Craig, I don't know if I could summarise any discussion here on the "Eye", where the number of posts has topped 100 - as usual, the discussion meanders, goes off the point, comes back to it, spawns side discussions (eg. Belgium), etc.
Still, having followed and contributed, a couple of things have become clearer for me. Firstly, we should be clear about what we are talking, and refrain from attacking demonised misrepresented parodies of positions with which we tend not to agree, at least if our goal is to achieve a little more wisdom rather than simply win arguments. Secondly, I personally would give myself the warning to be wary of solutions which make exaggerated statements about the benefits of the systems they propose, whether expressed in the benign regulation of an Invisible Hand, or in the end of alienation and the withering away of the state. Most importantly, for me at least, many contributions (including your own appeal to charity) seem to point to some kind of primacy of the "ethical" in the organisation of human societies, be it within a "capitalist" or a "socialist" framework. This point came home to me after reading the thought-provoking article by Howard A. Doughty (and doesn't he live up to his name! :-)) in the link provided by Don. Of course, this insight raises many more questions: how do we achieve more consciousness of the primacy of moral values in society/markets/ public life, how do we educate for real morality in society, and, most fundamtentally, what do we really mean by morality and what systems of morality can we propose for our complex, splintered, internetworked, interdependent, open/closed contemporary societies? What a wriggling can of worms! Back to Plato, Aristotle and all the others ... ;-) Francis On 29 Jan., 03:59, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
