A Randian asks: Are all people equally capable?

[Rearden metal]

Let me put forth something i've been mulling over and see what you guys think. I'm a Hayek following, Randian kind of guy. I believe that all people are equally capable of achieving in a market place that welcomes competition. And that welfare systems and nationalized health care are disincentives to compete and to achieve, thus perpetuating the plight of the poor rather than alleviating it. However, this belief is based on a great deal of faith in the capacity of human beings and their drive to succeed, which frankly is something I find myself questioning. Maybe some people just aren't capable of achieving anything? I have trouble admitting that to myself, but if that is true then we would need collective institutions to address the needs of those who are incapable of utilizing liberty to meet their needs. If people are inherently unequal then communism makes much more sense to me, but if people are equally capable of thinking and doing and achieving then laissez-faire capitalism is the best system because it is the only one which permits absolute liberty. To say that a person is born without ambition or cleverness seems akin to calling them a farm animal and strikes me as impossible, but I do seem to be meeting a lot of people who remind me of cows...makes me wonder. Are all people born with smarts? Or is a free market only useful to the portion of humanity born with the right amount of initiative?

[Zanthorus]

The only people that think people aren't equally capable usually have a definition of 'capable' that's biased toward whatever ideology they're promoting. I might be the worlds shittiest entrepeneur but still be a great story teller or a brilliant parent. This is one reason why free markets are unfair. They make people unequal based on a certain trait i.e business acumen whilst ignoring everything else about people.

[Skooma Addict]

I'm a Hayek following, Randian kind of guy.

I don't know what that means. Hayek and Rand disagreed on practically everything. The only thing they had in common was that they were in favor of small government (but even then, they disagreed over what the government should do.) Rand was an ethical egoist, and Hayek was not.


I believe that all people are equally capable of achieving in a market place that welcomes competition.


You are incorrect. People are not equally capable of achieving in a free market.



To say that a person is born without ambition or cleverness seems akin to calling them a farm animal and strikes me as impossible, but I do seem to be meeting a lot of people who remind me of cows...makes me wonder.

For all intents and purposes, everyone is born with ambition and cleverness. But that does not change the fact that people are not equal, and they would not achieve equal results in a free market.

[Rearden metal]

So then a market system is only liberating to those who posses business acumen and not everyone is born with that skill. Parenting is a good point. Being a mom is not marketable, yet mothers are a necessity of our species. Thus all people may be capable in some fashion, just not always capable of market based competition.

[Skooma Addict]

So then a market system is only liberating to those who posses business acumen and not everyone is born with that skill. Parenting is a good point. Being a mom is not marketable, yet mothers are a necessity of our species. Thus all people may be capable in some fashion, just not always capable of market based competition.

The free market can be defended using utilitarian and consequentialist arguments pretty easily. Even though some people will benefit more than others, the fact remains that overall the free market is the best social system for the vast majority of the population. Also, I would say that the free market is the least coercive social system.

[Zanthorus]

Also, I would say that the free market is the least coercive social system.

What about coercion via wealth/money?

[Skooma Addict]

What about coercion via wealth/money?

I am not sure if I understand what exactly your asking me. Certainly, all other things being equal, a person with a lot of money could more easily coerce his fellow man. Obviously, a free market won't be free of coercion, but neither will Communism, Minarchism, Fascism ect. In my opinion, the institutions and incentive structures of the free market will provide the best barriers to prevent violence and coercion.

[Zanthorus]

I am not sure if I understand what exactly your asking me. Certainly, all other things being equal, a person with a lot of money could more easily coerce his fellow man. Obviously, a free market won't be free of coercion, but neither will Communism, Minarchism, Fascism ect.

Well fascism is coercive almost by definition so that's kind of a moot point.


In my opinion, the institutions and incentive structures of the free market will provide the best barriers to prevent violence and coercion.

What incentive structures do you see in free market capitalism that make it less likely to have violence or coercion than communism?

[RGacky3]

The free market can be defended using utilitarian and consequentialist arguments pretty easily. Even though some people will benefit more than others, the fact remains that overall the free market is the best social system for the vast majority of the population. Also, I would say that the free market is the least coercive social system.

The socalled free market, is impossible without property laws with are coercive by nature.

[Skooma Addict]

What incentive structures do you see in free market capitalism that make it less likely to have violence or coercion than communism?

For starters, I think private property is more justifiable than public property. I think Communism is inherently coercive because it violently confiscates what I view as legitimately acquired property from innocent bystanders. Also, under Communism, many legitimate activities are prevented. I cannot work for a capitalist even if I want to for example.

To be fair, there may be other "forms" of communism where this does not apply.

[Skooma Addict]

The socalled free market, is impossible without property laws with are coercive by nature.

As far as I know, there are property laws under communism as well. All forms of property are social constructs, so you can always claim that any form of property is "coercive." If you say we all own all the land, then I will say that this is coercive. A baby born in India does not have an equal say to the land that I spend 30 years homesteading and building my home on.

If you do not believe in any form of property whatsoever, then you should not object to me stealing everything you have no matter what the circumstances.

[Zanthorus]

For starters, I think private property can is more justifiable than public property. I think Communism is inherently coercive because it violently confiscates what I view as legitimately acquired property from innocent bystanders.

Yeah but that entails the view that property ever can be legitimately acquired. However most of us commies would assert the opposite and say that property rights are coercive because they restrict wealth from society at large.


Also, under Communism, many legitimate activities are prevented. I cannot work for a capitalist even if I want to for example.

Well under communism there wouldn't be any capitalists and even if their were a few who managed to escape and shore up in some mountains or something I think it's unlikely that anyone would want to work for them if their needs were already provided for.


If you do not believe in any form of property whatsoever, then you should not object to me stealing everything you have no matter what the circumstances.

Property isn't the same thing as ownership.

[Skooma Addict]

Yeah but that entails the view that property ever can be legitimately acquired. However most of us commies would assert the opposite and say that property rights are coercive because they restrict wealth from society at large.

But there is still property in a communist society. I couldn't barge in your house and steal all your stuff. Also, don't you believe in collective property?

In my opinion, private property is vital to a growing economy and a flourishing society. The enforcement of private property is what allows for living standards to rise in the first place.


Property isn't the same thing as ownership.

We are using different terminology then. Can you tell me the difference?

[graffic]

The system produces people who are socially conditioned to be what some people define as a "success". For example, obviously all humans come into the world on the same level but get raised and turn out as a reflection of the parenting they received. So if you are brought up to have a huge sense of self-entitlement and encouraged to study hard and respect education you will most likely "do well" in society. There are exceptions, like there is in everything, but the general trend is that rich people give birth to the next elite rich so we end up with a country being run, not by the most able people, but the ones with the pushiest most self-serving parents.

I think a working class builder for example is just as "gifted" as the people who are in financially beneficial and responsible roles but because of the logic of capitalism, manual labour is seen as "below" other professions. The system relies, to an extent, on exploitation so the self-respect of the working class is crushed in order to keep it going

[#FF0000]

People are born different. Some people are born with a business oriented mind, others aren't. Some people are born in a position in society where they can actually benefit from their talents, and others are born in a place or situation that affects them in such a way that they need a miracle to live with an ounce of dignity, let alone comfortably.

[Zanthorus]

We are using different terminology then. Can you tell me the difference?

Well the difference is that property is meant to be owned by the person who holds the property deed until he dies or gives it away.

Ownership can be property but it doesn't have to be. It could be the type of system I concieve were people 'gift' property to one another. In other words peoples ownership of things is respected by the community only so long as they fulfill certain criteria (Posession and use). If they don't then the community remove their consent for the person to own that thing and give it to someone else or make it a public resource.

[Skooma Addict]

Well the difference is that property is meant to be owned by the person who holds the property deed until he dies or gives it away.

Ownership can be property but it doesn't have to be. It could be the type of system I concieve were people 'gift' property to one another. In other words peoples ownership of things is respected by the community only so long as they fulfill certain criteria (Posession and use). If they don't then the community remove their consent for the person to own that thing and give it to someone else or make it a public resource.

So to you property can only imply "private property." That's fine. But I will just say that I think private porperty is better than "ownership rights." In your gift economy, if for whatever reason I do not fulfill your criteria, my property is taken from me against my will. When you refer to public resources, you mean resources which are equally owned by each member of the public, correct? If so, I will say this is coercive because I think some people have a better claim to public resources than other people.

But the point is that any form of ownership or property can be said to be coercive because they are social constructs. So in a sense, it is impossible to avoid coercion. If there were no property or ownership laws whatsoever, then people could legally burn down your house. Yet we would say this act is coercive. So again, coercion is impossible to avoid. It all boils down to which theory of ownership is the most legitimate.

[Zanthorus]

It all boils down to which theory of ownership is the most legitimate.

Well what exactly makes your theory of property 'legitimate'?

[Skooma Addict]

Well what exactly makes your theory of property 'legitimate'?

I accept private property for two reasons.

1. It provides the highest increase in the standard of living for the majority of the population. Owners of private property need to take into account the capital value of their land. If I own a copper mine, it would be unwise for me to mine it all at once because the capital value of my mine would be depleted almost instantly. Also, since I alone own the mine, I do not have to worry about others coming in to mine my copper. This means that I will extract copper only when the demand for copper is high. If other people could use the mine, I may as well waste resources and mine all the copper I can at once. Overall, it is better for the economy in general if I mine the copper when demand is high. Then there are other arguments pertaining to economic calculation, motivation to work, ect.

2. I think that it is the most reasonable form of property. If I find some land that nobody has ever touched before, and I proceed to homestead it, then in my opinion I have a better claim to this land than anyone else. To say that we all own all the land is crazy. A child who lives 100 miles away from me does not have an equal claim to the land that I payed for in the sweat of my labor to homestead. While combing my labor with unowned land proves nothing, it does in my opinion give me the best claim to that land.

[#FF0000]

The free market can be defended using utilitarian and consequentialist arguments pretty easily. Even though some people will benefit more than others, the fact remains that overall the free market is the best social system for the vast majority of the population. Also, I would say that the free market is the least coercive social system.

But the vast majority of the population have to sell their time and energy to survive, and the vast majority of the population don't even live in the places where capitalism does provide a decent standard of living (more often than not due to a hefty government safety net).

And then I can go into imperialism, war over resources/markets, the absurdly lopsided distribution of wealth with the top 1% owning somewhere from 90 to 99% of it all...etc. When I hear someone say that capitalism is good for the vast majority of people, I have to wonder if they know what the word "majority" means.

[Zanthorus]

I accept private property for two reasons.

1. It provides the highest increase in the standard of living for the majority of the population. Owners of private property need to take into account the capital value of their land. If I own a copper mine, it would be unwise for me to mine it all at once because the capital value of my mine would be depleted almost instantly. Also, since I alone own the mine, I do not have to worry about others coming in to mine my copper. This means that I will extract copper only when the demand for copper is high. If other people could use the mine, I may as well waste resources and mine all the copper I can at once. Overall, it is better for the economy in general if I mine the copper when demand is high.

But this presupposes that there is profit to be had from selling copper which wouldn't happen under communism.


2. I think that it is the most reasonable form of property. If I find some land that nobody has ever touched before, and I proceed to homestead it, then in my opinion I have a better claim to this land than anyone else. To say that we all own all the land is crazy. A child who lives 100 miles away from me does not have an equal claim to the land that I payed for in the sweat of my labor to homestead. While combing my labor with unowned land proves nothing, it does in my opinion give me the best claim to that land.

Key part is bolded. Combining labour with land only proves your right to that property if you have what is in my opinion a particularly puritan mindset about the value of labour. Secondly the initial acquisition of property and capital allows me to employ labour which increase my capital. Marx likened it to a kind of tribute which actually existing labour was forced to pay to long dead labour.

[Dimentio]

There is one segment of the population which is unable to take care of itself and which is in need for the care of the society. I am talking about people who are mentally challenged or so physically impaired that they need the help of society to take care of themselves and to realise themselves as human beings.

But then, we also have this that many people may require temporal support from their fellow human beings in order to be able to overcome crises in their lives. All human beings are inter-dependent, and therefore it naturally follows that we have a shared responsibility for each-other.

When you think of it, altruism is actually the best form of rational egoism. If everyone tended to each-other's needs and dreams, and cooperated fully on all spectres, no one would be left aside and everyone would find a way to fulfill the needs of all individuals (i.e themselves).

In a society where everyone just saw to their own individual needs and humans did not organise in groups, we would see each house turn into a fortress.

[Havet]

Well at least he's honest enough to call himself a randian instead of an objectivist - if there's actually any difference ^^

[Jimmie Higgins]

The only people that think people aren't equally capable usually have a definition of 'capable' that's biased toward whatever ideology they're promoting. I might be the worlds shittiest entrepeneur but still be a great story teller or a brilliant parent. This is one reason why free markets are unfair. They make people unequal based on a certain trait i.e business acumen whilst ignoring everything else about people.

Well, this is part of it (and definitely a shitty aspect of capitalist society... how many other Van Goughs are out there that didn't have the financial support he had to continue his work... how sad would it be for world culture if he quit and got a job because he couldn't live off his paintings?), but the main thing is that being a good entrepreneur has little to do with success or failure in capitalism.

An individual's skills can definitely help or hurt, but it's not the determining factor: it's like being a good ship captain in a rowboat in the Pacific during a typhoon. Skills do nothing to prevent economic crisis or the falling rate of profit or so on.

Also, in the capitalist system it would be impossible for everyone to be a successful business person even if everyone had the exact same skill sets - the system is made that way. Meritocracy in the US or in capitalism in general is a myth - most people in the US end up in the same field of work as their parents (80% if I remember, but don't quote me) and most small and staring businesses fail (more than in "socialist" Scandinavia by the way) and this is regardless of the merit of the product or service or the skills of the business people.

Additionally, in real life, skills are secondary to things like connections, wealth, access, and so on. At this stage in capitalism, what you know really means a lot less than who you know.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So then a market system is only liberating to those who posses business acumen and not everyone is born with that skill. Parenting is a good point. Being a mom is not marketable, yet mothers are a necessity of our species. Thus all people may be capable in some fashion, just not always capable of market based competition.

This is my mock Objectivist response: Being a mother is marketable. If she was really good enough at being a mother, then she would write a book about it, get rich and then hire some full-time nannies. :laugh:

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I'm not even sure a free market would help most people with business acumen, really. It'd just be a race to the top, and whoever the winners are get to stamp on everyone else's face because there's nobody to stop them any more.

I can't imagine that it would remain free is I suppose my point, if free means everyone gets a fair shot. Sooner or later someone will establish a monopoly on all the markets out there, and with no regulation to stop them they'll just sit pretty using all that economic power to hold off competition. And then all that lovely business acumen won't mean shit for anyone wanting to try their hand.

Aside from that, of course, who wants a society that rewards fucking business acumen for christ's sake? Yeahhhh who can disproportionately grab all of society's produce and wealth the best! Fuck that.

-Alex

[IcarusAngel]

They grab monopolies now. And you're right; it's really a lottery system. Free-marketeers claim that if business X is controlling the resources, and is providing a good to people, then those resources were MEANT to be owned by business X. But those resources might have other uses that better fulfill not only people's needs but their wants as well. They might also be better used to prop up more industries.

Free-markets are simply illogical.

[Rearden metal]

Ok, so if free-markets are a bad idea then what is the better alternative? Don't workers lose their ability to make individual choices in a managed system? In a capitalist market system you can pursue any career you like, you may fail miserably and starve to death, buy hey, you had choices. In a managed system wouldn't you be told where to work and pretty much be stuck there? How would society justify covering the cost of your new training so that you can have a new job just because you feel like it? I doubt they would and without a market system you can't go and purchase new job training. You may be a slave in a market system but at least you get to pick the kind of slavery that you perform!! Is what we need a two tiered system where the "incapables" are managed ala socialism and the "capables" are able to opt out and freely pursue their careers? Basically what i'm asking is can we adopt a sociallist system for the people in the lower income levels while leaving those with more wealth and more drive the ability to achieve success through capitalism? Something where poor people work for the state and rich people work for themselves, or for other richer people in executive positions, and contract with the government when they require laborers.

[Rearden metal]

Hey, how come my thingamawhat says i'm restricted? I didn't do anything.:confused:

[#FF0000]

Hey, how come my thingamawhat says i'm restricted? I didn't do anything.:confused:

Eh it's just something we do when free-market folks sign up. We had to do this after every post in the main forums degraded into capitalism vs. communism debates, instead of being a place for leftists to discuss leftism.

You can still do almost anything on the site, except post in the main forum. And like I said, it isn't a punishment as much as it is just a tool to keep this site manageable.

[Rearden metal]

ok, i see where you're coming from. thanks!:)

[IcarusAngel]

In a capitalist market system you can pursue any career you like, you may fail miserably and starve to death, buy hey, you had choices.

...

You may be a slave in a market system but at least you get to pick the kind of slavery that you perform!!

lol. Wow. I can choose to starve to death, or work hard for a pittance at some corporation or serveral corporations, and perhaps still starve to death anyway once the corporation goes under and I lose my retirement (hy heart goes out to these people). This is the same 'choice' a chattel slave has: work or die.

This is capitalist 'freedom'? (It's rare that capitalists are so blunt about their support for slavery; perhaps this is another alterego?)

Yes, capitalism does give you the right to 'choose' from among several forms of slavery. Maybe I will be a slave at Wal-Mart. Maybe if I work hard, if I'm lucky enough to have a 'talent' that can applied to a currently marketable item, I can get a better job. But leftists believe a society is possible where people can CHOOSE to do what they WANT, without having to be 'coerced' into work. It is true that whether or not such a society could exist is still a debatable point.

Capitalism is also good at providing many different goods to people, if that makes you happy. Personally I do not like consumer and rarely 'consume,' which is a good thing, because 'capitalists' recently tore down my city's only mall, in another high density project, getting the permit by the city, only to run out of money before even making ONE building. That's another problem in capitalism - huge areas of empty factories and buildings, and land development projects with no development on them.


Hey, how come my thingamawhat says i'm restricted? I didn't do anything.:confused:

Capitalists are unfortunately restricted to one forum and two sub-forums.

[#FF0000]

Don't workers lose their ability to make individual choices in a managed system? In a capitalist market system you can pursue any career you like, you may fail miserably and starve to death, buy hey, you had choices. In a managed system wouldn't you be told where to work and pretty much be stuck there?

No, not necessarily. It's not like you just get assigned a job. I imagine it'd be a lot like how it is today. You apply for a job and if they need a position filled, you get it. If not, you have to apply somewhere else.

Though one will definitely get a job. Just not necessarily the one they want at first.


How would society justify covering the cost of your new training so that you can have a new job just because you feel like it? I doubt they would and without a market system you can't go and purchase new job training. You may be a slave in a market system but at least you get to pick the kind of slavery that you perform!!

I really don't think training would cost, on the whole, all that much. And I addressed the second concern, there.


Is what we need a two tiered system where the "incapables" are managed ala socialism and the "capables" are able to opt out and freely pursue their careers? Basically what i'm asking is can we adopt a sociallist system for the people in the lower income levels while leaving those with more wealth and more drive the ability to achieve success through capitalism? Something where poor people work for the state and rich people work for themselves, or for other richer people in executive positions, and contract with the government when they require laborers.

I think you pretty much described social democracy +1 right there.

But yeah I don't think that sort of system can hold up for too long. I mean when you look across the western world you see that sort of thing, with the poor being relatively healthy and taken care of to an extent. But there's always someone getting a raw deal in that situation. See: the entire third world. Every bit of comfort the working class fights and fought for and won was sort of offset by imperialism and outsourcing and cheap labor half a world away.

So, I'd think of it like this. In a market society, is it good for the economy for everyone to have a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle.

The answer is obviously *no*. From a market perspective, it is not, just because it wouldn't be sustainable, due to the lack of cheap labor.

So, yeah. It's a nice idea but I think you'll want to move away from free-markets entirely if you want a system of running things that doesn't require someone somewhere in the world being locked away in a sweatshop and then butchered or shot if they fight for a raise.

[graffic]

People are born different. Some people are born with a business oriented mind, others aren't.

People are perhaps born with slightly different temperaments but wouldn't you agree that society has a much bigger effect on the individual?

If you are raised by rich, affluent parents and sent to the finest private school you will most likely end up in a financially beneficial role in society. All studies show this to be the case.

[mikelepore]

I find it absurd when people claim that financial success under capitalism is based on "acumen", "savvy", "skill", etc. -- and, at the same time, property distribution is so strongly based on inheritance, which is the surest possible way to ensure that not a trace of meritocracy will be found, and that rulership will be determined solely by the randomness of being born into certain families, without regard to any personal characteristics.

John D. Rockefeller V, who is the son of Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV, who is the son of John D. Rockefeller III, who was the son of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who was the son of billionaire Stardard Oil owner John D. Rockefeller, Sr., may be an astounding genius for all I know, but that fact is not the source of his assets.

To cite "business skill", etc. as the determinant, one might as well say that Henry VIII became the king of England because it was determined that he was the smartest person in the country, totally unrelated to the fact that his father was King Henry VII. Or, you might as well say that Augustus became the emperor of Rome because the state was able to identify him as the person in all of the empire who had the greatest "leadership skills", quite unrelated to the fact that he was the son of Julius Caesar.

[Dimentio]

Ok, so if free-markets are a bad idea then what is the better alternative? Don't workers lose their ability to make individual choices in a managed system? In a capitalist market system you can pursue any career you like, you may fail miserably and starve to death, buy hey, you had choices. In a managed system wouldn't you be told where to work and pretty much be stuck there? How would society justify covering the cost of your new training so that you can have a new job just because you feel like it? I doubt they would and without a market system you can't go and purchase new job training. You may be a slave in a market system but at least you get to pick the kind of slavery that you perform!! Is what we need a two tiered system where the "incapables" are managed ala socialism and the "capables" are able to opt out and freely pursue their careers? Basically what i'm asking is can we adopt a sociallist system for the people in the lower income levels while leaving those with more wealth and more drive the ability to achieve success through capitalism? Something where poor people work for the state and rich people work for themselves, or for other richer people in executive positions, and contract with the government when they require laborers.

There are not only market systems and "managed systems".

[Havet]

ok, i see where you're coming from. thanks!:)

Just get used to it ;)

[Robert]

I find it absurd when people claim that financial success under capitalism is based on "acumen", "savvy", "skill", etc. -- and, at the same time, property distribution is so strongly based on inheritance, which is the surest possible way to ensure that not a trace of meritocracy will be found, and that rulership will be determined solely by the randomness of being born into certain families, without regard to any personal characteristics.Reasonable concerns all. Consider also: Rockefeller made the choice to bestow the assets on his heirs. Bill Gates will have the same option. That's law and human election, not "capitalism." They're one and the same? Well, there's something to that also.

But consider also the Estate Tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States). It encourages charitable contributions and is a "brake" that can be adjusted up or down to address what I and its authors agree is an inequity. It can be very hefty and brings in about $26 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States) /year, which is exactly half enough money to pay for our wonderful ... United States Department of Education.:o

Finally, you're ignoring The Millionaire Next Door phenomenon. The many cases in that book describe folks who really do live in modest homes, drive boring Ford sedans, buy their suits off the rack at Penneys, and drink Budweiser. They also tend to have worked their asses off since they were kids, invested prudently, and created jobs. They also tend to make their kids work.

It ain't perfect, but it's better than turning all wealth over to a Krooked Kadre of Komrades to redistribute to "The People" as they think best, after skimming off the cream for themselves ... and their kids.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:h2VvjRkmJwzXwM:http://www.asiapacificms.com/images/great_leader.gif

[#FF0000]

People are perhaps born with slightly different temperaments but wouldn't you agree that society has a much bigger effect on the individual?

If you are raised by rich, affluent parents and sent to the finest private school you will most likely end up in a financially beneficial role in society. All studies show this to be the case.

Yup. I pretty much agree with you entirely here.

[Bud Struggle]

I find it absurd when people claim that financial success under capitalism is based on "acumen", "savvy", "skill", etc. -- and, at the same time, property distribution is so strongly based on inheritance, which is the surest possible way to ensure that not a trace of meritocracy will be found, and that rulership will be determined solely by the randomness of being born into certain families, without regard to any personal characteristics.

Being a good businessman is a talent that needs training. Being a successful businessman is like being a violinist. Some people have natural talent for such things. Many great violinist with maybe the greatest talent the world has ever known--have never actually seen a violin. But some do and they get to be first chair in some symphony.

If you have business talent and you daddy's a millionare you have a beter chance of success than someone whose parent a coal miner. If you have talent as a violinist and you father's a musician--you have a better chance of success than if you father is tone deaf. Those are the facts of life.

BUT anyone with talent (at least in a Capitalist society in North America or Europe) have a chance to rise above their surrounding and succeed. Some luck is certainly required to be a Bill Gates or a Rockefeller, but as Robert pointed out (in his mention of The Millionare Next Door) that with hard work, frugality, some intelligence and time almost ANYONE could have a comfortable life--maybe not billions, but financially well off. Just like with lots of practice some lessons and time one could be a reasonably good violinist.

Money for the most part (if one is not born rich) is a matter of hard work, time and frugality.

[RGacky3]

If you have business talent and you daddy's a millionare you have a beter chance of success than someone whose parent a coal miner. If you have talent as a violinist and you father's a musician--you have a better chance of success than if you father is tone deaf. Those are the facts of life.

Well, its not just talent, its mainly access to large amounts of capital, if you look at what capitalism is today, competance has very little to do with it much of the time, large amounts of capital has everything to do with it.


with hard work, frugality, some intelligence and time almost ANYONE could have a comfortable life--maybe not billions, but financially well off.

For most people that would require risking everything they have for a very unlikely reward AND probably wasting most of their life.

[Bud Struggle]

For most people that would require risking everything they have for a very unlikely reward AND probably wasting most of their life.

Read The Millionare Next Door--LOTS of people do it. It's fairly straightforward--it just takes times and hard work and frugality.

[#FF0000]

Money for the most part (if one is not born rich) is a matter of hard work, time and frugality.

And not being born in a third world country. That's a pretty big factor too.

[Bud Struggle]

And not being born in a third world country. That's a pretty big factor too.

I completely agree with you there. I (almost) always state that the conditions for financial success are available in North America (I should state--excluding Mexico and below) and Europe and for the most part not in the rest of the world.

[RGacky3]

Read The Millionare Next Door--LOTS of people do it. It's fairly straightforward--it just takes times and hard work and frugality.

Ok, look at statistics. It takes time, huge amounts of risk, lots of hard work (of which your unlikely to see any return), and lots of capital, which more most poeple means a loan. That is unless your starting out with lots of Capital.


I completely agree with you there. I (almost) always state that the conditions for financial success are available in North America (I should state--excluding Mexico and below) and Europe and for the most part not in the rest of the world.

Keep in mind that much of the wealth in North America and Europe is not dispite, it is because of the despiration in the rest of the world. Its not that their system is somehow better, Capitalism is a global system.

[Bud Struggle]

Ok, look at statistics. It takes time, huge amounts of risk, lots of hard work (of which your unlikely to see any return), and lots of capital, which more most poeple means a loan. That is unless your starting out with lots of Capital.


Have a good idea and the capital will come to you. I've been there and that's not an issue. There's nothing wrong with a loan--I'm never done it myself, but I see nothing wrong with it.

[Havet]

Have a good idea and the capital will come to you. I've been there and that's not an issue. There's nothing wrong with a loan--I'm never done it myself, but I see nothing wrong with it.

Cheeky bastard :D

jk

[Bud Struggle]

Cheeky bastard :D

jk

I've always preferred the long slow road to the acquisition of wealth. But then again I'm no genius--I just work hard and I'm patient.

[mikelepore]

If what the supporters of capitalism wrote above, about the worker's savings being attainable through "hard work", that's sufficient to condemn capitalism. The workers have already developed the tools of production to the stage of modern automation and robotics, the productivity of labor is now astronomically greater than it was in ancient times, and yet so little of this benefit trickles down to wage-workers that they they remain subject to the curse of Sisyphus, "hard work."

Allow yourself no leisure time, no hobbies, no vacations, neglect your spouse and children, do nothing but work, work, work, and you may accumulate a stock portfolio sufficient to feed yourself for another few months in your old age.

"The more the worker expends himself in work, the more powerful becomes the world of objects which he creates in face of himself, the poorer he becomes in his inner life, and the less he belongs to himself. The worker puts his life into the object, and his life then belongs no longer to himself but to the object." -- Marx, Manuscripts of 1844

[graffic]

Finally, you're ignoring The Millionaire Next Door phenomenon. The many cases in that book describe folks who really do live in modest homes, drive boring Ford sedans, buy their suits off the rack at Penneys, and drink Budweiser. They also tend to have worked their asses off since they were kids, invested prudently, and created jobs. They also tend to make their kids work.

So what that people work hard and live within their means? Firstly, that's in a Western society which is elevated above the rest of the world - the majority of the rest of the world live in poverty. And how does that improve the moral position of the super rich? The fact is that through private schools, and offshore tax avoidance and funding right wing election campaigns the ruling class hold onto their assets which gives them un-deserved power over the majority. They absolutely LOVE the argument that if the "poor" are encouraged to work hard they can survive. The super rich, from what I've experienced, do not encourage their children to work hard. They are sent to superior education institutions and instilled with the belief of a superior sense of self-entitlement more than anything else. Most of them never have to brush shoulders with the (in the UK) 91% of state educated kids, they live in a bubble of high society and are socially conditioned to take on a role in the heart of the establishment.

Many of these people are extremely mediocre but because of the working class lacking any self-respect etc etc the conservative rhetoric of hard work pays off and keeps people in their place. I guess no one is saying working hard is bad, it is the fact that the capitalist system favours a minority which, when you get past free-market propaganda is not a fair deal for the majority.


It ain't perfect, but it's better than turning all wealth over to a Krooked Kadre of Komrades to redistribute to "The People" as they think best, after skimming off the cream for themselves ... and their kids.


I am not suggesting an alternative. Are you suggesting because communism failed in Russia capitalism is a morally and ethically superior system? Back in the 17th century nobody believed in anything except feudalism and thought it foolish to talk about an alternative

[Bud Struggle]

The super rich, from what I've experienced, do not encourage their children to work hard. They are sent to superior education institutions and instilled with the belief of a superior sense of self-entitlement more than anything else. Most of them never have to brush shoulders with the (in the UK) 91% of state educated kids, they live in a bubble of high society and are socially conditioned to take on a role in the heart of the establishment.

Many of these people are extremely mediocre but because of the working class lacking any self-respect etc etc the conservative rhetoric of hard work pays off and keeps people in their place.

But what does it matter what the super rich do and how they lead their lives? What is the basis for anyone judging anyone elses morality of life? They do what they do and we do what we do. If one is in the position of being born poor (as I was) then one if faced with certain life choices and one has to work within and with those choices to make oneself the life one wants--and for the most part under the condifions I was born in--not working hard wasn't an option. If other people had other options in life--what does that matter to me?

[mykittyhasaboner]

I completely agree with you there. I (almost) always state that the conditions for financial success are available in North America (I should state--excluding Mexico and below) and Europe and for the most part not in the rest of the world.

Except financial success means different things to different people, and these conditions for 'financial success' that exist in North America and Europe, rely on the very fact that there aren't any such conditions in the lesser developed world (or to put it in a more concrete way: they rely on the fact that the conditions for personal financial success are taken from people living outside the developed world by capitalist investors looking for their own 'financial success'). Your ability to start your own business and be able to live a comfortable life stems from the fact that someone else slaved over the creation of the very capital which makes your business.

[Bud Struggle]

Your ability to start your own business and be able to live a comfortable life stems from the fact that someone else slaved over the creation of the very capital which makes your business.

That is why we have to look at a more fair distibution of wealth around he world. And since it looks like a Revolution in the First World is unlikely because the people here are all living very well off the fruits of Third World labors and the chance of Revolution in the Third World is unlikely because the comfortable First World would disallow it--the only possible and fair solution is to raise the conditions of the Third World by Social Democratization.

Of course a Revolution would do the trick--but it would be messy and nasty and most likely would be lost by those starting it. A gradual process is the most logical way to proceed.

[mykittyhasaboner]

That is why we have to look at a more fair distibution of wealth around he world.
If you stopped here, you wouldn't be so wrong.


And since it looks like a Revolution in the First World is unlikely because the people here are all living very well off
What country do you live in? :rolleyes: I live in the US and not everybody is so well off. We've had this discussion before. It seems you still think the "first world" is some paradise of wealth and opportunity.


the fruits of Third World labors and the chance of Revolution in the Third World is unlikely because the comfortable First World would disallow it
So because the "first world" would "disallow it"; the chance of revolution in the "third world" is unlikely? That's really poor logic.


--the only possible and fair solution is to raise the conditions of the Third World by Social Democratization.

No the only possible solution is for the exploited classes of "third world" and the "first world" overthrow capitalism and pave the way for a new historical epoch.


Of course a Revolution would do the trick--but it would be messy and nasty and most likely would be lost by those starting it. A gradual process is the most logical way to proceed.
Here's your worst fallacy. You perceive revolution as just some violent conflict and messy business. The fact is though, that revolution is a very gradual process, and your cries for "social democratization" is merely a way of prolonging the process from even starting.

[Robert]

So what that people work hard and live within their means? Firstly, that's in a Western society which is elevated above the rest of the world - the majority of the rest of the world live in poverty.What do you mean "so what?" If you're asking me to admit that if I were born into a Masai or aboriginal Australian family that I could probably never become the Millionaire Next Door, I concede the point.


And how does that improve the moral position of the super rich? The fact is that through private schools, and offshore tax avoidance and funding right wing election campaigns the ruling class hold onto their assets which gives them un-deserved power over the majority.
It doesn't. Not that I find Bill Gates immoral just for being rich. He and his foundation are doing more for the poor now than I ever will. As for the right wing election campaigns, I guess you mean Bush or Reagan. But what right wingers are in power right now?


They absolutely LOVE the argument that if the "poor" are encouraged to work hard they can survive. Well that may be true, but it's not so that they can milk more life blood from the veins of the working class. Besides, what do you want them to do? Urge their employees to kick back and relax during work hours? They're


The super rich, from what I've experienced, do not encourage their children to work hard.Well, Paris Hilton seems like a nice girl but probably does need a job. So do the Walton "kids." I wasn't talking about the super rich, but rather the small biz owner who has done well. By the way, are you sure that Bill Gates doesn't expect his kids to work hard? That would really surprise me.

The point we're talking about is whether capitalism is to be rejected because the super rich are just lucky, or enjoy disproportionate fruits of the labor of others, or are free to pass wealth to indolent children. I say no for several reasons. I don't think that every dollar that Bill Gates has is a dollar that more rightfully belongs to me or to you or to your children. Same with Donald Trump, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Cruise, Paul McCartney, Madonna, and every starting QB in the NFL.

What exactly did the working class do for any of them, or they to the working class, that merits confiscating their wealth?

[RGacky3]

It doesn't. Not that I find Bill Gates immoral just for being rich. He and his foundation are doing more for the poor now than I ever will.

If you have billions of dollers and you do not give most of it away (its impossible to spend billions of dollars), then your a major league asshole, super rich philanthropy does'nt make you a good person, it makes you not a rediculously dicky jerk.

Thats almost like someone having so much food on his table he could never ever finish it, yet he refuses to give any to someone sitting next to him he has'nt had a meal all day and is starving. I doubt anyone is that much of a douche bag.


That is why we have to look at a more fair distibution of wealth around he world. And since it looks like a Revolution in the First World is unlikely because the people here are all living very well off the fruits of Third World labors and the chance of Revolution in the Third World is unlikely because the comfortable First World would disallow it--the only possible and fair solution is to raise the conditions of the Third World by Social Democratization.

Of course a Revolution would do the trick--but it would be messy and nasty and most likely would be lost by those starting it. A gradual process is the most logical way to proceed.

I compleatly agree, I think revolution is a gradual process as well, not social democracy, but syndicalism and working class organizing.

About the third world your absolutely right, however much of hte first world, especially in the United States, is also extreamly poor, and uncomfortable. So its not just a matter of the rich first world against the poor third. Its hte ruling class in the first world with the less powerful ruling calss in the third, against the underclasses OF the world, (of which the the third worlds underlcass has much worse conditions)

[Robert]

If you have billions of dollers and you do not give most of it away (its impossible to spend billions of dollars), then you're a major league asshole, super rich philanthropy does'nt make you a good person, it makes you not a rIdiculously (sorry, but that perennial "e" is driving me nuts) dicky jerk.

Do you know how much he is giving away? How much he plans to give away? How many jobs he has created? If he were that much of a jerk, he wouldn't have set up the foundation in the first place.

Most of Gates' wealth is in the form of stock, not cash piled up on a table. (That would be my style.) I guess he could just give 3 shares of microsoft to every poor person on the planet, but he has no moral obligation to do that and it wouldn't help them a bit.

Don't be so hard on people you don't know.

[graffic]

Bill Gates is such a saint. He lives in one of the most expensive houses ever built and gives millions to the poor but because of his overly generous philanthropy we should all bow down to him...


This is ignoring the fact that Bill Gates is an exception that proves nothing to any point you are trying to make. Libertarians, the cheer leaders of "rag to riches" etc etc love to quote the 1 in a million example of someone who "made it" into the ruling class. Most of the time it is through great personal sacrifice, sweating blood and tears and devoting everything to their life of work. The majority of people with capital and power in western societies have nothing in them that makes them any "better" than anyone else. It is an illusion that ignorant people unconsciously subscribe to because they don't think about questioning it

[Havet]

Bill Gates is such a saint. He lives in one of the most expensive houses ever built and gives millions to the poor but because of his overly generous philanthropy we should all bow down to him...

This is ignoring the fact that Bill Gates is an exception that proves nothing to any point you are trying to make. Libertarians, the cheer leaders of "rag to riches" etc etc love to quote the 1 in a million example of someone who "made it" into the ruling class.

This is not to mention that Bill Gates didn't even came from "rags" (http://www.cracked.com/article_16989_6-inspiring-rags-riches-stories-that-are-bullshit.html).

[IcarusAngel]

Thing about Bill Gates is that he makes it hard for many people not to like him. He admits our system has its flaws and so he tries to contribute to world hunger etc.

And it's easy to see how the computer industry could be much worse, with apple or something, where hardware AND software would be controlled by one company, instead of just software. Apple had like 'approved mice,' video cards, etc. Also, Unix was not providing a viable alternative, with its 'worse is better philosophy,' and so many talented programmers were using msdos just to get their work done and to have it run on many computers (as Unix had several different 'standards').

Bill Gates is another one who had good business sense and an idea of what people want, rather than being highly inventive and creative.

[Robert]

Libertarians, the cheer leaders of "rag to riches" etc etc love to quote the 1 in a million example of someone who "made it" into the ruling class.Here we have a strawman on top of a strawman. In the first place, I haven't heard "rags to riches" from any Libertarian, none here anyway, and I've heard nobody anywhere say Gates came from rags. On edit, I see Bud correctly points out both Gates' brains and his relatively modest background. He's no Paris Hilton.


Bill Gates is another one who had good business sense and an idea of what people want, rather than being highly inventive and creative.Didn't I tell you Icarus was smart?

[Bud Struggle]

This is not to mention that Bill Gates didn't even came from "rags" (http://www.cracked.com/article_16989_6-inspiring-rags-riches-stories-that-are-bullshit.html).

It's an average upper middle class family--now he makes in a day what his father made in his lifetime.

Also:
He entered Harvard by scoring 1590 out of 1600 on his SAT-- With those scores he would have gotten a free ride at Harvard no matter how little his father made.

I'm no fan or detracter of Gates--but he was pretty damn good at what he did. And that Cracked article--that author certainly has inferiority problems with rich people.

Besides I'M real rags to riches--I was born on the mean streets of suburban Connecticut, (well actually surburban Connecticut doesn have any mean streets--but they were grumpy sometimes) and I lived in a rodent invested hovel (not rats or mice or anything like that--but we did have moles in the front yard on occasion, and they definitely are rodents.) I could go on--but why bother. You guys wouldn't understand. :D

[mikelepore]

Bill Gates is another one who had good business sense and an idea of what people want, rather than being highly inventive and creative.

Yes, I really wanted that feature where the computer screen turns blue, says "this program has performed an illegal operation and will shut down", and destroys my work. It's a good thing that Bill Gates was perceptive enough to realize that I wanted that.

[IcarusAngel]

'Bugs' existed in systems far before Bill Gates came along. Of course, there is an effort in capitalism to make things as cheaply as possible, and you saw that in the computer industry even as MS had a monopoly and was virtually unchallenged, but most people would prefer a decent GUI to a terminal and a keyboard since most people use programs that do not need advanced commands being input to them. Furthermore, 'frequent crashing' hasn't been a for most since Windows XP came out several years ago.

Also, 'X' was not an alternative to windows for years, and programmers didn't like developing for it. It also 'crashed' quite a bit. Now that KDE has come out - which mimics windows and the mac GUI - linux/unix is more user friendly. GNOME is another one. But still most people prefer windows.

[IcarusAngel]

He entered Harvard by scoring 1590 out of 1600 on his SAT--

Yes, there is no doubt that Gates was smart. But Gates was more Rockefeller than Edison.

He had an idea of a general direction of where to take computers; probably many of the ideas that people like that windows has were created by average, worker/programmer 'drones,' not necessarily Bill Gates. I believe he stopped actual development somewhere around the Windows 3.1 days (and prior to that he was using other peoples ideas). (Even many of the ideas of the GUI and so on were not his, but other people's. The computer "mouse" was government invented and Xerox held a patent on it.)

The fact is workers/individual invents who happen to be inventing under oppressive corporate contracts often don't get the credit they dserve.

[Zanthorus]

On the subject of 'Rags to Riches' stories this is probably the best thing I've seen written on the subject:

"I want to rise with my class, not above my class!" - G. A. Cohen

[Mo212]

Besides I'M real rags to riches--I was born on the mean streets of suburban Connecticut, (well actually surburban Connecticut doesn have any mean streets--but they were grumpy sometimes) and I lived in a rodent invested hovel (not rats or mice or anything like that--but we did have moles in the front yard on occasion, and they definitely are rodents.) I could go on--but why bother. You guys wouldn't understand. :D

The question is why ANYONE should live like that in the 21st century, with our ability to overproduce out the ying yang.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes, there is no doubt that Gates was smart. But Gates was more Rockefeller than Edison.

On an ironic side-note, Edison never invented many of his "inventions". He had a workshop and patented,under his name, what his engineers designed. He hired them, so he owned their creativity and could take sole credit for collective efforts - ah teamwork under capitalism. His real "invention" was organizing the first research and development department.

So maybe he was like the Steve Jobs of the Victorian era.

[RGacky3]

"I want to rise with my class, not above my class!" - G. A. Cohen

I believe that was Eugene Debs. (An American hero if there ever was one)

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Why is the fact that people have different degrees of skill at different tasks relavant at all to communism? Just because someone is good at enterpreneurship doesn't mean that everyone else should be forced to sell their labour to him in order to survive, you know. If he's really that good let him prove such to the commune - they might even put him in charge if they feel being forced to work for him to be able to eat really brings such great economic benefits...

[graffic]

Here we have a strawman on top of a strawman. In the first place, I haven't heard "rags to riches" from any Libertarian, none here anyway, and I've heard nobody anywhere say Gates came from rags. On edit, I see Bud correctly points out both Gates' brains and his relatively modest background. He's no Paris Hilton.




How is it a straw-man? The straw-man argument is used in the first place to divert attention from the problems associated with free-market "competition". The point is that the ruling class will fight tooth and nail to keep what they have. That is why if you grow up in a modest position in society, as most of us do, you will be encouraged to stay down there. People say things like "you have a chip on your shoulder" or "you are jealous" when you perhaps confront reactionary opinions but it's the rich that have a chip on their shoulder. Lets be honest, they absolutely fucking hate the poor. And if any of them were down with the rest they would have a "chip" on their "shoulder", looking down from the top they are in no position to say people should "accept" what they have. They are directly preventing people from having what they deserve

Money is everything. Money is freedom and freedom is everything

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why is the fact that people have different degrees of skill at different tasks relavant at all to communism? Just because someone is good at enterpreneurship doesn't mean that everyone else should be forced to sell their labour to him in order to survive, you know. If he's really that good let him prove such to the commune - they might even put him in charge if they feel being forced to work for him to be able to eat really brings such great economic benefits...

Beneath the sarcasm is a good point... workers should be able to democratically decide on any organizational or managerial-type positions. The key is that workers should also be able to replace that position if that individual makes bad decisions for the workers.

The difference is that degree of skill is not inherent as capitalists argue in order to justify class divisions and inequality. We should have a society where everyone has a chance to develop the skills that they enjoy and are useful rather than developing skills that are marketable to employers. Just like some rich people today, everyone would have the chance to experiment and find out what they are good at and enjoy.

[Kayser_Soso]

Let me put forth something i've been mulling over and see what you guys think. I'm a Hayek following, Randian kind of guy.

I am terribly sorry to hear that. I sincerely hope one day you will overcome your social awkwardness and enjoy consensual sex without monetary transaction. Seriously.




I believe that all people are equally capable of achieving in a market place that welcomes competition.

No, this is impossible because if everyone "achieves", who's going to clean the toilets or pick up the garbage? In capitalism, for someone to "achieve", others have to lose. If everyone owns their own property for example, and can make money from that property(or perhaps stocks) to sustain their lifestyle, then who will produce? Who will work in the factories and produce the consumer goods? Answer: The "losers" in the system, those with no property, capital, or stocks.



And that welfare systems and nationalized health care are disincentives to compete and to achieve, thus perpetuating the plight of the poor rather than alleviating it.

That would be shocking news to the many European countries who have both welfare and nationalized healthcare, and in many cases higher standards of living than the US. You speak of incentives, but I must ask why must the poor's incentive to work be the threat of death and starvation, while the CEO's can only be motivated to work by huge eight digit compensation figures?

Moreoever, the more privatization and less regulation there is, the greater trend toward monopoly, which is basically the opposite of competition. Take a look at what has happened to the US media in the past twenty years and tell me where the competition went.




However, this belief is based on a great deal of faith in the capacity of human beings and their drive to succeed, which frankly is something I find myself questioning. Maybe some people just aren't capable of achieving anything? I have trouble admitting that to myself, but if that is true then we would need collective institutions to address the needs of those who are incapable of utilizing liberty to meet their needs. If people are inherently unequal then communism makes much more sense to me, but if people are equally capable of thinking and doing and achieving then laissez-faire capitalism is the best system because it is the only one which permits absolute liberty.

Laissez-faire capitalism cannot possibly provide "absolute liberty" because like I said, someone needs to lose(as in, in the game, not that they are really just 'losers' in a pejorative sence), and in order to keep the far larger amount of "losers" in order you need a strong police force, armies, etc. When some foreign country closes its market to yours, an army is needed, etc.



To say that a person is born without ambition or cleverness seems akin to calling them a farm animal and strikes me as impossible, but I do seem to be meeting a lot of people who remind me of cows...makes me wonder. Are all people born with smarts? Or is a free market only useful to the portion of humanity born with the right amount of initiative?


Communism actually does not propose that all people are inherently equal. What we believe is that all people deserve an equal chance, and that they should be considered equal under the law; but that they can only have true equality under the law when they have equality of class.

The fact that your faith in Randism seems shaken is a good sign. You may very well be on your way to becoming the life of the party, and even succeeding on the dating scene as well. But drop the elitism. Yes, people often do seem like "cows or sheep", but sometimes you have to consider their individual experience and the conditions they live under. You have to ask yourself sometimes, "Is it possible, that at least on some issues, I am a cow?" I certainly was for many years; and though I am a Mooooorxist-Leninist now, I see M-L as a methodology for evaluating situations and finding answers, not as an answer in and of itself.

[Tungsten]

But the vast majority of the population have to sell their time and energy to survive, and the vast majority of the population don't even live in the places where capitalism does provide a decent standard of living (more often than not due to a hefty government safety net).

I think you've illustrated the problem with your worldview- capitalism isn't suppose to provide you with anything besides individual rights, so complaining about it failing to providing some with a particular standard of living is a straw man. Secondly, a hefty government safety net can only come from hefty tax levy, which removes disposable income, and thus is likely to lower the overall standard of living for everyone. The idea that any government can (or does) spend our money better, more carefully and more efficiently than the people who earned it has got to be one of the greated political hoaxes of our age.


And then I can go into imperialism, war over resources/markets,

Yawn. All these existed long before capitalism. Non agression principle runs contrary to imperialism etc.


the absurdly lopsided distribution of wealth with the top 1% owning somewhere from 90 to 99% of it all...etc.

I've lost count of the number of times I've explained why economic equality doesn't matter.

[Tungsten]

On an ironic side-note, Edison never invented many of his "inventions".
I heard all about that. Most of his brilliant inventions were actually Tesla's. He owed Tesla thousands - and that was over a century ago.

Then again, when he got screwed, he just started his own company. Thank heavens for capitalism, otherwise he probably wouldn't have been allowed to do that.


When you think of it, altruism is actually the best form of rational egoism.

"When I think of it" giving all of your organs away is the ultimate expression of altruism, but it's not rational or egoistic. Something has to give.


If everyone tended to each-other's needs and dreams, and cooperated fully on all spectres, no one would be left aside and everyone would find a way to fulfill the needs of all individuals (i.e themselves).
Who gets first priority on whose need and dreams? Which "needs and dreams" come first? You're a utopian.


In a society where everyone just saw to their own individual needs and humans did not organise in groups, we would see each house turn into a fortress
That charicature again. Everyone does see to their own needs as more important than that of their wider community; people tend to put their own needs and those of their own families above those of strangers. It's human nature. And the own needs/group organisation thing is a false dichotomy.


---------


Well, this is part of it (and definitely a shitty aspect of capitalist society... how many other Van Goughs are out there that didn't have the financial support he had to continue his work... how sad would it be for world culture if he quit and got a job because he couldn't live off his paintings?)

More like the shitty aspect of a statism - trying to get the state to force the public to fund one's subjective art preferences ("culture") and push it on to the rest of us in forms that no one would willingly waste their money on. This is exactly what we have today. Names like Tracy Emin and Damien Hurst spring to mind.

Then again, if they can make money off their crap, I don't think Van Gough would have had much trouble.

-------


lol. Wow. I can choose to starve to death, or work hard for a pittance at some corporation or serveral corporations, and perhaps still starve to death anyway once the corporation goes under and I lose my retirement (hy heart goes out to these people). This is the same 'choice' a chattel slave has: work or die.
Yes! If it wasn't for capitalism, food and luxury goods would just appear in a puff of smoke and no one would have to work ever.

Yeah, right. All products come from productive effort of some sort. Everyone has to work or starve no matter what the system - no one willingly wants to work while other people live off them - the objection to the percieved parasitism of bosses is proof enough of that. But for some reason, you seem to think that people will be able to just "work at whatever they want" without regard to the needs or wants of society. You're living in the ivory tower, buddy.

Oh and people can just walk out of a corporation and work for themselves without any kind of legal repercussion. Under statism, you'd be legally punished for failing to provide the "needy" with their "right to food", or something similar.

It is true that whether or not such a society could exist is still a debatable point.
I love the way you came out with that as if it could be waved away as some minor trifling point.

-------



If what the supporters of capitalism wrote above, about the worker's savings being attainable through "hard work", that's sufficient to condemn capitalism. The workers have already developed the tools of production to the stage of modern automation and robotics, the productivity of labor is now astronomically greater than it was in ancient times, and yet so little of this benefit trickles down to wage-workers that they they remain subject to the curse of Sisyphus, "hard work."

I suspect that less that 0.1% of wage-workers are responsible for the creation of those means of production that you're are trying to take credit for. Oh the absurdity of collectivism...

--------------


Except financial success means different things to different people, and these conditions for 'financial success' that exist in North America and Europe, rely on the very fact that there aren't any such conditions in the lesser developed world (or to put it in a more concrete way: they rely on the fact that the conditions for personal financial success are taken from people living outside the developed world by capitalist investors looking for their own 'financial success').
In my previous post, I mentioned "the greatest political hoaxes of our age". This is probably the greatest.

Never mind the fact your success - far from impoverishing them - is actually improving their infrastructure and creating more wealth than they would have otherwise had doing subsistence farming. If these people weren't in the state they were in, they would just have to rely on more local unskilled labour. The profits would probably be less, but that's the way it works.

[Demogorgon]

Yawn. All these existed long before capitalism. Non agression principle runs contrary to imperialism etc.

Then it logically follows that the non aggression priniple runs contrary to capitalism.

[Tungsten]

Then it logically follows that the non aggression priniple runs contrary to capitalism.
Erm no it doesn't. Certainly not from what I posted, anyway.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes! If it wasn't for capitalism, food and luxury goods would just appear in a puff of smoke and no one would have to work ever.

No where did I imply this. This is just another diversion tatic. We were talking about whether capitalism was the RIGHT way to distribute resources.

Even many capitalists admit current capitalism has problems and the homesteading principle would make capitalism look quite different.

For example, it gives you the ability to use landed property that has been abandoned or is no longer in use. I personally do not like this solution at all, though.


Yeah, right. All products come from productive effort of some sort. Everyone has to work or starve no matter what the system - no one willingly wants to work while other people live off them - the objection to the percieved parasitism of bosses is proof enough of that. But for some reason, you seem to think that people will be able to just "work at whatever they want" without regard to the needs or wants of society. You're living in the ivory tower, buddy.

They have to work in the sense that they have to feed themselves, yes. People have to feed themselves and take care of their hygiene and so on. Did you just discover this or did you read it in a book?

Most people learn how to do these things from their parents. Of course, innate ability also comes into play, and this enables us to eventually feed ourselves etc.

However, I believe there could be a system with enough food production to not require people to submit themselves to slavery just to be able to eat. They could grow their own food or have it provided. If people want more resources, that is where the 'socialism' enters the picture.

I imagine many people right now would want any system that would provide food enough for everybody, esp. in the third world. That way they could start focusing on actually 'growing' economically instead of worrying about their constant starvation problem. If the capitalist conception was true, they would have built themselves up from starvation. Usually you take care of your basic necessities FIRST, THEN you start cooperating with other humans to build up an economy.

Capitalists have their logic reversed, as usual.


Oh and people can just walk out of a corporation and work for themselves without any kind of legal repercussion. Under statism, you'd be legally punished for failing to provide the "needy" with their "right to food", or something similar.

People can't just 'walk away from corporations' as in that case corporations could take away your home and food, just like they could do to a slave.

If you had complete control by corporations, corporations would essentially control your life.

This is why all people from the political spectrum, even many conservatives, oppose 'pure capitalism' and 'pure free-markets.'

And even Libertarians purpose harebrained schemes to work away from the problems of businesses having complete control which are always insuffienct.

It's clear that pure free-market capitalist theory would allow complete corporate control; so it is modified with a lot of oversimplified nonsense to supposedly compensate for that.


I love the way you came out with that as if it could be waved away as some minor trifling point.


We were discussing the tyranny of capitalism. I admit that a socialist system is perhaps not possible. This is a fundamental question to whether or not people will ever have 'socialism,' and one most socialists avoid altogether. By admitting it, that means I will eventually have to debate it. However, this was not the subject of the thread.

It has been shown in game theory and so on that cooperative strategies often prove the most effective. There is a lot of evidence going in favor of non-market systems.

Many economists are aware of this and some have even been studying into this area of economics, including political scientists and social scientists.

To me, socialism seems a lot more plausible than anarcho-capitalism, which has also never existed, and the freest societies in history were clearly libertarian-socialist ones, in Israel with the Kibbutzim and on the large scale in the Spanish Revolution. There have been several others, all crushed by outside forces. So I guess the question is 'whether or not they would work long term.'?

[greymatter]

This is ignoring the fact that Bill Gates is an exception that proves nothing to any point you are trying to make. Libertarians, the cheer leaders of "rag to riches" etc etc love to quote the 1 in a million example of someone who "made it" into the ruling class.
Since when does Bill Gates rule anything? Jay Z is rags to riches and Isn't ruling class either. I'd be really interested to find out how many members of our ruling class - senate and congress specifically - are entrepreneurs rather than frat boys or crooks.

[#FF0000]

I think you've illustrated the problem with your worldview- capitalism isn't suppose to provide you with anything besides individual rights, so complaining about it failing to providing some with a particular standard of living is a straw man. Secondly, a hefty government safety net can only come from hefty tax levy, which removes disposable income, and thus is likely to lower the overall standard of living for everyone. The idea that any government can (or does) spend our money better, more carefully and more efficiently than the people who earned it has got to be one of the greated political hoaxes of our age.


1) Individual rights like what, and how does poverty not interfere with someone exercising those rights? Are you really going to tell me that the rich don't have more freedom than the poor?
2) Like tons of people have said before, the countries with the highest standard of living also happen to have very high tax rates and a hefty safety net. Surprise

[RHIZOMES]

Since when does Bill Gates rule anything? Jay Z is rags to riches and Isn't ruling class either. I'd be really interested to find out how many members of our ruling class - senate and congress specifically - are entrepreneurs rather than frat boys or crooks.

Ruling class doesn't mean government officials at all, it means those with the economic power i.e. control over the means of production. Government officials are part of the ruling class but they aren't the entirety of the ruling class. Read some Marx bro.

[greymatter]

Ruling class doesn't mean government officials at all, it means those with the economic power i.e. control over the means of production. Government officials are part of the ruling class but they aren't the entirety of the ruling class. Read some Marx bro.I have.
I was thinking abut it alot, and I realized that you're right about these guys being ruling class. Jay Z is rags to riches, but he also owns a record company AND he endorsed Barack Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U496VPVT9y8) for goodness sake!. Meanwhile, Bill Gates is schmoozing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsgvhP07BC8) with Warren Buffet in Long Beach. I just wish that they hadn't expolited so many people to get where they are.

What I really have a problem with though, worse than all those entrepreneurs combined is this guy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/46_Dick_Cheney_3x4.jpg/225px-46_Dick_Cheney_3x4.jpg
If anyone can name one single slightly -even remotely- redeeming quality of this guy, I'll join the republican party and campaign for longer mandatory minimums and a jail term for abortion.