Written By: - Date published: 3:22 pm, September 22nd, 2008 - 55 comments
Categories: Deep stuff -
Tags:
I’ve had some interesting conversations with people recently that have me thinking we need to get back to some political basics to build up to the practical policy questions of today, otherwise many of us are talking past each other. Here are three founding principles, which I hope to build from in an occasional series of posts. Hopefully, we can get consensus that these are correct:
People vary. Some people are shorter than others, some are luckier than most, some are smarter, some dumber. With most qualities, there are a few people at the extremes and most distributed around a norm. That goes for propensity to violence, honesty, initiative, just about anything. That fact that people vary means they will also act in varying ways in the same situation.
All humans have a right to live a life worth living. There may be exceptional circumstances when that is over-ridden by a greater good (eg during war) but, generally, that right applies regardless of wealth, class, gender, sexuality, ethnic group, or other characteristic. It is an acknowledgment of a universal humanity. To reject this to to argue that the powerful ought to do what they will with others; that, strength and will should triumph.
Capitalism is an economic system in which most capital is controlled by a small portion of individuals and most people sell their labour to live. Capital owners own the means to produce goods and services and those goods and services once produced. As all people need to consume good and services to live but most do not own capital in a capitalist system, most people must sell their labour to capitalists in return for a right to a share of goods and services (represented by money).
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Billy one only goes into moderation if and only if one is immoderate. Blaming others is the first step on the slippery slope towards clinical paranoia so watch out. eeeek!
Well put Randal.
In relation to the 5.23 comment more so than the 5.26 but both are an enlightened position to take.
I do not regard Stalin as a success.
Why not? He was a disgusting human being of course, but by some criteria of “success” he was successful wasn’t he?
I thought the fashion was to pretend that Social Democrats aren’t communists.
Ahhh – we aren’t. Just like all Liberals aren’t Libertarians, and all Conservatives aren’t Fundamentalists.
billy. dunno must have been a trigger word but i’m not sure what.. you know how these things are.
Don’t worry Billy – I’m in moderation too (5:30pm), so the moderation trap is spreading the love…
i didn’t include a definition of capitalism to make an argument for communism but because we live in a capitalist society (with moderation by state intervention,, which we’ll get to later)
it must be social democrats or communists .. I wonder why, maybe that democrats for social credit guy who kept on threadjacking
by some criteria of “success’ he was successful wasn’t he?
Really? Successful at murdering millions, I s’pose.
I’d like to alter or qualify my earlier statement. I think it is unfettered free market capitalism that has failed recently in the US. I agree with others who have said there’s more than one form of capitalism and more than one form of socialism, and that often countries have a mixture of both. It was one party “communist” states that failed at the end of the 20th century, not socialism itself.
Generally, I’m reasonably happy with a mixed system: one that does the other things Steve mentioned initially (recognises diversity and the humanity in everyone), and doesn’t allow the growth of inequalities.
Also there are forms of capitalism (as in some of the late 20thC Asian Tiger economies, that were capitalist, but not democratic and didn’t support notions of individualism. Some did have more of an idea of support for community over individualism. IMO, humans & their societies have a mix of collaborative and competitive individualistic tendencies. Western capitalism, especially the US variety, favours individualistic capitalism. IMO it’s more the mix of collaboration and competition that has stimulated human inventions and ingenuity, rather than capitalism.
Billy. He was powerful and had a much higher standard of living during his later lfie than he was orn into. Certainly successful on a peronal level. He also died by fallin off a chair. Did his power and wealth come from doing good for others? No, quite the opposite, but is that a criterion applied (sorry, I know this is trite) to how a wealthy capitalist like Key got his wealth?
Did you just compare Key to Stalin?
I must start using “Helengrad” a little more.
Moderation again. This splace is getting like policynet. Please do not post my IP address.
sorry Billy, I don’t know what’s going on. but don’t worry, someone will usually get yo out pretty quickly.
No, I didn’t compare Key to Stalin. If I were to Key would come off much better. The point is just that in terms of ‘success’ as we are often asked to measure people Stalin was a success.
All of which is besdie the point of the post.
“If I were to Key would come off much better.”
That’s quite a concession from you, SP.
Billy:
All of whom grew up in a very socialist country with free education and credible support for the less well off allowing them access to better opportunities.
Interesting – why not?
Eeep, in moderation.
SP, I think that your definition is wrong. You are stating a corollary and it is a most unhelpful starting point.
Here’s a better one, from _Babylon and Beyond_, page 9;
I don’t believe the problem is at this level, instead I think that the problem is that the markets become skewed such that the “invisible hand” of the market is tied. ie, the preconditions that are required for laissez-fare (sp?) capitalism to work are what should be attacked, not the actual mechanism of how wealth is accounted.
ie, Capitalism is morally justified on the supposition of the presence of intense competition of many companies, rather than a handful of enormous firms, a cartel, or a monopoly. Or if you allow those constructs, there will be another argument that justifies why the same effects are still present.
So, how about starting with a definition that’s less of an observation, agreeable, and then we can show how those preconditions are false.
capitalism: definition…dominate for pleasure and extort for profit. if ya want any more than that then send me contract for the book!
From OP;
With most qualities, there are a few people at the extremes and most distributed around a norm… …The fact that people vary means they will also act in varying ways in the same situation.
These two statements run counter to each other, I think. Assuming that we have a ‘bell-shapped’ distribution of individuals attributes, it would be more accurate to qualify the second statement as: People vary. However, we can comfortably predict how most people will act, most of the time, given societal and attributable (is that a real word?) norms.
This is the core foundation of micro-economics.
All humans have a right to live a life worth living.
I don’t think you would find many people disagreeing with that. Those that do probably own laboratories and harvest human organs from induced-coma clones.
This sounds like the ‘safety net’ social welfare principle. But the devil is in the detail – what exactly is an acceptable minimum standard? Where does the line between safety-net and simple hand-out blur or end?
Capitalism is an economic system in which most capital is controlled by a small portion of individuals and most people sell their labour to live.
Broaden ‘capital’ in this statement to ‘wealth’ and you end up with an observational definition of every economic or political system that has ever existed in the ‘modern’ world.