Edward’s comment follows the thread:
==================
From: "john courtneidge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:19:12 +0100
Subject: The two essential features of the capitalist system
(Was Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck)
X-Envelope-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----------
>From: Ed Goertzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Mon, Dec 6, 1999, 7:35 pm
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck
----------
>From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 08:06:05 -0500
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Subject: Re: torn
John Said:
>Part of Ed's post begs a reply.
>
>Edward Goertzen said
>To obtain clarity, can we agree that capital as a stored value is a good
>thing. That Capitalizm, the monetary manipulation (percursor to individual
>appropriation of excessive capital value) is the essence of the problem?
>
>The incorrect definition of the problem begs an incorrect solution or
>response. Please add to or modify my definition of the problem!
>
************************
John then said:
Dear F/w friends
Here's a snip from my posted essays (of Nov 25) that helps (me at least ! )
Hugs j
>snip from earlier essays>>>>>>>
Dictionary definitions of capitalism highlight two essential features of the
capitalist system: that the factors necessary for the production of those
commodities necessary for human life are in private ownership and that these
factors are used for private benefit (or 'profit').
( ****** Note the stress on two aspects:
- ownership and where the benefits from use end up *******)
This definition - focussing as it does on ownership of and profit from the
resources necessary for production - suggests, therefore, the following
Table:
Economic Ownership of Benefits flow
System: the means of to:
production:
Capitalism Private Private
Communism Public Public
Co-operative Private Public
Socialism
Totalitarianism Public Private
Clearly definition of some terms is necessary:
* Private ownership can encompass ownership by individuals or groups of
kin or otherwise ( the family firm and multinational, share-holder owned
joint stock companies are examples of such „private ownership under
capitalism, while, under co-operative socialism, various forms of
co-operative - worker-cooperatives, consumer-cooperatives,
stakeholder-cooperatives and so on - form the pattern of wealth-creating
units, with the distinct objective of creating wealth for the Common-weal,
rather than primarily for the individual).
* Public benefits, too, needs analysis: „who gets how much - and of what¾
is the essence of politics, and so considerations of income maxima and
minima continue to be central, but since, as Churchill, in one of his most
lucid moments, observed "Ninety percent of politics is economics," our focus
here must remain sharply upon economics.
******************************
This led to the Plan of Action !
***************
More hugs j
*****************
================
Edward said:
Thank you John for addressing my question.
My response is as follows.
To begin, the ownership of property (including resources) and the means of
production are subject to particular systems of government. (governments
"grant" company charters, theoretically because it is in the public
interest to do so. Where there is no public advantage, in fact a
disadvantage, why are the charters granted?)
That smacks of a republic, where the individual rights superceed public
rights and the public must demionstrate harm. In a monarchy the individual
must show public good or benefit to obtain the right, such as a zoning
change. (theoretically)
Under both democratic/capitalist and communist/socialist governments, the
state, on behalf of the people (their representatives, theoretically) make
the rules regarding the ownership of property and means of production. (as
well as personal freedoms)
Democratic (governance) and Capitalist (economic system) countries
administrations can and do excercise the "expropriation for the public
good" mechanizm.
The system goes afoul when elected representatives represent the
capitalists instead of the people.
Communist (governance) and Socialist (economic system) countries have
accomplished the expropriation for the public good mechanizm.
The system breaks down when the elected represenatives represent themselves
as an elite instead of the public weal.
History (1989) proves that a so called "voluntary" ecomomy can outproduce a
"command" economy.
The degrees of voluntary and command are a moot point.
Theoretically, a voluntary association provides a better motivational
environment than a compulsory association.
The argument is valid that much "voluntary" association is undertaken to
avoid privation. Be that as it may, the prime motivation is theoretically
"gain."
One of the major causes of disparity in ownership of property, be it
resources or means of production or enjoyment of the fruits thereof, is the
laws having been skewed to benefit the ownership of the above.
Lesson #1 in Pol Sci 101 is that wealth and income flees taxation.
Thus we have a major ownership of property wealth in the form of shares of
companies and bonds exempt from property tax.
We have the major portion of income, in excess of basic standard of living
exempt from income tax through tax expenditures such as RRSP’s etc.
We have the major portion of sales exempt from taxation by not applying
sales taxes to what the wealthy spend most of their money on.
Peace and goodwill
Edward G
