| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Communism is based on the premise that some central mechanism can determine
> the right quantities of everything for everyone, obviating the need for
> individual choices. It's based on the premise that people should work hard
> and not get the fruits of their labors, but rather suffer the consequences
> of the central mechanism's mistakes.
>
> Capitalism is based on the premise that no central mechanism can do as well
> at determining the right quantities as well as individual choice. It's based
> on the premise that people should work hard or not, as they choose, and
> suffer the consequences individually.
>
> That makes capitalism moral and communism immoral. That's a good enough
> argument right there. Further, you can show from a utilitarian basis that
> central mechanisms fail (and markets work) to maximise utility. That's a
> good enough argument right there.
I can't agree--it only makes the "moral call" that way if your
personal values are based on individualism instead of the common
good. Those values are nurtured in a capitalist system, so it's
a self-replicating system, IMHO.
> Finally, communist states seem to have the nasty habit of territorial
> aggrandisement. That's a good enough argument right there.
No more so than any other system of governance (and perhaps less,
given the "have-not" economics from which Communist movements
drew most of their early strength). The whole "exported world
revolution" spiel got quietly socked away in 1922, and aside from
the 1939-1940 USSR wars and Tibet I can't think of a single case of
"territorial aggrandizement" that doesn't involve a chunk that
tried to break away during the change in government (e.g., Taiwan,
Ukraine, etc). The "communist bloc" of the Cold War doesn't count
any more than the Marshall Plan and NATO count as examples of
"Capitalist territorial aggrandizement." Revolution isn't
territorial aggrandizement, even if it's sponsored and promoted
by a traceable source (again, something the West has been far
better at than the East since the 1700s).
Just my quick point of nitpickination.
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) Quick self-correction: Afghanistan. Can't forget Afghanistan! (But again, that territory was not intended to be appended to the USSR, so even that may not count.) best LFB (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) I would reword that as "if your personal values say that others do not have the right to dispose of you and your property as they see fit". Wouldn't you agree? (...) Did you or someone you are closely related to live in a communist bloc (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Cuba
|
| I have been meaning to come back to this for some time (...) I am going to differ with you on this point. The Warsaw Pact nations, as far as I am concerned, during the period up until about 1989 or so, were so effectively under the control of the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) Maybe you should have said that in the first place instead of Standard Anti US Diatribe # 8294, then. However it's not a statement that I agree with, except inasmuch as it's not possible to determine with certainty (from any real world (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
