In a message dated 11/5/98 4:40:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, findunne@iol.ie
writes:
Let me make the following case for Marxism over Capitalism:
<<Snip>>>
I'm so glald you are in this discussion findunne. Because of your perspective
we all a better and more moral view in many discussions. You correctly saw
that the difference between Marxism and Capitalism isn't fundamentally
political, but economical. And as we see in Europe, there is quite a lot of
merit in Socialization of certain areas (especially medical care). In the US,
the privatization of industries is one of the most important platforms of
many politicians, but time and again we have the disregard of people in favor
of money.
When I orignially responded to the two questions on US military actions, I
purposely avoided saying one society is better than another. I kept it at
social-biological. If a problem cant be negotiated -
IT DOESN'T MORALLY MATTER WHAT A SOCIETY BELIEVES IN!!!!
In a Dynamic sense, the changes that societies makes are good as long as they
are seen as improving on what was Static before. The Social evolution that
was at first isolated, spreads to the niches that will benefit from them.
Eventually, there will be a conflict between competing societies. If the
conflict is on a biological level, it's to the death or submission of one
society. If it's social, it is attempted to negotiate a peace and both can
pursue Dynamic Quality(an intellectually created solution). Intellectual
control is very different and that can be talked about separately (ideology vs
ideology).
BUT THERE WILL NEVER BE AN AGREEMENT INTRA-LEVEL ON WHICH IS MORALLY RIGHT.
ALL AGREEMENTS WILL BE DETERMINED ON THE HIGHER LEVEL. (this is true
inorganic/inorganic, biological/biological, social/social.
Intellectual/intellectual ???? I'm not so sure)
The point here is that it is most Dynamic if societies can develop separately
but take on Dynamic improvements from other societies. Dynamic Quality for
one culture is not Dynamic Quality to another, but the diversity may help
everyone later on. The best example of this that I can think of is the
development of Post WWII Japan and their success in adding Dynamic Quality
economically but still keeping much of the High value Social Static Values in
such a short time. Pragmatism at its best.
I think that saying the US was right in using the atom bomb in WWII because
the US was morally superior is Static-centrism.
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:38 BST