition. Cute attempt to limit the issues, but you'll have to tell me how technology has been limited to capitalists through history.

Furthermore, how can they assert that life was not so great until Capitalism when the version of Capitalism they describe has, by their own declaration, never existed?

And take a look at modern, poor nations. Do you think they would be as poor if the American companies operating factories there had to pay a fair wage? I heard someone tell me on the one hand that economy and eduction are cruel to poor nations, and that they must be brought up to economic equality through military action. What is it that we don't want intelligent people figuring the political philosophy of Greed?

Oh, we hurt those people so badly when we stopped their children from working in dangerous factories. Tell me: if nobody has the means to educate themselves so that they're not so poor that their children need to work instead of learn, aren't we just perpetuating the idea of human capital and a form of classism? Capitalism always requires a poverty class to support it. If things get too expensive, Capitalism falls apart. Consider an International Socialist Order comparison of Michael Eisner's millions annually at Disney and the 29 cents an hour paid to the Honduran women making Pocahontas pajamas. Could the average worker afford consumer-oriented production if the rich CEO took less money in order to pay a working wage? Possibly, but then again we might recall that in the US (not a capitalist country, according to the website), it was for a while your civic duty to be indebted against future labor in order to buy more, more, more products. I have a few well-made things in my life; I paid about 20-30% more than the run-of-the-mill models, but I generally get 200-300% greater use out of them. I don't mind if things are a little more expensive. If they're higher quality, I won't need to buy so damn many of them.

http://capitalism.org/faq/women.htm

Funny, though ... it's still true that women are being paid less for equal work than men. There's a woman in my office who has a better title, more complex and demanding duties, and more market experience than I do. She's earning exactly, as of the last time she showed me her pay stub, 15.7% less than I do. I found out when the last gender/wage numbers came out (15% disparity) that my company is right on target; I don't get a large sampling, but so far it's consistent. The women are making about 15% less. Studies show that the illustration offered is a fantasy of exceptions to the norm.

* In the United States and elsewhere, a "gender gap often exists, in which women are paid less than men for comparable positions. http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/49088.html

* These results indicate a link between female wages and gender composition that is much stronger in the United States than in Canada, where the relationship is generally small and not statistically significant. The relatively more advantageous position of women in female jobs in Canada is found to be linked to higher unionization rates and the industry-wage effects of "public goods" sectors. http://www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/arb/publications/research/2000docs/abw-00-3e.shtml

It really does seem that the capitalists down at the dot-org work with exceptionally limited data sets and have crafted a modernized political platform around greed. They stress the individual, which is well and proper. But the concept of society is apparently just a competitive arena. I guess I just don't understand the idea of coming together as a society just to tear each other apart like animals. And again, I'd love to buy the "no sacrifice" line from the capitalists, but it's BS and, currently, a mere metaphysical potentiality.

Is it dishonesty or mere inattention which compels this dubious capitalist line?

A question about Rand and capitalism:

Unfortunately, the Rand fans at Capitalism.org chose to omit any FAQ entry describing what capitalists call justice. Since it's a ruling principle of the moral justification of capitalism, I think it's a vital question: What is Justice?

A point regarding humanity, from Emma Goldman:

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Writings/Anarchism/anarchism.html

This is how one thinks when one isn't focused on capital resources and isn't focused solely on the individual self. It's not that tough to do, and it seems a more trustworthy guide than avarice.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Great topic...Huh

For Banbi, no I'm not Ayn Rand, however I support her views, and I've studied her fully, from nobels, to the very few philosophical books she wrote. She has been the most contraversial philosopher nobelist of the 19Th century, her ideas are not new, just redefined, her philosophical base comes from Aristotle. However a great tragedy has happened in the world, that is a tragedy that is 1000's of years old, the philophycal base of the rest of the world is based upon Plato, Platonism created problems were none existed, the father of business and the capitalist ideal is Aristotle, the father of socialism, communism, stalinism, collectivism, democracies, is largely based on Plato's philosophic writings.

This is a hard pill to swallow, what would you do? take the blue pill, or the red and live happily in la-la land?.

I took the blue pill, lol.

I see the world and the way its about to self distruct, largely based on a philosophical war if you will, that war is 1000's of years old.

It's a war of principles of which way society shoud be, I believe that The US, this country, by it's existence has by and far proven!. With out of a shadow of a doubt! that the Aritotelian philosophical ideal is the best way to go, however we've had that great tragedy of the philosophical ideals of Plato infect "if you will" early in this countries history of big business. Beggining with the Antitrust Laws, this gave way for goverment quislings to be bouth out by big businesses. It created more problems than it solved, it's still creates more problems than it solves.

Tiassa, I don't judge a book by it's cover, I believe that you don't either. Couterbalance is correct in quiding you to read some of Rand's nobles, this gives life to the theories of her philosophie, and in a way she explains in her nobles what her philosophy would be like if one lived it.

No! you are correct "capitalism" is not a way to utopia, no social system would be, however with capitalism, if one feels not happy with the job, then one can just move on to another, or study to become a businessman etc...
Bill Gates the man was not rich all his life, yet the opportunities given by this country has made Bill Gates the richest man in the world. This could be the goal of anyone. If one was willing to pay the price. Bill did.

What opportunity would Bill have had in a Socialist economical system? Microsoft would have been property of the state, Bill would have just worked as a programmer by force! his income would have been miniscule.

Capitalism is not fair! capitalism was not meant to be fair, however if one was to live under a social state, i.e. socialism, communism, what would constitute as fair in these states? For one your job is chosen for you, If you happened to be born under a family whose father is a political leader, your chances of welfare are a lot better of, compared to the son of the grocer down the street. Do you think?

Socialism by all means is not equal. There are lots of poor people in socialist states, the ideal has not worked and it will not work.

Socialism has explained by Banbi, will not work either. Why!!!! she might scream at the top of her lungs at me! I will explain.

It may seem that is working, however have you heard of the quote "mind drain" what this is in economical terms is that most of your educated people, businessmen, doctors, engineers, etc. Are leaving at large quantities a geographical area. If one was to look at which area they are leaving from they are communist countries, or socialist countries. Why do you suppose that is?. They are scaping the atrocities about to be commited by these countries when the social system fails. They are fed up, that they are being "used" by the social system for its benefit and not theirs. Thier work does not belong to them, thier ingenuity is given at a price and that price is thier freedom to reap the rewards of their labor. Which brings us back to Bill Gates, where would he have been in a communist country?.

 

~~~

Tiassa...

You nor we HAVE to take Rand's view of anything.

Yet... Why would Rand's name keep surfacing?

The reason Rand's name keeps popping up here, and on websites offering views/info on Capitalism, is because she took the time to delve into what Capitalism really means; she made doing that and building her philosophy of Objectivism her life's work. She earned the scrutiny she gets. She took apart the concept of Capitalism--took it down to the bone--in an effort to help people understand. This is reflected in her literary works, fiction and non-fiction. She didn't make it simple, but she was thorough. I've never thought of her as a "social scientist" but, after a fashion, that's what she was.

I have no interest in proving or disproving anything about Capitalism or Rand. As you seemed to have a keen interest in the "whys" and "hows" of Capitalism and similar politico-economical topics, I offered a good source of information; directions toward a viewpoint (or information) that you (or others) might find useful to add to your mental libraries, providing you're able to give Rand's writings a chance.

Bambi admits that (s)he couldn't get past certain (emotional?) objections and only read so far. And this has often been the case for other readers or seekers. The best way to approach reading Rand, in my view, is to be as objective as possible. After all, no one has to accept her assertions. I had to tell myself that a few times the first time I tackled The Fountainhead. However, perseverance paid off. Putting aside my emotions, including fear from encountering such bold indictments against established beliefs, earned a reward. For me it was indeed a thing of value: the reward of a better understanding.

Actually, anything that provokes a strong emotional reaction is worth a deeper look, imo.

At any rate, for those who like to... debating these issues can bring about a multitude of good things. No question. Debating them with a depth and breadth of understanding, or with a desire for such a depth could actually lead to (dare we hope?) enlightenment. That you, tiassa, go in search of deeper understanding is obvious and commendable. Thus, my reasoning, (flawed though it may have been), was to offer you another source. I don't care what your final verdict is. The quest itself should prove worthwhile.

...Can you remember as a very young child going into a department store and seeing the shelves stocked with toys, and perhaps you wondered on occasion why toys weren't free for you and all children to have as and when you liked? Well, like most people you learned over time why you have to pay for things. But which "why" did you learn? Did you learn all of the "Whys?"

Rand's insight into the "whys" was interesting to me. They may or may not be to you, but you'll never know if you don't go there.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

~~~

Happy hunting,

Counterbalance

 

I'll get to Rand eventually ....

Well, the Capitalists seem quite devoted to her visionary idyll. Like I noted, though, there's not much on the fundamental devices of Capitalism there. Of course we don't have to take Rand's view, but everyone seems to be saying, "Let Ayn Rand speak for me." It's like saying to let the Bible speak for a person. To me, it's a lot like Emma Goldman: it would be well enough to let some of her words speak for me, but it's always worth it to throw a little direction on that. Why hide the agenda behind a novelist's lofty vision and not discuss the realities of it? I read a James Carroll (Boston Globe) article today, one I had filed away a couple of months ago; he was "defending the drug war against charges of racism". His essential point, summed up at the end, was that while the crafters of drug policy may or may not have been racist, the racist result of those policies is clear to anyone who looks. (E.g.--Blacks account for 13% of drug users, 55% of drug convictions, and 74% of drug prison terms in the United States.) Unlike the drug war, however, Rand's assertions have no real basis upon which to conclude them correct. They are, at heart, as subjective as Communism, Christianity, or the merits of iambic foot. Take this page from the FAQ, which seems immersed entirely in Rand: http://capitalism.org/faq/society.htm

Sounds a little like Anarchism to me. And there's the point, though: better to live on a desert island than to live in a society, blah blah blah. That's as subjective as any of a massive number of Biblical principles. It's as well as they can dress up the idea that society is there for the taking. The site says much about rights, and makes it a very individual appeal (e.g. The only obligation one's rights impose on others is for them to leave you alone, i.e. free to act within your sphere of rights.) You'll note that capitalists largely talk about what someone owes you, or what someone owes "me". It talks about rights and never about responsibilities because, as we see from the website, Capitalism's modern incarnation claims to be about man's natural state. You know, that inherent state of man in nature: skyscrapers, nuclear missiles ....

What this website sounds like is a bunch of libertarian yahoos who got together and thought as little as possible while creating an attractive political package; but libertarianism hasn't gotten the respect it deserves, or some such, so let's rename it. What should we call it, objectivism? Why not capitalism. But wait, isn't capitalism an economic theory? Well, who cares? This is the United States of America, and we can call whatever we want whatever we like. Cable internet can call itself fast and reliable. Ford can still assert that quality is job one. Microsoft can claim to be a solution provider. Whatever you want to call it, it becomes. So call it Capitalism because people already like that, and since most of 'em are ignorant of what they claim to believe, they might accidentally believe that this is Capitalism. It's like saying the Manifesto is Communism. Technically, it is, but I've never seen nor heard of it being properly implemented.

Capitalism doesn't have a military philosophy: that's an accretion of later fans trying to make economy the purpose of life. Seriously, it sounds like Anarchism with a seriously detrimental greedy streak, or, more appropriately named, vulgar libertarianism. It's all about the self, and that's well and fine. There's an operating assumption of wellbeing that historically is not evident in any economic/political theory.

Well it's not necessarily that, but that all the capitalists in these considerations seem to revolve around Rand, with little or no consideration toward ideas such as the advent of the division of labor and what its real effect was on the laborer's station in society. These considerations seem to resoundingly declare that the bizarre capitalist summary in the topic post is wrong. And that's well and fine, but take, for instance, the widespread capitalist condemnation of communism and socialism as pipe dreams: so it would seem with this political platform named Capitalism. You could run a presidential candidate based on that website and sound amazingly mainstream, but the simple fact is that even the proponents of this political capitalism admit it to have no functional precedent. In that sense, we're still working with theories. We can note that prior attempts at Communism have failed; compared to the Rand vision, Capitalism will never exist.

The scariest part of the FAQ I've found so far: http://capitalism.org/faq/education.htm

It's an amazing document. And I noted among all of their characterizations of "collectivists" and so forth that they provide no basis for it, so it seems quite arbitrary.

Um ... I went to a private high school. In order to keep tuition costs accessible to the middle class, it operated under massive charitable endowment. This is not a profit-making enterprise. Look what happened the last time education was only available to those who could afford to pay for it: the world is still recovering from the hideous illiteracy that has compelled notions of public education at least since Charlemange. Apparently, society itself must be a profit-making enterprise: e.g. that there is no point in coming together in society unless we can invent an abstraction called currency and demand that everything we do increase the amount of currency we have inherently. It's like criticizing a mason because the wall isn't finished when the first brick is laid. He hasn't actually made any money on the contract yet, so the contract must necessarily be bad. It's a matter of how we classify our actions, and how specific we wish to be. It is, for instance, a prime factor in the frighteningly common phenomenon of parents who believe their children are supposed to contribute financially to the family instead of learn and grow. Carry one's own weight? What, maybe it wasn't a profitable idea to have children? This is exactly what I oppose about capitalism: in order to make it work as harmoniously as the idyll likes to assert, one must, upon institution of the system, undertake the incredibly communitarian act of equalizing the financial scene. Consider if we instituted this Rand capitalism tomorrow: how many of the United States' families could afford to educate their children? Well then, take a loan, and thus oblige more capital.

Tell me: how will the capitalists understand their responsibilities (e.g. banishment of initiation of force; profit of one without sacrifice of another) if they're not educated in the way of capitalism because they can't afford to learn to read?

So here's the deal on Rand: I'll get there when I get there. For project reading I've got Sir James Frazier, at least, in the queue, and a revisitation of Camus in light of a recent validation of a notion I formerly held of Sisyphan philosophy which I had discarded. The functional illustrations of Frazier tell me more about how to properly associate among humans than the fancies of Ayn Rand. The philosophic considerations of Camus shed better light on why people behave the way they do than justifications of selfishness. ( http://capitalism.org/faq/selfishness.htm is hilarious ... they actually have to establish what they mean by selfishness, as opposed to a dictionary definition. In fact, you'll notice a lot of capitalist justifications are based in redefinitions of word.)

Since what Rand-capitalism is apparently, actually called objectivism (I just noticed the .org's copyright notice--the whole thing is based entirely in that volume, and thus makes no considerations of its own of the devices of capitalism as they relate to Rand's presuppositions. Since you're presenting Rand, do you accept the redefinition of commonly-known words (e.g. selfishness) in order to justify the vision? It seems a little dishonest to me, but then again, integrity is largely unprofitable, though, so we understand that.

I'll get to Rand eventually, but I'm not going to change the current course at present to accommodate the present debate. However I find it interesting that a real-life assertion such as the topic post inspires considerations of theory. It's not that I won't discuss theory--heavens, my reputation should precede me in that, at least--but I find it interesting that the practical examples used to demonstrate this political platform employ ridiculous statistical exceptions:

* If a laborer--say Michael Jordan--is not paid enough for what he produces, then someone else will hire him an pay him more. ( http://capitalism.org/faq/labor.htm )

* Which brings us back to Bill Gates, where would he have been in a communist country? (Godless, 12/13 ... and as a note to that, I intend to give your post better consideration, but I've been at this one a while; suffice to say that Capitalism would not have benefitted Gates, either, since all he really did was deceive a guy about the value of his product and profit by the sacrifice of another; in the .org site--based solely in Rand--this is not capitalist. Nobody remembers Q-DOS, and that for a reason.)

So are Emma Goldman, Karl Marx, Sir James Frazier, and many others. Consider the presuppositions which lead to Rand's whys. There are times I disagree with those I hold aloft, and it's usually in a given presupposition that can only be resolved by comparison to historical conditions.

thanx much,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Poor expression

It would do me well to include a certain point that I seem to have danced around without actually landing on: What is slavery to society? The fetters of government and social obligation are something the Goldman acknowledged while calling on the potential of the human intellect to behave in such a manner as to make governments largely unnecessary. But with the point of humans being slaves yet to resolve for our purposes (I'll check in with that FAQ for its perspective), but the example of slavery seems to describe something vague that leaves us wondering at what point our commitments to the societal communities become slavery. In terms of government, Lysander Spooner pointed out in 1875 (or thereabout) that no body of people can award to government a right or responsibility which they hitherto did not possess. In the long run, the prosperity of society depends on what we the individuals grant it.

The point I missed including is simply this: If man is better off on a desert island than obliged to society, what is the point of society? Did we really come in from the cold just to create a faux-nature? Did we "civilize" just to tear each others' throats out? The .org asserts that profit should come without sacrifice by another; this sounds much like religious philosophies such as the Rede or the Law of Thelema. But both of those creeds, by the philosophies they exist amid, understand that in order to harm none, one must occasionally "take one for the team". As I'm receiving it from the .org, one should never do this.

Seriously: at what point does a capitalist (by the .org adaptation of Rand, or by any other which asserts conditions of "slavery") become a slave to honesty? Compare that to the present day in the US: deceiving consumers is the basis of the market economy. Words like "quality" and "performace" take on product-specific definitions in order to quell the legalisms of false advertising.

Since it's that large of a point, we might say I missed my point quite widely. Then again, considering a Capitalism designed as a political platform, it's a broad spectrum of considerations.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!