- Capitalism and Alternatives -

selfish means loving your child more than your neighbours

Posted by: Gee ( si ) on May 06, 1999 at 12:15:39:

In Reply to: Collectives serve humanity, not themselves posted by Nikhil Jaikumar on May 06, 1999 at 10:08:28:

: I doubt it, I think that all groups of people people have essentially the same degree of "motivation' and 'ability", but let that pass, for argument's sake....

I doubt your assertion. A small group of individuals of excepional ability can change a larger community, they may be 'unevenly' spread in communities.

: If they wanted to be productive, they would; assuming that they ahd access to the same natural resources.

They might not. What if C1 happened to live near a good river?

: I don;t think that the problem of unequal outcomes would be anywhere near as bad in a collectivist world. If C2 was so under-developed, for some reason (perhaps a flood) then I suspect that people from other communs would venture in to volunteer their labor in order to help them develop.

In a case such as this yes. In the case where C1 happened to have the balance of the more able folk then why would they - there is no disaster apparent.

: where there was no lomnger the need to produce in ordrr to avoid starvation

The need to survive wont change. Goods wont magically become abudant. Life will still be hard work.

: But C1 is not acting in their own 'collective democratic interest"

C1 people have greater value for their own families, children and friends than for strangers. The vast majority of poeple do.

: So this is different from teh market economy

Its not a comparison, its a statement. C2 arent self sufficient. C1 has not caused this.

: The appropriate solution would be for C1 to temporarily give up a good portion of their income (not all) so that they are still at an above subsstence level, but are also helping C@ to get back on their feet.

Until they sink below again? And why would C1 people deprive their loved ones for strangers more than once?

: Straw man, if access to resources is the same then on a macro, collective level inequalities will not persist.

Access may be different, reality does not supply each town with the same materials, nor do distributions of people supply the same abilities to the communes. It is a plausible scenario.

:: Should C1 work to support C2 indefinately, at the cost of their standard of living?

: Not likely, as I said, tehe inequality will not persist permanently unless something (eg the capitalist system (NO) or perhaps a viciuous government) is deliberately trying to kjeep them in poverty.

Or their inability, in comparison with members of C1.

:: Should C2 forcibly take property from C1 to equalise their standard of living?

: No, if anything they should take income- taking an across the board piece of income from the community doesn't punish any particular occupation, tehrefore it doesn't coerce people to be say, farmers instead of musicians. By taking income instead of property, you are not forcing anyone to alter their chosen occupation / lifestyle.

You are reducing the reward for being any of them accross the board. C2 would gain at C1s expense. Exploitation.

: No, C1 and C@ do not have autonomous interests, they both ahve as tehir goal the good of humanity.

An assumption which I doubt, they have the good of their valued humans as their interests. They love their children more than their neighbours children.

: No, because they ahve an obligation to humaity as a whole, not to their community.

C2 could then exist on the produce of C1, effectively turning C1 into a slave camp. An exploitative non productive class existing off the backs of the productive ones.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup