- Capitalism and Alternatives -

meted out by vote not need

Posted by: Gee ( si ) on August 06, 1999 at 14:24:16:

In Reply to: Nope. posted by Red Deathy on August 06, 1999 at 11:49:26:

: Actually, there is not:
: 1:Social production begets social reward, i.e. everyone is involved in teh production process.

I am not involved in the production of ice creams now, and i wouldnt be involved in socialism either.

: 2:Gains are meted out according to need, not according to property ownership.

Gains are meted out by vote, now rule can enforce that the 'needy' (itself a subjective valuation) get more, the 'policeman' in the hope that poeple will vote this way. Social democracy cannot gaurantee this, or even see it become more 'egalitarian'.

Objective standards are necessary. subjectivism is the start of a long slide to all sorts of horrors.

: No, by need, and Capitalism doesn't reward ability to exchange value, it rewards ownership of money.

'need' if not defined objectively is meaningless. It also makes need the basis and motivation of life. people who have needs get more, poeple without needs might develop them. Hoping that people will all bne jolly decent and honest is....just hoping. A gamble I would not like to take. With a new structure comes new problems.

: But the point is that 'elected' officials would not be in charge, merely appointed to carry out the democratically arrived at decisions.

Sounds like politics and a great conduit for empire building.

: No, because the imprerative to cut budgets at all costs is the cause, socialism woiuld not have the overiding imperatoive to cut budgets for cuttings sake.

They would have the same competition for limited resources as any system. Priorities would need resolution, many would defend and build 'their side'. conflict.

: If I give rat poisons, knowingly, to a child murderer, I am responsible-

In what way is selling cigarettes like giving poison to child murderers?

: Which they have done 'I do not believe nicotine is addictive', slight misrepresentation there...

Its an opinion ("i do not believe") not a con. if someone says "i do not believe that screwdrivers in eyes are harmful" I would not be misled, I would be able to judge the sentence as an opinion - false at that.

: Companies have never really helped much on this matter- UC went round for the first few days saying MIC was just a strong Tear Gas (despite 8,000 dying in the first few days), and even now, they refuse to release toxicological information, claiming trade-secrets, leaving doctors in the dark as how to treat (random steroids, etc.).

Yes they are crap(US) but other firms are crap about things they should be proud of too. Its because being honest in business gets you heaps of hateful bile in the press. If a company says "we want to produce what people want so that we can create wealth for ourselves and shareholders" you get the idiot brainless stupidity of high horse fake indignation all over the press (hence you only ever read that in the annual report). So they say "we want to benefit families with our lovely new soap" - missing out that its a two way exchange of values. The more companies cower the more they dig themselves in. I applaud the honesty of the few business people couragious enough to speak it.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup