At 08:57 PM 10/5/1997 GMT, you wrote:
>(Harry Pollard:)
>> By far the best system for providing for "human needs" is the market, which
>> is why the most controlled societies allow, or encourage, market mechanisms
>> to make up for their deficiencies in 'gearing for human needs'.
>you can say capitalism is better than feudalism or slavery, but you
>have to convince me that is is the best we could have with even in
>the US creating poverty, hopelessness and bitterness, with the
>economical and consequently the social divide getting greater all the
>time
I don't advocate capitalism. I want a free market. The contemporary
capitalists are as opposed to the free market as are the socialists. They
talk a good story, but they are responsible for the 8,500 tariffs that
penalize our consumers - who are all 260 million of us.
And the quotas and patents and a whole bunch of other things that prevent
the free market giving us the best at the cheapest.
You are in good company - though I bet you're not happy about it.
>> But, somehow the market sometimes fails to work. Attention would
>>better be
>> spent finding why instead of replacing it with it's alternatives - which
>> have mostly failed horribly whenever they are tried.
>>
>
>You name it, it has been tried. Free market, keynesian market,
>monetarist market, all end up in failure sooner or later.
Add socialism - then ask why?
>The
>latest "boom" we are witnessing is not even capable getting rid off
>unemployment and deficits.
Why?
>The only alternetive tried so far was
>non-democratic socialism. Even this deformed form of common ownership
>had positive features for the majority of people, such as free
>healthcare and free education. Why do you think so many countries actually
>re-elected ex-communist governments in eastern Europe?
There's an old Georgist story of the visitor to a model farm. He was shown
around by the manager who pointed to a fenced field full of cows and
declaimed of the advantages the cows. They were taken care of and were
supplied with good food.
But, said the visitor, why not open the fences and allow them to go into
the fields beyond? They could feed themselves.
But, said the manager, then we couldn't milk them.
As you know, there is no such thing as free health care and free education.
>Now picture, what could be achieved, and democratically controlled and
>participated by everyone, using the literacy and the technology
>unimaginable for 1917 Russia or 1945 Eastern Europe.
Your problem is that you are describing as an alternative to the practical
contemporary system that is a theoretical ideal. Now, if you want to
compare theoretical socialism with theoretical capitalism, or practical
socialism with practical capitalism - that's fine.
But. look at your previous paragraph. The 'socialism' has to be adopted by
the "free will of the people". That knocks out practically all of its
attempts. So, when they fail - even if they try all the policies that
socialism suggests - its because it wasn't free will.
Except, perhaps, Sweden - with its excellent export arms industry - but
even socialists have to live.
>> Private property is essential to the well-being of people. Private
>> appropriation is kind of a cliche - but we are likely to agree
>>somewhat on it.
>Really? In what way private property is essential for a peasant in
>Mexico or Brazil or the Phillipines, who were chucked off their land??
Can't you look at these poor unfortunates and see their second problem is
they have little or no private property.
Their first problem - but then you mentioned it. I fear that without
thought you will offer the cliche without attending to its implications.
>Or a "downsized" US citizen, who is forced to take on short-term
>contract work, part-time work and totally unsecure future?
If he were not so interested in private property - it wouldn't bother him.
One of the attitudes seen often in socialists is "the tightly pursed lip"
at the ignorance of ordinary people. The socialist knows what is good for
them, but they don't. This leads to threats and coercion to make people do
what is good for them.
It's like fascism but with different faces on the leaders.
>> In the sense of stealing, we agree. In the sense of reward for exertion
>> spent, we may not.
>>
>
>Just reward d'you reckon? In 1965 average GNP per capita for the top
>20% of the world population was 30 times that of the poorest
>20%. In 1990 the gap has doubled to 60 times. UNCTAD report 1997:
>The richest 1% of American households control 40% of the wealth.
>Independent on Sunday 17/8/97:
>20 years ago the average chief executive made 40 times what the
>average worker. Today it is 200 times more.
Why?
I would suggest reading Volume Three of Das Kapital (Capitalist production
as a whole) or, best, Henry George's Progress and Poverty.George admired
the ideals of socialism - but didn't think socialism could achieve those
ideals.
>Even if the average worker had a reasonable rise in standard of
>living (but hadn't) this is an unreasonable waste, and too much
>concentration of power, don't you think?
>> I remember Douglas Jay - I think at the time he was UK Home Secretary in
>> the first Labor Government, but am happy to be corrected - saying
>>"We have people in Whitehall who know far better than the English
>>housewife how she should conduct her affairs".
>>
>> Well, he and the Labor government didn't last long - which is as it should
>> be - the arrogant "beep".
>
>I don't know the names of the ministers of that government. All I
>know, that they were voted in by a landside, because they promised
>socialism. They did a lot, such as free education and heathcare, but
>left the privilage and the capitalist system intact. That's why they
>failed and will fail again. There is no such thing as capitalism with
>a "human face", as there is no dictatorship with a "human face",
>either.
The British had been through a decade of Depression and 6 years of war.
They wanted a change. The Labor Party tried but failed and were duly thrown
out. For, they were
They nationalized a number of basic industries, but that didn't do any
good. Education was already free when they came to power. The Health
Service was new - but is now in sad disarray. If they have any choice, a
Briton gets a private doctor for better service. It was a "democratically
controlled" parliament - but that didn't help.
>> People don't like being herded by 'those who know better' which is why the
>> free market mostly works and socialism rarely does.
>>
>
>So people have free choices now?? They are free to loose their jobs?
>Their freedom means that 60+ percent of them vote for a capitalist
>candidate every four years, with no open discussion in the media
>about the shortcomings of the system only about the grins of the
>prospective candidates, that cannot make a difference, because they
>haven't got the means anyway to control the economic power.
>They are blowing about in the wind of boom and bust together with
>their spin-doctors, not having the faintest idea when the next crash comes.
All this would change given a socialist (non-violent) revolution? I don't
think so. A better direction is a severe reduction in government. Now,
that's a real target,but one hard to hit.
>> I like my 'fancy car'. I make sure it works when I get in and I believe I
>> had it washed last year - or was it the year before? If I had a convenient,
>> cheap, and comfortable public transport available I would use it.
>Ooops, but the markets won't provide good public transport, because
>the profit is in selling smelly, energy and resource-consuming cars.
>The profit is in selling arms, even if there is not a faint human
>need there. 20% of industrial production linked to these two "human need"
>industries in the "developed" world.
>All is well, do you reckon?
The market makes a profit when it satisfies the desires of the consumer,
which is all of us. People like cars. The market supplies their likes. You
should understand that the market is simply the message carrier. You may
not like the people's choices - but the choices are theirs.
>> However, there is a general thought process that attaches to collectivists
>> - which is probably why they are collectivist. It's that people are simply
>> unable to fend for themselves, to make appropriate decisions, to be free
>> and independent.
>>
>
>Human endevour from it's very nature is "collectivist", that's what
>made our species so successful. People are not able to fend for
>themselves, that's why they live in a society. At this stage, they
>will decide - for themselves - that they need something more
>reasonable than capitalism. If they do it democratically - they
>cannot go wrong. And now we know enough from history not to do it any
>other way.
Human endeavor from it's very nature is "cooperative" - and the market is
the place where their cooperation is complete. We cooperate for all kinds
of reasons - mostly because it is advantageous to us. The problem is that
the government and its moneybags - the corporations - decide for us, even
though we are left the illusion of independent action.
Harry
*****************************
Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141
Henry George School of Los Angeles
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
*****************************
