(Harry Pollard:)
> By far the best system for providing for "human needs" is the market, which
> is why the most controlled societies allow, or encourage, market mechanisms
> to make up for their deficiencies in 'gearing for human needs'.
>
you can say capitalism is better than feudalism or slavery, but you
have to convince me that is is the best we could have with even in
the US creating poverty, hopelessness and bitterness, with the
economical and consequently the social divide getting greater all the
time.
> But, somehow the market sometimes fails to work. Attention would better be
> spent finding why instead of replacing it with it's alternatives - which
> have mostly failed horribly whenever they are tried.
>
You name it, it has been tried. Free market, keynesian market,
monetarist market, all end up in failure sooner or later. The
latest "boom" we are witnessing is not even capable getting rid off
unemployment and deficits. The only alternetive tried so far was
non-democratic socialism. Even this deformed form of common ownership
had positive features for the majority of people, such as free
healthcare and free education. Why do you think so many countries actually
re-elected ex-communist governments in eastern Europe?
Now picture, what could be achieved, if socialism was adapted by the
free will of the people and democratically controlled and
participated by everyone, using the literacy and the technology
unimaginable for 1917 Russia or 1945 Eastern Europe.
> Private property is essential to the well-being of people. Private
> appropriation is kind of a cliche - but we are likely to agree somewhat on it.
>
Really? In what way private property is essential for a peasant in
Mexico or Brazil or the Phillipines, who were chucked off their land??
Or a "downsized" US citizen, who is forced to take on short-term
contract work, part-time work and totally unsecure future?
> In the sense of stealing, we agree. In the sense of reward for exertion
> spent, we may not.
>
Just reward d'you reckon? In 1965 average GNP per capita for the top
20% of the world population was 30 times that of the poorest
20%. In 1990 the gap has doubled to 60 times. UNCTAD report 1997:
The richest 1% of American households control 40% of the wealth.
Independent on Sunday 17/8/97:
20 years ago the average chief executive made 40 times what the
average worker. Today it is 200 times more.
Even if the average worker had a reasonable rise in standard of
living (but hadn't) this is an unreasonable waste, and too much
concentration of power, don't you think?
> I remember Douglas Jay - I think at the time he was UK Home Secretary in
> the first Labor Government, but am happy to be corrected - saying "We have
> people in Whitehall who know far better than the English housewife how she
> should conduct her affairs".
>
> Well, he and the Labor government didn't last long - which is as it should
> be - the arrogant "beep".
I don't know the names of the ministers of that government. All I
know, that they were voted in by a landside, because they promised
socialism. They did a lot, such as free education and heathcare, but
left the privilage and the capitalist system intact. That's why they
failed and will fail again. There is no such thing as capitalism with
a "human face", as there is no dictatorship with a "human face",
either.
>
> People don't like being herded by 'those who know better' which is why the
> free market mostly works and socialism rarely does.
>
So people have free choices now?? They are free to loose their jobs?
Their freedom means that 60+ percent of them vote for a capitalist
candidate every four years, with no open discussion in the media
about the shortcomings of the system only about the grins of the
prospective candidates, that cannot make a difference, because they
haven't got the means anyway to control the economic power.
They are blowing about in the wind of boom and bust together with
their spin-doctors, not having the faintest idea when the next crash comes.
> I like my 'fancy car'. I make sure it works when I get in and I believe I
> had it washed last year - or was it the year before? If I had a convenient,
> cheap, and comfortable public transport available I would use it.
>
Ooops, but the markets won't provide good public transport, because
the profit is in selling smelly, energy and resource-consuming cars.
The profit is in selling arms, even if there is not a faint human
need there. 20% of industrial production linked to these two "human need"
industries in the "developed" world.
All is well, do you reckon?
> However, there is a general thought process that attaches to collectivists
> - which is probably why they are collectivist. It's that people are simply
> unable to fend for themselves, to make appropriate decisions, to be free
> and independent.
>
Human endevour from it's very nature is "collectivist", that's what
made our species so successful. People are not able to fend for
themselves, that's why they live in a society. At this stage, they
will decide - for themselves - that they need something more
reasonable than capitalism. If they do it democratically - they
cannot go wrong. And now we know enough from history not to do it any
other way.
Eva
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
