- Capitalism and Alternatives -

of your socialism then?

Posted by: Gee ( si ) on September 06, 1999 at 14:50:43:

In Reply to: As has. posted by Red Deathy on September 06, 1999 at 14:10:40:

: 1:The free market/enterprise is based on the assumption of each following their own self interest.

You have previously stated that stateless socialism is also based upon self interest.

: 2:It can be demonstrably shown that the state is a product of the self interest of a tiny rich elite. Thus such a state is inevitable under any system of self-interest.

Whether it be religious power, racial power etc etc, economic power tends to follow (ie for a religion to be powerful it requires much resources). If "such a state is inevitable under any system of self-interest." then we must question where socialism as we have been discussing it will end up.

: 3:It can be reasonably demonstrated that recourse violence is in the strict self-interest of people at specific times, an effent exacerbated by competition for resources.

To undo competition for resources requires that individual people cease wanting more than a) they had before and b) than others have. Thus - practically endless resources or inequality of resources. To attempt to realize such among 1,000 people is an amazing feat, 6 billion a virtual impossibility.

: 4:I refer the hnourable gentlemen to debates passim regarding private security.

likewise on point #3, in any example of unequal resource (including the mind)

: The ent result is to show how war is more or less inevitable, unless oyu beleive in some abstract utopian version of morality, that says people won't act in their self interest, and will always follow morals over economics.

conflict may well be 'inevitable' (for which I read likely to happen at some point in a given time frame) but nothing like the manner of national wars, choose any war from history whether it be the hundred years war, WW2 or the recent Yugoslavian debacle. The scale and motivation behind the war between national entities vastly exagerates its damages when compares to conflicts (moral or immoral) over resource alone. Cant have Germany invade Poland if there is neither a 'germany' nor a 'poland'

: And indeed, the obverse is true, hence gee talks about power grabbers and the use of violence without showing a clear material basis to provoke such actions under socialistic condition.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup