- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Indeed.

Posted by: Red Deathy ( Socialist Party, UK ) on September 06, 1999 at 15:51:35:

In Reply to: of your socialism then? posted by Gee on September 06, 1999 at 14:50:43:

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

Indeed, and is predicated upon such and structured to account for this.

: 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.

The point os socialism is that it universalises and communalises self-interest: 'The condition for the advancement of each is the advancement all'. If there is no possibility of gaining advantage over otehrs, then such things as the state, war, etc. will not occur.

: 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.

1:People do not want, per se, more than others.
2:It is perfectly possible to produce suffiency.
3:Collaborative/collective use of resources is feasible, as opposed to exclusive owenership.

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

You miss teh point. I have previously demonstrated how privatised Law woould mean unequal access to the means of viuolence, and the probable recourse to violence by the rich Úlite.

: 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'

But as point 1 noted, the recourse to national/state governments is an almost inevitable result of power/privilege among an advanced Úlite.
National wars are wars over resources.


Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup