1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Reader - Online Commentary - H

 
 
 

Capitalism as a system or a philosophy. Is corruption more a socialist or capitalist paradigm? Is the concept of evil a component of economics? the genesis of the concepts of freedom and liberty. Is morality the system or the players?        

 
 
 
 

READER - VIEWER - COMMENTARY - F

*************************************************************************

Max D

Both capitalists are proven wrong by history from past to present. Not to mention having zero morals, such as the clown on the right stating that England's take over and autocratic control and domination of other countries -- India in this case -- was the best thing for said countries and the people therein! OMFG. How typical of the far-right capitalist. As a capitalist myself, but one with morals, principles, values, ethics, a conscious more or less, I find this appalling

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Exactly how can this be? If you are a capitalist and are completely right, and other capitalists are totally wrong, what school of thought, regarding capitalism, if I may ask, are you a student of? You validate my own perspective that it is not the system, the ideology, the philosophy of the system of itself that is inferior or fallible, but the individual players that use the system to enact bad paradigms that hurt other individuals.

I find it appalling when I see people such as this, and it matters not if they are capitalists, socialists or any collectivist really, anachists, or any other ‘ist’ or ‘ism’ that exists. I abhor inappropriate players and immoral participants. The system is never really the issue, but the individuals. This is something that never changes. Ever.

Ironically, since I am a capitalist that also believes himself to be one with morals, and principles, and values, and ethics, with a conscious more or less, hopefully more, I guess we are somehow Sympatico. Don’t forget an individual of integrity and empathy and compassion.

From your comments, I see that OMFG, these bad things are from a ‘far-right’ capitalist. Sounds like you are not one of those. Are you by any chance, a far-left capitalist? Didn’t know that they even existed. It’s just that I am really, really interested. What kind of capitalist are you? Is there some kind of a named philosophical movement, or are you more of a freelance capitalist? Was there some kind of online course for this new capitalism, or did you just make it up yourself? All joking aside, I would be fascinated to know what it is, exactly, that you are talking about.

Anybody else interested in this? Oh, by the way, I am a lifelong Objectivist, with a passing interest in capitalism, based on Objectivist thought. Over 50 years, and it works quite well, as a matter of fact.

*************************************************************************

samir Mohapatra

Capitalism: you are the owner of your life. You decide what happens.

Me: really ?? I don't choose my place of birth, parents, desires, gender, religion.... I didn't come into the world...I came out of it. Misunderstood individual freedom is complete isolation in the shadow of indifference. A system that promotes rational selfishness...will eventually make every selfish act into a rational one.

The capitalist in me: Need to get that presentation right for my budget pitch. My promotion depends on it.

Capitalism: too late!!

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Interesting attempt at humour. Didn’t’ work, but it was interesting. I liked the effort, at least.

Where did you get this ‘I am the owner of my own life’ concept? I never saw this in anything considered capitalist thought. Perhaps as a secondary thought, but nothing mainstream. Could you tell us the genesis of the thought? I think this is more of a misinterpretation of a philosophical thought. Not really conflicting with Objectivism or many of the other disciplines for that matter, but capitalism is not one of them. It does infer ‘self’ in the comment, and this is not to say that I do not agree, because I do. I am indeed the owner of my life, and it is only myself that will determine what happens, notwithstanding circumstances outside my control.

Perhaps not when or where I am born, no one gets to be involved in that event. How could that even happen? Maybe we do, and some god asks us before he sends us down, but then removes the memory, so maybe we did put our seal of approval on the action. In any case, the things you present as being outside of your control are …. outside of your control. Control starts when you begin to make personal, and hopefully, inevitably, mature, reasoned, intellectual, and philosophical conclusions as to how you will behave as a human being.

None of us control our birth or our parents, unless you believe in the cosmic consciousness, in which case you were connected both before and after, so you may have been able to put in some kind of cosmic request. I don’t think that desires are something contained in DNA. I could be wrong, of course, but you would have to show me where. Instinctual desires maybe or maybe not, since we all desire to live, at least in the beginning. We all need water and sustenance, but I am not sure we care how exactly, just if.

I would tend to side with the no control over gender, but our political reality is quickly changing the paradigm on that one. Wait a few years. Religion was certainly not a choice in my paradigm. Not to begin with, in any respect, but it was virtually a non-existent compulsion, even with a fairly devout and motivated Christian family. I made my own religious decisions from a very early age, so can’t sign on to that imperative. You may think you had no input, but you just weren’t particularly motivated, or spiritually aware, I would venture.

Your misunderstanding of true individual freedom does seem to be casting something of a shadow in your vicinity. Hopefully, the sun will come out.

Making a statement that rational selfishness (self-interest) will eventually make every selfish act into a selfish one was without validity. Again, interesting, but with no foundational evidence to that end, it is irrational in nature, irrelevant in essence, and able to be dismissed easily. If you have something credible to offer, please do, but my experience, and that spans over 50 years of Objective thought, at least for the moment, trumps your unsubstantiated comment, I don’t even consider it to be of the standard of an opinion. What do you possibly base such an accusation upon? It would be earthshaking if true. But it is not, so it is not.

You do make a good presentation as to what irrational self-interest is, even if that was not your intent. An Objectivist perspective would say that as important as that ‘budget-pitch’ might be, if it is not in the interest of the individual, ‘as well as’, the company, and the customers, then it is not as ethical or moral as it could be. The degree of the character of the individual making the pitch (you) is rather limited, and the integrity illustrated is somewhat inferior as well.

Objectivism promotes the mutual benefit and mutual agreement of all concerned for it to be legitimate. The pitch, as shown, is for the benefit of only the individual doing the pitch, and not in the best interests of the company or customer, so negates most of any benefit that may result. It does not necessarily show a complete lack of ability of intent, but the primary is inarguable, he is doing it for his own selfish reasons (irrational self-interests) and not rational ones. Rational thought might suggest that he, of course, pursue his own interests, but fully taking into account the interests of the other parties, no matter what the ultimate result actually is. That result may have been the same in any case, but it is the intent that changes the legitimacy of the presentation.

The issue of promotions, again, may be a consideration, but it is depicted as a primary, and it simply diminishes the veracity of the attempt at being that impeccable action that we should all try to achieve. Any devaluing of the action does not come from the capitalistic attributes that may exist in the fact that this is being done in a business setting, but it really has little if anything to do with capitalism. He may actually get fired or demoted by not achieving a greater return to the company but that is a decision that we have to make every day in our lives.

Do we do the ethical thing, the moral thing, do we take actions of integrity, or do we do what we know is of an inferior intent, to make our own lives easier? I will not even judge him for his decisions, only will not grant him that it was the totally appropriate thing to do, and will not allow him to place culpability on an inanimate entity, i.e., capitalism, to grant him some abdication for his own personal decision. Do you understand what I am trying to say? This is simply the way it is, not the way he wishes it to be.

I don’t particularly care about him, his company, his customers, or anything else. I make the attempt to look at this from a completely objective perspective, and come to a conclusion based on what I see as the existing parameters. I am not even saying I would not have done the same as he did, but it would not have been as admirable or noble a thing as if he did all the right things for all the right reasons. That is the choice that we have every day. If we have a personal philosophy, just how hard do we try to follow those choices freely taken to follow the strict interpretation of that philosophy, or do we simply try to do a reasonable job of it, and accept and recognize that we could have, and should have, done better?

I look at my life and I have, for the most part, been responsible for almost everything that has happened. Many things were beyond my control, but I often let them dictate, and that, of course, is a decision in and of itself. Inaction is as much a decision as action. I have made many mistakes, I have been taken advantage of, and at times, manipulated. I believe that I have learned from all of those events, and have come to understand much of what happened and why. While some others hold some culpability for some of these events, I am ultimately responsible for my acquiescence. In the end, I blame myself for letting these things happen. I could deflect, but ‘choose’ to learn and continue to follow my path, instead of living in some self-absorbed past, stuck in regret and self-pity.

*************************************************************************

Seth Murrant

44:00 this whole argument is based on a very rudimentary fallacious and egregious idea that wealth accumulation is in accordance with a coefficient of skill and work ethic. Anyone with half a brain can see how that’s false, even if you just take the fact the vast majority of the ultra-wealthy class inherited their wealth and haven’t worked a day in their life.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I find your statement to be without merit. Somewhat immature, biased, and overly simplistic as well. I am not even sure that I can agree that a ‘vast’ majority of the ultra-wealthy haven’t worked a day in their life. Is there some evidence that you have, hidden away, that verifies this fact? I don’t think so, it seems more just a bigoted and self-serving opinion, even if true.

I don’t believe that I have ever heard that it is an absolute that accumulation of wealth has any correlation to some ‘coefficient of skill and work ethic’. This comes across as a made-up and illegitimate statistic to attempt to prove the unprovable. What I ‘have’ heard is that if you work hard, you will be successful, but even that does not say you will be rewarded with any degree of wealth, only that you will enjoy some semblance of success, much as saying it doesn’t matter if one wins or loses, but how one plays the game. If played with ethics and integrity, there is a degree of satisfaction irrespective of the game itself, no matter how much you may have wanted to reign victorious.

There are probably many that jump to the same conclusion you have allowed yourself, and I would be very interested if you could legitimize the position with some credible evidence to corroborate, but I somehow think that will be difficult, both to realize, and to put in the effort to discover.

Who said that wealth accumulation is in accordance with any concepts of skill and work ethic? Who says this for any level of society or ‘wealth production’? You just make this stuff up and think it proves something specific? It doesn’t. What is the relevance of such a statement? Did your credibility jump from 1 to 8 with the comment? Probably not.

Having said all of that, I have my own concerns with the wealthy, not with how much money they possess, since I find that irrelevant, but more in how they gained that wealth, and if it is from ‘legitimate’ actions. If so, then it is property ethically ‘earned’, and theirs to manage in any way they wish, but if not, then that is what I would like to address and to discern some way to prevent that illegitimate gain from being so easy to gain in the future. I want those that ‘deserve’ wealth to appreciate and enjoy it, but I condemn and wish nothing but difficulties in keeping it for those that have committed fraud, theft, manipulation, and for the socialist in the audience, true and verifiable exploitation. Tell me how your paradigm accepts or rejects my premise.

*************************************************************************

also, as for an argument against vast economic disparity, how about the gini coefficient? You know, that little tidbit that perfectly analyses a country’s relative poverty and showcased how the larger the disparity of wealth is between classes of people is in direct correlation to an increase in physical violence? How about that?

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Do you even know what the Gini coefficient represents? It is so irrational and dishonest to even introduce something like that into this conversation. It is a number, for those of you that have not come into contact with the virtually irrelevant barometer of the actual distribution of wealth as opposed to the completely worthless number of what the income would be across the country in question if the wealth distribution were to be equally given to every citizen in the country. What does that prove? It is a completely fantastical chart that has no connection to any component of the economy, the political climate, or anything approaching reality that proves undeniably that the rich have more money than the poor. Like we didn’t know that already? Completely ludicrous.

The worst numbers are used to simply verify that wealthy countries distribute less than poor countries. No one uses this except the UN and groups trying to make a political point, invariably against those countries with wealth that are being pressured. It is almost impossible to make sense of the ‘tool’, and it already is being relegated to the back burner in lieu of other coefficients that are equally incomprehensible. It sounds legit, but it is anything but.

There was no reference or correlation to violence anywhere in my research. An illegitimate connection for further political purposes. If not, then explain it to us, with citation. I would really enjoy that.

*************************************************************************

john 6echo

Christopher Hitchens was totally correct to assert that Capitalism is and to be understood as a SYSTEM of economic wealth-creation, and NOT a political philosophy. He is also correct in his observation that "capitalism" in itself (being an economic system) has no inherent moral and ethical principles.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   There is an intent with the original fundamentals of the concept of capitalism as to morality. It is true that it has no inherent moral or ethical principles. I have been relentlessly presenting that as a counterbalance to the blame that individuals keep placing upon the system. What you present is verification that it is the individuals involved, and not the system itself, that is to blame for the disreputable actions taken through the guise of capitalism. If true, and I think it is totally legitimate, it is that capitalism has no culpability, as even socialism would have none, except that socialism does indeed promote and condone the use of force in its implementation and use, while capitalism at no point makes that claim.

*************************************************************************

That was why Capitalism (as Hitchens noted in the debate) was compatible with evil political systems, as well as democratic systems (such as Fascist states).

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   That is contradictory in nature if we take what you just said, that capitalism has no inherent ethical or moral principles. That does not infer that it is ‘compatible’ with evil political systems in any way, and only that it is vulnerable to abuse at the hands of these repugnant players. This in no way shows a connection with capitalism and any of the things you continually attempt to conflate with the ideology. The strawman once again raises his scrawny head.

*************************************************************************

It could be used to serve both the good and the evil, for as long as the laws allow.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   That infers the system can only be neutral or benign as to culpability when used in an inappropriate way. And please enlighten us as to the comparison of this ‘serving’ the good and the evil by capitalism with the same paradigm with the ‘serving’ of these virtues or vices by the concepts of socialism. In any sense, it would be ‘identical’. If anything, there exists a symbiosis between the evil and socialism in the sense that the ideology itself condones and supports the use of force to intimidate and control the membership, which in its own right should be considered ‘evil’. Capitalism nowhere suggests the same thing.

The rational and relevant point you make, albeit surreptitiously, is that all of this evil that you speak of is evident and ‘allowable’ only as ‘long as the law allows’ it. I have been saying this all day long, and this only verifies it. Capitalism is not the culprit, it is the reprehensible inappropriate players within the business community as well as the political spectrum that are fully culpable for all the ills that many today try to attach to capitalism. It simply ain’t so, sam.

*************************************************************************

The "Objectivism" /pro Laissez-faire capitalism debaters tried to equate "capitalism" as a philosophy of "Individual freedom and liberty", that which is a fundamentally FLAWED presupposition to start with.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   You refute your own criticism. You cite, not capitalists, but Objectivist, pro laissez-faire capitalism debaters. I think there is evidence that liberty and freedom have always been a component of those that have tried to institute the concept of capitalism as a positive economic force in its use. Especially Objectivists, who specifically include these concepts of liberty and freedom in every instance when speaking about capitalism. Is this not their prerogative to do so? Why can you not simply address the reality of the system, including these concepts of freedom and liberty, and make your arguments from that point? You waste valuable time arguing for the removal of these items when they are intended to be a part of the conversation going forward. The Objectivists wish it to be a part of their platform, no matter how vociferously you wish otherwise. Deal with it.

The collectivist incessantly talks of a flawed capitalistic paradigm and yet refuses to offer any credible evidence of this fabricated flaw. Show us where this flaw exists, and explain exactly what it is. Without citation and examples, it is nothing more than a fantasy as opposed to any verifiable proof.

*************************************************************************

The philosophy of "individual freedom and liberty" has nothing to do with capitalism, but rather developed by educated thinkers and philosophers, in response to Man's centuries long history of oppression under the systems of feudalism and imperialism; as the Monarch's "DIVINE Right to rule" was more and more being questioned and challenged by the People under his rule (the monarch's subjects), especially during the Enlightenment period.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   So it seems that you are asking us to understand that because of failings inherent in some systems that had gone before, and not only acknowledging those shortcomings, but wishing to address and rectify them, they strove to make necessary changes. They wished to include some newer concepts, such as freedom and liberty, to act in a way to improve what was being discussed in relation to a new vision for the future? Is there some problem in relation to that wish?

Are we inserting determinism once again, trying to force the issue, and demanding that these advantageous actions ‘not’ be taken since they were not an aspect in the past? Must we repeat the failures and ignorance of the past? That sounds counterproductive, not to mention an intentional attempt at misinformation.

By your own words, what was done was for legitimate reasons, through the efforts of educated thinkers and philosophers, to confront and adjust imperfections to what previously existed? As far as I am aware, we did not want feudalism, and Mr. Hitchens was quite vocal in his criticisms, directing most of them towards capitalism as a direct result of feudalism itself. After ‘centuries’ of oppression and imperialism, I would have thought it refreshing that someone was working on the problem, instead of continually condemning its existence. America was not really a big fan of the Monarch’s ‘divine right to rule’, for those of you that are uninformed about the American Revolution, it was waged in direct response to the concept and wished to replace that reality with something more relevant and integral to the well-being of the citizens of the new nation. Was that not a step in the right direction as well?

By your own words, the ‘people’ were challenging and making their displeasure known, and our founders were simply responding to that pressure, even though they had no obligations to the people of England. I am not sure I understand the impetus of your observations or what you hoped to accomplish with them.

*************************************************************************

The "morality & ethics" of the economic or wealth-creating activities by way of capitalism is fundamentally dependent on the morality of the person (and society) who applies capitalism to achieve the ends of creating wealth.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Exactly. Without reservation. I do not refute what you just said. This has been the precise intent of my comments towards that end. It will always be the ethics, morality, character, and integrity of the actual players that will be reflected in the results of the economic system in use. The system is nothing but a tool for the benefit of the individual and the nation in the right hands, and a weapon of oppression and criminality in the hands of the unscrupulous.

*************************************************************************

It’s therefore absurd to suggest that any virtuous or righteous morality of the person --his respect and belief in the inalienable Rights of Man's Life, Liberty and Property --is derived from his belief in capitalism, Or that it is synonymous to his belief in capitalism.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   You miss the whole point once again. It is not capitalism that legitimizes the individual, but the individual that validates the system. The point being that in the hands of one of those impeccable individuals of character and integrity it is a noble and beneficial process that all may use for their own betterment, and to those around them. What could be a simpler concept than that? What is it that you are attempting to say? No one says I will be more virtuous or moral by the use of the system, but only that the system is unequaled when used by individuals with those qualities already mentioned.

It should be synonymous with his belief in capitalism. That is why the Objectivist supports it so strongly, it is the epitome of the philosophy of Objectivism, and is integrally and intimately compatible with the essence of the system. I think someone needs to stop the attack on something you only seem to promote, albeit with a somewhat circular argument.

*************************************************************************

No. Capitalism is only consistent with such a belief or ideology (of individual freedom and liberty of all Man), and that is provided one accepts that capitalism must henceforth be CONSTRAINED within a certain legal framework of laws -- laws predicated on the principles of inalienable Rights of Man.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   You once again agree in the entirety of the platform of the Objectivist. This constraint is acknowledged, but only with the caveat that it is to be an absolute minimum of infringement on the freedoms and liberties already referenced in our founding documents. Not to mention the fact that infringement of people doing inappropriate acts is not an ‘infringement’ but also goes by the name of lady ‘justice’. We do not ‘infringe’ on the actions of a criminal, we hold him accountable. This is no different. We both agree, at least I think we do, in principle, that these inappropriate players are criminals, do we not? Then let us define the ‘right’ and the ‘wrong’ and act accordingly, and not let the corruption and irrational self-interest, and political ideology hold the rest of us hostage. Is there anyone who actually disagrees with what I present?

The point that you seem to refuse to acknowledge is that ‘if’ the players in the game of capitalism are only those individuals that we have already defined as persons of ethical and moral character and impeccable integrity, then this ‘legal framework’ of constraints will never even be necessary. Laws, or rules as the case may be, are created and defined, to allow those playing in the game to compete on an equal and fair basis, and the rules should support those ‘good’ players to the exclusion of the ‘bad’ ones, which our system does not do, at least at this point in time.

While my depiction of these good individuals may be idealistic and possibly impractical to some degree, it is our obligation to focus our intentions on exactly that. What are our alternatives? We seem to employ and accept those players that are obviously inferior and unsavory, but are they better than many of the others? Do we want the lesser of two evils? That is what has brought us to where we are today. That is not what I desire, and I am ashamed of anyone that finds that acceptable. What we have now is not working up to potential. We can, and have to do better, but destroying the best hope we have to do this, by overturning our current political and economic systems is not going to result in a superior result. Quite the opposite.

*************************************************************************

The Civil War which ended slavery as a legalized institution, and the enactment of the 13th, 14th amendment exemplifies the government using force to constrain "unfettered capitalism".

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Sorry to continually repeat some remarks but you leave little choice in the matter. Where is anyone speaking of ‘unfettered’ capitalism? I cannot remember a single instance of anyone broaching the subject, except from the direction of the socialists, and always as a criticism of an ideology that never promotes it. Repugnant. Why do you include such references when they are not relevant?

No one wants unfettered capitalism unless it be those that already pervert and bend it to their own personal interests. And …. Nowhere, and I unequivocally challenge you to show me wrong, is there a mention of the government constraining capitalism at any level in the 13th, 14th, or 15th amendments. You lose every shred of credibility when you make such a statement. Are your positions so vapid that you have to manufacture misinformation on such a level? Is there not enough to debate without the construction of such falsehoods?

Slavery was a component and symptom of unfettered capitalism. It has no relationship with any version of true capitalism and especially one that is acceptable to any Objectivist. It is a manufactured, irrational, and illegitimate narrative.

*************************************************************************

Further constraints were imposed during the 1930s under FDR's administration. The fact that "Capitalism" is no longer unfettered /unbridled in a present-day democratic society, and that is only because the application and practices of capitalism are bounded or circumscribed within the laws of the land. Mr. John Judis was not a smooth speaker. He was clearly nervous from the numerous occasions he stammered in his presentation and inability to articulate his points confidently. But in his conclusion, he was most definitely correct to assert that any hope to return to the Laissez-faire doctrines of capitalism of the 19th century (as championed by Libertarian purists) is "hopelessly utopian".

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   And he would be correct, but only to the extent that we cannot return to the 19th century, and the liberal and collectivist cancer that presently exists within our political reality cannot allow this to happen without completely losing whatever influence they now possess. Laissez-faire capitalism did not exist at that time in any legitimate form, and your attempt to say otherwise is weak and unsubstantiated. I find it interesting that you never reference any of the Utopian dreams of the socialists, collectivists, or communists.

Everything that has ever been conceived, and especially realized, has found its genesis in a dream. A vision of a better product, or a better existence. It is for the rest of us to determine how to get there and to create direction and motivation and incentive. It is for us to realize what can never be more than a dream, and what can be a new reality. Those that can only deconstruct, destroy and condemn will never be a part of such a future, and that is what I found to be the case with many of the comments here today. Quick to tell the rest of us what does ‘not’ work, but with no real alternatives and a complete inability to articulate ideas as to what ‘will’ work.

This country is well past being able to return to a time such as that. The complexity and level of corruption and illicit relationships that exist today preclude anything but a possibility of slowing or stopping the cancer, and possibly finding a way to reclaim some of the integrity and morality of what once was. Is it possible? If not, then we are fighting a losing battle, and the collectivists will cheer, even if it means the end of the greatest nation this planet has ever seen.

We are not traveling in the correct direction. We need to stop and re-evaluate. We need to clean house and re-establish our intent and find that direction that was lost. In any case, socialism is certainly not the answer. If so, it can only be done with thought and insight, and a level of cooperation that does not seem possible with the political and philosophical climate we are burdened with today. I still believe it is possible, but probable? Perhaps not.

We do not need a new economic paradigm, we need a new philosophical one. We do not need to think of new games to play, but how to produce superior players, individuals based on a much deeper concern with ethical and moral behaviour, and those that are willing to put in the time and effort to figure out exactly what that means. People of character and integrity that are beyond reproach, that we can have confidence and pride in both their words and their actions. It is the challenge of our lifetimes. It has been the challenge of mankind, and after 6000 years of civilization, we have failed miserably. We don’t even recognize the problem yet, and that disturbs and disappoints me more than anything else.

*************************************************************************

*************************************************************************

FINI

*************************************************************************