Menchise

quote:That's why Hitler and Stalin came to power. Positive vision, disasterous results.That is why I said, "If the vision doesn't turn out right, then revise it, change it, and try again." quote:Those numbers were for an example and were not meant to be used as criteria for judging the viability of a society. I'm not sure if anyone could come up with a comprehensive model for this type of thing, but that does not negate the fact that successful societies are the ones that tend to last and unsuccessful societies tend to fail much sooner.There also comes a time when successful societies are no longer successful. quote:If you really wish to argue against this then why donÔÇÖt you suggest a better way of judging a societyÔÇÖs fitness rather then simply denouncing mine.Here is one that I just made up a few minutes ago... The health of a society depends on: 1. The support of the people. 2. The ability to cope with aggregate problems on a regular basis. 3. A drive towards a socially progressive direction. 4. The acceptance of change within its social structure, including its fundamental elements, in accordance with social progress. 5. Expression of relative solidarity with other societies. quote:Excellence, just what I was hoping to hear. You canÔÇÖt employ everyone between 15 and 65 because not all of them are willing to be employed.I have already responded to this point. quote:Furthermore, so long as the economy is run by businesses and such there are still going to be people who are laid off of work, or who have trouble finding a job, or whatever. Basically, the same problems in capitalism that cause unemployment will cause it in a socialist system. Unless youÔÇÖre suggesting communism, that is something else entirely.One of the points of socialism (and communism) is that 'businesses' don't run the economy. quote:I pretty much have to go with $ilk on this one, while the change may be for the better most of the time it isnÔÇÖt. Even with a proven system like capitalist democracy (for which there are a number of good models) we see numerous failed attempts and catastrophes, but with socialism for which there are no long term successes except in the mildest form and numerous failures what chance does it have. Its like fascism, an interesting idea but not something that pans out in the end.Only two types of socialism have been tried: Neo-Marxism (Chile in the '70s), and Marxism-Leninism. Some would also include National Socialism in that list, but I don't, because it was never really socialist in the first place. In the case of Chile, the US took every step to sabotage it.

I would really laugh at those two. It's just that when I see that promotional photo, I don't sense any character. I just see Ben Affleck in a red steroid suit.

quote:In a Capitalist society, the only difference would be that those who expend the most effort, earn more from it.Capitalism doesn't work that way. That's what Socialism aims for. quote:This is getting overly technical, I dont know exactly how long a society has to last to be viable, it depends on stable the government is well as how long it lasts. A government that does wonderfully for 100 years may be viable while a government that goes though those same 100 years with a series of failed coos and similar nonsense would be a lot more questionable.OK, now let's apply these criteria to the USA. The United States has been around for approximately 225 years. During that time, the government has gone through 11 state secessions, one civil war, four presidential assassinations, and nine additional assassination attempts. Does that mean that it's questionable? quote:Ok, first answer me this; what makes someone part of the workforce?Different countries have slightly different criteria, but in Australia, if I remember correctly, it's any able-bodied person between the ages of 15 and 65. quote:Oh, and a fourth choice, change the system for the worst and dont forget wreck the system entirely, that makes a good fifth choice.Yeah, yeah. quote:I agree that trying to change the system is a valid possibility, but dont assume that any change made by workers is going to be for the better.It takes a positive vision that sets a positive direction. If the vision doesn't turn out right, then revise it, change it, and try again. [ 05-19-2002, 04:08: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:ItÔÇÖs true, a society survives so long as it functions. If someone comes up with a police state that can survive a couple of hundred years then perhaps it is a viable type of society. ThatÔÇÖs a little on the side, a police state does work until its been over thrown no matter how many people try to do so. Whether or not a government is popular may affect how viable it is, but it is its ability to last that is the real measurement.OK then, in your opinion, how long must a society last before you can say that it works? quote:If that is the case, then how can you guarantee 100% employment if not everyone is employable? That has, if I recall, been one of you major points: socialism is better then capitalism because everyone is employable.That's not what I was saying at all. In economic terms, employment and unemployment refers to the workforce, not the entire population. That is why employment statistics do not take infants into account. Full employment means that the entire workforce is essentially employed. quote:So it is, but it none the less is a choice that workers make.There is a third choice: to change society for the better. quote:A step up on Menchise anyway.Hey! I have an in-grown toenail too. BTW Ep5, I know exactly how you felt. I've already had it pulled out and cut out by doctors on two occasions, and it keeps coming back! A slight bump feels like a hammer blow, and most of my socks are blood-stained. [ 05-18-2002, 23:07: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Ben Affleck in a comic book action movie. Why is it so hard for me not to laugh my ass off right now?

Yeah, but it's still creepy.

Cool.

quote:Look at a larger scale, survival of the ÔÇ£fittestÔÇØ society. Those societies that work are the ones that survive, those that donÔÇÖt work are the ones that fail.Way too simplistic. That argument suggests that a police state works when it hasn't been overthrown regardless of how often the people attempt to do so. quote:Like I said, put it in another forum. ItÔÇÖs a bloody pain to try to argue two separate things at the same time.I explained why it was relevant to this thread. You've had no trouble debating the constitution so it can't be that much of a bloody pain. quote:Circular reasoning is inherently invalid. You say that all individuals are employable in a socialist economy, and you support this by saying that everyone can work. How do we know that everyone can work, because theyÔÇÖre all employable of course. Thus my point stands.It wasn't circular. I said that all people who can work are employable; I did not say that all people can work, therefore all people are employable. quote:Your knowledge of New England townships is not the only thing lacking, the problem between the British and the American colonists was over taxes levied to pay war debts from the French and Indian war. The colonists found that they didnÔÇÖt like having to pay taxes and so decided to get ornery about it. The situation escalated with the Boston tea party and then the coercive acts until the colonial governments had no real option but to declare independence.OK, so I gave a bad example, but I think you get the gist of what I was getting at. quote:As far as whether or not the rich earn there money or whether they exploit laborers for it, you have to admit that laborers are pretty eager to be ÔÇ£exploitedÔÇØ.That's because exploitation is preferable to starvation (usually). quote:If we consider labor as a commodity like any other then we can understand that its price is dictated by supply and demand, just like any other commodity. Workers get for there labor what people are willing to pay for it, just like business owners get for there goods (or services, or whatever) what people are willing to pay.This is why I referred you to Wage Labour and Surplus Value; as a contrary to your argument.

Happy happy birthday!

quote:Irrelevant, the system was not created to be Darwinian, it simply EVOLVED that way. We donÔÇÖt argue that evolution of the species isnÔÇÖt Darwinian because it happened before DarwinÔÇÖs time, so why should we argue that way for economics.The system is not Darwinian at all. If it was then there would be no anti-trust laws, trade practices acts, or even health and safety regulations. Humanity would just be a part of the Animal Kingdom, and there would be no civilization. quote:No mention of the New England townships?My knowledge of New England townships is very limited when compared to the politics of Ancient Athens. quote:No matter, communication is not the only problem with a democracy, and the framers of our constitution knew this (Clearly stated in article 3 section 4 if I recall correctly). Even if technology allowed a populace to participate directly in every government decision, are the people responsible and knowledgeable enough to vote well? It would be mob rule of the worst kind. I could go on and on, but this is quite off topic. If you really want to discuss the viability of a true democracy start another thread and let's have at it.Since this thread is already out of hand, I might as well debate this here. Besides, the viability of true democracy does relate to Libertarian Socialism, in which contemporary writers such as Albert and Hahnel are currently offering the most refreshing alternatives to Marxism-Leninism (e.g. ParEcon). The issue of knowledge among the voting populace is still related to the issue of communication. A lack of knowledge comes from being uninformed about the issues on the agenda. Election 2000 was a classic example of this, when the biggest issues that were being communicated to the people were whether Bush could pronounce the word 'subliminal' and if Gore was a good kisser. The only candidate that spoke in-depth about any issues was Nader, and he was blocked from the means of communication. A lack of responsibility is related to universalist methodologies of democratic participation, that is when the people vote on issues that have no effect on them, thus marginalizing the people who are affected. A better description of this is in Albert's fourth value of ParEcon (quoted below). quote:For our fourth value, Economies also impact decision making relations. I call the associated value that needs to be propelled by a good economy "self-management." The idea is simple. Imagine a worker among many others who wants to put a picture of her family in her workplace unit. Who should make that decision? She should, unilaterally. ┬á Suppose she instead wants to put a loud radio in her workstation, blaring forth music. Who should make that decision? Certainly not her alone. Her neighboring workmates should have a say. ┬á And just that quickly we have our norm. Economic actors should influence decisions in proportion as the decisions impact them. ┬á Sometimes a decision should be unilateral ÔÇô even dictatorial. It isn't that the boss should decide dictatorially when I go to the bathroom, as now ÔÇô but that I should decide that, myself. Other times one person one vote, majority rule makes most sense. Or sometimes consensus makes most sense, or other procedures. ┬á The specific methodology is not universal. But the goal we are trying to accomplish with our choice of voting procedures is always self-management -- we should impact decisions in proportion as we are affected by them. ┬á If we don't each have proportionate influence, then obviously someone has disproportionately more and someone else has disproportionately less, but there is no moral or pragmatic justification for that. It is morally right that we control our own lives. More, we are each most suited to do so. We are each the world's foremost expert on our own desires and aspirations. ┬á And so we have a fourth value, self-management. quote:ThatÔÇÖs assuming everyone is employable and that everyone is willing to work. Two very large assumptions that you have yet to address.In my post I said, "The advantage of socialism in terms of employment is that all people who can work can get secure jobs, thus sustainable full employment, which is impossible in capitalism." All people who can work = employable people. Anyone who is not willing to work will be given enough to survive, but the lifestyle would be extremely basic and far from preferable when compared to working people. It's all about relative solidarity. quote:Heh. The only thread ABOUT socialism vs capitalism gets hijacked to a debate on the constitution.LOL! quote:Did it ever occur to you that socialism is a form of abuse of minorities? Because there are more poor people then rich people they use there majority to steal money from those who earn it while preaching about how right it is. Perhaps you didnÔÇÖt know, but its quite common for thieves to tell themselves that what they are doing is right and that they are only getting what they deserve from a society that has somehow cheated them.That argument assumes that rich people earn the money that they get. See Wage Labour and Surplus Value. That argument could also be manipulated to say that the colonial Americans were abusing the British for the money that they 'earned' through tea taxes as a reward for their conquest of the east coast.

quote:Just FYI, the General welfare clause has been perverted by liberals and yes, socialists to mean just what you think it means, when in fact that is not what it means at all.I hope you're not including me in that equation. I always knew that it didn't mean that and I never said that it did. quote:and this stuff about the bottom % of the population living like they do forever is one of the greatest falsehoods that has been put out. I started out at 1.85 an hour, then I got another job at 2.85 an hour and I continued to move up. I won't tell you what I make now, because it would piss you off. The fact is that people in the lower part of the economy do not stay there, they are mobile they move up and others move into their place. NO ONE stays that way forever in our economy, and that is a fact you can take to the bank. A poor person now, 99% of the time will not be poor 5 years from now, unless they choose to be there.That is not true. Some move up, but nowhere near the figure that you claim. About the part where you say that "others move into their place": where do you think those others come from? [ 05-17-2002, 01:08: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Menchise, your anger at Capitalist society I believe is unjustified. Not one person in America has been denied any help that would guarantee their survival.I never said that capitalism was Darwinist, especially since it was invented before Darwin was born. quote:There is no injustice, you see only unfairness because not everyone can buy the most expensive things. If they wanted expensive things that bad enough, they would get off their butts, and go earn it.If you had read any of the articles I linked to, you would know that the workers' lack of ability to buy expensive items is not an issue in the Marxist critique of capitalism. The issues involved include the nature of the work itself (Wage Labour), particularly its dehumanizing effect, and how capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. quote:One very localized instance. Your example is of a very small socialist system that, however successful, was not around long enough to prove its viability before it was conquered. Furthermore, a system that will work in a relatively small area may not be so successful on a larger scale. Observe, for example, true democracy. It worked in Athens, it worked in a number of early New England towns, but a large-scale democracy is simply not feasible.The biggest limit on large scale direct democracy has been the lack of sophisticated communication tools to facilitate participation in decision making. In Ancient Athens, all of the voters could go and meet in one space to debate the issues, which became impossible later on. Many tend to assume that this makes direct democracy obsolete in today's large scale society. This is not true, because, in the past, direct democracy was actually way ahead of its time. This is proven by two things: 1) Athenian democracy only represented a minority of the population: the male citizenry; slaves and women were not recognized. 2) The ruling class consisted of male citizenry, so the system would always tend to support the status quo, which was obviously against the interests of the majority, namely women and slaves. The attempted implementation of socialism in Russia and China was also way ahead of its time, because those countries were still very feudal (only the urban areas of China were capitalist). This meant that the means of production were too underdeveloped to support any fundamentally socialist system on a large scale other than the extreme versions of Marxism-Leninism, which were rejected by Lenin and Trotsky because they were too drastic. This is why Lenin started to roll back parts of the system in the New Economic Policy, which allowed for limited private enterprise. After Lenin's death, Stalin made a U-turn into his extreme form of Marxism-Leninism, and Mao followed soon after. quote:Oh really? That is quite a leap of logic, to figure that employment statistics based on a world in which a number of people are lazy and donÔÇÖt work because welfare supports them (at lest for a time) is viable in a hypothetical scenario in which everyone works hard.There was once a time when state welfare didn't exist, government intervention was minimal, and the employment situation was even worse. quote:There will be just as many slackers and incompetents in a socialist society as in a capitalist one, more really because people wouldnÔÇÖt have as much reason to work (I believe the term welfare state describes this quite nicely).The people would have the same reason to work as they would in capitalism: to support their lifestyle. No socialist system advocates supporting the lifestyles of slackers, although it does advocate the support of life (i.e. providing the absolute basics so that they don't starve). The advantage of socialism in terms of employment is that all people who can work can get secure jobs, thus sustainable full employment, which is impossible in capitalism. [ 05-17-2002, 01:05: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Capitalist propaganda? Pardon me? Capitalism works, see the united states, it works and works well. There are striking examples of success with capitalism all over the world. Capitalism does not need propaganda because it has been proven.There is no example of a capitalist country (not even the USA) that 'lifts all boats' as you claim, thus the boat argument is unfounded propaganda. Whenever I provide unavoidable examples of that fact, you try to explain them away by saying that those boats that aren't lifted are down by choice or laziness. What evidence do you provide in support of that claim? None. Zero. Null. Void. Even when I started quoting economic figures and facts indicating the unsustainability of full employment in capitalism (regardless of motivation, talent, or skill), particularly the fact that it has NEVER been remotely close to happening in a Laissez Faire economy, you still throw the same lame propaganda in my face, much of which was written in some form or other by pro-capitalist intelligensia. If capitalism is supposed to lift all boats, or even all talented, skilled, and hard-working boats, it has failed miserably every single time. Therefore, all it has is propaganda and a lot of big sticks. quote:Marxism and socialism on the other hand have always failed and therefore need propaganda to make it seem like a "fair" thing to do. That's all they have, PROPAGANDA!!I have already provided one example of a socialist system that was so popular among ordinary workers that they were willing to defend it with their lives against an overwhelming military force; a force that took five days of bloody fighting to take control of one city that had little or no military of its own, and the first thing it did with that control was massacre the civilians at random. This is historical fact, not propaganda! quote:Right to the pursuit of happines, not happiness itself, is granted. People will make of that pursuit what they will.I believe that is what I wrote. quote:At the risk of being shot as a traitor...heh heh....I think it would be of interest to consider what the USSR might have been if a crazy mo' frappy named Stalin hadn't taken power....but who knows...The USSR was in trouble long before Stalin seized power. The whole system that Lenin developed was a disaster waiting to happen. Sure, without Stalin there wouldn't have been such brutality, but Leninism was never going to solve class division. Lenin contradicted Marx by attempting to install a socialist economy in a country that had never known capitalism (Russia was feudal at the time). The one party state didn't help either. quote:In the United States, people who are insanely rich and don't need to work are listed as "in poverty" simply because their income has stopped.Note that I used the term Absolute Poverty. quote:For those unemployed, the only encouragement that can be offered is to try harder to sell themselves by learning more job skills, making themselves worth more.The point is that regardless of skill, talent, or character, 6-8 percent of the workforce is constantly unemployed. That means that even if everyone worked their butt off in college, 6-8 percent still wouldn't get a job, even when the economy is in a boom. quote:If I were to give you, Menchise the first place trophy for American football - would it make your proud? After all you've done nothing to earn it.LOL! If you think that's what socialism is like, then you need to wake up now. quote:Furthermore, if charities didnÔÇÖt give money (or food, or whatever) to completely hopeless individuals then there wouldnÔÇÖt be nearly so much of a shortage. If someone repeatedly shows that they are totally incapable of surviving without charity or government intervention then they have no business surviving. This gets back to Darwinism and the survival of the fittest.It's easy to preach 'survival of the fittest' when you're one of the fittest. It is one of the most hypocritical arguments I have ever read, especially when it's written by Americans. Remember the unalienable right to life that is guaranteed to ALL citizens? That includes the not-so-fit.

quote:I don't read intelligentsia propaganda, I am a capitalist, and will always be a capitalist.Does that mean that you only read capitalist propaganda? quote:Marxism and Socialism are both FAILED experiments, they DON'T WORK. No matter how much you try and convince me otherwise. History repeats itself because no one listened the first time. History show that socialism and Marxism fail and destroy those that they are trying to LIFT up. You're NOT listening.The history that you know of shows only the failures. I suggest you research the Paris Commune of 1871. It was a working experiment before the exiled French Army invaded and massacred 30,000 workers, many of which defended the city for five days despite being outnumbered 4 to 1. [ 05-15-2002, 12:04: Message edited by: Menchise ]

On Exploitation Of The Proletariat And The Decline Of Capitalism Marxism may not have currently produced a successful alternative to capitalism, but its groundbreaking criticism of the capitalist system still stands as Marx's great work. Here are some relevant excerpts from the Glossary of the Marxists Internet Archive: Commodity Capital Labour Power Wage Labour Value Surplus Value Capitalism

quote:Do you assume that this 5 percent is the same group of people over and over, or is it a revolving five percent that comes and goes as people retrain and acquire new jobs?While there is definitely a high number of long term unemployed, I'm not sure how much of that group consists of that 5 percent. Note that 5 is the absolute minimum figure for a Laissez Faire economy; it's usually 6-8 percent during booms, and it's extremely rare for it to get any lower. Most of the short term unemployed would come from the recessions, when the figure increases (usually 8-12 percent in the top industrialized nations). quote:If someone is unable to get work, then there should be a safety net for them, and there is, it is called PRIVATE charity.Read this. quote:It's all about freedom people, that is the BOTTOM line, and as long as the government can take my money and give it to others, then I am NOT FREE.It's also about those unalienable rights that you mentioned (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), which apply to all citizens, including those in poverty. Since it is the government's responsibility to ensure that those rights are not alienated from any citizen, it is required to assist when private charity proves inadequate.

On Welfare and Keynesian Capitalism It is an unavoidable fact that no capitalist economy, regardless of its productivity or efficiency, is capable of sustaining full employment. Even during the peaks of boom periods, when the economy is at its largest, the rate of unemployment almost never falls below 5 percent, especially in a Laissez Faire system. What's worse is that by the time the boom period reaches its peak, the economy has already expanded beyond its sustainable capacity, which is why there are subsequent recessions in the first place. Where does that leave the 5 percent of people who will never get a lasting job regardless of how hard they try? Note that the unemployment rate only counts the workforce, which is usually little more than 65 percent of the total population (see Participation Rate). The existence of dependents within families of the unemployed means that at least 8 percent of the total population would live in absolute poverty. In this condition, they are incapable of consumption. The purpose of state welfare is to give this percentage the means to consume, thus increasing the health of the economy by inflating Aggregate Demand (a term that anyone who has studied Keynes would be familiar with). Now, anyone who knows basic economics must admit that the economy is worse off when 8 percent of the population doesn't consume. Therefore, a welfare system within a capitalist economy is beneficial. Big business, which is almost invariably pro-Laissez Faire, vigorously disagrees for one of two reasons (sometimes both): 1) they don't know basic economics, or 2) they want that 8 percent to live in absolute poverty, because it would scare the workers into doing more for less. [ 05-14-2002, 03:53: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Judging from the posts so far, I think I need to make one thing very clear. The welfare state is a capitalist invention, not a socialist one, although socialists agree that it's better than nothing. It's one of the features of Keynesian economics which, unlike Laissez Faire, is demand-side rather than supply-side. The idea is that the inherent instability of the capitalist economy can be minimized by increasing the level of consumption, thus reducing the problems associated with overproduction. Keynesians suggest that this can be achieved through government taxation and expenditure to fund a welfare state: by providing the means of subsistence to the unemployed, businesses have more people to whom they can sell their products, thus stimulating the economy while providing much-needed assistance. [ 05-13-2002, 10:17: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Let's continue the debate in the other thread.

LOL! I say 4.5 pages. Have a nice trip, Kush. BTW, quote:Take Cuba and Jamaica.Cuba = Marxism-Leninism. Jamaica = Laissez Faire.

quote:But the best argument IÔÇÖve heard for capitalism (in general) is that it is more in tune with human nature (cynical) and this system increases total goods and services of a country over time. The best argument I've heard against socialism (in general) is that the sum of all goods and services of a country under socialism will never increase...just erode over time.Sounds like a good place to start. I'll start posting on this after I've finished my Uni stuff for the day (about 14 hours from now). EDIT: 1 cancelled lecture = 4 hour gap. [ 05-12-2002, 18:12: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Lotharr, you're in for a debate like no other. The first issue is that "Socialism vs Capitalism" can be too simplistic since there are different branches of each which usually conflict with each other as well as with the opposing ideology. In capitalism there are the Laissez-Faireans (minimal taxation, welfare, and government intervention) and the Keynesians (significant taxation, welfare, and government intervention). In socialism there are the Reformists, the Neo-Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyites, Libertarian Socialists, etc. Before such a debate can commence there needs to be agreement about what each of the branches of each ideology have in common, which is not much by the way. Most of the previous debates in this forum have been about "Neo-Marxism vs Laissez Faireanism" rather than "Socialism vs Capitalism". So, who's gonna say what capitalism is about?

quote:I call this self-inflicted guilt at having over-achieved others and attempting to project your self-guilt as culpability for society as a whole.I don't feel guilty about doing what it takes to survive comfortably. My point is that there is a less destructive way of working for oneself. quote:I find forcing someone to look beyond themselves is less than amusing.So do I. I'm just pointing out why I don't support the system despite my favourable position within it. quote:So you would rather be able to stay slothful like the underachievers and still be able to maintain your lifestyle?I have no problem with productive hard work, and I completely disagree with your claim that 'underachievers' are invariably slothful. The 'underachievers' do most of the hard work these days while the exploiters receive most of the benefits. quote:Delusions of grandeur. You aren't going to save the world with your "intellectualness".I never said that I could. It takes a popular stand by the people to change things for the people. quote:Once you get out of your university, and have to earn your own living, I forsee that you will hate having to work to stay ahead, and come to one of two conclusions: 1. Capitalism is hard, it would be better to let others do the hard work and me benefit. 2. Although it is hard, I feel a sense of pride and accomplishment, and find it unfair that I'm having to carry along underachievers with my taxes.You need to clean that crystal ball of yours. University students are not the only people who are against capitalism, and many of these students are earning their living simultaneously. quote:Let real life experience bite you in the @$$, and then you'll know what you are talking about. Everything you spout is purely philosophical, and has no basis in reality of the way things actually work. You hate having to work so hard, and feel so bad about it, that you are whining like a little kid who realizes that his parents won't buy him a toy every time he goes to the store, and want to change the entire concept of world reality in order to fit some grand scheme of "fairness" that exists in your mind - and which surely must work because YOU thought of it.No need to get presumptuous or personal. This thread is hot enough without you accusing me of arrogance. quote:I'm not going to deny that on paper it sounds good. In practice it is a statistical improbability, and completely unworkable. To work as you say it will is an impossibility.The way I say it is not the only way. I'm just a newbie formulating from what I have learned so far (you may have noticed that I revise my proposals over time). There are many many socialists who are a hundred times more knowledgeable about the topic than I am. quote:Why you cling to an idea that cannot stand up to the irrefutable truth of real life common sense is beyond me, and to further compound your stubborness you think up arguments that attempt to explain away these common sense arguments so that they do not exist, so that the fairy tale of Karl Marx and the Seven Dwarves can continue. If you think that you can convince every human being on the planet to pass up snatching a dollar off of the coffee table in your house if you were to let them walk in and you turn your back, that is the only way you can possibly convince yourself that human nature does not affect human actions and decisions.I'm not saying that crime would cease to exist, but there is no conclusive evidence that criminal behaviour is within the inherent nature of humanity. quote:You can not stop every person from trying to screw another person over. If you think that by instituting a system that relies on perfection is going to solve anything, you are a nutcase.Socialism does not require perfection to work. quote:I see people arrested, get out of jail, repeat the same stupid crime, go back to jail, repeat again, etc. People don't change their nature. You can't change it with social institutions.Why do you assume that all criminal behaviour is within the nature of the people who are committing it? There is a variety of circumstances that can drive people to do things that are not within their nature. One example is when drug addicts steal to fund their habit. quote:The very fact that the world is so divided on mindset, and culture, means that they wouldn't simply erase social and economic lines and live in harmony.In every culture that has class division, there is a majority of working people. All working people, regardless of mindset or culture, have a common interest, even though most are unaware of it (usually because the state distracts them with prejudicial propaganda about other cultures). That common interest is the ending of class division. [ 05-12-2002, 10:28: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:no i just find it slightly amusing that you hash on a capitalist system when you live in one and are successful in it...It's what I would need to do in order to continue succeeding in it that offends me. There are two choices in capitalism (and any other class-divided system): exploit or be exploited. Neither of these choices are appealing to my conscience or dignity, especially when they are the foundations of war, poverty, and state-sponsored prejudice. I don't understand why looking beyond one's own self-interest is amusing, especially when you claim that such a behaviour is a reason why military service should be a requirement for citizenship. quote:move to a socialist system and try to be as successful, or even a communist system... guarenteed you wont be so quick to mention the "shortcomings" of a capitalism...Depends on the socialism. I equate success with balanced happiness, not the accumulation of excess. quote:perhaps ungrateful is the word im looking for.I am grateful that I have not been crushed underfoot by the system or screwed over too much, but I'm not that grateful, especially when I have to claw my way over others to stay that way. quote:now as for the military service thing... once and for all. im gonna quote from an author who pretty much nailed the emotion right on the head. "through voluntary and difficult service, the soldier places the welfare of the GROUP ahead of personal advancement" also there is the sense of pride one has in actually having the cajones to stand up and voluntarily defend the state. with his life if need be.Keyword: Voluntary. quote:i will look upon a fellow veteran with more esteem and respect than some college book worm who has no practical experience in what the hell is going on around him.I'm getting sick of the idea that university students live in a bubble. Everything that happens out there happens on campus. There are workloads, deadlines, sleepless nights, laws, media, a crime rate, political conflicts...the only thing that's missing is overt business interest, and even that's creeping up these days. So don't tell me that I have no practical experience! Universities are just microcosms of the real world with bigger libraries. quote:It stayed on topic?LOL!

My brain hurts! What's happened to this thread?!