Below is an extract from a letter posted in the Guardian today. Pretty much as a good point about what we were discussing earlier on...
Socialism as a broad progressive ideal was the main intellectual and moral force behind most of the worldwide progressive legislation and social change we now take for granted, including, of course, our own welfare state. And could anyone examine Cuban history and not conclude that Castro's socialism has been better for its inhabitants than anything which has gone before?
The fact is that it is capitalism which does not work, except as the most wondrous conjuring trick in history. Its function is to create winners and losers in riotous confusion but always far more of the latter - they are sustained by the vision of a heaven on earth always just in the future. Therefore capitalism must always promise more tomorrow and even more the day after. And so capitalism is only sustained by an economic model of continuous and ever more frenetic growth, regardless of the end products and regardless of its effect on the planet. So to turn Kettle's thesis on its head - if we are to survive, we have to make some sustainable form of ecological fairness and greater equality work. Call it socialism or social justice as you will but we have to ditch consumer capitalism because, like a burning torch, it will always go out eventually.
Hmm... Interesting (although rhetoric-heavy). Is the full letter available online? If so please post a URL. Just want to get an idea of its context. There might be some counter arguments from others worth taking a look at as well.
Hmm... Interesting (although rhetoric-heavy). Is the full letter available online? If so please post a URL. Just want to get an idea of its context. There might be some counter arguments from others worth taking a look at as well.
It was a comment on an article in the Guardian Uk. Which as you may be aware is left-wing and brilliantly smug.
In these times everything is becoming rhetoric heavy. Have you ever watched Fox News? I disagee with liberal pundits that say that liberal like themselves ought to challenge establishment with subtelty. Unfortunately the other side are wining because they are more obnoxious and boisterous.
Some opinions don't deserve to be given the same amount of airtime either because they are false or misleading. For instance Intelligent designers and religious pundits.
Fox news! Arrrrgh! I have only watched about two minutes of it (ever) and i have reccuring nightmares about it! Horrible channel. What was the Guardian article about?
awmygawd wrote: Fox news! Arrrrgh! I have only watched about two minutes of it (ever) and i have reccuring nightmares about it! Horrible channel. What was the Guardian article about?-- Edited by awmygawd at 00:17, 2006-02-15
I don't remember what the article was about. But I do watch Fox news. As horrible as it is I watch it like the way one watches their own turds floating in the toilet. With a mix of fascination and disgust.
Abre, I googled the whole extract you posted and guess what? I've managed to find both the article and the letters that followed. worked like a charm. here are the links: