- Capitalism and Alternatives -

even more responses to even more nonsenses

Posted by: Gee ( si ) on May 14, 1999 at 23:47:47:

In Reply to: more responses to nonsenses posted by Samuel Day Fassbinder on May 14, 1999 at 16:59:38:

: Just because there is "space" somewhere to live doesn't mean that former urban dwellers have the ability or will-power to make use of such space.

Evidently they do, observe history, and Toronto was probably a very inhospitable 'siberia' when first settled, now its very pleasant thanks to the effort of those people seeking to make homes for *themselves*. Siberia may not always be as it is today you know. Your solution? To have land as rent free and peoples movement to be based on whim - that santa cruz becomes dangerously overcroweded and polluted, ala slums, because the entire world wants to stay there? What is your means to deciding the distribution of populace? Perhaps you suppose that poeple, upon seeing a popular location becoming crowded will move on, they will require the "ability or will-power"to do this.

: The cause of racism is not "the collectivized mindset of people as groups" per se, but rather the inculcation of prejudice. Leaving the nonwhites trapped in the slums, with all the dislocation that entails, is not going to do anything to persuade the prejudiced that they don't "deserve" to live there.

You havent really explained why this may be so, saying racism is the inculcation of prejudice does not explain it. Why would I , should I live in santa cruz, consider a Soa Paulo slum to be what the inhabitants deserved?

: Oh I'm SOOOOOOOO worried about the "resentment" of the rich few

Except the few you mock are the many millions of the west who would be required to undergo 'assett stripping' should overnight economic equality be sought.

: to the resentment of the billions who will stage a REVOLUTION if they ever get ahold of a shred of power against such rich few, who at present work for Nike, for the profit of capitalists.

Again we have a situation where, because the 'west' developed culturally toward a materially wealthy society sooner than most they are targets *because* they developed in this direction first. Should they pay 'protection money' to the angry horde? This can only be believed if one attributed the wealth of the west to the lack of such in other countries, an ignorant belief.

: This, as Gideon Hallett has pointed out, is more obfuscatory nonsense. The machinery for our civilization is built to run on ONE, NON-REPLACEABLE RESOURCE, that is to say OIL, whose current cheap price and great plentitude will only last for about ten years.

About 20 years if I remember predictions from the 60s correctly, 35 years ago.

: We can't just "switch" away from oil like we would turn on or off a lightswitch. After about 2010, there will still be oil, it just won't be cheap oil

Youve just explained why the switch wont be overnight, but graduated.

: You haven't even bothered to think ten years into the future.

You appear unable to consider anything other than today, a surprisingly static view of the world as facing unchanging issues, and of mankind as unable to adapt to change despite having done so since time immemorial.

: My values are the result of having thought of another option for human society, that most people haven't ever been offered. Communes are a substitute for a better society, a substitute that can be arrived-at by the well-off in the face of capitalist denial of the other alternatives.

First, you personally may achieve your personal goals - you cannot validly have 'options' for other peoples lives - its for them to lead. You can live in a commune today. Do you? If you are waiting for the world to change to become in line with your personal goals you will wait until the end of your life.

And anyone who hasnt shared the same enthusiasm for your vision of how mankind 'should' live has the right to carry on as they are. If one lives by a code that says one will not initiate force against others will you restrain that person for every atom of pollution they cause, for every scrap of property they trade and 'deny' others by doing so in the claim that in so doing they were attcking their fellows.

: SDF: Examples please.

Criticisms of destructive monopolies which are companies protected by favor, tarifs and political pull are blamed upon private ownership of capital.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup