- Re: In the interest of balance... #Schumacher Archived Message
Posted by Cobbett
on February 12, 2019, 9:38 pm, in reply to "Re: In the interest of balance... #Schumacher"
|
"Hmmm I did make the point that the "market economy" is to blame, I don't believe that there is the kind "soft-out" that you imply." A "soft-out" by your terms perhaps, though I don't know your precise views on the matter in any detail; like you don't really know mine. You've made an assumption on the limited amount of information I've provided. This happens quite a bit elsewhere too, seeing as I don't self-identify as a "capitalist" or a "socialist"; generally characterised by many as sitting on the fence or playing it safe. Actually, I would decribe myself as a radical if anything, though it is not what I set out to be. I'm put in mind of the Einstein quote: “We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them”. While our moral code is timeless, many of the ideas we live by have a limited shelf-life, and we run the risk of simply repeating mistakes over and over again across the generations. "Schumachianism is not; "central planning"...." Er, no (though it is a long time since I read any of his work). Perhaps a bit of a strawman though, seeing as this is the first mention of Schumacher in our discussion. ...public ownership is limited to those areas where the resource dictates that its management must be so for "the greater good"... Yes, I'd generally agree. Clearly, utilities, health care, emergency services, education etc would seem obvious examples in the light of the mess we have suffered under privatised ownership for the last few decades. Competition does have it's uses in certain areas (in order to encourage new ways of thinking and to prevent stagnation), I believe, but not those listed above. private ownership also informs this greater good but must be balanced by "able and equal" communal and societal activity..Max does not accept this...Schumacher's is a dynamic economy where "cross pollination" between the systems ensures growth..but not profit-centred growth rather a growth of sustainability and diversity.... I can only respond to what you've written above, as I'm not that familiar with Schumacher's stance. I'd loosely go with what I think you're saying, but the devil is often in the detail. Many systems are possible. We could, for instance, each individually perhaps choose to move to another country / state that fits with our own ethical code, economic structure, small or big goverment - or no government. The terms "sustainability" and "diversity" can mean quite different things to different people. I don't mean to sound like a moral relativist here by the way! I have my own code of behaviour, like I'm sure you have yours. They will differ to some extent. it is an emancipating philosophy that believes that we should work to live not live to work and that only by freeing ourselves from the terrible war of all against all can humankind ever free to be able to realise its full potential.... Yes, I'm with him there. I think much of the problem with trying to fight the money and power grabbers out there; the neoliberals, the neoconcervaties, the globalist elites' agenda, is that the enormous opposition to this tiny minority of damaged souls is our inability to get together under one movement and defeat them. They have so far prospered under a divide and rule strategy - with the emphasis on "so far"! Maybe the Gilets Jaunes are the start of a bigger "liberty movement" that Brandon Smith describes in this article, for your consideration, from a couple of years ago: http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2950-the-reasons-why-the-globalists-are-destined-to-lose |