- Capitalism and Alternatives -

an anarchist that sounds like a socialist...?

Posted by: Frenchy on September 15, 1999 at 22:55:59:

In Reply to: ...because they'll win posted by Farinata on September 14, 1999 at 23:03:08:

: :
: : Darcy, you don't understand. Your dealing here with socialists who insist that real socialism has yet to be implemented. Castro's brand of socialism was flawed, so was Mao's, so was Stalin's, so was Ortega's, ad infinitum.

: Frenchy, you could say exactly the same about capitalism.

: "...well, OK, there's a million under-fives dying every month from poverty-related malnutrition, the environment is fucked, the gap between rich and poor has never been wider and this society is untenable in the long term, but...it's not real capitalism..."

Uhh, if you want to be a tad more specific it would help a lot. What countries are you speaking of? What does "the environment is fucked" mean? Bill Gates has more money then me, so what? Are you envious? Could you tell me how you know that this society is not tenable in the long run???

: (All the above remarks are rephrasings of UN conclusions, by the way; the statistic is from the 1997 Human Developmment Report, the gap statement is one of the major findings of the 1999 Human Development Report.)

Well, now I'm really impressed. The UN! By Doggie!

: : On the other hand present day socialists, especially those who are scholars, do have the solution to bring the worlds miseries to an end.

: No they don't. No-one has a perfect solution. The socialist view is that utility is maximised by equality as far as is possible; especially in the division of resources.

Well, I can agree with you that no one has a perfect solution. The solution that calls for equality of resources is what the political economy of the Soviet Union was based on though and uhh, look what happened there. And Cuba, et al. And N. Korea.

: After all, there is nothing per se that makes a U.S. citizen 33 times as valuable as an Indian, or 10 times as valuable as a Chinese person; so why does the U.S. citizen consume 33 times as many of the world's resources as the average Indian? It's not fair and it's not sustainable.

It's the result of a viable system that makes our standard of living 33 times better then an Indian's standard of living. Wouldn't it be a good idea for Indians to imitate our way of life as closely as possible, if they want what we have? It worked in Japan after all following WWII. And S.Korea. Capitalism/Democracy seems to get better results. At least that's what I see.

: Fact remains; the West is living an unsustainable lifestyle, as it has been for the last 50 years. It is unlikely that such a lifestyle is sustainable over the next 50.

Again; mere conjecture. You have no idea what scientific and technological breakthroughs will occur that may make it possible to grow wheat fields in the desert. Or do you? If you've got proof that the future holds in store what you say it does, just present it. If it's convincing, I'll believe it. If it's the same old environmentalist hogwash/propaganda, I'll laugh at it. Up to you.

: (Check out the 1998 Red Cross Human Disaster Report; the #1 cause of refugees in 1998 was environmental destruction resulting from exploitation of the environment.)

Why don't you just tell us, if you already know. Although I'm not sure what that has to do with proving that Socialism/Communism can work.

: : It is no use debating with them, although you are more than welcome, because their definitions change minute by minute.

: OK, what do you want to define?


: : I have a theory that the real deal is that these socialists are just envious of successful people and can't stand it.

: Please don't ascribe the pettiness that drives you to the motives of everyone else.

A morally superior person, I see. I had no idea. Actually I did. You guys make sterotyping an accurate science. A modern day Holy Person.

: By your yardstick, I'm "successful". However, I don't believe success is morally sound if it achieved by grinding someone else into the ground; I do not support the First World's continuing exploitation of the Third in the name of maximised profit; neither do I support the efforts of the First World to plunder natural resources throughout the world. My ethics do not square with thoughtlessly allowing my fellow humans to suffer as a result of my actions.

Fine. Where do you live? Where do you get the juice to operate your terminal? Tell me about yourself. Do you eat three meals a day? Do you drive a car? Do you have insurance? Talk to me. I am very interested in knowing about you.

: : Success to them is everyone grows his own food and and make their own clothes.

: Success to me would be people being assured of a basic standard of living. As per the UN Declaration of Human Rights...if that's not too radical a document for you.

Yeah, I think it's also known by the "from each according to his skills, to each according to his needs" document. We had a discussion about a suitable venue for the UN at another forum. Most of us decided that somewhere along the northern shores of Yellow Knife Lake in the Yukon would be ideal. Many people in other words feel that the UN has run its course and that it is time for it to break camp and hit the trail. I would guess that you don't agree with that. Oh well....

: : An improvement to them would be that everybody live in a shack in the woods, sort of like Ted Kozinsky, another leftist/greeie/utopian.

: I think you'll find that's spelt Theodore Kaczynkci a.k.a. the Unabomber. Of course, since he was paranoid and afraid of computers, you'd hardly find Ted here...

Thanxs 4 de koreccctuion. Ahs 'prreeciatees eet suh...

: So, are you really in complete agreement with Pinochet, Suharto, Hitler, Mussolini, Pat Buchanan, Ronald Reagan and various other famous right-wing loonies *ahem*...thinkers?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, what ever you say captain. I love Mussolini and Hitler.

: Or will you admit that trying to describe an entire slew of political beliefs by one of the madder individuals is gross misrepresentation of an idea? - and one that bespeaks a lack of any substantial arguments...

Not only one my friend, many. Collectivism on a large scale has to lead to disaster. You can point to Sweden and Germany to show that Socialism works well there, but I would only say "imagine how much higher the standard of living could be by decreasing socialism whereever possible. This would include any area where the individual could reasonably be expected to provide for himself." Decreased taxes is always a nice place to start, don't you think?

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup