- Capitalism and Alternatives -

cant keep up with that there northen talk!

Posted by: Gee ( si ) on July 20, 1999 at 18:16:44:

In Reply to: Well ah'll go t'foot o'arr stairs.. posted by Red Deathy on July 20, 1999 at 17:13:19:

: Socialism is not utlitarianism, socialism is about solidarity, comradeship and friendship, standing by yourself, and your fellows in class.

In class wont mean every one else RD, it will be the select few that you value - all those poeple discriminatingly valuing others, not wanting to chuck it all into a central pot because it means not achiving their values (and thus not being 'happy')

: And I choose workmates over otehr social goals. Solidarity.

Your workmates? 12 of them, 100? How many do you think others choose? be prepared for small numbers, divergent conflicting goals, means and effects.

: Husband first, then workmates, then other friends, distant familly, etc.

Good, so you see why a person doesnt chuck his ability into a central pot for all to take from, but wants to give it to that which *he* values. Wants to control whom the benefit gets to.

: But a gloabl commune would be many small communes latched into a single system that means whilst working for themselves and thema s are close in community, they will have to support the wider world ystem.

They wont, commune A may not give a rats arse about Commune B any more that an Ethiopian might give about a Honduran.

: No, true indivdiualism would shaft t'other person, and not let marriage nor love stand in the way- try Thomas Hardy's 'the Mayor of Casterbridge'.

Read it, nice novel powerfully written by the king of misery - utterly unrealistic, a man hellbent on his own destruction. Hardly a sign of individualism, hardly one striving to achieve happiness in life. If you want endless misery upon pessimistic misery try Jude the Obscure as a chaser!

: Nicely cicumulocutary, but I'll take that as yes, you do support these things.

The I must take the above as acceptance that people wont be acting 'from their ability to other needs' unless they absolutely have a huge influence in where there ability goes and to whom.

: Only by teh very very rich, who can resist.

Very Very rich must include $50k families then.

: No, because that son might not bring the firm down (well paying, but not important- non-executive director time).

He must leach from the profits. Better to just give him money not a job where he does anything - then it can remain a good company with a mysterious $100k missing from the retained profit every year ;-) Might just affect investors, unless the daddy owns it all - even then he must do without that investment potential.

: No, they suggest that humans, a la Robinson Cruseo stand alone, cut off from ties or responsibilities to others.

No, where does it state that.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup