- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Nope, its me- Hall of mirrors...

Posted by: Red Deathy ( Socialist Party, UK ) on April 16, 1999 at 13:33:23:

In Reply to: it must be.....'them!' posted by Gee on April 16, 1999 at 11:46:57:

: Except I dont believe 'they' are in charge, in any general sense, of society.

Except 'they' pay for teh Political Parties, they are in charge of production, and their say governs economic policy- lest they throw their factories into eth Atlantic...

: I dont know if its them, if it is then more fool the goverment for having had state run bus services! If its corect for the state to run buses then why not taxis, your car, your bycicle, your very legs - all modes of transport! crazy.

Could it be that busses form a natural monopoly? And that some areas are just not 'economical' to run a bus service to, and that communities need bus services?

: I think I'm beginning to see that denigrating the able individual is a strong ingredient in socialist thought. After all if one were to perceive an individual as being the engine of wealth creation then it undrmines 'the collective'. There is no 'worhsip' in me, its strange you perceive such. I do hold that it is a small proportion of individuals who are the engines of wealth creation, without whom people would be worse off. Ive never believed that most feeble excuse 'yeah but someone else would do it'. People are not interchangeable automatons. It isnt necessary to 'worship' the carnegies in order to perceive their role as the creative force without which the various partners would never have been what they became and without which humankind would not have the same wealth as they have.

But they could only produce such wealth because of teh social structures that allowed it, I do not denegrate individual ability, merely point out that teh abiolities of many individuals are constrained by their position in teh working class, Eliot could never have written the Wastelnad if he hadn't have had teh time to Read Dante and Webster, but still, it was his ability that wrote that poem. These 'Great' individuals suually benefit from being in a time and space, yes, perhaps someone else could not have done it, then, but it would have happened eventually. No individual is free from the social structures around them. Einstein couldn't just have 'dreamed up' relativity.

: Pure speculation, and also of the sort that does not have sufficient examples in history.

But surely they are speculating on when teh next tech advance comes, and it'll need to be a big and far reaching one...

: First, im glad you recognise the huge role of 'mess about' govts has had in keeping British people back. Govts arent thinking about the social consequences, theyre trying to avoid a short term upset because they dont want to look bad in the eyes of the public. All resource poured into a bad rover should have been left free to find better opportunities. Thats how to 'help the people', keeping them at the end of a thinly disguised dole queue isnt.

No, because that community would still ahve been devastated- that some new jobs might be found wouln't help the folk as kill themselves, as are forced to move, as never find work again. Leaving folk free to the dpreadations of the Market doesn't help them non niether.

: And by the end of the year things were getting back to normal, ten years later there was a lot more wealth. Its no fun for those people in that year, but its not the 'market crises' many people so desperately want proof of (for some reason!)

No, its part of teh ongoing crisis since 1973, some people never recover such things, they find their skills unsaleable, they have their pride and spririt shot to peices...

: Nope, their mind I would say as expressed through them by their person. Hence we cannot know the mind, only whats presented.

But their mind is only the product of their environment, of recognition of a self through social discourse, we cannot know the mind, but we can know that it is not monadic, isolated, self-producing, without society...

: Think about that argument, it would mean that nobodies ideas are their own! no one! Even an inventor would only have invented because other people were around. No one has identity, any thought is everyones and no ones! Its a circular argument, it eats itself.

But its true, no-one has an identity, beyond their society, inventors can only invent because of the shoulders of yada yadda yadda, they reconstitute elements in their mind, reoranise what allready exists, they do not steal fire from the Gods. Faraday would be nothing without Newton, who would nbe nothing without Alchemy, which would be nothing....

Intelectual property, the whole concept of the 'Author' ahd to be invented (Ben jonson had a big hand in that- No Jonson, no Shakespeare)...

: I think you might be saying that because people interact and exchange ideas that their thinking is heavily influenced. In that case it is, each brain is unique however in how it processes all that info - its that which seperates peope, which individuates them.

I never said that each iondividual asn't unique, merely that they are *only* unique within their society, they are an individual only as much as society has made them individuals, as their life experieince has mae them feel their indivuality. Even info processing is not without the shaping force of society- people who don't recieive enoucragement and education cannot and do not process information in the same way as folk with more education- ability is more than a small part social.

: Because its very unlikely that all individuals in a given community will agree to a given issue in precisely the same way. if they did it wouldnt be a claim on others now would it.

Do you agree the earth is round,a nd goes round the sun?

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup