Is Capitalism the Best Economic System?

sandor at the zoo

Actually, Tim, your original poll simply asked what we thought the best economic system was; the additional stuff about a "theoretical economic system" came later. I was really just responding to that question.

I added the "existing" qualifier simply because any rational discussion of the subject requires it (at least in my opinion). It's like asking "Is the best spaceship we have the space shuttle?" Well, yeah, of course it is, but it won't always be. Any reasonable answer to the question demands you qualify it with a nod to the unknown future.

As for your "theoretical economic system" I can only say that many forms of socialism have been attempted in the past, from Hitler's warped "national socialism" to Stalin's hard-line communism to present-day Europe's "social democracies". Some were more successful than others - I'm sure Finland is a decent, boring place to live - but all have failed to compete with capitalism in any of the arenas that ultimately matter.

Because of the constant underperformance or outright failure of the concept as a whole, any "new socialism" is quite suspect. And like anyone making a suspect claim, the burden of proof lies on them, not the folks they're trying to convince. It's not up to capitalists to show that your new socialist concept doesn't work, it's up to socialists to show that it does work.

Furthermore, the evidence required is real-world evidence. Capitalists - because we're all such rotten, exploitative opportunists - are going to ask you to show a working macroexample of the system at work. "It looks good on paper" isn't going to cut it, because socialist theory has already crippled dozens of societies and killed untold millions of people. Capitalism certainly isn't perfect, but it cured smallpox and put men on the moon - which is a hell of a lot better than the gulags and killing fields that various socialist regimes have enriched the world with.

S

Chris OConnor

Dissident Heart

Quote:
So, let me get this straight, in a discussion link involving the value and worth of Capitalism as an economic system, introducing the ideas of economists, social theorists, political commentators, business leaders and labor leaders, a few anarchists to boot, as well as nobel laureates...these voices are unwelcome, burdensome, and slow the discussion down?

You aren't simply providing relevant links. You're posting primarily other peoples opinions. As the owner of this community I have certain responsibilities - some of which you might not appreciate. On numerous occasions people have suggested you refrain from posting so many quotes and excerpts as it becomes spam after awhile.

The majority of your posts are not your own words. Some members have become frustrated with this and have discussed it in the chat room. For their own personal reasons they don't seem to want to bring it to your attention. Perhaps they don't want to deal with your sarcastic responses. Unfortunately, I have the responsibility of being the messenger.

Do as you wish, but you might have more success if you made your posts a little more personal and wrote them yourself. We all have access to the same books you do. If we wanted to read them we would. And most people certainly don't want to debate the authors you are quoting. I sure don't understand why this is such a challenge for you, and why I have to now anticipate another smartass comment.

Chris

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them" -- Mark Twain

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 4/4/04 4:43 pm

Chris OConnor

Dissident

Did Sandor say he was forced to work at 14 years old? I read his statement as "got my first job at 14." Like Sandor I too was working at 14 years old delivering newspapers. Was this forced child labor? No, it was character building voluntary work. Why must you twist peoples words so much?

Quote:
...any real civilized nation would be completely ashamed to force 14 year olds into jobs, and be embarrassed of the stupidity in making people pay their own way through college.

Who should pay for Sandor to go to college? Should all of society shoulder the burden of higher education? What if I don't want to pay for Sandor's higher education? Am I now an insensitive, immoral, antisocial, sociopathic capitalistic pig? Shouldn't the money I earn be spent how I see fit?

Chris

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them" -- Mark Twain

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 4/4/04 4:41 pm

Dissident Heart

Quote:
Like Sandor I too was working at 14 years old delivering newspapers. Was this forced child labor? No, it was character building voluntary work.

Maybe for Sandor it wasn't voluntary, and perhaps for you the pressure from parents and community made any other choice from yourself seem impossible. I mean, if the alternative is to be seen as ungrateful, lazy and a slacker...then there really is no choice but to work.

As for 'character building voluntary work', good for you. But, it isn't so good for the many, many millions for whom flipping burgers, stuffing tacos, parking cars, sweeping garages...for whom it is not voluntary, but inescapable and essential considering the lack of resources in house and home...in which character is not built, but resentment nourished and fed, and rote, meaningless, disempowering work is compensated with pennies compared to what profit is derived- this is the issue.

Quote:
Who should pay for Sandor to go to college? Should all of society shoulder the burden of higher education?

Educating citizens is no burden, on the contrary- it is a blessing to society to have its members skilled, equipped, thinking, informed and prepared to create the Good Society. This system you see as the 'best thing going' spends billions upon billions of dollars building nuclear bombs alone (not to mention billions upon billions for other not-quite-as-deadly devices for more than mass destruction)...just to name one 'burden' you seem willing to carry.

Providing life-time universal access to education would barely scratch the surface of just this single expenditure.

You, it seems, would rather build bombs than build minds.

But, that makes sense, because Capitalism does not want an educated population able to discern fact from fiction, propaganda from truth...it requires a passive body of always ready consumers. You know, kinds like yourself perhaps, for who the end-all in life is the accumulation of stuff?

And, this is pathological and sociopathic and deadly.

Kostya · Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 9:16 pm Post subject: Personal attacks...

Are all the personal attacks really necessary in these discussions? And it does not matter who was the first to start it... I thought that people around here were mature enough to discuss the topics at hand - not each other's characters or personal histories. Simply because one does not agree with your political views does not mean that they are some evil "doers" who want you dead or enslaved or whatever the latest accusation that came to your mind is.

There is enough hatred and ignorance around us as it is, so perhaps we all should make an extra effort to be a bit more civil.

Thank you.

Kostya

Edited by: Kostya at: 4/5/04 8:11 am

Chris OConnor

Dissident

I don't think I've ever disagreed with anyone on any message board more than I disagree with you right now. It's amazing how very differently two people can view the world. And I'm trying desperately to see things from your perspective, but it is increasingly difficult since your points are so clouded by fallacious reasoning and personal attacks.

Since you're conveniently avoiding accountability on the Colin Powell thread, I'll ask the same question here. Can you name some highly prosperous socialist nations? Your entire argument is based on the evils of capitalism and the merits of socialism, yet you cannot provide a single example of a prosperous socialist nation. This might mean something Shannon.

Where you got the idea that hard work at a young age is somehow unhealthy and harmful to a child is beyond me. Flipping burgers, stuffing tacos, parking cars, sweeping garages, and any other respectable wage-earning job is indeed character building. Learning at a young age the importance of hard work, smart work, saving money, paying bills, and contributing towards the welfare of your own family is not something to be ashamed of.

By the way...neither Sandor nor myself had to work at 14 years of age. We made the choice to work, and neither of us was forced into child labor. We recognized that hard work was a tool for getting things we wanted. I happened to have wanted a Raleigh 10-speed bicycle. Perhaps Sandor wanted a blow-up doll. The point is we made choices, paid the price with our own labor, and were afforded the opportunity to get those things we wanted in life.

Quote:
...disempowering work is compensated with pennies compared to what profit is derived- this is the issue.

What does the unskilled laborer risk and/or contribute when they flip the burger, park the car, or scrub the toilet? They bring their labor to the equation. For this they earn one level of wage. But what does the owner of the business risk and/or contribute when they go into business and enter the competitive market? They risk their labor, land, capital, and possibly their entire life’s savings. With great risk comes the potential for great reward. Why should the person that contributes very little earn the same as the one that contributes and risks everything they own?

If the child who is flipping burgers pays attention and learns the rules of business he/she has the same opportunity to succeed. By telling them they shouldn't be working...what are you really teaching? How are you building the characters of young adults by lying to them and telling them life is a bowl of cherries and everything is fair. Would life be fair under socialism? Show me where it has worked. I can show you example after example of how capitalism fuels ingenuity, passions, technology, medicine, the arts, and a million other areas. What does socialism do? It stagnates. It robs people of the will to produce. If it doesn't....and I know you'll tell me that it doesn't...show me. I can back up my words with examples from the real world, while you do nothing but talk about hypothetical Utopias.

Quote:
Educating citizens is no burden, on the contrary- it is a blessing to society to have its members skilled, equipped, thinking, informed and prepared to create the Good Society.

You're committing the appeal to emotion fallacy, amongst others. Anytime we have to dig into our pockets and spend money it is a burden of sorts. Paying an electric bill is a burden. Having the power company turn your electricity off for nonpayment makes that burden worth carrying. Paying for a college education is a financial burden, and attending college has an opportunity cost. Why should one man have to shoulder the burden of educating another man? This is robbery. Just because an education is recognized as a "good thing" doesn't make it fair for one man to demand that another man finance his education. Want to go to college? Take out some loans and foot the bill. Or look to your family for support, not the collective community. There are plenty of programs in existence for people that want a higher education. My degree was financed by my own sweat and labor. If you believe so much in paying for goods and services that you personally are not consuming…. please send me a check right away as I sure would appreciate the help.

Quote:
You, it seems, would rather build bombs than build minds.

10 points for anyone that can name this logical fallacy. An entire essay could be written about this twisted statement, but for anyone educated in critical thinking, and/or economics it’s more than obvious.

Do you ever rent movies and watch them at home? Ahah! You would rather be selfish and entertain yourself than feed the poor starving children Ethiopia! How "sociopathic" and insensitive. Enough of the manipulation and semantics. Try to argue your point without baffling people with bullshit Shannon. Because I don't believe that a community should shoulder the burden of providing a free higher education to anyone that wants it...I MUST want my money to go towards the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. Brilliant Shannon.

Quote:
But, that makes sense, because Capitalism does not want an educated population...

Of course capitalism doesn't want educated citizens. Capitalsim also doesn't want ignorant citizens. Capitalism cannot have wants and desires and needs. Capitalism isn't a living, breathing, sentient creature with a conscious mind. Then again....neither is socialism. Capitalism is indifferent.

And by the way, you and a few others have made the fallacious statement that capitalism is immoral. Utter nonsense. Capitalism is "amoral," meaning neither moral nor immoral. The methodology of science would be a fine example of another amoral system. Is science responsible for creating nuclear weapons and then using them to kill hundreds of thousands of people? Of course not. Science was simply a process or methodology for uncovering the technology. Science also cures diseases. Well, capitalism raises standards of living, reduces unemployment, and generates advances in so many areas. Are there some negatives? Sure, but let's address the problems and not pretend the entire system is flawed.

Quote:
Capitalism...requires a passive body of always ready consumers.

You have the freedom to spend your money in the fashion you see fit in a capitalistic society. Entrepreneurs struggle to meet the needs of the consumers at the lowest possible cost, or they'll get squeezed out of the market by the competition. How does this make the consumer passive? How insulting to say that consumers are passive participants in the buying/selling process. Buyers create the markets Shannon. If you and I quit buying Coke they would be out of business.

Quote:
You know, kinds like yourself perhaps, for who the end-all in life is the accumulation of stuff?

You don't have enough information about me to make such a statement. But this doesn't ever seem to stop you.

Quote:
And, this is pathological and sociopathic and deadly.

So I'm sociopathic now? ...pathological? ...And all I care about is the accumulation of stuff? You're brilliant Dissident. You're intellect is staggering. You've got me figured out. I'm a selfish bastard that wants nothing more out of life than to accumulate material possessions. All this you gleaned from me supporting the most successful system ever known to man. Amazing.

Instead of trying to illuminate the weaknesses of capitalism, why don't you detail for us your idea of a good system? No, I don't mean copy and paste dozens of quotes from socialist authors. Explain who would own the factories, the plants, the media, and the transportation companies under your socialistic Utopia. Tell us in detail how it would all work.

I really don't want to hear another comment about BookTalk members being antisocial, immoral, pathological, sociopathic, selfish, or not concerned with the welfare of other peoples children. Not to mention the numerous ad hominems launched at Sandor. It needs to stop immediately. The entire tone needs to stop, not just the personal insults.

Chris

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them" -- Mark Twain

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 4/5/04 2:02 am

Katala Au · Almost a regular Joined: 24 Jan 2004 Posts: 40 Gender:

I emphatically agree with Kostya's post.

Particularly as this messageboard is a medium conducive to reflecting on what you say before the whole world sees it (and even editing it anytime afterwards), please try to reread your own posts and make sure they're clean of ad hominem attacks.

Nicole

Dissident Heart

Chris,

Quote:
Can you name some highly prosperous socialist nations? Your entire argument is based on the evils of capitalism and the merits of socialism, yet you cannot provide a single example of a prosperous socialist nation.

My entire argument is based upon moral accountability. I am not defending socialist nations, I am holding myself accountable for beloning to a capitalist one. I find Capitalism to be particularly odious and quite dangerous to the health of the planet and its lifeforms.

No where, anywhere, have I said, "We must have a Socialist nation to replace this Capitalist one." I did include a particularly brilliant essay by Albert Einstein in support of Socialism, one that carefully outlines the evils of Capitalism and points towards a possible set of Socialist solutions. But, I haven't demanded we follow any particular Socialist model.

I have fully endorsed the democratic economy of Participatory Economics (Parecon) as meticulously charted out by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. And I've introduced his devstating critiques of Corporate Capitalism and State Socialism in his recent book, Parecon: Beyond Capitalism.

Now, as for your demand that I produce a 'prosporous socialist nation' or shut up about the obvious ills and delusions facing Capitalism and its endorsers...I simply refer you to the vast history of human progress.

I can imagine a person in the late 18th Cent. saying, "I think we should try Republican Democracy- you know Respresentational Government free of the stupidities of Royalty and Caste Deference" And, there would be folks like yourself saying, "Well, Monarchial Aristocracies have served us quite well, thank you very much, I mean look at how prosperous we are! And, anyway, show me one nation where such an experiment or approach has worked!"

Or maybe, an Abolitionist in the early 19th Cent. saying, "You know, Slavery is odious and wrong and trading in human chattel is sociopathic and immoral- we should end it immediately and demand universal human rights for all humans." And, there would be folks like yourself saying, "Well, Slave Societies have served us quite well, thank you very much, I mean look at how prosperous we are! And, anyway, show me one nation where such an experiment or approach has worked!"

Thus, any serious progressive movement toward greater equalities would be met with your rebuttal, "If you can't show me anyplace where this has worked, we don't have to take it seriously."

Furthermore, Chris, you seem to be uninformed of the trillions of dollars spent by the Capitalist Nations to stop Socialism wherever it attempted to grow...trillions of dollars in weaponry, sabotage, uprooting democratically elected officials, mercenary forces, propaganda and misinformation, and a genuine Crusade against it for the last half century mis-titled "Cold War".

As for the 'personal tone' of my posts, I am simply following a train of logic that finds its conclusion in the dangerous and deadly consequences of belief systems such as Capitalism. Persons hold belief systems, and these beliefs have personal consequences. The consequences, as I see them, and have meticulously outlined in multiple places across these boards, are sociopathic and pathological.

Einstein called them 'evil'. But, I'll leave the theology to the experts.

sandor at the zoo

I feel like that character in the gangster movies; every time I get out, they pull me back in. Trying to stop by BookTalk and post once in a while is futile. When I read the replies I inevitably want to respond.

For the most part, I'm willing to let Dissident's libel speak for itself ... it honestly says nothing at all about me but volumes about him. However, there is one statement in his witless diatribe that I am compelled to respond to because it really had an effect on me (though almost certainly not the one he was hoping for).

Dissident says:

Quote:
The truly sad part about this, (beyond the fact that any real civilized nation would be completely ashamed to force 14 year olds into jobs, and be embarrassed of the stupidity in making people pay their own way through college) is that Sandor has betrayed his class and abandoned the struggle by siding with the enemy. He, and he is hardly alone, is an Uncle Tom. He made his way from Field Negro to House Negro, and is proud to serve in the Master's home.

It is good, once in a while, to go look up a word that you think you already know the meaning of. In this case I went and looked up two:

Bigotry: Intolerance toward people who hold different views, especially on matters of politics, religion, or ethnicity.

Prejudice: A pre-formed opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate stereotypes.

Never before in my life have I understood these words as well as I do now. I always knew what they meant, but I never understood them. Until Dissident's post I had simply never been a victim of either. But now I know - now I understand - how it must feel for a poor black kid to work hard all through high school to get a scholarship, struggle to make ends meet during college, finally get a good job, work hard at it, raise his family in a nice neighborhood, and at the end of it all have some lazy jerk from back in the 'hood call him Uncle Tom. Better, says the lazy jerk, to have stayed in the ghetto with the gangsters, pimps, and crackheads. Better to have kept getting that welfare check - The Man owes to it us anyway - than to have worked both hard and smart to get ahead and carve out a little piece of the American dream for himself. Sell out! How dare you use your head, hands, and heart to achieve excellence! What gall, to reap the fruits of your own labor! I cannot - or will not - work so hard and make such sacrifices, the lazy jerk whines, and therefore neither should you.

Those who do are traitors. Sell outs. Uncle Toms.

Your assertion is beyond absurd. It's a new depth of willful ignorance for you. If your accusation were true than every single working class kid who excels, gets an education, and makes something of himself (inclusive) is an Uncle Tom. Every coal miner's daughter who becomes an astronaut, every fisherman's kid who gets an M.B.A., and every carpenter's son who becomes a history professor is lowly treasonous scum. But every junkie and layabout with their hand out for a welfare check is a paragon of moral virtue, true to "their class" and worthy of praise from the ivory tower which you inhabit.

As I said, ludicrous. Even for you.

I wasn't forced to work at 14, Dissident, I went to work in the evenings after school because I wanted money for movies and pizza and D & D books, and I wanted to save for a car. No one was going to buy that stuff for me and I would have been surprised and insulted if someone had offered to. I'm healthy, smart, and employable; why shouldn't I work?

Nor did I "betray my class". I am still friends with the kids that I grew up with - I've known some of them for over 25 years - and they would be either shocked or utterly dumbfounded by such a statement. Though some of the families in our neighborhood were wealthier than others (and my family never could have lived there at all if my father hadn't built our house himself) all of us fall safely in the blue or white collar categories. But never, not once, did anyone accuse me of betrayal or say that my fiscal conservatism is indicative of such a thing. On the contrary, they respect my opinion and most of them agree with it - even the democrats (most of them are).

Your accusations - that I was "forced to work", that I've "betrayed my class", and that I serve some evil, disembodied capitalist master - are prejudice. It fits the definition precisely. You know nothing about me, my background, or my life, yet you feel qualified to make sweeping generalizations about who I am, where I come from, and what I believe. And you come to this prejudice purposefully; not through misunderstanding or ignorance, but through a deliberate twisting of my words and their meaning. You do this because of bigotry - that definition is also an exact match - evidenced by the way you've off-handedly stereotyped me (twice) and made decisions about my life and my character based on little or no information.

If I had accused you of such things on my own, Dissident, I surely would have drawn the wrath of BookTalk's Leftist Mutual Appreciation Society. But thanks to your latest seething rant I merely have to point out what you yourself make obvious: You are a bigot. Your opinions and attitudes are prejudiced. It doesn't matter what any of us say to you here at BookTalk; you are arrogantly self-assured that everyone to the right of Noam Chomsky is evil, or corrupt, or a traitor.

As for the rest of your post, suffice it to say that I agree precisely with what Chris has said. If socialism - any brand of it - works so well, where is your shining leftist utopia? Where is this paragon of human rights, technological innovation, environmental harmony, and egalitarian self-government? Why is it that the most successful nations on Earth have achieved their success not by following Marx, but by doing the exact opposite?

S

sandor at the zoo

Dissident says:

Quote:
I can imagine a person in the late 18th Cent. saying, "I think we should try Republican Democracy- you know Respresentational Government free of the stupidities of Royalty and Caste Deference" And, there would be folks like yourself saying, "Well, Monarchial Aristocracies have served us quite well, thank you very much, I mean look at how prosperous we are! And, anyway, show me one nation where such an experiment or approach has worked!"

Or maybe, an Abolitionist in the early 19th Cent. saying, "You know, Slavery is odious and wrong and trading in human chattel is sociopathic and immoral- we should end it immediately and demand universal human rights for all humans." And, there would be folks like yourself saying, "Well, Slave Societies have served us quite well, thank you very much, I mean look at how prosperous we are! And, anyway, show me one nation where such an experiment or approach has worked!"

The difference between these hypotheticals and Chris' challenge to point out a successful socialist state (successful on the order of the US, UK, Japan, etc...) is that the hypotheticals include no pre-existing failures. In the real world we have plenty of socialist failures to which we can refer, so Dissident's "democracy" and "abolition" analogies are not applicable.

If the hypothetical inhabitants of these analogies could have pointed to failed democracies and states which had fallen into ruin immediately after freeing their slaves, then we'd have something close to the situation that Chris is talking about. We have seen socialism fail on a grand scale. We have seen it fail in microcosm (where are all the communes of the 60's?). It was never exactly the same twice - Stalin's was different than Hitler's, and Hitler's was different than Castro's - but each time it has led to mediocrity (at best) or unmitigated disaster (at worst). Does this mean that no socialist system will ever work as well as capitalism? Of course not. But it does mean that we have the right - no, the duty - to be very, very skeptical of any promises made by new brands of socialism. As I said to Tim earlier in the thread, it's up to the socialists to prove it works, not to the capitalists to prove it doesn't.

And of course we're going to hear the same tired complaints now, about "the costs" of capitalism. How it hurts the environment, oppresses the third world, stomps on the "common man", and causes earthquakes in Uruguay. There is little that can be said to such accusations, because those making them will never listen when you tell them that:

1) It's true, there is a cost. But it's not nearly as bad as the doom criers would like us to believe. I'm looking out my window right now - it's a working class neighborhood, we're all proletariat here - and I see no oppressed masses, no starving peasants, and no billowing pollution. I do see a little birdie though. Hello birdie.

2) We're better off trying to improve a system that does work well - capitalism - than trying to patch another random body part onto the Frankenstein's monster of socialism and hope it doesn't kill millions of people this time.

3) There are stable, working social democracies in northern and western Europe and you can go live in one if you want. They are decent, safe, and utterly mediocre places to live. But if you go there, don't get sick. The care is free, oh yes, but you'll wait three months for an appointment with a doctor who hates his job. Oh, wait, the care isn't really free either - you pay over a third of your income in taxes and that pays for the third-rate doctor.

Yes, the evils of capitalism. They guarantee that aging hippies, elitest intellectual snobs, and rich kids who hate their parents will have something to bleat about and protest against forever, virtually assuring that they never actually have to get a job and work for a living.

S


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT