- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Sooner rather than later, huh?!

Posted by: Lark on December 13, 1999 at 17:18:37:

In Reply to: We need this stuff out in the open posted by Stoller on December 13, 1999 at 13:29:43:

: First, let us recall that Lark said in this post:


: [I]f I had to, and I would, engage in an armed struggle against a Strollerist regime I'd probably be fighting alongside the likes of Dr. Cruel etc.

: Now, THAT'S my idea of fair-weather socialism.

Sun is shining the weather is sweet makes you want to move those dancing feet....Jes, Barry dont have a damn cow, kick back and get a cocktail or a pint of stout if we arent going to enjoy socialism lets forget it, alright?

All I was saying was, give peace a chance, no only joking, no more singing, what I was saying is that if you want to introduce your ideas through king mob or the state I'm going to have the same attitude to the socialist order givers as I currently have to the capitalist ones.

: : Please, guys, it breaks my heart to see socialists arguing. I think tehre's too much mudslining going on here.

: Actually, Nikhil, there's not ENOUGH arguing going on here.

Right enough, not enough banter by half.

: We need to REALLY get issues out in the open NOW so we can glimpse what sort of differences might emerge AFTER the revolution.


: We can all hold hands now, ignoring or minimizing our differences, but EVENTUALLY these differences will come out.

Sooner rather than later, huh?!

: I, for one, want to know who I can count on then---and I want to know NOW---before I risk my neck.

Yeah, I mean we might being doing a recky into capitalist held territory and I'd just machine gun you or something!!

: We need to know MORE than that we share opposition to the CURRENT order.

Yes, like who's going to impose their will or blueprint the next opportunity they get, here have a cheeseburger.

: We need to know WHAT it is we're fighting FOR in the future.


: You wouldn't want to risk YOUR neck fighting with me only to LATER discover that I was fighting for things you reject, would you?

No way man but I really, really know the differences we have now dont I?

: Why expect the same of me?

I dont, have a cheeseburger Barry, go on you know you want to, there's nothing like charded cheeseburgers.

: As far as your issues go, we've hashed over most of them before (with the thread that begins here).

OK, man been there done that, lock and load, revolutionary firearm of the week, the colt desert eagle?!

: The only point I think would be worthwhile to explore again is this one:

: Stoller:
: Lark has taken a stand AGAINST what he calls 'absolute' equality, arguing instead for the Rawlsian conception of justice in which 'the distribution of wealth and income need not be equal.'

: : You pulled that out of context. Rawls advocates whatever society maximizes the standard of living of teh most destitute.

: Which INCLUDES raising the standards of the better off---as long as the increase in living standards OCCUR TOGETHER.

That's one way of looking at it, bit of a hostile way, we dont look at it that way you know.

: Rawls accepts that living standards may start off UNEQUAL.

But they do, it aint good but they do start of unequal.

: Rawls EXPLICITLY accepts income differences---in principle (p. 61).

What difference does income make? Are you really annoyed because it means the rich can have more cheeseburgers? Or is it because the cheese may melt onto your social engineering blueprints and muck them up?

: Most of Rawls' intricate (and, at times, dull)

Gotta agree there, there had to be an easier way of going about saying the things he said.

:presentation argues FOR the idea that whatever benefits ALL is justice---even if there are inequalities in the first place. This idea is popularly known as the 'whatever raises all boats' theory---which is merely 'trickledown' with a 'human face.'

Depends how you interpret it really doesnt it, I mean it's not really set in stone is it?

: Doc will tell us how capitalism raises all boats till he's blue in the face---and you certainly won't trust him.


: Why should I trust a liberal saying the same thing? Because the inequality 'won't be as bad'?

Liberals are more humanist and care about people not things, well socialistic ones anyway.

: Sorry, I'm not going to risk MY neck for something like that.

Hey, revolutions may not be that risky just a general strike and some occupations, guillotining where the class war is worst but on the whole it'll be like a holiday.

: If YOU want to, be my guest.


: Also:
: Rawls dismisses any socialism that refutes market relations (pp. 280-81), which we know (since the late 1980s and on) only leads back to capitalism. Market socialism is a chimera because as long as LABOR is a commodity, there will be alienation. AND ever-increasing inequalities.

Oh, I dont know, any progress is progress, a cheeseburger is better than chips.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup