Martin William Smith wrote:

>But if the claim is that capitalism causes people to behave this way,
>then I disagree.  Bad morals and ethics are bad in both systems.

Not at all. Morals are not absolute, morals and ethics are shaped by
material circumstances. As circumstances change, ethics change with them
and rightly so.

>  Free
>will functions in both systems.  Evil doesn't become good under
>socialism.

That isn't necessarily true. Can't think of any examples off-hand, but
logically it doesn't wash.

And while free will might operate in both systems, radically different
imperatives operate. Free will is always subject to the choices that are
actually available. If I'm starving on a mountain-top with nothing but dead
rugby players between me and the grim reaper, then I am likely to develop a
different moral attitude to cannibalism.

>  Maybe I should have stated that free will is one of my
>most basic assumptions.  If we don't agree on that, we won't agree on
>much of anything.

You haven't explained your assumption, so I can't say whether I agree with
it or not.

>> The possibility of socialist and capitalist systems coexisting
>> ignores the evidence of history.
>
>It doesn't ignore it.  I recognize the evidence of history.  Changes
>need to be made.
>
>> Plenty of communal or communistic cultures have been destroyed by
>> capitalisms constant need for expansion.
>
>>From that pommie dictionary: capitalism - an economic system based on
>the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and
>exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or
>manage their property for profit in competitive conditions.

Dump that dictionary Martin, really - its rubbish. Get a true-blue Aussie
dictionary. My dictionary more accurately says that capitalism is a system
in which the means of production is *mainly* privately owned.

Your dictionary is describing a system which, like my conception of
socialism, is entirely theoretical. Are you really agreeing with the idiots
at Oxford that capitalism has never actually existed in the real world, but
is merely a theoretical model? I admit it, socialism is a theoretical
model, but if capitalism still hasn't managed to iron out the bugs and get
itself established anywhere, then by god I think you're expecting a little
too much of us socialists. We're relatively new kids on the block, give us
a break!
>
>Nothing about a need for expansion.  In fact, "need" used in this
>context is a metaphor.  Either that or it is a category error.
>Capitalism can't have needs.  The need, in this case, is the greed of
>people.

No. Capitalism does have a basic need for an expanding economy, expanding
markets. Any capitalist economist will tell you that. It is one of the
basics.

It isn't greed, it is simply that if the market doesn't expand then the
ever expanding production capacity and productivity will satiate the
market. Leading to market prices that fall below cost-of-production. No
profits.

> Many people have a need, or perceive something that feels
>like a need, to satisfy their greed.  Greedy people don't suddenly
>become generous when they find themselves in a socialist world.  They
>look for a way to get what they want.

My theory is that greed is an irrational psychotic reaction to a period of
traumatic insecurity in early life. Something like fear of heights, which I
have suffered from ever since I was injured in a fall as a child.

I don't argue that people suffering from greed (which is really just
irrational insecurity) will be cured merely by having the objective reasons
for their insecurity removed though. I know from experience that irrational
phobias are not amenable to that, even when you know what your problem is.

I think removing the cause of insecurity and trauma *would* have the effect
of preventing much of the problem though. In this case prevention is better
than cure.

>  You're going to have to have
>structures in place to prevent such people from causing damage.  You
>don't have to call those structures government, if you don't want to,
>but I will.

Yes, we have to have systems in place to nurse and care for the emotional
cripples. I think an enlightened socialist society would recognise that
such people's needs are greater than those of healthy people, and provide
them whatever they think they need. Within reason, we don't go handing out
assault rifles to known psychopaths.
>
>> One could only hope that the lad in the tub was cagey enough to
>> avoid letting on where he came from, and just returned home with his
>> toilet very quietly in the night. Even with that, you could more or
>> less count on Tasmania eventually finding itself under siege.
>
>You haven't yet demonstrated that capitalism can't exist without
>growth.  But there have been periods of negative growth, yes?  What
>do you call capitalism during a period of negative growth?

That's the boom-bust cycle, that's a limited period of negative growth. Can
you you think of any *sustained* periods of negative growth, or even just
zero growth in any capitalist economy? you know, like a generation or two
of zero growth?
>
>> Socialism of any honest variety aims to build solidarity not to lay
>> the cost of something like a "public" transportation system on the
>> backs of the working class who get to enjoy being doubly taxed, and
>> taxed regressively when they pay their fare. People standing
>> together, working together, sharing weal and woe, is the best thing
>> you can experience in life. Whenever you're ready. I understand
>> being ready isn't always easy.
>
>I've said many times here that I refuse to spend my life fighting a
>fight I believe cannot be won.  So if I were to spend my life
>"standing together, working together, sharing weal and woe," I would
>*only* be doing it to experience this alleged best of all possible
>feelings, a sort of socialist beta endorphin high.

There's not much of that I'm afraid, if that's what you're after and you
don't believe in anything, I think a Heroin habit or some such escapist
drug would be your best bet. You could try religion instead, but drugs at
least allow brief periods of lucidity.

>  That's what I have
>claimed you guys are actually doing.  From my POV, then, it would be
>unethical for me to join you, especially given that I think there *is*
>a way to achieve the socialist goal, which is consistently, and
>predictably (by Chomsky's model), ignored.

You have my attention, I'm always on the lookout for an easier way.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas.