Basic Human Rights

[Gary Childress]

And capitalism is not going to sustain the poor.

Actually, it is capitalism that has been eliminating poverty worldwide, especially through programs like microenterprise.

No. IC. Capitalism has distribution problems and problems when it is unregulated. Why do you think Marx and the rest were so appalled by what they saw among exploited workers in England and Europe before the socialist movements that addressed those conditions. You can't have capitalism without social programs or you end up with revolution.

[Immanuel Can]

Why do you think Marx and the rest were so appalled by what they saw among exploited workers in England and Europe before the socialist movements that addressed those conditions.

Well, Marx was extraordinarily naive about capitalism, actually. For example, he thought that capital was always labour. He didn't think deeply about things like innovation, creativity, investment, or other means of the generating of wealth. Apparently, he never even though of them. He badly misunderstood English society and the dynamics of the Industrial Revolution, obviously, for his predictions were roundly defeated by history; the revolution he promised broke out in an underdeveloped, barely post-feudal place, Russia, not in some industrialized country with a significant bourgeoisie. And it immediately issued not in a worker's paradise, but in the disastrous legacy of purges, gulags and piles of corpses.

[henry quirk]

And capitalism is not going to sustain the poor.

Actually, it is capitalism that has been eliminating poverty worldwide, especially through programs like microenterprise.

No. IC. Capitalism has distribution problems and problems when it is unregulated. Why do you think Marx and the rest were so appalled by what they saw among exploited workers in England and Europe before the socialist movements that addressed those conditions. You can't have capitalism without social programs or you end up with revolution.

That wasn't unregulated capitalism (properly known as free enterprise) that was socialism's slightly better lookin' sibling, state capitalism. There was regulation in the sense the state capitalist bought his protections, and favors, from the legislators. It was a system not wholly unlike what goes today.

What you want, Gary, is a true unregulated (more accurately, you want a self-regulated) economy wherein charities flourish and the actual poor are shown compassion.

What you keep askin' for is more of the same-old-same-old (systems that favor predation, dishonesty, parasitism, and the denigration of the indvidual).

[Immanuel Can]

What you want, Gary, is a true unregulated (more accurately, you want a self-regulated) economy wherein charities flourish and the actual poor are shown compassion.

What you keep askin' for is more of the same-old-same-old (systems that favor predation, dishonesty, parasitism, and the denigration of the indvidual).

I think that's true. Gary's very good-hearted, but seems to think Socialism will help him get there.

Problem is, Socialism's never been anything but the most economically-irrational, totalitarian and homicidal creed in history.

It reminds me of a line from the great old movie, Gorky Park.

The female lead is a bit irritated to be picked up by the hero, a militia policeman, and says to him, "The KJB have nicer cars."

And he responds, "Yes, but they don't always take you where you want to go."

[henry quirk]

What you want, Gary, is a true unregulated (more accurately, you want a self-regulated) economy wherein charities flourish and the actual poor are shown compassion.

What you keep askin' for is more of the same-old-same-old (systems that favor predation, dishonesty, parasitism, and the denigration of the indvidual).

I think that's true. Gary's very good-hearted, but seems to think Socialism will help him get there.

Problem is, Socialism's never been anything but the most economically-irrational, totalitarian and homicidal creed in history.

It reminds me of a line from the great old movie, Gorky Park.

The female lead is a bit irritated to be picked up by the hero, a militia policeman, and says to him, "The KJB have nicer cars."

And he responds, "Yes, but they don't always take you where you want to go."

[Gary Childress]

Why do you think Marx and the rest were so appalled by what they saw among exploited workers in England and Europe before the socialist movements that addressed those conditions.

Well, Marx was extraordinarily naive about capitalism, actually. For example, he thought that capital was always labour. He didn't think deeply about things like innovation, creativity, investment, or other means of the generating of wealth. Apparently, he never even though of them. He badly misunderstood English society and the dynamics of the Industrial Revolution, obviously, for his predictions were roundly defeated by history; the revolution he promised broke out in an underdeveloped, barely post-feudal place, Russia, not in some industrialized country with a significant bourgeoisie. And it immediately issued not in a worker's paradise, but in the disastrous legacy of purges, gulags and piles of corpses.

There are no purges in England today. It's a mixed economy, like most civilized societies.

[Immanuel Can]

There are no purges in England today. It's a mixed economy, like most civilized societies.

Well, in the UK, the economy is thoroughly capitalist, the politics are multi-party, and nobody gets dragged off to prison by night, shipped to frozen gulags, or shot into a ditch.

It's not at all like Socialism.

[Gary Childress]

There are no purges in England today. It's a mixed economy, like most civilized societies.

Well, in the UK, the economy is thoroughly capitalist, the politics are multi-party, and nobody gets dragged off to prison by night, shipped to frozen gulags, or shot into a ditch.

It's not at all like Socialism.

It's not laissez-faire capitalism either. There are ample social programs and regulations. What you are calling "capitalism" is actually a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Pure capitalism is unsustainable as much as pure socialism is a disaster. That's really all I'm saying. I know that just irks some people to even give a modicum of credit to government and public management but it's the truth.

[Immanuel Can]

What you are calling "capitalism" is actually a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

Well, no; that's not really how it is. "Socialism" does not merely mean, "the presence of some social programming." It doesn't merely mean, "everybody gets some." It doesn't even mean "government regulation of terms of competition." Socialism is a comprehensive approach to both economics and politics, based on collectivizing the economy, all industry and all social programming. It means the elimination of competition, of alternatives, of political opponents, of free speech and of personal power in favour of a manipulable collectivism.

Now, capitalism has its problems, I don't deny. Left unchecked, it can become greedy and exploitative...and it can kill the very competition that once gave it life, and become monopolistic, as it has today in the case of the social media barons, for example. So you're not wrong that government has a role in doing things like regulating fair terms of competition and busting monopolies. Unrestricted capitalism is not a good thing, anymore than Socialism is. However, the one thing that capitalism does is that it increases wealth. And if competition is fair, it enables the spread of that wealth to all levels of society, increasing the potential for prosperity to all. It is not by accident that the wealthiest and healthiest places in the world all have strong, capitalist economies. That much has to be obvious to anyone. Capitalism's economics certainly work, if managed well. And government, no doubt, has a role in making sure the distribution of capitalist opportunities remain equitable. No question.

Now, as for Socialism, before it's anything else, it is an economic theory. That's where its chief ambitions lie, and that is where it is a signal failure. Socialist economics destroy countries. They become not just non-competitive on a global scale, but incapable of sustaining their own economic lives internally. And, of course, they are utterly incapable of supporting the very financially burdensome social programs (like Medicare or a living wage) that Socialists want, even with outrageous levels of public taxation: because Socialism doesn't produce new wealth. It just doesn't. And that's the irony: the ambitions of these programs make it necessary that capitalism must persist and grow indefinitely. It can be monitored, regulated somewhat, taxed within limits, and so on, but that's just how the capitalist "cow" has to be "milked."

Socialism produces no "milk." It just drains off resources, amplifies waste, and eventually renders a polity serviceable to totalitarians. Consequently, the only hope for things like Medicare is if a vigorous capitalism is also present. This is what the Chinese found out: for they have had as much means...and I would suggest more means...for implementing Socialism than anyone else has ever had. And yet they have not begun to thrive economically until they abandoned Socialism and went to "Red Capitalism."

But "Red Capitalism" is really a very ominous thing: for it shows that far from it being automatic that capitalism will issue in freedom, totalitarianism can also use capitalism to its advantage. So you're not wrong to be concerned about that. But notice that it is precisely because in China competition of a real type is impossible, a single, monolithic Socialist party rules unchecked, and Socialist ideology persists, that capitalism has become so dangerous to the world. The worst outcome for us all is a Socialist polity with the clout of a capitalist economy. That's a very bad "mixture" -- not just for the rest of the world, but even for the prospects of the people of China itself. (Ask Tibet or the Uighurs how they're doing lately, for example. Or consider how women fared under the "one child" system.)

So Socialism cannot pay its own bills. It runs economies into the ground. And when yoked to capitalism, it becomes totalitarian capitalism. However, in both cases, the problem is very clear: it's not the capitalism, it's the Socialism.

[RCSaunders]

What you are calling "capitalism" is actually a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

Just curious. Do either or both of you think, "capitalism," is a form of government?

[It's not. It's an economic theory that some individuals think can be implemented by means of a government, but capitalism, itself, is not a political or social system.]

Please have a look at this short article I wrote in 2010: Capitalism: Not What It Used To Be: Actually Never Was

[RCSaunders]

And capitalism is not going to sustain the poor.

Nothing is or ought to sustain anyone who does not work to produce what they need to live. The poor are poor because they refuse to do that--and have a million excuses for why they, "can't."

[henry quirk]

Seems to me...

The state socialist sez: man has a right to whatever we say he does. He has a right to be elevated as we see fit or cast down as we decide. We define his needs and wants and determine how best to satisfy them.

The state capitalist sez: man has a right to whatever we say he does. He may pursue his own goals within the parameters we set for him. We give him means to thrive that keeps our wallets fat, his lean, and the reins properly in our hands.

The free enterpriser sez: man has a right to himself, his life, his liberty, his property. He has a right to freely transact with those who choose to transact with him. He has a right to defend that which is his.

Pick one.

(Me, I ain't seein' a helluva lot of difference between the first two. One is a hard slaver statist the other is a soft slaver statist; one tells you what you can have in your cage, the other allows you to select, from an approved list, what you can have in your cage...big friggin' difference).

[Immanuel Can]

What you are calling "capitalism" is actually a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

Just curious. Do either or both of you think, "capitalism," is a form of government?

Me? No.

But Socialism certainly is, because it requires government control to manage the economy. So it has economic, political and ideological dimensions capitalism does not have.

Capitalism's not an ideology, but rather an economic arrangement. That's one of the things I like about it: it doesn't require interference with other people's beliefs in such areas as politics or ideology. In those areas, it's indifferent.

[Sculptor]

There are no purges in England today. It's a mixed economy, like most civilized societies.

Well, in the UK, the economy is thoroughly capitalist, the politics are multi-party, and nobody gets dragged off to prison by night, shipped to frozen gulags, or shot into a ditch.

It's not at all like Socialism.

It's not laissez-faire capitalism either. There are ample social programs and regulations. What you are calling "capitalism" is actually a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Pure capitalism is unsustainable as much as pure socialism is a disaster. That's really all I'm saying. I know that just irks some people to even give a modicum of credit to government and public management but it's the truth.

If there are no gulags then its not socialism.
That is as far as IC's brain goes.
The UK spends nearly a £Trillion on socialism, each year to mitigate the effects of capitalism

[Immanuel Can]

And capitalism is not going to sustain the poor.

Nothing is or ought to sustain anyone who does not work to produce what they need to live. The poor are poor because they refuse to do that--and have a million excuses for why they, "can't."

Only partly true, RC.

Certainly there are poor people who are poor by their own stupidity or laziness. And we owe them no indulgence at all, I agree. However, there are also the mentally ill, or the abused. They do get some of my sympathy. And most of the poor I know personally are "developing-world" poor, who are quite different.

For example, I've stood in a field of some four million displaced persons -- ordinary folks who were driven out of their fincas by drug lords, and landed in the city with no education, almost nothing in their hands, and no options. Maybe they have a wall to put a tin sheet against, or maybe the 'rich' ones have a bicycle. But that's it.

Or last year, some of the folks were rained out in hurricanes and monsoons...they did nothing to deserve it, and are ordinary, decent folks who will work hard if you put something in their hands...but they, too, have no options.

Those are the folks for whom charity was really meant. They're not poor through any fault of their own.