- Capitalism and Alternatives -

the lesser part of 'the battle'

Posted by: Gee ( si ) on October 06, 1999 at 16:31:49:

In Reply to: 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:

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

One would do well to be as critical of what is called 'empathy' and 'caring' as any other feeling displayed.

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

I'm not convinced its even moralising - just wailing on its own. If one was moralising then one could discuss morals you see - thats a start.

: 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.

It is fantastic unless the one asking is just using you as a laxy guide to homework - teachers must get fed up with reading linked web pages. Still, I generally respond in a helpful manner. benefit of the doubt and all that, but if someone just wants to take without any sense of value, just using a lazy way out of thinking themselves, then I stop.

: 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.

I dont think we can call it a ratio, more an interaction.

: 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.

Now you are, correctly, agreeing with RD in that messing about with current institutions, as is the want of so called 'liberals' and 'conservatives' in politics is pointless. Possiblism I think he called it. Tampering and destroying wealth I would also call it. Many socialists focus entirely on their 'system' and fail to change anything, except maybe get one more regulation on the books. Why focus on the lesser part of "the battle", which is secondary anyway?

: 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.

many people are apathetic sure. the value of learing about politics compared to their ability to influence it makes it wasted energy. Thats the power brokers advantage. All the 'engineering' stuff I am very skeptical about indeed. So little evidence, and its proponents always exempt themselves from the effect.

: 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?

Quite logical. Happy people work harder, generally.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup