A question for Anti-Capitalists....

[Fruitloop]

The how come we're ruled by a bunch of incompetent wayward-dicked hands-in-the-till cretins? If you want to assert that capitalism facilitates the rule of philosopher-kings you might want to provide some substantiation yourself.

And also lose the patronising fucking tone, as it's somewhat irksome.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Uniformity of punishment = fairness.

Whatever gave you that idea - think uniform flat rate fines and fairness?

Louis Mac

 

[IMHO]

Whatever gave you that idea - think uniform flat rate fines and fairness?

Louis Mac

I meant uniform in all areas.

 

[IMHO]

The how come we're ruled by a bunch of incompetent wayward-dicked hands-in-the-till cretins? If you want to assert that capitalism facilitates the rule of philosopher-kings you might want to provide some substantiation yourself

I was thinking of entrepreneurs rather than political rulers. THOSE are the people I'm saying have allways risen to the top. Regarding political leaders, whether in democracy, dictatorship or almost any other system, I agree that most political leaders and their cohorts turn out to be shite. I'd certainly agree that we need FAR less government and interference in people's lives.

 

[In Bloom]

Uniformity of punishment = fairness.

Since when? The inquisition was fairly uniform in its treatment of Cathar perfects, was that fair*? What do you mean by "fair" and "unfair" here?



*Yes, I did desparately search for an example that didn't involve Hitler

 

[In Bloom]

Perhaps you'd like to explain why I'm a silly, pompous pseud?

Thanks, but you do a pretty good job of explaining it for me

 

[In Bloom]

You've lost a million. No matter how rich a person, they won't risk money without adequate potential reward.

No, but the risk is less because they have plenty of money to fall back on afterwards, they haven't lost everything, they might lose that villa in Tuscany, but they've still got their homes and relative wealth.

 

[IMHO]

Since when? The inquisition was fairly uniform in its treatment of Cathar perfects, was that fair*? What do you mean by "fair" and "unfair" here?

Okay. Substitute fair for same.

The point is not particularly important. I think there would be more pressing considerations than uniformity of punishment in a non-capitalist society.

 

[Fruitloop]

I was thinking of entrepreneurs rather than political rulers. THOSE are the people I'm saying have allways risen to the top. Regarding political leaders, whether in democracy, dictatorship or almost any other system, I agree that most political leaders and their cohorts turn out to be shite. I'd certainly agree that we need FAR less government and interference in people's lives.

I didn't say we needed less government either

I think the adulation accorded to entrepreneurs is probably misplaced, and is an obvious outgrowth of capitalist ideology. Ignoring for the moment that the cult of entrepreneurship serves to obscure the central place of labour in all wealth-creation, it's possible (and indeed common) to be an entrepreneur without creating anything of any value. The Money Program last night contained an accessible and illuminating account of the career of Lord Drayson - now minister for defence procurement. It charted a (IMO) pretty typical career trajectory through some early and fairly unimpressive business experience and the cultivation of elite contacts, on to reselling products made elsewhere (whilst creaming off the profit, using the aforementioned contacts plus, it was alleged, generous party donations and a substantial amount of hot air and hype to generate businness), and out of the relevant companies before the arse fell out and the lawsuits began - and into the House of Lords, FFS.

If these are the best and brightest that capitalism selects to be our leaders, we're seriously in the shit.

 

[IMHO]

No, but the risk is less because they have plenty of money to fall back on afterwards, they haven't lost everything, they might lose that villa in Tuscany, but they've still got their homes and relative wealth.

I admit their risk is less, but I'm saying they still wouldn't take that relative lesser risk without adequate potential reward.

Regarding the non-wealthy taking risks, again they wouldn't do it (by buying X shares at £3 a throw) without adequate potential reward.

The risk-reward ratio and principle works at every level.

 

[In Bloom]

I admit their risk is less, but I'm saying they still wouldn't take that relative lesser risk without adequate potential reward.

Regarding the non-wealthy taking risks, again they wouldn't do it (by buying X shares at £3 a throw) without adequate potential reward.

The risk-reward ratio and principle works at every level.

Except that it doesn't, because rich people can afford to take greater risks in absolute terms, with a lower relative risk, for a much greater reward.

 

[IMHO]

The Money Program last night contained an accessible and illuminating account of the career of Lord Drayson ...

If these are the best and brightest that capitalism selects to be our leaders, we're seriously in the shit.

Far from being the best and brightest entrepreneur, I'd say Drayson represents one of the shittiest examples.

 

[IMHO]

Except that it doesn't, because rich people can afford to take greater risks in absolute terms, with a lower relative risk, for a much greater reward.

In the example of £1,000,000 doubling as opposed to a £3 share doubling, yes.

However, this ignores the thousands of millionaires who've started with little of their own, but succeeded through borrowed capital or by raising share capital.

 

[In Bloom]

In the example of £1,000,000 doubling as opposed to a £3 share doubling, yes.

However, this ignores the thousands of millionaires who've started with little of their own, but succeeded through borrowed capital or by raising share capital.

I'm not, I'm just saying that those cases are rare and the people involved very lucky, compared to people who already have a fuck load of money to play with.

Anyway, meritocracy is not what I'm arguing for, so its more than a little irrelevant. Inequality of wealth=inequality of power=abuse of power, that simple, really

 

[IMHO]

Inequality of wealth=inequality of power=abuse of power, that simple, really

Okay. But don't you think, if somehow capitalism went and we all started with a level playing field, that some people would eventually end up with more than others, because the things which aren't level are intelligence and ambition?

 

[In Bloom]

Okay. But don't you think, if somehow capitalism went and we all started with a level playing field, that some people would eventually end up with more than others, because the things which aren't level are intelligence and ambition?

That depends on what capitalism was replaced with.

 

[Fruitloop]

I don't think that the ideal for any post-capitalist system is that everyone should be rewarded the same regardless of what they do - the question is simply on what basis you want people to be rewarded.

The things that are rewarded by capitalism aren't necessarily intelligence and ambition - I would have said that a ruthless unconcern for the distal effects of your own accumulation, and the ability to internalise ideological values in such a way as to allow you to pass through the various filters on the way to success were both more useful personal attributes in the pursuit of fame and fortune.

 

[e-fluent]

What would you replace it with?

Duh back to how it was before.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I meant uniform in all areas.

What does that mean in practice; an example would be good?

Louis Mac

 

[In Bloom]

I don't think that the ideal for any post-capitalist system is that everyone should be rewarded the same regardless of what they do - the question is simply on what basis you want people to be rewarded.

Or possibly whether "reward" is a useful way to talk about the organisation of a civilised society?

 

[Fruitloop]

I guess I meant it in the loosest possible sense - in that in a system of production and distribution (i.e. an economic system) the distribution of goods for consumption represents the 'reward' for productive activity. It's true that hypothetically speaking unalienated labour shouldn't require the same degree of enticement or coercion.