From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sat Jul 02 2005 - 21:57:42 BST
Hi Arlo --
I had said:
> Capitalism is not based on greed; it's the enlightenend concept of being
> rewarded commensurate with our productivity and talent.
To which you replied:
> This type of social darwinism is patently false, Ham. Besides, as MSH
> correctly states, the leverage of inheritance in determining one's
economic
> (and hence social/political) power, it perpetuates the myth that all rich
> people are so because they are, in effect, "better people". People who are
> poor are simply lazy, slothful, unproductive, talentless people.
Social Darwinism? That's a novel aphorism for capitalism, although I don't
quite get the connection. Of course some people are born into "privilege",
just as some may be handicapped. Existence doesn't come with a "fairness"
guarantee. In the main, however, the ability to amass wealth is a measure
of one's capacity to produce, which usually is acknowledged as a
contribution to society.
> There have been many, many studies over the years examining class mobility
> (for lack of a better word) in America. Study after study has shown that
> the reality for the vast majority is that they die with the same economic
> leverage they are born with.
This does not discredit the capitalistic system. There will always be a few
exceptional individuals with special talents, skills or intellect who win
public or professional acclaim for their efforts. We may question the value
of the entertainment offered by rock singers, film stars or sports figures
who makes millions with their talents. But they are perceived by the market
as providing something worth the price of admission. Distorted values or
not, they are making a contribution to society. But these are the
exceptions. Most of us struggle just to makes ends meet with ordinary
careers. A little more effort by any of us is far more likely to increase
our share of the pie than lamenting our "social status". Attempts to
"equalize" the nation's wealth through more "progressive" tax programs and
raising the minimum wage will not increase productivity or eliminate
poverty. Redistributing wealth simply reduces the incentive to produce and
the values commensurate therewith.
> But one's reward in life
> (economic, as capitalism's rewards are) are NOT commensurate with an
> individual's productivity and talent. They are commensurate with the
> economic strata one is born into, and one's access to educational and
> professional opportunities in both geographic and sociocultural bounds--
> immigrants, for example, who despite being intelligent, hard working and
> very talented, are disenfranchised by a society that (as Platt has
> repeatedly admitted to) favors "those who are like us" ethnically,
> culturally and linguistically (among other things). ...
Again, as the song goes, we never promised you a rose garden. I don't buy
into this "disenfranchised" chiche. Am I "disenfranchised" because I didn't
win last week's lottery? Or because Jack was promoted and I wasn't? We've
done everything possible in this country to equalize educational and
employment opportunities for both sexes and all races and nationalities.
Indeed, some of us think we've gone to far. There never was a time or place
with a more level playing field. Sadly for the egalitarians who like to
preach uniformity, the fact remains that all people are not equal -- whether
it's their place of birth, their parents, their intelligence, their health,
their motivation, or their talents. Let's face reality: life is a
diversified existence. Not all of us will succeed by someone else's
standard, but we all can aspire to a higher personal standard, and in doing
so will most assuredly improve our wealth and social status.
> At any rate, our views likely "diverge" on capitalism, and I'm not looking
> to start a "no-win" thread. I just want it vocalized that there are many
> substantial criticisms that can be brought against the notion of
capitalism
> as a "rewarder of productivity and talent", the least of which is likely
> the notion that the poor are simply lazy.
Let the record read that you have voiced your opinion.
> Those who understand Marx, rather than use him as a strawman, know that
his
> assertion was that material accumulation robs a man of his humanity,
> because it isolates and alienates him from concern over his neighbors and
> his community.
Then, I guess, you should consider Mark Maxwell's solution, which is to be a
"selfless" person and not own anything.
> But certainly, if you define yourself by your possessions,
> rather than your community-minded activity, you'll see this as heresy. I'd
> say working, and giving, to help your neighbors rather than focusing on
> "what I own, mine mine mine" is more indicative, not less so, of someone
> who "knows the value of human life".
>
> Unless, as I've said, you value human life by the wealth you accumulate.
In
> which case the lives of the rich are certainly more valuable than the
lives
> of the poor, aren't they?
I certainly don't define myself by my possessions, nor do I advocate this
for anyone else. Personally, I value living life rather than trying to
impress others with how I live it and what I have to show for it.
Essentially yours,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 02 2005 - 22:00:07 BST