- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Gee ( si ) on July 19, 1999 at 19:45:38:

In Reply to: The Venality of the Possible posted by Red Deathy on July 19, 1999 at 13:57:36:

: Some might consider my 'No Reforms' approach to be secxtarian, ultra-leftist and irrational.

Actually, I think its far less bloodthirsty than a 'kindly' policy enacted by a centrist government! Its also internally consistent with socialism as you explain it.

: Poissbleism has been tried, in many forms, for nearly a century, and it still hasn't worked.

Its worked in one sense. You have assumed the purpose to be the laying of a path toward socialism. I think the motivation of the 'possibelists' to be very much personal gain, in power, prestige etc etc. Hence its quite understandible. Not people working to noble goals but sadly lacking in vision, but people working toward divergent personal goals and using the power of government to achieve them.

No go parties (ie those who never win more than a few local councils/city halls) might boldly proclaim various directives intended to reform, but thats different from actually having real power.

: 2:To lead the workers we must be with the ass of workers

I had to read that twice!

: Now, people either believe the reforms are good in themselves (teh first strand), or pointless (second strand), but help to show how the system doesn't work, or p[romt the workers to want more.

They dont show how the system doesnt work any more than putting sugar in your petrol tank 'shows' how your car doesnt work.

: Now, for a large part, possiblism is a self fulfilling prophecy- if you say the revolution is a long way off, and that we should work for reforms instead, then of coruse, all you'll get is a never ending list of reforms to work for, because the revolution is tomorrow, and tomorrow never comes.

indeed, you get a long lucrative career in politics like that.

: And on top of that, once in charge, reofrmists tend to find that the needs of the market (capital strikes, or inflation, etc.) can undermine their elective power.

They tend to find that support for their laws is not only unpopular with businesses etc, but also with the very people they supposedly (but dont actually) represent.

: On top of all that, reforms don't work- a pittnce doubled is a pittance, minimum wages don't work, union legislation just helps the bureaucrats.

Im glad you understand this. But its not evena pittance doubled. Lots of 'reforms' tend to just mess up a free marekt and add costs, erode capital etc etc. Its a menu for poverty which is then conveniently blamed upon 'the system' with the consequent call for more legislation and thus prolonging the lucrative careers of said bureaucrats.

: As with Leninists, reformists find themselves confronted by the first necessity of a ruling group- staying in power, and principle usually have to be sacrificed to teh simple logic that to achieve anything, you need to stay in power to do it.

Would consider than staying in power is actually the goal of many reformists?

: Capitalism cannot be made to work,

It cant, although you understand i am coming from a different angle on that.

interesting position RD.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup