Good morning, class.
Er . . . friends. Whatever.
There seems to be some confusion, in general, on my current stance on Capitalism. Primarily, some think that I am a very hardcore advocate of Capitalism as some great ideal system. Others think that I am not a Capitalist at all. I'd like to set the record straight - or at least as straight as it can be under my current circumstances.
Am I a Capitalist?
In practice, yes I am. I am very pro-business, and in the world that I am familiar with, Capitalism is one of the only ways to achieve successful business wherein good business is appropriately rewarded. I believe there should be a meritocratic system, wherein those who contribute more are rewarded more. Capitalism achieves that to some degree.
Do I think Capitalism is great?
No. I really, really don't. I think it's functional. I think that any system that I've seen, which would require radical and even revolutionary social change, has sufficient problems that are likely to come up that the cost of bloody revolution would be tragic. It would not be Utopian. There would be positive aspects, and downfalls, to any system - much like to Capitalism, and I believe until some of the root psychology has changed, the exact sort of issues are likely to happen again, but in different forms (greed, corruption, abuse of workers, abuse of the system, etc.).
My Stance on Laissez-Faire
I've described myself previously as almost Laissez-Faire. The more I look at Laissez-Faire, the more I have to acknowledge that I'm really not that Laissez-Faire. I think the market takes care of itself to a great degree, but the abuses we see, the potential for monopolies, the importance (to some degree) of intellectual property laws, and the concepts of "generated needs" to increase product need and "withheld needs" to make a false scarcity in the market are both negative things. I'll definitely talk about my stance on generated needs at some future point.
Why do I like Capitalism?
It encourages ingenuity and entrepreneurship, opens up possibilities for advancement, encourages ambition, encourages efficiency and hard work, encourages intelligence, is good at making new products and innovations, and is a system that works well in international relations (in today's economic climate, I feel - though am not certain - that a communist market structure would be disadvantages in global trade).
Why do I dislike Capitalism?
The structure of capitalism gives rewards for the abuse of workers, and their rights. It also rewards corruption, and allows for far too much power from the side of businesses in the field of government. Many individuals are put in situations where they are in poverty, and have no ability to get out of poverty - they haven't had the education to get a good job, they're not allowed to credit to start their own business or get that education, etc., etc. There is a huge imbalance of wealth, due to the self-perpetuating nature of capital, and the "you need money to make money" truism which dictates who's allowed to start a business. The richer get richer, the poorer get poorer - I feel that's honestly true. Also, for clarity, not good.
Is there a better system out there?
Maybe. I haven't done a lot of research yet, but I've started. There are some things, like the Mondragon Corporation, which definitely do seem like better systems. However, something like the Mondragon Corporation likely could not form in our current market, partially due to what I would term unfair abuses by super-chains like Walmart. Basically, to compete with Walmart, you have to abuse your workers. Co-ops don't. Co-ops can't.
If there is an ideal system for this country, for today's world, I don't think it fully exists yet as more than a thought or concept.
What would a better system contain?
In my view, a better economic and government system would have to contain all of the same rights of our current society - free speech, right to bear arms (yes, very important to avoid tyrannical government. The "government should fear the people."), right to a fair trial (includes Habeus Corpus, which is kind of important, Mr. W!), etc.
In my view, it would have to appropriately encourage good business and keep people motivated. It would have to be somewhat meritocratic, not necessarily a purely egalitarian system. It would, in my world view, have to encourage competition - but if there's a better system to encourage the same positive traits of Capitalism, I'm open to it. It would also have to prevent the abuses present in our current system, including abuse of workers, imbalance of power, and the opportunities for corruption that are so rampant in our current system.
How do we go about creating this better system?
Peacefully, at all costs, and through experimentation. Here is what I see as necessarily to create a system that keeps the benefits of Capitalism while getting rid of the many flaws:
Do I think we need a better system?
Being honest with myself, yes, we do. Capitalism is dangerous because it's "good enough." It's easy to become content. The strong majority get by, even if they struggle. But those who don't get by never get a real voice, nor even the opportunity to discover what their real voice should say.
A new and better system is something that is possible, or at least improvement is, and I think pushing for experimentation, and eliminating the abuses in our current system, is very important. BUT - and I want this part to be very clear - it should be peaceful. Ripping out the spine of the country by force would create decades of civil conflict while we discover the same things about our system that could be discovered peacefully, through correct reform.
I like to believe in this country, and its ability to be fair, and accept change that is positive. I believe that if ways were created in which a better system could be demonstrated, that the country on the whole (once convinced) would accept those better systems.
Would there ever be just cause for revolution?
Yes. Very definitely. Let's say we try to implement these systems, and they work better, and due to personal interests or business influence from companies that would take a loss, the Government tried to interfere. If the Government refused to back down based on public voice, or attempted to silence the public voice. Then I'd be willing to take up arms.
Again, I'd like to believe that this is not necessary, and that this country's government is still "of the people," if the people are willing to speak loudly enough. But before even considering violent revolution as a method of social change, every possible peaceful alternative should be exhausted. If the Government ever feels the wrath of the people, it must be clear and evident that it is because of the Governments actions against the people, not a "preemptive strike" from the people.
Would I call myself a Capitalist?
Eh . . . that's hard. In practice, I think it's the system we've got, and it works, and I think it has a lot of advantages. I don't endorse the current system of Capitalism without exclusion (as should already be clear), but I would defend many aspects of it, and think it is one of the best available systems. I also think it's in desperate need of reform and experimentation.
There's not a real title that I know of for someone who believes in experimenting in this way, and learning more, and reforming all this. Can I still be a Capitalist who simply thinks we need to fix Capitalism, and not assume that Capitalism is necessarily the best system available? Maybe I am. It's hard to say. A friend suggested that I'm "undecided," but that sounds very ho-hum.
I would call myself a Capitalist in some contexts - much the same as I call myself a Liberal in some contexts, despite the fact that I disagree with many of the ways in which Liberals behave in this country. It seems to me that the titles available for me to choose from are insufficient. A reformist Capitalist, perhaps? But even that locks me into a position that would lead others to assume that I've decided Capitalism is necessarily the best system. Maybe undecided reformist? The term "undecided" just stands insufficiently for me. It's not that I'm undecided about what should change - or even on how to go about that change.
Maybe I'll create a new title for myself? I will be a pro-business experimentalist reformist. Except that this will mean nothing, because for the most part, I've made it up.
The short answer as to if I'd call myself a Capitalist is: Maybe.
Er . . . friends. Whatever.
There seems to be some confusion, in general, on my current stance on Capitalism. Primarily, some think that I am a very hardcore advocate of Capitalism as some great ideal system. Others think that I am not a Capitalist at all. I'd like to set the record straight - or at least as straight as it can be under my current circumstances.
Am I a Capitalist?
In practice, yes I am. I am very pro-business, and in the world that I am familiar with, Capitalism is one of the only ways to achieve successful business wherein good business is appropriately rewarded. I believe there should be a meritocratic system, wherein those who contribute more are rewarded more. Capitalism achieves that to some degree.
Do I think Capitalism is great?
No. I really, really don't. I think it's functional. I think that any system that I've seen, which would require radical and even revolutionary social change, has sufficient problems that are likely to come up that the cost of bloody revolution would be tragic. It would not be Utopian. There would be positive aspects, and downfalls, to any system - much like to Capitalism, and I believe until some of the root psychology has changed, the exact sort of issues are likely to happen again, but in different forms (greed, corruption, abuse of workers, abuse of the system, etc.).
My Stance on Laissez-Faire
I've described myself previously as almost Laissez-Faire. The more I look at Laissez-Faire, the more I have to acknowledge that I'm really not that Laissez-Faire. I think the market takes care of itself to a great degree, but the abuses we see, the potential for monopolies, the importance (to some degree) of intellectual property laws, and the concepts of "generated needs" to increase product need and "withheld needs" to make a false scarcity in the market are both negative things. I'll definitely talk about my stance on generated needs at some future point.
Why do I like Capitalism?
It encourages ingenuity and entrepreneurship, opens up possibilities for advancement, encourages ambition, encourages efficiency and hard work, encourages intelligence, is good at making new products and innovations, and is a system that works well in international relations (in today's economic climate, I feel - though am not certain - that a communist market structure would be disadvantages in global trade).
Why do I dislike Capitalism?
The structure of capitalism gives rewards for the abuse of workers, and their rights. It also rewards corruption, and allows for far too much power from the side of businesses in the field of government. Many individuals are put in situations where they are in poverty, and have no ability to get out of poverty - they haven't had the education to get a good job, they're not allowed to credit to start their own business or get that education, etc., etc. There is a huge imbalance of wealth, due to the self-perpetuating nature of capital, and the "you need money to make money" truism which dictates who's allowed to start a business. The richer get richer, the poorer get poorer - I feel that's honestly true. Also, for clarity, not good.
Is there a better system out there?
Maybe. I haven't done a lot of research yet, but I've started. There are some things, like the Mondragon Corporation, which definitely do seem like better systems. However, something like the Mondragon Corporation likely could not form in our current market, partially due to what I would term unfair abuses by super-chains like Walmart. Basically, to compete with Walmart, you have to abuse your workers. Co-ops don't. Co-ops can't.
If there is an ideal system for this country, for today's world, I don't think it fully exists yet as more than a thought or concept.
What would a better system contain?
In my view, a better economic and government system would have to contain all of the same rights of our current society - free speech, right to bear arms (yes, very important to avoid tyrannical government. The "government should fear the people."), right to a fair trial (includes Habeus Corpus, which is kind of important, Mr. W!), etc.
In my view, it would have to appropriately encourage good business and keep people motivated. It would have to be somewhat meritocratic, not necessarily a purely egalitarian system. It would, in my world view, have to encourage competition - but if there's a better system to encourage the same positive traits of Capitalism, I'm open to it. It would also have to prevent the abuses present in our current system, including abuse of workers, imbalance of power, and the opportunities for corruption that are so rampant in our current system.
How do we go about creating this better system?
Peacefully, at all costs, and through experimentation. Here is what I see as necessarily to create a system that keeps the benefits of Capitalism while getting rid of the many flaws:
- Enact laws to prevent lobbying from major corporations. Stricter enforcement and more definite punishment for accepting hand-outs or similar from large corporations. More real accountability from public officers. No donations on a government level being allowed by businesses. Strict tracing and enforcement to ensure that individuals are not trying to influence government on behalf of a business.
This is very difficult in today's Government, since a law like this passing may be prevented because of lobbyists. . . . With a sufficient grass-roots movement, however, I feel it's possible. A politician is only as powerful as their popularity, and with a grass-roots movement that is large enough that they feel going against it would destroy their power or lose their office, they would secede. "We the People" have to change this. We don't need to shed blood to make it work. Just scream real loud. - Prevent the greatest weaknesses of Capitalism by preventing the abuses from companies like Walmart. Fair wages to employees, no sweat-shop labor, etc., etc. This gets rid of the unethical and unfair advantages held by major groups like these.
- Set aside opportunities to experiment with other potential systems. Being scientifically minded, this is the obvious first choice. Not revolution. Put something into practice, see how it works, refine it, and then try it on a broader scale - and eventually, a Universal implementation, if appropriate. This experimentation could happen in a city at first - but more likely, it would be a county-wide experiment in some portion of the US - in some region that could be self-sufficient enough that we could declare it sufficiently microcosmic. The types of economics that would be experimented with could be vast, ranging from Communism (seriously, why not try it? See if it works in some way? Why fear something that's better? If it's worse, we'll just know more about it anyway.) to Mutualism (I'd be excited to see and participate in something like Anarcho-syndicalism, as an experiment, from what I've seen so far) to reformed Capitalism. See what works, see what doesn't.
Do I think we need a better system?
Being honest with myself, yes, we do. Capitalism is dangerous because it's "good enough." It's easy to become content. The strong majority get by, even if they struggle. But those who don't get by never get a real voice, nor even the opportunity to discover what their real voice should say.
A new and better system is something that is possible, or at least improvement is, and I think pushing for experimentation, and eliminating the abuses in our current system, is very important. BUT - and I want this part to be very clear - it should be peaceful. Ripping out the spine of the country by force would create decades of civil conflict while we discover the same things about our system that could be discovered peacefully, through correct reform.
I like to believe in this country, and its ability to be fair, and accept change that is positive. I believe that if ways were created in which a better system could be demonstrated, that the country on the whole (once convinced) would accept those better systems.
Would there ever be just cause for revolution?
Yes. Very definitely. Let's say we try to implement these systems, and they work better, and due to personal interests or business influence from companies that would take a loss, the Government tried to interfere. If the Government refused to back down based on public voice, or attempted to silence the public voice. Then I'd be willing to take up arms.
Again, I'd like to believe that this is not necessary, and that this country's government is still "of the people," if the people are willing to speak loudly enough. But before even considering violent revolution as a method of social change, every possible peaceful alternative should be exhausted. If the Government ever feels the wrath of the people, it must be clear and evident that it is because of the Governments actions against the people, not a "preemptive strike" from the people.
Would I call myself a Capitalist?
Eh . . . that's hard. In practice, I think it's the system we've got, and it works, and I think it has a lot of advantages. I don't endorse the current system of Capitalism without exclusion (as should already be clear), but I would defend many aspects of it, and think it is one of the best available systems. I also think it's in desperate need of reform and experimentation.
There's not a real title that I know of for someone who believes in experimenting in this way, and learning more, and reforming all this. Can I still be a Capitalist who simply thinks we need to fix Capitalism, and not assume that Capitalism is necessarily the best system available? Maybe I am. It's hard to say. A friend suggested that I'm "undecided," but that sounds very ho-hum.
I would call myself a Capitalist in some contexts - much the same as I call myself a Liberal in some contexts, despite the fact that I disagree with many of the ways in which Liberals behave in this country. It seems to me that the titles available for me to choose from are insufficient. A reformist Capitalist, perhaps? But even that locks me into a position that would lead others to assume that I've decided Capitalism is necessarily the best system. Maybe undecided reformist? The term "undecided" just stands insufficiently for me. It's not that I'm undecided about what should change - or even on how to go about that change.
Maybe I'll create a new title for myself? I will be a pro-business experimentalist reformist. Except that this will mean nothing, because for the most part, I've made it up.
The short answer as to if I'd call myself a Capitalist is: Maybe.
