Portrait of an American Hero

[Immanuel Can]

But isn't SS just one small step toward greater and greater injustice?

That depends. Who's running it, and what criteria do they use in order to distribute? If they are honest, discerning and fair, it could be a good thing. But it's still got to be limited in scope to the size of the surplus available in the economy, of course.

Won't free enterprise eliminate all the injustices in the economy?

Well, it depends what you mean by "injustices." If you mean "inequalities," then the answer is "Heck no; and nor should it." But if you mean "injustice" in the sense that something is truly not "just," and somebody is getting ripped off in a way they don't deserve, then that's one of the limited ares in which government competence is required...the restoration of justice. Still, one has to show that something "unjust" has truly happened, not just affirm that inequality automatically equals injustice...because very clearly, it doesn't.

Perhaps real justice is when the "invisible hand" of the market is allowed to act unencumbered by rules and regulations? If we allow some corruption of this market, doesn't that ultimately become a breeding ground for further corruption?

Yes, it can.

There are excesses on both sides, the Right and the Left of this issue. Too much "free marketing," and some one company takes over and monopolizes each industry, killing all competition and rendering itself the "god" of price-fixing. Too much socialism and the whole market collapses, and everybody suffers. So I would say that the right balance seems to be in the middle: free markets, but government regulations against things like price-fixing, unfair competition, monopolies, gouging, safety standards, worker exploitation, and collusion. The role of government seems best when it works on keeping the competition fair, not on killing the competition.

[Gary Childress]

Won't free enterprise eliminate all the injustices in the economy?

Well, it depends what you mean by "injustices." If you mean "inequalities," then the answer is "Heck no; and nor should it." But if you mean "injustice" in the sense that something is truly not "just," and somebody is getting ripped off in a way they don't deserve, then that's one of the limited ares in which government competence is required...the restoration of justice. Still, one has to show that something "unjust" has truly happened, not just affirm that inequality automatically equals injustice...because very clearly, it doesn't.

By "injustice" I mean forcibly taking people's money to give it to someone else. Friedman was pretty radical in his call for a free market. He cited government inefficiency in some cases but it seems like he must have also thought that a radically free market would take care of everything on its own and be a more just state of affairs.

[Immanuel Can]

By "injustice" I mean forcibly taking people's money to give it to someone else.

That's a good definition.

[Sculptor]

I guess it would depend on who he was with, as to whether they had a good time around him or not. He was certainly hell on the "capitalists". And he didn't seem too keen on the "lumpenproletariat" and "petite bourgeoisie" either. But I think his vision of a classless society was pie in the sky, unfortunately. There will always be differences in wealth and it will always translate into political power and influence. Economics seems, by nature, like a zero-sum game to me. One person's wealth is, by definition, another person's poverty. Therefore to fight for economic equality (perhaps Justice as well) seems like a Sisyphean task--like a punishment from a god.

One man's vision is another man's deliberate misconception.

Can you unpack a little of what you mean by that? I don't follow.

Karl Marx is possibly the most maligned historical figure in the recent past.
When I was much younger I watched a TV programme about Vietnam in which they were interviewing GIs. They were saying how they had been told that Marx used to beat his wife and abuse his children (part of their ideological training)- as if Marx had anything to do with what the US was doing in Vietnam, or that somehow by murdering Vietnamese civilians the US army was putting right the supposed wrongs that Marx meted out to his close family. Yet those men swallowed that myth whole. People look for cheap justifications for their prejudices.
Even from the perspective of a 12-14 year old me, I knew at once that people were not to be trusted.

[Impenitent]

I guess the problem is solved, then. Impenitent thinks we should abolish private property.

I did not say that

but I am glad you are willing to sacrifice your family to the collective

-Imp

I'm simply quoting you. You said, "abolish private property". Go back and look at your post.

quoting it again... "abolish private property..."

I did not say "We should"

finis

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

One man's vision is another man's deliberate misconception.

Can you unpack a little of what you mean by that? I don't follow.

Karl Marx is possibly the most maligned historical figure in the recent past.
When I was much younger I watched a TV programme about Vietnam in which they were interviewing GIs. They were saying how they had been told that Marx used to beat his wife and abuse his children (part of their ideological training)- as if Marx had anything to do with what the US was doing in Vietnam, or that somehow by murdering Vietnamese civilians the US army was putting right the supposed wrongs that Marx meted out to his close family. Yet those men swallowed that myth whole. People look for cheap justifications for their prejudices.
Even from the perspective of a 12-14 year old me, I knew at once that people were not to be trusted.

So are you saying that Marx was not wrong about his prediction of a classless society? Or are you saying Marx didn't make that prediction? Trying to figure out how your reply factors into my post.

[Sculptor]

Can you unpack a little of what you mean by that? I don't follow.

Karl Marx is possibly the most maligned historical figure in the recent past.
When I was much younger I watched a TV programme about Vietnam in which they were interviewing GIs. They were saying how they had been told that Marx used to beat his wife and abuse his children (part of their ideological training)- as if Marx had anything to do with what the US was doing in Vietnam, or that somehow by murdering Vietnamese civilians the US army was putting right the supposed wrongs that Marx meted out to his close family. Yet those men swallowed that myth whole. People look for cheap justifications for their prejudices.
Even from the perspective of a 12-14 year old me, I knew at once that people were not to be trusted.

So are you saying that Marx was not wrong about his prediction of a classless society? Or are you saying Marx didn't make that prediction? Trying to figure out how your reply factors into my post.

What I am saying is that dismissing the lifetimes work of a genius with the phrase "I think his vision of a classless society was pie in the sky," is a misconception.
Were Marx alive today he would consider that we have moved very far towards that very goal.
And I think he was smart enough to know that moving towards a "classless" society is a valuable goal, despite achieving it as a absolute is a stupid suggestion. Its a bit like that stupid argument against "equality". We can't have it because we are all different so why bother. Equality is still a good goal.
Since his time aristocracy has taken a major dive unless you had not noticed. All children receive free education and health care. In his time life expectancy has grown from 40 to 80. This is all due to the movement to the left that no one man is more responsible for than Marx.

[Gary Childress]

Karl Marx is possibly the most maligned historical figure in the recent past.
When I was much younger I watched a TV programme about Vietnam in which they were interviewing GIs. They were saying how they had been told that Marx used to beat his wife and abuse his children (part of their ideological training)- as if Marx had anything to do with what the US was doing in Vietnam, or that somehow by murdering Vietnamese civilians the US army was putting right the supposed wrongs that Marx meted out to his close family. Yet those men swallowed that myth whole. People look for cheap justifications for their prejudices.
Even from the perspective of a 12-14 year old me, I knew at once that people were not to be trusted.

So are you saying that Marx was not wrong about his prediction of a classless society? Or are you saying Marx didn't make that prediction? Trying to figure out how your reply factors into my post.

What I am saying is that dismissing the lifetimes work of a genius with the phrase "I think his vision of a classless society was pie in the sky," is a misconception.
Were Marx alive today he would consider that we have moved very far towards that very goal.
And I think he was smart enough to know that moving towards a "classless" society is a valuable goal, despite achieving it as a absolute is a stupid suggestion. Its a bit like that stupid argument against "equality". We can't have it because we are all different so why bother. Equality is still a good goal.
Since his time aristocracy has taken a major dive unless you had not noticed. All children receive free education and health care. In his time life expectancy has grown from 40 to 80. This is all due to the movement to the left that no one man is more responsible for than Marx.

Those are certainly good points.

[henry quirk]

Leavin' those two great souls, Marx & Engels, and Sculptor's generous assessments, aside...

The foundational flaw of Real True Communism: it requires people to be be sumthin' other than what they are. For Real True Communism to work as Real True Communism, people would have to have whole set of instincts and drives and desires not commonly found among people as they are (and always have been & always will be).

In other words: man isn't built for Real True Communism. That's why the *best we can do is state communism/socialism: and it's as plain as the crooked nose on my face how well any example of that has worked out.









*the absolute friggin' worst

[Gary Childress]

Leavin' those two great souls, Marx & Engels, and Sculptor's generous assessments, aside...

The foundational flaw of Real True Communism: it requires people to be be sumthin' other than what they are. For Real True Communism to work as Real True Communism, people would have to have whole set of instincts and drives and desires not commonly found among people as they are (and always have been & always will be).

In other words: man isn't built for Real True Communism. That's why the *best we can do is state communism/socialism: and it's as plain as the crooked nose on my face how well any example of that has worked out.









*the absolute friggin' worst

Well, Sculptor does have some valid points. We don't have things like children working in coal mines and sweatshops any more thanks to workers' movements that improved the standard of living for ordinary people. Otherwise, you and I would probably be slaving away in dreary dead-end jobs for pennies an hour. Most of the people who fought for those improvements were union people, socialists, anarchists, communists, etc.

[henry quirk]

...probably did more to promote worker's rights than the majority of union people, socialists, anarchists, communists, etc..

Yes, he was an anti-semite, a capitalist devil, an greedy industrialist; yes, he operated out of self-interest, not egalitarianism.

So what?

He was honest: he had a plan and knew he needed healthy, productive workers to make that plan work.

I'm no fan of state capitalism (as I explained elsewhere) but -- for all its flaws -- it's still superior to any strain of communism/socialism.

[Gary Childress]

...probably did more to promote worker's rights than the majority of union people, socialists, anarchists, communists, etc..

Yes, he was an anti-semite, a capitalist devil, an greedy industrialist; yes, he operated out of self-interest, not egalitarianism.

So what?

He was honest: he had a plan and knew he needed healthy, productive workers to make that plan work.

I'm no fan of state capitalism (as I explained elsewhere) but -- for all its flaws -- it's still superior to any strain of communism/socialism.

I have heard it said that Ford took better care of his workers and paid them more so that they could afford to buy the cars his factories produced. According to Wiki he introduced the $5/day wage (unheard of at the time) and the five-day/40 hour workweek. So valid points, also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_For ... philosophy

[Sculptor]

...probably did more to promote worker's rights than the majority of union people, socialists, anarchists, communists, etc..

Yes, he was an anti-semite, a capitalist devil, an greedy industrialist; yes, he operated out of self-interest, not egalitarianism.

So what?

He was honest: he had a plan and knew he needed healthy, productive workers to make that plan work.

I'm no fan of state capitalism (as I explained elsewhere) but -- for all its flaws -- it's still superior to any strain of communism/socialism.

I have heard it said that Ford took better care of his workers and paid them more so that they could afford to buy the cars his factories produced. According to Wiki he introduced the $5/day wage (unheard of at the time) and the five-day/40 hour workweek. So valid points, also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_For ... philosophy

Production and social care of the working people do not have to be separate. John Cadbury made his workers a village Bournville, (the dark chocolate bears its name), so that they could live in good conditions.
Only a complete idiot would denigrate "any Strain of Communism or Socialism" , and is ignorant of the benefits he himself enjoys.
We would still be working for crumbs and living in huts were it not for unions and the left working to get ordinary people the vote.

[henry quirk]

...probably did more to promote worker's rights than the majority of union people, socialists, anarchists, communists, etc..

Yes, he was an anti-semite, a capitalist devil, an greedy industrialist; yes, he operated out of self-interest, not egalitarianism.

So what?

He was honest: he had a plan and knew he needed healthy, productive workers to make that plan work.

I'm no fan of state capitalism (as I explained elsewhere) but -- for all its flaws -- it's still superior to any strain of communism/socialism.

I have heard it said that Ford took better care of his workers and paid them more so that they could afford to buy the cars his factories produced. According to Wiki he introduced the $5/day wage (unheard of at the time) and the five-day/40 hour workweek. So valid points, also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_For ... philosophy

Production and social care of the working people do not have to be separate. John Cadbury made his workers a village Bournville, (the dark chocolate bears its name), so that they could live in good conditions.
Only a complete idiot would denigrate "any Strain of Communism or Socialism" , and is ignorant of the benefits he himself enjoys.
We would still be working for crumbs and living in huts were it not for unions and the left working to get ordinary people the vote.

Ford was distinctly anti-union. He provided better for his employees, without resorting to the juvenile philosophies of a pair of crackpots. Other capitalists have done the same.

As for denigratin' communism: communists do that themselves by way of consistent failure.

Karl & Fred crafted a fine plan for destruction: communism wrecks civilization.

And: to the degree the U.S. has failed, is failing, it's cuz the U.S. has adopted the trapping of the communist.

[Immanuel Can]

Karl Marx is possibly the most maligned historical figure in the recent past.

Well, the truth is that some people quite deserve to be maligned. He lived a malignant life, and introduced a thoroughly malignant philosophy. Worse still, after his death, Marx's ideas brought about the death of at least one hundred million people in the last century. No other ideologue has ever come close to that. Statistically, if there is any individual in the history of the human race who has done more damage than Karl Marx, it would be impossible to say who it would be.

I think we can now stop defending Karl Marx. We can just let all his deeds speak for themselves.