- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Insidious, innit?

Posted by: Red Deathy ( Socialist party, UK ) on July 20, 1999 at 15:59:14:

In Reply to: so he is the one, who'd have thought.... posted by Gee on July 19, 1999 at 19:46:54:

: No your missing the point, the bustops are not your to move.

You're missing the analogy- the bus route is the puublic productive system, changing the public system (i.e. cutting off the money supply) is our act.

: Because theyre far richers than 'rich' people in Chad, Ethiopia, Laos etc. Unles you 'stagger' the evening out of access to stuff over many years the initial experience for the 2 billion better off people will be a drop.

No, because we will work to maintain our living standards, while they work, with our help, to raise theirs, and quickly.

: Including parents who want to defend their 'privilage'?

Privellege by definition is not need.

: At least you accept that equality is not going to happen. And that the 2 billion above must first experience downturn in supplying said resources.

No, not a downturn, equality is possible, within, I should think, 10 years.

: Is murder digging a hole in your garden into which a person falls 30 years later? Very Very clear lines must be drawn lest everyone be made guilty of everything.

No, that woulod be mansluaghter due to a failure of my duty of care to ensure the hole was safe, plus the corresponadance is not so remote- we are responsible for our economic system now.

: ever hopeful of changes in billions of peoples values and priorities.

No, no change in prioritioes- schools, hospitals clothes, housing and food are what they want now, and thats what they'll want then.

: He didnt have the accident of being near it. what should he do, just take it anyway? Where does this lead - an argument of what happens with one person who finds land? its doesnt seemt to fit for poeple born into things.

It fits in that one has, without justice, gained, while the other has not, and as a result of unconscious human agency- it can be changed to make them both equal, without being injust.

: No principles just sheer subjectivism and 'might makes right'. seems a risky venture, might not last. Still, its not such a big change over human history.

Yes, principles, our principle being that all should be equal, that peacefully is better, and that we do not recognise their property claims anymore. How can you have privelleged education without money to pay for private schools?

: 51% overwhelms 49%, just not as much as 90%.

No, 51% is a slight majority, not a massive majority.

: The you accept that as families develop then some might go a few generations 'breeding' superior stock (thouigh Id sound all upper class a mo') with very inegalitarian outcomes?

No, its not breeding, it better conditions within the home of the child being born- i.e. if suddenly a rich familly became poor, their children would perform as well as the poor children would.

: Not the systems 'fault' specifically, but in peoples comparative values of their choices.

No, because it has an inherent logic, if my small profit is much smaller than a competitor, I'm dog food.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup