In a message dated 8/21/12 1:03:12 PM, [email protected] writes:
> exceptions to the rules - such as the vast accumulation of wealth in the > face of poverty is the very abnormally that has justifies capitalism's > irrational drive to monopoly and poverty. > Saul depending on what your thinking is, this phrasing seems to do it an injustice. Let's start with the last phrase -- "capitalism's irrational drive to monopoly and poverty." We can't be sure what you have in mind with 'capitalism'. It can't be the theory (It's far fetched to believe a theory can have an "irrational drive", though a theorist can.) So you seem to mean the collection of all capitalist enterprises. Presumably a capitalist enterprise is any firm that, starting with an investment, seeks to build a business that makes a profit. But I cite (description repeated below) such a business that never sought a monopoly and brought the opposite of poverty to everyone connected with it. And the ambiguous word 'drive' suggests either 'conscious intent' or 'inevitable result'. But, as I've already suggested, the conscious intent of the business below was never to produce poverty, and it had the opposite of that "inevitable result". And it seems misplaced to call the intent of the business's effort "Irrational". What was irrational about it? To revert to your first phrase, and the apparent thrust of your entire statement: "exceptions to the rules - such as the vast accumulation of wealth in the face of poverty is the very abnormally that has justifies capitalism's irrational drive to monopoly and poverty." This seems to be saying that the rare examples of vast profit -- by Gates, Jobs, Buffet et al -- are what is taken as justification for other would-be businesmen to go into businesses (the intent or inevitable result of which is monopoly and poverty). Saul, your image of the huge majority of the entrepreneurs of this world is unconvincing to me. I assure you the people behind the local dry cleaner, barber shop, dress shop, hardware store, pizza place, and even the book publisher below were not prompted by expectations of the vast wealth. "Capitalists" though they were, they simply wanted to make a decent living. You have something right though: a number of those shops won't make it. They'll go broke, and their capitalist initiators will achieve what you say they were driven toward -- poverty. > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:18 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > As the phrase goes, William, I know "where you're coming from" when you > and > > Saul express your bleak views about equality and the effects of > capitalism > > -- but I personally can't share those views. > > > > I won't try to lampoon the phrase, "We are all created equal," because > it's > > nonsense when made categoric -- nor is it even desirable. "We are all > equal > > in the eyes of the law," seems something worth striving for to the > extent > > we can -- and we can succeed to some degree over time. But that we > should > > all > > be born equally tall, fast, smart, musical, handsome, etc. -- that's not > > only hilariously impossible, it seems to me to have the makings of a > > horrible > > science fiction tale. > > > > As for capitalism's being a hideous system that will always be corruptly > > unfair, it hasn't seemed so to me. If you devise something of > > benefit/pleasure to loads of people, you have a chance to become -- > what? > > -- will very > > rich do it? If you disdain Bill Gates or Steve Jobs I don't think it can > be > > because of the products they've given us. And that they should be highly > > rewarded does not seem wrong to me. > > > > I went to work in a small, failing book publishing house in New York. > > Eventually, by pursuing a novel strategy -- with a group of gifted, > > long-working > > people -- it became a big house. A handful of that group none of who > came > > from rich families -- are now millionaires. They didn't cheat or crush > > anyone. > > They did nothing they need to be ashamed of. Just the opposite: they > > pleased many readers and authors around the world. Can some tactics of > > capitalists > > be odious? Sure. But to feel the whole system is inevitably evil feels > > wrong to me. > > > > > > > -- > S a u l O s t r o w > > > *Critical Voices* > 21STREETPROJECTS > 162 West 21 St > NYC, NY 10011 > [email protected]
