OPINION & EDITORIAL
Sheahan’s anaylsis ignores capitalism’s flaws
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Readers keep it real (September 14, 2007)
- Free trade stagnates upward mobility (December 6, 2007)
- Readers drop gloves, bust some skulls (September 7, 2007)
- Social welfare secondary to free market (November 9, 2007)
- Homeless Cooperative shows social reform in action (March 24, 2006)
by Letters to the Editor
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
For all I know, Corey Sheahan is a great guy. His response to Ben Daniels' column, "America needs socialist values," however, was entirely counterproductive to social change and at best represented an amoral and complacent opinion of our current society. At worst, it obscured real issues by using mainstream garble to distract and confuse.
To claim that our economy is democratic because I cast a vote every time I buy a Gatorade is negating the fact that Bill Gates has 50 billion more votes than I have. A simple understanding of political science would reveal that this is no democracy, and to claim that this is "far more democratic" than a truly democratically-organized economy is laughable and entirely wrong.
If Sheahan wants to discuss inefficiencies in different social relations, it's worth noting that capitalism has created one of the most wasteful systems the world has ever known. Hunger amid excess is the most damning example of this. The destruction of food to keep food prices high, billions of dollars spent on wars, immense profligacy in our private health system, product duplication, nurturing hyper garbage production and a tendency toward oligarchy are a couple of topics that need serious consideration for Sheahan's arguments to not ring hollow.
When 39 million Americans live below the poverty line (a pittance of an income to begin with) and 47 million Americans do not even have basic health coverage despite enormous leaps in productive capacity during the past 50 years, some mainstream concepts need reconsideration. Questions need to be asked. It's these questions that lead to interest in alternatives. And in our constant sifting and winnowing, one of these alternatives is democratic socialism.
Nathan Fuller Senior, Geological Engineering
Anonymous (September 12, 2007 @ 9:54am):
Many of those without heath coverage have chosen to spend their money on other things, many times things like tobacco, liquor and entertainment.
Perhaps they should be forced to buy health insurance? After all, the lumpenproletariat should be protected from their folly by their betters, yes?
Anonymous (September 12, 2007 @ 11:40am):
Bill Gates (and his MicroSoft Party) earns billions of votes every year from all around the globe. He earns those votes by providing goods and services to his global voter constituencies. That's the kind of global democratic process than even a StarTrek fan could embrace.
Quite unlike unelected parliament of thugs model that Socialists prefer at the UN and EU.
Anonymous (September 12, 2007 @ 2:04pm):
Ask someone in Africa if they would rather be one of those 39 million Americans that live below the poverty line. I bet the answer would be a resounding yes.
Anonymous (September 12, 2007 @ 2:52pm):
"Ask someone in Africa if they would rather be one of those 39 million Americans that live below the poverty line."
That's a dangerous statement... you know someone is going to make some connections that could be politically incorrect.
Anonymous (September 12, 2007 @ 5:35pm):
The point of my column was to show that socialism is an inefficient system that leads to shrinking economic growth and an overall decrease in the standard of living for the people it serves.
From 1906-2006, per capita GDP grew from around $5564 to $37807 in 2000 dollars. I defy you to find a socialist or communist system that has offered that kind of rise in the standard of living. If you want a current example, look to France. There's has basically been a socialist system for the last 15 or so years (give or take) and they've fallen drastically as an economic power in the world, to the detriment of their people.
I didn't write that ours is a perfect system. In fact, if you read what I wrote, you'll see that I said there are many serious political and economic problems facing our nation. The point of my column was that socialism is not the answer. It's an illogical ideology, and the solutions proposed by socialists don't translate to the real world.
I live in the real world, and I wish to find real world solutions to the problems we face. If socialism worked, I'd be the first to support it. However, from looking at the historical evidence and the theorhetical flaws inherent in the ideology, a rational person must admit that it's not a reasonable, adequate solution to our problems as a nation.
-Corey Sheahan
Anonymous (September 12, 2007 @ 6:08pm):
"Ask someone in Africa if they would rather be one of those 39 million Americans that live below the poverty line."
You don't have to go to Africa, just ask one of the millions of illegal immigrants.
PS. People want to come to USA because here the "poor" people are fat, in most places the real poor are very, very thin.
Anonymous (September 12, 2007 @ 7:10pm):
I just want to go on record as saying that I think that our government has a responsibility to help the poor, and that it is a major problem that many people in this country are homeless and go hungry.
The reason some poor people in this country are overweight is because of improper diet, not because they overeat. Healthy foods tend to be more expensive than unhealthy foods, and as a result, families with lower incomes tend to eat less healthily.
I want to make it clear that I do not agree with many of the above statements attacking the letter to the editor. The point of my article was that socialism is not a reasonable answer to our problems, which is far from saying capitalism is perfect or that poor people deserve the poverty that they live with.
-Corey Sheahan
Anonymous (September 12, 2007 @ 7:23pm):
Corey, I understand that you weren't saying that capitalism was perfect, but by attacking its detractors, you are essentially arguing in its favor.
It's interesting that you mention per capita GDP, because although per capita GDP has skyrocketed over the past century, less of this wealth has been distributed to working people since the attack on unionism that began in the late 40s. A better indicator is real wages (related to standard of living), which have essentially stagnated since the early 1970s. So although productive capacity has shot through the roof, where have these benefits been seen? Not in the pockets of working people. During the 90s, the ratio of CEO-to-worker compensation shot through the roof (from 71 in 1989 to 525 in 2000). Tell me that this isn't the smoking gun of injustice. The boom is also the result of America's control of worldwide banking and political institutions after its late-entry "win" in World War II and its subsequent war-mongering adventures since. Sure, leaps in productivity have occurred, but at whose expense?
The inefficiencies of capitalism are astounding. Take marketing as an example, which American corporations spend billions of dollars on every year. Couldn't this money be better spent? Why does Colgate need to spend hundreds of millions trying to convince me that their toothpaste is better than Listerine's? It's friggin toothpaste. But in American hyper-capitalism, this isn't even questioned.
-Nate Fuller
Anonymous (September 12, 2007 @ 8:00pm):
Is socialism the only alternative to capitalism? No. And many of them offer the same benefits as socialism, without the jails, death camps, and sale of discontent-driven rhetorical newspapers.
Laura Saltzman (September 15, 2007 @ 8:00pm):
The "Ask an African" argument s pitiful and overdone. Why is it every time an inequality is shown thats the answer, ask someone from a poorer place. That makes no sense, considering we are the richest country in the world and I'm somehow hoping we don't aspire to be Nigeria. Thats like defending an assault and battery charge, by saying you didnt murder the person; does that still make it right? We should not compare ourselves to countries less wealthy and with different rights, were not trying to be the most equal in the world, we should aspire to be the most fair our country can be (sounds a bit corny, but you catch my drift). We also dont have child soldiers, like many countries in the world, I still would not think that that is an amazing accomplishment either.
How about instead you ask the homeless children, who are much more likely to be impoverished in this country than most of th developed countries in the world. We have a system which has huge inequality, and ignoring the ignorance and stupidity of the first commenter, should kids be punished for what their parents dont have? Socialism as it is practiced has had huge problems, although true socialist state has yet to occur and in this country we practice a modified capitalism, where its capitalism for the poor, and socialism for the rich. Agh, I wrote more than I planned to, just get so frustrated.
Anonymous (April 9, 2008 @ 4:16pm):
Britain has a socialistic government who also allow the free market to bloom, in other words they have capitlaism with a human touch. the sick get help and free hospital care. the unemployed get the dole for a time. but the main focus is on work and productivity.You can have welfare and free market together.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
