>billbartlett at dodo.com.au:
>> This isn't complicated. Societies that lack a highly developed
>> means of production simply don't have the means to provide
>> economic security for all. It would be asking too much of
>> human nature to expect that a society based on universal
>> poverty and insecurity would be acceptable to anyone except
>> a saint. Everyone aspires to personal economic security. A
>> society that cannot provide this will inevitably be torn by
>> constant strife as each member attempts to make their life a
>> little better at the expense of others. Each person will
>> attempt to dominate others in order to get a larger share of
>> the social product. ...
>
>Yet capitalist development in the United States has
>progressed to a point where the per capita income is many,
>many times what is necessary to sustain life -- everyone's
>life -- in relative comfort, indeed, in luxury compared to
>pre-industrial standards. But this situation has not led to
>relief from insecurity but, apparently, an increase in it.
You seem to be under the impression that I was arguing that a highly developed means of production would necessarily lead to the elimination of insecurity. I wish you had paid more attention to what I actually said. The US obviously has the material capacity to completely eliminate insecurity, but eliminating poverty and insecurity is not compatible with the capitalist system. And of course I did not in any way suggest that merely having the technological capacity to provide universal economic security meant that it would inevitably happen.
You are arguing with me on a totally fictional basis. Which is very sad.
>In any case, you seem to be talking about Welfare rather than
>socialism, defined by me as "the means of production owned or
>controlled by the workers, or by the people generally." Even
>-- maybe especially -- an insecure people might feel impelled
>to see to their means of production. And this may be why we
>see socialism enjoying more popularity in poor countries than
>rich ones where, according to the theory given above, it is
>supposed to be more appropriate.
I have no idea what you are trying to say there. You appear to be merely stringing together bits of plausible jargon. Do you ever think about what you're saying? Do you ever think at all?
>In this model of transition from high capitalism to socialism,
>what is supposed to set off the sudden reversal of values that
>turns the earnest capitalist workers into earnest socialist
>workers?
I'm not sure what model of transition you are referring to. Perhaps it is some model that you hallucinated hearing me refer to? Yours is a very vivid imagination if that is so, since I mentioned no model of transition in this context.
> If it's hard times, the insecurity advertised above
>must preclude any interest in socialism. If it's fat times,
>well, why change?
Because, as you have already pointed out, the potential, the material capacity for elimination of poverty and insecurity is not being realised under capitalism. Except for a tiny minority. This is obviously no mere accident, amenable to capitalist remedy. Capitalism actually requires insecurity to function. Poverty and insecurity are essential ingredients of the system.
> So what if the rich have more? It's a lot
>of trouble to look for a new job, much less a new society.
>And State-imposed socialism has a lousy track record.
"State-imposed socialism"? Either you are hallucinating again, that I suggested such a thing, or you are dragging a red herring into the debate. I don't see any evidence that you have the mental capacity to be calculating though.
>In any case, the capitalist context constantly militates
>against any sort of socialist activity in the mainstream
>working and middle classes. They've been smart enough to see
>to that.
It isn't that they are so smart, its more that you are very very stupid. It probably isn't congenital though, if you could only try to think through what you say and avoid the lazy impulse to make grandiose-sounding, but utterly meaningless statements, such as "the capitalist context..." does this or that, you might exorcise the cobwebs from the large grey organ in your skull. It was especially evolved for thinking, at great evolutionary expense.
Our ancestors sacrificed a lot to give you that organ. Tooth and claw, fast and powerful legs, God knows what else! But from your inane remarks it is obvious you haven't ever bothered to learn how to use it. You are a disgrace to the species, a waste of space.
I'm sorry to be so harsh, but I think this is a horrible waste and a tragedy. It occurred to me that perhaps a good swift verbal kick up the backside might wake you from your mental slumber. A long shot, but it has to be worth a try.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas