Around 2:20 into this clip is exactly what I’ve been trying to say. Especially:

“And this is why it bugs me why so many people talk like it’s 1955 and we’re still number one in everything. We’re not! And I take no glee in saying this because I love my country and I wish we were, but when you’re number 55 in this category and number 92 in that one, you look a little silly waving the big foam #1 finger. As long as we believe being the greatest country in the world is a birthright, we’ll keep coasting on the achievements of earlier generations and we’ll keep losing the moral high ground.”

There used to be a good six paragraphs right here, but upon revision they sounded like the rantings of a nutjob. I’ll touch it up and turn it into a legitimate argument in the next couple of days. Until then, I’ll just leave you with Bill Maher.

In an ideal capitalist system, the men at the bottom are the ones who deserve to be there, as it is with the men up top. America is far from an ideal capitalist system. I originally thought that Marx was simply outdated, as he wasn’t really attacking capitalism, but rather the aristocracies. I thought, surely we’ve evolved beyond that. Men are no longer legally restricted from advancing to the higher levels of society. Of course, on second thought, I realized how wrong I was. Though Americans aren’t held down economically by any legal restrictions, our system creates an unintentional nobility. Contrary to common misconception, artistocracy is not the result of true capitalism, but rather the enemy of the capitalist ideal. It promotes laziness, complacency, and above all, the inequality of opportunity. In capitalism, real capitalism, there are classes, and they’re a good and right circumstance, because ideally, everyone deserves to be where they are and can move freely up or down by their own decisions- judged by their own merit, and not by their fathers’. That is, of course, not how it is in America. There is small equality of opportunity between the children of the rich and the poor. Contrary to my opinion of low government spending (don’t worry, I’d cut most welfare programs to compensate a bit for this), I believe that all schooling, including higher education, should be completely free- open to any with the grades and test scores to enter.

Opportunity begins with eduction. The cost of decent schooling is the major obstacle to intelligent children of low-income families, and the most unfair advantage of the incompetent children of the wealthy. Not only that, but education is the greatest investment we can make in our own country. This will open up doors for the poor, rather than closing them for the wealthy (the often fashionable path). Pulling people up instead of dragging them down. By opening doors, you lose the need to close others and infringe on rights and freedoms. Inheritance, for instance, is an issue of property rights of the original earner of the money. Free schooling will eliminate the unfair advantage of the inheritors without eliminating their rights. Will it be expensive? Yes, and of course we don’t want taxes to raise any higher than they are, yet the closer we get to the capitalist ideal, the more “necessary” government-funded programs we can erase. If we are able to make the most of our workforce and if people truly get what they deserve (of course, always retaining the rights of choice- work would never be forced), then we’ll find many, many fewer victims of circumstance. When America finally opens all of the doors and forgets irrational prejudices, all people will be free to do what they feel that they can do best, and are willing to do so, and from this our nation will achieve its greatest potential with happy, free citizens, imbued with a sense of responsibility and industry from their freely provided higher education. From each according to his decision, to each according to his worth- that is the capitalist credo.

How does this new “aristocracy” apply to the developing global market? Well, the ideal is that people get what they deserve. This means, of course, that we can’t protect our own incompetent from more efficient, more willing, and more skilled competition out of some foolish, increasingly outdated notion of nationalism. The society of nations is coming to an end as we come upon the society of the world. Previously, wealth was a pyramid with the American rich at the top, other First World rich below them, American poor below them, and the rest of the world (doctors, academics, specialized workers, intelligent men, industrious men, revolutionary thinking men included) below them. That is simply not just. We feel that Americans have some sort of birthright of superiority, a right to be at the top no matter how hard they work, for merely being born within the United States border. The new pyramid of wealth holds the competent of all nations (if those continue to exist) at the top, and the lazy or cowardly everywhere at the bottom. National governments have a responsibility to create the best for the people they govern, but by what right? Birthright? We have a moral responsibility to the world to provide the deserving contributors of all nations with exactly what they’re worth: the best the world has to offer. The path to wealth should be open to all people, regardless of what border they were born within. Wealth and poverty still exist on a flat playing field, but everyone has an equal shot. This is the new world, the rational and virtuous world, and we must be a part of it.

Capitalism is good. Socialism is evil. Ayn Rand is a saint. Karl Marx is the antichrist. Okay, so that is about my view, but one should always have a reason for what they believe. Only a fool blindly believes something without question. So you’ll never guess what book I checked out today at the library. That’s right, Marx and Engels’ own Communist Manifesto. Though I know what’s said in the pamphlet, I’ve never actually read it. I doubt Marx’s particular choice of words is going to make me forsake the value of the individual, but of course I know that I should never be afraid to read literature opposing my own point of view. Otherwise, how much validity can I possibly give it? Of course, I didn’t just go to the library to antagonize myself. I also picked up a different Karl. Karl Polanyi and his Great Transformation, in which Polanyi argues that democracy and the free market are inextricably linked, and that powerful states need to push to allow the formation of a capitalist system.

Of course, both books are rather outdated and maybe not so relevant to the world of a global market. Marx, however, did predict the global spread of capitalism. He also predicted that this would be the final stage before the workers revolted, bringing on an era of oppression of the unable and unwilling instead of going on into a new age of achievement and virtue. I don’t think Marx used those exact terms, but it’s the same general idea. I hope, for the world’s sake, that he’s wrong- but I’m not sure I have the faith in humanity to wholeheartedly believe that.

Now that we’re beginning to get into the specific ideas of globalization, I’ve started thinking about the big question that I want to write about. What’s important? What do we need to know? What’s worth thinking about? At first, I intended to discuss something very factual, real, researchable, etc. In a world where the foremost competition is for capital, not jobs, our government doesn’t seem to “get it.” They waste their time on mid-term elections and unimportant issues while both companies and investors are leaving for better opportunities overseas. What do American politicians need to do to encourage investors to come back, or at least keep the remaining ones, without restricting them? What happens to our own economy when investors are much more interested in China? If that’s our own fault, how can we fix it? This is all very interesting and important, but nothing new. Then I thought of something a little more interesting- more theoretical- to consider.

As globalization erases national boundaries and increases interaction and collaboration between people in different countries, all over the world, what is the end result? Multinational corporations hold more sway over the world than most governments. It seems that it’s businesses that run our own country. So tell me, how implausible really is the Sovereign State of Microsoft? Is it really that hard to see a world where land is just land, and people pledge their allegiance to a company rather than a border? Right now, yes, it is. It seems sick to us. How could a privatized world be held to any code of law or ethics? My main question is: is this even possible? If it is, could a government of a business administration fighting to protect their employees for the sake of morale and efficiency work just as well, if not better than a government run by taxes, protecting citizens by their birthright?

Of course, there are so many questions, and so many supposed flaws. What’s the universal standard? How is a crime of an employee of Company A against an employee of Company B handled? What about the unemployed? How do people begin new businesses? Law enforcement? Surely there has to be some sort of domestic control. People can’t live on the internet. Could a global, universally capitalist, stable, econocentric society ever possibly work? Rather than talk about what people already know, the answer to this question is what I hope to develop as best I can.