- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Can't answer that question, can you?

Posted by: Stoller on February 29, 19100 at 13:37:06:

In Reply to: No I think that's the Trot/Lenin eyewash again. posted by Lark on February 28, 19100 at 12:07:47:

: I'll tell you what is nonsense, the notion that all you have to do is change the state and institutions of a country and you have arrived at socialism.

Changing who owns and runs the state and the means of production will certainly be a fine place to start. As Trotsky sagely observed: 'Socialism does not aim at creating a socialist psychology as a pre-requisite to socialism but at creating socialist conditions of life as a pre-requisite to socialist psychology' (The Permanent Revolution, Pathfinder 1969, p. 99).

: After all I'd have thought that having no direct link to the ownership of the means of production or class bound morality it would clearly not concern you.

My point was that if a minority group was denied benefits that most citizens enjoy because of something as economically insignificant as their sexual orientation, then there would be understandable opposition to such an discriminatory policy.

: Last time I checked the Homosexual lobby in suggesting there is a 'Pink Pound', 'Pink Vote', 'Pink Parade Pride', 'Pink Identity', 'Pink Media' and 'Pink Clubs' which I think means they themselves believe there is a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.

Do you think that might have anything to do with protesting homophobia (and discriminatory policies)---or do you flatter yourself to think that they just do those things to personally bug you?

: I put it to you that the question of private or public is becoming increasingly irrelevent because people have foudn that a nationally owned industry is the same dog with a different collar.

That is hardly a socialist sentiment!

Whether the PEOPLE own the productive capacity of society (collectively) or some CAPITALIST individual owns it is quite a difference! (See this post for details...)

St(r)oller: Honesty and continuity are necessary, in my opinion, to represent the party. Unity of ideological principles is equally necessary, in my opinion, for a party to accomplish anything. I can respect your disagreement with this perspective but, tell me, why would I want to join a party that has members who fundamentally disagree with my politics?

Lark: This is very significant, it demonstrates that you have no understanding of debate or the nature of conflict and disagreement at all.

St(r)oller: Was that an answer to my question? Was that really the best you could do?

: What kind of a response is that? Have you exhausted your debating capacity and are now retreating for a mockery? What kind of a response did you think I would give?

You STILL haven't answered the question, 'why would I want to join a party that has members who fundamentally disagree with my politics?' I guess I should give up my expectations that you ever will answer it.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup