Well, Arthur, I posted my disagreement with your position in a previous
post. We've talked about Justice for 2300 years since Plato, too. Wanting
to escape a relevant discussion does not seem to me to be a good
motivation for your decison, one essentially advoating censorship and
"political correctness." [I really would like to understand minds that
think this way, but I'm sure I never will.]
My ultimate conclusion is: if we are going to talk about the future, and
how we are going to move in a direction of greater justice for all the
worlds peoples, we need to be inclusive, and allow everyone to
participate in the discussion. It's very tedious, I know, especially in
light of the agitation of late-comers to the forum (which, while I don't
post too much, I've belonged to for 2 years).
Let me urge you to end the requirement of intellectual conformity to
participate on this forum. We'll all be better off for it in the long
run.
-- CJR
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Salus populi suprema est lex" (Cicero)
The welfare of the people is the highest law.
----------
"Genuine goodness is threatening to those
at the opposite end of the moral spectrum." (Charles Spencer)
---------------------------------------------
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Arthur Cordell wrote:
>
> As co-host of this list I concur with Sally. I don't think we need to get
> into a pushing and shoving match over the merits of capitalism vs. any
> other ism. This territory has been gone over many times. Other lists may
> be the appropriate place for this discussion.
>
> A negative outcome of the sort of discussion you are proposing is,
> invevitably, labelling, naming and, finally, name calling.
>
> Thanx for being a good netizen and going along with the wishes of your
> cyber-hosts.
>
> arthur cordell
>
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, charles mueller wrote:
>
> > A year ago I would have thought that an Internet discussion
> > comparing the relative merits of socialism versus capitalism was at best a
> > waste of time. Now, after considerable experience with a number of lists,
> > I'm no longer so sure. Any kind of reform requires a cadre of advocates, a
> > group of people with a deep emotional distaste for injustice. This is not,
> > alas, a universal or even common sentiment. When one encounters an
> > individual or group that is keen on justice--however peculiar one might
> > think the proposed remedies--congratulations are in order on that first
> > basis alone.
> >
> > This list had, the last time I checked, 538 members. I have no idea
> > how many of them are, like Eva Durant, Marxists. The objective of the
> > members, though--if I understand their postings over the past months--is a
> > luminous one, a society that is prosperous, nurturing of the environment,
> > and just, i.e., one with a fair distribution of its income and wealth. I
> > suspect, then, that each of our 538 members is trying to answer a key
> > question: What 'system'--socialism, capitalism, or other alternative-- has
> > the PRACTICAL potential to most closely approximate that ideal society we're
> > all seeking?
> >
> > Notice the term 'practical potential.'
> > Communism/socialism/collectivism has a tragic history--one that continues
> > unabated in such countries as Castro's Cuba and North Korea--as I emphasized
> > in my last post here. But is that terrible track record of the first
> > historical test of collective ownership of the means of production just an
> > error of judgment on the part of its first practitioners, a small mistake in
> > the locus of management control? Eva Durant says yes. 'State monopolies
> > that are not controlled directly by the EMPLOYEES have nothing to do with
> > the Marxist principles, whether they are based on collective or on private
> > property relations. THAT'S why they were a failure.' Control, she tells
> > us, should also reside in 'the whole community democratically,' thereby
> > motivating all to 'participate and innovate.'
> >
> > Her bottom line is this: 'With safeguards for democracy, built from
> > the bottom with universal democratic control, SOCIALISM would be more viable
> > and the NEXT logical step.' She 'knows where socialism WENT WRONG in the
> > past and, with safeguards for democracy,' it can be fixed.
> >
> > So what exactly is Eva's case, her cure for what has been wrought so
> > far by Marx's followers, e.g., Lenin, Stalin, Castro, et al? 'Employee'
> > control, the 'whole community democratically,' and 'safeguards for
> > democracy' can make socialism an effective engine for prosperity,
> > environmental integrity, and economic equality in the world's 200 countries?
> >
> > In my view, it's an illusion. If I'm welcome here, I'll be happy to
> > present the case for COMPETITIVE capitalism.
> >
> > I've been told, though, that I'm no longer welcome to post to this
> > group (below) . I hope Sally Lerner and her colleagues will reconsider.
> >
> > Charles Mueller, Editor
> > ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
> > http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller
> >
> > ********************
> >
> > Charles - Can I ask you once again to stop posting to the Futurework lists.
> > Your interests are important, but just not that relevant to our
> > subscribers
> >
> > Sally Lerner
> >
> > ********************.
> >
> >
>
>
