December 22, 2004
-
In the spirit of learning about Mao and communism, here’s a card game I learned years ago, and forgot all about, called “Mao”
http://kevan.org/games/maobot.html
Topic: confused
I picked up a book in Barnes & Nobles today, “Education and Capitalism.” I’m trying to understand all points of view, including those who support private schools working in a free-market society. I’ve recently also been browing some other websites, and came across “capitalism magazine,” http://www.capmag.com/
i haven’t felt this confused since Bush won re-election…and while my emotions have waned since then, this website and a few others have re-awakened the sense in me that I just don’t see the world in the same light as others.
I respect the idea that philosophies are often grey, more than they are black and white. But…more often than not, politicians, policy makers, lobbyists, organizations, journalists, have clear agendas that tend to eliminate any gray.
Let me try to make my thoughts clearer…I think there are some legitimate debates about when capitalism or socialism may be appropriate, (capitalism brings forth innovative technology, socialism makes sure we the poor get educated and health care, ideally) But…reading some of these capitalist sites, I’m starting to see defensive individuals, individuals who laugh at sensitivity, and are proud to be sarcastic and deliberately insulting of their opponents.
I think the point I want to make, is that while there are differences philosophically between dems and republicans, socialists and capitalists, etc., I seem to sense a general “lack of civility/understanding of others,” on the behalf of capitalists. I am trying to not use that as a reason to simply right off capitalist arguments such as privatizing schools, but I think it is worth considering further, that having a conservative political philosophy vs. a liberal philosophy, tends to have a psychological effect by which we care less of others, and lose a sensitivity of others.
Now…before some of you get excited and aim to respond (whether in your head or in a post), that “of course, i knew that all along, those republicans are creeps,” realize, you’re making my point fall apart. As someone who generally supports liberal values, it is imperative that I try to see those with oppositve political views of mine as just that, people with opposite political views.
Some of the articles in Capitalist Magazine, starting with “green bigots international,” just slapped me in the face. They call it ad hominem, when your argument attacks the person, and my criticism of many free-market supporters, is that they rely largely on ad-hominem attacks to prove there points. Hopefully…this post did not do that.
Comments (6)
I dig what you are saying. I read The Economist pretty regularly, and I often get the same feeling. I get that feeling from Milton Friedman and F. A. Hayak as well. I guess that’s just realpolitik, and it exists as a viewpoint in all sections of the political spectrum. I think it is most common, these days, with the neoliberals.
Anyway, maybe you’d like to check out this essay: On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People.
(I know that I refer you to readings a bit too often, but I think this pertains well to your question.).
There’s a website that I enjoy http://www.towardfreedom.com–either dot com or dot org. It’s good stuff. I contributed once and the editor Greg Guma’s writings on globalism are pretty insightful.
Lately, in the game of politicking and in Washington, it just feels as though defining one’s self by parties just aren’t worth it because the lines blur and they tend to be all the same. Democrats who meet left of center who share common values with moderate Republicans except in certain grey areas.
I have read some of Capitalist Magazine’s articles on education, too, and while I appreciate their support of individual freedoms, I agree that they are too dismissively judgmental of other viewpoints. Captalist Magazine is directly linked to the Ayn Rand Institutue, and Rand’s writings can be rude, insulting, and dismissive. She saw herself as strong and confident (and, to her, confidence meant the freedom to be rude and insulting), as do the many capitalists who write for the magazine, but (like you) I have come to see her and them as highly defensive. I think that to be called such would have been a compliment to her because she believed an individual’s highest purpose is to defend his individuality, but she and her followers miss out on the joys of trying to see the world through the eyes of others.
You’ve hit a very important problem in capitalism, mainly that of social sensitivity. Why should capitalism be warm and cuddly when its goal is the commodification of all material, people included? The people from Capitalist Magazine (Ayn Rand Objectivists) simply don’t have a problem with that. If you acknowledge that you are a commodity, then why should the old tradition-based ideas of social behavior be applicable?
If you don’t like that cold and biting attitude towards life, then you might want to shun capitalism altogether. It is a mean mean sonuvabitch.
Johnny
strange how I read some of the Fountainhead, and fell in love w/ the main character, for trying to follow his own path, and staying true to his standards of excellence, and yet Ayn Rand has become the capitalist spokeperson. what you said about being a commodity really struck true. I started reading a book, “Education and Capitalism,” and discuss the productivity of schools. I’m not prepared to all-out bash capitalism, but on the education front, these people couldn’t be more off. I love how the authors gain immediate credibility by their academic credentials, and in the first chapter they argued that economic success, which can be measured with numbers, is caused by educational success, which not only cannot be measured by numbers, but most educational psychologists argue that the better people do on tests, the less likely they are to have an interest in learning, the two things, grades and learning, are often inversely related.
i was actually talking to a woman at my internship about the possibility of going to grad school in a few years for experiential education. I said how it will take me time to get to where I hope to be (which is still slightly muddy), but she said, you need to enjoy the ride. That’s the essence of experiential education, Dewey, Kohn, etc., you need to both be learning for the present and the future, learning solely for the future not only corrupts the present, but leads to an empty future.
Corporations are legal entities that operate like miniature socialist states, and are fed in no small part by government handouts and tax breaks. The boundaries between capitalist and socialist aren’t really that well defined.
‘Capitalism’ and ‘socialism’ aren’t ever more or less appropriate than each other. They’re just part of a taxonomy that allows economists to describe, after the fact, whatever it is that people are doing in terms of economy.
There’s an interesting movement called Natural Capitalism, which sort of returns to the source of Adam Smith and overlays social responsibility, green design and sustainability onto capitalism, with interesting results. natcap.org and worldchanging.com are good places to learn about it.