rog,
Rog:
>Despite this and other irrationalities in free markets, the fact >remains
>that though far from perfect, over the long run, free markets >are more
>efficient and more dynamic than other economic systems -- at >least if kept
>to realms where they work (they obviously don't in many >situations -- see
>my previous post).
Elliot:
The way this is stated implies TO ME whe you say "other economic systems"
you mean all possible economic systems and not just the older economic
systems like feudalism and leninism. if you means just more dynamic than
other stages of evolution, then i agree, if you mean the most dynamic
possible, then i dont.
>ELLIOT:
>It is precisely the brutality of capitalism which makes it better than
> >socialism (you dont have a nessicary skill, you WILL starve, so figure
> >one out and dont be lazy), but is there really nothing else? does
> >evolution stop right here, never to trancend capitalism? do we wait >for
>someone else to formulate the new possibilities, denying even their
>possible exsistance? what we have here, the inability to negate
> >capitalism because "its more dynamic than socialism (and less cruel >than
>maoism or facism)" is what wilber calls the mythic rational.
>ROG:
>You seem to argue against a straw man here. What society is purely
>capitalistic? All modern states have various rules, regulations, >safety
>nets, programs etc to control and supplement free enterprise.
Elliot:
Thge idea of capitalism which you think i dissagree with is as antiquated as
leninism. it has failed already and been replaced with a better system, a
system which i call just capitalism for short but which some others call
state capitalism, western capitalism, etc.
What society is capitalist in the sense of the old dead capitalism? none of
corse. what society is capitalist in the new capitalist sense, the sense
which i disagree with because it is both brutal and stifling? america,
britian, france, germany, you get the idea.
>ROG:
>Who is advocating ceasing evolution for technological progress? Do you
>really believe people think killing and stealing are all right? Do you
> >really believe scientists even think this way? Who or what are you
> >arguing with?
Elliot:
I'm not saying that capitalism itself is the pursuit of technological
progress, but it is tied up with it in a way i dont see how to untangle the
two. Exchange of dollars for useful energy nessicarily slides towards
situations where efficency is goal number one. Huge corporations and
cartels (group monopolies) with a large acumulation of capital, who have
control of the process of production from when materials are pulled out of
the earth till the final product is distributed, and who make a striking
variety of goods are the product of capitalistic organization {lose
paraphrase of marcuse). Even without exploitation and manipulation this is
the optimal setup, it is the most efficent, the most cost effective and can
make the best products for the cheapest prices. (but...) Quality becomes
statically Efficency. Personal goals and pusuits of Quality become
meaningless and efficency (and by extension its father, the big R Reason)
replaces individual Quality (something like 'mechanistic efficency is
filling in the holes where individuality could assert itself').
Do individual scientists decide a greater understanding of exsistance is
less important than technology, probably not. But the system which
surrounds them, the less enlightened who employ them, the invisible hand of
the market, the greater Reason under which they opperate does. An
individual scientist conforms to ideals of efficency, perhaps chooses the
shortest path as the best path without thinking (im talking about walking
and driving here, but it extends to other paths as well). Do the most
intelligent buisness men think this way, yes. And isnt every scientist
atleast partially a buisness man in this society?
And do i believe people think killing and stealing are alright? well,
people do do it, so they must think its acceptable atleast in certain
situations. not all people do im sure, but i do remember news broadcasters
screaming for the blood of bin laden and anyone associated with al queda
(even if they just happened to be living in the same country as in "lets
bomb that country back to basketball courts" type thinking). in that sense
the accpetability of killing and imposition of will through violence was
(is) very widely accepted as acceptable, even good. And i dont hear many
people complaining about the price of coffee at starbucks, and seeing as how
an entire thridworld family producing that coffee makes about enough a day
to buy one cup of that coffee which they make, well, i consider that
stealing and lots of other consider it acceptable. yes its "consensual" but
under the threat of death (starvation) is anything consented to trully (or
even legally) considered consensual? not in american courts.
Is who or what im arguing with a little more clear now, perhaps?
Elliot
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:26 BST