From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 01 2005 - 21:58:52 BST
Greetings Ham,
>Capitalism is not based on greed; it's the enlightenend concept of being
>rewarded commensurate with our productivity and talent.
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.
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. Certainly there are examples of people who
"strike it rich" (and these examples are generally "in the right time at
the right place" examples), but they are the exceptions to the rule, not
the rule.
There is an overall trend in this country to blame poverty on the poor.
They are out of work because they are too lazy to find a job. They are too
stupid ot manage their money. They have nothing to offer society. They are
dead weight. We shouldn't help them, because they refuse to help
themselves. A while back, way back actually, in dialogue with Platt I
mentioned the area where I was from (Schuylkill County, PA) was, as is much
of America, experiencing significant economic repression. People are out of
work, plants and factories have closed, there is little new business coming
into the area, etc. Platt's response (and you can look it up on the
archives) was that these people were just lazy, and that they should just
move somewhere else to get a job.
In short, people are only ever poor because they are stupid and lazy. This
is the myth in the dialogue. Certainly there are people who are out of work
that could work. There are abusers to the system. 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). I will never be as rich
as Paris Hilton. She will never be as poor as me. This has nothing to do
with (I hope, anyway) our respective "productivity and talent".
Modern capitalism is based on the accumulation, and leverage, of economic
power. Power is self-reifying, and so power attracts more capital, which
creates more power, which draws more capital, etc. The wealthy pass,
through government, laws that protect and facilitate their wealth
accumulation. (High income citizens, who likely have access to complex
investment strategies, can now- by law- declare bankruptcy AND dissolve
their credit card debt. Low income citizens, who likely have only a savings
and checking account, can not. This is because the laws provides deliberate
loopholes for the wealthy to protect their wealth, while closing the same
loopholes for the rest of us).
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.
>To assert that the individual has no "right" to material possessions because
>they are properties of some external "authority" is nonsensical. So is the
>idea of "selflessness". "Each according to his ability, to each according
>to his need"? Anyone who falls for that Marxist line doesn't know the value
>of human life.
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. 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?
Arlo
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 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 22:46:45 BST