: To remove the human cost from your occult doctrine of 'effective demand' is not the task of the Marxist. That is the task of the apologist for the capitalist. And you have all the moves down pat, Gee.You were simply avoiding the fact that people are discriminatory, and that this is inimical to egalitarian, and, I'm not apologising for anyone or anything, nor is what I wrote a defense of anyone or anything.
: I have never been disingenuous about the need for force in the immediate socialist future. Yes, the capitalists WILL be oppressed---they will lose their land holdings, they will lose their industries, they will lose their grip upon the labor-power of all working men and women. I'm sure they won't like that one bit. The capitalists will be required to work. I'm sure they won't like that either.
First - by capitalists I assume you mean that tiny minority of of the landed or stockholder wealthy, and not various 'managers' who are (or should be) considered 'workers' in your dichotomous analysis of society.
Second - The oppression is constant and ongoing - wherever a 'minority' dare to differ from the 'majority' they will be forced to comply or risk overt violence - in every decision 'society' takes from then on. it isnt some temporary thing.
Third - your viewof oppression seems to be that it entails a situation where someone who can, doesnt. For instance a doctor who can treat a patient but chooses not to is 'oppressing' him. Perhaps its worth a fresh post on the subject.
: You deny that a quantitative difference can become a qualitative difference. That's an unfortunate omission.
Thats a factual description of the principle stated by both dictator and majority - that oppression is good.
: Then you equate majority rule with the rule of a dictator. That's irresponsible ranting.
Thats accurately describing the effect on one oppressed - regardless of the source of that oppression.
: To most people, majority rule wouldn't even be perceived as 'rule.'
It would when they wish to differ and find the majority enforcing their apparent will.
: Mentioning Galbraith, that 'Great Society' defender of capitalism, of course, underawed me.
So?
: Needless to say, I stand by my citations.
Needless indeed - you are free to stand by them, and re-print them for the eyes of unsuspecting newcomers ad infinitum.
: Here you destroy your argument. Most of your citations were from 1998 (Red Herring quote was from 1997). Shall I now say: 'hence your 1998 article, not very useful as we near 2000...'?
Here we show the fallibility of using data to 'prove' something when it is apparent that different sets of data contradict eachother in this matter - that almost any position can be supported by data if you choose the right set.
: Nice to see you reading, though.
Nice to see you having to resort to condescension - always a good sign.
: ** Have a heart and remember the page numbers in your citations, will ya?
It would be good practice - but I dont imagine you would rush to read them now would you?
