Re: [ProgSoc] GPL->marxism->irreconcilable politcal ideas

[vik <vik@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au>]

> > On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:35:16AM +1000, James Wan wrote:
> > > On his own website, stallman.org, I agree that he is a civil libertarian,
> > > but his views are of the left, such as the legalisation of marijuana, the
> > > abolishment of all property laws. Sounds like Marxism to me.
> >
> > Marx was a pot-head?
> 
> You've missed the point.  His views are indicative of Marxism.

Whooaaahhh slow down...
BEGIN HALF_INFORMED_POLITICAL_RANT

purely b/c someone has views that are based on openness and freedom
makes the a marxist (or leftist depending on your terminology)? It is
interesting to note that the liberal party (and i'd imagine a lot of
conservative parties worldwide) are based on the concept of
libetarianism and freedom (the works John Stuart Mill and Locke figure
largley in the orginal themes). Not that this is the way the party is
now (nor is Labor related to its initial motivation). 

My point is marxism isn't the only political philosphy which espouts
sharing, freedom, happiness, good-will-towards-men(&women), the world
living in peace with everyone holding hands and giving each other
flowers.

END HALF_INFORMED_POLITICAL_RANT
> 
> > > Yeh probably, I never said MSFT wanted to effect social change,
> >
> > But they do, they want to prevent the use of any non-MS products.
> > In a word, they are anti-competitve.
> 
> Yeh so does your local shopkeeper if you're using that base logic. Cos
> they only want you to shop from them. Social change is different from
> anti-competitiveness.
> 
> > Difficult to see how history teaches us this, the longest running empires
> > of history were all dictatorships. Yes they used money but at the end of
> > the day the money was irrelevant if the king wanted things done.
> 
> We are concerned with recent history between capitalism and socialism.
> When did monarchy or going back to prehistoric years become relevant.
> 
> > As for more up to date social situation, capitalism with competition
> > is the only way to go, implying a free market.
> > Without competition we are back to totalitaranism in yet another guise.

The way I see it there are at least two dimensions to a political
system. One is property. Another is level of freedom (or control). On
the property dimension u have communism at one end where everything is
shared, and capitalism at the other where nothing is shared. On the
freedom dimension there is anarchy at one end (no rule) vs
totalitarianism at the other. politcal systems lie somewhere on that 2D
plane. the USSR was communist (to a large degree) and totalitarian. the
USA is capitalist (to a large degree) and totalitarian (to a large
degree).

As for this blatant statement that competition is the only way to go,
have a look at Cuba. despite 50 years of sancations, they have one of
the most literate populations, one of the best public health care
systems, tiny rates of poverty, and have come up with ground-breaking
medical research (particularly with cancer). A very recent comparison
(my housemate just mentioned this the other day, so alas I have no firm
source yet) showed that Cuba rated better than just about every other
country in just about all matters social. Interesting for somewhere
where the opposite of free trade has been enforced for a long time. They
also have a dictator. (btw I'm not a communist/marxist/socialist - just
trying to bring in alternate perspectives)

> Competition is available, there are laws in place for that purpose and
> also your civil liberties entitle you to many freedoms. Stop whining about

competition is only b/w huge corps (by and large). the general theme in
western governments over the last 15 years has been to take freedoms
away from the individual and give more freedoms to corporations.
Competition cannot thrive unless governments produce a fair set of
rules, and stick by them (by not bailing out companies which go bust,
and not subsidising them)

> large corporations being anti-competitive and impacting on your life as a
> human being. If it wasn't for the large pharmaceutical companies, you
> would be dead or severely incapacitated. If it wasn't for Microsoft or
> Cisco, alot of IT workers would not be getting paid what they are
> receiving now, because common society at large would not have adopted IT
> in the way that they have.

Pharmaceutical companies are also responsible for fucking over third
world countries (most people in which would never have seen a computer).

If we're going to talk politics and free trade, why not make it global
instead of confining it to the lucky few countries considered the 1st
world?

> If you're a Stallman advocate and pro Marxist then just admit it instead
> of putting down capitalism. It's doing wonders for the US, but if Cuba is
> your cup of tea, then why not, I hear the weather is nice there.

(see above)

The difference b/w theory and practice is that in theory, theory is the
same as practice, but in practice its not

adios amigos

-- 
vik@nospam.progsoc.org
<http://www.progsoc.org/~vik>
PGP: <http://www.progsoc.org/~vik/pgp.txt>

If in doubt, mumble.
-
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to progsoc-request@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au.
If you are having trouble, ask owner-progsoc@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au for help.