The idea of the townspeople uniting together and sacrificing some of their material wealth to help another in need is a very powerful Socialist message.
In essence, they "taxed" themselves, pooled this "tax money" together, and used it to help the one in town who needed help through no fault of his own.
Now all we need to do is teach about half the U.S. population this simple concept.
Sorry,
I disagree.
The townspeople used their own money in a way that they saw fit. no one was forced to fund a cause that they didn't believe in (Potter didn't contribute).
Capitalism does not purport to say that people cannot use their own money in a charitable way (George did it his whole life. He often sacrificed what he really wanted for the better of the community).
This is far different than using the force of society to make everyone behave in a particular way.
This is far different than using the force of society to make everyone behave in a particular way.
Thus, your argument that Capitalism is great and doesn't do the bad things that Socialism does fails.
that point wasn't made by me or anyone else in this thread.
no one was forced to fund a cause that they didn't believe in (Potter didn't contribute).
the people get to choose who and how they want to give support, rather than forfeiting that money to the government and hoping it reaches the right hands or the right programs.
every country that has adopted socialism does far worse for their own citizens
How does "capitalism" do that? Seems to me your argument is that because America does that and bills itself ad capitalistic that it equates to capitalism doing it. But in reality, economic systems aren't quite as clear cut. What you describe is an element if socialism, government seizing wealth and redistributing it as it sees fit. So pinning that on capitalism doesn't work. You're essentially taking a criticism of socialism and pinning it on capitalism.
The thing about capitalism is that, by it's very nature, it makes abuse possible. Precisely because it's about freedom. But the counterpoint is that it's also the only system that enables the good to be done like in this movie. Socialism and Communism are based on fictional Utopias that never play out and cause misery. Potter actually represents a more socialistic system, where everything is controlled by a central power. (not how socialism advertises itself but in practice) In the movie, Potter essentially commits theft and breaks the law to get George down. Had his antics been discovered, justice could've been served. Somebody who takes advantage of a careless old man would do so in any economic system. But the success of the Baileys shows capitalism at its finest. George couldn't have done what he did under the thumb of an overreaching government. And the people couldn't have helped George either. Capitalism isn't about ensuring that nothing bad can happen. That's not possible. Capitalism ensures that people have the option and the means to right wrongs when they do happen. If people elect not to do that, don't blame the system but the choices. So I find this movie a picture of how capitalism enables both bad and good. But ultimately the good is what is rewarded.
It's a simple distinction:
Socialists are greedy and want to take other people's money, gaining political power by handing it out to others.
Capitalists are greedy and want to earn money the hard way, by producing a good or service their customers will value enough to pay for willingly.
The townspeople give what is essentially charity to George. Charity can and does exist within the framework of Capitalism. I don't see that as supporting Socialism. If Mr. Potter needed charity, the people of Bedford Falls wouldn't have given it to him. The people get to choose who and how they want to give support, rather than forfeiting that money to the government and hoping it reaches the right hands or the right programs.
Where I think what you might call IAWL's message of anti-capitalism is the strongest is in its repudiation of Potter and people like him. At a time today especially when CEO salaries have skyrocketed while the average worker's salary has stagnated, I think that's an important message. One that doesn't have to be inherently against capitalism.
___
I used to think I knew everything about the world. Now I just know that it's round.
Well said.
shareCharity = Communism? lols Delete your account.
In that case, most churches should be locked up or razed - fostering Commie behaviour yes?
lols
The principle of the savings and loan, a private business that pools the deposits, or shares, of the people to whom it issues mortgage loans, is pure capitalism, or to put it more correctly, free enterprise. There is nothing in free enterprise to preclude such private cooperation.
Free enterprise produces wealth, socialism leads to poverty, as the last eight years of the first radical president demonstrate, not to mention the collapse of the Soviet Empire and current conditions in Cuba. This fool said four years ago
that if you create a business you didn't do it
yourself, alluding to the benefit of schools, etc. However there would be no schools without the wealth to pay for buildings, teacher salaries, etc.
Capitalism is a term created by a nineteenth century communist. The better term is free enterprise.
It's not socialism, but keeping a community thriving by helping out all the while maintaining liberty and the right to work for your prosperity.
sharethe film also vilifies banks for loaning people money to buy homes, and for protecting their shareholders by foreclosing when borrowers fail to uphold their end of the bargain.
shareThe movie was actually investigated for Communist themes.
shareFrank Capra and Jimmy Stewart were Republicans, not commies.
shareFrank Capra and Jimmy Stewart were Republicans, not commies.
share