Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Occupy Buddhism: Or Why the Dalai Lama is a Marxist
I'm sorry, but I firmly disagree with your view. You are essentially saying capitalism is meritocratic and that hard work is rewarded. I'm sorry, but Mitt Romney has never worked a day in his life and never will, and yet people who work 3 jobs can barely make ends meet. The 6 Walton children will never work a day in their lives and neither will any of their children and yet their employee's will likely have to work at least two jobs.
I'm not a fan of hyperbole, it so often equates to lying. Aside from that, I couldn't care less if Romney worked or not (which he did by the way). It has nothing to do with me.
All the hate the rich people stuff is just envy, and I'm really not interested in that. So what if they're rich? Let them be rich.
Hating the rich is not equal to or close to the same as caring about the poor.
I don't hate the rich, so you can stop with the accusations of envy. The fact is that when you have so much wealth concentrated into too few hands some people are going to suffer. There is no need for someone to be as rich as Romney, or Bill Gates while there are people in the world who are starving or homeless. Until you address the societal problems of wealth inequality you cannot solve the problems of poverty.
I'm not saying you in particular are envious, it's just a very common attitude.
Wealth inequality... It's just buzzwords. It doesn't actually mean anything.
Superficially it means that some people are more wealthy than others. That in itself isn't a problem at all. On a deeper level, well, there isn't a deeper level. The term is essentially meaningless.
I'm not saying you in particular are envious, it's just a very common attitude.
Wealth inequality... It's just buzzwords. It doesn't actually mean anything.
Superficially it means that some people are more wealthy than others. That in itself isn't a problem at all. On a deeper level, well, there isn't a deeper level. The term is essentially meaningless.
When one person owns multiple mansions while another person is homeless, wealth inequality is a problem. There is no reason for someone to have as much money as Bill Gates when there is so much poverty in the world. Bill Gates couldn't spend all of his money if he tried, on the other hand there are millions of people who don't know if they are going to be able to feed themselves or their families, or if they can make the rent payments, send their kids to school, pay for medial emergencies, etc. Those are real problems caused by capitalism and they need to be addressed.
That's really not Bill Gates's problem unless he wants it to be. And that isn't cruel or harsh, it's just a fact. He can do whatever he likes with his wealth, it's one of the benefits of a free society. He can give it all away if he wants to, or he can buy sailboats. It's entirely up to him. He can be Scrooge if he feels like it. That's his problem.
It doesn't mean we can't do anything to help people, it just means we can't force others to shoulder a burden that doesn't really belong to them. It's not their fault people are poor. If you're not charitable by choice but by force, you're just doing community service - a sentence, a punishment. Does that mean we stop helping? No. It just means that we don't force anyone else to do anything.
And he's actually incredibly charitable. If I remember correctly most of his wealth has been willed to charitable causes. He knows he won't spend all of his money, and is donating it accordingly.
I remember when Stephen King said "I don't care, I have plenty, go ahead and tax me more" which is a nice sentiment, but there's no need to tax him more, or tax any other wealthy person more (although they do have higher taxes) because they can just take that excess and write a check any time they feel like it. It's up to them
That's really not Bill Gates's problem unless he wants it to be. And that isn't cruel or harsh, it's just a fact. He can do whatever he likes with his wealth, it's one of the benefits of a free society. He can give it all away if he wants to, or he can buy sailboats. It's entirely up to him. He can be Scrooge if he feels like it. That's his problem.
It doesn't mean we can't do anything to help people, it just means we can't force others to shoulder a burden that doesn't really belong to them. It's not their fault people are poor. If you're not charitable by choice but by force, you're just doing community service - a sentence, a punishment. Does that mean we stop helping? No. It just means that we don't force anyone else to do anything.
And he's actually incredibly charitable. If I remember correctly most of his wealth has been willed to charitable causes. He knows he won't spend all of his money, and is donating it accordingly.
I don't believe it is entirely up to him. That is where we differ, we seem to be on opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum in regards to this. It isn't entirely up to him, wealth is a creation of society as a whole and society can decide what to do with it. We already do this to an extent with taxes, and if society decides that Bill Gates's taxes should be raised to combat poverty, then Bill will have to submit to the law like anyone else. So, it is not entirely up to him.
Granted, you might be more in line with the libertarian viewpoint that wealth is the property of the individual and he has a right to the fruit of his labor, but I've never found that argument very compelling and I think the flaws of capitalism, especially as practiced in the U.S., are becoming more and more apparent and the the system is in need of major reform, if not a complete replacement.
Wealth inequality... It's just buzzwords. It doesn't actually mean anything.
Superficially it means that some people are more wealthy than others. That in itself isn't a problem at all. On a deeper level, well, there isn't a deeper level. The term is essentially meaningless.
Actually, I think it does. For one, it means the more wealth that's accumulated at the top, the more that's been extracted from the bottom. Moreover, the more wealth that's accumulated at the top, the less there is for the majority of the population, which can negatively affect social upward mobility.
I think some of the viewpoints here are too simple and superficial, and as RebeccaS pointed out, are more about jealousy than anything else.
Yes, some rich people (like George Romney) primarily inherited their wealth, while others started with little or nothing and were self-made men. But, that's life, and do you really want to have a principle where you cannot pass your property on to your children when you die?
Another poster wanted to place the blame on capitalism. There are people in virtually all countries -- all along the scale of economic systems -- who are rich and others who are poor.
And then there's personal ambition. My sister used to be jealous because (to her) I was rich and she was poor. But let's see. I went to university for 6 years, mostly by working part time at a grocery store. She was too lazy to finish high school...dropped out 2 months before graduation because she was "bored". I worked more hours in a single year than see worked in her entire life. So I had a nice townhouse, based on a salary of up to $120,000 a year, while she lived in a shack with no working toilet based on earnings of $0 most years...she lived off a druggie. Then there's my nephew, who also sees the unfairness of capitalism. Of course, the reason he's poor is because he went to prison for 2 years (I think due to dealing drugs) and now can't get or hold a job.
Should there be a safety net? Of course. And lots of opportunities for advancement. But some of you are talking about some drastic redistribution of wealth based on...nothing but your concept that there is unfairness...and you don't really at look at why the inequality exists.
I think some of the viewpoints here are too simple and superficial, and as RebeccaS pointed out, are more about jealousy than anything else.
Why does any criticism of gross inequalities automatically have to stem from jealousy? I'm certainly not jealous of anyone who has more money than me It's got nothing to do with jealously, @vinlyn, despite what you or @RebeccaS may think. It has to do with addressing what some perceive to be flaws and contradictions within our current economic system that affect everyone. In every other sphere of life, people seem to have no issue with people wanting to improve things, but when it comes to addressing things like wealth inequality and the system that gives rise to it, advocates of change are just a bunch of jealous losers. If you knew me personally, you'd see just how wrong you are about that.
I think some of the viewpoints here are too simple and superficial, and as RebeccaS pointed out, are more about jealousy than anything else.
Why does any criticism of gross inequalities automatically have to stem from jealousy? I'm certainly not jealous of anyone who has more money than me It's got nothing to do with jealously, @vinlyn, despite what you or @RebeccaS may think. It has to do with addressing what some perceive to be flaws and contradictions within our current economic system that affect everyone. In every other sphere of life, people seem to have no issue with people wanting to improve things, but when it comes to addressing things like wealth inequality and the system that gives rise to it, advocates of change are just a bunch of jealous losers. If you knew me personally, you'd see just how wrong you are about that.
How convenient that you ignored my last paragraph above, so let me repeat it:
"Should there be a safety net? Of course. And lots of opportunities for advancement. But some of you are talking about some drastic redistribution of wealth based on...nothing but your concept that there is unfairness...and you don't really at look at why the inequality exists."
And Jason, you don't know me, either. None of us knows each other. So, perhaps you should also stop making judgments about all those who you feel don't share your personal viewpoint.
I didn't say you're a "jealous loser". What I said was, "I think some of the viewpoints here are too simple and superficial...[and] are more about jealousy than anything else." It wasn't even in response to any post of yours.
Of course there are exceptions to the envy rule, and of course, you may be an exception. But overall I've found it to be a very accurate assessment of people who find capitalism "unfair". A general statement, yes, but one that works more often than not and a handy rule of thumb.
We want to improve things, but things that don't really exist like "wealth inequality" don't really deserve to be looked at. It's not actually a problem, it's just buzzwords designed to elicit an emotive response rather than a rational one.
I've met plenty of highly intelligent, intellectual and passionate Marxist types, but few rational ones.
"Should there be a safety net? Of course. And lots of opportunities for advancement. But some of you are talking about some drastic redistribution of wealth based on...nothing but your concept that there is unfairness...and you don't really at look at why the inequality exists."
I didn't ignore it; I simply didn't respond to it.
And Jason, you don't know me, either. None of us knows each other. So, perhaps you should also stop making judgments about all those who you feel don't share your personal viewpoint.
I've made no judgments about you or the motivations behind your viewpoints.
I didn't say you're a "jealous loser". What I said was, "I think some of the viewpoints here are too simple and superficial...[and] are more about jealousy than anything else." It wasn't even in response to any post of yours.
I didn't say you said I was a jealous loser; I was speaking in general terms of people critical of those critical to capitalism and things like wealth inequality. You certainly didn't go that far. However, you did say that, "I think some of the viewpoints here are too simple and superficial, and as RebeccaS pointed out, are more about jealousy than anything else," and I'm one of the main participants in this thread, so I think it's reasonable for me to assume that this may be directed at me. And even if it's not, I think my point applies to whoever it is directed at.
We want to improve things, but things that don't really exist like "wealth inequality" don't really deserve to be looked at. It's not actually a problem, it's just buzzwords designed to elicit an emotive response rather than a rational one.
Well, I think it is real problem, and for more than just the few reasons I listed above. But it doesn't seem like any of them will convince you otherwise at this point. Whatever the case, I'm personally not trying to elicit an emotive response here, and I feel that I'm doing a fairly good job having a rational discussion in this thread.
I've met plenty of highly intelligent, intellectual and passionate Marxist types, but few rational ones.
Just for reference, I'm not a Marxist just because I like aspects of Marx's writing.
"and you don't really at look at why the inequality exists."
And that's a question worth asking. Instead of "why some people are wealthy" the questiom should be "why some people are poor". And people don't ask thay because of this mindset that poor people are somehow victims of wealthy people.
Victim/perpetrator is a very naive and classically childlike perspective. As we mature and see that everyone is responsible for their own actions, we see that victim/perpetrator is actually a fictional perception.
Obviously this isn't a blanket statement and we can see there are instances where this is not the case (abuse for example) but when it comes to things like wealth and poverty, we see that the victim/perpetrator viewpoint more often than not has no basis in reality and is simply not applicable.
It's simply something designed to elicit an emotional response rather than a rational one, and I see this all the time when debating with people with Marxist leanings. Lots of attempts to provoke emotions like pity and guilt, to bypass the rational center of the brain. Obviously, there needs to be a little of both (compassion and rationality) but I rarely see the rational side of these conversations.
And I'm not just talking about this thread or pointing any fingers, I'm talking about a lot of past experience as a political activist who has been on both sides of the Marxist school of thought.
@Jason, I'm not saying your a Marxist, as far as I'm aware you haven't indicated at all your political/ideological preferences.
We want to improve things, but things that don't really exist like "wealth inequality" don't really deserve to be looked at. It's not actually a problem, it's just buzzwords designed to elicit an emotive response rather than a rational one.
Well, I think it is real problem, and for more than just the few reasons I listed above. But it doesn't seem like any of them will convince you otherwise at this point. Whatever the case, I'm personally not trying to elicit an emotive response here, and I feel that I'm doing a fairly good job having a rational discussion in this thread.
I've met plenty of highly intelligent, intellectual and passionate Marxist types, but few rational ones.
Just for reference, I'm not a Marxist just because I like aspects of Marx's writing.
I'm drawing on a lot of past experience, not just this thread and it's not to be taken personally I assure you. I'm not accusing you of anything.
"and you don't really at look at why the inequality exists."
And that's a question worth asking. Instead of "why some people are wealthy" the questiom should be "why some people are poor". And people don't ask thay because of this mindset that poor people are somehow victims of wealthy people.
Victim/perpetrator is a very naive and classically childlike perspective. As we mature and see that everyone is responsible for their own actions, we see that victim/perpetrator is actually a fictional perception.
Obviously this isn't a blanket statement and we can see there are instances where this is not the case....
Exactly, Rebecca.
There are examples in American history where discrimination against one or another groups of people have forced them into poverty...and when I say American history, I am talking about history within my lifetime. For example, inherent discrimination against Black people in nearly every aspect of American life, including -- perhaps most importantly to this issue -- the inability to get a good education or be hired for significant jobs. And that deserved national action...which eventually took place. Even today, the way American Indians are treated and the mere existence of the reservation system -- one of the great unaddressed issues of our nation. The fact that in the 1960s there was still a dearth of passable roads and decent schools in Appalachia, and eventually that was addressed.
But then there are the other reasons for being poor...including making bad (or even stupid) life choices. At one point my mother had 2 choices, work as a secretary for a chiropractor (set salary, no benefits at all) OR a secretarial position in a school (roughly the same salary, health insurance paid for by the school system, pension benefits). Her choice -- the job with no benefits. And later she paid a great price for that.
And that's a question worth asking. Instead of "why some people are wealthy" the questiom should be "why some people are poor". And people don't ask thay because of this mindset that poor people are somehow victims of wealthy people.
I agree. Which is why I've tried to argue how the system disproportionately favours capital at the expense of labour, as well as coerces capital to squeeze as much out of labour as possible, thereby debasing labour and the labour process as a whole. As I mentioned before, one of the practical as well as philosophical issues I have with the capitalist mode of production is the potential exploitation inherent within the system itself, which in its most extreme (and therefore most visible) forms can be found in things like prison labour and sweatshops, but according to Marx's labour theory of value is a characteristic of all forms of wage labour under capitalism.
In the Marxist sense, at least, exploitation refers to the worker's lack of ownership and/or distributive control over the surplus created by their labour. (That's why Marx defined slavery, feudalism, and capitalism as exploitative systems of production, i.e., in each, the producers/workers have no ownership and/or distributive control over the surplus created by their labour). In this sense, exploitation is an inherent part of the capitalist mode of production, which in turn, ties into Marx's theory of alienation. It's rather complicated, and I don't fully understand everything Marx wrote on the subject as much of it is very abstract, but in short, exploitation is the idea that the capitalist profits far more from a worker's labour than the worker does, and it doesn't really matter whether it's voluntary or not. Moreover, this type of social relationship ultimate debases labour and impedes our positive development as a species.
Adam Smith et al. assumed that labour creates wealth (surplus value). But according to Marx, in a capitalist system, labour itself becomes a commodity, an object that's bought and sold on the market. Moreover, due to private ownership of the means of production, the product of the worker's labour doesn’t legally belong to them (alienation), nor does the surplus value their labour creates (unpaid labour), which is kept by the capitalist.
Consequently, the product of the worker's labour becomes a commodity that's divorced from the labour expended on its production, thereby obscuring the social relationship between producer and consumer (commodity fetishism). Furthermore, the employer has the ability to increase their profit exponentially by reinvesting the surplus value extracted from the worker's labour into their company while the labourer is forced to spend their (more often than not) meager wages on the necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, etc.
For Marx, our ability to produce things, especially our means of subsistence, is what sets us apart from other animals. In his view, this ability to produce objects is a part of our essence as a human being. Put another way, Marx viewed human beings as productive creatures that, in the words of Jonathan Wolff, "are able to create according to our will and consciousness in a very elaborate way."
But, as Wolff continues, "workers under capitalism, Marx thinks, very rarely have the opportunity to express these powers. So, Marx says, from a human being, the worker is reduced to an abstract activity and a stomach. So rather than being a human being able to express our essence, we are like little machines ourselves." And I think understanding this point of view is integral to understanding an important part of Marx's critique of production under the capitalist system, which he argues not only estranges and alienates the worker's relationship to the products of their labour, but estranges and alienates the worker's relationship to the act of production itself.
As Marx wrote in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, under the capitalist system of production, the worker's labour becomes "external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind." As a consequence, the worker "only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor."
And when viewed from this perspective, it may become easier to understand why Marx saw labour within the context of capitalism as something debasing, particularly for the worker, and why it's ultimately an impediment to achieving self-realization as a species in the sense of resolving "the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species" that's characterized by the "positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement."
From an ethical standpoint, this inherently disparate relationship between capital and labour reminds me of a line from a letter written by Abigail Adams in the spring of 1776 to her husband: "I have sometimes been ready to think that the passion for liberty cannot be equally strong in the breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow-creatures of theirs [referring to slave-holding Virginians]. Of this I am certain, that it is not founded upon that generous and Christian principle of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us." And I think the same sentiment can easily be applied to capital in relation to the wage labourer, at least in the sense of how the latter is coerced under the capitalist mode of production to surrender their labour-power to the former in exchange for their means of subsistence, which is always less than what they actually produce, as well as all rights over the product of their labour.
In essence, from one point of view, both slavery and wage labour can be seen to infringe upon individual autonomy in their respective ways, with former more obviously so, but the latter no less potentially oppressive from the standpoint of labour. As Frederick Engels wrote in The Principles of Communism, "The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master's interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence."
Moreover, the logic of the system, via what Marx termed the 'coercive laws of competition,' forces the hand of capital to exploit labour as much as it can; and at the same time, labour is coerced into the position of working for a wage and fighting for gains that capital quickly counter in an endless struggle punctuated by regular economic crises (these days better known as the 'business cycle'), creating continuous class antagonisms between capital and labour.
Hence much of what's historically been labelled as Marxism and/or socialism has been a search for practical as well as philosophical resolutions to these issues, which isn't to be found in things like equality of wealth or outcomes so much as the de-privatization (i.e., socialization) of opportunity and the weakening of class antagonisms and hierarchies arising out of social relations unique to capitalism and other predominately exploitative systems. As Marx wrote in The Poverty of Philosophy, "Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations. The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist."
And Marx's focus, along with socialist movements in general, is in attempting to answer the question of how to liberate society from suffering and alienation by changing the material conditions that support it. In the words of Erich Fromm, "[Marx's] concept of socialism is the emancipation from alienation, the return of man to himself, his self-realization," a goal that's ultimately achievable via "the liberation of man from a kind of work which destroys his individuality, which transforms him into a thing, and which makes him into the slave of things."
You may disagree with this, of course, and some of it may be rather philosophical and abstract; but I don't think it's irrational or simply appealing to emotion.
Some of the reserves up here in Canada are absolutely toxic. It's a real problem and I'm not going into it here because it's so complex. Suffice to say, I agree with that aspect of poverty.
As for poor decisions, we can all see this in our personal lives. I didn't go to university and when I go back to work I'll be earning minimum wage and saving up for tuition so I can go to school. It will be difficult and I won't be doing my ideal job for years to come. That's the result of my desicion.
My husband worked hard and spent years in school, and now at 28 he's earning the kind of salary most people wouldn't see their entire lives, and it's only going to go up. That's the result of his decision then, and his continuing commitment to working hard and improving his skills.
When we view poor people as individuals rather than as a collective, we start to see a pattern of poor choices, not oppression.
When we view poor people as individuals rather than as a collective, we start to see a pattern of poor choices, not oppression.
I don't think that's necessarily true. In some cases, yes. But many people are also poor due to a combination of circumstances, from of bad luck and discrimination (e.g., minorities), to poor education and upbringing. The poor themselves are often discriminated against in our society, both by policy and by public opinion. Spending time with the homeless, for example, has made me see that it's not as black and white as people often make it out to be (i.e., that poor people just make poor choices). Once you're poor and/or in debt, it's extremely difficult to get out of the so-called 'cycle of poverty.'
"the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species" that's characterized by the "positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement."
"[Marx's] concept of socialism is the emancipation from alienation, the return of man to himself, his self-realization," a goal that's ultimately achievable via "the liberation of man from a kind of work which destroys his individuality, which transforms him into a thing, and which makes him into the slave of things."
These are all very emotive sentiments. "freedom" "emancipation from alienation" "liberation" "destroys" "transforms" "slave".
These are all words and ideas that elicit a purely emotional response. It's very seductive, but not particularly rational.
It makes me think of Hitler's speeches. Highly passionate and emotional, devoid of meaningful substance. Using language that stirs the heart, but bypasses the head entirely. Propaganda.
Wow, so using words like freedom and liberation in and of themselves is purely emotive and reminds you of Hitler's speeches? While that may be your perception, which I can't necessarily argue with, I have to disagree that these are words and ideas that elicit a purely emotional response. There are certainly elements of them that can elicit emotional responses since we are emotional creatures; but I think it's a bit much to say that their use is purely emotional and therefore not rational. If so, then just about all of philosophy is emotional and irrational, from Locke's writing about liberty to Plato's words on justice.
When we view poor people as individuals rather than as a collective, we start to see a pattern of poor choices, not oppression.
I don't think that's necessarily true. In some cases, yes. But many people are also poor due to a combination of circumstances, from of bad luck and discrimination (e.g., minorities), to poor education and upbringing. The poor themselves are often discriminated against in our society, both by policy and by public opinion. Spending time with the homeless, for example, has made me see that it's not as black and white as people often make it out to be (i.e., that poor people just make poor choices). Once you're poor and/or in debt, it's extremely difficult to get out of the so-called 'cycle of poverty.'
I lived well below the poverty line for years, and was even homeless myself for a period. I have a very in depth understanding of these issues thanks to a wealth of personal experience. Yes, it's difficult to get out of, but absolutely not impossible. It's not easy, and nor should it be easy.
We should never try to take away someone's opportunity to learn true self worth by bailing them out. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be there when they're ready for help, but that is THE key factor here. When THEY are ready for help, not when we decided they're ready for it.
When they're taking steps to improve their circumstances, we lend them a hand. But if they're just sitting in a hole waiting for us to climb down and carry them out, we're not doing them or ourselves any favors.
Sure, homelessness isn't a black and white issue, absolutely not, but trying to help people who simply don't want it is wasting valuable resources, and possibly taking from them a priceless opportunity for growth.
It's a key thing that kind hearted and well intentioned people often miss - most of them like taking advantage of the system and will not take responsibility for themselves. They don't want to. They don't care. Again, not applicable to all, but to a surprising majority.
Sure, they'll bitch and whine and bemoan the system for being so unfair, but they won't actually do anything for themselves.
Wow, so using words like freedom and liberation in and of themselves is purely emotive and reminds you of Hitler's speeches? While that may be your perception, which I can't necessarily argue with, I have to disagree that these are words and ideas that elicit a purely emotional response. There are certainly elements of them that can elicit emotional responses since we are emotional creatures; but I think it's a bit much to say that their use is purely emotional and therefore not rational. If so, then just about all of philosophy is emotional and irrational, from Locke's writing about liberty to Plato's words on justice.
I say not rational because they seem to lack any kind of substance. The words are just empty. There's no sense in them. We'll all be liberated if we get a say in where profit goes? Really? I sincerely doubt it. Self realization? Really? I mean, these are big happy words that just have nothing to do with what Marx was talking about. Changing production does not = self realization. Not by a long shot. It's too grandiose. These words in this context, they simply don't work. And that's the problem here. They're seductive, and sound lovely, but they don't actually go together at all.
Just like massacring Jews won't change anything about people or their nature, nor will changing modes of production. It just doesn't make any sense.
It's like me saying "I'm going to take a class in biology for one semester and then I will be the greatest doctor in all of the world and win all the nobel prizes and cure sickness forever!" It doesn't add up.
I say not rational because they seem to lack any kind of substance. The words are just empty. There's no sense in them. We'll all be liberated if we get a say in where profit goes? Really? I sincerely doubt it.
That's not what he's saying at all. Maybe reading the book with put these things in context and give you a better understanding of what they mean? I don't know. At any rate, if his words are meaningless and purely emotive, I think the same charge can be levelled at the Buddha. Just do a quick Google search to see how many times the Buddha talks about things like freedom, liberation, realization of the as-yet-unrealized, destroying greed, hatred, and delusion, killing anger, etc. Personally, I find the Buddha to be very rational even despite his use of emotive language because I think it ultimately helps to elucidate his points and express the desirability of what he's point to, and the same goes for Marx.
But the Buddha wasn't saying you'll find your true self if you get a say in where capital goes.
Again, that's not what Marx is saying. I think reading his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 and Eric Fromm's Marx's Concept of Man may help you to better understand what he is saying.
Sure emotive language has its place, but it's got to make sense within the context of the subject.
If talking about true liberation then, well, yeah, you gotta talk about liberation.
True liberation? That kind of terminology doesn't seem to be any more rational or less emotive than anything Marx is talking about. Moreover, I'd argue that what Marx is saying does make sense within the context of the subject.
But some access to a desicion making process? Nah. That's not liberation or self realization, not by a long shot.
Marx is talking about a lot more than just "some access to a desicion making process." In addition, simply saying that what Marx is talking about isn't really liberation, but that what the Buddha talking about is, is completely unfair, in my opinion. They're both talking about liberation, just different kinds of liberation that each make sense within the context of their respective subjects.
Imo, the regulation shouldn't be on how much money you can make but how much influence over other people's lives you are allowed to have with it. Making money is not a crime, but beyond a point, using it to reduce someone else's life, liberty and happiness should be.
I think the example of public land applies. If there were no regulation, rich people could buy up literally every inch of beachfront and either block it off entirely, or charge an admission fee so high that only rich people could afford to visit the beach. No American child below a certain income would ever see an American ocean. Would this be fair? By the simple rules of capitalism, yes, but even (many) staunch Republican capitalists I know feel that some public lands are important. Very sticky issues.
"Marx is talking about a lot more than just "some access to a desicion making process." In addition, simply saying that what Marx is talking about isn't really liberation, but that what the Buddha talking about is, is completely unfair, in my opinion. They're both talking about liberation, just different kinds of liberation that each make sense within the context of their respective subjects."
I don't think it's unfair. I don't think Marx's theories offer any kind of liberation at all, and I think any claims as such are overstated at best, completely fallacious at worst. And definitely not comparable to the Buddha.
I don't think it's unfair. I don't think Marx's theories offer any kind of liberation at all, and I think any claims as such are overstated at best, completely fallacious at worst. And definitely not comparable to the Buddha.
I'm sorry you see it that way. I can understand not agreeing with Marx's ideas about the potential of socio-economic transformations to liberate human society from some of the negative aspects and byproducts of the capitalist mode of production, some of which are material and some of which are psychological; but to say that his conception of liberation is overstated/completely fallacious is a bit much, in my opinion.
For one, the very same charge can levelled against the Buddha, as it's just as easy to say that his ideas about complete freedom from suffering (a much grander claim, in my opinion) is overstated/completely fallacious. For example, some critics of Marx claim that human nature is inherently and irrevocably greedy, etc., which means that an economic transformation in which the exploitation, alienation, and commodity fetishism of the present system is gradually reduced and/or eliminated via a more socialized mode of production is impossible. Similarly, a critic of the Buddha could say the same, and claim that nibbana, the complete extinguishing of greed, hatred, and delusion (SN 38.1), is impossible.
The point I'm trying to make here is that, just because you disagree with an idea doesn't mean it's not rational, overstated, fallacious, etc. And some of the things you're saying about Marx can equally apply to the Buddha, but you don't seem to see that because you're favourably biased towards Buddhism and not Marx or his writings. I honestly can't say either is 100% correct, myself; but I find each to at least have emotional and rational arguments as to why they may be on the right track, as well as for the desirability of what their both pointing towards.
And with that, I think I'll step out of the discussion for a while to prevent simply repeating myself, and to also think about what you've said. It's my hope that you (or anybody else engaged in this conversation) will try to do likewise and consider what I've been saying as well, especially if you feel my statements purely emotive, irrational, and/or motivated by jealousy. I think you'll find them to be quite the opposite.
I think Rebecca was feed too much pro-capitalist propaganda. I was once an die-hard conservative who believe just hard work and earning capital will make you happy. Yet over the years I find out it's merely an delusion. I've exploited people for capital in my life and I decided not to do that again.
Short History: Started as an hardcore Neo-Conservative with the attribute of selfishness, but came to Buddhism which lead me to Marxism. Now I am an Democratic Socialist.
The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts provide an insight into the workings of a mind capable of Das Kapital – as such, they can be considered as say a work in progress or conceptualisation exercise – we do this all the time when we agree a common definition between ourselves for communication’s sake – the EPM seeks to do this for what was then a taboo subject.
One must consider the work a product of its time – to judge it from the perspective of the current first world economy is a fallacy – by that I mean that, in the main current working / living standards are not comparable to the depth of suffering and poverty suffered by the working and under-classes at that time – it is challenging to fully appreciate the mentality imposed to those classes in Marx’s time.
To glimpse the significance of this, I think one needs to look further back in history, unfortunately into unchartered pre-history - the story will be suitably seasoned with conjecture.
Human’s arrange their societies as complex extensions of ape society – there are many uncomfortable parallels – take a limited set of family groups living together in relative isolation - there is no need for money - all trade is insular in a contained market - the economy is a stark one, trading in ‘survival tokens’ – the respective positions of the people in the group is determined by their survival potential (both for themselves and for the group)… e.g. you don’t mess with someone with a higher survival potential than you, only with a lower one otherwise chances are you won't survive.
So an early economy seems to naturally drive humans to develop their gene pool – enabling us as a species to ‘conquer’ (and I use that term loosely) our environment above and beyond our animal counterparts.
Then comes cooperation between groups – how to grade survival potential? How do you determine which big man is the bigger? Here, it seems the propensity is to revert to the ‘law of the jungle’… war, death, destruction. It is survival potential in action! Not a set of circumstances that engender continuing, stable relations. Also, amongst many other considerations, fluid trade requires free movement of goods – how can I easily trade 20 pigs with someone else – it is difficult if I have to take the pigs everywhere with me – the logistics of it, what if they escape or are stolen etc etc…
In order for human society to flourish in concentrated numbers, a more abstract form of 'survival potential' was required - so was born the 'monetary standard' - linking the value of one universal object to all others by way of an agreed standard – so now, I don’t need to fight you to show you my survival potential – I can with a wave of my hand enlist a thousand people to fight for me – I no longer need to build a big house myself, with a wave of my hand it happens – gone in part is the disharmony caused by immediate conflict and jostle for the alpha position – but the alpha position remains, now ingrained in the institutions that support larger societies – those that support it, receive the favour of the alpha – the driver however is maintaining the alpha position within that structure - greater numbers mean greater power - the alpha gains in power as society grows - it is a driving force of cooperation..
So from its ‘genesis' to feudal tenure to capitalism – the status quo of the alpha position remains – it is clear from the distinction of 'old' and 'new' money - the spaces are ready to be filled by whoever can take them - the game is weighted towards those that already have it – the ultimate goal is to be the suppressor and not the suppressee – those are the consequences of the survival potential system.
With this broadly in mind, Marx’ struggle in my mind is put in better context - he is looking at the issue from the point of view of those in the system who have no hope of realising their own survival potential - that is to say that upon analysing the workings of the system he concluded that the benefit to these individuals (or class) in adhering to the survival system did not equate to (and was indeed inequitable detached from) the survival potential farmed from those individuals.
This was true in the context of its time – eventually heads began to roll.
Marxism’s greatest crime (proposed by Marxism and undertaken by communism) is in seeking to overturn the established capital system – in removing those at the top – this is an unforgivable crime - check out US policy against Cuba - does it even make sense anymore? The modern Islamic revolution is the same – it started in Iran with the elite being kicked out – unforgivable.
Money / capital itself is fascinating - the current system has abstracted money (as a number) so far away from the standard (say gold) that no-one really understand the layers in between - it is doubtful that the total sum of ‘cash’ swilling around the system accurately reflects the net survival potential position! Who could even begin to determine it? We all progress with hope nudging around the abyss of economic collapse – money is made from money, from potentials of money, from speculating… so many ways to pool survival potential in ever more abstract expressions - this has historically driven competition and development – one reason for the ‘Christian world’ overtaking the ‘Islamic world’ was that Islam forbade making money from money - this stagnated competition – it has also maintained and developed the alpha status – now, our alphas can destroy the entire world if they chose – they can spread their message for the farthest reaches of our world if they choose – the institutions are so ingrained that imagining life without them is impossible.
This does not mean they are equitable or the best thing for humanity’s development from this point forward.
I’ve tried to summarise some of the key areas but it doesn’t really come close to capturing it…
For me, Marx is a brilliant mind – he highlighted and provided a language to describe an inequity that is born of our very nature and has plagued and feed us through our development – I admire his ability to even attempt to liberate us from our inherent nature – to point it out to us so we can ourselves examine the contradictions. In this limited way (and I say limited so as not to offend anyone who sees the Buddha as something more than a human being as any other) I see parallels between his work and Buddha’s work. I can also see why the Dalai Lama may relate to Marxism or Marxist (inspired) economic philosophies – he has known oppression and speaks to the oppressed – it seems to me a well thought out and subtle statement of opposition to the global capitalist system (that is not to say necessary that capitalism is the adversary but rather the global system) where the ‘good guys’ are determined with reference to the established institutions and established modes of determining survival potential.
@D5C No, not really. I've sat on both sides of the fence at one time or another. While I may not be as intellectually advanced as some on this thread, my opinions are carefully considered and have been developed over time. I believe in capitalism. It's not perfect, but I've yet to see a better idea. Just because my opinion differs from yours, it doesn't mean I've "been fed too much propaganda" it simply means my opinion differs from yours and that is probably for a lot of reasons. But "fed too much propaganda"? No.
Maybe your problem wasn't capitalism, but that you've "exploited people for capital with an attitude of selfishness"? Capitalism didn't make you do that, that was your choice. Of course it didn't lead you to happiness.
@Jason, I don't think your statements are purely emotive or are driven by jealousy. It's just a pattern I've seen over time. It's not applicable to everyone.
"For one, the very same charge can levelled against the Buddha, as it's just as easy to say that his ideas about complete freedom from suffering (a much grander claim, in my opinion) is overstated/completely fallacious. For example, some critics of Marx claim that human nature is inherently and irrevocably greedy, etc., which means that an economic transformation in which the exploitation, alienation, and commodity fetishism of the present system is gradually reduced and/or eliminated via a more socialized mode of production is impossible."
I don't think that exactly, but I do think people would stop trying to create wealth (because they wouldn't see any of it, so why bother?) and so they system would ultimately collapse. I don't think it's sustainable long term.
"Similarly, a critic of the Buddha could say the same, and claim that nibbana, the complete extinguishing of greed, hatred, and delusion (SN 38.1), is impossible."
Maybe, but I just don't think they're really comparable.
I'd also like to point out that no one actually makes money - we give it to them. We may not like that they underpay their workers, and overpay their top dogs, but we continue to buy their stuff - so it's partly on us. Did Shaquille O'Neal pay himself? We bought those tickets. We want to see the game, but we don't want Shaquille to be a billionaire. In the moment, we suspend our distaste and any sense of responsibility in the matter - we buy the $75 ticket that helps him become a billionaire; we want to see the game.
I think it's perfectly legal for people to sell outrageously-priced tickets, and it's perfectly legal for us to be dumb enough to buy them; but it should be illegal to use the proceeds to deprive others of access to every inch of ocean.
@D5C No, not really. I've sat on both sides of the fence at one time or another. While I may not be as intellectually advanced as some on this thread, my opinions are carefully considered and have been developed over time. I believe in capitalism. It's not perfect, but I've yet to see a better idea. Just because my opinion differs from yours, it doesn't mean I've "been fed too much propaganda" it simply means my opinion differs from yours and that is probably for a lot of reasons. But "fed too much propaganda"? No.
Maybe your problem wasn't capitalism, but that you've "exploited people for capital with an attitude of selfishness"? Capitalism didn't make you do that, that was your choice. Of course it didn't lead you to happiness.
Capitalism is part of that. There is no altruistic value in capitalism. It is about the exploitation of others for capital. I used to work for a company called "Rent-A-Center." It a company that rents out electronics and furniture to people with little or no credit. Poor people will come to our store because they know their too poor to get a credit card. The customer wants a refrigerator. We will rent them the fridge until they pay off their payments. This is where the exploitation begins.
The fridge is the same brands you see at Home Depot. The big difference is the price. The fridge at Home Depot may cost $300, but at RAC the cash price is $600 and they have 90 days to pay that off until the real fun begins! We would rent to them for 20 dollars a week. You may find that is a small price, but wait again. They would have to pay that for 72 WEEKS. If the customer had done the full 72 weeks. The customer would pay $1,440 for that fridge and it would be officially theirs at 72 weeks. Also note most of my customers only make about $16,000-$22,000 a year. $1,440 is a huge chunck of their yearly income.
What happens if they can't pay it. I would have to repo them. I would go to their house and work places to harass them to make payments. Also I would call them 10-20 times a day. I would threaten their children by claiming if they don't give me the TV back their mommy & daddy would go to jail (BTW: We do use send customers to jail if they don't return items. We call the items stolen.) Why can we do this? We are not a debt collector and we don't follow the same laws.
Also at RAC we would exploit them in other ways. RAC had a payday loan in the side. Our customers would get a payday loan to PAY the RENT of the items! We just freaking doubled dipped on the poor by exploiting their situation!
Also I was exploited as well. I was getting paid well. 12 bucks an hour with 50 hour work weeks. Yet, the company exploited us by not letting us have our breaks or lunches due to the high demand. We are forced to eat while working and our boss would just manually punch us out for lunch while we are working. I destroyed my back at that job by forcing me to carry item which were too heavy. We were expected of us to carry things that required TWO people to carry. If we had any complaints about working conditions. We were told to shut up and deal with it because there are 100 people would love to go after my job. (I was working during the start of the great recession.) Also any mention of the "U" word was automatically termination. Also during the AG lawsuit against us. We were told to lie what we did to our customers to keep my job.
Rent-A-Center had shown me why Capitalism should be killed, but where was many other factor which lead me to Marxism as well.
Those "rent-a-center" type places are absolutely awful. You get no argument from me there
"Also at RAC we would exploit them in other ways. RAC had a payday loan in the side. Our customers would get a payday loan to PAY the RENT of the items! We just freaking doubled dipped on the poor by exploiting their situation!"
That stuff isn't cool... Payday loans and stuff. They're just really, really bad news.
And as for the people who work there - get another job. It's not complicated. I had to leave a job because their practices were unethical, and my husband had to leave two!
The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts provide an insight into the workings of a mind capable of Das Kapital – as such, they can be considered as say a work in progress or conceptualisation exercise – we do this all the time when we agree a common definition between ourselves for communication’s sake – the EPM seeks to do this for what was then a taboo subject.
One must consider the work a product of its time – to judge it from the perspective of the current first world economy is a fallacy – by that I mean that, in the main current working / living standards are not comparable to the depth of suffering and poverty suffered by the working and under-classes at that time – it is challenging to fully appreciate the mentality imposed to those classes in Marx’s time.
To glimpse the significance of this, I think one needs to look further back in history, unfortunately into unchartered pre-history - the story will be suitably seasoned with conjecture.
Human’s arrange their societies as complex extensions of ape society – there are many uncomfortable parallels – take a limited set of family groups living together in relative isolation - there is no need for money - all trade is insular in a contained market - the economy is a stark one, trading in ‘survival tokens’ – the respective positions of the people in the group is determined by their survival potential (both for themselves and for the group)… e.g. you don’t mess with someone with a higher survival potential than you, only with a lower one otherwise chances are you won't survive.
So an early economy seems to naturally drive humans to develop their gene pool – enabling us as a species to ‘conquer’ (and I use that term loosely) our environment above and beyond our animal counterparts.
Then comes cooperation between groups – how to grade survival potential? How do you determine which big man is the bigger? Here, it seems the propensity is to revert to the ‘law of the jungle’… war, death, destruction. It is survival potential in action! Not a set of circumstances that engender continuing, stable relations. Also, amongst many other considerations, fluid trade requires free movement of goods – how can I easily trade 20 pigs with someone else – it is difficult if I have to take the pigs everywhere with me – the logistics of it, what if they escape or are stolen etc etc…
In order for human society to flourish in concentrated numbers, a more abstract form of 'survival potential' was required - so was born the 'monetary standard' - linking the value of one universal object to all others by way of an agreed standard – so now, I don’t need to fight you to show you my survival potential – I can with a wave of my hand enlist a thousand people to fight for me – I no longer need to build a big house myself, with a wave of my hand it happens – gone in part is the disharmony caused by immediate conflict and jostle for the alpha position – but the alpha position remains, now ingrained in the institutions that support larger societies – those that support it, receive the favour of the alpha – the driver however is maintaining the alpha position within that structure - greater numbers mean greater power - the alpha gains in power as society grows - it is a driving force of cooperation..
So from its ‘genesis' to feudal tenure to capitalism – the status quo of the alpha position remains – it is clear from the distinction of 'old' and 'new' money - the spaces are ready to be filled by whoever can take them - the game is weighted towards those that already have it – the ultimate goal is to be the suppressor and not the suppressee – those are the consequences of the survival potential system.
With this broadly in mind, Marx’ struggle in my mind is put in better context - he is looking at the issue from the point of view of those in the system who have no hope of realising their own survival potential - that is to say that upon analysing the workings of the system he concluded that the benefit to these individuals (or class) in adhering to the survival system did not equate to (and was indeed inequitable detached from) the survival potential farmed from those individuals.
This was true in the context of its time – eventually heads began to roll.
Marxism’s greatest crime (proposed by Marxism and undertaken by communism) is in seeking to overturn the established capital system – in removing those at the top – this is an unforgivable crime - check out US policy against Cuba - does it even make sense anymore? The modern Islamic revolution is the same – it started in Iran with the elite being kicked out – unforgivable.
Money / capital itself is fascinating - the current system has abstracted money (as a number) so far away from the standard (say gold) that no-one really understand the layers in between - it is doubtful that the total sum of ‘cash’ swilling around the system accurately reflects the net survival potential position! Who could even begin to determine it? We all progress with hope nudging around the abyss of economic collapse – money is made from money, from potentials of money, from speculating… so many ways to pool survival potential in ever more abstract expressions - this has historically driven competition and development – one reason for the ‘Christian world’ overtaking the ‘Islamic world’ was that Islam forbade making money from money - this stagnated competition – it has also maintained and developed the alpha status – now, our alphas can destroy the entire world if they chose – they can spread their message for the farthest reaches of our world if they choose – the institutions are so ingrained that imagining life without them is impossible.
This does not mean they are equitable or the best thing for humanity’s development from this point forward.
I’ve tried to summarise some of the key areas but it doesn’t really come close to capturing it…
For me, Marx is a brilliant mind – he highlighted and provided a language to describe an inequity that is born of our very nature and has plagued and feed us through our development – I admire his ability to even attempt to liberate us from our inherent nature – to point it out to us so we can ourselves examine the contradictions. In this limited way (and I say limited so as not to offend anyone who sees the Buddha as something more than a human being as any other) I see parallels between his work and Buddha’s work. I can also see why the Dalai Lama may relate to Marxism or Marxist (inspired) economic philosophies – he has known oppression and speaks to the oppressed – it seems to me a well thought out and subtle statement of opposition to the global capitalist system (that is not to say necessary that capitalism is the adversary but rather the global system) where the ‘good guys’ are determined with reference to the established institutions and established modes of determining survival potential.
@Zero, this is utterly fascinating - sent it to my hubby who is very much into economics, and he really appreciated your post, too.
There's an example I like to think of when wrestling with the freedom/responsibility thing - ambulances.
Under pure capitalism, it would be acceptable to have completely unregulated ambulance operations. There would be no ambulance that would pick you up without a fee, paid on the spot, for as much as they chose to charge. The injured party would be totally at the mercy of whichever ambulance made it there first. No law would encourage the ambulance driver to pick you up, save your life, and trust you to pay later. Because your only choice is death or more severe injury, you would have to either pay or be left there to die.
Why isn't that allowed in capitalist societies? What is it about life or death situations that makes us bend capitalism towards socialism? As capitalists, do we have an economic justification?
But Canada's "free" healthcare system sucks. It sucks in the UK, too, but at least in the UK you have the option to go private - that capitalist system that results in better healthcare.
I pay for my own healthcare right now, and pretty soon I'll be buying American insurance so I can see American doctors because their system is simply better.
But maybe I've broadened your point too far and gone a little off topic.
And as for the people who work there - get another job. It's not complicated. I had to leave a job because their practices were unethical, and my husband had to leave two!
Really? Leave a job that supports my family with $30,000 a year at the start of the Great Recession when everybody else is terminating people left and right?
Three years later I was terminated from RAC and now I am stuck making only $17,000.
Ouch. I understand it's not always that simple, but those kind of situations don't last forever. I mean more that staying put doesn't have to be for life. Obviously supporting your family has to be first priority.
I think Rebecca was feed too much pro-capitalist propaganda. I was once an die-hard conservative who believe just hard work and earning capital will make you happy. Yet over the years I find out it's merely an delusion. I've exploited people for capital in my life and I decided not to do that again.
Short History: Started as an hardcore Neo-Conservative with the attribute of selfishness, but came to Buddhism which lead me to Marxism. Now I am an Democratic Socialist.
Sounds like me. I used to be a conservative, Bush suppoter type when I was younger.
But Canada's "free" healthcare system sucks. It sucks in the UK, too, but at least in the UK you have the option to go private - that capitalist system that results in better healthcare.
I pay for my own healthcare right now, and pretty soon I'll be buying American insurance so I can see American doctors because their system is simply better.
But maybe I've broadened your point too far and gone a little off topic.
Do you have any evidence to back your claim up, because I can find plenty of anecdotal evidence in support of both Canada and the UK's system. In fact here is some right now, when the politicians in the UK talked about going to a U.S. style system the people made it very clear they didn't want to go that route and the Tories backed off. Oh, and it's great that you can afford better healthcare, but that does nothing for 45,000 (according to a study by Harvard) people who die in the U.S. every year because that can't afford healthcare. America's healthcare is great if you can afford, if not then you are in trouble.
@white_wolf said...".America's healthcare is great if you can afford, if not then you are in trouble. "
To add insult to injury, if you do have the 'good' stuff of insurance, you are in trouble. Because of my job, I have top of the line insurance here in good old USA, and as soon as the HMO's see my card, they light up, and try to make everyone in my family sick. lololololol My experience. Pills, sick notes, tests, teatments, you name it, they try to give it to me. I can never have intelligent conversations about the medical/ science of my body because the Dr's are looking at me like the next lottery ticket. Some have said it out loud, in fact. They are constantly trying to sell me 'services' that people need. Breaks my heart, sometimes.
@white_wolf 20+ years of British healthcare and 2 years of Canadian healthcare is my evidence for how much they suck.
Canada is the worst because there isn't an option for private healthcare even if you want it - why we'll be getting US insurance.
That is purely anecdotal, like I said I can find anecdotal evidence in the other direction and as the push back against privatization in the UK showed the majority of people don't share you view. It is purely your opinion and I can find opinions against yours and I have cited studies that highlight the problems in the U.S. healthcare system. I can cite others as well according to the UN's World Health Organization the U.S. ranks 37th in quality of care. Canada is 30th, the UK is 18th.
So what? I never said I was stating anything but an opinion
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited August 2012
I'm late to this discussion and skipped over most of the second page but just wanted to add my two cents. Here's a little copy and paste from and old thread of mine on income inequality.
Less than one tenth of one percent of our population is holding a sum of wealth approaching three times the size of the US economy that is anticipated to more than double within the next decade, the earnings on which does not contribute to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And the wealthiest in America quintupled their income during the heart of the Great Recession. To propose cuts to food stamps and unemployment benefits for the victims of the Great Recession during a time of increasing poverty and poverty-related deaths, without shared sacrifice at the top, represents nothing less than a moral crisis for our country.
...
Warren Buffet, the second wealthiest individual in America behind Bill Gates (ref), has advocated over the past several years to raise taxes on the wealthiest of Americans. Using himself as an example, he paid 17.4% on his taxable income last year (around $40 million), a lower level than any of the other 20 individuals in his office (range 33% to 41%, average 36%). The reason for this is that the “mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of the earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class; typically they fall into the 15% and 25% income brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot” (ref).
...
Mr. Buffett is right when he said in 2006: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning”
...
Retaining Tax Benefits for the Wealthiest While Cutting Safety Nets: A Few Other Statistics (ref) •The richest 400 Americans hold more wealth than 154 million Americans, half the US population. They paid 30% of their income in taxes in 1995, but only 18% now. •The average millionaire saves $136,000/year due to reduced taxes, a sum greater than the highest income level in the lower 80% of America (and, by definition, there are no taxes paid on those savings). •One percent of America holds 40% of this country’s wealth, more than the lower 90% of America combined, and holds almost half of all investment assets that produce income at lower tax rates without payroll taxes that contribute to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. •Between 1975-2010, income of the top 0.1% of income earners quadrupled and for the top 0.01% quintupled. During this same time period worker productivity increased 80%, and yet the income shift has resulted in a shortfall of $400/week for the typical American family. •From 2009 – Q4 2010, 88% of income growth went to corporate profits (i.e. CEOs) while just 1% went to workers.
There's a lot of good charts and graphs and many other well reasoned arguments in the article.
---
One argument that we often hear from the right is that of equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome. I think that this is a false choice. No one wants to take all the money away from wealthy people and spread it out so that everyone makes the same amount of money. What we are talking about is maintaining a society where a child from a lower income home has the opportunity to get a quality education and secure a stable life for themselves. As it is right now a child is much better off being born into a wealthy family that can afford a prestigious primary and secondary education than a child is being born smart and ambitious to a poor family. This is more of an aristocracy than a meritocracy. All I want is to see a country where an individual can reasonably expect to house and feed themselves and their families with hard work and effort. When %1 of the population owns %50 of the wealth education and infrastructure for the rest suffers.
Regarding socialism though the biggest problem I see with it is the issue of wealth creation. The point of a business owner taking profits above what the workers produce is that the owner is the one taking the risk and making the capital investments to create the business and opportunity for work/wealth in the first place. The potential for making a healthy chunk of change is a key motivating factor in starting a new business or developing a new product/technique. I don't see a collection of workers being able to make many innovative or risky choices.
As I hope my opening copy and paste shows I'm not really enamored with our current capitalist system either. To me the true path forward is a mixed economy, adhering to one ideology or another doesn't work. The current problem with a mixed economy is that conditions are always changing and therefore require an adaptive regulation and taxation strategy. With the current state of politics that really isn't possible.
Personally I'm kind of done with most political and policy disscussion until the political process can correct itself, the only things that I put my mental energy into nowdays are issues of good governance and campaign financing.
Regarding HHDL's interest in Marxism. He generally makes it clear that while supporting the general philosophy he rejects the notion of class warfare and violent revolution.
The Principles of Socialism are a good idea its just applying them in a workable method so as to better your people and support everyone's welfare. Market Socialism is a good Idea but needs refining.
In short nothing is perfect and Samsara is difficult and If you want to make a temporary political difference it must be infused with wisdom and compassion for your nation.
In talking about capitalism, whether positively or critically, is should be noted that capital ≠ money in and of itself. Capital is primarily a social relation of production, a process in which money is taken to produce commodities (e.g., goods, services, etc.) that can be sold for a profit. David Harvey just released a new video that gives a fairly simple yet decent overview of the nature of capital, explaining how money is transformed into capital through this process, pointing out where/why crises (aka., contradictions within capitalism) can arise, illustrating how the dynamics of this process tend to put labour into a subservient position under capital, which in turn is able to accumulate more money, capital, and social power (especially when money = social power) at a compound rate of growth under the capitalist mode of production. Worth a listen if you have a spare 10 minutes.
Comments
Wealth inequality... It's just buzzwords. It doesn't actually mean anything.
Superficially it means that some people are more wealthy than others. That in itself isn't a problem at all. On a deeper level, well, there isn't a deeper level. The term is essentially meaningless.
It doesn't mean we can't do anything to help people, it just means we can't force others to shoulder a burden that doesn't really belong to them. It's not their fault people are poor. If you're not charitable by choice but by force, you're just doing community service - a sentence, a punishment. Does that mean we stop helping? No. It just means that we don't force anyone else to do anything.
And he's actually incredibly charitable. If I remember correctly most of his wealth has been willed to charitable causes. He knows he won't spend all of his money, and is donating it accordingly.
I remember when Stephen King said "I don't care, I have plenty, go ahead and tax me more" which is a nice sentiment, but there's no need to tax him more, or tax any other wealthy person more (although they do have higher taxes) because they can just take that excess and write a check any time they feel like it. It's up to them
Granted, you might be more in line with the libertarian viewpoint that wealth is the property of the individual and he has a right to the fruit of his labor, but I've never found that argument very compelling and I think the flaws of capitalism, especially as practiced in the U.S., are becoming more and more apparent and the the system is in need of major reform, if not a complete replacement.
Yes, some rich people (like George Romney) primarily inherited their wealth, while others started with little or nothing and were self-made men. But, that's life, and do you really want to have a principle where you cannot pass your property on to your children when you die?
Another poster wanted to place the blame on capitalism. There are people in virtually all countries -- all along the scale of economic systems -- who are rich and others who are poor.
And then there's personal ambition. My sister used to be jealous because (to her) I was rich and she was poor. But let's see. I went to university for 6 years, mostly by working part time at a grocery store. She was too lazy to finish high school...dropped out 2 months before graduation because she was "bored". I worked more hours in a single year than see worked in her entire life. So I had a nice townhouse, based on a salary of up to $120,000 a year, while she lived in a shack with no working toilet based on earnings of $0 most years...she lived off a druggie. Then there's my nephew, who also sees the unfairness of capitalism. Of course, the reason he's poor is because he went to prison for 2 years (I think due to dealing drugs) and now can't get or hold a job.
Should there be a safety net? Of course. And lots of opportunities for advancement. But some of you are talking about some drastic redistribution of wealth based on...nothing but your concept that there is unfairness...and you don't really at look at why the inequality exists.
"Should there be a safety net? Of course. And lots of opportunities for advancement. But some of you are talking about some drastic redistribution of wealth based on...nothing but your concept that there is unfairness...and you don't really at look at why the inequality exists."
And Jason, you don't know me, either. None of us knows each other. So, perhaps you should also stop making judgments about all those who you feel don't share your personal viewpoint.
I didn't say you're a "jealous loser". What I said was, "I think some of the viewpoints here are too simple and superficial...[and] are more about jealousy than anything else." It wasn't even in response to any post of yours.
We want to improve things, but things that don't really exist like "wealth inequality" don't really deserve to be looked at. It's not actually a problem, it's just buzzwords designed to elicit an emotive response rather than a rational one.
I've met plenty of highly intelligent, intellectual and passionate Marxist types, but few rational ones.
Victim/perpetrator is a very naive and classically childlike perspective. As we mature and see that everyone is responsible for their own actions, we see that victim/perpetrator is actually a fictional perception.
Obviously this isn't a blanket statement and we can see there are instances where this is not the case (abuse for example) but when it comes to things like wealth and poverty, we see that the victim/perpetrator viewpoint more often than not has no basis in reality and is simply not applicable.
It's simply something designed to elicit an emotional response rather than a rational one, and I see this all the time when debating with people with Marxist leanings. Lots of attempts to provoke emotions like pity and guilt, to bypass the rational center of the brain. Obviously, there needs to be a little of both (compassion and rationality) but I rarely see the rational side of these conversations.
And I'm not just talking about this thread or pointing any fingers, I'm talking about a lot of past experience as a political activist who has been on both sides of the Marxist school of thought.
@Jason, I'm not saying your a Marxist, as far as I'm aware you haven't indicated at all your political/ideological preferences.
I'm drawing on a lot of past experience, not just this thread and it's not to be taken personally I assure you. I'm not accusing you of anything.
There are examples in American history where discrimination against one or another groups of people have forced them into poverty...and when I say American history, I am talking about history within my lifetime. For example, inherent discrimination against Black people in nearly every aspect of American life, including -- perhaps most importantly to this issue -- the inability to get a good education or be hired for significant jobs. And that deserved national action...which eventually took place. Even today, the way American Indians are treated and the mere existence of the reservation system -- one of the great unaddressed issues of our nation. The fact that in the 1960s there was still a dearth of passable roads and decent schools in Appalachia, and eventually that was addressed.
But then there are the other reasons for being poor...including making bad (or even stupid) life choices. At one point my mother had 2 choices, work as a secretary for a chiropractor (set salary, no benefits at all) OR a secretarial position in a school (roughly the same salary, health insurance paid for by the school system, pension benefits). Her choice -- the job with no benefits. And later she paid a great price for that.
In the Marxist sense, at least, exploitation refers to the worker's lack of ownership and/or distributive control over the surplus created by their labour. (That's why Marx defined slavery, feudalism, and capitalism as exploitative systems of production, i.e., in each, the producers/workers have no ownership and/or distributive control over the surplus created by their labour). In this sense, exploitation is an inherent part of the capitalist mode of production, which in turn, ties into Marx's theory of alienation. It's rather complicated, and I don't fully understand everything Marx wrote on the subject as much of it is very abstract, but in short, exploitation is the idea that the capitalist profits far more from a worker's labour than the worker does, and it doesn't really matter whether it's voluntary or not. Moreover, this type of social relationship ultimate debases labour and impedes our positive development as a species.
Adam Smith et al. assumed that labour creates wealth (surplus value). But according to Marx, in a capitalist system, labour itself becomes a commodity, an object that's bought and sold on the market. Moreover, due to private ownership of the means of production, the product of the worker's labour doesn’t legally belong to them (alienation), nor does the surplus value their labour creates (unpaid labour), which is kept by the capitalist.
Consequently, the product of the worker's labour becomes a commodity that's divorced from the labour expended on its production, thereby obscuring the social relationship between producer and consumer (commodity fetishism). Furthermore, the employer has the ability to increase their profit exponentially by reinvesting the surplus value extracted from the worker's labour into their company while the labourer is forced to spend their (more often than not) meager wages on the necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, etc.
For Marx, our ability to produce things, especially our means of subsistence, is what sets us apart from other animals. In his view, this ability to produce objects is a part of our essence as a human being. Put another way, Marx viewed human beings as productive creatures that, in the words of Jonathan Wolff, "are able to create according to our will and consciousness in a very elaborate way."
But, as Wolff continues, "workers under capitalism, Marx thinks, very rarely have the opportunity to express these powers. So, Marx says, from a human being, the worker is reduced to an abstract activity and a stomach. So rather than being a human being able to express our essence, we are like little machines ourselves." And I think understanding this point of view is integral to understanding an important part of Marx's critique of production under the capitalist system, which he argues not only estranges and alienates the worker's relationship to the products of their labour, but estranges and alienates the worker's relationship to the act of production itself.
As Marx wrote in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, under the capitalist system of production, the worker's labour becomes "external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind." As a consequence, the worker "only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor."
And when viewed from this perspective, it may become easier to understand why Marx saw labour within the context of capitalism as something debasing, particularly for the worker, and why it's ultimately an impediment to achieving self-realization as a species in the sense of resolving "the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species" that's characterized by the "positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement."
From an ethical standpoint, this inherently disparate relationship between capital and labour reminds me of a line from a letter written by Abigail Adams in the spring of 1776 to her husband: "I have sometimes been ready to think that the passion for liberty cannot be equally strong in the breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow-creatures of theirs [referring to slave-holding Virginians]. Of this I am certain, that it is not founded upon that generous and Christian principle of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us." And I think the same sentiment can easily be applied to capital in relation to the wage labourer, at least in the sense of how the latter is coerced under the capitalist mode of production to surrender their labour-power to the former in exchange for their means of subsistence, which is always less than what they actually produce, as well as all rights over the product of their labour.
In essence, from one point of view, both slavery and wage labour can be seen to infringe upon individual autonomy in their respective ways, with former more obviously so, but the latter no less potentially oppressive from the standpoint of labour. As Frederick Engels wrote in The Principles of Communism, "The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master's interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence."
Moreover, the logic of the system, via what Marx termed the 'coercive laws of competition,' forces the hand of capital to exploit labour as much as it can; and at the same time, labour is coerced into the position of working for a wage and fighting for gains that capital quickly counter in an endless struggle punctuated by regular economic crises (these days better known as the 'business cycle'), creating continuous class antagonisms between capital and labour.
Hence much of what's historically been labelled as Marxism and/or socialism has been a search for practical as well as philosophical resolutions to these issues, which isn't to be found in things like equality of wealth or outcomes so much as the de-privatization (i.e., socialization) of opportunity and the weakening of class antagonisms and hierarchies arising out of social relations unique to capitalism and other predominately exploitative systems. As Marx wrote in The Poverty of Philosophy, "Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations. The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist."
And Marx's focus, along with socialist movements in general, is in attempting to answer the question of how to liberate society from suffering and alienation by changing the material conditions that support it. In the words of Erich Fromm, "[Marx's] concept of socialism is the emancipation from alienation, the return of man to himself, his self-realization," a goal that's ultimately achievable via "the liberation of man from a kind of work which destroys his individuality, which transforms him into a thing, and which makes him into the slave of things."
You may disagree with this, of course, and some of it may be rather philosophical and abstract; but I don't think it's irrational or simply appealing to emotion.
As for poor decisions, we can all see this in our personal lives. I didn't go to university and when I go back to work I'll be earning minimum wage and saving up for tuition so I can go to school. It will be difficult and I won't be doing my ideal job for years to come. That's the result of my desicion.
My husband worked hard and spent years in school, and now at 28 he's earning the kind of salary most people wouldn't see their entire lives, and it's only going to go up. That's the result of his decision then, and his continuing commitment to working hard and improving his skills.
When we view poor people as individuals rather than as a collective, we start to see a pattern of poor choices, not oppression.
"[Marx's] concept of socialism is the emancipation from alienation, the return of man to himself, his self-realization," a goal that's ultimately achievable via "the liberation of man from a kind of work which destroys his individuality, which transforms him into a thing, and which makes him into the slave of things."
These are all very emotive sentiments. "freedom" "emancipation from alienation" "liberation" "destroys" "transforms" "slave".
These are all words and ideas that elicit a purely emotional response. It's very seductive, but not particularly rational.
It makes me think of Hitler's speeches. Highly passionate and emotional, devoid of meaningful substance. Using language that stirs the heart, but bypasses the head entirely. Propaganda.
We should never try to take away someone's opportunity to learn true self worth by bailing them out. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be there when they're ready for help, but that is THE key factor here. When THEY are ready for help, not when we decided they're ready for it.
When they're taking steps to improve their circumstances, we lend them a hand. But if they're just sitting in a hole waiting for us to climb down and carry them out, we're not doing them or ourselves any favors.
Sure, homelessness isn't a black and white issue, absolutely not, but trying to help people who simply don't want it is wasting valuable resources, and possibly taking from them a priceless opportunity for growth.
It's a key thing that kind hearted and well intentioned people often miss - most of them like taking advantage of the system and will not take responsibility for themselves. They don't want to. They don't care. Again, not applicable to all, but to a surprising majority.
Sure, they'll bitch and whine and bemoan the system for being so unfair, but they won't actually do anything for themselves.
Just like massacring Jews won't change anything about people or their nature, nor will changing modes of production. It just doesn't make any sense.
It's like me saying "I'm going to take a class in biology for one semester and then I will be the greatest doctor in all of the world and win all the nobel prizes and cure sickness forever!" It doesn't add up.
Sure emotive language has its place, but it's got to make sense within the context of the subject.
If talking about true liberation then, well, yeah, you gotta talk about liberation.
But some access to a desicion making process? Nah. That's not liberation or self realization, not by a long shot.
I think the example of public land applies. If there were no regulation, rich people could buy up literally every inch of beachfront and either block it off entirely, or charge an admission fee so high that only rich people could afford to visit the beach. No American child below a certain income would ever see an American ocean. Would this be fair? By the simple rules of capitalism, yes, but even (many) staunch Republican capitalists I know feel that some public lands are important. Very sticky issues.
I don't think it's unfair. I don't think Marx's theories offer any kind of liberation at all, and I think any claims as such are overstated at best, completely fallacious at worst. And definitely not comparable to the Buddha.
For one, the very same charge can levelled against the Buddha, as it's just as easy to say that his ideas about complete freedom from suffering (a much grander claim, in my opinion) is overstated/completely fallacious. For example, some critics of Marx claim that human nature is inherently and irrevocably greedy, etc., which means that an economic transformation in which the exploitation, alienation, and commodity fetishism of the present system is gradually reduced and/or eliminated via a more socialized mode of production is impossible. Similarly, a critic of the Buddha could say the same, and claim that nibbana, the complete extinguishing of greed, hatred, and delusion (SN 38.1), is impossible.
The point I'm trying to make here is that, just because you disagree with an idea doesn't mean it's not rational, overstated, fallacious, etc. And some of the things you're saying about Marx can equally apply to the Buddha, but you don't seem to see that because you're favourably biased towards Buddhism and not Marx or his writings. I honestly can't say either is 100% correct, myself; but I find each to at least have emotional and rational arguments as to why they may be on the right track, as well as for the desirability of what their both pointing towards.
And with that, I think I'll step out of the discussion for a while to prevent simply repeating myself, and to also think about what you've said. It's my hope that you (or anybody else engaged in this conversation) will try to do likewise and consider what I've been saying as well, especially if you feel my statements purely emotive, irrational, and/or motivated by jealousy. I think you'll find them to be quite the opposite.
Short History:
Started as an hardcore Neo-Conservative with the attribute of selfishness, but came to Buddhism which lead me to Marxism. Now I am an Democratic Socialist.
One must consider the work a product of its time – to judge it from the perspective of the current first world economy is a fallacy – by that I mean that, in the main current working / living standards are not comparable to the depth of suffering and poverty suffered by the working and under-classes at that time – it is challenging to fully appreciate the mentality imposed to those classes in Marx’s time.
To glimpse the significance of this, I think one needs to look further back in history, unfortunately into unchartered pre-history - the story will be suitably seasoned with conjecture.
Human’s arrange their societies as complex extensions of ape society – there are many uncomfortable parallels – take a limited set of family groups living together in relative isolation - there is no need for money - all trade is insular in a contained market - the economy is a stark one, trading in ‘survival tokens’ – the respective positions of the people in the group is determined by their survival potential (both for themselves and for the group)… e.g. you don’t mess with someone with a higher survival potential than you, only with a lower one otherwise chances are you won't survive.
So an early economy seems to naturally drive humans to develop their gene pool – enabling us as a species to ‘conquer’ (and I use that term loosely) our environment above and beyond our animal counterparts.
Then comes cooperation between groups – how to grade survival potential? How do you determine which big man is the bigger? Here, it seems the propensity is to revert to the ‘law of the jungle’… war, death, destruction. It is survival potential in action! Not a set of circumstances that engender continuing, stable relations.
Also, amongst many other considerations, fluid trade requires free movement of goods – how can I easily trade 20 pigs with someone else – it is difficult if I have to take the pigs everywhere with me – the logistics of it, what if they escape or are stolen etc etc…
In order for human society to flourish in concentrated numbers, a more abstract form of 'survival potential' was required - so was born the 'monetary standard' - linking the value of one universal object to all others by way of an agreed standard – so now, I don’t need to fight you to show you my survival potential – I can with a wave of my hand enlist a thousand people to fight for me – I no longer need to build a big house myself, with a wave of my hand it happens – gone in part is the disharmony caused by immediate conflict and jostle for the alpha position – but the alpha position remains, now ingrained in the institutions that support larger societies – those that support it, receive the favour of the alpha – the driver however is maintaining the alpha position within that structure - greater numbers mean greater power - the alpha gains in power as society grows - it is a driving force of cooperation..
So from its ‘genesis' to feudal tenure to capitalism – the status quo of the alpha position remains – it is clear from the distinction of 'old' and 'new' money - the spaces are ready to be filled by whoever can take them - the game is weighted towards those that already have it – the ultimate goal is to be the suppressor and not the suppressee – those are the consequences of the survival potential system.
With this broadly in mind, Marx’ struggle in my mind is put in better context - he is looking at the issue from the point of view of those in the system who have no hope of realising their own survival potential - that is to say that upon analysing the workings of the system he concluded that the benefit to these individuals (or class) in adhering to the survival system did not equate to (and was indeed inequitable detached from) the survival potential farmed from those individuals.
This was true in the context of its time – eventually heads began to roll.
Marxism’s greatest crime (proposed by Marxism and undertaken by communism) is in seeking to overturn the established capital system – in removing those at the top – this is an unforgivable crime - check out US policy against Cuba - does it even make sense anymore? The modern Islamic revolution is the same – it started in Iran with the elite being kicked out – unforgivable.
Money / capital itself is fascinating - the current system has abstracted money (as a number) so far away from the standard (say gold) that no-one really understand the layers in between - it is doubtful that the total sum of ‘cash’ swilling around the system accurately reflects the net survival potential position! Who could even begin to determine it? We all progress with hope nudging around the abyss of economic collapse – money is made from money, from potentials of money, from speculating… so many ways to pool survival potential in ever more abstract expressions - this has historically driven competition and development – one reason for the ‘Christian world’ overtaking the ‘Islamic world’ was that Islam forbade making money from money - this stagnated competition – it has also maintained and developed the alpha status – now, our alphas can destroy the entire world if they chose – they can spread their message for the farthest reaches of our world if they choose – the institutions are so ingrained that imagining life without them is impossible.
This does not mean they are equitable or the best thing for humanity’s development from this point forward.
I’ve tried to summarise some of the key areas but it doesn’t really come close to capturing it…
For me, Marx is a brilliant mind – he highlighted and provided a language to describe an inequity that is born of our very nature and has plagued and feed us through our development – I admire his ability to even attempt to liberate us from our inherent nature – to point it out to us so we can ourselves examine the contradictions.
In this limited way (and I say limited so as not to offend anyone who sees the Buddha as something more than a human being as any other) I see parallels between his work and Buddha’s work. I can also see why the Dalai Lama may relate to Marxism or Marxist (inspired) economic philosophies – he has known oppression and speaks to the oppressed – it seems to me a well thought out and subtle statement of opposition to the global capitalist system (that is not to say necessary that capitalism is the adversary but rather the global system) where the ‘good guys’ are determined with reference to the established institutions and established modes of determining survival potential.
Maybe your problem wasn't capitalism, but that you've "exploited people for capital with an attitude of selfishness"? Capitalism didn't make you do that, that was your choice. Of course it didn't lead you to happiness.
"For one, the very same charge can levelled against the Buddha, as it's just as easy to say that his ideas about complete freedom from suffering (a much grander claim, in my opinion) is overstated/completely fallacious. For example, some critics of Marx claim that human nature is inherently and irrevocably greedy, etc., which means that an economic transformation in which the exploitation, alienation, and commodity fetishism of the present system is gradually reduced and/or eliminated via a more socialized mode of production is impossible."
I don't think that exactly, but I do think people would stop trying to create wealth (because they wouldn't see any of it, so why bother?) and so they system would ultimately collapse. I don't think it's sustainable long term.
"Similarly, a critic of the Buddha could say the same, and claim that nibbana, the complete extinguishing of greed, hatred, and delusion (SN 38.1), is impossible."
Maybe, but I just don't think they're really comparable.
I think it's perfectly legal for people to sell outrageously-priced tickets, and it's perfectly legal for us to be dumb enough to buy them; but it should be illegal to use the proceeds to deprive others of access to every inch of ocean.
Capitalism is part of that. There is no altruistic value in capitalism. It is about the exploitation of others for capital. I used to work for a company called "Rent-A-Center." It a company that rents out electronics and furniture to people with little or no credit. Poor people will come to our store because they know their too poor to get a credit card. The customer wants a refrigerator. We will rent them the fridge until they pay off their payments. This is where the exploitation begins.
The fridge is the same brands you see at Home Depot. The big difference is the price. The fridge at Home Depot may cost $300, but at RAC the cash price is $600 and they have 90 days to pay that off until the real fun begins! We would rent to them for 20 dollars a week. You may find that is a small price, but wait again. They would have to pay that for 72 WEEKS. If the customer had done the full 72 weeks. The customer would pay $1,440 for that fridge and it would be officially theirs at 72 weeks. Also note most of my customers only make about $16,000-$22,000 a year. $1,440 is a huge chunck of their yearly income.
What happens if they can't pay it. I would have to repo them. I would go to their house and work places to harass them to make payments. Also I would call them 10-20 times a day. I would threaten their children by claiming if they don't give me the TV back their mommy & daddy would go to jail (BTW: We do use send customers to jail if they don't return items. We call the items stolen.) Why can we do this? We are not a debt collector and we don't follow the same laws.
Also at RAC we would exploit them in other ways. RAC had a payday loan in the side. Our customers would get a payday loan to PAY the RENT of the items! We just freaking doubled dipped on the poor by exploiting their situation!
Also I was exploited as well. I was getting paid well. 12 bucks an hour with 50 hour work weeks. Yet, the company exploited us by not letting us have our breaks or lunches due to the high demand. We are forced to eat while working and our boss would just manually punch us out for lunch while we are working. I destroyed my back at that job by forcing me to carry item which were too heavy. We were expected of us to carry things that required TWO people to carry. If we had any complaints about working conditions. We were told to shut up and deal with it because there are 100 people would love to go after my job. (I was working during the start of the great recession.) Also any mention of the "U" word was automatically termination. Also during the AG lawsuit against us. We were told to lie what we did to our customers to keep my job.
Rent-A-Center had shown me why Capitalism should be killed, but where was many other factor which lead me to Marxism as well.
"Also at RAC we would exploit them in other ways. RAC had a payday loan in the side. Our customers would get a payday loan to PAY the RENT of the items! We just freaking doubled dipped on the poor by exploiting their situation!"
That stuff isn't cool... Payday loans and stuff. They're just really, really bad news.
And as for the people who work there - get another job. It's not complicated. I had to leave a job because their practices were unethical, and my husband had to leave two!
Under pure capitalism, it would be acceptable to have completely unregulated ambulance operations. There would be no ambulance that would pick you up without a fee, paid on the spot, for as much as they chose to charge. The injured party would be totally at the mercy of whichever ambulance made it there first. No law would encourage the ambulance driver to pick you up, save your life, and trust you to pay later. Because your only choice is death or more severe injury, you would have to either pay or be left there to die.
Why isn't that allowed in capitalist societies? What is it about life or death situations that makes us bend capitalism towards socialism? As capitalists, do we have an economic justification?
I pay for my own healthcare right now, and pretty soon I'll be buying American insurance so I can see American doctors because their system is simply better.
But maybe I've broadened your point too far and gone a little off topic.
Three years later I was terminated from RAC and now I am stuck making only $17,000.
Here is the article: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
Sorry I don't know why it quoted B5C, I meant to write a reply to him but never finished it. I'm not sure why it combined both of these into one post.
if not then you are in trouble. "
To add insult to injury, if you do have the 'good' stuff of insurance,
you are in trouble. Because of my job, I have top of the line insurance
here in good old USA, and as soon as the HMO's see my card, they light
up, and try to make everyone in my family sick. lololololol
My experience. Pills, sick notes, tests, teatments, you name it, they try to give
it to me. I can never have intelligent conversations about the medical/
science of my body because the Dr's are looking at me like the next
lottery ticket. Some have said it out loud, in fact.
They are constantly trying to sell me 'services' that people need.
Breaks my heart, sometimes.
Canada is the worst because there isn't an option for private healthcare even if you want it - why we'll be getting US insurance.
As I hope my opening copy and paste shows I'm not really enamored with our current capitalist system either. To me the true path forward is a mixed economy, adhering to one ideology or another doesn't work. The current problem with a mixed economy is that conditions are always changing and therefore require an adaptive regulation and taxation strategy. With the current state of politics that really isn't possible.
Personally I'm kind of done with most political and policy disscussion until the political process can correct itself, the only things that I put my mental energy into nowdays are issues of good governance and campaign financing.
Regarding HHDL's interest in Marxism. He generally makes it clear that while supporting the general philosophy he rejects the notion of class warfare and violent revolution.
In short nothing is perfect and Samsara is difficult and If you want to make a temporary political difference it must be infused with wisdom and compassion for your nation.