I don't recall my saying that there's a good alternative to the economic system called capitalism. However, with any really good system of wealth disrtribution, some overarching ethical and moral concept has to be obliged. But the inherent concept of capitalism ignores and atually discredits that idea of an overarching morality. It relies on the Adam Smith slogan "The Invisible Hand" which is ultimately a bogus concept because at some point -- I don't know where -- capital acculumlates at a rate beyond any structured mode of distribution can handle. The recent "too big to fail" ideology is proof that the Invisible Hand does not function at the top end of wealth accumulation.
As for the equality idea the traditional division of it is to separate equality of condition from equality of opportunity, even though its' difficult to actually do that in practice. We like to say that all people have some kinds of equality of condition, such as the right to live and we often say that there are some sorts of equality of opportunity for everyone, as in the U.S. Bill of Rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. However, we all know that America has from time to time enshrined restrictions of both equality of condition and that in itself has restricted equality of opportunity stipulated by the Bill of Rights. Cheerskep is talking, below, about the equality of opportunity, specifically the opportunity to be in the right place at the right time with the right abilities and the right ambitions to build a successful business and earn a lot of money. One could say, with large blinders, that the success he mentions was due only to hard work and ability but take away the blinders and look closer. How many of the publishing folks he mentions were from the rural deep south, or were minorities, or had spotty educations or, most of all, lacked connections and networking benefits that were already in place for them when they began. In other words, some inequality existed not only where it always does, in opportunity, but also in condition and that's been the rub in American culture for a very long time whren it comes to wealth distribution. America has come to despise the old fashioned sense of morality and ethics, the real and visible hand, when it comes to the implementation of capitalist economics. Now it's proper to only follow the money, care about the money, ignore values that any society needs, and claim that unfettered self-interest is the only true and impartial way to manage wealth. The Founding Fathers valued Virtue as the highest good. For them it meant self-deprecation and service for the greater good: putting the other fellow's need above self-interest. Some actually tried to follow that principle and they certainly framed a Constitution that aimed at embodying it. What people need to do in my opinion is to recognize that their positions in life are not only due to their own diligence but also the structures the society has in place. Those structures favor inequality in both opportunity and condition. I'll venture that all the people on this list have enjoyed a much greater proportion of inequality of condition and opportunity than most Americans. Our duty is to help create greater equality of opportunity for those who don't yet have their proper share and then assure them more and more improvement in their conditions. That's not a difficult moral concept to hold but very difficult to practice. It's always the folks in secure positions of opprtunity and condition who persist in telling others less fortunate to work harder and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. To me that's just self-adulation. Very human. I'm guiltier than most in that respect. But I know what ought to be. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: saulostrow <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, August 21, 2012 12:03:10 PM Subject: Re: Subjective - Objective 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. 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]
