Captain Capitalism on Victimhood

Captain Capitalism breaks down his economically minded perspectives on how the left and right approach economic principles.

Here’s what he sees at the principles of the right:

I will work, therefore I shall eat and therefore not rely upon you to take care of me.

And his take on the left, from somewhere to the right of the left:

However, the left finds refuge in the fact that if there’s enough people on the planet and if they work hard enough, then there is a surplus of food and shelter and that some people don’t have to work in order to eat. And the left (and I mean this in the sincerest sense) only has the power it does because it convinces people that “no, you really don’t have to work in order to eat” and promises those weak-minded fools such a scenario.

Playing off of victimhood, conspiracy theories and any other half-baked reason they can find, the left convinces people they were deprived of food, deprived the opportunity to work, and therefore are entitled to eat at others’ expense. And human nature is all too accommodating to this type of thinking because provides them with a benefit with no cost.

Personally, I think this generalization misinformed. I know quite a few people on the left and every single one of them subscribes to the, “I will work, and therefore I shall eat” concept. However, they’re willing to accept that everyone goes through hard times from time to time where they may not be able to find work that supports their family or provides enough health care to live a humane life. People on the left, like me, also tend to believe that people will find better jobs and have better luck supporting themselves if they’re educated, so we think government supported education makes life better for all of us.

Using generalizations on par with Captain Capitalism’s, I suppose people on the right think that people who lose their job should receive no public support. They may lose their healthcare, and they may need some new job skills or interview training in order to find more than a job but a new career, but that would be a waste of public money. If this policy really worked, would homelessness lead to career turnarounds rather than a slide into drug addiction, chronic health issues, and short life spans?

A commenter on Captain Capitalism’s site raised an interesting question for the Captain: How does this explain the idle rich?

The Captain choked on this, responding with:

They had enough people work up enough surplus wealth to carry them through, effectively making them trust fund babies. Inevitably, if they don’t work, they will run out of money. Might last a couple generations, but in the end somebody has to work.

But that’s not the case. If anyone with $10 million or more passed their wealth onto their children and their children’s children, there is absolutely no reason why their families would EVER have to work again as long as they don’t have HUGE families. All they would have to do is live off the interest of their inheritance at an amount that’s less than the difference between interest earned and inflation, creating an infinitely sustainable lifestyle.

I think the Captain would agree that this is not what societies with competitive workforces look like. In fact, that looks a lot more like the work generated by sheiks than that of productive members of society.

I ask the Captain, “Wouldn’t an inheritance tax make America more competitive by forcing the progeny of the wealthy back into the workforce, generating new wealth rather than sucking on their ancestor’s teets their entire lives?”

4 thoughts on “Captain Capitalism on Victimhood”

  1. Wouldn’t life be a lot easier if everything was as black and white as Captain Crap-a-lism makes it seem? I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but the terms “left” and “right” are traditionally used as relative terms on a spectrum of a particular position. Captain Crap-a-lism seems to suggest that the left is at the FAR end of the spectrum; the right on the other FAR end. I know this makes for better posts, but as you’ve pointed out Ed, seems like a bit too much of a generalization. I could go into any number of reasons why his generalization is crap and full of errors, but it’s not worth it. I don’t think reasonable, well-rationed people think these issues are so black and white. Afterall, there’s not many Republicans that are in favor of no government assistance at all.

    That said, I’ll throw out one generalization that I still think drives a lot of the differences between the left and right….and it’s the Right’s ability to see things in black and white. The Right often seems to paint things as one way or the other, e.g., if Gore were President we would have sat idly by as the Taliban took over the world; or, you’re “with us or against us”. It certainly makes for decisive leaders, but I think it does a great misservice to complicated issues.

  2. I like to mull these issues, because I’ve been blessed with a life on both sides of the infinitely-sided argument. I used to gladly work and wonder at people who did not work too–when I was ignorant–but lucky to be shy enough not to foolishly write things as sad as Captain Capitalcrap did online.

    Then life delivered to me some lessons–and now I do not wonder why some people do not work. Being physically/mentally able to work and allowed by society/corporations/elitists/etc to do meaningful work–IS A BLESSING, a gift, fate, whatever you want to call it.

    It is not guaranteed by any stretch–we all know people who’ve been injuried in accidents or sports, gotten cancer or illness, and on and on since the list of things that can afflict a person is literally endless. As is the list of ways a person can screw up their own life through addictions and poor decisions.

    All Captain Capitalcrap is proving is that he is incredibly ignorant or intolerant or both.

    Best part though, is that I know I do not have to raise my hand or voice toward him…simply wait for his fate to rise up and hand him his reward for his selfishness. I pray he is able to endure his fall, that his selfishness has not driven away all the support he will need during this downturn, and he will come through it with a better appreciation for his blessings, willing then maybe to share them with other less fortunate souls.

  3. Hey, just because bed wetting liberals like Kyle don’t really want to work days with long hours, including nights and weekends, don’t go colorizing (or lack of/all of colors-izing) the right. The right CLEARLY is represented by one color: green (as in money, moola, dinero, cold-hard cash, rupees, benjamins, dead presidents, etc. etc.).

    Oh sure, at first you may retort, “Yeah, green with envy Freets! As in, green with envy at the left’s ability to understand that government is not supposed to be a for-profit business and should assist those at the lower-end of the socioeconomic spectrum in helping themselves create better lives for themselves.” But you would be incorrect my friend, because the right too recognizes this and encourages the government to provide massive assistance to massive needy corporations, in which scores of the right invest, from which they then live off the proceeds (smartly avoiding payroll taxes and income taxes) – while working so, very, very hard.

    And you may also argue that yellow should be the color of the right. As in, yellow-chicken-shits who are adept at starting wars but not fighting in them. But let’s not get off topic: starting wars is hard work. That’s another example of hard work that the left is not willing to do.

    And don’t even bring up the color red, as in, red blood on the hands of the “war mongering right.” I’ve already addressed that above about wars being hard work. Red is more representative of the left’s face because the left is angry at the much-larger number of opportunities the right has to work. Actually, that might mean the left is green with envy… wait, we already established that green is the right’s color.

    So clearly, the right does not see things in black-and-white; rather, the right sees things only in green. The right sees only opportunities to make more green, instead of waisting time trying to help others (like “pink”-o leftists). And the only way to make more green? Hard work. And trust funds/aristrocracies, but that’s a whole different color that we won’t get into (possibly gold).

  4. The longer the era of Bush Era “team player” Republican drags on, the hungrier I get for right-wingers with brains. I’m not even particularly left-wing… I just think that so long as GOP doctrine remains of the Crayola crayon “War is Peace”/”Rich is Good”/”Poor is Lazy” variety, our national discourse will be so broken as to be useless in terms of vetting new ideas and coming to consensus solutions to tough problems. There’s a real discourse to be had between conservative and liberal ideas, and it’s happening in other countries. Here, it’s the rational versus the wildly self-interested and/or delusional. And the score’s basically tied, sadly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.