- Capitalism and the Alternatives -

people not profits

Posted by: Ashley Lavelle ( Australia ) on January 31, 1997 at 04:35:16:

In Reply to: Re: Capitalism posted by Gideon Hallett on January 29, 1997 at 19:08:29:

There are several case studies which support socialists' view that society can be
organised for the needs of people rather than profits. Paris 1871, Russian 1917
and Spain 1936 are not small case studies, but actually world-changing events.

Marxism is, as I think you mean by "rule-based", theoretical. However it is not
complex. Moreover it is not vulnerable to the "personality cult", because as
Marxists would say, such a cult does not exist. Saying such a cult does exist
is an example of what Marx would call idealist as opposed to materialist.
Materialism attempts to explain people's ideas, actions and nature in totality,
that is seeking to view them not as isolated and separate from the society that
they live in.

Society is not made up of "human sheep", the bewildered herd who need a little
prodding here and there in order to keep them in line. Capitalism does require
ardent supporters. Institutions such as the mass media, the law courts, the
eductation system, the police etc. all operate in more or less unison, some more
or less violently (the police) than others to gain the support which is needed
to maintain the status quo. So there are significant barriers to people
developing alternative views, but this is not to say that they don't or that
they can't. An example would be a worker who is taught the view that the police
exists to protect the safety of the public. When the demonstration/strike/picket
line he/she attends is heavily policed and is prevented from having any meaningful
impact on the political process - he/she may even if cop a beating if the demo
becomes too unruly or riotous - he/she's view of an altruistic, independent and
impartial police is likely to change.

The first priority of any society ought to be meeting the needs of its participants.
This means finding adequate food, shelter and harmonious conditions for all. In the
short-term, the needs of the environment (the earth) must be subordinate. It would
seem pointless everyone living in utter misery with a nice, stable and unaffected
environment in the background. A combination in such form is unlikely, but
illustrative nevertheless.




Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup