Again, the problem with being a firm believer in competition is that there are many forms of competition. Nature tends to promote the strong, yet needs its recessive - the nature of competitons change with rule changes - our soccer leagues have changed now that the best business clubs or those with rich owners can routinely buy the best players. How many competitions in the world actually play on level playing fields? Leaving society open to dissent (yet presumably not terrorism?), encouraging thinking and ideas and so on are all important - the classic is probably Popper's "Open Society" (rather actually much of this is an anti-Plato rant). I think we have not focused enough on the similarities between today's western bureaucracies and the vile, target-based Sino-Soviet stuff. MBO is remarkably similar in structure to dismal Soviet control mechanisms. Monetarism is as equally ignorant of economics as if people matter as Mao and his madness. There is little freedom to choose not to be part of the consensual herd destroying the planet. Interesting journal Don - though I note 68% of our public sector employees admit they are fiddling target figures as a matter of routine and that 74% of my mature students feel truth is too dangerous for their workplace - not exactly conducive to innovation.
The general topic here is not capitalism versus socialism - but rather the suggestion we can't easily define either and that it's likely the boring split between these fantasies leads to argument forever void of creating a world in which people matter. Frankly, almost anyone can posture as a Marxist or freemarketeer and dismal celebrities from either side can spout their stuff at each other - but this is only fit for ridicule. Socialist paradise and freemarkets are equally unknown to reality. On 29 Jan, 02:59, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Found this little Gem on the net. Not done reading it yet but thought > I would share it. Very interesting. > > http://www.innovation.cc/book-reviews/demonizing.htm > > dj > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I haven't been able to catch up with this thread, but I don't want to > > abandon it either because when I left it appeared that I was the sole > > defender of capitalism. So in order to get back on track, can someone > > summarize what the issues are that are being covered in this thread. > > I know the general topic is capitalism vs. socialism, with some > > arguing for a hybrid of the two. What's really the fundamental > > argument though? Using the principle of charity with both theories, > > how would we characterize the desired goals of capitalism and > > socialism. Lets begin by ignoring the rhetoric associated with each > > side, and begin by placing them each in their own light as charitably > > as possible. What is it that capitalism claims is its goal? What is > > it that socialism claims is its goal? What is it that a hybrid system > > claims is its goal? I have a hunch that they will all cover some > > common ground as to what they hope to obtain. The argument will > > probably be whether that system can really obtain the goals it claims > > to espouse. Any takers? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
