: erm....goodbye RD hello Marcos?Didn't mean that- I meant as teh revolution occurs, and capital is abolished, people will clearly be able to see what class they were, by the effects it would have on their income/life-style.
: Theyre not CMCing, they make neither more money nor labor themselves.
I was referring to them as buy houses, get rent and use it to buy food. They are not capitalists, therefore, because they aren't investing money for the sake of getting more money.
: This example is dissimilar to the earlier model. The act of a person handing out lolipops isnt analogous to a person with a basket of candy. Now if the families in whom the children were born all had candy of varying quality and safety we wouldnt blame 'the system' but perceive only the families.
The man handing out the Lollies is meant to stand in for 'the system', and we'd have to ask where those famillies got their candy. My point was that those children recieve through human agency.
: Now you may ask "is it unjust to take candy from the families which currently have nice candy and replace the bad candy in the poor families with it, thus depriving baby of candy and its parents of choice in seeking to 'up' same in the otehr families.
Again, you're seeking to elide teh agency of the system, and duck the point. I would indeed seek to end a system that distributed harmful candy to children, and seek to distribute the good candy more fairly.
: Cant do it without 'breaking some eggs' and I thought you were persuaded toward non agression?
And where is the agression there? I am a revolutiuonary, hell-bent on depriving the powerful of their privellege. The usual context of the egg breaking sentiments (which you are evoking by implication) is murder and violence, I don't believe we need murder or violence to effect re-distribution.
1:Will you accept that privellege is the result of human agency?
2:Will you accept that wealth is different from genetic propensity?
: Who is "we" and who provides said authority?
The humans who need it.
: As much as I agree with Byron regarding that quote (there is no one more dependant than a leader) a 'privaliged' baby is one born in an average family in Utah (or Lancashire!) when compared to one born to the average Ethiopian family. Were not talking a few millioanires here.
We are, we are talking about depriving wealth from the expropriators- a familly in Lancashire is not expropriating wealth from a familly in Ethiopia. the exproriators and their interests are holding back ethioopias development. I hear there are 6 million millionaires world wide..(in dollars I presume)
: Again, who is this "we" and the assumed "them" and who is going to decide what is 'allowed'. Distrurbing authoriatrian streak RD.
We, the working class, them, the master class, or rather, we society, them, the privilleged? Is it authoritarian to prevent murder?
: as you believe, it seems, that all property is theft I quite understand that you would refuse to see any difference between a burglar and someone who had worked trading value for value in support of said baby.
No, my analogy was precise, in both set ups someone is the unearning recipient of the system. Your baby didn't work to get its benefits, and your rich family are rich because of the social system (and you have accepted the notion of totality).
: The major point is that if you want to change the structure to either socialism or AC you have to 'break some eggs' and suspend non agression for awhile. Unless it was achieved with overwhelming support, especially among those 'privileged'.
Or with the overwhelming support of the working class, 90% of the popuation...ther emaining five and a bit billion of the world...
: Which is therefore the same as hobbling kids with good legs, or in sci fi terms farming out the genes!
No, because we are not responsible for genes, we are responsible for societal distribution of wealth. Try another way, if its fine to leave a baby with priveleges, then by the converse, we must let babies keep their poisoned candy...
: No, and who am I in this context anyway? Where is my authority to overule uncles choices coming from, what do I do with choc later one? Why does kid 2 deserve half of it any more than kid one deserves all o it?
Sorry, I was presuming you were the parent, or society in general ('Everyman') Uncle didn't give it, he just left it lying around. Why does Kid one deserve it in the first place?
: Which brings you back to the need to break some eggs etc, to be authoritarian in forcing change, or waiting for agreement.
Or having a revolution, 'dictatorship of the proetariate' anyone? Just coz I want a good size majority, doesn't mean I'm giveng the capitalists a say in the matter.
: Which system? - the system which allows parent choice in according resource to their children by their choice, or in seperating children from that choice?
The system that means some parents have more to give their kids than others.
: And it wasnt your fault, or your neighbours. come the bourgious revolution I am sure they wont punish you for it. hmmm.
We've had a bourgeois revolution, 1640-60. They changed the economy then too.
: Yes, and the attainment of such can mean getting control of things other people also want control of.
Not necessarilly, because self-hood is constructed socially, and we can provide an abundance of the things necessary for self-hood.
: The abundance is available under any system if people want it, and want others to have it too.
No, Capitalism is based on scracity and enying access to goods.
