- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Britain under Thatcher, US under Regan, Chile under Pinochet.

Posted by: Lark on October 26, 1999 at 16:57:30:

In Reply to: service posted by Gee on October 25, 1999 at 18:24:47:

:an uphill struggle.

That doesnt make it worthless and it appears that you are now accepting my assertion that political aggitiation and change is as legitimate in improving the conditions of the least as simply "changing your head" (dont you know it's gonna be alright).

: This is not the condition a socialist finds in the west.


: : I've worked on and off with Catholic aid organisations which ship materials over to the victims of laissz-faire or military capitalist regimes in the third world.

: Laissez faire and regime are contradictions in terms. where are the laissez faire countries anyway?

Britain under Thatcher, US under Regan, Chile under Pinochet.

:What is military capitalist?

Britain under Thatcher, US under Regan, Chile under Pinochet.

:Name some of these countries and lets think about those swipes.

I call your hand, then we can get some corn chips.

: : Fact but it is like putting a bandaid on a cancer Gee.

: A strange analogy.

How strange? I was trying to demonstrate that I consider the severity of the problem such that I can't change it by limiting my actions to changes in my behaviour and altruism.

: : However Gee there are penalties for employing your time in this way, you dont get to lie up and rent videos, enjoy a few jars with your mates etc. while your attempting you change things.

: Did you expect other poeple to service your desires any more than whomever you help has any right to expect you to service their needs? To be true to this there would hav to be the equivalent of 'make it comfy for charitable folk charities'

Your no doubt sincere Gee but damn if that's not cynical.

: : Well altruism only goes so far.

: Your getting toward my point.

Socialism isnt altruism, neither is it voluntary poverty, remember my stockmarket socialist friends?

: : because it's not their individual responsibility, the state shouldnt be able to shrug of it's obligations to those it governs.

: Now you are a subject to be governed?

Right taking the liberal position that the state is essentially a monopoly provider of the security services and consitutions etc. exist as contracts people are then 'governed'.

:I thought you liked Proudhon?

Yes I do. So did Marx.

:If it isnt an individual responsibility then how can it possibly be a 'social' responsibility?

The individual has a responsibility, it is just one that differs from social responsibility. I mean the individual could responsibly pay their damn taxes instead of setting up of shore accounts or playing a game of cat and mouse with the inland revenue but they cant resolve poverty because, unless they're Bill Gates or a Mason, they're not likely to be able to create employment or restruction the market to cause people to meet with their obligations.

:Who would actually be responsible?

I think I've outlined that above. You know we, the regular debators, should all form a club or something.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup