Re: Capitalism, Private Property, etc (was Re: Sweatshops)

From: Mark Walker (
Date: Wed Apr 18 2001 - 14:02:08 MDT

> > -----
> > From: Michael Lorrey <>
> > To: <>
> >
> > > The failure to permit the laborer to keep and use the fruits of his
> > > labor as he would any tool (used to generate a return on investment)
> > > slavery, pure and simple.
> > >
> > Obviously--unless, of course, you believe otherwise. Why won't tools and
> > other means of production be held in common rather than as private
> > in the socialist's utopia? I think I am beginning to see why socialists
> > al evade your charge of an inherent contradiction. ;)
> Show me one good reason why the community should own my computers.
You're switching gears on me Michael. Your original position was that there
was an inherent contradiction in socialism, but now it seems that you are
saying (merely) that there is no good reason for socialism. Consider a
parallel: Christianity has been attacked for harbouring inherent
contradictions, e.g., the Aussi philosopher J. L. Mackie famously argued
that the existence of evil in conjunction with the traditional conception of
God forms an inconsistent set. (The concept of the Trinity has also
suggested to some that Christianity harbours a contradiction). Your original
charge of an inherent contradiction seemed like you were making this point
against socialism. But your present challenge concerning your computer looks
simply like you are saying socialism is false, or that there is no good
reason in favour of it. This would be like someone who concedes that
Christianity is a consistent position, but that as a matter of fact it is
false. One might suggest, for example, that the facts of evolution show that
there is no good reason to believe Christianity. The idea that there was a
contradiction in socialism looked interesting, to say simply that it is
false or that there is no good reason for it seems to cover well trodden

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:47 MDT