Enemy of the State
I recently found this
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-herrera19may19,0,2228550.story?coll=la-home-commentary
I thought it interesting.
Why is it that every country in the world that doesnt bow to Dubbya is an enemy of the state and somehow linked to terrorism?
Apparently, his newest cuts are against Venezuela, led by outspoken DEMOCRATICALLY elected, Bush opponent and critic, Hugo Chavez.
Apparently, Bush is jealous of Venezuelas economic growth by GDP (over 16% compared to 4.4% for the US last year http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_rea_gro_rat-economy-gdp-real-growth-rate), or maybe hes jealous of Chavez's happiness rating amongst his people which hovers around 55% compared to in the 30's for Bushs America http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_hap_lev_ver_hap-lifestyle-happiness-level-very-happy.
I guess maybe its the sure mark of terrorism to increase your literacy rates, drop your poverty rates, increase your hospital beds per citizen, lower your infant mortality rates, lower your unemployment rate, lower your Gini index, and STILL have a happy country.
I guess we could only be so lucky to have those things, and for that they're labeled terrorists.
Bush and Co are also crying in their milk about Russia selling Venezuela weapons after the US has banned the sale, attempting to force Chavez into ruin, as theyve been doing to Castro in Cuba.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060727/ap_on_re_eu/russia_venezuela
Sorry Bush, the world doesnt love capitalism, and they dont love the religious right. The world, not attached to your ass, is impressed with Chavez and what he has done with Venezuela and are willing to help them out. You might want to take a few notes, after all, 15% of his country isnt without health coverage, http://www.workingpeople.org/mainPage/healthcare.htm, with an even higher amount not being able to afford proper preventitive care even with coverage.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-herrera19may19,0,2228550.story?coll=la-home-commentary
I thought it interesting.
Why is it that every country in the world that doesnt bow to Dubbya is an enemy of the state and somehow linked to terrorism?
Apparently, his newest cuts are against Venezuela, led by outspoken DEMOCRATICALLY elected, Bush opponent and critic, Hugo Chavez.
Apparently, Bush is jealous of Venezuelas economic growth by GDP (over 16% compared to 4.4% for the US last year http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_rea_gro_rat-economy-gdp-real-growth-rate), or maybe hes jealous of Chavez's happiness rating amongst his people which hovers around 55% compared to in the 30's for Bushs America http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_hap_lev_ver_hap-lifestyle-happiness-level-very-happy.
I guess maybe its the sure mark of terrorism to increase your literacy rates, drop your poverty rates, increase your hospital beds per citizen, lower your infant mortality rates, lower your unemployment rate, lower your Gini index, and STILL have a happy country.
I guess we could only be so lucky to have those things, and for that they're labeled terrorists.
Bush and Co are also crying in their milk about Russia selling Venezuela weapons after the US has banned the sale, attempting to force Chavez into ruin, as theyve been doing to Castro in Cuba.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060727/ap_on_re_eu/russia_venezuela
Sorry Bush, the world doesnt love capitalism, and they dont love the religious right. The world, not attached to your ass, is impressed with Chavez and what he has done with Venezuela and are willing to help them out. You might want to take a few notes, after all, 15% of his country isnt without health coverage, http://www.workingpeople.org/mainPage/healthcare.htm, with an even higher amount not being able to afford proper preventitive care even with coverage.
posted by Lethal_Poison at 8:48 AM
8 Comments:
Capitalism offers motivation and rewards towards those who do something for society.
Is unrestrained capitalism wrong? Yes. However at least some capitalism is necessary to motivate individuals to get off their lazy butts.
Hugo Chavez is only empowered to offer his improvements to his constituents due to his nation's oil wealth. Absent this wealth, his efforts would flounder.
Hugo Chavez seems to be riding the wave of popularity by thumbing his nose at America and the rest of the developed world. He does not seek to ally himself with moderate forces such as those who exist in the EU, but seeks out those whom even the EU describes as unsavory.
I understand that Mr Chavez might understandably being harboring a grudge against Dubyah Bush due to Dubyah's apparent support of the attempted coup against him. However his failure to lead his people towards long term success while seeking to, in the short term, poke his finger in the eye of his opponents exposes him to be nothing like the saviour his people need.
Hugo Chavez could seek counsel from moderate voices like those existing in France without pegging the meter in the other direction by consorting with Cuba and Iran.
Capitalism offers rewards and motivation to those who own things in society, not neccessarily provide anything positive. The hardest workers in society continue to be some of the least rewarded.
As far as Hugo Chavez's oil profits, he is using what the state has, to benefit all of society. Unfortunatley, he has not been blessed with 3,619,000 square miles of every resource on the globe as the US has. You cant deliver the scenario of "if" or "coulda, shoulda, woulda".
If the US didnt have the resources it does, it wouldnt be remotely in the position it is now, would it? I think not.
You can not erase the fact that Venezuela is one of the the quickest emerging nations under Chavez on the globe. Under his leadership, they have improved on almost every measurable category, social and economic, while countries such as the US have floundered under their leadership.
You can not erase the fact that highly socialized countries, such as Finland and Norway, continously outperform countries such as the US, in almost every single imagineable category short of GDP.
As for Chavez not leading his people to long term success. How is bringing up the literacy rate, lowering the infant mortality rate, bringing up the healthcare level, and generally fixing the plight of the poor, not working for the long term success?
Maybe he should have left it as the third world exploited dump he inherited from the wonders of the "free market", the joke of Latin America.
I think Chavez has no need or cause to shut up, since he cant be economically castrated, like Fidel Castro.
I am not in favor of raw, unrestricted capitalism, however I think capitalism does offer many benefits to society.
Both the Soviet Union and China showed us the dangers of Communism. Great Britian flirted with Socialism and it was pretty much a disaster.
While America was blessed (past tense) with numerous resources, much of this vast wealth has been exploited and exhausted, but still the American economy chugs on.
Instead of comparing Venezuela to America, how about we compare Venezuela to Japan. Japan has very little in the way of resources. How do you explain that Japanese citizens enjoy such a high standard of living if the explanation does not at least partially involve capitalism?
Don't think I am completely condemnatory of Hugo Chavez. I cheered when the attempted coup against him failed. However some of the things he has been up to since that time has left me shaking my head.
1. The Soviet Union, nor China were a communist state. That is elementary there. They violated almost every principle outlined by Marx, starting with forcing it top down on a largely aggrarian society. The hallmarks of Communism, such as free thought, Democracy, and economic independence were completely abused or ignored under those regimes.
2. Socialism is not the answer, as a nanny state is simply a middle left counterbalance to capitalism.
Capitalism creates the need for increased social systems, which the US continues to ignore. They drag their feet when it comes to education, healthcare, roads, and anything else, but at the same time, point to the "lazy" undertoe of people created by capitalism, increasing by the day, who cant afford access to the "free market" versions of this infrastructure.
They then stand there with their hands in their pockets, wondering why the US continues to lag behind Western Europe and Canada, and even a couple emerging economies, in almost every measure of standard of living.
There is only two roads you can travel, with out sure collapse, either provide EVERYONE with the ability to provide for themselves, or be prepared to provide for those who cant. The US, doesnt seem to want to do either.
3. As far as Japan goes, they are forced to pursue some sort of capitalism, they have no choice. A country cannot be communist, without underlying resources. Japan was and continues to be forced to exploit others resources.
On the other hand though, Japan is heavily regulated, and far more socialized, and has a far more unified culture. Japans poverty rate is microscopic compared to the US. Japans average CEO only makes something like 20 times the average employee, compared to the US average of about 200 times the average employee. Japanese companies are famous for using other Japanese companies as suppliers or subcontractors, ignoring price, while in the US, the lowest bidder wins, screw American jobs.
Yeah, it would have been interesting to see what would have happened in Russia if Lenin had not been followed by Stalin.
However I think the crap preached by Marx was just that, crap. "From each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs."
What motivates the person who has special abilities to work hard while he looks at his neighbor who works at half speed and enjoys the same standard of living as he does? Why shouldn't he just kick back and work at half speed as well? Karl Marx said his needs are going to be met either way. The worker works hard? His needs are met, nothing more. He works half speed? His needs are met as if he worked full tilt. Karl Marx's philosophy depends on a pure human nature and I am saying human nature is not that pure.
Capitalism is fueled by greed. It provides a system of motivation and rewards for achievement. Now the key to success is taming and throwing a harness on that wild stallion greed. Providing ample, yet not excessive, rewards to those who do good things for society while still providing a helping hand to those who are not as gifted with abilities.
1. However I think the crap preached by Marx was just that, crap. "From each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs."
Response- It depends on how one interprets this saying, as to what form of communism one would support.
2. What motivates the person who has special abilities to work hard while he looks at his neighbor who works at half speed and enjoys the same standard of living as he does?
Response- Unfortunatley, nobody subsribes to that interpretation. A common interpretation, which was explained by Marx as well, involves the labor value of production. Each individual would be required to provide a certain level to society, to receive a certain minumum level back from society. At the same time, that is NOT the limit as to what one can provide to, or receive from society.
A very simple example,it was determined that one should produce 3 chairs, in exchange for the equivalent of minimum living wage.
Worker A produces 3 chairs, and receives his wage.
If Worker B produces 5 chairs, he is going to receive the labor value of 5 chairs, NOT the value of worker A's three chairs. Workers who are able to produce more value, will be rewarded that value. Unlike capitalism, where more often then not, the only person/people who benefit(s) from increased production are the owners.
If Worker A refuses to or is unable to produce 3 chairs, he will be reassigned another job, or he will be put out on his ass.
Even severely mentally challenged individuals and many with physical challeges can provide worth to society. Those that fall below that level would be cared for by society, much as the elderly and infirmed would be.
3. Providing ample, yet not excessive, rewards to those who do good things for society while still providing a helping hand to those who are not as gifted with abilities.
Response- In plain English, this is a nanny state. Although I think it is the wrong route, it is the ONLY route to sustain capitalism. The United States does not want to adopt the needed European style social welfare to float the undertoe though. It wants its "cake and eat it to" so to speak, and this is just not feasible.
At one point, as throughout history, the proleteriat will reach a break level, and will boil over, either politically forcing a leftist regime change, or violently overthrowing the government.
Heh heh, I define communism by the societies who have tried it and who have been unable to make it work.
What you describe in making communism work is what goes on in a pure capitalist society. However instead of the government stepping in and deciding how much each employee should be paid, you have managers and CEO's etc making the decisions.
If any worker is unhappy with his lot, he is free to start up his own enterprise if he really is that good and reap the rewards for himself.
Capitalism produced the automobile you drive whether it was produced in America, Japan or Korea. Pretty soon Chinese vehicles produced through capitalism induced competition (although not completely fair competition yet) might start showing up in the showrooms.
Is China better off or worse off due to the flirting with capitalism? As China has become more capitalist, her society has shown better ability to provide for the needs of the members of her society. China still has a long way to go, but the first awkward steps are showing promise.
1. Heh heh, I define communism by the societies who have tried it and who have been unable to make it work.
Response- Wow, I guess, if I decided to make a paper airplane, and call it an automobile, that must mean its an automobile right? Sure, it doesnt have tires, a motor, or the ability to steer, but Im calling it an automobile, so it must be so.
2. What you describe in making communism work is what goes on in a pure capitalist society. However instead of the government stepping in and deciding how much each employee should be paid, you have managers and CEO's etc making the decisions.
Repsonse- This is so very wrong, and Ill try to enumurate some of the ways.
a. In capitalism, it is the goal for cost of good sold to NEVER be as high as sale price of good. By which, an employee is NEVER compensated for his labor value in an ideal capitalist situation. In communism, it is ALWAYS the goal to achieve an equilibrium between cost of goods sold and sale price, meaning the employee is ALWAYS compensated for his labor value.
b. In capitalism, an employees production is rarely, if ever, correlated to his compensation. If a line worker makes 10 chairs, he is going to get the same hourly wage as some screw off making 1. This creates completely unmotivated production level staffs who believe they are owed something for simply showing up. In communism, an employee would see a fatter proportionate paycheck for the added value he created to the company.
c. In capitalism, CEOs appoint sweetheart boards who set insane levels of compensation. Managers tend to get their positions and compensation by being part of that same good ol' boy network. In communism, managers would be elected by their peers, and their compensation would be set by the state. If the managers led the factory in the wrong direction, theyd be recallable by their peers, and someone of more competence can be elected. In capitalism, if management leads the factory in the wrong direction, they get cushy golden parachutes, or end up merging with another company, while the "peers" at the bottom, who had no say in their leadership, just simply get laid off.
3. If any worker is unhappy with his lot, he is free to start up his own enterprise if he really is that good and reap the rewards for himself.
Response- Yeah, I bet a disgruntled Walmart worker is really going to be able to start up a big box discount store......
4. Capitalism produced the automobile you drive whether it was produced in America, Japan or Korea. Pretty soon Chinese vehicles produced through capitalism induced competition (although not completely fair competition yet) might start showing up in the showrooms.
Response- Chinas wage disparity is amongst the fastest growing on the globe.
5. Is China better off or worse off due to the flirting with capitalism? As China has become more capitalist, her society has shown better ability to provide for the needs of the members of her society. China still has a long way to go, but the first awkward steps are showing promise.
Response- China has never NOT been "flirting with capitalism". Free market capitalism is better then state run capitalism headed by dictators, and that is why Chinese conditions are improving.
Unfortunatley, the tremendous cost of social welfare that China will eventually require when free market capitalism fully develops will sink them, or plummet them into revolution.
Post a Comment
<< Home