Debate Argument: Capitalism?
Response to Defense Point 3: Capitalism allows the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer. Response to Defense Point 5: In Socialism it helps the poor a lot more than Capitalism, to help their situation by working to their abilities and getting the money that they need. Response to Attack Point 3: No the businesses won’t, but the collective socialism workers’ and consumers’ councils will keep up with consumer demand. Response to Attack Point 4: Socialism has actually proven that it is very economically efficient. Attack Point One: In Capitalism, businesses and corporations must aspire profit before anything else.
Attack Point Two: Capitalism is ruled by corporations, NOT individuals. Attack Point Three: Capitalism is not compassionate at all. Attack Point Four: Capitalism doesn’t always reward the hard working. Attack Point 1: Capitalism allows for the efficent exchange of goods and resources. Attack Point 8: Capitalism is not meant to be compassionate, and neither is socialism; It is not an economy’s duty, obligation, or job of any kind to be compassionate, or having compassion will ruin the economy.
Attack Point 9: The Scandinavian countries can espouse the good in Socialism, and the European countries in the debt crisis can espouse the bad in Capitalism. Attack Point 10: Capitalism does not abuse human rights and Socialism does not protect them, but in fact endangers them.
Who’s More Compassionate: The Left or the Right?
Liberals are compassionate and conservatives are mean. If liberalism is the politics of kindness, it follows that conservatism must be the opposite – heartless. On the other, liberals are bursting with ideas for all the humane things government can do by redistributing the wealth created by these so-called selfish people. Liberals champion government action as the best vehicle to alleviate suffering. At the same time, they are uninterested in the question of whether these government programs actually do alleviate suffering.
To take just one example, the government’s own studies have demonstrated that the federal pre-school program Head Start does not achieve its goals. This program has lost none of its liberal luster. On the contrary, liberals constantly call for its expansion. Our federal, state, and local governments spend more than $3.2 trillion per year on programs designed to prevent or relieve poverty. The whole point of compassion is for empathizers to feel better when the awareness of another’s suffering distresses the observer.
On top of all its other problems, our $3 trillion welfare state doesn’t work because its liberal architects and defenders don’t really care whether it works. If you really want to help people, it should be pretty obvious which is the more important question.
Atlanta real estate whiz is changing lives, one apartment complex at a time
Madison Hills apartment complex in Marietta presented Stagmeier challenges from the start. On behalf of investors, her company acquired this blighted apartment community in 2006. Brumby was one of two Cobb County schools on the Federal Watch List for Failing Schools at the time. Stagmeier had never before realized how much an apartment community could impact a school. Transiency often contributes to a school’s failure, Richie explained.
The children were no longer going home to empty apartments after school because their parents were working two and three jobs to pay the bills. Knowing the children had a safe place to go after school, parents got better jobs. Having a stabilized apartment community meant residents could contribute more to the broader community and to the tax base, Stagmeier said, because they were staying put and getting better jobs. By 2012, all 90 children in the after-school program passed the school systems’ competency tests. The school went from one of the worst in the state to a Title 1 school of distinction.
Finally, five years in, the county came around and granted the permits Stagmeier needed to remodel the moldy, burned out apartments. The rent went up, families moved out, Brumby Elementary went back on the watch list for failing schools.
Mourning Modernity: Literary Modernism and the Injuries of American Capitalism
In Mourning Modernity, Seth Moglen argues that American literary modernism is, at its heart, an effort to mourn for the injuries inflicted by modern capitalism. He demonstrates that the most celebrated literary movement of the 20th century is structured by a deep conflict between political hope and despair-between the fear that alienation and exploitation were irresistible facts of life and the yearning for a more just and liberated society. He traces this conflict in the works of a dozen novelists and poets – ranging from Eliot, Hemingway, and Faulkner to Hurston, Hughes, and Tillie Olsen. Taking John Dos Passos’ neglected U.S.A. trilogy as a central case study, he demonstrates how the struggle between reparative social mourning and melancholic despair shaped the literary strategies of a major modernist writer and the political fate of the American Left.
Mourning Modernity offers a bold new map of the modernist tradition, as well as an important contribution to the cultural history of American radicalism and to contemporary theoretical debates about mourning and trauma. He has recently published a new edition of T. Thomas Fortune’s Black and White: Land, Labor, and Politics in the South.