Schrödinger's Cat
30th December 2007, 09:58
Originally posted by
[email protected] 28, 2007 08:58 pm
I have just converted from libertarianism-republicanism to social democrat. I am not quite a marxist, but I do find a serious flaw in free market doctrine. Now my conversion was mainly based on me not being able to stomach or keep defending some of the gross inequalities in a free market system. My arguments were akin to an uncaring objectivist who valued his "individual liberty" over people.
So, I would like some help to intellectually debate the issue of economics in order to go toe to toe with my libertarian and american convservatives peers.
I would like some help as far conquering the myth of free markets, the inconsistencies in its philosophy, and how its philosophy favors the rich over the poor.
Right now I am reading Noam Chomsky's Profit Over People. Its a good read but he doesn't quite challenge the free market ideal philosophically as much as he just describes inconsistencies in the political application of it. I am looking for more of a refutation of free market dogma itself. Are there any books out there like that?
Let's debate the arguments that Libertarians throw at people who do no adhere to market infallibility. Thank You.
Hello, friend. :)
You say you're interested in discrediting the philosophical arguments of right-libertarians and conservatives. I'm positive you can find plenty of information on RevLeft to supply that desire, so help yourself (literature section has many good books. I recommend "The Meaning of Marxism" by Paul D'amato), but for the sake of it; what are some particulars you are thinking about? I can list a few off the top of my head.
To start with the largest hole in the Right's theory is the concept of private property. At least when looking at it from a perspective of self-ownership. Land is not a product of man's toil, and neither are the resources for which we must use to live. The idea one can lay claim to land without first recognizing collective ownership (and consequently, decision-making) is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is the idea that land becomes yours as soon as you turn it productive. Such reasoning has been used to pillage resources from aborigines.
Other problems include the issue of where wealth is acquired. How hard one works is a simplification of the system. A lot has to do with your childhood, who you marry, what genetic traits you have, your personality, the job market around you, race/appearance/gender, education, surroundings, interests, and sheer luck. If everyone was a carbon copy of the persons around them and lived under equal wealth distribution until 18 perhaps there could be some objective credibility given to the claim that working hard is primarily what you need.
Market systems in general put women in compromising situations. As a collective unit women have to decide between staying at home or working, the latter case requiring regulation to sustain. Right now women have chosen to work but we see how private enterprises sucked their opportunities at home dry. Fathers and mothers spend their child's infancy at work when at least one should be spending that time preparing the child for education and caring for him. Because women have entered the labor force and continue to grow, private enterprise purposely drive male salaries/wages downwards. Whereas forty years ago a male in the "middle class" could comfortably support his family on a single paycheck, now the majority of families require two paychecks. It's a choice of "either or" when it should be both.
You asked specifically about libertarians. Theirs is an easier argument to debunk. The idea that "private companies" operate better than public institutions is inherently flawed (public institutions being run top-down like a business and not horizontally by the workers). I assume the libertarians we're talking about are not anarcho-capitalists believing in private protection agencies. In which case I have to ask what they want deregulated. It would also be kind of you (ha) to ask why the shady business tactics employed by private enterprise (small and large) during the 19th and early 20th century occurred when supposedly the market would weed out such problems. Why is that with periods of little regulation (Gilded Age, 20s, 80s-now) workers and consumers get screwed the most? And then there's the matter of private prisons, elderly homes, roads, and schools.
Other issues include:
- The role capital plays. The capitalists on top make most of their money through investments and savings while the rest, including small business owners (who often fail, and if not, often slave away as much as workers) actively work to sustain a living.
- The infiltration of democracy. Big business eats up media outlets to push their agenda. We see this now in recent news about the restrictions loosening in regards to how many media outlets a single company can have. Also, if talking about a liberal democracy, the rich gear politicians in the direction of their choosing because they satisfy election costs.
- The negative affect markets have on people: desperation, stress, greed. Cultivates a society of selfishness, theft, sick supply (child porn, hard drugs), prostitution, isolation, stress...
Just a starter.