- Capitalism and Alternatives -

the business man must be highly ethical and benevolent to his employees, yet only act on self-interest?

Posted by: Lark on October 06, 1999 at 15:54:15:

In Reply to: so why did you respond and other points posted by Gee on October 06, 1999 at 14:40:24:

: So why did you find it sufficiently undull to respond to?

That's my assessment, movie critics give assessments of films they dont like they dont simply ignore them.

: : I'd have thought that after speaking to RD for so long that you'd be able to portray people considering the cons of capitalism in a more realistic light as it happens you've just wheeled out the watery liberal crying at pictures of starving children argument

: Actualoly nopte the earlier sentence where I suggested the student focus on inequality of outcome etc, but suggested that saying 'its not fair' would be sufficient in a credulous uncritical classroom session - as I have admitted my tendency to perceive most classrooms to be.

Why? Aside from the fact that they havent constructed a suffisticated faith to isolate them from the suffering of others.

: Also thats (its not fair) all you get in the 'media at large' and in most school grade education when considering capitalism.

There's nothing wrong with moralising, just moralising full stop.

:Not only that but this board regularly receives requests to assist with school work, just as I do in my e-mail inbox, regarding political matters in which they generally have not the slightest interest, never respond with the outcome of their work if requested or what they themselves think of it all - there is a tendency for some students to just look to net citizens to do their homework for them and i'm fed up with going to great lengths on the matter except with the likes to be found here.

Why I think it's fantastic that people think me worthy of asking, people have said at different times that they thik I'm well read and committed a lot of time to thinking about these things, now to me that's flattering and I'm happy to lend assistance, as people have assisted me (one time someone posted an idiots guide to capitalist economics and it helped me no end with an economics exam) but then this is all pretty socialist behaviour.

: : Gee capitalism violates Liberty, Equality, Rationality and Morality on a daily basis and your high minded ideology can't stop it, you refuse to acknowledge it, simply saying that that's not capitalism etc.

: Youve gone back several months in our discussions.

Well I wasnt here refularly not owning a computer and all.

:You are blaming a 'system' for human doings which wont vanish were another 'system' placed over it instead.

No I'm not, not entirely, however there's a fifty fifty ration as to whether you determine your enivronment, or "system" to use your word, or if it determines you.

If institutional and organisational changes where made it would be the lesser part of "the battle" to transform society, the state etc. being marginal concerns after that, but they'd defintitely be progress.

:the fallacy of 'system' fans is that they think people automatically fit the system, whereas the system is more an outcome of the people affecting it.

Both these positions are correct, we arent dealing with absolutes here.

:We have what we have because the vast majority of people give sanction to it.

Or see no way to change it etc. the vast majority of people are alienated etc. but they give sanction because they are either lazy or unimaginative, the government, particularly the US CIA, have spent a long time suttly engineering popular culture so it reflects their aims. Creating an apolitical, anti-intellectual current of social authoritarianism that venherates their "superiors" this is where the sanction comes from, not because we are all happy bunnies in the United States of Utopia.

: Hence my 'friendly capitalism' isnt really evident and RDs perfect socialist society is unknown.

The "friendly Capitalism" and Socialism as an end product, a state of being and material form of organisation, have never been and could never be because they demand an incredible emlightenment and political militancy among the participants. For instance the business man must be highly ethical and benevolent to his employees, yet only act on self-interest? Or people have to realise that they are being underpaid in order that they get paid nothing at all?

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup