- Capitalism and Alternatives -

I think it was meant for emphasis

Posted by: Quincunx on April 15, 1999 at 11:27:36:

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

L: The liberty of the rulers in the new propertarian order, the
inheritors, the swindlers, the con artists, the lucky, etc

G: 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 it's even higher).

Qx: That's interesting but can you cite any references to show this?
Also, can you tell us what exactly "average wealth" is? It seems to be a rather slippery definition at best. I feel that the deeper issue is really about how these "700 richest people" in the U.K. Should the
executives of the various firms that were beneficiaries of the
privatization of England's water utilities be admired for grating themselves fat pay increases to the detriment of people who find themselves having to pay for every drop at outrageous prices? I don't
think so and I know that I'm not alone in this.

Would the "700 richest people" in the U.K. also include more than a
few arms dealers? I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised.

G: 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.

Qx: I wouldn't think that Dale Carnegie and Ted Turner were the
greatest philanthropists running around. These philanthropists do quite a bit of hobnobbing with plenty of aristocrats and various and sundry sorts of courtiers. There's no need to fret about who is in line for succession when
there's such an immense concentration of capital that these people
control.

G: Top tar all rich with the same brush is wrong, to even tar a
majority of them with them same brusg is wrong.

Qx: That could well depend on what kind of brush is being used. They
certainly share the same class interests and collaborate in collective efforts to make sure their policies predominate. Just look at the rosters of people who are involved in the O.E.C.D. and it's
creation the Multilateral Agreements on Investment (M.A.I.). In this
case they tarred themselves and a few activists got the word out about their plans.


G: Also, writing off a millionaire as lucky applies only to
lottery winners and inheritors.

Qx: There is such a thing as being born into the right social
circumstances and being cagey enough that "wealth creation" can be seen as luck if one looks at the surface.However, I don't see much difference betwen robber barons from the last century to nowadays. Russia's quagmire is a case in point. Those millionaires didn't get their because of hardwork but rather they knew how to manipulate and patronize. Do enough of that and you too might be a lucky winner.

G: 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."

Qx: That's a pretty good way of stating it but keep in mind that Twain
was no admirer of the rich and he knew what kind of luck they had.

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

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

Qx: It wasn't meant to be. It's more a recollection of his
intellectual evolution than anything else. Anybody can read it href="http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/write.htm">right here.

G: 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'.

Qx: It is the norm under capitalism but I couldn't say that it's a
natural state of being for humanity.

G: There are few communities in history who have lived via other modes
(tribes
included), perhaps Iceland prior to Norwegian domination

Qx: I'm pretty skeptical about href="http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secF9.html">claims
concerning Iceland.

G: , perhaps Somalia.

Qx: I haven't heard that one. Can this be verified by any cultural
anthroplogists instead of the Cato Institute?

G: The difference is that you seem to think of gun toting powermongers as being business mes, clearly they are not!

Qx: Clarity is in the eye of the beholder and if one researches the href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/bb960804.htm">global mining
industry long enough there are plenty of gun toting powermongers who are business men in a vivid way. The reasoning is simple enough. If you contain any dissident voices with terror you stand to make a lot
of money.

G: Nor can you conveniently create a business in order to then gain
power.

Qx: Why not? Look at the Opium Wars.

G: Its not really that easy to create businesses you know!

Qx: Sure it is. Be confident in your abilities and make sure you have
the right
clientele. By the way, it won't necessarily define you as a capitalist.

--
McSpotlight: Sorry about the double post.


Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup