4 ms·

Further to this, in Rand's words: ===== “Dear [socialists], our objective, like yours, is the welfare of the poor, more general wealth, and a higher standard

Further to this, in Rand's words: ===== “Dear [socialists], our objective, like yours, is the welfare of the poor, more general wealth, and a higher standard of living for everybody—so please let us capitalists function, because the capitalist system will achieve all these objectives for you. It is in fact the only system that can achieve them.” This last statement is true and has been proved and demonstrated in history, and yet it has not and will not win converts to the capitalist system. Because the above argument is self-contradictory. It is not the purpose of the capitalist system to cater to the welfare of the poor; it is not the purpose of a capitalist enterpriser to spread social benefits; an industrialist does not operate a factory for the purpose of providing jobs for his workers. A capitalist system could not function on such a premise. =====

dragonwriter 11y ago
> This last statement is true and has been proved and demonstrated in history On the contrary, that last statement is false, which has been demonstrated in history, and is largely why the system for which the term "capitalism" was coined is no longer the dominant system of the developed world, having been replaced by mixed economies -- which transition Rand was part of the rear guard arguing against, and to reverse -- which retain in outline the property structure of capitalism, but import many aspects of socialism to deal better with exactly those problems than capitalism ever did.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  "... which retain in outline the property structure of capitalism, but import many aspects of socialism to deal better with exactly those problems than capitalism ever did." That's a contradiction. You can't have both the property structure of capitalism, and state socialism. You have to violate the former to achieve the latter. I'd argue that current systems claim to keep the structure of the former, but violate it at will. In terms of dealing better with the provision of healthcare than capitalism ... have you seen the state of the American healthcare system recently?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Yes, US healthcare sucks, but is still-- despite being less universal and less efficient than that of any other modern advanced economy (all of which are also mixed economies) -- better than anything that existed anywhere when capitalism was the dominant model, and not just due to (non-social) technical advances. Of course, the US has adopted, in many areas and healthcare particularly, less elements of socialism than other advanced mixed economies. So maybe there's a reason US healthcare sucks so hard, and its not insufficient devotion to capitalism.
    - duncan_bayne 11y ago
      "So maybe there's a reason US healthcare sucks so hard, and its not insufficient devotion to capitalism." The list of problems that the previous poster provided were almost all (especially cronyism and cartels) characteristics of systems other than capitalism. Is it possible we're using different definitions of capitalism, here? I think you might mean crony-capitalism, a.k.a. fascism.
      - kefka 11y ago
        I think the problem here is that capitalism when played out in a longer term, trends towards crony capitalism, fascism, plutocracy, and/or nepotism.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        I mean the real economic system that was dominant in the developed world from the late 19th to early 20th Century, which certain of its socialist critics created the word "capitalism" to refer to, since criticising it without a name was problematic, and it was an economic system by which property arrangements, policy, etc., were organized around the interests of the capitalist class. Cronyism and cartels were certainly not infrequent features of that system. Fascism is something different and newer.
        duncan_bayne 11y ago
        ... which was also the system that produced this: http://crfblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2007112238img1.gif http://crfblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2007112238img1... Sure, there were problems. Abuses of power, cronyism, etc. But capitalism quite literally rescued the world from poverty, and continues to do so: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/wordpoverty2-600x387.jpg http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/wordpovert...

dragonwriter 11y ago

> This last statement is true and has been proved and demonstrated in history On the contrary, that last statement is false, which has been demonstrated in history, and is largely why the system for which the term "capitalism" was coined is no longer the dominant system of the developed world, having been replaced by mixed economies -- which transition Rand was part of the rear guard arguing against, and to reverse -- which retain in outline the property structure of capitalism, but import many aspects of socialism to deal better with exactly those problems than capitalism ever did.

duncan_bayne 11y ago
"... which retain in outline the property structure of capitalism, but import many aspects of socialism to deal better with exactly those problems than capitalism ever did." That's a contradiction. You can't have both the property structure of capitalism, and state socialism. You have to violate the former to achieve the latter. I'd argue that current systems claim to keep the structure of the former, but violate it at will. In terms of dealing better with the provision of healthcare than capitalism ... have you seen the state of the American healthcare system recently?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Yes, US healthcare sucks, but is still-- despite being less universal and less efficient than that of any other modern advanced economy (all of which are also mixed economies) -- better than anything that existed anywhere when capitalism was the dominant model, and not just due to (non-social) technical advances. Of course, the US has adopted, in many areas and healthcare particularly, less elements of socialism than other advanced mixed economies. So maybe there's a reason US healthcare sucks so hard, and its not insufficient devotion to capitalism.
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    "So maybe there's a reason US healthcare sucks so hard, and its not insufficient devotion to capitalism." The list of problems that the previous poster provided were almost all (especially cronyism and cartels) characteristics of systems other than capitalism. Is it possible we're using different definitions of capitalism, here? I think you might mean crony-capitalism, a.k.a. fascism.
    - kefka 11y ago
      I think the problem here is that capitalism when played out in a longer term, trends towards crony capitalism, fascism, plutocracy, and/or nepotism.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      I mean the real economic system that was dominant in the developed world from the late 19th to early 20th Century, which certain of its socialist critics created the word "capitalism" to refer to, since criticising it without a name was problematic, and it was an economic system by which property arrangements, policy, etc., were organized around the interests of the capitalist class. Cronyism and cartels were certainly not infrequent features of that system. Fascism is something different and newer.
      - duncan_bayne 11y ago
        ... which was also the system that produced this: http://crfblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2007112238img1.gif http://crfblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2007112238img1... Sure, there were problems. Abuses of power, cronyism, etc. But capitalism quite literally rescued the world from poverty, and continues to do so: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/wordpoverty2-600x387.jpg http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/wordpovert...