[MD] Capitalism: my experience

[Ham Priday]

Hi Gav [John quoted] --


I enjoyed reading of your recent sojourn to Castlemaine, and your comparison 
of working as an employee vs. working as a freelancer or volunteer.  Having 
done both, I can understand why you find the latter more "creative" and less 
stressful.  However, I think you have exaggerated the "money factor" in this 
comparison.

> What I realised through all this is that working for money
> is an essentially alienating exercise. Working for free, or
> as exchange is quite different - it is ...noble.  It builds trust,
> friendships, community....money is the root of all evil?

Exchanging labor for money is not how one should view capitalism.  Time 
schedules and company obligations can be stressful, of course.  But you can 
build trust, develop friendships, enjoy community, and still exercise your 
creativity working for an employer.  The key to a pleasurable working career 
is finding what you like to do (and are probably best skilled to achieve), 
and then seeking out an opportunity that matches your talents and skills.

When I started out to earn a living, I had earned BS in Biology/Chemistry 
(pre-med) and a degree in music (payed for under the G.I. Bill).  My hobbies 
were electronic tinkering and writing, and I worked part-time as 
DJ/announcer at a local classical music station while attending the (now 
defunct) Philadelphia Conservatory.  Though the "work" was enjoyable, I was 
about to marry and realized I couldn't support a wife on the minimum wage. 
Having received some electronics training during my military service in the 
Signal Corps., I decided to parlay my communications skills into a full-time 
job as tech writer--first for Philco Corp., and later (when Philco was sold) 
for RCA Service Co. across the river in NJ, where I worked on the Minuteman 
project until it was phased out.  I then joined an ad agency in Center City 
to try my hand at industrial copywriting.  This worked out so well, I went 
on to two other agencies (at higher salaries) before getting an offer from a 
friend at a major chemical company to work in their advertising dept.  After 
15 years at Rohm & Haas, I elected to take early retirement, but worked a 
dozen additional years for a non-profit medical research organization, some 
of it on a free-lance basis, which I found quite rewarding.

There were a couple of interim jobs along the way, and luck played a role 
but, although I never made a pile of money, in every case I found 
opportunities suited to my interests and creativity.  And (under the 
capitalist system), my 15 years at Rohm & Haas qualified me for a retirement 
package that we converted to an IRA which now pays interest and a major 
portion our medical bills.

But what really prompted my response was the 2/21 post from John who makes 
some strange assertions....

[John]:
> But "love" is where we put our source of value.  And money
> is a social pattern.  Loving money is an immorality, subjecting
> an intellectual value to a social one.
>
> But its not just "a" immorality.  It's "the" immorality, for there is
> no evil in nature, only the intellect of man is capable of evil,
> when it subjects intellect to social or biological satisfactions alone.
> Or loves money.

Love is indeed an expression of value, but so is the power of wealth.  To 
call love of money "an immorality" is not only unwarranted but expresses the 
jaundiced biblical view of usury and exploitation by the rich.  Anyway, we 
don't love dollars and cents; we love the power that money as a symbol of 
wealth brings.  What is immoral about earning wealth or making a proft in 
the marketplace?  Take away monetary rewards for labor or service, and you 
eliminate the incentive to create or produce anything of value.

I also find the sentiments you have expressed under the 'Capitalism' thread 
troublesome enough to voice my comments.  You appear to have some beef 
against the justice of trial by jury, private property, and government of 
any kind, while mocking our laws and constitutional freedoms.

> Democracy is a great idea. America (or Australia)
> doesn't have it - at all.
>
> Trial by jury....great idea for a criminalised existence.
> How about lore over law?

As I understand "lore", it is simply the application of knowledge acquired 
in a particular area.  I don't see its relevance to criminal justice.  Where 
can you find a stable society without laws?

> Freedom of speech? - to say what where?
> The media is owned by billionaires

The business of the media is to report on news in its area of expertise. 
That this business can be profitable, or owned by wealthy entrepreneurs, is 
a tribute to its success, not a restriction of public freedom.

> Freedom of the press? ha! - read manufacturing consent
> by Chomsky

It seems that Chomsky has had no trouble gaining a public platform for his 
Marxist views.

> Freedom of assembly? - except if you constitute a threat to
> national security - ie arbitrarily withdrawable.

Such as shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater?

> Limited government - any government is illegitimate.

What is your criterion for legitimacy?  In what sense is a representative 
government elected by the people "illegitimate"?

> Private property - is a crime against the planet.
> Perpetual leases would be a better idea.

If you believe all property should be state-owned, you are must count 
yourself as  Marxist.  (Why am I not surprised?)

I think it would be more prudent for both of us to stick to philosophy.

Regards,
Ham