> LEE: Trouble with pure public capital is that it belongs to
> everyone and no-one in particular, hence no-one really cares.
>
>
What do you mean by "pure public capital"? Such a description shows
you off as someone who cannot think outside of the confine of the
present decrepit system. Or at "best" of the strawman idea, that I
want the burocratic system of the soviets. As I said a few times and
had no response to that argument, we are ready now for a
democratically controlled economy. This won't mean
capitalist nationalised industries - as I pointed out in earlier
posts, and certainly not former deformed socialist states.
In this later case the inherited tsarist burocracy, the initial
illiteracy and poverty could not establish the material basis for a
developed democratic structure. As the burocratic elite took the
role of the people, this pattern was forced down the throat of the
consecutive socialist attempts.
If you look into history, when people actually build something
together for their own use, they are VERY interested in how it all
happens and EVERYBODY wants to have a say. E.g. when family gets
together to build a house for a young family, or organising
emergency cover in strikes/occupations. The worker's councils that
were sprung up in Hungary 1956, the present successful cooperatives
are examples of the embrionic future surviving in a very malicious
environvent.
> Well said! I'd better say what I use these word for. At opposite ends of
> the spectrum are Communism and the Free Market. In between are mixed
> economies - Socialism and Capitalism. Both mixtures start toward their
> respective ideals. then falter. The socialists find they can't get along
> without a market. The capitalists find themselves adding more and more
> governmental interference to their system. Harry
The more I participate in such debate - if it can be called that -
the more bemused I become. I am usually called the simplistic and
naive. But what is in this paragraph above???
Let me repeat - perhaps you haven't seen it, as you did not respond:
There were no democratic socialists in power yet, so you cannot say
if they needed a market or not.
Capitalists cannot maintain their system without government
intervention, but that doesn't mean that government intervention is a
stepping stone to socialism.
Eva
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
