- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Wealth aristocracy the result of sanctimonious property

Posted by: LARK ( ICA, Ireland ) on April 14, 1999 at 11:03:07:

In Reply to: lots of CAPITALS for an anti capitalist post! posted by Gee on April 13, 1999 at 11:30:41:

: As I think you know, Lark, even in Britain over 700 of the richest people started out with no more than the average wealth (and, yes, in America its even higher). Ive never had a great love for inheritors, I tend to prefer the philanthropy of millionaires who build universities in their retirement, rather than fret over who is next in the line of earls. Top tar all rich with the same brush is wrong, to even tar a majority of them with them same brusg is wrong. Also, writing off a millionaire as lucky applies only to lottery winners and inheritors. I'll quote Mark Twain ; "I am a great believer in luck and I find that harder I work the more I have of it."

I'm not generalising there is a very real threat. I think you should appreciate this Gee because from an appraisal of your posts you seem more libertarian than propertarian and more individualist than capitalist (although at other times you dont). I'm not even talking about a newly developed wealth aristocracy, there's one already.

Capitalism will eat itself. Competition doesnt breed further competition it breeds monopoly and anti-competitive measures.

: : I've heard them make reference to Orwell's, Orwell the Socialist by the way,

: Have you read his essay "why I write" - not very socialist in its individual egoism.

No I've never heard of that one. You can be a socialist or anarchist anti-capitalist and still be individualistic.

: What your saying about private govts is potentially true, perhaps this condition of being cyclically oppressed and liberated by and from ruling classes is 'natural'.

I think it's very unanarchist or libertarian to say such a thing myself. That is like saying if it suits our interests it's natural.

:There are few communities in history who have lived via other modes (tribes included), perhaps Iceland prior to Norwegian domination, perhaps Somalia. The difference is that you seem to think of gun totoing powermongers as being business mes, clearly they are not!

Well you think they're not Pinochet in Chile or the Shell guy in Nigeria these people have BUSINESS agreements with Shell etc. to kill every threat to their profits. In return for investment.

:Nor can you conveniently create a business in order to then gain power. Its not really that easy to create businesses you know!

Really? Must be barriers to entry in the market there and monopolistic externalities, conceding that servility to the existing mart. lords is the only way are you.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup