Re: [ox-en] Capitalism, GNU Oekonux
- From: johan soderberg <soderbergjohan yahoo.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 04:36:54 -0800 (PST)
is easy to put an 'ism' or 'ist' label on any of
them and be able to have
a conversation that others will be able to
participate in. Would you be excluding people who
may share ideas, but not the
same definitions of words?
If you do not share the same definition of words, you
dont use the same language, and exchanging ideas in
conversation becomes difficult. This is the advantage
of discussing within an 'ism', that you know exactly
what you mean and when you disagree.
For example, 'left libertarianism' is in my book
termed anarchism (no state AND no capital). In my
'ism', the dividing line between left and right is not
the attitude towards government [Marx defined
communism as the stage after socialism (no capitalism
but state) when the state too had been abolished], but
the attitude towards capital.
I would not accept yours (and I believe, Rays)
starting point where monopoly is somehow antagonistic
(and free markets are natuaral) to capitalism. The aim
of capitalists are accumulation of capital, hence the
concentration of capital, hence monopoly. So called
'free markets' exist only because of state
intervention, monitoring and breaking up capitals
natural tendency to monopoly.
The common burgeoise notion, that big business is
challenged by small enterprenuers, is mostly false. If
a small firm becomes a threat to a big corporation, it
is simply bought up. What makes GNU a threat to
Microsoft is that it is not an enterprise playing on
capitals terms, it cannot be bought up and disbanded.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.