Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (323548)	11/26/2002 5:52:56 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

When you claim the "impact" of a social philosophy is what defines it, you are overlooking the ideology and motive of the philosophy to derive meaning only from its results. That is a way to look at the thing, but in your case it causes you to muddle concepts such that communism becomes unable to exploit markets while yet remaining communism. I'm saying that communism can certainly do it (and that it has done it and yet does it) because markets and such do not ultimately define communism. The intended philosophical thrust does. A man may hate cabbages, ultimately wishing them all removed from the earth. His mode of bringing these plants to extinction is to buy them all and then burn them. That man could not with reason be called a "tomato eater" simply because in the course of his cabbage murdering his buying tomatoes distracts others from his diabolical plan. We may buy tomatos because we like their taste and they are healthy. The man may hate tomatos too - or just see them as benign fillers! But he may buy, and even plant them to further his philosophy. We see here a circumstance where two different philosophies are driving the same act (the purchasing of tomatos). That is a little like how communism and capitalism might approach markets.