Dispatch 2

The Executive Summary

I think this is an important section because I believe it is important to explain why I believe what I believe. And more specifically, the purpose of this document is not to persuade the reader to change their position on anything, but rather to explain to you my position.

There is an ultimate goal that I have: a better world for everyone, however cliche that might be.

If you can permit me to nerd out a little bit, I envision the idealistic aspects of the world of Star Trek. I envision a world where the accumulation of capital is not the primary drive in our lives but is merely a secondary concern to what I believe should be the primary concern: the betterment of ourselves and the world we live in.

I believe in personal growth and betterment, envisioning a world where everyone works towards improving themselves and society. This belief stems from years of reflection and personal conviction. I see socialism as the path to achieving this goal, where capital is utilized to benefit both individuals and communities. Capital should serve to support people and provide equal opportunities for all to contribute to societal improvement. Currently, capitalism primarily benefits a privileged few, while many struggle to access basic necessities. I argue that a socialist framework is better suited to ensure universal opportunities for betterment. This belief is rooted in my vision for a more equitable and inclusive society.

Capital, power, and violence

The intertwining of capital and power is evident in structures like Political Action Committees (PACs), which, while seemingly an American phenomenon, embody broader principles relevant even in a Canadian context. PACs, among other forms of political donations, illuminate the power disparity between individuals with and without capital.

Take, for example, the rules governing PACs, often restricting contributions to around $15,000 per donation. Such funds wield significant influence over political outcomes, bolstering parties or candidates aligned with the donor's interests.

Consider the scenario where one can comfortably afford a $15,000 donation to a PAC. Here, financial power translates directly into political sway. In contrast, many, including myself, cannot fathom making such a substantial financial contribution. This glaring inequity underscores the inherent imbalance in capitalist systems.

This power asymmetry manifests in tangible ways, particularly evident in the United States, where certain political factions advocate for policies like restricting abortion rights. While these policies may not directly impact Canadians, they underscore broader concerns surrounding justice and societal well-being.

Conversely, the absence of capital can itself be a form of violence. Economic factors exacerbate issues like homelessness, exposing individuals to physical and psychological risks, and eroding their security and dignity. This illustrates the multifaceted nature of violence within capitalist systems, encompassing both tangible and intangible harms.

I view capitalism as intrinsically violent. Participation in such a system implies acceptance of the possibility of violence stemming from the stark divide between haves and have-nots. This socioeconomic rift leads to dire consequences for those lacking access to resources and support systems available to the affluent.

Individuals grappling with financial hardship may resort to criminal activities in a bid for capital. Homelessness, often rooted in factors like mental illness, serves as a stark reminder of this disparity. Such individuals, driven by circumstances beyond their control, may turn to crime for survival or to sustain unhealthy habits like substance abuse.

This cycle perpetuates violence, with those lacking capital resorting to illegal means, often targeting those possessing valuable assets. While theft may result in losses for the affluent, it's the systemic imbalance that fosters an environment conducive to such violence.

Capitalism creates fertile ground for violence, whether inflicted upon the economically disenfranchised or those with financial wealth. Recognizing this dynamic is crucial in understanding how capitalism perpetuates violence within its framework.

Ultimately, addressing these issues requires reevaluating our economic structures to prioritize human well-being over profit. It necessitates creating a world where everyone has access to essential resources and opportunities for growth, free from the pervasive violence of capitalism.

The Moral Rationale of Capitalism

Personally, I don't perceive capitalism as inherently immoral; rather, I believe it possesses a sense of morality. However, I contend that its morality is outweighed by its immorality, particularly in the profound power disparity between those who possess capital and those who do not. This inequality, I find unjust. It's unfair that individuals with substantial capital can access higher education more easily than those with limited or no capital. The gatekeeping inherent in this power and wealth imbalance is concerning.

In contrast, I advocate for a socialist framework that ensures equal opportunities for all members of society to enhance themselves and contribute to the betterment of society as a whole. While I acknowledge the uncertainty of whether such a system will ever materialize, I believe striving for it is the right course of action. Even if the implementation seems improbable, I remain committed to advocating for it because I perceive it as the most just and fair solution to address the imbalances prevalent in our current capitalist system.

I am disillusioned by the exploitative nature of capitalism, exemplified by the exploitation of labor in developing countries and the pursuit of profit at the expense of human dignity. This, to me, underscores

the negative aspects of capitalism, prompting my advocacy for a system where the pursuit of capital is secondary to the broader goals of personal, societal, and national improvement. In essence, I view socialism as a more moral and equitable framework that aims to mitigate the disparities in wealth and power, fostering a more just and balanced society.

When considering the moral rationale for capitalism, I believe I've sufficiently addressed it by elucidating my perspective on the world and its societal constructs. In my view, socialism, like capitalism, operates on a voluntary basis. I envision a world where individuals with substantial capital voluntarily redirect a portion of their wealth toward programs designed to benefit others. For instance, a millionaire contributing more in taxes than someone earning $40,000 annually is a notion I find reasonable. It's about recognizing the capacity to give back to society in proportion to one's financial standing.

I acknowledge that my viewpoint is shaped by my beliefs and values, and I understand that not everyone shares this perspective. Some may argue that such an approach is impractical or unreasonable to expect from individuals. Perhaps it's merely wishful thinking on my part, grounded in my personal convictions.

Advocating for socialism, I propose a system where those with greater capital contribute more to fund universal programs and support for society. It's about recognizing the benefits of investing back into the community from which one derives their wealth. I see a moral imperative in this approach, as it fosters a sense of reciprocity and acknowledges the interconnectedness of individuals within society.

As someone who has been fortunate enough to accumulate wealth, I recognize the responsibility to contribute back in alignment with the benefits received. This, to me, embodies the essence of socialism—a moral framework that prioritizes collective well-being and societal progress.

Taking From Some to Give to Others

You know, I want to express my thoughts on this matter. My initial reaction to the idea of granting some individuals the authority to take from others is somewhat uncertain. You know, I'm not entirely sure how to articulate my feelings on this topic. But let me try to explain. I don't believe that only capitalism embodies this concept. However, I do argue that socialism, at least in my interpretation, isn't about taking from others to achieve equality for all.

What I envision for society is a system where there's no necessity to take from one group to benefit another because, as members of a community, we understand the importance of contributing to the greater good. This contribution often comes in the form of financial support, which is where taxes come into play. Now, I understand that some may disagree with this perspective, and that's okay. I'm not here to persuade anyone but rather to share my beliefs and aspirations for the world we inhabit.

For me personally, paying taxes isn't a burden because I recognize the value they bring to society and, ultimately, to me. Funding essential services like healthcare, public safety, and infrastructure benefits everyone, including myself. Moreover, investing in education, even if it means providing it for free, can yield long-term advantages for society as a whole. A well-educated populace contributes to scientific advancements, innovation, and overall societal strength, which indirectly benefits me and others.

I understand that this perspective might contradict prevailing beliefs, but I envision a world where people acknowledge the importance of investing in programs that provide equal opportunities for everyone to thrive. I don't think this is an unreasonable expectation. While it may seem contrary to current societal norms, it's a vision I hold dear.

As for capitalism, I don't believe it inherently entails granting individuals the right to take from others. However, I do acknowledge that capitalism can indirectly result in certain groups benefitting at the expense of others. But I'll delve deeper into this topic in a separate chapter dedicated to exploring the notion of capitalism as a form of violence.

The Pursuit of Separate Interests

In response to Friedman's assertion that the world operates on individuals pursuing their separate interests, I would contend that capitalism, in its current form, does not fully support this notion. Instead, I argue that capitalism often constrains people's ability to pursue their individual interests, particularly those with limited access to capital.

Consider individuals who harbor aspirations for higher education or artistic pursuits but lack the financial means to pursue them. For instance, imagine a talented individual who dreams of attending a prestigious art school like Juilliard or desires to obtain a degree in a field they are passionate about. However, due to their socioeconomic background, they face significant barriers to accessing the resources necessary to fulfill their ambitions.

Moreover, the plight of individuals experiencing homelessness further exemplifies how capitalism can hinder the pursuit of individual interests. How can someone without a fixed address, let alone stable financial resources, navigate the complexities of applying for student loans or securing educational opportunities?

These scenarios underscore the systemic inequalities embedded within capitalism, where access to education, resources, and opportunities is often contingent upon one's financial standing. As such, I argue that capitalism, in its current manifestation, fails to uphold the principle of enabling individuals to freely pursue their interests and aspirations.

Expanding on this argument, it's crucial to recognize that the limitations imposed by capitalism extend beyond educational pursuits. Individuals with limited capital also face barriers when seeking access to essential goods and services, housing, healthcare, and other fundamental needs. Consequently, the disparity in wealth perpetuated by capitalism exacerbates existing inequalities and stifles the ability of marginalized individuals to fully participate in society and pursue their interests.

In contrast, a more equitable socioeconomic framework, such as socialism, aims to address these disparities by prioritizing the collective welfare and ensuring universal access to education, healthcare, and other resources. By redistributing wealth and resources more equitably, socialism seeks to create a society where all individuals have the opportunity to pursue their interests and contribute meaningfully to their communities, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

While capitalism purports to operate on individuals pursuing their separate interests, the reality is often far from equitable. By acknowledging the systemic barriers faced by those with limited access to capital, we can begin to recognize the inherent shortcomings of capitalism and explore alternative frameworks that prioritize the well-being and agency of all individuals in society.

Conclusion

So, that's my manifesto. Manifesto, now that's a word with some weight, isn't it? I'm not presenting this as a means to persuade you, but rather as an explanation. I'm not aiming to change your views, unless, of course, you're open to it, but I doubt that's the case. Maybe I'm mistaken? Anyway, I'm offering this as a glimpse into my beliefs and responses to the questions you've posed.

This is my take on the world, my perspective if you will. It's important to acknowledge that not everyone shares my views, and that's perfectly okay. We can disagree on policy matters without it being a personal issue. What truly matters, in my opinion, is that we share a common goal: a better world, a better country, one that prioritizes the well-being of its citizens.

I believe that deep down, we both want the same thing. We just have different ideas on how to achieve it. You might lean towards conservative policies, while I align more with leftist ideologies. And you know what? That's perfectly fine by me. We don't have to see eye to eye on everything.

The key takeaway here is that despite our differences, we both share a desire for a fair, just world where everyone has the opportunity to pursue their goals. And that's something I can definitely get behind.

I hope you found this an interesting read, despite its somewhat scattered nature. It's been a bit of a long day, and my thoughts might be a bit all over the place. But hey, that's just me being real.