- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Help if I knew what the question was.

Posted by: Lark on February 29, 19100 at 22:25:52:

In Reply to: Can't answer that question, can you? posted by Stoller on February 29, 19100 at 13:37:06:

: Changing who owns and runs the state and the means of production will certainly be a fine place to start.

Changing who owns the means of production maybe, introducing planning maybe, but if your aiming at statism a la the ruskies then that is as much socialism as napolean was socialism.

: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).

Pathetic leader veneration aside that's an elitist nonsense, what does the the great socialist messiah bring his wisdom to the poor ignorant workers?

: 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.

Try as you might you'll not be able to frame the welfare debate in terms of class, especially not when it comes to lifestyle requisites to welfare, I assume that you'd only wish working class homo's to received the benefits and be liberated.

: : 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?

No I think they do it because the homosexual community suffers a lack of sexual ethics, to an even greater extent than the heterosexual one.

: : 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!

It depends on whether or not you think that socialism is just the anniliation of all but one proprietor, banker and capitalist or whether it's the eradication of capitalism altogether.

: 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...)

What 'people' are you talking about Stroller, you trots think the state and the people are one and the same, they arent.

: 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.

I dont think you would and in a democracy where party membership and compliance with the party will is a free choice that is fine but in an order where disagreement with the party equals a death sentence I'd find it unacceptable.

Your attitude to politics is the same as the taliban's attitude to islam.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup