Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: the partial and limited view

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    ... wrote: I think the fact companies can and do manipulate government laws and regulations means the companies cease to be capitalistic.If
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
      <existlist1@...> wrote:

      "I think the fact companies can and do manipulate government laws and
      regulations means the companies cease to be "capitalistic.If you seek
      laws to protect yourself from competition and free market, or seek
      special tax breaks, you are not really practicing capitalism."

      I have always looked at this as a statistical anomaly. Though it
      should be "one man - one vote", with influence peddling and lobbying
      we have a democracy that is weighed out most often only in dollars,
      and one man can deliver thousands of votes. Companies are still
      practicing capitalism when seeking to buy government advantages.
      Bribery and pandering are capitalist activities. A capitalist is not
      compelled to moral or ethical claim and arguments to that effect are
      silly. There is a vast difference between Enron's Lay gang and say
      industrialists like Carnegie and Pullman. Capitalism slipped from any
      ethical postition a long time ago, but then so has every other naive
      view of social organization. I love the mixers. I loved Drexel back in
      the day, and I like Chavez and Citgo selling heating oil for
      forty-five percent of the market price to designated poor communities
      in the US. I think that capitalism is not a theory, not even in a
      mathematical sense. It's just the old need and greed paradigm,
      regardless of how some philosophers have tried to bandwagon it to the
      moral high ground as both the prerequisite and result of freedom.
      Neither is true. Capitalism is a human event in a representational
      view. In my opinion Deleuze has a strange poetic but poignantly
      concise turn on it.If we would really consider capitalism as a
      philosophical theory it would line up rather neatly with a lot of the
      anarchist view; but in the end capitalism is actually not a
      philosophy, actually not a way of life, or even a way of living, just
      a system of counting.

      Trinidad
    • Albert
      Now Trinidad, It is the least evil system. Besides, greed and counting are an essential components to progress, period, and without it there is no progress.
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Now Trinidad,

        It is the least evil system. Besides, greed and "counting" are an essential
        components to progress, period, and without it there is no progress.

        Albert.




        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@...>
        To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 5:49 PM
        Subject: [existlist] Re: the partial and limited view


        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
        <existlist1@...> wrote:

        "I think the fact companies can and do manipulate government laws and
        regulations means the companies cease to be "capitalistic.If you seek
        laws to protect yourself from competition and free market, or seek
        special tax breaks, you are not really practicing capitalism."

        I have always looked at this as a statistical anomaly. Though it
        should be "one man - one vote", with influence peddling and lobbying
        we have a democracy that is weighed out most often only in dollars,
        and one man can deliver thousands of votes. Companies are still
        practicing capitalism when seeking to buy government advantages.
        Bribery and pandering are capitalist activities. A capitalist is not
        compelled to moral or ethical claim and arguments to that effect are
        silly. There is a vast difference between Enron's Lay gang and say
        industrialists like Carnegie and Pullman. Capitalism slipped from any
        ethical postition a long time ago, but then so has every other naive
        view of social organization. I love the mixers. I loved Drexel back in
        the day, and I like Chavez and Citgo selling heating oil for
        forty-five percent of the market price to designated poor communities
        in the US. I think that capitalism is not a theory, not even in a
        mathematical sense. It's just the old need and greed paradigm,
        regardless of how some philosophers have tried to bandwagon it to the
        moral high ground as both the prerequisite and result of freedom.
        Neither is true. Capitalism is a human event in a representational
        view. In my opinion Deleuze has a strange poetic but poignantly
        concise turn on it.If we would really consider capitalism as a
        philosophical theory it would line up rather neatly with a lot of the
        anarchist view; but in the end capitalism is actually not a
        philosophy, actually not a way of life, or even a way of living, just
        a system of counting.

        Trinidad










        Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
        Yahoo! Groups Links









        --
        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/353 - Release Date: 5/31/2006
      • Exist List Moderator
        ... Actually, it is not silly to call upon the moral imperatives Smith and others said were necessary for true capitalism to survive. Once you lose the moral
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 5, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          On Jun 01, 2006, at 8:49, Trinidad Cruz wrote:

          > and one man can deliver thousands of votes. Companies are still
          > practicing capitalism when seeking to buy government advantages.
          > Bribery and pandering are capitalist activities. A capitalist is not
          > compelled to moral or ethical claim and arguments to that effect are
          > silly.

          Actually, it is not "silly" to call upon the moral imperatives Smith
          and others said were necessary for true capitalism to survive. Once you
          lose the moral obligations to society and to whatever moral compass you
          have (admitted for Smith and his colleagues this was a Christian
          ethic), then anything becomes possible.

          The loss of morality / ethics is evident, as you admit, in all social
          systems. I certainly would not present any current world leader or
          government as a model of perfection. Ethics are stuck in some
          soft-n-chewy (not my quote) postmodern relativism that refuses to seek
          clarity but rather strives to show how no ethical system is valid
          because all are valid.

          Capitalism is not Enron, unless you consider the notion that Smith was
          correct when he suggested the courts might be the final solution when
          morality and social ethics fail. At least some stockholders are
          starting to use their ownership to challenge executive hubris.

          > I love the mixers. I loved Drexel back in
          > the day, and I like Chavez and Citgo selling heating oil for
          > forty-five percent of the market price to designated poor communities
          > in the US.

          I consider Chavez incredibly dangerous, and increasingly so do his
          neighbors. Unfortunately, generations of corruption supported by the
          Cold War have ruined the political systems of Latin America. The United
          States and Soviet Union did their best to dominate the puppet states,
          depriving the residents of self-determination.

          Now, anyone promising a better life can win for a cycle or two. That
          Caracas is the "most dangerous city in the hemisphere" (Amnesty
          International) doesn't seem to register with Chavez supporters. He will
          eventually use the high crime rate to justify some manner of
          power-grab. We've seen this in Chile, Columbia, and Brazil.

          > concise turn on it.If we would really consider capitalism as a
          > philosophical theory it would line up rather neatly with a lot of the
          > anarchist view; but in the end capitalism is actually not a
          > philosophy, actually not a way of life, or even a way of living, just
          > a system of counting.

          No philosophy works, under this strict notion that you can actually
          implement a pure version of the political or economic. Human nature
          will always interfere. This is why the libertarians and anarchists try
          to limit government -- it has the ultimate power, and the people in
          charge are just people. I don't trust people to do the right thing
          without some manner of public way to cause shame or even humiliation.
          In capitalism, competition is the balancing force, along with the
          notion of complete and honest contractual obligations.

          In "corporatism" (internationalism, or whatever you wish to call it),
          we approach the unholy alliance of government and industry, as was the
          case with fascism and Soviet-style "Communism" we see morphing under
          Putin. China is a more extreme example, but I'm not certain where it
          will evolve. When the government and industry are one, there are no
          checks on power. The leaders of one are the leaders of the other.

          This concerns me right now because when we allow power to become
          centralized, new ideas and even radical rejections of current ideas
          become nearly impossible. No "philosophy" except self-focused,
          inner-peace type solutions become viable when the individual is
          stripped of power.

          Then, you have the existentialism of Frankl or the absurdism of Camus.
          This is where I often turn for reading, and see no conflict with their
          notions and my dream of an individual-based society. I know it is a
          dream because most people... we know what they are like. They aren't
          about to go without handouts or leaders to follow.

          - C. S. Wyatt
          I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
          that I shall be.
          http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
          http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.