I’m a young kid only starting to learn sociology.
Its like my dad never got the chance to gain skills due to growing up in poverty for example, Couldn’t afford to get his self into a college and had to go to work everyday to support his Mum, Bros and sisters.
So is Capitalism’s answer that “its just tough luck!”
You are going to remain in a life with bad jobs and without any disposable income, That’s just the way it is!, survival of the richest.
What about people with mental disabilities and learning disorders?
They deserve to earn a good working wage despite their problems.
Is capitalism’s answer the same as the one before?
If that is capitalism, then I don’t want anything to do with it.
Nah, i’d say capitalism was worse.
edit; darwinism involved survival of the fittest.
It doesn’t count when you gang up on people.
Report this comment
yeah, it weeds out lazy, untalented and anti-social.
Report this comment
Here’s the deal: Capitalism is designed to develop an economy based on privately-owned companies that conduct business with as little government interference as possible. The idea here is that it’s consumers like you and me who will largely determine which companies thrive and which companies fail. That gives business owners an incentive to sell goods and services at competitive prices and to provide goods and services that are superior to those of their competitors. It’s also designed to provide an atmosphere where anyone can succeed, if they’re willing to develop new products or services that people want, take risks, and work hard.
Now let’s consider the alternative. In a socialist society, the economy is controlled 100% by the government. People who do the same jobs get the same pay no matter what. The problem with this is the lazy guy who does next to nothing gets paid as much money as the other guy who works his @$$ off. What eventually happens is the entire country comes down to the lowest common denominator — the hardest-working person doesn’t work any harder than the laziest person, and the smartest person displays no more intelligence than the dumbest person. Where’s the incentive to try harder and do better? We saw how this worked (or, shall we say, DIDN’T WORK) in the former Soviet Union.
In the case of your father, it’s not the fault of capitalism that he had to work to support the family. I have to wonder why his mother and siblings couldn’t work (Was Mom at home taking care of kids that were all minors? If that’s the case, then your father chose to support the family and your mother chose to stay home — it didn’t HAVE to be that way). At any rate, there’s no rule that said your father couldn’t have moved up in the company over time by working hard, doing a good job, using his God-given intelligence to come up with new ideas and better ways of doing things, or making the decision to invest in himself by going to night school. There’s also no rule that said your father couldn’t have gone into business for himself. If there’s a will there’s a way.
Our government has worked to close education loopholes, and to that end people can now get Federal student loans for college and can receive Federal or state aid that will allow people to support their families while they’re trying to further their education, with the aim of getting a better job and making a greater positive impact on our economy (with the added bonus of making more money to support themselves and their families).
You mention that people with disabilities and learning disorders deserve to earn a good working wage — there are two problems with this statement: (1) People with mental disabilities and learning disorders are eligible for supplemental Social Security income based on disability, so our government recognizes that these people deserve help for “problems” they have no control over. (2) On the flipside of this, we have millions of people in this country who have no disability at all who simply refuse to work. They sit on their lazy @$$es with their hands out, believing that they’re entitled to a free ride. What about them?
BOTTOM LINE: A capitalist economy can be a breeding ground for social Darwinism, but so can a socialist economy. In a socialist economy, their answer would be “It’s just tough luck that you’re not a member of the government elite. You’re going to remain in a life with bad jobs and without any disposable income. That’s just the way it is! Survival of the ruling class.” Which would you rather have — a system that gives people a chance based on personal effort, or one that gives no one a chance and puts all the control in the hands of big government?
Report this comment
Its a good point and difficult to deny. Capitalism is certainly going to favor the most able and that means that others will not manage so well. But that is only part of capitalism’s nature. It is also a stimulus for all those who can do well, to try harder and many more of these are not simply the rich and monopolistic.
With socialism there is no inspiration to work hard, because the reward does not depend on how much value you are to your employer. This means that there will still be a distribution of income between the managers of the national monopolies and the workers. So Social Darwinism (good term) applies in both regimes.
Report this comment
Capitalism would be great if we ever had it, but there have always been those with money that control the media, form monopolies, buy politicians, and price-fix. What has happened to gasoline prices since the big Bush-era mergers, for example? Fair dues though, capitalism with corruption is still better than communism, but its up to you to sift through all of the B.S.
Report this comment
Capitalism is successful because it makes the most efficient use of the resources available using self interest as a motivation, Those who use it to justify social Darwinism forget that the most valuable resource an economy has is the people, so any arrangement that prevent people from having equal opportunity to compete is wasting resources so is inefficient. This means racism sexism and any form of discrimination as well as denying the children of the poor and an education is anti capitalist, and only exits because of distortions in the economy caused by society and institutions. Do not blame capitalism for the privilege position of the few. In all societies their have been a powerful elite who defended their privilege position for their children claiming that they and their offspring were superior, and when the nobility lost their status they came up with social Darwinism.
People with learning disabilities often excel in activties that are not effected, particularly in science, For example Einstein had trouble leaning to read in grammar school, so giving up educating people because they have some difficulties is a loss to the economy and only occurs in malfunctioning or incomplete markets
Report this comment