"Libertarianism" (or "useful idiocy for authoritarian capitalism")

[Die Neue Zeit]

When I hear the word "libertarianism," I think "utopian, petit-bourgeois propertarianism." Years ago I read Lew Rockwell's website quite often (even while holding my ground). The problem with "libertarianism" is that its staunch "republicanism" (against "mob rule") is a useful cover for authoritarian tendencies among modern capitalist governments today.

[And yes, capitalism is cozier with authoritarianism than with even bourgeois democracy in the long run.]

Take, for example, the lack of activity in countering the "imperial" presidencies and prime ministers' "offices." By this I mean the increases in executive power and the decreases in executive accountability (to the point where executives can hire or fire cabinet ministers without active legislative approval).

I've read all the rants about this on Lew Rockwell, but for every "good" point they have against "imperial" executives, they shoot themselves in the foot three times (ie, three bad points) with their "masses are dumb" argument.

[Os Cangaceiros]

When I hear the word "libertarianism," I think "propertarianism."

Incidentally, I believe the word originated with the anarchist movement. (Though I could be mistaken.)


I've read all the rants about this on Lew Rockwell, but for every "good" point they have against "imperial" executives, they shoot themselves in the foot three times (ie, three bad points) with their "masses are dumb" argument.

This is exactly right; Hans Hermann Hoppe with his "Democracy: The God That Failed" comes immediately to mind. In which he argues that monarchy is actually preferable to democracy.

Ultimately, I will take the Lew Rockwells of the world over, say, the Sam Brownbacks, but I think if what they're proposing was ever put into action it wouldn't be good. At all. Plus, they seem to have a bad opinion of anyone who acts altruistically; I guess that old habits die hard, even though anarcho capitalists usually hate Objectivists with a passion.

They also seem to do quite a bit of moralising, for so called libertarians. There's nothing more hilarious than watching a bunch of libertarians trying to defend Ron Paul's stances on border control or abortion.

[TheLuddite]

...



The first person to describe himself as a libertarian was Joseph Déjacque, an early French anarchist communist. The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used in order to evade the French ban on anarchist publications.

[TheLuddite]

“A consistent libertarian must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer.”
~ Noam Chomsky

[IcarusAngel]

There have been many good threads debunking the right-wing libertarian society and its philosophical basis, like self-ownership and an inherent right to unlimited property, on revleft.

[IcarusAngel]

~ Noam Chomsky


Agreed. Modern Libertarianism is just another form of tyranny.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Right- libertarianism holds some water when compared to the authoritative streak of its second-cousin, fascism. I frequented a Ron Paul forum awhile back and some members were discussing how a "libertarian dictatorship" similar to the one Pinochet installed may be necessary to smarten people up - the thousands who died as a result were just breezed over. From my observation a lot of the people who identify themselves as libertarian have a very negative opinion about the "masses." ;)

[Publius]

I'm taking a class on Rawls (Political Liberalism) and Nozick (Anarchy, State, and Utopia) this quarter and it's going to be fun destroying Nozick's libertarian nonsense.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Right- libertarianism holds some water when compared to the authoritative streak of its second-cousin, fascism. I frequented a Ron Paul forum awhile back and some members were discussing how a "libertarian dictatorship" similar to the one Pinochet installed may be necessary to smarten people up - the thousands who died as a result were just breezed over. From my observation a lot of the people who identify themselves as libertarian have a very negative opinion about the "masses." ;)

I didn't know that "libertarians" stooped that low! :scared:

[Dros]

I'm taking a class on Rawls (Political Liberalism) and Nozick (Anarchy, State, and Utopia) this quarter and it's going to be fun destroying Nozick's libertarian nonsense.

Nozick admitted he was wrong during the last days of his life. That said, his argument is actually pretty hard to "destroy". For a cappie/libertarian position, it's actually pretty well thought out.

Rawls' argument on the other hand is total bullshit. Especially the "veil of ignorance" with all his ridiculous idealism. I don't understand why he's so well regarded. His theory has more holes then Hitler's corpse.

[Demogorgon]

I'm taking a class on Rawls (Political Liberalism) and Nozick (Anarchy, State, and Utopia) this quarter and it's going to be fun destroying Nozick's libertarian nonsense.

Nozick's stuff is just bizarre, I find. There is deep running authoritarianism through his work, particularly the earlier stuff. He seems more concerned with removing constraints on power for the powerful than anything else. I, of course, am deeply skeptical of Libertarianism in all its shapes and forms, finding it to always come back to authoritarianism one way or another (Pinochet praise is a case in point) but in Nozick it is particularly pronounced.

Of course there is plenty to criticise in Rawls as well. But at least he is more interesting to deal with and isn't simply about concentrating power in the hands of those with a fair bit of power to start with.

[Publius]

Nozick admitted he was wrong during the last days of his life. That said, his argument is actually pretty hard to "destroy". For a cappie/libertarian position, it's actually pretty well thought out.

Well, it's better than Mises/Rothbard shit, sure, and it's better than Randian nonsense by a country mile.

But it's still based on a nonsense philosophy.



Rawls' argument on the other hand is total bullshit. Especially the "veil of ignorance" with all his ridiculous idealism. I don't understand why he's so well regarded. His theory has more holes then Hitler's corpse.

There might be valid criticisms of Rawls' theory of justice, but this isn't one of them.

I don't think you give him enough credit. The Veil of Ignorance isn't idealism (?) it's a thought experiment, a counterfactual and it's essentially a Kantian notion.

[PRC-UTE]

Logically libertarianism could not be enforced without a fairly brutal regime.

Anyway, examining such a contradictory set of political "principles" is pointless. Central to understanding libertarianism is that it is nostalgia for a simpler time when white middle class men were dominant and their privleages over everyone else were undiluted. It is a reactionary movement that would like to return to pre-industrial captialism. It is at best a petite bourgeois fantasy.

[Dimentio]

Logically libertarianism could not be enforced without a fairly brutal regime.

Anyway, examining such a contradictory set of political "principles" is pointless. Central to understanding libertarianism is that it is nostalgia for a simpler time when white middle class men were dominant and their privleages over everyone else were undiluted. It is a reactionary movement that would like to return to pre-industrial captialism. It is at best a petite bourgeois fantasy.

I cannot see one class which might be interested in libertarianism. Not even capitalists, whom themselves wants to be protected from competition. Libertarians are more used as an ammunition against socialists and as a magnet for kids who otherwise could have ended up libertarian socialists.

[PRC-UTE]

I cannot see one class which might be interested in libertarianism. Not even capitalists, whom themselves wants to be protected from competition. Libertarians are more used as an ammunition against socialists and as a magnet for kids who otherwise could have ended up libertarian socialists.

The petite bourgeoisie of course. They're always a class in decay and are threatened by progress and globalisation.

[Bud Struggle]

I cannot see one class which might be interested in libertarianism. Not even capitalists, whom themselves wants to be protected from competition. Libertarians are more used as an ammunition against socialists and as a magnet for kids who otherwise could have ended up libertarian socialists.

I'm something of a libertarian--that why I'm against the idea of America "ruling" the world through military conquest (as GWB and the neo-Conservatives are trying to do.) I believe in less government--everyone out for themselves in a way (with some safeguards for the less fortunate.)

But to your point--I'm happy with cometition. I think most Capitalists are, it makes me better and sharper and more competitive. I'm a FAR better businessman because of my competition.

Actually, now that I think of it--that's the fun of the "game" of business. Your competitor does something really, really clever--and then you do something even MORE clever to get around it. That's the real fun of it all--after you have so much money, the money itself doesn't matter--it's the game--and to have a game you have to have competition.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I cannot see one class which might be interested in libertarianism. Not even capitalists, whom themselves wants to be protected from competition. Libertarians are more used as an ammunition against socialists and as a magnet for kids who otherwise could have ended up libertarian socialists.
That is the class analysis of libertarianism in a nutshell.

There never has been and never will be a libertarian regime, because libertarianism has no class basis and no serious support outside of a band of ideological intellectuals. However, libertarian arguments are the primary ammunition of capitalist propaganda, and as such they should be aggressively refuted.

[Wanted Man]

Why is libertarianism wrong? (http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/libertarian.html)

Critiques of Libertarianism (http://world.std.com/%7Emhuben/libindex.html), includes humour, criticism of those silly "small political quizzes", etc.

[Bud Struggle]

That is the class analysis of libertarianism in a nutshell.

There never has been and never will be a libertarian regime, because libertarianism has no class basis and no serious support outside of a band of ideological intellectuals.

Kind of like Trotskyism, I guess. :D

Seriously, for America at least Libertarianism while it will never be in charge offers a bit of relief to the rampant expansion of government that is a serious problem.

[Dimentio]

Kind of like Trotskyism, I guess. :D

Seriously, for America at least Libertarianism while it will never be in charge offers a bit of relief to the rampant expansion of government that is a serious problem.

The federal government in the USA has never been as powerful as today, and it seems to be entirely out of control even from those who seemingly controls it. That is quite an interesting process.

[Bud Struggle]

The federal government in the USA has never been as powerful as today, and it seems to be entirely out of control even from those who seemingly controls it. That is quite an interesting process.

Muchly agreed. And we see it from your Communist perspective and my Conservative view. America need to get back to being America, a country (albeit the most powerful) in the world.

America shouldn't BE the world. America at it's worst is as bad as Stalinism at it's worst. A Capitalist "1984" is no better than a Communist "1984".

As a Capitalist I have markets, and I am always look for more markets--but it shouldn't be THE WORLD. There should be things out there "other" than Capitalism (and "other than Communism") that should influence us to the better.

All encompassing Capitalism and/or all emcompassing Communism both miss the mark as to the beauty of (God's) world. It is in the endless diversification and trancendance of humanity that we arrive at who we are. The cris crosses and the double crosses. A sameness of the world serves no one.

The world at it's best is infinitely diverse.

[Dimentio]

Muchly agreed. And we see it from your Communist perspective and my Conservative view. America need to get back to being America, a country (albeit the most powerful) in the world.

America shouldn't BE the world. America at it's worst is as bad as Stalinism at it's worst. A Capitalist "1984" is no better than a Communist "1984".

As a Capitalist I have markets, and I am always look for more markets--but it shouldn't be THE WORLD. There should be things out there "other" than Capitalism (and "other than Communism") that should influence us to the better.

All encompassing Capitalism and/or all emcompassing Communism both miss the mark as to the beauty of (God's) world. It is in the endless diversification and trancendance of humanity that we arrive at who we are. The cris crosses and the double crosses. A sameness of the world serves no one.

The world at it's best is infinitely diverse.

Seldom something returns to an earlier state of existence. The USA has moved towards increased levels of centralisation since it was founded, albeit at an accelerated pace since 1945. It lies in the nature of the productive forces that control is accumulated in fewer and fewer hands, while the system at large becomes more and more fragmented.

As for my perspective, I do not think America should do anything. I am rather indifferent towards a superpower, of any flavour, since my interest lies in the deeper structure of society rather than on its top.

[Bud Struggle]

Seldom something returns to an earlier state of existence. The USA has moved towards increased levels of centralisation since it was founded, albeit at an accelerated pace since 1945. It lies in the nature of the productive forces that control is accumulated in fewer and fewer hands, while the system at large becomes more and more fragmented.

In theory, of course. But if I (and my buddies,--all self made men) could get in. Anyone can. Class (as you Communists call it, a least in America, is vasly open.)


As for my perspective, I do not think America should do anything. I am rather indifferent towards a superpower, of any flavour, since my interest lies in the deeper structure of society rather than on its top.

Me too. Except I'm interested in diversification NOT unification of the human condition. I think that puts us as opposities.

Maybe not--but from your literature, that's the way I see it.

I think overall--this is an interesting matter for discussion.

[Dimentio]

In theory, of course. But if I (and my buddies,--all self made men) could get in. Anyone can. Class (as you Communists call it, a least in America, is vasly open.)

Yes of course, but that is not my objection. I am an author, and it is a high opportunity that I will be wholly self-sustaining in a couple of years. I could confess that I do not feel any contempt, anger, hate or jealousy against capitalists or people who are successful.

I feel a great contempt - though - for a social system which is festering on a technological base able to provide the population of this planet with an abundance of opportunities, but is instead wasting millions of tons of resources. For example, 800 million people world-wide is starving, not because any scarcity of food but because need is calculated by your power to buy. In truth, there is annually produced enough food to sustain 12 billion people(!) with a western European standard of life.

The current system needs to grow constantly, but that is not working in unison with the long-term interests of the population. We need a factor four effectivisation of our productive forces, and capitalism of any kind is unable to provide us with that due to the growth imperative.

My ideal is an automatised society which is upholding a dynamic equlibrum between the human being and the environment. In short, technocracy (http://www.technocracynet.eu), which is a form of communism, and the most enlightened and advanced I would argue.




Me too. Except I'm interested in diversification NOT unification of the human condition. I think that puts us as opposities.

Maybe not--but from your literature, that's the way I see it.

I think overall--this is an interesting matter for discussion.

I am an anti-collectivist. That is another reason to be an anti-capitalist, since capitalism in itself is perpetuating heavily self-restraining impulses upon people, like for example behaving in a way which contradicts their personality (being adapted to service). I think each and every individual should get the opportunity and encouragement to develop her own talents to the highest possible point.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

That is the class analysis of libertarianism in a nutshell.

There never has been and never will be a libertarian regime, because libertarianism has no class basis and no serious support outside of a band of ideological intellectuals. However, libertarian arguments are the primary ammunition of capitalist propaganda, and as such they should be aggressively refuted.


Correct on all counts, except this


libertarianism has no class basis and no serious support outside of a band of ideological intellectuals

I would never call anyone who is so blinkered as to defend libertarianism an intellectual

[Feslin]

I think each and every individual should get the opportunity and encouragement to develop her own talents to the highest possible point.

Hmm...

Why?

[RedAnarchist]

Hmm...

Why?

Why not?

[Feslin]

Why not?

Because no one has given me a reason.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Hmm...

Why?

You're effectively asking why human exploitation should be challenged.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm something of a libertarian--that why I'm against the idea of America "ruling" the world through military conquest (as GWB and the neo-Conservatives are trying to do.) I believe in less government--everyone out for themselves in a way (with some safeguards for the less fortunate.)

But to your point--I'm happy with cometition. I think most Capitalists are, it makes me better and sharper and more competitive. I'm a FAR better businessman because of my competition.

Actually, now that I think of it--that's the fun of the "game" of business. Your competitor does something really, really clever--and then you do something even MORE clever to get around it. That's the real fun of it all--after you have so much money, the money itself doesn't matter--it's the game--and to have a game you have to have competition.

Competition would exist under socialism, too. Only competition would occur with the loser not having to see his entire livelihood vanish. At that point it's no longer a "game." People competing to make the best video game would be welcomed in a communist society no less than they are under capitalism.

[Feslin]

You're effectively asking why human exploitation should be challenged.


I'm simply asking why "every individual should get the opportunity and encouragement to develop her own talents to the highest possible point."

[IcarusAngel]

LOL. Yep, Libertarians are confused as to why individuals should be given freedom. :laugh:

[Feslin]

LOL. Yep, Libertarians are confused as to why individuals should be given freedom. :laugh:

Are none of you going to attempt to answer my question?

[Unicorn]

Muchly agreed. And we see it from your Communist perspective and my Conservative view. America need to get back to being America, a country (albeit the most powerful) in the world.
Are you a Ron Paul supporter?

[Bud Struggle]

I'm simply asking why "every individual should get the opportunity and encouragement to develop her own talents to the highest possible point."

(I'm a Capitalist) but let me answer.

For two reasons: first a selfish reason, the betterment of each individual improves society and a better society makes the world a better place for me to live in. Well educated, well motivated people invent and market things that make my life better. They invent computers, airplanes, all sorts of things. It's no accident that most of the worlds life improving inventions in the 20th century came from the United States a country (though far from perfect in the regard) tries to look after the common welfare of it's citizens.

The second reason is altruistic. "There but for the grace of God go I."

It works for me.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes of course, but that is not my objection. I am an author, and it is a high opportunity that I will be wholly self-sustaining in a couple of years. I could confess that I do not feel any contempt, anger, hate or jealousy against capitalists or people who are successful.

OK, good.


I feel a great contempt - though - for a social system which is festering on a technological base able to provide the population of this planet with an abundance of opportunities, but is instead wasting millions of tons of resources.

I agree with you here.


For example, 800 million people world-wide is starving, not because any scarcity of food but because need is calculated by your power to buy. In truth, there is annually produced enough food to sustain 12 billion people(!) with a western European standard of life.

I don't agree with your first sentance, but if your second sentence is true (and I have no reason to doubt it,) then we as ahuanity need to change whatever systems that are causing people to starve and alleviate the problem.


The current system needs to grow constantly, but that is not working in unison with the long-term interests of the population. We need a factor four effectivisation of our productive forces, and capitalism of any kind is unable to provide us with that due to the growth imperative.

I disagree here: we just have to make effective markets out of people. The poor have to become educated and productive and then they'll have all they need. (Easier said than done, of course.)


My ideal is an automatised society which is upholding a dynamic equlibrum between the human being and the environment. In short, technocracy (http://www.technocracynet.eu), which is a form of communism, and the most enlightened and advanced I would argue.

I can see that in a way, the only difference is that it would work better as a form of Capitalism, not Communism. As I said to other people on this Forum--I think we have the same goals, just dofferent methods of achieving those goals.



I am an anti-collectivist. That is another reason to be an anti-capitalist, since capitalism in itself is perpetuating heavily self-restraining impulses upon people, like for example behaving in a way which contradicts their personality (being adapted to service). I think each and every individual should get the opportunity and encouragement to develop her own talents to the highest possible point.

Change the words anti-Capitalist to anti-Communist, and I agree ENTIRELY. :)

[Demogorgon]

The poor have to become educated and productive and then they'll have all they need. (Easier said than done, of course.)



The trouble of course, as I am sure you will agree, is that while you can certainly educate the poor, it is not so easy to educate the starving. I don't think I would say anything you would find that controversial when I say the world should devote more of its resources to educating people, particularly the worst off who currently do not get a chance for a good education. But for the starving, even that is not good enough. You have to eat before you can learn.

There is a genuine problem with our distribution network for food. The classic example is the famine in Bengal in 1943. The tragedy was there was no drastic food shortage, the harvest did not fail, there was not quite as much food as the previous year, but more than enough to go round, but because the poorest simply lacked the spending power to buy the food. So many people starved and so much food went wasted simply because the market utterly failed to distribute the food. Stuff like this still goes on today, indeed you could say the entire trouble with famine is down to this happening on a global scale. Communism need not be about being an angry teenager or hating the bourgeoisie, I have no reason to hate you after all, and I would be a poor example of a decent person if I did, but I despise the kind of system that allows failures in distribution like I describe to occur. Communism to me is about bringing down the system that causes this, not attacking individual people because they happen to hold a fortunate position in the system.

[PRC-UTE]

Hmm...

Why?

Because we don't see human society as a two-way transaction in a marketplace. It's obviously a stated preference.

[Dimentio]

I don't agree with your first sentance, but if your second sentence is true (and I have no reason to doubt it,) then we as ahuanity need to change whatever systems that are causing people to starve and alleviate the problem.

There is a good Austrian documentary I could recommend. It is called "Feeding the world", and is about the inefficiency of the food distribution today.


I disagree here: we just have to make effective markets out of people. The poor have to become educated and productive and then they'll have all they need. (Easier said than done, of course.)

If I was a capitalist-sympathiser, I would not say that the people should exist for the sake of the market, but the other way 'round. But I do not believe that the market system is long-term preferable, due to the fact that it needs constant growth, which is why we experience such things as cartels and products which are designed to break apart when the guarantee is fading away.

Moreover, one great efficiency loss of capitalism, which is never accounted for, is the great level of duplication occurring within the system. For example, no one would claim that there is any substantiated difference between Ericsson and Nokia, and they produce the same product for the same market. The excess which is'nt sold is deposed in West Africa and trashed there.

If the manpools of Ericsson and Nokia were unified, and the structure only produced when the consumers asked for, we would be able to free tremendous resources for other needs.


I can see that in a way, the only difference is that it would work better as a form of Capitalism, not Communism. As I said to other people on this Forum--I think we have the same goals, just dofferent methods of achieving those goals.

It took a very long time before the benefits of capitalism originally emerged. Capitalism was a progressive force in the 19th century, but it will eventually either develop into something remniscent of communism (not the USSR, not Cuba, but a system where the people as a whole owns the means of production), or collapse into warlordism because of its inner contradictions.



Change the words anti-Capitalist to anti-Communist, and I agree ENTIRELY. :)

Well, I understand the reasons that people are wary of communism, due to the experience of socialist states ruled by vanguard parties. I think that vanguardism (as supported by the leninist brand of marxism) is a feat of intellectual gymnastics and a terrible idea.

I urge you to explore other variations of communism, like for example technocracy (http://en.technocracynet.eu).

[Feslin]

For two reasons: first a selfish reason, the betterment of each individual improves society and a better society makes the world a better place for me to live in. Well educated, well motivated people invent and market things that make my life better. They invent computers, airplanes, all sorts of things. It's no accident that most of the worlds life improving inventions in the 20th century came from the United States a country (though far from perfect in the regard) tries to look after the common welfare of it's citizens.

I don't think you understand what I'm getting at though. Which is understandable, I have no communication skills to speak of.

Technocrats, or at least alot of them, believe that robots will one day do all our work for us. Which is fine with me because I'm one lazy bastard. But they try and give reasons for it like "Humanity must be able to exercise it's creativity and skill blah blah blah."

I don't give a shit about art or skill. Let me tell you, if I didn't have to work and everything came free to me, the last thing I'd be doing would be painting, writing, or playing an instrument.

I would be doing something actually fun.

So... what I'm saying is actually pretty pointless. But to be fair, so is everything everyone else is saying.

[Bud Struggle]

I urge you to explore other variations of communism, like for example technocracy (http://en.technocracynet.eu).

I will.

Here's where I come from:

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

That's the way I see the world--but with an opposite ending of Arnold's, I see a salvation from all that in: Christ. Otherwise, I see us all as being lost, and I mean--really lost.

FYI: I'm no Jesus salesman. I couldn't care less what you believe or don't believe. I'm just explaining my point of view on the future of humanity. I'll look into your link and tell you what I find.

Tom

[pusher robot]

[quote=TomK;1115546the betterment of each individual improves society and a better society makes the world a better place for me to live in.[/quote]

Hmmm, well, do we actuall know this? Certainly this would be true for productive and creative individuals. But aren't you begging the question of wether all individuals are naturally productive and creative? I'm not inclined to believe this without evidence.

For example, suppose your "talent" is fighting and killing. How does it follow that you "should get the opportunity and encouragement to develop her own talents to the highest possible point." Suppose your "talent" is competitive eating. Does it still follow? Suppose that you are without any particular talent, a jack-of-all-trades. What opportunity and encouragement are you supposed to receive? Aren't you uniquely disadvantaged in this new society? Why should we assume without evidence this is good?

[Bud Struggle]

Hmmm, well, do we actuall know this? Certainly this would be true for productive and creative individuals. But aren't you begging the question of wether all individuals are naturally productive and creative? I'm not inclined to believe this without evidence.

For example, suppose your "talent" is fighting and killing. How does it follow that you "should get the opportunity and encouragement to develop her own talents to the highest possible point." Suppose your "talent" is competitive eating. Does it still follow? Suppose that you are without any particular talent, a jack-of-all-trades. What opportunity and encouragement are you supposed to receive? Aren't you uniquely disadvantaged in this new society? Why should we assume without evidence this is good?

I kind of think that we actually know this. for the most part Capitalist America is a good (though not perfect) example of the society as a whole benefiting form universal good education and equal opportunity (again not perfect.)

We all benefited from the education Bill Gates and people like him got in America. If he and Steve Jobs and others never received an education--we wouldn't be chatting. And this is played out in thousands of ways all throughout our lives. There are obviously going to be hundreds of thousands of people that give nothing back what they received, but millions will. People get nothing to help them in a country like Zimbabwe, and the country as a whole is impoverished for it. Not to put too much of a "Communist" point on it--but my quality of life is improved by everyone's quality of life improving. There will always be a few people that don't fit in, but as long as the overall trend improves so will my life.

And here is where Communist countries fail. As much as they are for the "common good" the free exchange of "betterment" is not available. You don't see any people from Communist countries posting on RevLeft, do you? That's why one of the most glaring indictments of Communism in the world today is RevLeft itself. If people in Communist countries were let onto the Internet--to learn to exchange ideas to actually USE the dialetic not in just some abstract economic sence--but in their daily lives, then their lives would certainly improve.

[pusher robot]

I kind of think that we actually know this. for the most part Capitalist America is a good (though not perfect) example of the society as a whole benefiting form universal good education and equal opportunity (again not perfect.)

Well I agree with you that Capitalist America does a pretty good job, but it's not because it tries to encourage everybody to pursue their talents whatever they may be, but because it encourages everybody to pursue their talents that are beneficial to society. You're still free to pursue anti-social or socially-useless talents, of course - you just haven't any right to expect society to assist you with them.

[Bud Struggle]

Well I agree with you that Capitalist America does a pretty good job, but it's not because it tries to encourage everybody to pursue their talents whatever they may be, but because it encourages everybody to pursue their talents that are beneficial to society. You're still free to pursue anti-social or socially-useless talents, of course - you just haven't any right to expect society to assist you with them.

Oh, I definitely agree with you there. Then again Brittany Spears is anti-social with useless talents and she made millions. :lol: