When it comes to disaster relief, Juliette breaks it down:
Capitalist Country:
• has a lot of money;
• can contribute hundreds of millions of hard, valuable currency–not to mention invaluable equipment and manpower and know-how—to the cause of alleviating the consequences of a natural disaster;
• private corporations, charities and individual citizens can, want to and do contribute millions more;
• leader will shrug off carping of those who are jealous of his country’s power and prosperity and will act, rather than talk.And it can throw a big, expensive party a month later, as well.
Communist Country:
• can barely clean up after its own disasters;
• since “corporations� belong to the state, no corporate donations without the consent of the leader;
• has no private charities;
• private citizens have barely enough of their countries near-worthless currency to feed its own children, much less help to keep others from starving;
• leader doesn’t have to shrug of any type of carping because no one expects him to act and he wouldn’t care if they did anyway.Leader might throw a big, expensive party after his knee heals up.
Also, from Michael Totten:
Free people are generous. Tyrants are not.
So, what matters most? Winning a competition against communism or helping people?
It’s not competition. It’s a factual comparison.
For the past week, it has been advocates of socialism and totalitarianism who have criticised capitalist countries (namely the U.S.) for being “stingy” in providing tsunami aid, but have yet to open up their own coffers (if they have any).
When it comes to providing disaster relief, free markets matter. In a free society, people can and do provide help quickly without government constraint.
But if you think the above post is “competing with communism”, then suit yourself. Just understand that every time communism has competed with capitalism in history, communism always finished dead last — and it will always finish dead last.
Anger, resentment, and competition (no matter what side of the pond) is not appropriate when charity is what is needed. It is interesting how people consistently associate communism with totalitarianism. The reason capitalism reigns supreme is due to humankind’s greedy nature (people like being able to own thingsand attach property ownership to happiness), just as the fact that totalitarianism has given communism a bad name. People have actually come to believe that freedom means being able to own a swimming pool or buying whatever they want. Not saying you, just most of the drones out there. I take issue with that, and anything in a moment of charity that hints at competition. Seems the axe you have to grind is with totalitarianism, rather than communism, which has never existed, in its textbook form, on this planet. Consult Wikipedia to clear up any confusion. Breifly, it is a stateless, propertyless, and classless system. Such a system has never existed, and never will as long as greed for power and posession exist. The Soviet Union was, and China, North Korea, and Vietnam are examples of Stalinism and Maoism, not (textbook, mind you) Communism, unless you believe that “statist communism,” an oxymoron, is possible.
Before I get too far off topic, I responded the way I did because it sounded like you and the people you quoted are keeping score because of the UN rep’s careless, crass remarks.
Perhaps we can avoid stooping down to their level and let our actions speak louder than words, not as Americans, but as human beings. This is not the time to be reactionary.
Keeping score? I’m just expressing an opinion. Obviously, you don’t like my opinion and wish that I see things your way. I can’t.
BTW Jim, America’s actions are speaking louder than words when it comes to the relief effort — not for the sake of some hypothetical pissing match you accuse me and others of inferring, but because of charity based on free will and true humanitarian compassion. However, such sincerity means nothing to those who won’t be satisfied until everyone is equally bitter and miserable just like them — which is all what communism (and the violent, oppressive methods used to deploy it) is truly about.
I too used to think that a classless, egalitarian society was the cure to the ills of the world, then I grew up and learned that enjoying life and working to raise my standard of living wasn’t a bad thing.
You forgot the stateless part, and I “accused” due to how what I was reading came across. I’m sorry you see my views as immature, as if you have to be a right-wing capitalist to be a mature adult. But I digress.
No, I didn’t forget anything. Ushering in a stateless utopia usually involves some sort of statist upheaval (whether intended or not). A central committee or a chosen leader is usually the first sign of statism. Examples include the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 and Fidel Castro’s rise to power in 1959.
While the intention of both events were to create a stateless society, those in leadership enjoyed the perks of power so much they ended up clinging onto the “temporary” statist systems to make sure everyone remained communist whether they liked it or not.
I didn’t say your views were immature. I just think they’re wrong and unachievable. There has never been a voluntary, nonviolent transition toward communism recorded in history and there will never be one, as creating the utopia you describe usually involves persuading the masses to come around to a classless, stateless, and propertyless way of thinking through force.
Lest you forget, capitalism is primarily a social system based on the principle of individual rights (not necessarily in the economic sense). I’m a firm believer in individual freedom, therefore I’m a capitalist.
I cannot and will not support or endorse any philosophy or idea that robs individuals of their liberty. And if that makes me a callous, heartless “right-winger”, then so be it.
But this is a blog entry for another time. Thanks for the debate; I’m sure we’ll continue it again in the future.