Andrea, Rog, Platt, all
A brief anecdote. A friend of mine is very socialist. Quasi communist, I'd say.
We often meet at the beach in summer Sundays. Sometimes we go fishing, sometimes
we play volley with other friends, sometimes we just look at the girls walking
on the coast.... and often we discuss about politics.
I've met him also last Sunday; he was reading a book by a very leftist South
American writer, Eduardo Galeano. We started to talk about the recent political
elections (of course, more than me, he was not happy for the results); then we
switched the discussion to the general situation. The third world, the "Seattle
people", and this ugly capitalism.
"How can it be possible to convince them they're wrong?" He asked. "You can't" I
stated. "There are plenty of perfectly logical assumptions to support
capitalism. Just like to support socialism".
Just as a game, I begun to defend capitalism. Not so strongly like Platt. I took
a Roger-like position: pragmatist, libertarian, optimist about the future of the
planet. I rented all the best Roger's sentences: capitalism inherited poverty;
there have been mistakes but also great results; and mistakes are not 'caused by
capitalism, the solution resides in the balance of powers; free trade is the
best option, even if I admit it's good to have a variety of experiences; private
initiative is the engine for the progress; and so on....
Nearly one hour later, time concluded the discussion. Of course, he is still a
socialist, and clearly I was not fully convinced of my statements. Actually it
was not my intention to make him change his ideas: I was just playing a role;
but, tell me, who doesn't? Isn't it better, sometimes, to play it conscious
you're just playing? In the end, I had a result. Playing that role, I think I've
better understood the libertarian/capitalist position.
In the ancient Greece, the Sophists were masters of such game. Almost all we
know about them, comes from Plato. And we know he was not very nice to them.
Their "art" to play one role and its opposite has always been described as an
immoral activity. They were not seeking the Truth. (What truth? ). Well, maybe
there was something more. We will never listen to their version of the whole
thing, so we can't know if they were only relativist "discourse sellers"; I
guess that their ability to play two opposite roles was also a technique to
search for a more inclusive truth. The *larger umbrella* Roger's talks about.
Ciao
Marco
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 - 16:01:22 BST