Socialism Vs Capitalism (round one)

Charles Lindsey · May 26, 2002

quote:

I have no problem with the federal government coordinating state cooperation on roads, but they should not pay for it, this is a state by state issue, the fed's coordinate, the states pay for it.

Same horse, different foot. That's mostly what I meant. Or I at least figured every one knew how it worked and could extrapolate as needed.

What I posted was more an argument defining a need for socialism to have a central government. One of the bigger issues in other threads.

quote:

EASY stuff

Yeah about eighth grade if I remember right. Too bad many years in retail ruined my memory.

Am I contruibuting or just sniping the thread?

Raven · May 26, 2002

quote:

You were more interesting back then.

Bah!

quote:

Heavens no. Far too late for that. First I don't want to lose what I already put in. Second this is not the type of thing that needs privatized. Insurance companies would look at every thing from your health to the condition of your transportation and set rates accordingly.

As far as loosing what you put in, I'm sure something could be arranged between the government and the private insurance companies. As for the bean counting typical of private insurance, thatÔÇÖs kind of the point. Rather then stealing money from the populace as the government does the private insurance will make money selling insurance, the alternative to bean counting is simply having high rates for everyone.

quote:

It doesn't? Coulda fooled me. For the supply and demand of socialism to work you would still need roads. This has been one of the bigger issues in other threads. Who would decide this? Socialism would still need someone to decide these things. IE a government.

Gods, talk about totally misunderstanding me. All modern governments need infrastructure (I donÔÇÖt know about ancient ones, but they probably would too), and thus it is independent of economic model. In feudalism there was infrastructure, in capitalism there is infrastructure, and in socialism there is infrastructure. ItÔÇÖs universally necessary.

quote:

I can agree that libraries are not infrastructure. But I would hate to lose them.

I donÔÇÖt know, I think you could consider libraries a kind of infrastructure. But even if you donÔÇÖt, they are important if not necessary for modern societies and thus will not be abandoned any time soon.

quote:

I have no problem with the federal government coordinating state cooperation on roads, but they should not pay for it, this is a state by state issue, the fed's coordinate, the states pay for it. EASY stuff. The founding fathers thought of this and explained how that would work within the boundaries of the constitution.

Well I donÔÇÖt think that anyone is going to argue with you on this one, youÔÇÖre exactly right. There is one exception, however, postal roads. One of the powers of congress as set out by article 1 section 8 of the constitution is ÔÇ£to establish post offices and post roads.ÔÇØ

[ 05-26-2002, 16:52: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Charles Lindsey · May 26, 2002

quote:

Bah!

I love you too.

quote:

Gods, talk about totally misunderstanding me.

Don't think so.

quote:

All modern governments need infrastructure

Of course.

quote:

thus it is independent of economic model.

Wrong. The economic model won't work without the infrastucture. The infrastructure is tied hand in hand with the economic model.

quote:

In feudalism there was infrastructure, in capitalism there is infrastructure, and in socialism there is infrastructure.

Menchise Socialism has not presented his plan for infrastructure.

quote:

ItÔÇÖs universally necessary.

That's my point. Therefore it is most defintitely part and parcel of any economic model.

May 26, 2002

Dragonlady,

It makes me SOOOO happy when someone starts to quote the constitution to me. I LOVE IT!!!

boy, if I weren't married.....Never mind, I won't go there!!

[ 05-26-2002, 20:38: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Raven · May 27, 2002

quote:

Don't think so.

Trust me on this, you did.

quote:

Wrong. The economic model won't work without the infrastucture. The infrastructure is tied hand in hand with the economic model.

Ok, letÔÇÖs try this one again. The need for infrastructure is independent of a governmentÔÇÖs economic model, as in no matter the economic model there is a need for infrastructure, as in what I said in my last post. It doesnÔÇÖt work the other way, however, and that is where youÔÇÖre getting confused. I am not trying to say that an economic model is similarly independent of infrastructure and to imply that from my statements would be entirely incorrect. Furthermore it would be similarly incorrect to assume that because all economic models rely on infrastructure that they all require exactly the same infrastructure. Nor, for that matter, should you extrapolate this to mean that the infrastructure of two or more economic models need by definition be different in part or entirety.

There, I'm fairly sure IÔÇÖve covered all of my bases.

quote:

Menchise Socialism has not presented his plan for infrastructure.

You see, thatÔÇÖs the wonderful thing about Menchisean socialism; itÔÇÖs defined by what itÔÇÖs not rather then by what it is. Though I am in no way an expert on Menchisean socialism I feel safe in making the following statements.

Menchisean socialism is relatively free of crime.

Menchisean socialism isnÔÇÖt a hive.

Menchisean socialism doesnÔÇÖt pay everyone the same amount.

Menchisean socialism doesnÔÇÖt pay the unemployed at all.

Menchisean socialism doesnÔÇÖt have unemployment problems.

Menchisean socialism doesnÔÇÖt fail.

I could probably go on, but no matter how much I say you will never understand Menchisean Socialism, itÔÇÖs totally baffling to the utmost degree and absolutely incomprehensible to the stable mind. This, you see, is the backbone of Menchisean socialism, less anyone understands about it less they are able to argue against it.

quote:

Dragonlady,

It makes me SOOOO happy when someone starts to quote the constitution to me. I LOVE IT!!!

My pleasure

CommanderJohnson · May 28, 2002

quote:

Originally posted by Menchise:

It also recognizes something that capitalism doesn't: superior abilities, skills, and/or talents do not constitute superior human beings.

Actually, better qualities make them better humans in a utilitarian framework. They may not be better PEOPLE morally or ethically, but some people ARE better than others, and there is NO WAY to create a class structure based on morals and ethics, so it comes down to natural traits, which leaves some people better than others.

quote:

The possession of talent is genetically incidental, skills are either learnt from experience or taught by others, and abilities are a combination of both. It is not one's fault if one is not overtly talented, thus it is unreasonable to punish one who isn't, and it's unreasonable to supremacize one who is.

Tough luck. In a socialist system you are punishing people who have the "talent". Your saying that people who win races should be punished because they are too good. That's where hard work, which capitalism supports, comes into play. You may have the best TALENTS in the universe, but if you don't work hard, you get nothing.

quote:

Another reason is that regardless of the high levels of ability, skill, or talent that one might have, it is impossible for one to possess all abilities, skills, or talents; one who is regarded as inferior in capitalism would nevertheless have abilities, skills, and talents that someone who is regarded as superior does not have. By making one group subordinate to another, as capitalism does, any individual abilities, skills, and talents of the 'underclass' that cannot be exploited by the 'overclass' for their own ends (which usually involve trying to subordinate or destroy other members of the 'overclass') are suppressed, because they threaten the power of the 'overclass', thus the entire system is weakened by a reduction in employed aggregate ability, skill, and talent.

Focualt was a moron.

Short of that, I want to see you draw a SPECIFIC LINE that denotes the "overclass" from the "underclass". Tell me EXACTLY what people are in the overclass, and which are in the underclass. Your operating in an abstract fashion that's always going to benefit you since your being an idealist, but will never benefit the world since you can't give concrete examples.

quote:

It is no accident that over the course of time, class division has become increasingly polarized: the number of social classes has decreased as a result of class-driven revolutions, particularly the overthrow of the feudal lords by the capitalists. Each successful revolution has brought about a better society (every knowledgeable socialist would agree that capitalism is better than feudalism). The next step forward for human civilization is the end of class division, thus the full employment of aggregate ability, skill, and talent.

Your "next step" is impossible. Who is going to determine who is employed doing what and where without a ruling "smarter" class to decide. The revolution will never happen because someone HAS to be in control, and if it DOES happen, it'll be a revolution to anarchy, which will start the ENITE cycle over again.

Ok, no one has told me yet, and I really want you to tell me now. How EXACTLY is a socialist society going to work? You keep talking in abstract terms, but that ISNT the real world. Menchise, if you really beleive in a socialist system, please explain exactly how one would be formed in the current world, and exactly what effects it would have. Please explain:

1. If a country becomes socialist, it's interactions with other nations militarily and economically.

2. How it's government would transition and then subsequently work.

3. What the people in the CURRENT system would be doing in a socialist system. Please explain what they would do in their every day lives, their MOTIVES for doing those things, how their achievement would be measured, and how they would gain material things in regards to:

a. Government Officials

b. CEOs and high executives of companies

c. Middle management

d. Independent business owners

e. Employees of independent business owners.

f. People surviving solely off welfare

g. Homeless people

h. Radical groups (the *radical* state militias, neo-nazis, KKK members, racists, etc)

If you can respond to the three above questions and all sub-questions in a logical and realistic manner, i'm quite sure that everyone who is arguing against socialism would STRONGLY support it. Short of that, socialism is utopian and would NEVER work and NEVER be helpful.

Lotharr · May 28, 2002

quote:

Listen to history, she teaches a great many things, one of course is that socilialism is a dream, and as long as human beings are human, it will not and can not work

Take your own advise and look at the past of our country....of course this makes you proud right? I guess people can look at something and see a lot of different things.

Like I look at the great effectiveness of capitalism (sweat shops, debt that stunts growth, wars for money, glaring social inequities, inexcusable poverty levels for certain racial groups, etc) and I can't help but feel that somehow it is failing....

May 28, 2002

I am going to go over this one more time, because you obviously are STILL NOT getting it.

Capitalism,

1:There are "the Rich",(Owners of corporations, heirs, CEO'setc.) They equal about 10% of the population, anywhere between, $250,000 on up. They pay upwards of 60% of the income tax burden.

2: Middle class, (workers, small business oeners, salespeople, skilled workers) They equal about 80% of the population. $20,000-250000 a year, they pay close to 35% of the income tax burden.

3: Poor, (2 classes of this, working poor and nonworking poor) Poverty in this country = less then $20,000 a year. so if you are between 0-$20,000 a year, you are considered poor to impoverished) They pay less then 5% of the income tax base in this country, and most actually receive FAR more back on income tax refunds then they put in.

Also, grocery stores are loaded with food, the poor own cars, houses, property etc. You have HUGE choices in appliances, automobiles, you name it.

ARE YOU GETTING THE GENERAL PICTURE YET?

OK, let's move on to Socialism shall we?

1: The rich and powerful elite, those that run the government, have properties out in the country and tell you what you need to do, about 2-5% of the population. 95% of the income in this country goes to them and the elites that run the country. See the USSR for a perfect example of how this occurred, or better yet, ASK SOBACK, he LIVED IT!!!

2: The rest of the population around 95% get paid exactly the same, they are employed, live in POS housing, have POS cars,(if they are lucky enough to have cars) wait in lines for their weekly allowance of food, normally around 2-3 hours,and meat is a rare treat.

Do we see a trend here, let's see, capitalism, around 10% are considered poor, more like 1% are living in POVERTY, and far less then that live in the streets, 80% of us are middle class, make over 35K a year, MOST of OWN homes, 99% of us own automobiles, and most again around 95% of us live in nice homes of one sort or another.

In socialism 95-99% of us are POOR, live in POS housing, NO CHOICE in products, have to wait in 2 hour lines to get our weekly allotment of food, and basically the country is a HELL HOLE!!!

So, capitalism, less then 5% are considered impoverished, and that is giving that number close to 3-4%, and in Socialism 95% of us will live like that. Unless ofcourse you are one of the government elites.

You like socialism so much, MOVE TO CHINA!! Because capitalism works JUST dandy, I'll be damned if I am going to give up my lifestyle because you FEEL bad about 1-5% of the population.I am NOT going to give up my freedom because of YOUR guilt, ahh, that's so sad, we need to do something about it. NO, WE DO NOT NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, those that are POOR, need to get off their asses and work like the rest of us!!! 95% of us are doing just fine, I refuse to suffer because of 5%!! Especially considering that you would push us ALL to that point that the 5% are at right now.

Socialism pushes us toward equality, yes, TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR, so instead of 5% of us being poor, 99% of us will be. and that 5% is quite high, I am giving you BIG time leeway on it.

Socialism will NOT work, CANNOT work, and will NEVER work, because it is not based on human nature and the human drive to succeed and excel, if you excel or succeed in capitalism you are rewarded, if you succeed or excel in socialism you are PUNISHED!!!

If you feel badly about all those poor people out there, then give them YOUR money, go out and earn it, and then give YOUR money away, but to tell me that because of your guilt, I have to reach into MY wallet and pay for it is a crock. You have put a gun to my head because you think that I should feel guilty, well, guess what? I don't feel guilty, I worked my ass off and have succeeded, and to see 50% of it go off to some government to pay someone for not working instead of going for shoes and food and housing for my children just PISSES ME OFF!!!

If you FEEL bad, then YOU PAY FOR IT, but to take away my success through this socialistic crap, and to take away my freedom for YOUR GUILT over the fact that 5% of us are poor, again HIGH number, then you are basically declaring war on me, and my family, you are taking the food out of my childrens mouths and the clothes off their backs. There will always be poor, ALWAYS, it is part of the human condition, and no aount of government BS is gonna change it. THEY ARE ALWAYS GONNA BE THERE.

It depends on how guilty you really feel, do you really feel guilty enough to send ALL of us to that point with your socialistic fantasies? We'll ALL be working POOR!!!

Sometimes I feel like that there just is no logical way to get through to you people, capitalism is based on facts and sociology, ti WORKS, Socialism is based on emotion and some fantasy about human beings being ants, and it has NOT worked, CANNOT work, and WILL NEVER work!!! Unless you call making us ALL poor is working.

CommanderJohnson · May 28, 2002

1. If ANYONE is going to respond with some more pro-socialism stuff PLEASE RESPOND TO MY LAST POST.

2. Jaguar is really right about the individual choice. ***NOTHING*** about capitalism is stopping you from GIVING the money you EARN to the poor. Getting the government to take it from people who earn it and give it to the poor isn't moral, but STEALING.

Raven · May 28, 2002

quote:

Take your own advise and look at the past of our country....of course this makes you proud right? I guess people can look at something and see a lot of different things.

Like I look at the great effectiveness of capitalism (sweat shops, debt that stunts growth, wars for money, glaring social inequities, inexcusable poverty levels for certain racial groups, etc) and I can't help but feel that somehow it is failing....

Then you feeling would be wrong. Capitalism is not failing, and when it does fail it will be to a superior economic model that will have come about naturally because of a need for such a model. Capitalism replaced feudalism gradually and naturally because it made for a stronger economy rather then because some intellectuals stood on their podium and spewed about it. This isnÔÇÖt to say that I dislike intellectuals, but I do think that they should pay a little attention to the real world. All of this discussion reminds me of a story from a book of fables that is well over a thousand years old.

The story goes that 4 scholars are walking through the jungle and come across the bones of a lion. The first scholar looks at the bones and said ÔÇ£I can assemble these bones like they were when the lion was alive.ÔÇØ The second scholar says ÔÇ£I can put flesh and blood on those bones,ÔÇØ and the third scholar says ÔÇ£I can bring life to the lion.ÔÇØ The fourth scholar, who is watching the other three aghast says ÔÇ£friends, donÔÇÖt you see this is a lion, if you bring it back to life it will eat you.ÔÇØ The other three scholars refuse to pay heed to him so the fourth scholar climes a tree while they are rebuilding the lion. When the third scholar gives the lion life it gets up and kills and eats him as well as the other two scholars still on the ground. The story ends with a short rhyme

Foolish scholars in there pride

Made a lion then they died

Scholarship is less then sense

Therefor seek intelligence

Socialist intellectuals want to make a system that will equalize everyone, but what they donÔÇÖt seam to realize is that, like the lion that the scholars mad, it will not go as they plan, but the resulting disaster will ruin the lives of thousands of people rather then just those who made it.

[ 05-28-2002, 17:28: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Lotharr · May 29, 2002

Interesting post.

And I didn't want to do this but it seems I have excess time on my hands....

quote:

Then you feeling would be wrong. Capitalism is not failing, and when it does fail it will be to a superior economic model that will have come about naturally because of a need for such a model

Here's my feeling....that is open to input that isn't a tired rant or a trite scream:

Back at the turn of the century (or there abouts) when antitrust laws had to be created. They were called for because Capitalism was very "pure" in form. However this "purity" was devastating to the population and, inevitably, to the same economy some would claim should be thriving. So society, through government, started regulating business. These laws have been the chain holding back a mad, and ultimately self destructive dog.

The corporate run, and governmentally controlled (in theory at least), capitalism this country lives in today is different from ten years ago, twenty, etc. The farther back you look the more apparent the differences become. It seems more and more regulating is being required to maintain a "healthy" socioeconomic balance because the one exists only in the other. The change is slow but very quantifiable. Who is to say that some form of socialism isn't where it will all end up? Some would claim to have that infinite wisdom and foresight to see the future but...er...ok...

However, the above being true, (no doubt some minds were screaming after my first paragraph) I see a lot of people clinging to a model that will not last. I would rather face forward and search for ways to create a more balanced and fair state, then try to hold back progress with something that is causing so much pain and trauma.....to the "mob". But this of course means you have to actually value people...not just the ones that claw out of an impoverished lifestyle. Or the happy go lucky rich folk (not reallyÔÇª they tend to be quite varied and bizarre in there own right) and everyone in between. But that's not a whole lot.

The trend in government, as history moves forward, seems to be for freedom, liberty and the political representation of all the people in a nation (not to mention the world). And I think you will find, that what a lot of people really want is for these ideas's to take hold of the economy as well.

So you will reply with...bah.... wishful thinking...a dreamer.... not practical etc. I really don't care.

You talk to me about stealing hard earned wealth and losers who couldnÔÇÖt make it with a million bucks and a panel of personal advisorsÔÇª.have you ever talked to rancher, farmer, janitor or other ÔÇ£lowÔÇØ mob type personnel? Have you ever walked half a mile in their shoes? Some of you have and found no way to relate. Others have and took pity. Still others have and found only confirmations on their cynical view on the human sprit. And I bet there is someone in the crowd that is working one of these fields and canÔÇÖt wait to disagree with me. Not to mention those who havenÔÇÖt even really talked to someone in these professions...

Because of the choices I have made, I have had the privilege to talk and work with a lot of people that work these kinds of jobs. I have searched for the traits that make a mob, a mob, and the majority of the time I cannot find them (itÔÇÖs a national phenomenon right?). I see hard working people trying to make ends meet and live a moral life. Not all the timeÔÇª.but for the most part. I have also had to acknowledge the propensity to hold certain views that I personally find troubling and backwards. But under that I always seem to find a value system based on good will towards others and personal responsibility and it motivates the hell out of me. However, I also see these same people being told to live a way they donÔÇÖt necessarily have time to sit around and debate about or really agree with. I held many a conversation on an idea someone didnÔÇÖt agree with and they end it by saying ÔÇ£moneyÔÇØ. Just like throwing their hand in the air and acknowledging a necessary evil that canÔÇÖt be gotten rid of. I say give it time and give them practical alternatives and you might be surprised what we find.

As the people wrest power from economic interests and one dollar=one vote changes to.... one vote =one vote then you will see an empowered population that can make choices for themselves that will be fair and just.....in a nut shell. I believe these ideas are inherent in the human condition. I believe these ideas will be the backbone of future human power structures, and the core-motivating factor to future modifications of existing systems. Some say this is foolhardy and unrealistic. I say it is progress and given time to continue (without CIA "intervention") it will ultimately happen and serve to increase global happiness not reduce.

(The nature of a lot of things seem lend themselves toward a self-fulfilling prophecy.... karma if you want. You get back what you put out. Right now we (Americans) have a huge machine (controlled ultimately by a very small group of people) telling folks to produce and consume and look damn good while they are doing it. Playing off ego and prideÔÇªand making a fortune. You get back what you put out. Now IÔÇÖm not advocating we need a big brother to help us think happy thoughtsÔÇª.but decentralize and increase diversity.)

The corporate system is the most effective at what it does. Right now, it would seem the point couldnÔÇÖt be argued. But what is it really doing in the end? (And if all you can say in answer to this question is providing jobsÔÇª. please widen your firing arc)

What if things were different?

So fellow pseudophilosophers I close this uneducated rant with...open you gun ports and have at it!! Do your worst....I really don't care. I go to sleep believing in a future where people will have the good brought out, not the bad. I will happily spend my time trying to realize this possible future and looking out for my fellow mob denizens....er....citizens.....along the way. Oh yeah na├»ve and childishÔÇª. bla bla blaÔÇª.. two tears in a bucket suckaÔÇª..

[ 05-29-2002, 18:02: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Raven · May 30, 2002

quote:

Interesting post.

Thank you

quote:

The corporate run, and governmentally controlled (in theory at least), capitalism this country lives in today is different from ten years ago, twenty, etc. The farther back you look the more apparent the differences become. It seems more and more regulating is being required to maintain a "healthy" socioeconomic balance because the one exists only in the other. The change is slow but very quantifiable. Who is to say that some form of socialism isn't where it will all end up? Some would claim to have that infinite wisdom and foresight to see the future but...er...ok...

The first part of what you said is very true, capitalism (like many things) needs governmental control to work well and avoid problems. Your extrapolation, however, suggests that this is infinitely true and that we will continually progress towards governmental control (which, by the way, is distinctly different from socialism). I sincerely doubt this, while the level of government control over business may increase there will be a point after which such increase is simply in the areas of new type of business rather then generally increasing control over all business.

quote:

However, the above being true, (no doubt some minds were screaming after my first paragraph) I see a lot of people clinging to a model that will not last.

Nothing lasts forever, and I doubt capitalism is any exception, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean we should abandon it in favor of a neophyte system that has proved repeatedly incapable of long turn survival. Socialism is bad for the economy, period, and no country or state or province can survive without money. None.

quote:

I would rather face forward and search for ways to create a more balanced and fair state, then try to hold back progress with something that is causing so much pain and trauma.....to the "mob".

From the best intentions can come the worst harm. Just because something sounds nice doesnÔÇÖt mean it will work, and not all progress is forward progress. Might I point out that, while capitalism is not very fair, it does support progress, both economically and scientifically. I will remind you that with scientific advances comes an increase in the quality of living for everyone. Even the homeless are better off then they were a hundred years ago, never mind people who actually work.

quote:

The trend in government, as history moves forward, seems to be for freedom, liberty and the political representation of all the people in a nation (not to mention the world).

In the last few hundred years that is very true, but that has not always been the trend. Furthermore, like so many things, too much freedom can be as bad as too little. DonÔÇÖt get me wrong here, I'm not suggesting that fascism or some such is better, itÔÇÖs not, but too much freedom can be a bad thing. Most people arenÔÇÖt all that educated about what is going on in the world or even there own country and really arenÔÇÖt qualified to take a hand in government in any but the most limited manner. They say that too many cooks ruin the broth, and were talking about a hell of a lot of cooks here.

quote:

And I think you will find, that what a lot of people really want is for these ideas's to take hold of the economy as well.

Like before, what people want isnÔÇÖt always whatÔÇÖs best for them. I agree that people need to have some control over the direction the country is going, but only enough to avoid exploitation.

quote:

You talk to me about stealing hard earned wealth and losers who couldnÔÇÖt make it with a million bucks and a panel of personal advisorsÔÇª.have you ever talked to rancher, farmer, janitor or other ÔÇ£lowÔÇØ mob type personnel? Have you ever walked half a mile in their shoes? Some of you have and found no way to relate. Others have and took pity. Still others have and found only confirmations on their cynical view on the human sprit. And I bet there is someone in the crowd that is working one of these fields and canÔÇÖt wait to disagree with me. Not to mention those who havenÔÇÖt even really talked to someone in these professions...

Well, not exactly. I have never spoken to a rancher or farmer, and the last janitor I spoke with must have been over a decade ago, but I do have an uncle (by marriage of course, if I was actually related to the bastard I would be reading seppuku for dummies not posting here) who works at a shipyard doing wielding and similar nonsense, and let me tell you this ass is exactly that. He is perpetually filthy, with greasy hands and clothing that would probably be bad to put in a land fill, and whatÔÇÖs more he is drunk much of the time. He is a liability to his wife and kids and a general embarrassment to the family. He is unfailingly rude, with the social graces of a goat, and absolutely no idea about it. I could go on and on, but no doubt if you think for a moment about every bad stereotype associated with the word grease monkey you will have a good idea of what I'm talking about. He may be a good person at heart, but I wouldnÔÇÖt want to get close enough to find out. DonÔÇÖt assume that just because someone supports capitalism that they have no experience with those of lower social standings, and as to having no way to relate, I would rather not.

quote:

I have searched for the traits that make a mob, a mob, and the majority of the time I cannot find them (itÔÇÖs a national phenomenon right?).

Mob mentality exists with groups of people, never individuals. If you were to examine human cells in search of a human being you would come up perpetually short. Just like cells go together to make up a more advanced being, people tend to go together to form an entity in itÔÇÖs own right.

quote:

I see hard working people trying to make ends meet and live a moral life. Not all the timeÔÇª.but for the most part. I have also had to acknowledge the propensity to hold certain views that I personally find troubling and backwards. But under that I always seem to find a value system based on good will towards others and personal responsibility and it motivates the hell out of me.

ThatÔÇÖs correct, as discrete individuals they are fine, but they are neither capable nor qualified to run a country.

quote:

I held many a conversation on an idea someone didnÔÇÖt agree with and they end it by saying ÔÇ£moneyÔÇØ. Just like throwing their hand in the air and acknowledging a necessary evil that canÔÇÖt be gotten rid of. I say give it time and give them practical alternatives and you might be surprised what we find.

Money isnÔÇÖt a necessary evil, it isnÔÇÖt evil at all, for without money (or an equivalent) there is no possibility to economic success. Furthermore, there have been no truly practical solutions presented. Maybe in a hundred years it will be possible, but right now no viable alternatives exist.

quote:

Right now we (Americans) have a huge machine (controlled ultimately by a very small group of people) telling folks to produce and consume and look damn good while they are doing it. Playing off ego and prideÔÇªand making a fortune.

And this is a bad thing?

quote:

You get back what you put out.

A comforting thought, but not a sound basis for logical reasoning. There is no inherent fairness in the universe and that is the cold hard truth.

quote:

The corporate system is the most effective at what it does. Right now, it would seem the point couldnÔÇÖt be argued. But what is it really doing in the end?

What should it be doing? It supports the human race at a frankly ridiculous population and it allows these billions of people to go through their lives in much greater comfort. For the truly successful it provides a means to stand on the backs of ordinary people and to live as they wish. It may not be fair, but even the worst off are benefited.

quote:

What if things were different?

Then they would be different and all of this argumentation would be invalid, whatÔÇÖs you point?

Lotharr · May 30, 2002

quote:

The first part of what you said is very true, capitalism (like many

things) needs governmental control to work well and avoid problems. Your

extrapolation, however, suggests that this is infinitely true and that we

will continually progress towards governmental control (which, by the way,

is distinctly different from socialism). I sincerely doubt this, while the

level of government control over business may increase there will be a point

after which such increase is simply in the areas of new type of business

rather then generally increasing control over all business.

Since everything is constantly changing I doubt any static equilibrium will ever be

achieved.

I do see the nature of business and social heath constantly struggling.

Because our government is basically controlled by money those with the most

money will try to make policy. One dollar one vote. These policy's are not

in the best interest of people but of a wealthy few. Perhaps you find this

to be a good policy.....I don't. I believe economic interest must be in line with promoting positive social goals as well as posting a profit. I do not believe profit has to come at the expense of others and exist only to maintain an often times gluttonous lifestyle.

quote:

Nothing lasts forever, and I doubt capitalism is any exception,

but that doesn't mean we should abandon it in favor of a neophyte system

that has proved repeatedly incapable of long turn survival. Socialism is bad

for the economy, period, and no country or state or province can survive

without money. None

You say the verdict is in and the debate is over. Wrong. People are out

there working this issue and they are trying to counter this destructive and exploitative

system. Will it end up as "Socialism" I have no idea. Should we radically

change anything as large as this overnight....no. Money is good at what it

does. Did I say get rid of it?

quote:

From the best intentions can come the worst harm. Just because

something sounds nice doesn't mean it will work, and not all progress is

forward progress. Might I point out that, while capitalism is not very fair,

it does support progress, both economically and scientifically. I will

remind you that with scientific advances comes an increase in the quality of

living for everyone. Even the homeless are better off then they were a

hundred years ago, never mind people who actually work.

Yeah and from the worst intentions can come even more harm.

Sounds like you think technology will fix all our problems.....when really

it created a number of them....I hope it does. I do not advocate going back

to the tribal days of societies...however if certain companies want to post a profit so

bad they act irresponsibly then we must acknowledge that as a problem and

they should be crushedÔÇª.not slapped on the wrist. Ok maybe not crushed but

serious financial and administrative action should be taken.

Yes engineers out there want to reinvent the SUV many times over to make

money....is this the kind of advancement your talking about? Because when I

think on most real breakthroughs in science they were created by

folks that were in it because that's what they loved to do.

Science will always advance. That is also part of the human condition. A

driving desire to know the unknown. So you can still raise the standard of

living without leaving 90% of people in the dust. And have growth of

technology. Does everything have be right this second?

quote:

In the last few hundred years that is very true, but that has not

always been the trend. Furthermore, like so many things, too much freedom

can be as bad as too little. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not suggesting

that fascism or some such is better, it's not, but too much freedom can be a

bad thing. Most people aren't all that educated about what is going on in

the world or even there own country and really aren't qualified to take a

hand in government in any but the most limited manner. They say that too

many cooks ruin the broth, and were talking about a hell of a lot of cooks

here

Yeah but some issues should be put up for national referendum in my opinion.

Understanding politics is a full time job....but the current set up needs a

hard looking over in my opinion.

quote:

Well, not exactly. I have never spoken to a rancher or farmer, and the last janitor I spoke with must have been over a decade ago,

It would be help to have a practical understanding and real life relationship with those of whom you would make policy over.

Looks like there is more the one person suffering from ivory tower syndrome.....

quote:

DonÔÇÖt assume that just because someone supports capitalism that they have no experience with those of lower social standings, and as to having no way to relate, I would rather not.

I don't assume...you do. One bad example and you write off the whole lot. Very comprehensive.

quote:

Mob mentality exists with groups of people, never individuals. If you were to examine human cells in search of a human being you would come up perpetually short. Just like cells go together to make up a more advanced being, people tend to go together to form an entity in itÔÇÖs own right.

Nice analogy.

People as groups are growing all the time. That's why we are here today talking freely. I would rather facilitate this growth. You would rather fear and oppress it...and make a buck. ThatÔÇÖs lazy and selfishÔÇª.but you seem to endorse a system that allows for both. The former towards the privileged end of the scale, the latter for everyone.

quote:

ThatÔÇÖs correct, as discrete individuals they are fine, but they are neither capable nor qualified to run a country.

Who's to say they are not? A lot of complicated issues can be easily translated in layman terms. However it still requires a great deal of time to cover all the data. That is why a Republic is probably the most practical form of government for large amounts of people. However the leaders that are chosen to represent the populous should be elected on their merits as leaders, not because they have the most money. Right now we have a system that tries to restrict access to leadership based on wealth. That is the wrong answer in my opinion. The acquisition of wealth should not be the primary motivating factor when working on domestic and international issues. It is often of high concern but not the only one.

quote:

Money isnÔÇÖt a necessary evil, it isnÔÇÖt evil at all, for without money (or an equivalent) there is no possibility to economic success. Furthermore, there have been no truly practical solutions presented. Maybe in a hundred years it will be possible, but right now no viable alternatives exist.

People are working these issues constantly and if certain governmental organizations and pro status quo groups would stop trying to sabotage these efforts we may see some rapid progress. Hell we'll see it anyway....people are looking at their lot in life all the time and saying why are things like this? How can we change it? And others are going to be there to work the issue and provide those answers. Not to make a buck but to do some good.

There is no reason why people have to suffer the way they do in a country so wealthy. Systems of thought and institutions exist solely for this purpose...some directly and others indirectlyÔÇª.to continue this myth....but only for so long.

quote:

And this is a bad thing?

Not in your mind. In the minds of many others perhaps. Some see the inherent limiting conditions these ideas place on societal growth. Myself included.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You get back what you put out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A comforting thought, but not a sound basis for logical reasoning. There is no inherent fairness in the universe and that is the cold hard truth.

I thought this was the underlying premise of Capitalism?

Nope but there exists (in my opinion) an underlying sense of fair play that most people work towards.

quote:

What should it be doing? It supports the human race at a frankly ridiculous population and it allows these billions of people to go through their lives in much greater comfort. For the truly successful it provides a means to stand on the backs of ordinary people and to live as they wish. It may not be fair, but even the worst off are benefited.

Any economic platform should work hand in hand with the society that created it...not dictate conditions on living through political buying power.

And it does....the top dogs are working hand in hand with the some politicians for personal gain and this should not be. An economy should provide jobs, promote growth, and build a base for people to lead a good life in. Competition is a good thing but do you ever see a football player pull out an Uzi to reach the end zone?

quote:

Then they would be different and all of this argumentation would be invalid, whatÔÇÖs you point?

Open your mind to the possibility that things can get better for more peopleÔÇª.and people can do better for themselvesÔÇª.without hurting the way you live. Growth can be achieved without sacrificing portions of the population.

Raven · May 30, 2002

quote:

Since everything is constantly changing I doubt any static equilibrium will ever be

achieved.

Your right, but at some point the average increase in government control will equal the average decrease. The exact level wont stay the same, but will remain in the same general area.

quote:

I do see the nature of business and social heath constantly struggling. Because our government is basically controlled by money those with the most money will try to make policy. One dollar one vote. These policy's are not in the best interest of people but of a wealthy few. Perhaps you find this to be a good policy.....I don't.

Economic and political power has always gone hand in hand. If anything, the unwashed masses have too much control over how this country is run.

quote:

You say the verdict is in and the debate is over.

No, the jury is still out, but the evidence speaks for itself. What we think of as socialism today has no chance, period.

quote:

Should we radically change anything as large as this overnight....no. Money is good at what it does.

On this I agree.

quote:

Sounds like you think technology will fix all our problems.....when really it created a number of them....I hope it does.

Technology has allowed our population to grow to a grotesque level, this is clearly bad for the environment, but with 1/5 of our current population I donÔÇÖt think we would have even a fraction of the environmental problems we face today. With too much population technology must be abused to provide for everyone, and thus is only the tool for ecological disaster, not the root cause.

quote:

however if certain companies want to post a profit so bad they act irresponsibly then we must acknowledge that as a problem and they should be crushedÔÇª.not slapped on the wrist. Ok maybe not crushed but serious financial and administrative action should be taken.

Appropriate action must be taken, I agree. Environmentalism is important and our planet should not be sacrificed for profit. On this you will find no argument from me.

quote:

Yes engineers out there want to reinvent the SUV many times over to make money....is this the kind of advancement your talking about? Because when I think on most real breakthroughs in science they were created by folks that were in it because that's what they loved to do.

Breakthroughs are not the only kind of advances and the steady progress of engineers, whether reinventing the SUV or designing better building material, is important. Furthermore, science is one of the areas that responds well to competition. Might I point out the human genome project. Originally it was simply a project that the government was running, but at some point a private company (I forget the name) started there own independent effort and both groups completed the project well ahead of schedule. Now, I admit that part of this was a result in the increases in computer technology, but some of it was competition between the two groups.

quote:

Understanding politics is a full time job....but the current set up needs a hard looking over in my opinion.

I canÔÇÖt say I like the two party system in the US myself as I have trouble deciding which party I loathe more and so I agree that some change is necessary, but probably not in the same direction you are thinking.

quote:

It would be help to have a practical understanding and real life relationship with those of whom you would make policy over.

Looks like there is more the one person suffering from ivory tower syndrome.....

Hardly, I simply donÔÇÖt come into contact with many farmers, ranchers, or janitors.

quote:

I would rather facilitate this growth. You would rather fear and oppress it...and make a buck.

There is a difference between limiting the power of a group of people and oppressing them. LetÔÇÖs use the military as an example. Persons of low rank in the military have little or no power to determine what they do or where they go, period. We could call that oppression, but I prefer common sense.

quote:

ThatÔÇÖs lazy and selfishÔÇª.but you seem to endorse a system that allows for both.

I have no problem with a bit of laziness so long as itÔÇÖs not coming at my expense, and I never have and never will object to selfishness as you put it. Everyone is responsible to themselves first and foremost and I would say that it is foolish to act otherwise.

quote:

However the leaders that are chosen to represent the populous should be elected on their merits as leaders, not because they have the most money.

Nice idea, but I donÔÇÖt see how you could convey someoneÔÇÖs merits as a leader to the masses. Anyway, money isnÔÇÖt the only requirement for getting elected to office. If Bill Gates ran for president he wouldnÔÇÖt stand a chance.

quote:

The acquisition of wealth should not be the primary motivating factor when working on domestic and international issues. It is often of high concern but not the only one.

With domestic issues I agree, but acquisition of power (via wealth or whatever) should be the basis for foreign policy.

quote:

Not to make a buck but to do some good.

I believe the whole appeal of socialism to the masses is that it provides them with more money, so only those who would loose out with socialism would be doing it without the incentive of ÔÇ£making a buck.ÔÇØ

quote:

I thought this was the underlying premise of Capitalism?

Perhaps it is, but nothing works out that ideally and I would be worried if it did.

quote:

Nope but there exists (in my opinion) an underlying sense of fair play that most people work towards.

True, but such a sense of fair play is neither universal nor universally applied.

quote:

An economy should provide jobs, promote growth, and build a base for people to lead a good life in.

For the most part I agree, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean that everyone should be forced towards some artificial mean.

quote:

Competition is a good thing but do you ever see a football player pull out an Uzi to reach the end zone?

Might make football worth watching if it happened now an again

quote:

Open your mind to the possibility that things can get better for more peopleÔÇª.and people can do better for themselvesÔÇª.without hurting the way you live. Growth can be achieved without sacrificing portions of the population.

For some to rise to the top others (usually a lot of others) must descend to the bottom.

[ 05-31-2002, 08:45: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

May 30, 2002

We Federation types have evolved past the use of currency.

You may continue with your discussion.

Savages

Charles Lindsey · May 30, 2002

quote:

If Bill Gates ran for president he wouldnÔÇÖt stand a chance.

He's just plotting to be CEO of the US.

Lotharr · May 31, 2002

quote:

Your right, but at some point the average increase in government control will equal the average decrease. The exact level wont stay the same, but will remain in the same general area.

That is quite a theory when history shows the opposite.

quote:

Economic and political power has always gone hand in hand. If anything, the unwashed masses have too much control over how this country is run.

Yes perhaps a bit of fresh air is needed eh?

And by the way most citizens have the majority of their teeth and can write their name these days.... please don't deny the progression of your mob. Recent history has seen a quantum leap in average education levels...we are at the tip of the iceberg.

quote:

No, the jury is still out, but the evidence speaks for itself. What we think of as socialism today has no chance, period.

Many a case has been lost when "irrefutable" proof (by some estimations) has been on hand.

quote:

Technology has allowed our population to grow to a grotesque level, this is clearly bad for the environment, but with 1/5 of our current population I donÔÇÖt think we would have even a fraction of the environmental problems we face today. With too much population technology must be abused to provide for everyone, and thus is only the tool for ecological disaster, not the root cause

Sounds good to me.

Well some people say we should focus on new technology to save us from the old....perhaps this is the only course of action. Too bad we have to factor in for all those worthless people out there.

quote:

Breakthroughs are not the only kind of advances and the steady progress of engineers, whether reinventing the SUV or designing better building material, is important. Furthermore, science is one of the areas that responds well to competition. Might I point out the human genome project. Originally it was simply a project that the government was running, but at some point a private company (I forget the name) started there own independent effort and both groups completed the project well ahead of schedule. Now, I admit that part of this was a result in the increases in computer technology, but some of it was competition between the two groups.

Competition is good...to a point. I am only saying that the true geniuses are the ones that lay the foundation that the engineers use to make a better blender... And they didn't do it for money the vast majority of the time.

quote:

I canÔÇÖt say I like the two party system in the US myself as I have trouble deciding which party I loathe more and so I agree that some change is necessary, but probably not in the same direction you are thinking.

I would love for you to expand on this.

quote:

Hardly, I simply donÔÇÖt come into contact with many farmers, ranchers, or janitors.

Precisely the answer I thought youÔÇÖd provide from reading your previous posts. At least you were honest.

quote:

There is a difference between limiting the power of a group of people and oppressing them. LetÔÇÖs use the military as an example. Persons of low rank in the military have little or no power to determine what they do or where they go, period. We could call that oppression, but I prefer common sense

Nothing could be farther from the truth. I could explain but since you have it all figured out you should know this already....so why did you post that in the first place?

There is a big difference.

quote:

I have no problem with a bit of laziness so long as itÔÇÖs not coming at my expense, and I never have and never will object to selfishness as you put it. Everyone is responsible to themselves first and foremost and I would say that it is foolish to act otherwise.

Why do you dismiss out of hand the ideas of some of the worldÔÇÖs great thinkers and leaders? Where does this arrogance come from I wonder?

quote:

Nice idea, but I donÔÇÖt see how you could convey someoneÔÇÖs merits as a leader to the masses. Anyway, money isnÔÇÖt the only requirement for getting elected to office. If Bill Gates ran for president he wouldnÔÇÖt stand a chance.

The true leaders are chosen by the masses and those leaders promote real change. Usually at the cost of their lives. I liked it better when you called the masses a mobÔÇª

True the system should filter out the non-hackers like draft dodgers and criminals and politicians up for lease. Those are personal opinions. However corporate bought senators are garbage.

quote:

With domestic issues I agree, but acquisition of power (via wealth or whatever) should be the basis for foreign policy.

You would. You see power as a tool that will build more power....what then. If all we are striving for is power why didn't we throw in with the nazis? Damn morals....

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not to make a buck but to do some good.

I believe the whole appeal of socialism to the masses is that it provides them with more money, so only those who would loose out with socialism would be doing it without the incentive of ÔÇ£making a buck.ÔÇØ

I thought this was the underlying premise of Capitalism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps it is, but nothing works out that ideally and I would be worried if it did.
Why are you mixing
up quotes? What does the above mean....I'm not getting it...I can't make out that middle part.....I must be having a brain fart...

quote:
True, but such a sense of fair play is neither universal nor universally applied.

It doesn't have to be. It can be focused upon and brought in people and utilized to have a more successful society. We focus on driving ego so why not fair play?

You speak in such extremesÔÇªbut the extreme is rarely the norm. What applies for anyone universally besides being qualified to die? Oh yeah moralsÔÇª.

quote:
For the most part I agree, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean that everyone should be forced towards some artificial mean.

But that is what you are advocating....not many people can turn a blind eye to the suffering of others uberwomanÔÇª.

quote:
Might make football worth watching if it happened now an again
And antipersonnel mines too....

quote:
For some to rise to the top others (usually a lot of others) must descend to the bottom.

Beautiful.

Sorry to be so sarcastic but it is all I can do in the face of arogance....

[ 05-30-2002, 21:07: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Raven · May 31, 2002

quote:

And by the way most citizens have the majority of their teeth and can write their name these days.... please don't deny the progression of your mob.

I thought you wanted me to find something else to call them besides the mob

quote:

Recent history has seen a quantum leap in average education levels...

Yep, because, among other things, capitalism and the progress it engenders.

quote:

Many a case has been lost when "irrefutable" proof (by some estimations) has been on hand.

True, but not often. Things may come out as you think, but I will make the best prediction as I am able and hold with it so long as it seams accurate.

quote:

Too bad we have to factor in for all those worthless people out there.

TheyÔÇÖre not totally worthless, after all more poor people you have more rich people can be supported. This isnÔÇÖt universally true, but it is a good general principal.

quote:

Competition is good...to a point. I am only saying that the true geniuses are the ones that lay the foundation that the engineers use to make a better blender... And they didn't do it for money the vast majority of the time.

Corporate funding is nice too.

quote:

Why do you dismiss out of hand the ideas of some of the worldÔÇÖs great thinkers and leaders?

Easily. Just because someone is a ÔÇ£great thinkerÔÇØ (donÔÇÖt get me started on that) or a good leader doesnÔÇÖt mean there the ultimate authority to be listened to at all costs.

quote:

Where does this arrogance come from I wonder?

Like my general contempt for most of humanity, it is a natural trait that is honed with practice.

quote:

The true leaders are chosen by the masses and those leaders promote real change. Usually at the cost of their lives.

Yea, and how do the masses learn who they are but through media, and that costs money. Maybe a few hundred years ago someone could rise to power without large sums of cash, but it just canÔÇÖt happen now. As far as loosing there lives, anyone willing to become a martyr is not the kind of leader I want to have anyway.

quote:

True the system should filter out the non-hackers like draft dodgers and criminals and politicians up for lease. Those are personal opinions. However corporate bought senators are garbage.

They serve a purpose, but I agree that they should be actively eliminated.

quote:

You would. You see power as a tool that will build more power....what then. If all we are striving for is power why didn't we throw in with the nazis? Damn morals....

The nazis were dumb (not to mention socialist, at least in origins) and they failed, why would I want to imitate them. Power isnÔÇÖt an end, itÔÇÖs a means, both to more power and to the frameworks for happiness. I know perfectly well that money canÔÇÖt buy happiness, but it can sure as hell help.

quote:

Why are you mixing up quotes?

A technical error, bound to happen eventually with the way I place quotes. Pay it no mind, I will try to avoid such errors in the future. If you wish to reread those areas they are fixed.

quote:

What applies for anyone universally besides being qualified to die?

Probably nothing, though I would have to think about it for a while.

quote:

But that is what you are advocating....not many people can turn a blind eye to the suffering of others uberwomanÔÇª.

Not at all, in no way does capitalism force everyone to an artificially created mean, that is more the realm of socialism then anything else. I'm not saying it is the ultimate goal of socialism, but some type of equalization is inherent in all types IÔÇÖve ever heard of.

As far as turning a blind eye to the suffering of others, itÔÇÖs better then sacrificing myself on the altar of the masses.

quote:

And antipersonnel mines too....

LMAO

Sell hand grenades as concessions to the spectators too.

quote:

Beautiful.

Sorry to be so sarcastic but it is all I can do in the face of arogance....

Thank you, I will take that as a compliment.

Anyway, itÔÇÖs true, most people exist solely for the purpose of raising a few too the top. It has been true through out history and it will remain true for as long as we can call ourselves Homo Sapiens.

Lotharr · May 31, 2002

quote:

I thought you wanted me to find something else to call them besides the mob

I would prefer you stay in character....it gets me fired up.

quote:

Yep, because, among other things, capitalism and the progress it engenders.

Heh heh....people will make the best of what they got....durability of my people....

quote:

True, but not often. Things may come out as you think, but I will make the best prediction as I am able and hold with it so long as it seams accurate.

I would recommend you broaden your knowledge base with actual interaction with the topic subject matter.

quote:

TheyÔÇÖre not totally worthless, after all more poor people you have more rich people can be supported. This isnÔÇÖt universally true, but it is a good general principal

Good lord....may the powers that be have mercy even if you don't.

quote:

Corporate funding is nice too.

Or any interested party that can supply material.

quote:

Easily. Just because someone is a ÔÇ£great thinkerÔÇØ (donÔÇÖt get me started on that) or a good leader doesnÔÇÖt mean there the ultimate authority to be listened to at all costs.

No but they tend to have some clarity of thought that other do not posses....what context you put that in is subjective.

quote:

Like my general contempt for most of humanity, it is a natural trait that is honed with practice.

HA!

There are wet stones in abundance in these parts...

quote:

Yea, and how do the masses learn who they are but through media, and that costs money. Maybe a few hundred years ago someone could rise to power without large sums of cash, but it just canÔÇÖt happen now. As far as loosing there lives, anyone willing to become a martyr is not the kind of leader I want to have anyway.

You still discount the natural good side in people...when the need is there it is amazing what people can do and who they choose to represent them.

Your kinda a martyr in your own right....I see you falling on a sword of gold....

quote:

They serve a purpose, but I agree that they should be actively eliminated.

Put them in the arena....two losers enter one loser leaves....

quote:

The nazis were dumb (not to mention socialist, at least in origins) and they failed, why would I want to imitate them. Power isnÔÇÖt an end, itÔÇÖs a means, both to more power and to the frameworks for happiness. I know perfectly well that money canÔÇÖt buy happiness, but it can sure as hell help.

Well that's the problem with your belief....most people can't tell the difference and power becomes an end.

Yes the nazi's were dumb but their leader was not. However inept Hitler was militarily, he was a true viper that exploited the system at hand. He called for the masses to rise up out of their poverty and make a change. I bet he saw power as a means also. Having large groups of poorly educated and impoverished personnel is dangerous.

quote:

A technical error, bound to happen eventually with the way I place quotes. Pay it no mind, I will try to avoid such errors in the future. If you wish to reread those areas they are fixed.

I looked it over and honestly I can't really say what a socialism is all about...I don't even have a rough outline other then maybe: much higher taxes that are distributed where needed to ensure a comfortable living standards of all citizens. This in turn is supposed to facilitate a good will feeling that fosters an environment of teamwork. Doesn't really sound bad to me....or course I'm not greedy and I don't require material positions to ascertain my worth or brag about a social position.

quote:

Probably nothing, though I would have to think about it for a while.

Please do....I would submit that the human sprit while impressionable has more "good" to it. I've seen it to often to ignore.

quote:

Not at all, in no way does capitalism force everyone to an artificially created mean, that is more the realm of socialism then anything else. I'm not saying it is the ultimate goal of socialism, but some type of equalization is inherent in all types IÔÇÖve ever heard of.

And in no way does a child that comes from wealth generated by liars and a thieves mean they are entitled to more opportunities. however the system you sing your praises to promotes and advances just that type of individual. One human life does not hold any more value then another....in the beginning. However a system that does not promote individual growth will never truly "capitalize" on the vast potential that exists in all young people.

quote:

As far as turning a blind eye to the suffering of others, itÔÇÖs better then sacrificing myself on the altar of the masses.

Well that is your personal opinion and in no way qualified to even enter the church. I know youÔÇÖd rather be out back selling spray paint to your cohorts anyway so IÔÇÖm sure your not broken heartedÔÇª.

No greater love has a man than this. To lay down his life for his brothers...and sisters.

quote:

Sell hand grenades as concessions to the spectators too

You really want a bunch of people trying to eat their hand grenade

quote:

Thank you, I will take that as a compliment.

If my comments generate a positive feeling in you I am pleased....I think you need all you can get.

quote:

Anyway, itÔÇÖs true, most people exist solely for the purpose of raising a few too the top. It has been true through out history and it will remain true for as long as we can call ourselves Homo Sapiens.

Heh heh....do you throw the bones and read the future or something....

[ 05-31-2002, 11:58: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Raven · May 31, 2002

quote:

heh heh....people will make the best of what they got....durability of my people....

Like big rats, you just cant seem to get rid of themÔÇª

Seriously though, your right, people are tough, they will survive just fine. Maybe a hundred years ago you could complain about capitalism ruining peoples lives, but (with the exception of some illegal aliens) that kind of thing simply doesnÔÇÖt happen any more.

quote:

Good lord....may the powers that be have mercy even if you don't.

I'm not THAT heartless, come on.

quote:

No but they tend to have some clarity of thought that other do not posses....

Perhaps, but IÔÇÖve found that philosophers and ÔÇ£great thinkersÔÇØ tend to go every which way with there opinions. They are great at thinking, sure, IÔÇÖll give them that, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean that they are right in said thinking.

quote:

You still discount the natural good side in people...when the need is there it is amazing what people can do and who they choose to represent them.

I donÔÇÖt discount the good nature of most people, I think I went over that with you earlier, but I do discount any spurious ability to make themselves known to the mob.

quote:

Your kinda a martyr in your own right....I see you falling on a sword of gold....

Then itÔÇÖs a good thing my breastplate is steel

quote:

Put them in the arena....two losers enter one loser leaves....

Massive staged battles, eliminate dozens at a time. Good fertilizer too.

quote:

Well that's the problem with your belief....most people can't tell the difference and power becomes an end.

ThatÔÇÖs not as dreadful as you might think.

quote:

Yes the nazi's were dumb but their leader was not.

I was more referring to the whole super race kill the Jews nonsense. If you canÔÇÖt tell, I donÔÇÖt support racism (or sexism for that matter) in any way shape or form. I despise everyone equally as it were

quote:

I looked it over and honestly I can't really say what a socialism is all about...I don't even have a rough outline other then maybe: much higher taxes that are distributed where needed to ensure a comfortable living standards of all citizens. This in turn is supposed to facilitate a good will feeling that fosters an environment of teamwork. Doesn't really sound bad to me....or course I'm not greedy and I don't require material positions to ascertain my worth or brag about a social position.

You pretty much have it right, though often you get things like government controlled economy and the likes as well. I'm not really sure how socialism would look as a core economic model rather then as a leach off of capitalism, but it would probably end up similar in some ways to communism (which is a type of socialism).

The main complain against it (at least within a capitalist setting) is that it results in stealing from those who have or make a lot of money (not just the rich either) and giving to those who donÔÇÖt. It also really hurts businesses and tends to discourage success.

quote:

And in no way does a child that comes from wealth generated by liars and a thieves mean they are entitled to more opportunities. however the system you sing your praises to promotes and advances just that type of individual.

ItÔÇÖs not fair, but it works, and it works well.

quote:

Well that is your personal opinion and in no way qualified to even enter the church.

The last time I was in a church was when I was little and mom was going though a brief religious episode brought on by a natural phenomenon that she insisted was the hand of god. Others may be comforted by the though of a god and an afterlife, but I find the idea frankly appalling and a little scary.

quote:

I know youÔÇÖd rather be out back selling spray paint to your cohorts anyway so IÔÇÖm sure your not broken heartedÔÇª.

Now thatÔÇÖs an idea

quote:

No greater love has a man than this. To lay down his life for his brothers...and sisters.

The phrase ÔÇ£blided by loveÔÇØ comes to mind, wonder why.

quote:

You really want a bunch of people trying to eat their hand grenade

Not exactly what I had in mind, but I like it anyway. Would give the people who do the Darwin Awards a LOT of work though.

quote:

Heh heh....do you throw the bones and read the future or something....

ItÔÇÖs boneheads, not bones (everyone makes that mistake) and I donÔÇÖt throw them. Really itÔÇÖs easy, you just look at what boneheads have in the past and itÔÇÖs pretty much what they will do in the future. Predictability not prescience.

Lotharr · June 1, 2002

quote:

Seriously though, your right, people are tough, they will survive just fine. Maybe a hundred years ago you could complain about capitalism ruining peoples lives, but (with the exception of some illegal aliens) that kind of thing simply doesnÔÇÖt happen any more.

No it is still there but mainstream media doesnÔÇÖt focus on it. And even legal immigrants are exploited. Even natural citizens are.

Some does not do the numbers justice I think.

quote:

I'm not THAT heartless, come on.

I have no idea...really....I haven't heard you express any compassionate feelings or acknowledge with any degree of feeling the plight of people. You indifference is bizarre and seems unnatural for someone with a brain who disagrees with sexism.. . That is your right but I think it is horribly twisted.

quote:

Perhaps, but IÔÇÖve found that philosophers and ÔÇ£great thinkersÔÇØ tend to go every which way with there opinions. They are great at thinking, sure, IÔÇÖll give them that, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean that they are right in said thinking

Yes it is subjective. I like to focus on those that have a positive moral platform and achieve an amazing amount of change. For some reason these people get gunned down for their greatness.

quote:

I donÔÇÖt discount the good nature of most people, I think I went over that with you earlier, but I do discount any spurious ability to make themselves known to the mob.

Well it is usually a form of grass root cohesion. Maybe one day when certain groups get this back we will see some results. They just have to become more disenfranchised then they are already....and I think this will be inevitable with the self destructive nature of our current system.

quote:

ThatÔÇÖs not as dreadful as you might think.

Please show me where power hungry organizations have not imploded.

quote:

was more referring to the whole super race kill the Jews nonsense. If you canÔÇÖt tell, I donÔÇÖt support racism (or sexism for that matter) in any way shape or form. I despise everyone equally as it were

Himmmm...you like the survival of the scummiest so much.....without the morality you claim has no value (other than to control the masses) then how could you not endorse a positive morality for a economic system and a government? Civil rights and womanÔÇÖs suffrage were achieved by having the moral consent of the populous. You can't just have one and not go all the way. Moral people don't usually stop there. The basis for these arguments is that every life has value and input so how can you just stop there?

quote:

The main complain against it (at least within a capitalist setting) is that it results in stealing from those who have or make a lot of money (not just the rich either) and giving to those who donÔÇÖt. It also really hurts businesses and tends to discourage success.

Then I suppose a new definition of success is in order.

quote:

ItÔÇÖs not fair, but it works, and it works well.

In your eyes. Not in others.

quote:

The last time I was in a church was when I was little and mom was going though a brief religious episode brought on by a natural phenomenon that she insisted was the hand of god. Others may be comforted by the though of a god and an afterlife, but I find the idea frankly appalling and a little scary.

Appalling? What's wrong with the idea of having a soul or consciousness that doesn't end after death?

Scary because you fear the unknown? This would support people's difficulty with change. And serve to make you sound like one of the superstitious masses. Or does your logic fail you on matters of faith?

And I only meant church in the context of the belief in the human spirit as some kind of mental institution...you mentioned martyr sacrifice on the alter of the masses.

My religious experiences as a child cut into to melting army men time and I have been bitter ever since.

quote:

The phrase ÔÇ£blided by loveÔÇØ comes to mind, wonder why.

Heh heh...Probably because you write it off as a chemical reaction in the brain or something....

quote:

ItÔÇÖs boneheads, not bones (everyone makes that mistake) and I donÔÇÖt throw them. Really itÔÇÖs easy, you just look at what boneheads have in the past and itÔÇÖs pretty much what they will do in the future. Predictability not prescience

So what happens when people have so much history to learn from that past ways of living become obsolete....

Steve Schacher · June 1, 2002

quote:

I can’t say I like the two party system in the US myself as I have trouble deciding which party I loathe more and so I agree that some change is necessary, but probably not in the same direction you are thinking.

The best thing about the two-party system is that it guarantees that one candidate will win a majority of the vote. Remember Ross Perot? His entry into the 1992 campaign resulted in Bill Clinton winning the presidency with only 40% of the vote. Clinton was a plurality president, not a majority president. Both Gore and Bush got more votes than Clinton did. That is what a three-party system will do.

quote:

Recent history has seen a quantum leap in average education levels...we are at the tip of the iceberg.

From the AP:

quote:

Florida County's New History Exam for High Schoolers Makes 23 Percent a Passing Grade

The Associated Press

Published: May 30, 2002

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) - You can get three-quarters of the answers wrong and still pass this test.

Palm Beach County high school students taking a new history exam this week need to answer just 23 of 100 multiple-choice questions correctly to pass.

To get an A, they need to get just over half the answers right. A B grade requires only 39 correct answers.

The new final exam for American and world history classes was developed by school district officials to ensure students learn state- required lessons that include history about women, Africans, African-Americans and the Holocaust.

Raven · June 1, 2002

quote:

No it is still there but mainstream media doesnÔÇÖt focus on it. And even legal immigrants are exploited. Even natural citizens are.

Some does not do the numbers justice I think.

This isnÔÇÖt really my area of expertise and I have little knowledge of it so I will take you word. That said, such actions are illegal and not condoned by the system. Of course a definition of exploited might be nice as well.

quote:

That is your right but I think it is horribly twisted.

Wonderfully twisted would be a little more accurate

quote:

Yes it is subjective. I like to focus on those that have a positive moral platform and achieve an amazing amount of change.

Like you, I tend to focus on thinkers and leaders with whom I agree.

quote:

For some reason these people get gunned down for their greatness.

True, but thatÔÇÖs the way it goes.

quote:

Please show me where power hungry organizations have not imploded.

Well, that is what usually happens isnÔÇÖt it, problem kind of takes care of itself, thus itÔÇÖs not all that dreadful.

quote:

Himmmm...you like the survival of the scummiest so much.....without the morality you claim has no value (other than to control the masses) then how could you not endorse a positive morality for a economic system and a government?

The reason I donÔÇÖt like racism is, quite frankly, because itÔÇÖs stupid to hate people over something as trivial as race, or sexual orientation for that matter. I could care less about such things and people who get a riled up about it come across as stupid. As for sexism, why should anyone consider half the population somehow incapable or incompetent simply because of gender, it doesnÔÇÖt make sense. And before you come after me about considering other people (read: the poor) incapable or incompetent, at least there is a reason to believe it is true.

By the way, did you know that calling it ÔÇ£survival of the scummiestÔÇØ is a question begging euphemism and thus a logical fallacy?

quote:

Civil rights and womanÔÇÖs suffrage were achieved by having the moral consent of the populous. You can't just have one and not go all the way. Moral people don't usually stop there. The basis for these arguments is that every life has value and input so how can you just stop there?

Civil rights a something a little different and for the most part I couldnÔÇÖt give a ratÔÇÖs ass. Oh, donÔÇÖt get me wrong, trying to treat minority groups fairly is fine with me but, with the exception of womenÔÇÖs rights, I really donÔÇÖt care. Even as far as womenÔÇÖs rights go I donÔÇÖt think anything more needs to be done, all of the affirmative action and the likes is just as dumb as the original problem.

quote:

Then I suppose a new definition of success is in order.

I'm talking about financial success here, I probably should have mentioned that, my apologies.

quote:

Scary because you fear the unknown? This would support people's difficulty with change. And serve to make you sound like one of the superstitious masses. Or does your logic fail you on matters of faith?

The reason I find it scary is because I donÔÇÖt like the idea of being judged and ultimately punished for my actions, a theme that seams rather recurring in most religions. But that came later in my life, I rejected religion from an early age as being illogical.

quote:

My religious experiences as a child cut into to melting army men time and I have been bitter ever since.

ThatÔÇÖs shame, burning and melting things is important for a child. I certainly know I spent countless hours frying bugs with a large magnifying glass when I was little.

quote:

So what happens when people have so much history to learn from that past ways of living become obsolete....

Not a whole lot, really, people tend not to learn from history. ItÔÇÖs not like it would happen to them after all

quote:

The best thing about the two-party system is that it guarantees that one candidate will win a majority of the vote. Remember Ross Perot? His entry into the 1992 campaign resulted in Bill Clinton winning the presidency with only 40% of the vote. Clinton was a plurality president, not a majority president. Both Gore and Bush got more votes than Clinton did. That is what a three-party system will do.

I donÔÇÖt want to go into this here, but plurality is good. Trust me on this.

[ 06-01-2002, 03:22: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Steve Schacher · June 1, 2002

quote:

Trust me on this.

We'll see...

Menchise · June 5, 2002

Rather than risk a head explosion by trying to reply to every single post since my absence, I'm going to cover the persistent general points. My responses will be straightforward and occasionally mean, but no more than other posts in this thread.

RE: Menchisean Socialism

No such thing. I have not invented a socialism nor do I have any intention of inventing one.

I have been predominantly arguing what socialism is not because there are a lot of presumptions about what the system aims for, thus I have to address these presumptions.

I do not have a base to argue from because I have not currently adopted a particular socialism yet, although I find ParEcon the most appealing so far.

RE: Attitude Towards Intellectuals

There have been a few statements in this thread about intellectuals that are, quite plainly, irrational. Some posts label socialism as a wonderland created by intellectuals, thus it has no foundation in the real world. What these posters ignore is that capitalism was also invented by intellectuals, namely John Locke and Adam Smith among many others. Therefore, these statements are just plain irrational and not worthy of further discussion, thus I will not reply to them if they're regurgitated in the future.

RE: History

Many anti-socialist posters continue to claim that history is on their side because of their interpretation of history, and I have been accused of ignoring history simply because my interpretation is not the same as theirs.

What really annoys me is the claim that history proves socialism in every form does not work when historical fact indicates that only two forms have been implemented (Reformist and Marxist-Leninist), and in most cases were implemented in an unsuitable environment. Therefore, history does not prove socialism wrong.

RE: Individualism and Collectivism

Some posters claim that individual self-interest makes socialism unworkable because the system requires a collective interest. That statement assumes that both interests are inherently disparate simply because that is the case in capitalism.

The truth is that socialism does not aim for the imposition of a collective interest over individual interest; it aims to make both interests one and the same by founding itself on a common solidarity.

All working people have the common interest of supporting themselves through their labour, thus there is a solidarity between workers that capitalism invariably divides and atomizes through its competitive mode of production. The collaborative nature of socialist production supports this solidarity, thus it is within the individual interests of working people to work together, and working together is within the collective interests of socialism.

Enough said.

RE: Exploitation Of Workers

People have been asking why socialists claim that workers are exploited in capitalism.

Here are some quotes from Marx's Wage Labour and Capital (1847):

This quote is about wages...

Let us take any worker; for example, a weaver. The capitalist supplies him with the loom and yarn. The weaver applies himself to work, and the yarn is turned into cloth. The capitalist takes possession of the cloth and sells it for 20 shillings, for example. Now are the wages of the weaver a share of the cloth, of the 20 shillings, of the product of the work? By no means. Long before the cloth is sold, perhaps long before it is fully woven, the weaver has received his wages. The capitalist, then, does not pay his wages out of the money which he will obtain from the cloth, but out of money already on hand.....Wages, therefore, are not a share of the worker in the commodities produced by himself. Wages are that part of already existing commodities with which the capitalist buys a certain amount of productive labor-power.....

Now, the same general laws which regulate the price of commodities in general, naturally regulate wages, or the price of labor-power. Wages will now rise, now fall, according to the relation of supply and demand, according as competition shapes itself between the buyers of labor-power, the capitalists, and the sellers of labor-power, the workers. The fluctuations of wages correspond to the fluctuation in the price of commodities in general. But within the limits of these fluctuations the price of labor-power will be determined by the cost of production, by the labor-time necessary for production of this commodity: labor-power.

What, then, is the cost of production of labor-power?

It is the cost required for the maintenance of the laborer as a laborer, and for his education and training as a laborer.

This quote is about wage labour...

Their commodity, labor-power, the workers exchange for the commodity of the capitalist, for money, and, moreover, this exchange takes place at a certain ratio. So much money for so long a use of labor-power. For 12 hours' weaving, two shillings. And these two shillings, do they not represent all the other commodities which I can buy for two shillings? Therefore, actually, the worker has exchanged his commodity, labor-power, for commodities of all kinds, and, moreover, at a certain ratio. By giving him two shillings, the capitalist has given him so much meat, so much clothing, so much wood, light, etc., in exchange for his day's work. The two shillings therefore express the relation in which labor-power is exchanged for other commodities, the exchange-value of labor-power....

But the putting of labor-power into action -- i.e., the work -- is the active expression of the laborer's own life. And this life activity he sells to another person in order to secure the necessary means of life. His life-activity, therefore, is but a means of securing his own existence. He works that he may keep alive. He does not count the labor itself as a part of his life; it is rather a sacrifice of his life. It is a commodity that he has auctioned off to another. The product of his activity, therefore, is not the aim of his activity. What he produces for himself is not the silk that he weaves, not the gold that he draws up the mining shaft, not the palace that he builds. What he produces for himself is wages; and the silk, the gold, and the palace are resolved for him into a certain quantity of necessaries of life, perhaps into a cotton jacket, into copper coins, and into a basement dwelling. And the laborer who for 12 hours long, weaves, spins, bores, turns, builds, shovels, breaks stone, carries hods, and so on -- is this 12 hours' weaving, spinning, boring, turning, building, shovelling, stone-breaking, regarded by him as a manifestation of life, as life? Quite the contrary. Life for him begins where this activity ceases, at the table, at the tavern, in bed. The 12 hours' work, on the other hand, has no meaning for him as weaving, spinning, boring, and so on, but only as earnings, which enable him to sit down at a table, to take his seat in the tavern, and to lie down in a bed. If the silk-worm's object in spinning were to prolong its existence as caterpillar, it would be a perfect example of a wage-worker.

The free laborer, on the other hand, sells his very self, and that by fractions. He auctions off eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of his life, one day like the next, to the highest bidder, to the owner of raw materials, tools, and the means of life -- i.e., to the capitalist. The laborer belongs neither to an owner nor to the soil, but eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of his daily life belong to whomsoever buys them. The worker leaves the capitalist, to whom he has sold himself, as often as he chooses, and the capitalist discharges him as often as he sees fit, as soon as he no longer gets any use, or not the required use, out of him. But the worker, whose only source of income is the sale of his labor-power, cannot leave the whole class of buyers, i.e., the capitalist class, unless he gives up his own existence. He does not belong to this or that capitalist, but to the capitalist class ; and it is for him to find his man -- i.e., to find a buyer in this capitalist class.

To make this long story short, the exploitation is caused by the nature of the work itself (wage labour), in which the earnings of the worker are based on a mechanism that has no relevance to the labour of the worker (which generates value in the product), thus the workers are alienated from their labour and subsequently the value of their labour, which goes to the property owner. One example of how this manifests in human behaviour is the perception of work as alien from one's life (e.g. "I work all day, I have no life"). This is because their work as life-activity is taken from them.

Sign In

Socialism Vs Capitalism (round one)

Recommended Posts

Charles Lindsey

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Raven

Charles Lindsey

Guest

Raven

CommanderJohnson

Lotharr

Guest

CommanderJohnson

Raven

Lotharr

Raven

Lotharr

Raven

Guest

Charles Lindsey

Lotharr

Raven

Lotharr

Raven

Lotharr

Steve Schacher

Raven

Steve Schacher

Menchise

Please sign in to comment

Browse

Activity