| View Blog
|
|
|
|
| Ends and Means |
This is an answer to a comment posted by jimw:
jimw wrote:
I would prefer the capitalistic society as this affords me the opportunity to continue in my
entrepreneurship thus aiding/assisting those in need by giving back into the community.
Ron Allen answers:
Do you believe in equal opportunity? Do you believe that capitalism offers or provides equal
opportunity? Do you believe that entrepreneurs who produce and market redundant goods
and services are necessary?
When you give back to the community, what are you giving back? What you have taken
from the community?
jimw wrote:
This being accomplished through mentoring, providing opportunities for employment exceeding local/national wage scale where there one just ekes out a "living", establishing openings for those who society deem "non-employable", and lifting other up from the mire.
Ron Allen answers:
Do capitalists provide employment opportunities, or would there be more opportunities for
employment if capitalism were abolished? Private property in the means of production is
what takes away the scope and freedom of access to land and resources. If you take away
freedom of access to the means of production through privatization, and then you give to
some people access to the means of production, then your provision of employment is
based upon an initial privation. What kind of provision is it that is derived from privation?
jimw wrote:
In my thinking socialism is collective community organization of a general "pot" per say where everyone has their needs met regardless of their contributions.
Ron Allen answers:
To each according to their ability is preceded by from each according to their ability. The
from each . . . clause comes before the to each . . . clause. Who ought to contribute more
than they are able? Who should consume or utilize more than they need?
In capitalism those who contribute their capital do not contribute their labor. Capital is the
product or essence of other people's labors. If I contribute capital, but not labor, then what
I contribute is other people's labors.
jimw wrote:
To me this stifles one to exceed or gives one incentive to better themselves.
Ron Allen answers:
In capitalism, one betters one's own self while one beggars others. The incentive to better
one's own self is morally praiseworthy, but to beggar others is morally objectionable.
jimw wrote:
I believe if you can work then work and if no then no reward, which is our existing welfare state today.
Ron Allen answers:
If you can work, then work. Yes, I agree. Socialism does not instruct people who can work
not to work. The welfare state is not socialism. The welfare state exists to preclude and to
prevent socialism.
If you cannot work, then society must either supply your needs or allow you to perish.
Those who cannot work are not obligated to work. In a socialist society, those who are
unable to work will be provided for.
jimw wrote:
However that is not to say I'm against assisting anyone who is trying and just needs a bit of help.
Ron Allen answers:
There are too many people trying to make it. There are too many people with unmet needs.
If the means of production were communal property, then those who want to be productive
will have no private property barriers to success in finding productive employment. If we
abolish every barrier to productive employment, then we the people will need no more
charity, no more welfare, and no more assistance.
jimw wrote:
By all means give it to them and then by setting example they can, and should, do the same for the next one in line.
Ron Allen answers:
Why create poverty? Freedom of access to productive employment will eliminate poverty,
and this will remove the need for charity, welfare, and assistance.
jimw wrote:
Our local/state/federal government should do this but not being accomplished in the existing climate of government today. The "leadership" as of today is exerting force to take over, or nationalize, industries, be it auto, banking or health, where the "people" become employees of the state. ANIMAL FARM is where we are today under the present elected officials, and if one is critical then one is a "racist" and hate monger.
Ron Allen answers:
The author of Animal Farm was a democratic socialist. Remember this.
There are people who oppose Obama because he's African-American, and because they
are racists. I know this to be true. Not every Obama critic is a racist, but there are Obama
critics who are racists.
jimw wrote:
I am happy in the existing reality and you would be happy in a future reality, making us both gleeful in our own secure cocoon of flawed reality.
Enjoy your thoughts even if we don't see I to eye.
|
|
Posted by rallen2 on 2009-10-25 16:05:37 | Rating: | Views: 25
|
|
| |
|
|
Email This to a Friend 