- Capitalism and Alternatives -

And me

Posted by: Gee ( si ) on April 14, 1999 at 12:41:48:

In Reply to: And you? posted by Red Deathy on April 13, 1999 at 19:01:56:

: However, that 'usurpation' is found in the general self movement of capitalism, all the super-high tech machinery, all the mergers, all the growing total interdependance, means that the individual of the old small holder capitalist owner-producer artisan days are dead and gone, all that is left is finding a place in a vast machine, and if we don't take charge of the machine, we'll never get any individuality back.

That isnt supported by studies of businesses and 'self made millionaires', including your own Times 1000. Even in post fuedal Britain over 700 of the millionaires are those who started with the average resource levels. Big business is suffering from overstretching and tightening margins (i think you even pointed this out). Small holder 'capitalists' are all around you, still and new 'big' businesses are still emerging.

: And I acknowledge man as specific, as well, however, I feel that until we have collective control, and full democracy, many people cannot utilise nor realise their individuality. Humans are social animals, and any solution to the crisis of self-hood must be a social solution.

The socialisation of humans does not mean the social control of some humans by other humans. This is the crux of the matter.

: No, all utopias are based on futurity, and change, I look to the possible trends in society, I look backwards to see tha consciouesness has changed drastically in its time, and must do so again- your definition of freedom is impossible, because it denies society exists, and that humans must be part of society, part of a totality. If your utopia merely involves how you think people now, or rather as they were, then it is indeed as I reckon, a backwards looking utopia, because capitalism, and teh market, cannot offer anything new nor better.

It is not an impossibility, nor does it conflict with many humans as society. The 'totality' exists because individuals are its construction. The specific nature of man is that man is an independant being (not in biological symbiosis with others) and that no man can know the mind of another. To lay claim to others on such a precarious lack of knowledge and interdependance seems a most dangerous route. To express interaction via a free association of choice reflects the above more accuratley. You see, I dont support what I support in the hope of having a load of money, but because I think its the best way for humans to exist as humans.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup