Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Thomas <thomas AT tbeckett.com>]

Alan MacHett wrote:
> Given that, it strikes me as odd that you identify with the Republicans. 
> The Democrats are just as dyed-in-the-wool Capitalists, but the
> Republicans are more readily or widely associated with old-school,
> die-hard, all-about-me Capitalism (as you can tell from the comments on
> the list, to which you've responded).
>
> To be honest, I'm dumbfounded.  Until reading your emails, I would NEVER
> have associated 'Republican' or 'Free Market' with management having lower
> salaries than employees or with redistributing profit back to the
> community.  Well, I STILL don't associate those things; I think you've
> mislabeled yourself.

Alan, I think that Don is saying that his employees /currently/ earn 
more than he does from the business.  That's because, as Owner of the 
business, Don's earnings come from the profits of the business, and the 
profits are a little lean just yet.  I infer, howevfer, that if things 
go according to plan, the profits will be fat indeed, and that Don will 
earn way more than his individual employees.  Capitalism in a nutshell.

Actually, as Philip says (quoted below), at its heart Capitalism doesn't 
entail greed.  There are a number of capitalistic businesses out there 
in which all of the participants are compensated in proportion to their 
contribution to the business.  At its most basic, Capitalism is several 
people combining their resources to create a business of far greater 
scope than any one of them could individually, synergistically creating 
value, and sharing in the profits derived from that value.

Tony Spencer wrote:
> Jeez.  I can't believe people still defend Marxism.
>
> Idealism at its worst!

Dude, you're saying that to a bunch of /Libertarians/!

You are also oversimplifying Marxism.  There's Marxism the political 
movement, which springs from the same roots as democracy, but which went 
awry (as noted) when implemented as Soviet Communism. Then there's 
Marxism the political-economic analysis, which was and still is an 
incredibly useful tool for understanding the way the world works.  To 
sum up the latter in three words:  "follow the money."

Marx recognized that as a practical matter, greed does enter into 
Capitalism.  Capital is more than just people pooling their resources 
into a business venture and synergistically creating value.  It is about 
/extracting/ value from resources and -- most of all -- from other 
people.  And using the value thus created to amass more capital, more 
power, and extract more value from more people.  Hence the inherent 
confict between Capital and Labor.  Yada yada yada.  Setting aside the 
value judgments, Marx's explanation of Capital still makes eminent sense.

Marx thought that the conficting forces at work would lead to Labor 
overthrowing Capital and eventually settling into a system where there 
was no government and people shared resources.  Kind of Libertarian, in 
a funny sort of way.  Marx was a brilliant economist, but not so hot as 
a historical forecaster.

Phillip Rhodes wrote:
> Why not? Capitalism and Free Market aren't about individuals not
> giving back to the community, etc.  "Socialism" (at least as it's
> commonly understood) is about government based charity.

Socialism isn't about government-based charity.  The idea behind 
Socialism that the best way to pool resources and look after the common 
good is for the government to own and administer all of the resources. 
In particular, people are too greedy and self-interested to adequately 
care for those who get screwed by fate or economics, and that the state 
is in the best position to do so.

> One of the
> reasons that Libertarians maintain that government charity is not
> needed, is the belief that in the absence of it, private charity
> would take it's place.

That reminds me of the joke about the physicist, the engineer and the 
economist aboard the burning airplane, where the economist says, "Assume 
a parachute."  Your assumption does not reflect reality.

> The relative greed and self-centeredness of individuals is really a
> completely separate issue from whether  you live in a socialist or
> capitalistic society.  In Soviet Russia during the height of
> Communism (the ultimate form of Socialism?) where there not
> individuals who managed to accumulate great wealth while others went
> hungry?

That is probably true, but none of them got nearly as rich as 
Rockefeller.  More true, probably, that some individuals accumulated a 
lot of /power/ which, in that society, was better currency than wealth.

The interesting thing about Russia is that between the fall of the 
Soviet Union and sometime earlier this year, there was a rampant 
capitalistic system in which a small number of individuals took over the 
economic assets of the former state and accumulated unprecedented 
wealth, while others . . . went hungry.  There was little regulatory 
structure to manage the capitalists.  The state was also poorly equipped 
to deliver healthcare, utilities, infrastructure, and so forth.  In 
particular, the state was unable to control the class of gangsters who 
combined their power of violence with their accumulating economic power 
to accumulate tremendouw wealth, while others . . . went hungry.  Until 
Putin started restoring the autocracy, modern Russia was probably the 
closest system in history to a true Libertarian state.

> Capitalism and "Free Market" economics do not *necessarily* equal a
> selfish, "me first" attitude on the part of everyone involved. Those
> attitudes transcend political and economic affiliations, IMHO.

I think you explain there exactly why Libertarianism won't work in real 
life.  This is the reality that your assumption about charity does not 
take into account.

TaB

P.S.  Don't get me wrong here.  I believe in Capitalism.  I have an MBA 
and I'm not afraid to use it.  But Capital alone is not a panacea.  The 
State, alone, cannot provide everything.  There's a balance to be found.