Capitalism vs Statism
It seems to me that upward mobility is a major drive to keep the capitalist process in motion. People are thinking about how much they can gain if they have the right strategy of productivity--and presumably are not thinking of how much they can lose if they have the wrong strategy. Of course, one can also argue that socialists are simply thinking of how much they can mooch off of their superiors in productivity. Presumably, they are not thinking about just how many inferiors in productivity there are out there who will be mooching off of them first.
The advantage of capitalism, however, is that if one has the wrong strategy, one can still recognise it in time to change it and stay in the game. In fact, capitalism is committed to a dynamism of improvement and development. The major business moguls always keep an eye on the competition so that they can copy whatever advantage one of their competitors displays. This results in something that no Marxist ever seems to speak of: that competition has a levelling effect on the standard of living of the competitors. That is, it is difficult to maintain a competitive advantage for very long before your competitors will copy it and you are left back with the same handicap with which you started. This levelling effect genuinely improves the general standard of living while preventing people from ever excelling too much for too long. As Martin S. Fridson notes in How to be a Billionaire, the titans of wealth often have to resort to fairly underhanded tactics to stand above the rest. Those who acheive this degree of wealth are only ever a limited few, and they have to be workaholics to make it happen. Building a business easily requires eighty-plus hours a week to sustain.
As for the advantage of socialism, hey... I hate the left wing, so I don't think there is one! I don't think that government intervention has anything to recommend it. Politically motivated decisions that interfere with the economics of a society are not subject to the usual corrective forces of the marketplace, so they are a recipe for disaster. This is one of the things noted by Kelley L. Ross in that exchange I was reading with Mark Notturno on Karl Popper and F.A. Hayek.
The advantage of capitalism, however, is that if one has the wrong strategy, one can still recognise it in time to change it and stay in the game. In fact, capitalism is committed to a dynamism of improvement and development. The major business moguls always keep an eye on the competition so that they can copy whatever advantage one of their competitors displays. This results in something that no Marxist ever seems to speak of: that competition has a levelling effect on the standard of living of the competitors. That is, it is difficult to maintain a competitive advantage for very long before your competitors will copy it and you are left back with the same handicap with which you started. This levelling effect genuinely improves the general standard of living while preventing people from ever excelling too much for too long. As Martin S. Fridson notes in How to be a Billionaire, the titans of wealth often have to resort to fairly underhanded tactics to stand above the rest. Those who acheive this degree of wealth are only ever a limited few, and they have to be workaholics to make it happen. Building a business easily requires eighty-plus hours a week to sustain.
As for the advantage of socialism, hey... I hate the left wing, so I don't think there is one! I don't think that government intervention has anything to recommend it. Politically motivated decisions that interfere with the economics of a society are not subject to the usual corrective forces of the marketplace, so they are a recipe for disaster. This is one of the things noted by Kelley L. Ross in that exchange I was reading with Mark Notturno on Karl Popper and F.A. Hayek.
Comments