Originally posted by Proud and Selfish
[email protected] 22 2003, 01:14 PM
My point still stands, ad hominens aside. The man at the cash register is doing a very simple job. (By the way, El Infiltr(A)do, I do not laugh at such "losers", because my current is working at a register! But I recognize that I work there voluntarily, and that no employer in his right mind would pay me the same wage as an architect or a businessman or a CEO, etc. The virtue of capitalism is that, once I am older, I will have the chance to rise, to become wealthier, unlike in your communist system. I will discuss this further below.)
...so you ate the lie that one day you will be rich... by everything you said I guess you can't say you are working hard. If your argument would be correct, then I would say that you aren't working hard, so under that argument this means that if some day you get rich you haven't worked hard for it, or that you will never be rich. And why do you need to be wealthy after all?
Faulty premise: That an African lives in a capitalist system, and therefore his poverty is a result of capitalism.
In actual fact, the reason an African would most likely have no skills or abilities is the fact that what he lacks is not primarily skills or ability, but, rather freedom and capitalism.
No, what at African needs is money and REAL freedom. You keep justifying that the neo-liberalism isn't real "capitalism", however you are blind to see that the socialist regimes (such as the URSS) weren't "communist". This shows you are one sided, and close minded. It's the same exact thing! Just that one a different ideological side. I will admit that the "free market" we live in now isn't "free", however I don't personally see how your ideal capitalism will fix the problems we have right now.
The following was written by Andrew Bernstein (1 March 2003):
A specter is haunting Africa-the specter of starvation. At least 2.5 million Zambians currently face famine, as do millions more across southern Africa-in Lesotho, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. The United Nations estimates that more than 14 million Africans face possible starvation this March.
According to the comprehensive 2001 Index of Economic Freedom, sub-Sahara Africa "remains by far the poorest area in the world." In Ethiopia, per capita GNP is estimated at $108. In Sierra Leone the figure is $146; in Mozambique $178; in Tanzania $180. By contrast, the per capita GNP in the United States exceeds $30,000.
Most people forget that pre-industrial Europe was vastly poorer than contemporary Africa and had a much lower life expectancy. Even a relatively well-off country like France is estimated to have suffered seven general famines in the 15th century, thirteen in the 16th, eleven in the 17th and sixteen in the 18th. And disease was rampant. Given an utter lack of sanitation, the bubonic plague, typhus and other diseases recurred incessantly into the 18th century, killing tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands at a time.
The effect on life expectancy was predictable. In parts of France, in the middle of the 17th century, only 58 percent reached their 15th birthday, and life expectancy was 20. In Ireland, life expectancy in 1800 was a mere 19 years. In early 18th century London, more than 74 percent of the children died before reaching age five.
Then a dramatic change occurred throughout Europe. The population of England doubled between 1750 and 1820, with childhood mortality dropping to 31.8 percent by 1830. Something happened that enabled people to stay alive.
What did that early period lack that the later period had? Capitalism. What does Africa lack that the West has? Capitalism. It is capitalism that enabled the West to rise to great prosperity. The lack of capitalism is responsible for Africa's crushing poverty.
What is capitalism? It is an economic system in which all property is privately owned, a system without government regulation and government handouts. It is a free economy, a system in which individuals are free to produce, to trade, and to make-and keep-a profit.
Capitalism is a social system based on individual rights, the right of every individual to his life, his liberty and the pursuit of his own happiness. The thinkers of the Enlightenment, including John Locke and the Founding Fathers, brought these ideas to the forefront in Europe and America. The result was an economic revolution, which-in a relatively brief time-transformed the West from a poverty-stricken region to one of great productive wealth. This system of freedom liberated the most creative minds of Western society, resulting in a torrent of innovations-from James Watt's steam engine to Louis Pasteur's germ theory to Henry Ford's automobile to the Wright Brothers' airplane and much more. This new freedom, and the Industrial Revolution it spawned, resulted in vast increases in agricultural and industrial production.
Creative minds-from Thomas Edison to Steve Jobs-flourish only under freedom. The result is new products, new jobs, new wealth, in short: the furtherance of life on earth, in length, quantity and quality. Under the kings, theocracies, military dictatorships and socialist regimes that dominate Africa, such minds are stifled. The result is stagnation, poverty and death.
Africa has the identical natural resource fundamentally responsible for the West's rise: the human mind. But it has neither the freedom nor the Enlightenment philosophy of reason, individualism and political liberty necessary for creating wealth and health. Africa is mired in tribal cultures that stress subordination to the group rather than personal independence and achievement. All over the continent brutal dictators murder and rob innocent citizens in order to aggrandize themselves and members of their tribes.
What Africa desperately needs is to remove the political and economic shackles and replace them with political and economic freedom. It needs to depose the military dictators and socialist regimes and establish capitalism, with its political/economic freedom, its rule of law and respect for individual rights. And to accomplish that, it first needs to remove the philosophic shackles and replace tribal collectivism with a philosophy of reason and freedom. The truly humanitarian system is not the Marxism espoused by Western intellectuals but the only system that can establish, as it historically has, the furtherance of life on earth: capitalism.
(Also on this topic: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=798)
So, why would an African be unqualified? Not because of capitalism, but because of the lack of capitalism!
I did a small research on the author of this, and I found out he believes in "heroism". ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FASCIST PRINCIPLES!!!! Take a look: http://www.andrewbernstein.net/heroes/2_heroism.htm And by the way, I doubt such a thing as a heroe exist, but back to the point, in the same way you accuse "communism" and fascism to be the same thing, I can just say the same about your capitalism and fascism, even if my argument sounds dumb or is not a thing that can be justified if we do a deep research on their differences. Also, you see the economical ideas divided in the following way: "lf capitalism", "fascism/communism"(planned economy), "mercantilism". For you there is no alternative, and each thing is different. Back to this text, what caused so much poverty are the closest thing to your capitalism that ever existed. Educating this people should be enough. But education is outside of your system (excepting if some private corporation con make money out of it).
But you'd gladly rob them of their wealth if the world came under communist rule tomorrow.
Which wealth? I don't see many rich proffesionals in my daily life.
El Infiltr(A)do: I condemn those whose job depends on exploiting others.
Like the African tribes that "that stress subordination to the group"? Like the African rulers who "rob innocent citizens in order to aggrandize themselves and members of their tribes"? That's what I call true exploitation. Like the communist party that seeks to rob people of their possessions in order to "redistribute" it? Yes, I too condemn those who seek to exploit others (such as communists).
Come on, we all know what corporations do...but of course, for you those are the "other" capitalists.
But an employer, such as mine, who hasn't put a gun to my head and "oppressed" me in any way, has not "exploited" anyone. Don't be rediculous. If he attempted such a thing he would be arrested for going against the laws of a predominantly capitalist society (I live in Australia, which is relatively capitalistic). If an employer tried to "oppress" a worker by "making him" work harder, the employee can say: I'm quitting if I have to put up with these horrible conditions. And, if he's a good worker, the employer won't want to lose him. (Which means that the employer will have to stop demanding so much, otherwise his good employee will be employed by one of his competitors - therefore it is in the employer's self-interest to give his employee a fair rate of pay, good conditions, etc.)
I would never put a gun in someone's head to exploit them. The point is, the one who has the money rules and the others do what they can to survive. Or at least that's what you seem to defend. By the way, many "hard-working" people complain of having to work more hours than usual some times. If the don't obey their bosses, they will be surely out in the streets. It won't matter then how much experience and skill this worker has, everything will then depend on how many workplaces are available for him. There won't usually be many because not many people invest. And the population keeps growing. And yes, giving good working conditions it's in the employer's interest - but as you mentioned it's only because he needs the worker or he wont get wealth. He would be glad to enslave them, but at least laws prevent that from happening.
For example, Henry Ford payed his workers $5 an hour when the going rate was about $3 - in order to attract the best workers on the market. These people were not "oppressed", they were liberated thanks to capitalism which made such competition possible.`
And that explains why he had success - by attracting the "means of production that breathe".
Not if he's a good one! He'll be picked up by whoever's willing to employ him. (And if no one is, then he could volunteer to work for a few days for free, to prove his competence, and if the employer likes him, he will hire him.)
How many will be willing to employ him??? How many will be able to pay them after the "free days"???? Aren't those "free days" slavery??? (Employers can have thousands working for free every day in that way without really hiring someone). And this could also cause that someone else will have to leave to be replaced for this worker. Maybe the one who worked harder???
Another interesting point is that if bosses are forced to pay their workers extra money, don't forget that they have a business to run, family to feed, etc. If you force them to pay more (and by "force" I mean via regulation or government intervention), then they won't be able to employ as many people as they would have previously been able. This is the root of unemployment. (i.e. government intervention into the economy.)
That's not true - they have to buy their BMWs, that why they don't pay workers more than what they may deserve.
Who's forcing him?
The system. The media. The state (if it exists). The old-fashioned right-wing rules. All those beliefs imposed by their family, making them understand that "nobody gifts me nothing in this world" while people have claimed to own it. Of course they sometimes do it to make them survive in this system.
Who? Africans are oppressed under their "bosses" (dictators).
Bosses = dictators. Privatizations = dictatorship by the rich.
The poor people in a capitalist society are not. It is they who profit most from capitalism.
The "profit" comes because certain people started claiming that they ruled the world and started controlling things. This is oppression of the "weak" by the "strong". That's how the economical inequalities started. Those greedy conquerors, if they would live in this times, could be easily called "imperialists" or fascists". If the poor get profit it is because the own nothing from where to get welath, so their only option is to accept working for some greedy capitalist that will use them to turn what they own into new wealth. And then those capitalists will claim to own that wealth.
(The average poor person in America today has a television, a car, etc.)
I have a friend living in Miami who told me once that over there they pay you U$S 1000 a month for washing dishes in a restaurant. I doubt you get more than 400 here for that same work. Where did this inequalities came from? Mercantilism and neo-liberalism, the closest things to your ideal capitalism.
I am not saying that communists commit fraud - I am sure that communism rejects fraud also. The point I am trying to make is that CAPITALISM DOES NOT ADVOCATE FRAUD, NOR DOES IT ADVOCATE EATING BABIES FOR BREAKFAST, NOR FORCING PEOPLE TO DO THINGS AGAINST THEIR WILL. Only communism advocates forcing people against their will. (And don't give me the "democracy" solution - if 90% of people say it is right to rob someone, that doesn't make it right! That is as subjective as saying, "I want, therefore it's right.")
Well I don't really have any big objections to this, excepting the "forcing people against their will" is a hard thing to determinate. In fact I don't think it would be that way if, let's say, in Cuba someone like you takes the power. But the failure of Stalinism (and also Trotskyism) in reaching the people (together with the pressure from the yanqui empire) is what made people so happy when the Berlin Wall was taken down. It depends on the democracy. By you avoiding democracy you show you have no respect for people's rights, because they threaten your utopia. At least that's what I got from what you said. In fact the "democracy" that exists on places like yanquiland are not based on people controlling the country but giving up those rights into corrupted politicians.
Also, you meantion "the power to manipulate everything". This is undefined and arbitrary. What do you mean by this? (If you are implying that a capitalist government has the power to manipulate whatever it wants, you seem to be forgetting that capitalists advocate a small, restricted government, bound by the constitution. Only a fascist, communist or statist government of some variety could have the power to manipulate everything.)
Well, let's say that with money, the capitalists control the media, so they can spread any lie they want. People absorb and accept them most of the times. People isn't given freedom to judge if what they hear is right or wrong, especially because they don't have time. Sometimes this is as dangerous as a fascist regime because they can use that to make profits.
No, what I meant was that the communists who seek government intervention are the looters. And, thankfully, they do not constitute "most people".
That was the problem of the URSS. Only a minority compose the government. That should be fixed. Those "communists" that want to take power see their methods as the way to reach communism, which I don't think will ever work because they explode the whole population. Imperialist capitalists are big looters, giving a fuck about the environment and the people, only trying to get the cheapest expense and the biggest income, looting entire nations (such as where I live).
Give me an example.
For the purposes of this post, I shall make an example of my own. A company called "Shoes R Us" opens a factory in whoop whoop and starts employing people who were otherwise going to starve or whose wages were 50 cents a day. Shoes R Us starts employing at 40 cents/day. They soon find that no one wants to work at their factory because they aren't paying enough (the only people who work there are those who were otherwise unemployed, but this is not enough). They soon up their pay to 50 cents/day. The locals flock to work at their factory, because the conditions are mildly better than the alternative. The "alternative", however, starts losing workers, so it increases its wages to 55 cents/day and increases its condiitions. A new factory enters the market and so the process continues.
These workers are not exploited; they benefit most of all from the "dog eat dog" competition. Now, are the "rich cappies" stealing what the workers produced? The factory owners also own the materials and machines to be used in the process of production. These things are not owned by the employees, and when people are employed, the contract is such that they will be payed for their services. Why would they subscribe to this if they were going to be "robbed"? If I was in such a position, and I knew I would be robbed if I worked at such a factory, I'd go farm the land elsewhere, or work on someone else's land in return for whatever pay they could offer. I would refuse to be robbed. "Give me liberty or give me death". Under capitalism, no such "robbing" is allowed to occur.
About your example: there will come a point when one of those companies can't pay any more because it won't be gaining enough to keep those wage levels. If this company goes bankrupt the other one will have absolute control of that part of the economy (unless theres another local competitor), then they will exploit their workers as they want, and those specialized on making shoes won't have other places to go to work. And also, do you think companies just hire people??? Not, they want to pick the best! Nobody will be so dumb as to leave their job to go for a better one with so much competition, or they would be left on the streets or they would be back in their previous job where they will be treated like shit (that's of course if there arent many free places left now on it). Also, that company (which has the monopoly) will control prices as they wish, unless a competitor comes out (but as the other company has more money for advertising, more experience and will be more known, so they will smash the new competitors).
What would a builder do if it weren't for the architect who drew up the incredibly complex plans for the skyscraper he is building? Where would the man at the cash register be if it weren't for the man who invented the cash register, the man who built the supermarket, the man who runs the business? He would be without his job.
In a leftist economy, this works on a different way. Useful buildings would be built, this will require builders. Architects will normally do their work. According to what the scoiety needs, there should be more demand for some proffesion. That's what should regulate a leftist economy, what everyone needs.
Very true, we all want money and happiness. What better way to achieve it than in a society of freedom? Which means: a society in which every trade is made voluntarily, so that each person profits from the deal. Intervening in that trade means a win-lose or lose-lose deal.
I want happiness and the things I need to live and spend a good time in my life. Instead of money i prefer some thing or service with that same value. That's my preference of course. "Voluntary trades" will be useless if monopolies appear. Also, there isnt freedom if the other side of the trade wants to steal you with their prices, and if you dont make people judge if what the seller advertises is good. It's just buy buy buy buy. And hope its a good deal.
Do I own my body? If so, then when I enter this world, it is my only possession. But it is mine. Therefore I can say to someone: I will work for 4 hours tonight, you pay me $50. And so I attain wealth in that way. Over time, I can use my mind to create or invent ideas, which I can trade for property; or I can continue trading my services for property.
You don't own your body. You ARE your body.
Also, this entirely contradicts everything you've said: if a person has no property rights, it is impossible to be exploited (since he never truly owned anything in the first place!)
How does that "evil rich person" steal from a worker if you reject property rights in the first place?
Would you deny a bird from flying over your house? Nothing says that some people has to be forced to live on the streets or live in poverty . What I'm trying to say is that a minority exploited the rest of the people since thousands of years ago and this means that the exploited should "own" a part of this world. But they are being denied to do so.
Oh, I see. It is only the people who have earned their money that have no right to it, and those who have not earned it who have the "right" to other people's profits.
I do not really oppose that. I think that while people can contribute in some way to the society, they can be given things, but if they don't they should be denied things only the don't even have what they need to survive. Then they will have to start helping.
Actually, it was the rejection of slavery and conquer and legalized force that led to a benevolent, orderly, civilised society (the United States of America, the noblest country in history).
Civilized?? Yeah, civilized new conqueror wannabies that go around the world pretending to be the policemen of it, only to gain oil and defend the profits of their citizens.
I agree, society changed from liassez-faire, to a more fascist/socialist/mixed-economy society. I say we go back to capitalism, don't you?
Instead, you suggest communism, as if that's the only viable solution. This is a classic example of the "false dichotomy" fallacy, setting up communism and fascism as the only two possibilities, rejecting the (predominant) capitalism that existed earlier on in America's history. (It was never truly capitalistic, but the degree of capitalism was consistent with the degree of economic growth).
I never said that I suggest communism. At least not the communism you have always criticised "a fascist looter totalitarian state who killied 100 million". And i dont see socialism in neo-liberalism.
The inability to distinguish between political power and economic power is rediculously common amongst leftists (and many rightists).
Yeah, many rightists do that mistake. My theory is that political and economical power are related.
However, I am tired and a I want to go to sleep now, so I will check the rest of you rpost tomorrow, if that doesnt bother you.