OIers - something for you to rebut

[BobKKKindle$]

A work in progress, by me. Rebut this.



In all societies based on the capitalist economic system there exists an unequal distribution of wealth. Statistics documenting this inequality and changes over a period of time are widely available. Defendants of Capitalism argue that income differences are the product of individuals' free choices over the use of their abilities and resources in a market economy and thus should be accepted, and political measures to rectify inequality are illegitimate. It is the objective of this essay to rebut this view and advance a socialist evaluation of equality.

(...)

In a capitalist society, the income of an adult individual is determined by factors over which they have no control and thus to which they cannot be held accountable, if one accepts a system of ethics emphasizing the importance of individual agency. The most important of these factors is the income of the family unit into which one is born, as this determines the quality of education to which one has access. It is therefore wrong to argue that an unskilled worker endures poor living standards and working conditions because they are not intelligent or are unwilling to work hard; they simply have not been able to enjoy the same opportunities as someone born into a family that does not face financial insecurity. In addition to opportunities, one's family origin can also confer unfair advantages in the form of ownership of productive assets through inheritance, which can allow an individual to enjoy luxury for the duration of their lives and abstain from making any useful contribution to their community. It is therefore clear that income in a capitalist society is not a reflection of individual determination. A statistical analysis of social immobility shows how every individual is limited by their birth. The recent publication of the Sutton Report by the London School of Economics. demonstrated that children born into families in the lowest income quartile in 1970 had a 0.38 probability of remaining in the same income group at age 30. This allows us to dispense with deceitful ideas such as the 'American Dream' and conclude that capitalism is an economic system based on structural immobility.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:39 am
In all societies based on the capitalist economic system there exists an unequal distribution of wealth. Statistics documenting this inequality and changes over a period of time are widely available. Defendants of Capitalism argue that income differences are the product of individuals' free choices over the use of their abilities and resources in a market economy and thus should be accepted, and political measures to rectify inequality are illegitimate. It is the objective of this essay to rebut this view and advance a socialist evaluation of equality.
I like it, but I tend to think that describing your personal desire (socialism) early in a piece will shut out the reader. Most things I have read that seemed very persuasive put the problem foreward, describe what people have tried to do to solve it, how that has failed, and finally explain what the author thinks should be done. In this way, if your argument is good and the reader is receptive, you have the reader agreeing with you up to the term "socialist" and wondering if views they may not have considered socialist are in fact just that, and maybe even decidign to call their own ideas that.

For instance, if I say "I want you to use some Nazi technology. The technology is very useful for audio communications" It is a lot harder to get you to use the technology than if I had said "I want you to use this great communications technology. BTW, it happened to be developed by the Nazis."


In a capitalist society, the income of an adult individual is determined by factors over which they have no control and thus to which they cannot be held accountable, if one accepts a system of ethics emphasizing the importance of individual agency. The most important of these factors is the income of the family unit into which one is born, as this determines the quality of education to which one has access.
I think you are giving people too little credit here for their own development. I don't think we have really different ideas here, but I think you are jumping too quickly into the point, making it seem as if humans have no control over their actions - if that were true, it would be pointless to aadvocate for any freer society. You should spend a few more sentences or paragraphs clarifying this point, as it is crucial to your overall argument.



It is therefore wrong to argue that an unskilled worker endures poor living standards and working conditions because they are not intelligent or are unwilling to work hard; they simply have not been able to enjoy the same opportunities as someone born into a family that does not face financial insecurity. In addition to opportunities, one's family origin can also confer unfair advantages in the form of ownership of productive assets through inheritance, which can allow an individual to enjoy luxury for the duration of their lives and abstain from making any useful contribution to their community.
You are going back to defending your earlier point. This last statement should either be moved up or deleted.


It is therefore clear that income in a capitalist society is not a reflection of individual determination. A statistical analysis of social immobility shows how every individual is limited by their birth. The recent publication of the Sutton Report by the London School of Economics. demonstrated that children born into families in the lowest income quartile in 1970 had a 0.38 probability of remaining in the same income group at age 30. This allows us to dispense with deceitful ideas such as the 'American Dream' and conclude that capitalism is an economic system based on structural immobility.
Despite the statistics being old (there are recent ones that support your claim) it is stil good to have some. Still, I think you are all over the place, which is easy to do, but I think it would be good for you to work on your structure. Also, you didn't say anything about why socialism would be good, just why capitalism is bad :P

[pusher robot]

In a capitalist society, the income of an adult individual is determined by factors over which they have no control and thus to which they cannot be held accountable, if one accepts a system of ethics emphasizing the importance of individual agency.

Education level is something very much in the control of individuals. Even those from low-income families have the opportunity to attend high-quality schools, if they demonstrate the aptitude.

If anything, the biggest problem is not resource allocation but parental ability - low-income parents tend to be low-income because they make poor decisions, and are probably not great parents, conferring an early and thus compounded disadvantage to those children with intelligent, motivated parents. As a result, they don't lack the resources but the aptitude to access high-quality education. But I can't see how you could rectify this without authoritarian measures.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 17, 2007 02:38 pm

In a capitalist society, the income of an adult individual is determined by factors over which they have no control and thus to which they cannot be held accountable, if one accepts a system of ethics emphasizing the importance of individual agency.

Education level is something very much in the control of individuals. Even those from low-income families have the opportunity to attend high-quality schools, if they demonstrate the aptitude.


...and the green stuff to back it up.
:rolleyes:

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 17, 2007 06:12 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 17, 2007 06:12 pm)
pusher [email protected] 17, 2007 02:38 pm

In a capitalist society, the income of an adult individual is determined by factors over which they have no control and thus to which they cannot be held accountable, if one accepts a system of ethics emphasizing the importance of individual agency.

Education level is something very much in the control of individuals. Even those from low-income families have the opportunity to attend high-quality schools, if they demonstrate the aptitude.


...and the green stuff to back it up.
:rolleyes: [/b]
Good quality schools WANT talented students, as that is how they stay good-quality. Hence, you may have heard of these things called "scholarships."

Not to mention, there is hardly a shortage of lenders willing to loan money for educational expenses.

And leaving aside, of course, the vast amount of grants and subsidized loans distributed by the government.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+October 17, 2007 07:23 pm--> (pusher robot @ October 17, 2007 07:23 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 17, 2007 06:12 pm

pusher [email protected] 17, 2007 02:38 pm

In a capitalist society, the income of an adult individual is determined by factors over which they have no control and thus to which they cannot be held accountable, if one accepts a system of ethics emphasizing the importance of individual agency.

Education level is something very much in the control of individuals. Even those from low-income families have the opportunity to attend high-quality schools, if they demonstrate the aptitude.


...and the green stuff to back it up.
:rolleyes:
Good quality schools WANT talented students, as that is how they stay good-quality. Hence, you may have heard of these things called "scholarships."

Not to mention, there is hardly a shortage of lenders willing to loan money for educational expenses.

And leaving aside, of course, the vast amount of grants and subsidized loans distributed by the government. [/b]
Oh great, so if you're willing to rack up in excess of US$20 000 of debt before you even get your degree then you can have the same opportunities as someone who was born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

I cant talk about the situation in the states but over here even if you get a good degree theres still no guarantee you'll get a job to pay back your debt. Ive heard tales of phd graduates stacking tins at asda (the UK equivalent of Walmart) because of the job scarcity situation.

Only under capitalism is this wastage of talent allowed to happen!

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I cant talk about the situation in the states but over here even if you get a good degree theres still no guarantee you'll get a job to pay back your debt. Ive heard tales of phd graduates stacking tins at asda (the UK equivalent of Walmart) because of the job scarcity situation.

What was their PhD in? A Humanities subject? I can't believe that governments all across the globe actually invest in graduates to study something that won't yield a return on their investment. Taxpayers shouldn't be financing somebody's luxury consumption. And it doesn't seem fair that taxpayers (who would probably rather be doing something else than their currnet job) should enable other people to do something that they love to do while they're stuck in a job that they hate.

And why not migrate to the USA? Our universities welcome foreigners with advanced degrees with open arms. I doubt they'll be working at ASDA forever.



Only under capitalism is this wastage of talent allowed to happen!

Yeah, because we all know that all PhDs are equal. Case in point, hate mongerer Nikki Giovanni.

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070422_giovanni.htm


And leaving aside, of course, the vast amount of grants and subsidized loans distributed by the government.

All of which should be drastiscally cut and invested in programs that add value to an economy.

Like I said before, taxpayers should not subsidize 18 to 22 year olds to the tune of many tens of thousands of dollars to, say, go to Virginia Tech and study how to write hate poetry under Nikki Giovanni, even though the likelihood that will generate economic growth or even come close to paying back the taxpayers' investment is nil.

But, if a young person who doesn't think he's college material needs tools or a pickup truck to pursue a trade, well, lots of luck, kid.

And how come communists never talk about going to trade school or entering the actual working class that they supposedly identify with and are actually willing (supposedly) to die for?

Why all the emphaisis on "higher education"? I thought those were bourgeoise and ruling class symbols of oppression?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

As for rising inequality...

You're ignoring the effects of immigration, a very important reason for increasing inequality. It's obvious that, by increasing the ratio of labor to capital, those with money (capital) will benefit.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18, 2007 01:27 pm
As for rising inequality...

You're ignoring the effects of immigration, a very important reason for increasing inequality. It's obvious that, by increasing the ratio of labor to capital, those with money (capital) will benefit.
well by redressing the foreign policies that are causing immigrants to flee their own countries, then staying in their own countries might actually be a practical option for them. Thats not to say i'm against their choice to move to the developed world in principle, because i'm not. What I am against is the way they are co-erced to come here through no fault of their own because theres either no jobs there or the jobs they can get dont pay enough for them to live on. Then you've got the effects of debt imposed by the big institutions, and wars waged in the interests of western nations.