Re: The Poor Masses

Suresh Naidu (
Sat, 19 Oct 1996 17:13:30 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 18 Oct 1996, John K Clark wrote:

> That's true, and hard work is also needed to generate wealth, but if I can't
> benefit from my labor there is no point in me working harder than the average
> man, I'd much rather just sit under a tree and read a book. Also, there is
> no point in me figuring out a way to do things any better than average,
> it's a waste of time to make an invention, because whatever the invention
> is it can have no practical benefit to me. As far as getting ahead in the
> world I might as well study Turkish love poems of the 14'th century for all
> the good it'll do me. You don't have to take my word for this, look at History,
> time after time we find dictators preaching, screaming, at his subjects,
> telling them to work hard, forget about themselves and do everything for the
> state. It never, ever, works.

Hence the decentralization. There is a different atmosphere working for
each other rather than working for some faceless
state/corporation. Plus, with jobs rotated, everybody has the
opportunity to clean toilets, just as everybody has the opportunity to
serve as delegate to whatever conferences of comunities held. If you do
something that you consider important, you'll do a good job. Plus
scientific progress would increase through a better education system that
educates all, rather than those who can afford it.

> I can't find the smallest particle of evidence to support that assumption.
> There is not one person in a thousand I would trade places with in the former
> Soviet Union, the same with India, the same for South America, much less than
> that for Africa. Since China started to embrace capitalism a little they've
> improved their standard of living dramatically, but even so, very few are as
> well off as the average American. Spread all that money around however you
> like, the average person on Earth will be dirt poor. We desperately need a
> bigger pie, and socialism sure as hell won't give it to us.

We may have to alter our lifestyle. Start using grain alcohol, solar
energy, alternative sources of energy and materials. We can use space to get
a virtually endless supply of materials. We can do this because we would
pioneer technologies that are more beneficial, rather
than more profitable. Corporations would stop dumping huge amounts of
grain and waste materials. Once we get nanotech, the possiblities are
endless. Once you get past the waste, there is plenty to maintain our
standard of living for all.

> Besides, when you talk about spreading wealth around, it only makes sense
> to speak of disposable wealth. Our new rulers could convert the large house of
> the owner of a steel mill into an apartment house for his friends, but that's
> just a tiny part of this rich man's wealth, the house is just a wealth
> absorber. By far, the major part of his wealth in the mill itself, and this
> is a wealth generator not an absorber, it makes steel and jobs. What are you
> going to do with this factory, tear it down and give everybody a piece of the
> rubble?

No, you give the factory to those who work in it. The workers no longer
feel alienated, and they can still produce wealth.

> Funny you should mention that, I've been thinking of buying a sonic
> toothbrush. Feel free to disapprove of me, I intent to do what I want anyway.
Yeah, I sort of gathered that.
> Now just hold on a minute, that's going too far, some things are sacred! I'll
> pray to Saint Ronald and ask Him to forgive you.

Please, beg vindication from the god of overconsumption, where they throw
out enough food to feed a small nation a day.

> Yes, life is full of choices, some of them unpleasant. I hope I never have to
> make the choice between sending my 7 year old child to work in a factory or
> letting her starve to death, but if it ever came down to it, the decision
> would be easy, if sad.

But you would never have that choice would you? Leave that hard decision
to others, right. Just reap the benefits of that labour.

> The Soviet Union built many of huge dams. They built them in the wrong place.
> The Soviet Union built the largest steel mills in the world. They built them
> at a time when the world did not need more steel. Both projects, and many,
> many, more turned into wealth absorbers not wealth generators, but that's
> what happens when politicians think they're smarter than the market. How
> could it be otherwise?

Your point is...? They wasted wealth in creating stupid media showpieces.

> >If a person builds an energy efficient house without taking
> >too much resources from everybody else, we'll be the first
> >to applaud. We won't confiscate it
> As time goes on your ideas are becoming less clear to me. If I'm a harder
> worker than you and a better architect than you, then the house I build will
> be better than your house. If private property is not allowed then your claim
> to the great house I just built is every bit as strong as mine, if you have a
> bigger family than I do, then your claim is even stronger and you can take it
> from me, or at least you can try, but if you want me to abandon my new
> dwelling you're going to need some firepower. I don't think I'm unusual

Maybe you'll have to ask permission to build your house. You can't
arbitrarily go out and use public resources without asking. Not going
through some crazy bureaucracy, but raise it at the next comunity meeting
or whatever. If it doesn't interfere too much, chances are you'll get
permission, and everybody will respect your property rights.

> The world you are describing is a fairy tale land, where everybody loves
> everybody, nobody is selfish, everybody works hard, everybody is equally
> talented, the correct decisions are always made, and most incredible of all,
> everybody is always in perfect agreement about what is fair and what is not.

The advantage of the commune system is that one can leave and join
another commune that works more appropriatly to your beliefs. Of course,
it's going to be very hard to oppress somebody when they can leave to a
place where they actually have a say. So you'll have a commune of
capitalist owners with nobody to employ. Works for me.

> Ever notice that when somebody talks about what is fair, it always just
> happens to be to the personal advantage of the speaker. Quite a coincidence.
> I'll bet a baseball player has never in the history of the world complained
> to the umpire " You must be blind! It's not fair, I was clearly out at home
> base, yet you said I was safe and that we won the game, you're giving our team
> an unfair advantage. We should louse. Your call was grossly unfair you bum! ".

Ever notice how the most staunch defenders of capitalism are the ones who
benefit from it the most. Victims of capitalism tend not to support it as
rabidly as the businessmen.

> That I believe. It's a pity the people of France didn't believe it after
> their revolution, or the people in the Soviet Union during The Terror in the
> 1920's, or the people of Germany in the 1930's at the start of The Holocaust,
> or the people in China after the Cultural Revolution, or ...

The good part is, you can leave, so nobody will
get angry at you. Just pick up and go join someone else before people get
pissed off at you.

> Democracy sucks. Extending it doesn't help.

Yeah! Lets have a dictatorship. Bill Gates and Lee Iaccoca are our
rulers! Damn anyone who can't afford to pay for justice.

Suresh Naidu