marc@dataio.UUCP (07/24/84)
<Will this line survive? Find out next episode...> Since the worst thing to do in a debate is to say nothing and take the middle ground, I decided to add my own views to this "Whither are we drifting?" discussion. So... > You can fit slavery just fine into a capitalistic economy by not > considering slaves to be "individuals". The Old South did a grand job of > that. ... There is no reason why socialism or communism can't exist in > a free society. What if the people CHOOSE another economic system? > While some give individuals less economic freedom than capitalism (such as > socialism), others such as communism give more. ... Economic and political > systems are NOT tied together. [Ray Chen] If the Old South did such a great job of it, then why isn't it around now? The South's economy was somewhat capitalistic, but based on agriculture. Contrast this with the North, which was much more capitalistic and could not support a plantation-based system. Instead, it turned to manufacturing. Slavery was not practical even in that semi-capitalistic economy. By the time of the Civil War, the South was facing a decline. Its slavery-based economy was not working because slaves were no longer practical as a source of labor. Slavery is not only morally wrong but very messy and impractical. (Of course, only a few Northerners and even fewer Southerners were concerned with the moral issue.) In a free society, people would be free to practice another economic system if they consented to follow its principles without interfering with the rights of others. Communes are an example of this. However, "choose" may also refer to an election, where a majority of people agree to follow a system but the minority follows because it has no choice. The United States today is an example. If a group of people wants to live in a socialistic fashion, fine. But if that group attempts to force its system on others, it is not following the principles of a free society. Communism certainly does NOT give people more economic freedom than capitalism. Quite the contrary. In communism, all property is owned by the state (commune, whatever). A person in a communistic system, technically, owns nothing. It is all owned in common with others. He has little incentive to create or produce because whatever he makes will also be owned by his "fellow men". His productive work is not his to dispose of; it is not his property. On the other hand, capitalism allows him to sell his productive work and enjoy the benefits. It is his own and belongs to no one else. He can buy, sell, and barter without interference from the government or anyone else. "Economic freedom" is sometimes used to refer to economic security. It is true that the man in a communistic society does have some more economic security than the man in a capitalistic society. For example, he is assured that he will receive his ration of bread and water, no matter how disabled or lazy he is; the state takes care of all. He does not have much economic opportunity. Since he is at the mercy of the government or other economic controllers, he does not have economic freedom. Economic and political systems ARE tied together. The political system in a country often determines what economic system will thrive. Similarly, the economic system influences the political system. For example, a capitalistic economy and a communistic government are not compatible. Capitalism cannot survive when individual freedoms are denied. In communism, property belongs to the state; in capitalism, property belongs to private individuals. If someone wants to sell a car and the government says he can't because it belongs to all the people and the people do not wish it to be sold, who is going to win? If people are allowed to be free, capitalism will prevail; it relies on the principles of freedom and property. If people are not free, then some remnant of capitalism may survive (ex: the Soviet Union), but it will be doomed. Here's another question: Are we free today, in the mixed economy of the United States? If not, what should be done? (Personal opinions: no, implement true laissez-faire capitalism). Anyone for a good discussion? -------------------- Marc Campos @ Data I/O Corporation, Redmond, WA UUCP: {decvax,hplabs}!tektronix!uw-beaver!uw-june!entropy!dataio!marc ARPA: marc@dataio.UUCP
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (08/09/84)
<>
A couple of quick points: capitalism (individual ownership and control
of the means of production) and the free market (the right of firms and
individuals to compete for business) are not synonyms, although they are
often used as if they were. It is obvious that capitalism can exist without
a free market (and often has).
The trouble with laissez-faire capitalism (as I see it) is that it commits
a common and serious error that is popular to some degree with every branch
of the political tree: the idea that the government is the sole oppressor.
I am not anti-union, but it is certainly true that we don't have a free market
for jobs in the film industry thanks to the talent and crafts unions, and
back in the heyday of capitalistic filmmaking only a limited number of
studios and theater owners existed, because the theaters and studios were
owned by the same outfits and nobody else could break in.
These things are changing, thanks to (not in spite of) government interference.
For example, in the so-called "right to work" states unions cannot
contract with employers to keep out nonunion people. And since a Federal
action several decades back, no single entity can produce, distribute,
and exhibit films (although they can do any two). Consequently you or
I could produce a film or open a theater without going to work for a
big studio. That's a freedom the wholly free market did not provide.
By the way, we're now casting The Horror of Computer Beach...
Best,
D Gary Grady
Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706
(919) 684-4146
USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary