Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectRE: Right...and
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=18523&mesg_id=18572
18572, RE: Right...and
Posted by urbgriot, Fri Feb-16-01 05:19 AM
>I guess this these worn copies of Sir William Petty's writings >and Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations that I've read over ten >times and highlighted profusely, plus wrote many a term paper >on, means that I've never read capitalist theory..okay, if you >say so.

Writing historical essays and reading the theory is different than appling the principles and studing the principles as a major for five plus years.

>In order for these programs to work in true socialist form, the >ideology needs to be in tact, which in America, it is not. We >are constantly feeding people the capitalist rhtoeric that >stigmatize these programs, and more importantly, the people who >need them. The concept behind making sure elderly people don't >starve (which our paltry SS programs don't, especially for our >poor elderly), or ensuring that the sick can have access to >being well (which Medicare doesn't always do in the most >effective and efficient manner), or making sure the people who >are unemployed have enough to feed themselves (which welfare >doesn't do a very good job of) is that everyone deserves a >minimum quality of life. So you are saying that that is a bad >thing? Are thinking that poor people deserve to starve and the >rich has earned every penny they have? Okay...

Welfare as a whole needs to be demolished. (A system designed to trap Afrikans in a circle of poverty. Then to further exploit them with crime, drugs, and alcohol. Forget the fact that it's rips them of their dignity) These programs in this country and really in any country where socialism is being practiced creates an enviroment of dependency on a system (government) to provide that person with their basic needs. (very dangerous) Slavery comes to mind....

>>Currently, CEOs make 40 times as much as their average >employee. In the 80s, it was only 5 times as much. The >disparity between rich and poor is increasing, and as such, the >urgency for some type of equalization is apparent, because >history have shown us what happens when that disparity becomes >too great.
>
>I agree to a point..
>You will find that the stock
>boom plays a big part
>in that. plus fortune 500
>companies have a large range
>of employess and it is
>mostly with them that you
>find the CEO making enormous
>ammounts of money.

Okay, does this make an impact on the point that I made about the gap between the rich and the poor is widening and that is detrimental, as history has shown us time and time again, to political and economic stability?

and I agree with you....but in last decade the gap can be equated with the stock market boom. which was triggered by the technology rush that recently happened. I think an adjustment will be coming soon...

>>I think that every human being deserves a living wage so that >he or she can feed him or herself, capitalism does not allow >for that.
>
>Actually pure capitalism would but only
>if you are willing to
>adjust with the market... again

Capitalism would not because doing so would contradict the "laissez-faire"/invisible hand that is essential to the notion of capitalism.

Again not quite. "laissez-faire" would allow for the adjustment. when the market hits a downturn the people that support it would fall in line accordingly into positions inwhich the market demands.

>>Teachers should be valued as much a doctors, and more valued >than multimillion-dollar actors, actresses, and professional >sports figures. Everyone should be valued for contributing to >the society period, whether a janitor or a CEO. If we percieved >contributions to the society in a less stratified, less >hierarchical manner, this would make perfect sense.
>
>Is the more of a cultural
>issue or on with the
>economic system..???
>Everything is economic. Maybe you should review some old supply >and demand charts, huh?

Wrong again.. Just like socialism, capitalism is nothing new. it's beggining again can be traced, funny back to Afrika, where people bardered for centuries not neccessarily to gain rank and priviledge but to provide for the communities and share goods..

>There's a difference between socialism and communism, you know?>Perhaps our attempts at organizing and restructuring our >governments (here, Caribbean, Latin America, and Africa) has to >do with the stranglehold that White capitalism has on the >entire decolonizing world.

And maybe not???


>Anyway, back to the questions you punked out on...is what I >said about the Western world primitaive accumulation wrong? You >didn't address that point. Second, do you think that capitalism >give everyone an equal chance to succeed the way it claims to? >You didn't address that either. Third, what's your argument >against the point that Adam Smith's model of capitalism does >not take into consideration "unearned privilege"?

>Instead of calling my ideas BS, maybe you should not be a punk >and actually address them.

I agree that the you on the first point.
The second point, capitalism (free market economies) can be manipulated. Some communities have mastered it. (Jewish, many Asian). And that is without the inheritance factor.
Inheritance was not considered. It is not a level playing field and individuals will have to strive to manipulate the system, but it can be accomplished especially if the individuals work as a community.
>this
>not an endorsement of capitalism
>but again it must be
>heard..

>Do you endorse anything, because you really didn't offer much >analysis, just criticism...

And I don't endorse any of the "isms" of European thinking......

>READ ABOUT IT FIRST....
>please

Again I state...

>Maybe I should send you excerpts from the several books and >essays I've already read over the last 5 year in my study of >the African Diaspora and historical economy, I already have >highlights and notes in the margins to make it easier for you...

Maybe you should live it....

peace..