Nicholas asked:

Mike asks about the unethical behaviour associated with the 'free market'. Steven Ravett Brown
asserts that "altruism as opposed to selfishness; empathy or peacefulness as opposed to aggression;
material well-being for the many, freedom for the many", have been "attempted several times in the
last century, on large scales, with uniform lack of success" (Answers 20).

Does this mean that the above values which one could be led to believe constitutes a good society
should be abandoned because they don't seem to meet with success?

Is it not true that every fledgling movement which has attempted to move out of the mainstream and
create a fair egalitarian society has been swiftly 'put down' by that class in whose interest it is to
maintain their positions of wealth, power and privilege?

============

Well, first, Nicholas, what I actually said was, "But Marxism has been attempted several times in the
last century, on large scales, with uniform lack of success."

Now if you want to assert that Marxism is the only way to achieve "altruism as opposed to
selfishness; empathy or peacefulness as opposed to aggression; material well-being for the many,
freedom for the many", that's your privilege... but I think you'll find that most people disagree with you,
including me.

In answer to your first question, no, it doesn't mean that.

In answer to your second question, no, that's not true. Read about the French Revolution. Read about
Castro and Cuba. I'm not claiming that those movements succeeded in the above sense (I'm not
going to argue that one way or another here), but I am claiming that they were not "put down" by the
class that was removed from power. Nor, if it comes to that, was the original Russian revolution. Nor
was Mao's. I think that you'll find, if you do more reading, that on the contrary, in most cases one
privileged class was replaced by another.

Steven Ravett Brown