- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Naturalizing capitalism once again

Posted by: Samuel Day Fassbinder ( Citizens for Mustard Greens, USA ) on November 03, 1999 at 16:48:56:

In Reply to: Objectively demonstrable use value. posted by Gee on November 03, 1999 at 14:37:15:

: : SDF: But the entrepreneur does not WORK for his or her profit! Investment is NOT WORK! Basically what you're saying is that you reject the LTV out of hand, because you wish to characterize profits as wages.

: What I am saying is that without investment the rest doesnt occur.

SDF: That's only so under the capitalist model of industry, and people think that way only because the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is keeping the investors in power. Remove the capitalists, and industry keeps working, its surplus-value socialized...

(skipping the redundant stuff)

: : SDF: Please read Marx's CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAMME in order to find out that the predominant socialist critique of capitalism, Marxism, is not based on egalitarianism. And perhaps, sometime in the distant future perhaps, please stop mischaracterizing socialism.

: Well, maybe I'll do so when 'the end of history' arrives. Meanwhile I'm responding to claims for egalitarianism and 'fairness' associated with socialism - accurately or not.

SDF: This is an attempt to validate straw figures. By the same token I could argue that I think we ought to address claims that advocate violent and bloody murder associated with anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism...

: : SDF: Such an ethical stance also places no priority on anyone's "desire" for the basic necessities of life, thus it makes no criticism of societies where large numbers of people are needlessly dying of starvation while others hoard food. Such an ethical stance furthermore refuses to acknowledge the "objective basis" of the "desire" of the starving for sustenance. Positions like this correspond to nothing more than relativism, and they evidence nothing more than the ethical egoism of the well-fed. No wonder Stoller is so angry.

: You seem to have misread that as being my view - it isnt.

SDF: Look, I have you down as saying that all desires were merely subjective. You are, of course, free to equivocate as you please. Feel free to change your position arbitrarily -- say "that's not my position" as many times as you like, I'm sure it makes a great face-saving defense. BTW, if all desires are merely subjective, any discussion of how bread is more important than yachts is merely subjective, too. If you really want to equivocate on this matter, you have to show how some desires are objectively more important than others.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup