- Thread starter
- #21
1. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.
2. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
Any inequality that occurs is based on the inequality of human nature.
It was ever so, and will continue to be so.
Wise up.
In every "capitalist" system today there are significant measures taken to address inequality by the government. The ideas of the socialists and their fears were not only proven right but governments across the globe have used them in various ways and to varying degrees of success.
As economies develop there are new and different challenges and solutions to think about. In the past unions were absolutely critical in making sure that the economic gains in the economy were shared across the classes. This shifted the power in both the economy and politics towards labor and away from capital. In the age of globalization, automation, the slow death of unions, and a rising service industry power has shifted once again. It has shifted away from large portions of labor and towards capital.
In order for economic progress to continue to be shared economies have become more and more reliant on either mercantilist type practices and/or transfer payments.
Here is the fallacy in your post, right up front.
"In every "capitalist" system today there are significant measures taken to address inequality by the government."
There is no such attempt to address the bogus 'inequality" in any capitalist system.
There is in a political system, for reasons unrelated to economics.
This may help....take notes:
"What if everyone starts off with the same amount of money?
“….by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others.Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others won’t. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.
Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can’t be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, we’re gonna get what we’re gonna get anyway, so let’s just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.
Some of that will be “unfair,” because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) “haves” and “have-nots” will appear.
I know what you’re thinking.Crap.I thought wehadit this time.Fairness!And this return to economic inequity will happen, I daresay, even under the strictest Communist policies.
I’ll come back to that.
After ten, twenty, thirty years, those discrepancies will widen. A middle class will form. An upper economic class, and a lower economic class. These classes will not be dead ends: people will be able to move from one to another and back again. But they’ll reappear, despite the original, radical redistribution of wealth.
So: let’s take this exercise further.Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, let’s redistribute every year. Every April 23 – Michael Moore’s birthday – all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as it’s possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.
Not really, but we’ll come back to that, too.
Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.
And yet, by April 22 of the following year, some people willstillhave more than others. And they’llkeepit.
How can that be? Simple. Even state-enforced economic “equality” did not –cannot – make everyone “equal.” It can only change the attributes that are most important to getting ahead.
Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard.Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.
Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improving political skills.That’swhat makes a difference.
You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a “have” in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.
Even the hard working entrepreneurs and innovators among us increasingly need the bureaucracy’s help. Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company. It can increase the cost of entry beyond plausibility, or it can make that cost go away.
In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. That’s the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.”
What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth John Hawkins Right Wing News
Now we get to see if you are capable of learning.
Liberals, for the most part.....
.....are not.
A statement of fact can't be a logical fallacy by definition. You then didn't even really argue against what I actually said. Or whatever you copied and pasted didn't even address what I said.
Are you only capable of copying and pasting slanted editorials? I am not really interested in arguing with someone who can't think for themselves enough to write their own stuff.
1. "A statement of fact can't be a logical fallacy by definition."
You have yet to provide any 'statement of fact.'
I just proved that.
2. "Are you only capable of copying and pasting slanted editorials?"
Screaming 'cut and paste' is a Liberal's attempt to avoid confronting the facts that I provided.
I notice that you weren't able to provide examples of 'slanted' aspects in the piece provided.
That pretty much ends any possibility of cachet on your part, huh?
3. "I am not really interested in arguing with someone who can't think for themselves enough to write their own stuff."
Yet, here you are exhibiting the usual Liberal plagiarism.....mouthing what the NYTimes, the DNC, MSNBC, and the Communist Manifesto tell you to.
And, as history has shown, the result of every totalitarian fantasy is death and oppression.
So....where is your 'thinking for yourself'?
Not in evidence.
Hey...remember when I said Liberals are rarely capable of learning?
Thank for proving it.
See ya.'
Everything you just said is nonsensical. It is either factually incorrect, irrelevant, or a blatant straw man fallacy. Without copying and pasting it is clear you can't really follow along in a conversation well enough to have one. I will give you another chance to address the points that I already made. The odds don't seem to be in your favor.
OMG!
You came back with an "Oh, yeah....that's what you think!!!" post.
Brilliant.
You're dismissed.