The two essential features of the capitalist system (Was Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck)
-- From: Ed Goertzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck Date: Mon, Dec 6, 1999, 7:35 pm From: "Ed Weick" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Subject: Re: torn Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 08:06:05 -0500 Part of Ed's post begs a reply. To obtain clarity, can we agree that capital as a stored value is a good thing. That Capitalizm, the monetary manipulation (percursor to individual appropriation of excessive capital value) is the essence of the problem? The incorrect definition of the problem begs an incorrect solution or response. Please add to or modify my definition of the problem! Dear F/w friends Here's a snip from my posted essays (of Nov 25) that helps (me at least ! ) Hugs j snip from earlier essays Dictionary definitions of capitalism highlight two essential features of the capitalist system: that the factors necessary for the production of those commodities necessary for human life are in private ownership and that these factors are used for private benefit (or 'profit'). ( ** Note the stress on two aspects: - ownership and where the benefits from use end up ***) This definition - focussing as it does on ownership of and profit from the resources necessary for production - suggests, therefore, the following Table: EconomicOwnership ofBenefits flow System:the means of to: production: CapitalismPrivatePrivate CommunismPublicPublic Co-operativePrivatePublic Socialism TotalitarianismPublic Private Clearly definition of some terms is necessary: * Private ownership can encompass ownership by individuals or groups of kin or otherwise (åthe family firm¼ and multinational, share-holder owned joint stock companies are examples of such private¾ ownership under capitalism, while, under co-operative socialism, various forms of co-operative - worker-cooperatives, consumer-cooperatives, stakeholder-cooperatives and so on - form the pattern of wealth-creating units, with the distinct objective of creating wealth for the Common-weal, rather than primarily for the individual). * Public benefits, too, needs analysis: who gets how much - and of what¾ is the essence of politics, and so considerations of income maxima and minima continue to be central, but since, as Churchill, in one of his most lucid moments, observed "Ninety percent of politics is economics," our focus here must remain sharply upon economics. ** This led to the Plan of Action ! *** More hugs j *
Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck
It seems that the Czechs in 1968 tried to bring in Socialism with a human face. How about Capitalism with a human face? arthur cordell -- From: Ed Weick To: Bruce Leier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ed Goertzen Subject: Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck Date: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 7:50PM Ed, Couldn't disagree more. Capitalism is the issue. Reform only strengthens the beast. I'm not going to trash the local McDs, but I'm also not going to condemn the tactic. What is this about going after a label? I and many of us are opposing the acts and the system -that you do not want to name- not the label. Bruce Leier You are right. I don't want to name the system, because I'm not really sure of what I should call it. And I feel some personal discomfort around giving it a name, especially one I might not like, because I am part of it. All of us are. Someone, perhaps the late Robert Theobald, argued that changing the system would involve changing ourselves rather fundamentally, perhaps ethically and spiritually, and I would question how ready we are to do that. I would grant you that we serve capitalism, but it also serves us. It has been responsible for the very high standard of living we have in the rich world. As imperialism, it has also at least in part been responsible for the very poor standard of living found in many other countries. What this has led me to wonder is how willing we are to do without the many benefits that we enjoy because of capitalism. To get rid of it and build a more equitable world, we might have to give up an awful lot. Let's ask ourselves, what would we really be willing to do without? Could we give things up without becoming rather different people than we are? Would we want to do that? Ed Weick
Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck
-- From: "Cordell, Arthur: #ECOM - COMÉ"[EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems that the Czechs in 1968 tried to bring in Socialism with a human face. How about Capitalism with a human face? arthur cordell -- Not possible ! Hugs j
Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck
From: "Cordell, Arthur: #ECOM - COMÉ"[EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems that the Czechs in 1968 tried to bring in Socialism with a human face. How about Capitalism with a human face? arthur cordell -- Not possible ! Hugs j Perhaps just "Humanity with a human face"? More hugs. Ed
Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck
Ed Weick wrote: From: "Cordell, Arthur: #ECOM - COMÉ"[EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems that the Czechs in 1968 tried to bring in Socialism with a human face. How about Capitalism with a human face? arthur cordell -- Perhaps that was a man named Franklin Delano Roosevelt? \brad mccormick -- Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[XML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck
Responses in the original
- Original Message -
From: "Ed Weick" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Bruce Leier" [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Ed Goertzen"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck
You are right. I don't want to name the system,
because I'm not really sure
of what I should call it. And I feel some
personal discomfort around giving
it a name, especially one I might not like,
because I am part of it.
{{Ed, you can never overcome anything you can't.
Naming is the 1st step in enlightenment. It is
not something to be afraid of.}}
All of us are.
{{Are you always in favor of that which you
participate in?}}
Someone, perhaps the late Robert Theobald,
argued that changing the
system would involve changing ourselves rather
fundamentally, perhaps
ethically and spiritually, and I would question
how ready we are to do that.
{{I, and I don't think I am alone, am ready to and
already have changed. Theobald did. Maybe you
can, too.}}
I would grant you that we serve capitalism, but
it also serves us. It has
been responsible for the very high standard of
living we have in the rich
world.
{{It all depends on how you define "high standard
of living". What I define as a high standard of
living is not needing a car, being able to get the
food and other things I need within walking
distance and from people whom I know and trust. A
high standard of living means I get a say in all
decisions that affect. me. A high standard of
living means that no one is exploited in the
production of anything that I use. Capitalism
continues to lower my standard of living.}}
As imperialism, it has also at least in part
been responsible for
the very poor standard of living found in many
other countries. What this
has led me to wonder is how willing we are to do
without the many benefits
that we enjoy because of capitalism.
{{You imply that without capitalism there would be
no progress or inventions. That would indeed be a
very silly belief. Although it is what the
mainstream media would have us believe.}}
To get rid of it and build a more
equitable world, we might have to give up an
awful lot. Let's ask
ourselves, what would we really be willing to do
without? Could we give
things up without becoming rather different
people than we are? Would we
want to do that?
{{What is unique to capitalism could be done
without.}}
Ed Weick
Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck
Ed, Couldn't disagree more. Capitalism is the issue. Reform only strengthens the beast. I'm not going to trash the local McDs, but I'm also not going to condemn the tactic. What is this about going after a label? I and many of us are opposing the acts and the system -that you do not want to name- not the label. Bruce Leier You are right. I don't want to name the system, because I'm not really sure of what I should call it. And I feel some personal discomfort around giving it a name, especially one I might not like, because I am part of it. All of us are. Someone, perhaps the late Robert Theobald, argued that changing the system would involve changing ourselves rather fundamentally, perhaps ethically and spiritually, and I would question how ready we are to do that. I would grant you that we serve capitalism, but it also serves us. It has been responsible for the very high standard of living we have in the rich world. As imperialism, it has also at least in part been responsible for the very poor standard of living found in many other countries. What this has led me to wonder is how willing we are to do without the many benefits that we enjoy because of capitalism. To get rid of it and build a more equitable world, we might have to give up an awful lot. Let's ask ourselves, what would we really be willing to do without? Could we give things up without becoming rather different people than we are? Would we want to do that? Ed Weick
re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck
From: "Ed Weick" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Subject: Re: torn Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 08:06:05 -0500 Part of Ed's post begs a reply. To obtain clarity, can we agree that capital as a stored value is a good thing. That Capitalizm, the monetary manipulation (percursor to individual appropriation of excessive capital value) is the essence of the problem? The incorrect definition of the problem begs an incorrect solution or response. Please add to or modify my definition of the problem! Ed Weick Wrote: Snipped Is capital and its owners, the capitalists, really responsible for the sorry state of the world? It would seem to me that even where there is little capital in the remote outbacks of the world (or the "periphery", as some would call it) people do nasty things to each other. But then perhaps capital plays a role. What role might it have played in the killings of Rwanda, or Sierra Leon, or Kosovo, or Afghanistan or any of the other places in which people have engaged in mass slaughter? What role is it playing currently in the destruction of the Chechyns? It may have supplied the guns, bullets, bombs and machetes, but would it have supplied the intolerance and animosity that compelled people to do what they did? Ed G. said: The role of "capitalists" those who use the monetary system to manipulate people is most certainly at the root of the problems. Ed W. said: Capital was almost certainly present in the slaughter of six million Jews during World War II. You could not have done that without capital or capitalists to provide it. But capital also played another role there. It provided a credible reason for genocide. Jews were, after all, the owners of large volumes of capital, especially finance capital, and they were using it to attempt to dominate the world, much like the capitalists of today. The "Protocols of Zion" said so. It was only right and proper that the world was rid of Jews because a life under their domination would have been intolerable, except of course to themselves. Ed G said: We enter some dangerous ground here. The danger is that we not make the same mistake as Hitler. In the same sense that "one swallow does not a summer make", the categorization of Jewish people is not only wrong but unfair. The 6M who died in the holocaust were not all wealthy capitalists. The holocaust started by targeting the communists. A fair number of outspoken communists were Jewish. Some readers will recall the book "The God That Failed" By Kunstler? For many Jewish people communism was the answer to problem. It still is as evidenced by a variant form of communizm in Isreal's local government. If Jewish people are to be labeled as "rich capitalists", how to explain the outstanding social work advicated and accomplished by members of that faith? Not only in Canada but other countries as well. We need to keep the focus, not on sects groups religions etc. but on the problem. If and such group does have inordinate powers, that can be dealt with by the "eqitable" legislation that outlaws or circumscribes powers and/or possessions that exceed the what the public considers to be in the public interest. Ed W. said: It is possible that far more than conflict and genocide can be laid at capital's doorstep. Ed G said: I insist on differentiating between capital and capitalizm or capitalist. Capital is a "social good". Capitalism is the monetary domination of the goods and their inequitable distribution and a capitalist is one who engages in that activity. Snipped Regards Ed G == Peace and goodwill Ed Goertzen, Oshawa, ON, CA L1G 2S2, 905-576-6699 + Timocracy: A form of governance known in ancient Greece that means "government by the worthy". While at that time 'worthy' meant property owning, there is no reason not to define it as "those who want to participate in the none partisan formation of, and administration of public affairs in addition to electing represenatives." To be followed by firm advice to their elected representatives and reporting back to electors. For further information contact Ed Goertzen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] +
Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck
Ed, The posting you comment on seems to have been misunderstood by a lot of people. It was intended as irony and as a demonstration of how laying the blame for a wide range of woes and human failings on a single group or class can lead to absurd and dangerous conclusions. My point is that the world was in a sorry state long before there was an identifiable capitalist class. My reference to the Jews was intended to illustrate that, if you can trump up enough charges and make them sound credible, you can get away with just about anything. Historically, many charges were trumped up against the Jews. In ancient times, they killed Christ. In medieval times they desecrated the host and participated in blood libels, and worst of all, poisoned wells and thereby brought on the plague. The 19th century witnessed things like the Dreyfuss affair, and in the 20th we had the trumped up Protocols of Zion. The fact that some Jews, including Trotsky and some other leading Bolsheviks, were communists did not help them either. As Goldhagen demonstrates, convincingly in my opinion, so many nefarious labels had been pinned on the Jews by the 1930s that they became easy victims. Translate that into some of the things posted on the internet recently and you could have a crusade against anyone you label a capitalist, including the guy who operates a Macdonalds or Starbucks franchise in Seattle. I'm not saying that the Seattle protests were such a crusade, but some of the so-called protesters could easily have become one. So, to summarize, my quarrel is not with Jews or capitalists or any other group, but with pinning labels on people and unjustifiably blaming them for things they may not have had much to do with. Crusaders did not kill Jews and other infidels because the crusaders were capitalists. They killed them because within medieval society they had been conditioned to do so. It assured them of a path to heaven. Right now, Russians are not killing Chechyns because of capital. They are doing so out of animosity going way back into czarist times, because they're afraid that if the Chechyns go, much of the Caucuses could follow and perhaps also because they want to demonstrate to the world that they are still a military power (a very sorry way of doing it!!). To justify what they are doing they've pinned a convenient label on the Chechyns, that of "terrorists". Hope this clarifies what I was trying to say. Ed Weick
Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck
Come on Ed, Jews = Capitalists? I am well able to differentiate between "capital" and "capitalism". It does not sound as if you can. It is not capital that causes people to suffer. But capitalism does punish people and tells them they should like it. And capitalists do profit from that suffering. Some capitalists I know are "good" people but they still do bad things to other people -- it's what capitalists do. Do you support the bad that they do? Do you support the McD owner because (s)he does not give his/her employees health care? Because he/she does not pay a living wage? Because (s)he tries to sell us us crap and calls it food? Because (s)he sells us beef filled with hormones? I could go on. This is "good" behavior? These are good choices? I don't think so! Bruce Leier - Original Message - From: "Ed Weick" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Ed Goertzen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 5:15 PM Subject: Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck Ed, The posting you comment on seems to have been misunderstood by a lot of people. It was intended as irony and as a demonstration of how laying the blame for a wide range of woes and human failings on a single group or class can lead to absurd and dangerous conclusions. My point is that the world was in a sorry state long before there was an identifiable capitalist class. My reference to the Jews was intended to illustrate that, if you can trump up enough charges and make them sound credible, you can get away with just about anything. Historically, many charges were trumped up against the Jews. In ancient times, they killed Christ. In medieval times they desecrated the host and participated in blood libels, and worst of all, poisoned wells and thereby brought on the plague. The 19th century witnessed things like the Dreyfuss affair, and in the 20th we had the trumped up Protocols of Zion. The fact that some Jews, including Trotsky and some other leading Bolsheviks, were communists did not help them either. As Goldhagen demonstrates, convincingly in my opinion, so many nefarious labels had been pinned on the Jews by the 1930s that they became easy victims. Translate that into some of the things posted on the internet recently and you could have a crusade against anyone you label a capitalist, including the guy who operates a Macdonalds or Starbucks franchise in Seattle. I'm not saying that the Seattle protests were such a crusade, but some of the so-called protesters could easily have become one. So, to summarize, my quarrel is not with Jews or capitalists or any other group, but with pinning labels on people and unjustifiably blaming them for things they may not have had much to do with. Crusaders did not kill Jews and other infidels because the crusaders were capitalists. They killed them because within medieval society they had been conditioned to do so. It assured them of a path to heaven. Right now, Russians are not killing Chechyns because of capital. They are doing so out of animosity going way back into czarist times, because they're afraid that if the Chechyns go, much of the Caucuses could follow and perhaps also because they want to demonstrate to the world that they are still a military power (a very sorry way of doing it!!). To justify what they are doing they've pinned a convenient label on the Chechyns, that of "terrorists". Hope this clarifies what I was trying to say. Ed Weick
