From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Socialism, again
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 07:29:36 GMT

sj> Stephen Jascourt
gs> Gary Strand

sj> [C]apitalism establishes an enslaved class out of whom the maximum work is
sj> extracted without even enough compensation for the needs of food, clothing,
sj> and housing.

gs> Bzzznt. I wonder how ones manages to sell all these goods from these ex-
gs> ploited workers when they don't earn enough to afford them.

sj> They don't. Most of the goods, in terms of dollar value, are sold to the
sj> affluent, mostly the top 5% in income.

  Any statistics? There's tens of millions of people who can afford $10 goods,
  but a very few that can afford $100 million goods. Basically, then, the ma-
  jority of the economy is merely billionaires swapping expensive items back
  and forth? Why do companies bother manufacturing cheaper goods, then, if
  the market is so (monetarily) small? Also, how much wealth can a few rich
  people create when all they do is swap a small number of very pricey trin-
  kets amongst themselves. If I have 10,000 coconuts, and you have 10,000 co-
  conuts, how can more coconuts be created when I give you 5,000 and you give
  me 5,000?

sj> In terms of the mass or volume of goods, many basic consumer non-essen-
sj> tials like TV's and radios and many other such items most people take for
sj> granted but don't need,

  Who are you to say that TVs and radios are mere wants and not needs? BTW, 
  you can thank capitalism that we take the vast majority of our modern con-
  veniences for granted.

sj> many people spend money they don't have and go into debt, buy less food
sj> and less nutritious food (though they could eat properly and cheaply, but
sj> that's another matter), skimp on insurance or other things that are of
sj> greater importance than the consumer good they so desire.

  If the people are so gullible as to buy the latest model TX-1000 (with Sur-
  round Sound!) over food or insurance, with their own wealth, how can they
  be trusted to determine the lives of others, ie, if I can't spend my own
  money "properly", can I be trusted to vote "properly" for Steve Jascourt's 
  job in a socialistic system? I might get 50%+1 people to agree with me that
  your ideal job is to pick up all the dog poop in the public parks. It's
  evident that you don't trust me, or people in general. A pretty poor start
  for an advocate of socialism.

gs> Unless one sells what one has produced, it's extremely difficult to make
gs> a living.

sj> What do you mean "one sells what one has produced"? Do you expect every
sj> individual (or household breadwinner or whatever) to be a personal
sj> enterpeneur including being the designer, manufacturer, retailer, and
sj> marketer for his/her own personal line of merchandise? 

  Yeah, it's called getting oneself a good education, sending out resumes,
  and making oneself the best darn seller of labor and experience that one
  can. I sell the services and expertise of Gary Strand, and I've done OK
  for myself. So have millions of other people. Believe it or not, people
  do manage to do quite all right without being robber barons.

sj> Most people in this country are employees in some larger company in which
sj> the power and company earnings are disporportionately concentrated at the
sj> top, disproportionate to the economic value of the contributions of those
sj> disenfranchised employees. There are many exceptions, but this is true for
sj> the majority.

  A company in which the employees have a large say in how it is run is hardly
  anti-capitalist. Capitalism and top-down authoritarianism are not synonymous.
  Indeed, all versions of democratic socialism that I've read about are nearly
  as bad. Strict majoritarianism replaces a board of directors, and the results
  are similar. BTW, Marx's labor theory of value has been shown to be false.
  I doubt that there was ever a time that it was applicable, but I can say for
  certain that today's interdependent global economy bashes it to pieces.

sj> And given the economically more favorable situation to produce things in
sj> large quantities (more favorable from the corporation's standpoint or 
sj> entrepreneur's standpoint), 

  Gee, I wonder if the advantages conferred by mass production and the econ-
  omies of scale hold true for all systems, not just capitalistic ones. Since
  this appears to be true, how does a socialistic systems get around the per-
  ils of evading this idea? Will it be limited to producing small numbers of
  highly specialized and unique goods, hardly a recipe for a successful sys-
  tem?

sj> there will necessarily be more lower level employees than entrepeneurs in
sj> a capitalist society and increasingly so with time.

  That's like saying it's bad that there are fewer doctors than trash collect-
  ors in a capitalistic society. Some individuals have a great talent in see-
  ing economic opportunity, just as some individuals have a great talent for
  playing really good basketball. I don't see this as an indictment of capit-
  alism, merely as recognition that a given talent is not distributed equally
  among a given group of people. BTW, how can you determine that entrepren-
  eurship is dying as a result of some inherent quality of capitalism, aside
  from economic regulations that favor the large companies over small ones?

gs> Marxist analysis is flawed at such an elementary level that it continues
gs> to surprise me that such a religion still has so many adherents and true
gs> believers.

sj> It doesn't have so many adherents, but it is not what it is made out to 
sj> be, and most people around the world have been misled by capitalist myths
sj> about socialism or Stalinist myths about socialism and have no real under-
sj> standing.

  Just to keep you from making an error, let me point out that I am not one
  of these people that thinks "socialism" and Stalinism are identical. So
  far, I haven't made any reference to the old Soviet system as a way to
  discredit socialism, rather, I've been attempting to show that your very
  Marxist analysis of capitalism is flawed.

gs> Did you happen to see 20/20 last week? They had a story that should make
gs> your blood boil. The short version is that this couple has a hair-braiding
gs> business but has been told to "cease and desist" because they lack a cos-
gs> metology license. All they do is braid hair, but the cosmetology licensing
gs> board (run by salon owners, what a shocker!) can't compete against them,
gs> so the board dumps some crap regulations upon them. This is what's killing
gs> this country economically, rather than capitalism.

sj> Capitalism is producing this result, ironically. The salon owners want to
sj> make it difficult for others to join the club-- a basic tenet of capitalism
sj> is to undermine your competition-- so they make up these ridiculous rules.

  You forget to note that the state is the entity that enforces these rules.
  It's not capitalism at work here, it's statism. Besides, these rules were
  most likely created to protect the public from unscrupulous "capitalists";
  they are now being perverted to exclude competition. This is a common argu-
  ment used by libertarians, that licensing often ends up as means to exclude
  and harass the fellow who has a better idea, or who provides competition.

  Anyway, there's a big difference between using (say) a TV ad to discredit
  your competitor's product and using the state as a tool to imprison her if
  she doesn't play "fair." A common tactic of unions, BTW.

sj> If they didn't have undue influence, they wouldn't have been able to get
sj> such a rule enacted-- that is capitalism interfering in governing of the
sj> people by the people; instead of by the people it is by those with more 
sj> money.

  Actually, it's an instance of the state interfering with someone's economic
  rights under the guise of servicing the "public good". It's true that we
  don't want people putting "shampoo" in our hair that's actually acid; (an
  activity that can be undertaken by private bodies) the point is that such
  good intentions are nearly always used by the politically powerful but
  economically poor to exclude the politically weak and economically success-
  ful (now where have I heard that before?)

sj> Unions are being busted and forced to make concessions,

gs> Because they've failed to expand their power base from old industrial-age
gs> blue-collar workers. Their inability to keep up with the global market,
gs> just like corporations, has made them weak and ineffective. But, they have
gs> powerful political friends, just like corporations, and so they stick 
gs> around and make life hell for their political enemies (read economic com-
gs> petition.)

sj> No, rather because of a series of rulings and procedures the Bush admin-
sj> istration and previously the Reagan administration had put through at the
sj> behest of their corporate sponsors. 

  Most of the union troubles of the last 25 years can be placed at the hands 
  of the Republican administrations of the last 12 years? That's quite a feat.

sj> Some of the unions have developed their own bureaucracies which undermine
sj> the best interests of the workers,

  You mean the biggest and most powerful ones, right?

sj> but the ability of labor to effectively organize and make reasonable de-
sj> mands such as safe working conditions has been wrecked by corporate spon-
sj> sored administrative rulings and some legislation corporate interests were
sj> able to ram through, all in the interest of protecting profits even at the
sj> cost of workers' safety.

  Where's your proof? Specific laws and rulings would help. Actually, trends
  over the last 30 years or so show that laws enacted for worker's safety
  have gone too far in some respects. That's part of the reason labor costs
  in the US have helped make it less competitive on the global market. In any
  case, there is a point where such legislation becomes cost-ineffective, in
  that the lawmakers have to decide when worker's rights and the number of
  available jobs balance. They've erred too far towards the latter, IMHO, 
  because of the massive influence Big Labor had starting in the late '30s.
  And, like I said, (and which you didn't really dispute) Big Labor is stuck
  in that era. It's no wonder that entities that built their power on the
  backs of blue-collar industrial workers lose that power when a large num-
  ber of workers are white-collar or service workers.

sj> A large percentage (I don't have figures-- somebody could post them if 
sj> they do) are unable to earn enough for rent and food and transportation
sj> to work--if they live in the city, where the jobs are, the rent is high,
sj> if not, the commute adds up.

gs> Why not get rid of rent control and farm subsidies first before trashing 
gs> an entire economic system?

sj> The farm subsidy program is very much a mess-- you have to let the Feds
sj> micromanage your farm in order to get subsidies; that program has to be
sj> completely reworked.

  Well, that's New-Deal-era Rooseveltian Democratic policy for ya. Funny, I
  thought that his ideas were generally held in high regard by the Left.
  Anyway, as Russ Nelson pointed out, how do you "rework" this mess such
  that the current mess doesn't return? BTW, did you know that the majority
  of farm subsidies go to large agribusiness? Again, those with political
  power (and the agriculture PACS are quite powerful) siphon our money their
  way. Such is the mechanism of big government.

sj> But a more general word on regulations: most broad categories of regula-
sj> tions were created to deal with problems that resulted from an absence of
sj> there being rules-- people were being taken advantage of by profit-minded
sj> capitalists in every imagineable way and rules were created to protect the
sj> consumer and the worker. Nowadays, many of the rules have become very
sj> twisted, some to the point that they no longer server their purpose or are
sj> counterproductive, but to do away with them altogether would bring back
sj> the original problem. Instead, they need to be reworked.

  How can you be so sure that if even only the counterproductive regulations
  were dropped, we'd be right back to some not-terribly-historically-accurate
  state of exploited workers and defrauded consumers? And, must we use the
  poorly-wielded mace of the State to correct these kinds of problems? Are
  the "natural" forces of the market so poor as to require State control?
  I'm an advocate of unleashing these forces, and I believe that the market
  is sufficiently self-correcting such that the areas of needed government 
  action are much smaller than even 10% of the regulations we have today.

sj> Many of the homeless have jobs of 20+ hours per week, some full time.

gs> Of those 20-40 hours/week, they spend between ~10 and ~20 working just to
gs> pay the taxes they're supposed to pay. What a bargain! They get to keep
gs> about *half* their money! Such generosity is unbelievable!

sj> If we had a more progressive taxation system, this would not be the case.

  Haven't you seen the data that shows if *all* the wealth of the "rich" were
  confiscated, it would run the federal government for ~2 weeks? As it stands,
  the federal government alone needs ~$3.8 *billion* *per day* (assuming a
  federal budget of $1.4 trillion), in two weeks, that's already ~$54 billion.
  Let's be generous and say that the wealth of the rich would last a month;
  whom are you going to tax (and how much) for the other 91.67% of the year,
  and all the state and local government spending? Also, you'd be amazed at
  what some people call "the rich"; if I were to marry someone of equal pay,
  we'd be part of the rich by some redistributionists' standards, but we'd
  hardly be in the same class as H. Ross Perot.

sj> But those greedy corporate sponsors of politicians will see to it that
sj> taxation is as flat as they can get. Yet again the profit motive inter-
sj> feres with fair government-- a product of a capitalist society.

  It's amazing that people who create wealth want to keep most of it. I'd
  like to take people like yourself and put them in the shoes of a person
  who creates some product (after a lot of hard work, of course) that earns
  them a decent fortune, and then tell you that sorry, the state is taking
  70%, 80%, 90% of *your* money away. I've seen it before - envy in its most
  coarse and vulgar state. It's pretty damned ugly.

  BTW, would you consider the state taking a huge chunk of *your* money away
  from you to be "fair"? As they say, life ain't fair.

sj> At least with a decentralized socialism (not a state-planned and state-
sj> mandated economy of the eastern block countries), a minimum standard of
sj> living is established so everyone has the dignity of having a home and
sj> being able to eat a nutritious meal and having their medical needs met.

gs> "Everyone" meaning "group of a few hundred or less", since this about the
gs> only scale where "decentralized socialism" can work. No society is built
gs> upon this idea, rather, capitalism is used for production and wealth cre-
gs> ation, socialistic ideals are used for redistribution of that wealth. To
gs> put it blunty, capitalism is the life, socialism the parasite.

sj> And a hell of a life that capitalism gives the majority! 

  Actually, it does give us one hell of a fine life. You realize that what we
  consider "poor" these days is incredibly rich by 3rd-world (non-capitalist)
  standards, and similarly by early 20th-century standards.

sj> Capitalism by its very nature concentrates the wealth at the top.

  Examples? Governments are the entities that concentrate wealth into the hands
  of those at the top of the political pile, not capitalists.

sj> Socialism may be a parasite but at least it lets everyone live a decent
sj> life-- yes, at the expense of not letting a few live a lavish life.

  Where is there a socialistic system that taxes only the very rich, and the
  teeming masses not at all? All socialist systems tax nearly everyone a lot,
  yes, even people like Gary Strand and Steve Jascourt. Also, recent evidence
  from Europe suggests that this parasite has gotten too greedy, that's why
  (especially) the Scandanavian economies are in such poor shape in the global
  marketplace.

sj> That is not to say that the opposite is a cure for it. Rather, we have to
sj> understand what the vices of all different kinds of systems are so we can
sj> come up with ways of getting around them, to having something that does
sj> have positive motivating power but directs that motivation toward the bet-
sj> terment of the society. 

gs> Capitalism does this already. Sam Walton sure did benefit a lot of people.

sj> I think some people who know more specifics about his treatment of labor
sj> would argue with that,

  Would you rather have a part-time job at minimum wage or no job at 10x the
  minimum wage? Since Wal-Mart has never had a problem getting employees, I
  guess that we need to tell them that they're making a dumb mistake and
  that they ought to listen to you, so that they're not so stupid. NOT!

sj> but, for the moment, let's suppose Sam Walton was in a net sense a great
sj> benefit to "the people".

  He was. We don't need to "suppose" anything.

sj> Some others will be too. But many are not and they have enough influence
sj> by their accumulated wealth to not only exploit their workers and/or the
sj> environment and their communities but squash attempts to change their 
sj> corporate behavior. Dupont, Dow, and RJR just to name a few, and the list
sj> is plentiful.

  My solution is to remove the state as a tool for these companies. They'll
  die quite readily without the welfare they receive at our expense. As PJ
  O'Rourke says, "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the 
  first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

sj> There are some caring corporations, but there are enough simply motivated
sj> by capitalism to extract as much as they can regardless of how they do it
sj> and they have enough power that life is made unnecessarily difficult for
sj> a large percentage of the country and those suffering are deprived of the
sj> power to change it, all in the name of profits.

  This is quite an indictment.

  BTW, do you ever support these evil dastardly corporations by buying their
  products? If so, their deeds are due in part to the fact that you *volun-
  tarily* gave them money. Why not organize a boycott?

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF