: : Do people value food when they're hungry 'differently'? Do people value health care when they're sick 'differently'? Etc., etc...
: Irrelevant emotive reinterpretation of the above to suit your purpose.
: Simply restated, some people like A more than B and seek A more than B. To attempt to undermine this by talking about people near death does nothing to counter the truth of mankind being a *disciminatoy [sic]* selector of options as evidenced by the fact that people do not behave randomly.
To remove the human cost from your occult doctrine of 'effective demand' is not the task of the Marxist. That is the task of the apologist for the capitalist. And you have all the moves down pat, Gee.
: So your statement justifies oppression by the majority? The issue is oppression, what it really means. You seem to support the principle that some people can oppress other people - your only caveat being that the oppressors must be larger in number than the oppressed - the principle is precisely the same as a singular dictator, the only
disagreement is over numbers.
I have never been disingenuous about the need for force in the immediate socialist future. Yes, the capitalists WILL be oppressed---they will lose their land holdings, they will lose their industries, they will lose their grip upon the labor-power of all working men and women. I'm sure they won't like that one bit. The capitalists will be required to work. I'm sure they won't like that either.
But the socialist future will 'oppress' a minority for once---instead of the majority.*
Now, let's return to your weird phrase:
You seem to support the principle that some people can oppress other people - your only caveat being that the oppressors must be larger in number than the oppressed - the principle is precisely the same as a singular dictator, the only
disagreement is over numbers.
You deny that a quantitative difference can become a qualitative difference. That's an unfortunate omission. Then you equate majority rule with the rule of a dictator. That's irresponsible ranting. To most people, majority rule wouldn't even be perceived as 'rule.' A quantitative difference can become a qualitative difference.
I'm glad you got off your duff and did a bit of research.
Mentioning Galbraith, that 'Great Society' defender of capitalism, of course, underawed me.
Your other print citations** were fine (except your first citation does not actually state any facts, it simply interprets them). The other ones... I don't trust internet documents; that's why I don't use them.
Needless to say, I stand by my citations.
:... hence your 1997 article, not very useful as we near 2000.
Here you destroy your argument. Most of your citations were from 1998 (Red Herring quote was from 1997). Shall I now say: 'hence your 1998 article, not very useful as we near 2000...'?
No, that would be silly.
Nice to see you reading, though.
*According to Business Week (28 November 1994, p. 34.), only 10% of the American population is 'independently employed,' i.e. works 'for themselves,' i.e. possesses direct access to the means of production.
** Have a heart and remember the page numbers in your citations, will ya?