: That doesnt make it worthless and it appears that you are now accepting my assertion that political aggitiation and change is as legitimate in improving the conditions of the least as simply "changing your head" (dont you know it's gonna be alright).I think youre right when you are under the cosh of an immediate authoritarian oppression - but in know way is that analagous with the west.
: : Laissez faire and regime are contradictions in terms. where are the laissez faire countries anyway?
: Britain under Thatcher, US under Regan, Chile under Pinochet.
not one, not one, not one.
: Britain under Thatcher, US under Regan, Chile under Pinochet.
So they werent laissez faire, the were militarists. ok maybe we can move from there.
: How strange? I was trying to demonstrate that I consider the severity of the problem such that I can't change it by limiting my actions to changes in my behaviour and altruism.
But thats all it is when it boild down to it - individuals behaving. Thats all any 'collective' action can be.
: Your no doubt sincere Gee but damn if that's not cynical.
I was sincere, but it probably did sound cynical.
: Socialism isnt altruism, neither is it voluntary poverty, remember my stockmarket socialist friends?
I thought you doubted their socialism?
: :I thought you liked Proudhon?
: Yes I do. So did Marx.
I'm pretty sure I read Stoller saying Marx repudiated Proudhon? Cant find th post though.
: The individual has a responsibility, it is just one that differs from social responsibility.
But they must amount to the same thing - 'society' cannot act without individuals acting.
: I think I've outlined that above. You know we, the regular debators, should all form a club or something.
Sure! Good Idea
