- Capitalism and Alternatives -

the public, my neighbours, church, community dont have a say in my treatment, true, true but the financers and capitalists do

Posted by: Lark on November 09, 1999 at 12:24:11:

In Reply to: Inherant democracy? posted by Gee on November 08, 1999 at 16:51:34:

: because individualism isnt anti-social, its co operative with an emphasis of free asociation.

I would be very, very glad if it did Gee, your variety of individualism no doubt does, but the unsuffisticated individualism, possessive whatever, of the other capitalists definitely isnt of this variety.

The ultra competitive, sell your own mother, individualism of base capitalism is a tiny step from facist ultra competition.

: It can do, hence some radical shake ups in some large organisations, and the tendency to devolve ever more decisions into sub areas of the business. Good point - support the argument against central planning.

But of course I support the argument against over centralisation, I'm not a nationalist or authoritarian. The shake ups in the business sector your talking of arent as radical of deep as you seem to suggest, call me pessimistic but the countries all maintain a type of national vestige, whereby they charge large and behave like malignant bureaucracies all over the world apart from their country of origin.

: : I dont know about this.

: Well - Think of a personal example - would you rather your doctors make all the decisions about your medical treatment by themselves or do you think the local townsfolk should have their say too when it comes to dosages and surgery? I think you get the point of the above.

That's really, really interesting that you should say that I'm currently enthusiastically studying the mess your health care systems are in. In the beginning, that is prior to reform not in the 'genesis' sense or anything, the private market in health care consisted of a seperate health provider, hospitals and doctors, and insurance/financial provider. As a reuslt there was gross over supply or services and treatment and dragged out procedures because it was good for profits.

An attempt to reform this was made by trying to, assisting doctors to, become financers and treaters at once, combining the role and hey presto removing the market failures. The problem was that the Doctors where good at being doctors not capitalists/financers so rather than the doctors 'growing' financial wings, the capitalists/financers grew medical 'wings'.

So what? you say, the public, my neighbours, church, community dont have a say in my treatment, true, true but the financers and capitalists do, people without medical experience who's primary concern is profiteering not curing you are going to make decisions about how you are treated. If a doctor is not in favour of particular treatments or aware of and advocates seperate treatments which are not popular in the mainstream, because of cost or something, but safe he can be excuded from employment with certain firms (I think they're called HMO's, I'm really going to pass my exams arent I?), through clauses in contracts for employment that require conformity with the aims and views of the company, and consider the fact that Health Care displays an ever increasing tendency towards cartelism and monopoly through merger and you left with little choice in the matter, unless you want to travel to europe.

: Intriguingly many companies look to market toward ever smaller niche markets - its moving away from 'any color as long as its black' production, has been for a long time.

Possibly so in America but it is incressingly not the case else where, no two capitalisms are the same because the motivations of the people are vastly different, although I'd say they range from viciously competitive and elitist to criminal oligarchy rather than public service.

Plus any advantage and change in the US or Japan is often a result of the companies buying off populations in order to make them sceptical about all the reports of their terrorist tactics elsewhere. I mean Coca-Cola employs mercenaries to bust unions and kill labour rights activists in the third world, just ask Amnesty International, and in more suttile fashions Shell etc. are constuing legitimacy upon the regimes they deal with.

:youre right that sometimes theyre just not making what you want - then you have the option of a hard struggle with potentially massive rewards (not just money) as a creator yourself.

That is in the idealistic view that the market has not high entry and exit costs, incredible risk, barriers to entry, which anti-competitive firms a la Gates can erect or build up further. I mean if I had a light aircraft and wanted to run total budget flights to America, like some guy attempted in the 80's infused with marketeer rethoric, the existing firms would only have to drop prices temporarily to hammer me out of the market, as was the case with that entrepreneur in the eighties.

The philosophy is fine and logical it just isnt boren out in practice.

: : I still dont see how this bolsters your argument, the proclaimation of the need of independence in decision making and resource allocation etc. is as indictive of capitalism as state socialism.

: Given the above - is it not a damnation of any social setting then?

It's an indictive or unfreedom and authoritarianism whatever the species maybe, I think we can agree on this score.

: : I think NJ considers the content of the argument as wrong not just it's empirical legitimicy.

: So what if the research was objectively correct?

What do you mean?

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup