- Capitalism and Alternatives -

The people who tolerate ruthless, brutish orders arent really effected by ruthless brutish behaviour or conditions.

Posted by: Lark on February 28, 19100 at 12:06:50:

In Reply to: Capitalism is a ruthless, brutish system, but it does seem to work. posted by Jason on February 27, 19100 at 18:52:02:

: Thatcherism happened because socialism wasnt working, theories and ideologies come and go but practical realities stay ( bills have to be paid ). Thatcher was voted in, it was a democratic decision, people felt they would be better off. Capitalism is a ruthless, brutish system, but it does seem to work.

Ah, the hopeless 'it's shit but it's all we got' reasoning, do you not wonder why laissez faire capitalism has never caught on in Sweden, Denmark or Norway? Why have these sterling socialist nations been able to resist the inevitability of 'practical realities'?

: I personally think it must be tempered by a welfare state, but, lets be realistic here, we are not all born equal ( genes ), we do not all try our best for ourselves and society ( louts ).

I accept both those points, I have no problem with natural inequality but if you think that intelligence immediately means an individual will seek to gain privilege then you should surf the net and find the very excellent essay by Albert Einstein on Socialism, or read Thoreau's 'Life without principle' (Civil disobediance and other essays, Dover Thrift, it's about $2 or 1.89 I think), or Oscar Wilde's 'The Soul of Man Under Socialism'.

I might add that I'm not in any way naive, I know people reject socialism because they have this impression that it entails a kind of semi-voluntary poverty, the failure of socialism to demonstrate that is really is the means to a classless good life for the individual and society has been a very big problem, that's why the capitalists have been winning for so long.

: Clever, hard working, pretty people should have nicer houses and more kids than stupid,lazy,ugly people - we are a construct of evolutionary favour not ideas and theories.

That may be your view, you clearly consider yourself to be of the clever, hard working, pretty variety, however it be beneath me to insinuate that you are arrogant, my view is tempered by a militant humanist ethical code, the good samaritan did not comply with such social darwinism, if he had he would have simply said what a mug for getting robbed and moved along.

I do not think the good for nothings should be fostered at the expense of the good for somethings either, I think that people should do community service or environmental work in exchange for welfare when they are intentionally excluded from jobs to give capitalists leverage with the remaining workers in the determination of wages and conditions of employment, however, I do not think there are that many 'good for nothings' and those that are, are the product of a socialisation that has stressed laziness and selfishness, they are the bastard children of capitalist consumerist-self-satisfaction ethics.

: In the wild there is no tax on the well adapted lion so that the badly adapted lion can have more meat. Or am i wrong, do socialist communes exist in nature ?

If you are wondering if mutual aid exists in nature then just look at the Ants, or read Kropotkins 'Mutual Aid: A Factor In Evolution', I might also ask if their are any lions living in complete isolation? Perhaps prides etc. demonstrate that society is ontologically prior to the individual.

Besides in nature the lion, monkey, elephant etc. are not taxed by the invisible leviathan for the food they eat, the land they live on, the homes they make, the children they bare. You seem to be under the misconception that Capitalism is a natural order, far from it, you also seem to think socialism is nothing but high taxation, it isnt.


Follow Ups:

None.

The Debating Room Post a Followup