Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Direct Transfer Plan

I believe in a direct transfer plan that would involve balancing the form of society we call capitalism. My position is that capitalism is not valid unless it has balance. Today, we understand the system in its global dimension, or as a "global"-ized thing.
    The wealthy countries of the industrialized world should comprehend that they have a large amount of physical wealth - a bit more than they need. I suggest that goods may, if we like, be supplied in a way that could be free of the usual notions of payment or compensation and so forth, which occur normally within the terms of individual transactions where one individual supplies something to another individual, in exchange for money. Instead, in this system, "the individual" (individual trader) comes to mean a whole group of individuals, "the poor," supplied by direct transfer from another group or large "individual," or individual trader, the capitalist producers, with so much to offer. Food, in this method, can hypothetically be directly supplied to any hungry person without asking that person to pay, and yet if this is conducted in a large-scale, organized way it is still valid capitalism.

To note my own personal experience, what I see when I look around are examples of rich people creating trade with others of the same station, other rich folks. Whereas this idea of mine, expressed above, and which I have also expressed on-line a few other times, is a program for trading --- or giving --- money to the poor, or, more accurately, products to the poor (since I think giving money directly is not advisable).

Part of the understanding behind this comes from a view of capitalism as a method of social engagement that references an entire population. Capitalism as a social and economic system should, in my view, be understood as a system that always relates to some population group, not just a few wealthy individuals. We rarely pay any attention to the fact that anyone can buy most anything one wants to in capitalism, as long as one possesses the substance of the money, and as such, capitalism is really quite social, and always relates not just to a few individuals, but to whole societies. Capitalism is, therefore, quite simply, social.

And this renders quite astounding that we still think that calling capitalism "individual" makes any kind of sense.

No comments:

Post a Comment