Quick Question

[Followthewhiterabbit]

Hi everybody.

I was discussing politics with my friends dad the other day, a wealthy business man. He stated to me this question which I was unable to fully answer.
Lets assume my friends dad name is David. David was born into a relatively poor family. He worked hard through his teens through an apprenticeship in joinery. He saved all of the spare cash he had, choosing to skip on some of lifes luxuries. When he reached his 30's he was able with his savings and some money from the bank to start his own joiners which now makes him millions of pounds. Some of the people he employs are former friends who didn't take things so seriously.
He asked me why he shouldn't be able to do this, he worked hard and got to a better place for himself, while his friends who didn't take things so seriously now work for him.

[BobKKKindle$]

This is a common "argument" against socialism, but you should first be aware that the kind of situation your friend describes is actually not something which happens often under capitalism, simply because the unequal distribution of wealth means that some people are always going to have an advantage in life over others in terms of the quality of their education, and any inheritance they may receive, and these advantages, when combined with the disadvantages suffered by those who are born into low-income families, help to ensure that social mobility is limited. This (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm) report issued by the LSE supports this argument by showing that social mobility has become worse in the UK over time. This (https://faireconomy.org/press_room/1996/born_on_third_base_sources_of_wealth_of_the_1996_f orbes_400) article should also help you refute the myth that the wealth of the ruling class is the product of their own endeavors. Even if the situation your friend describes were plausible, it would still be illegitimate for an individual to accumulate vast amounts of wealth, because the generation of wealth in any sector of the economy is always a social activity which involves and is dependent on large numbers of people working together such that it is ultimately impossible to determine exactly how much each individual has contributed to the output of society, and so the only acceptable form of resource distribution is a system based on need, especially when gross inequality would result in people being denied access to necessities which they need to survive and live with dignity.

[wigsa]

I would tell him that because he came from a relatively poor backround,he can see the benefits of a left wing government.If he grew up in a communist/socialist state,he would not have had to (more than likely) slave away for years until he had saved up enough money to start his own business.

In a communist state,those little luxuries he skimped on,everyone would be entitled to.He would have had an entitlement to the same things the rich were able to afford when he was growing up,that he could not afford himself.

I would also tell him that because of his clear initiative,he would have a strong place in a communist society,he would clearly be an ideal candidate to lead a division or region of joiners,to lead the other workers by example.People like him would create a positive environment in the workplace which would benefit everyone.

[#FF0000]

Because the people he employs are still exploited. Say your dad has a factory instead of a joiners (I don't know what that is :(). Now, say a worker at his factory produces $50 worth product per day, and that worker gets $10 a day for a wage. Your dad then ships the product and sells it for the full $50 of its value, and takes $10 to pay the worker his wage.

What's wrong with this picture?

The owner of the factory didn't do anything to create that $50 worth of product. He simply owned the property necessary to produce it, and the workers, having no property of their own, have no choice but to sell their labor and time, recieving only a fraction of the profits and no guarantee of a better life.

No matter how nice a guy the boss is, this system is still exploitative. Apply the same reasoning to slaves. If a slave managed to earn his freedom through years of tortuous work, and then scrounged up the funds to become a slavemaster himself, would slavery be any less barbaric?

[Followthewhiterabbit]

Thanks for the answers.

[Black Sheep]

Quite irrelevant, but i ll mention it here.

It is really helpful when posters mention the thread's topic in the title, just for us to have a clue when clicking on it.

thnx

[rednordman]

To be fair this is a rather standard response, and i dont think it is directly a critism of left wing ideals, rather a way in which he can defend his position (who knows, mabey inside, he feels slightly guilty for it). Its interesting that he uses the phrase 'take things seriously' in there, like its an unwritten law that in order to be successfull, you have to be serious in you actions. As mentioned in some of the other posts, not everyone can achieve things by simply being serious and working hard, sure it helps, but in the majority of occasion, people end up getting put off after a while or find their 'percieved limit' as to say. At the end of the day, being too ambitious, and too serious about a career, brings out to worst in people (imo) because people resort to agressive and desparate behavior to cope with the competiton. It is also bad internally aswell because a lot of people leave their good habits (exercise/healthy lifestyle/socialising) behind to focus solely on 'making it big' which they generally see as a final destination (which they never ever really reach, regardless how successfull they are). I also believe that although these people do not admit it, they often feel guilty as they have to resort to going against their ethics at times of struggle (current economic crisis for example) such as laying of workers whos jobs are their livelyhood (so much for his 'not so serious friends' hey). No one can honestly feel good about that. This is not the case for everyone, but if you look at alot of 'serious' and 'driven' sucessfull buisness people, you may well see what i mean.