RE: Individualism Is Stupid ( Or Why Libertarianism And Objectivism Is Stupid)
December 6, 2017 at 7:39 am
(This post was last modified: December 6, 2017 at 8:07 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Capitalism doesn't have to be cold, heartless, or amoral..and there's nothing inherently efficient about it. Communism doesn't have to be well intentioned or empathetic, nor does it have to be ineffective..nor does it make everyone "equally poor" - though a person or a people who have historically been over-represented in wealth or ownership will likely feel as though this were the case.
If all the wealth in the world were equitably distributed between individuals, it would amount to a value of roughly 30k for each person...more than half of americans earn a year...and we're the 1%................food for thought.
There is nothing about either economic system that is inherent -to- that system other than the self stated limits of the ideology. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means, communism is the public ownership of the means. That is the only inherent and necessary difference between the two. Capitalism -could- be arranged to yield the putative benefits of communism, and vv. We make these tools, these markets, these systems. We decide how they are expressed in practice. All that is inherently different between the two, and all that we decide when we make a decision between the two (which needn't be made...in point of fact, as you noticed) is who owns the means. The respective weakness of each system is more accurately expressed as a weakness in central planning in the case of communism, and a weakness in the disparity between capital efficiency and meaningful efficiency - in capitalism.
People sometimes forget that there is a long list of capitalist states that are relative failures to their communist counterparts. This isn't exactly groundbreaking, in that a well planned communist state and a well regulated capitalist state are likely to succeed or fail on similar grounds, betraying the notion that the systems -themselves- are accurate predictors. You'll find that a "pure" example of either system is thin as hell on the ground, and I'd chalk that up to ideological commitments being less than effective as expressions of practical systems.
IMO, the necessities of life should be produced /w a communist model. Many of them already are, in one form or another - even in capitalist states. The rest can go to a capitalist model. Not only would this address the most glaring problems between each system as we've noticed them in practice...it would promote greater productivity and innovation. If people didn't have to work to eat, that would free up alot of productive time and alot of intellectual capital. The cost of feeding..and even housing the populace of the united states - at a minimum level at least...is more than covered in taxes on consumer goods and services (and to some extent already is). We have hungry and homeless because we choose to..not because they choose to be so. I think w could employ a communist model in other areas as well, not instead of a capitalist model but in tandem.... but I'd settle for the basics, lol. Handl;e that, and see what the situation looks like then. It;s difficult to argue that it would not be a qualitative improvement.
If all the wealth in the world were equitably distributed between individuals, it would amount to a value of roughly 30k for each person...more than half of americans earn a year...and we're the 1%................food for thought.
There is nothing about either economic system that is inherent -to- that system other than the self stated limits of the ideology. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means, communism is the public ownership of the means. That is the only inherent and necessary difference between the two. Capitalism -could- be arranged to yield the putative benefits of communism, and vv. We make these tools, these markets, these systems. We decide how they are expressed in practice. All that is inherently different between the two, and all that we decide when we make a decision between the two (which needn't be made...in point of fact, as you noticed) is who owns the means. The respective weakness of each system is more accurately expressed as a weakness in central planning in the case of communism, and a weakness in the disparity between capital efficiency and meaningful efficiency - in capitalism.
People sometimes forget that there is a long list of capitalist states that are relative failures to their communist counterparts. This isn't exactly groundbreaking, in that a well planned communist state and a well regulated capitalist state are likely to succeed or fail on similar grounds, betraying the notion that the systems -themselves- are accurate predictors. You'll find that a "pure" example of either system is thin as hell on the ground, and I'd chalk that up to ideological commitments being less than effective as expressions of practical systems.
IMO, the necessities of life should be produced /w a communist model. Many of them already are, in one form or another - even in capitalist states. The rest can go to a capitalist model. Not only would this address the most glaring problems between each system as we've noticed them in practice...it would promote greater productivity and innovation. If people didn't have to work to eat, that would free up alot of productive time and alot of intellectual capital. The cost of feeding..and even housing the populace of the united states - at a minimum level at least...is more than covered in taxes on consumer goods and services (and to some extent already is). We have hungry and homeless because we choose to..not because they choose to be so. I think w could employ a communist model in other areas as well, not instead of a capitalist model but in tandem.... but I'd settle for the basics, lol. Handl;e that, and see what the situation looks like then. It;s difficult to argue that it would not be a qualitative improvement.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
