On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Devine, James wrote:
> This is interesting, Zbigniew.
I can agree with you - but be sure, taking a look at it is better, than
living with it... ;)
> I asked: >>is it democracy on the work-place level?
>
> Zbigniew answers:>there is less democracy at workplace, because the people
> are afraid to lose their jobs.<
>
> That's capitalism! (see Marx's concept of the reserve army of labor.)
I cannot agree. That's just one of the capitalism's features (the one less
beloved by the people ;).
> The market for final commodities may not be "free," but it hardly ever
> is, even in the U.S. Anyway, it's not the "free market" that defines
> capitalism.
The problem is with oppressive taxation and with many restrictions and
regulations, which are partially conflicting with each other. You can
never be sure, whether are you OK, or just breaking some law, which you
can't know because of it's excess.
> Regimes such as Nazi Germany and Papa Doc's Haiti had capitalism without
> free markets.
Forgive me for being contrary once again: I don't know the Haiti
situation, but in Germany at Nazi times the private industries (the large
ones) was fully controlled by the state. The owners were reduced just to
some kind of managers, with limited influence. And the programm of the
Nazi party (National Socialist) was very similar to that which had polish
(and other) communist party before 1989 (I made comparison several years
ago). Of course, I'm talking about industry, economic and social-related
things only, not about f.e. concetration camps, "ban the Jews" or
something similar.
> >> is it democracy on the state level that actually can change the _status
> quo_?<<
>
> Zbigniew answers: > Yes. YES! I can assure you, that if you can "only"
> persuade some millions of people, you can really change the status quo...
> but first you should additionally persuade about 50% of very disappointed
> electors, that they should took their part in the election.<
>
> and: > There is really full democracy "on the state level" - but people,
> tired and very disappointed with s.c. [so-called?] "capitalism"
Yes. "So called", because capitalism works in our country as "diagnose"
for current troubles (partially even in official propaganda) - although we
cannot see the capitalism here. As I wrote, capitalism means for me free
market first.
> (say:
> conditions caused by "banana republic" - while in reality we haven't any
> capitalism here), are voting for socialists and populists (or for socialists
> describing themselves as "right" oriented). F.e. our current president, at
> his first
> election trial, has promest "flats for every young marriaged people". And
> the people didn't thought "how? Will he pay for this from his own pocket?".
> They didn't realize, that they should pay for such "free flats" with their
> taxes first.<
>
> I don't see anything wrong with housing subsidies,
I'm afraid, you're once again making direct comparison USA-Poland. I
wish Poland to be comparable to USA, but it cannot be compared at the
moment. As it was said by Milton Friedman, when he was visiting Poland at
1989: "You shouldn't make the things, which they're making now, when
they're rich - you should make the things, which they made much earlier,
when they was as poor as you are today" (about the aspirations of many
Poles to immediately retake the western standards of living).
> but it's true that
> someone has to pay for them with taxes. (The U.S. subsidizes middle-class
> housing, by exempting mortgage interest from income taxes.)
The people in our country aren't realizing, that for everything, which is
assured by the state, they must pay first. They are thinking, that the
state is some kind of "good uncle", which will pay for them.
> [..]
> not all restrictions on "the market" are bad (even in orthodox capitalist
> economics), since markets often fail to serve even consumers.
>
> It seems as if you're talking about "state-guaranteed capitalist riches for
> some
Not quite. You'll not find any (or perhaps well-hidden) regulations,
which will guarantee capitalist riches for somebody. It's tied to taxes,
which you can pay (and make earnings), when you have really big turnover -
but if you have small turnover, you'll never grow to be capitalist in the
future. Or you must just close your company, as many are shut already.
> -- impoverished state services for the rest."
And once again: not quite. I don't want anything from the state. No
"free flats". No "free education". No "free health service" - because
nothing is "free"! For everything you have to pay - with money, or taxes.
But paying with taxes is much more expensive - the tax (and other) clerks
want to earn something as well. So, the direct payment will be much
cheaper way to buy something - without the state's mediation.
And so I prefer to earn and pay for myself (as I'm doing now) - if only
the government will not want so much money from me
pozdrawiam / regards
Zbigniew Baniewski
