This is a reply to Kapkao thread "Why Socialism fails"

Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
This is a reply to Kapkao thread "Why Socialism fails"

  Why Socialism ? by Albert Einstein at http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm , I'm going to try to post the piece here - forget it,it don't work.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:If she made

Kapkao wrote:

If she made that point, I would have opened my eyes in wonder, agreement, and (Ghasp? You mean gasp, right?!) excruciating joy of finding common ground.

This entire thread reads like the strawman army from Hell based on some whacky Voodoo Doll slash-fic gone horrifically wrong. I thank you, Blake, for pointing that out.

 

Yes, gasp; I don't know why I added a 'h'.

I thought that was cj's point; maybe I was mistaken in my skimming.

 

Quote:
Science isn't dogmatic; perhaps the primary reason it falls on so many deaf ears nowadays (and always has, on basis of % of population).

Political science... is questionably scientific. Philosophy is irrelevant, for precisely the same reasons Bob Spence has illustrated already now -it's still just someone's opinion.

 

Sociology has always been a kind of quack science simply because there's never enough data to make heads of tails of it in most cases- my point is that it does need to be.  Political science has never been a science because people haven't properly applied the scientific method to it- my point is that they should start.

 

Sorry, by philosophy I meant more generally- knowledge/view of the reality of the world.  I should have been more explicit.

 

Quote:
Whathedeuce made a good solid point in my trainwreck of a thread in Politics; that national politics are inexorably linked to national culture. I happen to enjoy my national culture, for some odd reason. As Jeffrick pointed out- so does many other hundreds of millions of animal-vermin lurking about throughout the globe.

 

Right, and national culture is based on parameters that could be measured and understood relative to functional policy.  It's complicated statistical analysis, but nothing any modern super computer couldn't pull off with ease.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to buttinsky here

Kapkao wrote:

Skyzersdad wrote:

No need.  But without a lot of shipwrights (farmers, sailors, tailors, iron workers, guns smiths, etc.) working together, your imperialists never would have left the dock.  Just count - how many people did it take to send off one boat full of adventurers?

Okay. Empires and/or kingdoms existed before navies did. Nice dodge, though. I'm going to personally dodge your asinine question about... living alone and (entirely?) self-sufficiently... as if it had any relevance to begin with.

 

Empires and/or kingdoms had armies of war and armies of civil servants.  You know this.

 

Kapkao wrote:

It doesn't, because I have Type I Diabetes.

So... I guess your point (whatever the hell it is) is sound and undefeated because I need rDNA insulin in order to live? No, not really. I never contested the general assumption that humans are inherently social as a species.

You want to broadbrush Homo Sapiens Sapiens as a "cooperative" species solely on the basis of most of their endeavors having been achieved under social circumstances. I've already ceded that Human-animal-vermin are also social-animal-vermin. Your "cooperation" focus, is almost so pedantic and obsessive as to become purely academic.

A more productive focus of this already inane discussion would be why you are so fixed on the word "cooperation". Why are you, and how does it relate to socialism?

 

Give Skyzerdad a break - he is new and he many not know about your reliance on insulin.

And I wish to point out, you were the one who jumped all over the cooperative/competitive band wagon.  I realize it is one of your hot buttons, looks like it is one of Skyzerdad's as well.  They are your buttons, you can take control of them at any time.

 

Kapkao wrote:

History books mention quite a bit about human endeavors achieved with cooperation. Unfortunately, for whatever tortured reasoning you seem to be employing here, the cooperative endeavors are out-weighed by the combative, predatory endeavors on a scale of... oh, I'd say 1:20. Even economics is filled with predatory/exploitative behavior; how do you suppose most of us ended up in our current recession to begin with? Because of "cooperation"?

 

Look, you should know better.  If you are going to pull numbers out of your ass - what you get is shit.  And yes, I happen to believe we got in this recession to begin with through cooperation between financial institutions and between individuals and financial institutions.  People weren't forced to sign for mortgages with toxic interest rate increases.  They signed the papers willingly - even cooperatively.  It was stupid of the financial institutions to offer the mortgages and it was stupid of people to have signed them.  Plenty of cooperative stupid all around.

 

Kapkao wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Predatory/exploitative behavior usually comes out on top (civilization-wise and evolution-wise.)

Skyzersdad wrote:

In the short term only.

No, in long term gains as well. Much of the current diplomatic and political status quo rests on things... not made of cooperation, but competition. An overwhelming abundance of it, in fact.

 

Look what competitive diplomacy has got the US - two wars that are unwinable and cost way more than the $75 million GW Bush claimed it would cost when it all started. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote: cj is right,

Blake wrote:

 cj is right, of course, most of you are fighting over straw men and not addressing the real issues.

 

Thanks, it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

 

Blake wrote:

I find it funny that the little "political" tests usually place me at democrat, because they're one dimensional.

 

When I take them, they put me smack dab between liberal and libertarian.  Odd.

 

Blake wrote:

In reality I'm more of a Totalitarian Libertarian Capitalistic/Communist- treating the proper administration of different elements of society *ghasp* differently based on what is most likely to work in those cases.

 

And I tend to defer to the scientific method and the notion of a republic, as many massive state (or city)-sized test-tubes to determine what exactly those most functional methodologies are.  None of you really know what works until it's tried- neither do I. 

So, lets apply slightly different systems to each state, evaluate the efficacy relative to the populations (by proper blind statistical analysis rather than guesswork), and when/if the systems work, force them upon all of the states (therein I'm totalitarian), and iterate again with minor adjustments, and if we don't know what works or we aren't testing something, then let people do what they want (therein I'm libertarian).  As far as I'm concerned, the whole process of federal government could and should be done by an open source machine based on the feedback from surveys, which should be done in a double blind fashion and audited for transparency.

Some things work better cooperatively, some things work (at all) competitively and fail cooperatively.  Lets not pretend to have the ability to imaginatively simulate all of the nuances of a massive population's response to any particular socioeconomic system with any accuracy.

 

 

We're rational enough to recognize the reality of science over superstition in the field of philosophy- why not be rational enough to recognize science over assumption in the field of sociology.  It would be a trivial process to actually figure out what really works in an orderly fashion and agree to use that (whatever it happens to be)- why people can't agree to simply follow this practice is some combination of dogmatic certainty and simple idiocy; after all, why test it if they're already convinced their respective systems will work?

 

We have the experiment running.  What seems to work is a blend of ideas and methods of management.  A little capitalism, a little socialism, a little communism.  What is different is the amount of each.  The only places that practice total capitalism, total socialism or total communism are generally places we don't want to live. 

If you believe the US is completely capitalistic, you need to do some research.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:Kapkao wrote:If

Blake wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

If she made that point, I would have opened my eyes in wonder, agreement, and (Ghasp? You mean gasp, right?!) excruciating joy of finding common ground.

This entire thread reads like the strawman army from Hell based on some whacky Voodoo Doll slash-fic gone horrifically wrong. I thank you, Blake, for pointing that out.

 

Yes, gasp; I don't know why I added a 'h'.

I thought that was cj's point; maybe I was mistaken in my skimming.

 

Yes, that was my point.  Read it again, Kap - I didn't use the words straw man, I just pointed out that you are not arguing about socialism.  You are arguing about social welfare.  The two are not the same critter.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:We have the

cj wrote:

We have the experiment running.  What seems to work is a blend of ideas and methods of management.  A little capitalism, a little socialism, a little communism.  What is different is the amount of each.  The only places that practice total capitalism, total socialism or total communism are generally places we don't want to live. 

If you believe the US is completely capitalistic, you need to do some research.

 

When did I say that the states were completely capitalistic?  I don't think I ever have.

 

I think you rather missed my point...

 

We have a parody of the experimental intent running- and only some people get it at all - but for the most part the data isn't being taken properly, people on both sides are ignoring what data does come back, and the entire thing is not being administrated as a proper experiment.

We need to be doing this systematically and comprehensively.

 

Take education, for example: 

No two states should have the same education system, and we should be drawing truckloads of data from all of them.  They should also be changing their educational systems every few years more or less randomly.  After we determine what is working best for which socioeconomic classes, which IQ levels, body weight, hair length, and hell even which woo-woo blood type of student-- what correlates to good performance adjusting for every possible statistical correlation-- then we should design a system that uses those methods to optimize for performance and economy and then implement it in every state with slight variations and *again* take truckloads of data to re-process.

 

We should have states where potato growing is capitalistic, communistic, where potato laborers are state employees and leased to private farms, where farms are state owned and freelance potato growers have at them in a free-for-all to grow potatoes, etc. 

Who knows, maybe a system were every twelve year old is required to spend the weekends planting and picking potatoes, but every family gets three potatoes a day for free works best- probably not, but I don't know, you don't know, and nobody knows- using proper scientific methodology including blind statistic gathering and analysis, iteration, and testing we could find out what actually works- and not just what people assume will work based on poor (and highly conflict ridden) intuition.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:cj wrote:If you

Blake wrote:

cj wrote:

If you believe the US is completely capitalistic, you need to do some research.

 When did I say that the states were completely capitalistic?  I don't think I ever have.

 

I think you rather missed my point...

 

My apologies, I didn't mean you - I was speaking of amorphous generic collective nonspecific persons.

 

Blake wrote:

We have a parody of the experimental intent running- and only some people get it at all - but for the most part the data isn't being taken properly, people on both sides are ignoring what data does come back, and the entire thing is not being administrated as a proper experiment.

We need to be doing this systematically and comprehensively.

 

Your examples are good ideas.  I agree we should be more systematic and comprehensive.  To save some time, however, we can look at what is working elsewhere and analyze the existing systems in the same fashion.  This book is a good example of doing just that:

http://www.amazon.com/Inequality-Bad-Health-Democracy-Forum/dp/0807004472/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280901931&sr=8-1

Is Inequality Bad for Our Health?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I agree we should

cj wrote:

I agree we should be more systematic and comprehensive.  To save some time, however, we can look at what is working elsewhere and analyze the existing systems in the same fashion.

 

Absolutely, although unfortunately the quality of data coming from most of the past implementations of various systems has been rather poor, and the implementations themselves poorly controlled.  In the rare case where something was extremely ineffective, though (beyond margin of error from poor data), we may have a heads-up there.


Skyzersdad
Skyzersdad's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2010-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Skyzersdad , I know I am late coming into this conversation and I haven't read the whole thing yet but how does people cooperating lead to socialism?

This is fun.  For a while it looked like the only one who was going to respond was Kapkao.  I don't have a clue why people cooperating would lead to socialism.  Or, if it did, why it would be a bad thing.  I was trying to get away from the rant about capitalism, socialism, and communism by looking instead at competition, cooperation and symbiosis.  My thinking was that they are less emotionally loaded terms.

Beyond Saving wrote:
All economic systems are a way to create and distribute goods and require cooperation at some level. Are you claiming that capitalism is the opposite of cooperation? Because that is extremely misguided.

Nope.  I was saying that most people choose to direct their efforts in a cooperative fashion.  And, that almost everything we get, need or want is a result of that cooperative activity.  Competition does not produce anything like the amounts of goods that are produced by cooperative activities.  Didn't say a thing about capitalism or socialism.

Beyond Saving wrote:
The main difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism leaves each individual in control of their decisions of where to produce, when and for what compensation (including working in corporations). Socialism puts the government in control of who produces what and their compensation. The fundamental question is not "Should we work together?" It is "Who owns what you produce?" I reject the idea that the government can distribute goods better than individuals acting on their own free will. It is VERY easy to corrupt government.  

Actually my understanding was that socialism is - 1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.  That could be a village, town, etc.  It might be all production and distribution or only a part.  I used to live in Grant County, Washington.  The Grant County P.U.D. owns two hydroelectric dams on the main stem of the Columbia River.  The P.U.D. is owned by the residents of the county and it controls production and distribution of electricity in the county.  Socialism at its finest.  By the way, Grant County P.U.D. has the lowest electric rates of any utility in the country.  And, the county is a net exporter of electrical power.  Not bad for a non competitive non governmental socialist organization.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I just pointed out

cj wrote:
I just pointed out that you are not arguing about socialism.  You are arguing about social welfare.  The two are not the same critter.

This human-animal unit is not yet durable; contains bugthought//heresy//inefficient programming. Better than vermin-class, though.

Cj-heretic: I am arguing neither. Skyzerdad wanted to talk about "cooperation". He says they are "less loaded" terms than capitalism, socialism, and communism; he has yet to demonstrate that. (Or why it even matters)

In inconsistent\\errant fashion, he mentions a highly efficient utility company and says it's "socialistic" and yet "nongovernmental". It appears that loaded terms are preferable, ultimately.

DJ-bugthinker-vermin wanted to thumb his nose at me (a common trait amongst the moderators here), then he opted to rant\\tirade\\groan about things he feels is relevant to arguments about ideal economic models. His thoughts on "propaganda" are relevant, the rest are of questionable use\\worth\\efficiency.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:cj wrote:I just

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:
I just pointed out that you are not arguing about socialism.  You are arguing about social welfare.  The two are not the same critter.

This human-animal unit is not yet durable; contains bugthought//heresy//inefficient programming. Better than vermin-class, though.

 

Ah, lighten up.  If you were normal, we would have to have you committed.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5484
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Skyzersdad wrote:  Nope. 

Skyzersdad wrote:

 

Nope.  I was saying that most people choose to direct their efforts in a cooperative fashion.  And, that almost everything we get, need or want is a result of that cooperative activity.  Competition does not produce anything like the amounts of goods that are produced by cooperative activities.  Didn't say a thing about capitalism or socialism.

I have to slightly disagree here. Yes, cooperation can lead to higher production but does not exclude competition which can also lead to higher production. For example, on a sales team everyone can be working together toward a specific goal and hence working as a team, but competing against your co-workers can be an effective motivating tool that increases everyones production. Cooperation and competition are not mutually exclusive.

Skyzersdad wrote:

Actually my understanding was that socialism is - 1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.  That could be a village, town, etc.  It might be all production and distribution or only a part.  I used to live in Grant County, Washington.  The Grant County P.U.D. owns two hydroelectric dams on the main stem of the Columbia River.  The P.U.D. is owned by the residents of the county and it controls production and distribution of electricity in the county.  Socialism at its finest.  By the way, Grant County P.U.D. has the lowest electric rates of any utility in the country.  And, the county is a net exporter of electrical power.  Not bad for a non competitive non governmental socialist organization.

Where socialism really runs into trouble is when it gets too big. For example, in Grant County I am willing to bet that the vast majority of the population has no clue what goes on at the electric plants. If the people who actually run the day to day operations are honest hardworking folk great. The problem arises when the people running things are dishonest. If the people operating the plants start to mess things up how long before anyone notices and how difficult is it to remove them. They pull an Enron on you and the whole county is screwed. Basically you are forcing people to accept the risk (which also gives them the benefits) If I were to move to the county, I do not have the option of whether or not I want to be a partial owner of the electric company, I can't examine the day to day operations look at its profit and loss statements then decide it is a well run company before buying in. And don't fool yourself, even co-ops are for profit and compete. You said yourself the PUD exports electricity, I am sure they are not doing that for free. The profits are simply paid back to the share-holders in the form of reduced electric rates instead of dividends. I belong to a Co-op credit union which works along the same lines.

My main problem with socialism is that it does not give the individual the choice. When companies go bad in socialism EVERYONE suffers. When Enron failed I didn't care because I chose not to invest in them. When the housing market collapsed I didn't care because I wasn't invested in a house (gave it to my ex ha ha) Nor do I have any sympathy when people whine and moan about their 401ks losing so much money. They made a choice of where to put their money and ought to suffer the consequences or enjoy the benefits based on the wisdom of their investment. 

In a pure socialist system everyone in a given community owns every company even if they don't want to. If the company works, great for everyone, if it doesn't bad for everyone. Generally the larger any company gets (in either a capitalist or socialist system) the farther removed the people operating it are from the people who can remove them from power quickly and the more likely they will be corrupt and skim a few million off the top. Big business is as inefficient as big government (look at BP). A local business owner (or a local operator of a co-op) knows if they run a crappy dishonest business they will be out of work. In the US most socialist movements tend to come from the federal or state level where firing an incompetent corrupt bureaucrat is virtually impossible. 

If a local community decides they want to set up a socialist system I don't really care as long as they don't try to make me live there. For example, most Home Owner Associations are mini-socialist systems. Personally, I despise them but you know when you buy the property what you are getting into and some do a good job keeping the community nice. I prefer to choose very carefully what companies I invest in and do not want to be forced into owning everything so go set up your hippie camps or mini-socialist fiefdoms just don't try to force me to live in one.

Power companies will always tend to be socialist or heavily government regulated because of the practical nature of power distribution does not allow for widespread competition. Very few people live somewhere they can choose their power provider. If I ever buy a house again I'll probably buy solar panels and give the power company the middle finger but thats me.   

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Skyzersdad
Skyzersdad's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2010-07-13
User is offlineOffline
I absolutely agree that

I absolutely agree that socialist systems that are smaller/local work better and are more responsive that large ones.  That is simply a characteristic of organizations - regardless of their purpose or internal structure.  I have watched even very small (<50 people) self destruct by becoming too rigid but it does appear that the bigger the organization, the faster it freezes up.  It doesn't appear to matter what the reason for the organization is - be it public health, selling cars or rescuing dogs.  I am not saying that there is no place for competition, I am simply trying to make the point that competition (or ones ability to compete) depends on the cooperation (ability to enlist supporters) and that the number of supporters always outnumbers the "competitors."

I too have seen the effects of "competition" on teamwork.  Sometimes it functions just as you describe.  In my experience though, it causes the team to fail (cease to be cooperative) more often than not by introducing division and resentment.  It is definitely a mixed bag.

I don't think, that I was arguing for a pure system.  I can't remember when I have ever even heard of a "pure" system - let alone one that worked.

You are right in that most people in the Grant County Public Utility District don't have a clue and don't care.  You are wrong in saying that you can't examine the day to day operations or look at its profit and loss statements before deciding to join.  All of that is a matter of public record - all you need to do is ask.  I am sure there are some people in the county who have decided to live off the grid.  The number would have to be small though since whatever alternative (solar, wind, low head hydro, diesel) is way more expensive.  I am sure the PUD makes money and competes.  Enough so that Enron did try to buy it  - actually they tried to force the PUD to sell out and were rather severely declined.  I cannot say they were carried to the river and tossed in, but it was a near thing.  Even so - one company competing - hundreds of people cooperating to make that possible.

My sympathy to Kapkao about the diabetes thing.  I am type two diabetic, my brother has MS, I have friends with type one, cerebral palsy, breast cancer, bad knees or hips, etc.  It is what you chose to make of it.  Some, like my brother, chose to use it as a reason to be angry at the world and to lash out, others have used it to teach, grow and reach out.  Some just deal with it and move on.  It really is your choice.

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

I have to wonder about the power of advertising in this discussion.  Competition is wildly promoted in our (U.S.) society.  Millions of dollars are spent promoting sporting events, and the very concept of competition.  The only time cooperation is mentioned as a good thing is when it is teamwork in pursuit of some competitive goal.  Even there, calling someone a "team player" is synonymous with calling them a loser or chump.

So if competition is so clearly wonderful, why do we need to force it on people with massive advertising?  Why did the coaches at my high school have to beg to get people to turn out for teams or to show up at games.  It wasn't because the teams were losers, we had as many winning teams as anyone else.  It was because most of the students had other stuff to do and just didn't give a rip.

Anyone who is interested in how we got our modern economy might want to go look up Work Without End Abandoning shorter hours for the right to work by Benjamin Kline Hunnicutt.  Like many economic texts, it can be pretty dry going, but it is worthwhile.  The underlying message is pretty disturbing.

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5484
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Skyzersdad wrote:I

Skyzersdad wrote:

I absolutely agree that socialist systems that are smaller/local work better and are more responsive that large ones.  That is simply a characteristic of organizations - regardless of their purpose or internal structure.  I have watched even very small (<50 people) self destruct by becoming too rigid but it does appear that the bigger the organization, the faster it freezes up.  It doesn't appear to matter what the reason for the organization is - be it public health, selling cars or rescuing dogs.  

True, which makes it really ironic that our society flips out and decides to bail out large capitalist companies that are "too big to fail" when they are failing precisely because they are too big.

Where I see socialism as really failing is when it comes to ingenuity and developing new ideas. Creating something new is inherently risky and the vast majority of times new ideas fail. For example, there is a company that will freeze your dead body and store it on the off chance that in the future they will be able to thaw you out and return you to life. It is a pretty ridiculous idea but people are willing to sink substantial amounts of money into it because of the potential return. Imagine how wealthy a company that could successfully freeze you if you had terminal cancer and revive you only when a cure has been successfully found. I wouldn't waste my money investing in such a company but people do which funds research that might make other discoveries that are useful even if it never achieves its stated goal. 

The bottom line is most businesses fail and if you are going to risk starting a new business, especially one that has never been tried, you need some incentive. Capitalism offers that incentive through potentially massive profits. Are you going to take that risk if you have to share ownership with people who didn't take the risk? Probably not. Thats why Marx actually suggested that capitalism was necessary to build the base that his idea of a perfect society would live on. His biggest critique of the Russian socialist movement was that Russia was not a predominantly capitalist society. If Marx were alive today he would probably see the US as the perfect foundation for a conversion to socialism but then again, Marx was really bad at math. 

 

 

Skyzersdad wrote:

I have to wonder about the power of advertising in this discussion.  Competition is wildly promoted in our (U.S.) society.  Millions of dollars are spent promoting sporting events, and the very concept of competition.  The only time cooperation is mentioned as a good thing is when it is teamwork in pursuit of some competitive goal.  Even there, calling someone a "team player" is synonymous with calling them a loser or chump.

So if competition is so clearly wonderful, why do we need to force it on people with massive advertising?  Why did the coaches at my high school have to beg to get people to turn out for teams or to show up at games.  It wasn't because the teams were losers, we had as many winning teams as anyone else.  It was because most of the students had other stuff to do and just didn't give a rip.

I think most people are naturally competitive. Who doesn't like to win? I don't really get the sports reference. Does the NFL, NBA, or MLB have any shortage of people who want to watch or play for them? Sure many HS sports are pretty lame and a lot of people don't care, when I was a teenager most of us were more interested in drinking and getting laid than waking up early to go to practice. But by College and professional level there is no shortage of people who want to compete. Don't believe me? Walk into any public place in Ohio and scream out O-H and see what happens. American society does tend to encourage competition more than some others but I don't think it is solely responsible. It would be kind of interesting to throw some infants in an enclosed environment and analyze their development outside of cultural influence but people get upset when you use kids as lab rats. 

Skyzersdad wrote:

Anyone who is interested in how we got our modern economy might want to go look up Work Without End Abandoning shorter hours for the right to work by Benjamin Kline Hunnicutt.  Like many economic texts, it can be pretty dry going, but it is worthwhile.  The underlying message is pretty disturbing.

 

I'll add it to my list, I like reading dry economic texts, I'm nerdy like that, must have some British professor in my bloodline somewhere. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5484
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Skyzersdad wrote:Anyone who

Skyzersdad wrote:

Anyone who is interested in how we got our modern economy might want to go look up Work Without End Abandoning shorter hours for the right to work by Benjamin Kline Hunnicutt.  Like many economic texts, it can be pretty dry going, but it is worthwhile.  The underlying message is pretty disturbing.

I just ordered it from Amazon and had to buy it used. You did find a rare one. Hope it isn't a waste of money. If it is, I'll bug you until you donate $10 to a good charity. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Civilization and Enlightenment

  I think that this guy is a very worthwhile read,in his book "What We Leave Behind"points out how we misuse our landbase.His name is Derrick Jensen.   

Signature ? How ?


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5484
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
That guy is an idiot, I'll save my money

 I will address the two main claims this joker makes.

I: Cities are unsustainable

He argues that cities are unsustainable because they have to import resources in order to survive and somehow this will deplete all the resources. He ignores the rather obvious details that resources are renewable and some areas create surplus resources. The most obvious resource to discuss is food since everyone has to eat to live and large cities never produce enough. So New York imports food from around the country cattle from Kansas, corn from Ohio, wheat from Nebraska, oranges from Florida etc. I have news for you, the food that all these states are selling to New York is surplus, which means these states produce more food than they consume. His claim is no different than if I made the claim that if you buy your food it will eventually run out so everyone should farm their own food. It isn't going to run out, because when a farmer sells his crops he plants more. You are not talking about finite resources.

The whole concept of trade is based on the fact that it is easier for a person to produce a surplus of one thing and then trade that surplus for whatever they need/want. How long would it take you to knit your own clothes? Build your own furniture? Could you make a farm produce as much as someone who farms for a living? Simply put, whatever you do on a daily basis you will be better at it and be able to provide that commodity or service to others. You trade your surplus for the commodity or service the other person creates. It is no different between cities.

Money is easier to use because it removes the necessity of a direct trade. For example, if you build furniture it is much easier to sell it for money then take the money to the grocer than it is to go to the grocer and try to give him a bunch of furniture for food. The grocer only needs a certain amount of furniture. So while the grocer might trade a certain amount of food for a table he isn't going to accept the same deal next week. However, a grocer will always take money because they can use it to purchase whatever they need or want.

The idea that any village/town is going to be completely self sufficient gives up all of the gains and resources that we have developed through trade. If you lived in Florida you would be eating a lot of oranges. Why would you want to do that when you can trade your excess oranges for some beef put them together and have some orange beef?   

 

II: Importation requires violence

 It is called trade. Whether you are talking about the individual level or at a statewide or worldwide level the principles are the same. You go to the grocery store to buy food because you do not grow enough food to feed yourself. You give the store money in exchange for food. If the food is too expensive you either make more money or go to a cheaper store no violence required. Now if there is only one store (called a monopoly in economic terms) and it charges more than you can afford violence might be likely out of desperation. However, when there is a multitude of sources there is no need for violence.

The reason the US has a big military is because we are obsessed with being the worlds police officer. We could easily scale it back to a defensive force. Countries will still sell us oil because that is what they create in surplus. It is worth more to us than it is to them. There is danger of violence if one country relies on solely one source for a given resource that is vital but in modern days that simply isn't the case. Despite all the political rhetoric the US gets oil from several sources and even has the capability of tapping its own resources that are mostly dormant right now. Our military is a political decision, not a necessity. Many countries have a small military and they trade.

 

Apparently, this guy thinks we would all be better off living in Indian style tribes running around. Do you know why most Indian tribes moved from place to place and didn't build cities? Because they would go into an area, use up all its resources and move to another area. They didn't plant crops year in year out. And when they encountered another tribe it was very violent because they both needed the same resources.   

 

If you want to go into the woods and live on only what you can produce and not trade with anyone, have fun. But leave the rest of us out of it. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Skyzersdad
Skyzersdad's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2010-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Skyzersdad wrote: I

Skyzersdad wrote:

I absolutely agree that socialist systems that are smaller/local work better and are more responsive that large ones.  That is simply a characteristic of organizations - regardless of their purpose or internal structure.  I have watched even very small (<50 people) self destruct by becoming too rigid but it does appear that the bigger the organization, the faster it freezes up.  It doesn't appear to matter what the reason for the organization is - be it public health, selling cars or rescuing dogs.  

Beyond Saving wrote:
True, which makes it really ironic that our society flips out and decides to bail out large capitalist companies that are "too big to fail" when they are failing precisely because they are too big.

Where I see socialism as really failing is when it comes to ingenuity and developing new ideas. Creating something new is inherently risky and the vast majority of times new ideas fail.

I cannot remember who first coined the phrase "Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor." to describe our system, but it was way back during the Nixon administration.  That particular behavior is so obscene, I am not sure what I would call it.  Kleptocracy is the closest I can come up with.  It is my opinion that the origion of that particular problem is the legal fiction of corporations as people that permits the offices of the corporation from being stripped of their missgotten gains.  But I digress.

Beyond Saving wrote:
The bottom line is most businesses fail and if you are going to risk starting a new business, especially one that has never been tried, you need some incentive. Capitalism offers that incentive through potentially massive profits. Are you going to take that risk if you have to share ownership with people who didn't take the risk? Probably not. Thats why Marx actually suggested that capitalism was necessary to build the base that his idea of a perfect society would live on. His biggest critique of the Russian socialist movement was that Russia was not a predominantly capitalist society. If Marx were alive today he would probably see the US as the perfect foundation for a conversion to socialism but then again, Marx was really bad at math.

 It has been a very long time since I read Marx.  As I recall, I wasn't as impressed with it as I was supposed to be.  Marx wasn't a scientist, or an economist and he had a bad tendency to cherry pick his data.  I suspect Marx knew or at least felt that capitalism led to serious abuses and he thought that it had to get bad to inspire people to get off their butts and take control.  We have a long way to go before it gets that bad here. (I think)  Yes, most new businesses fail and they fail for as many reasons as their are businesses.  The rule of thumb for restaurants is that they generally fail five times in order to get the capitol costs down to where the income from the restaurant will be sufficient to cover the cost of the equipment and furnishings.  There are many reasons people go into business and  most do not anticipate making massive profits.  Sometimes it is because they have been frozen out of working for someone else.  Sometimes it is to be able to do something you love without watching it perverted by somebody else.  Very few of us expect to get rich.  I sure don't

 

Skyzersdad wrote:

I have to wonder about the power of advertising in this discussion. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think most people are naturally competitive. Who doesn't like to win? I don't really get the sports reference. Does the NFL, NBA, or MLB have any shortage of people who want to watch or play for them? Sure many HS sports are pretty lame and a lot of people don't care, when I was a teenager most of us were more interested in drinking and getting laid than waking up early to go to practice. But by College and professional level there is no shortage of people who want to compete. Don't believe me? Walk into any public place in Ohio and scream out O-H and see what happens. American society does tend to encourage competition more than some others but I don't think it is solely responsible. It would be kind of interesting to throw some infants in an enclosed environment and analyze their development outside of cultural influence but people get upset when you use kids as lab rats.

I agree that most people have a competitive streak.  For most people though, it occupies a fairly small part of their lives.  I have known only a few individuals who seemed to always turn every relationship into a competition.  After a while, they have wound up being pushed out of every group they were initially a part of.  Much like the lone wolf.  My reference to sports was intended to show how reluctant we were to put ourselves into a competitive environment.  As I recall, we had pretty good teams, won a normal number of games and tournaments, and the coaches were as well liked as any of the other teachers.  And it wasn't as if the students were all involved in rich non-sport activities.  My recollection is that most of us just weren't interested in going out and doing the jock stuff.  Maybe it was a shortage of pretty girls who would only throw themselves at guys on the teams.  I just have this feeling (and that is all it is at this point) that if they did not beg, advertise and generally promote turning out for sports, they couldn't have put together a team for any of the sports.

Skyzersdad wrote:

Anyone who is interested in how we got our modern economy might want to go look up Work Without End Abandoning shorter hours for the right to work by Benjamin Kline Hunnicutt.  Like many economic texts, it can be pretty dry going, but it is worthwhile.  The underlying message is pretty disturbing.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I'll add it to my list, I like reading dry economic texts, I'm nerdy like that, must have some British professor in my bloodline somewhere. 

I didn't expect you to go buy it!  I got a copy from the library.  You might want to take a look at The Fate of Nature by Charles Wohlforth and Governing the Commons by Lin Olstrom - the first is quite new but the second was 1990 and won her a Nobel in economics.  It is a refutation of The Tragedy of the Commons.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5484
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Skyzersdad wrote:  Yes,

Skyzersdad wrote:

  Yes, most new businesses fail and they fail for as many reasons as their are businesses.  The rule of thumb for restaurants is that they generally fail five times in order to get the capitol costs down to where the income from the restaurant will be sufficient to cover the cost of the equipment and furnishings.  There are many reasons people go into business and  most do not anticipate making massive profits.  Sometimes it is because they have been frozen out of working for someone else.  Sometimes it is to be able to do something you love without watching it perverted by somebody else.  Very few of us expect to get rich.  I sure don't

Yeah, now that I look back on it I probably should have left the term "massive" out. But regardless, when you go into business you anticipate your idea is going to make profits for you. I don't know anyone who went into business expecting to lose money. When I was talking "massive" profits I was thinking more of the venture capitalists who invest serious amounts of money in ideas that sound far fetched or really push the edge. For example, Andy Bechtolsheim invested 100k in a couple of college kids with the idea that a quality search engine could make money. He had no guarantee that he would ever see a penny of that money come back but was willing to take the risk for the potential profits. Which turned into a great gamble as Google has made the man over a billion dollars.

 

Skyzersdad wrote:

I agree that most people have a competitive streak.  For most people though, it occupies a fairly small part of their lives. I have known only a few individuals who seemed to always turn every relationship into a competition.  After a while, they have wound up being pushed out of every group they were initially a part of.  Much like the lone wolf. 

I don't know. I play poker a lot so most people in my social circle are also poker players. Anyone who plays poker long term is extremely competitive. So I guess it depends on who you are around and whether you can maintain a friendship while being highly competitive. I've seen some people who can't understand how we can go after each others money and play psych games with each other so aggressively at the table and be great friends away. 

 

Skyzersdad wrote:

I didn't expect you to go buy it!  I got a copy from the library.  

Of course I bought it, I'm a capitalist! The library is socialist!  Actually, where I am working now is in the middle of nowhere and the library here sucks. Your lucky to find the book you are looking for if it is a best seller. It doesn't even have The Wealth of Nations

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Of

Beyond Saving wrote:

Of course I bought it, I'm a capitalist! The library is socialist!  Actually, where I am working now is in the middle of nowhere and the library here sucks. Your lucky to find the book you are looking for if it is a best seller. It doesn't even have The Wealth of Nations

 

Geeze, use interlibrary loans!  You can borrow books from all over the world and it is usually free!  If you are paying the taxes to support the service, why the heck not use it?  It is just as if you were paying a library subscription fee.  And what you contribute in taxes to your local library is usually only a few dollars a year.  And what else?  If you have a library card, most library catalogs are on line, you can search your local library on line, switch to worldcat on line, make your request and then have it snail mailed to your home in a convenient bag with return postage included.  You get so much for so little because most people don't bother to use the service they have already paid for.

It's like paying for an online service - dating or domain name or linkedin - and then never going to the website and using what you are paying for.  What a waste.  Since you don't have a choice about paying taxes that go to the library - unlike the web services mentioned - all the more reason to use the service.

I live in Portland, OR, and have borrowed books from Oregon State U, Reed College, Wenatchee public library (a small town in Washington state), Boston MA, and I don't remember where else.  When you put in your request in Worldcat, it asks how much you are willing to pay to borrow the book.  Put in $0, and only those libraries willing to send the book for free will respond to your request.  If no one is willing to send the book for free, the library will email you and ask if you want to pay for it.  Say no if you want or pay.  Your choice.  Piece of cake.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5484
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 That would be great except

 That would be great except I don't have a home. I live out of hotels and sometimes can be moved from one to another with only a few days notice so I don't have a stable address to receive mail at. I try to limit places I have mailing stuff to me and always have it overnighted so I don't get moved and forget about it. Once I had a couple bottles of wine shipped to me and I forgot and was moved. Then about a week later the hotel call me and I had to drive halfway across the stupid state to go get it.

Don't worry, I didn't just get Skyzersdad's book, I don't trust him enough to spend on overnight shipping for one book. I got a bunch of them. Someone has to stimulate the economy. 

And why do we all have to pay for libraries anyway? I think they should charge a fee for those that use them. But they are pretty low on my list of ways the government is wasting tax money. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:From a

darth_josh wrote:

From a personal perspective, the ONLY thing wrong with the modern advocacy of socialism is the preponderance of ne'er-do-wells whom espouse it. The loudest voices screech from the ranks of public housing dwellings by welfare and disability recipients. I assure you that they are not the only 'dogs in this hunt'. Certainly, one can see that they will be the first to 'suffer' since they would have to actually begin lifting their fingers for themselves.

Unfortunately, the modern proletariat is far too busy working to bring about a true revolution. But it is whispered in the lounge areas of the factories, in the booths of Waffle Houses, and all the places neo-cons and neo-progressives dare not to tread.

Of course, if the capitalists wish to continue shedding employees in favor of profit margins then we may yet reach that glorious metaphorical tipping point. lol. Time will tell.

That's my thought process. Scary, isn't it. The thought that you may actually have to learn and perform the mundane tasks done for you every day by those denigrated by you as lesser human beings, the 'working class'. And no amount of your precious PMS357 Green inked paper will convince someone to do it for you.

My smile is one of sadistic glee.

 

Karl Marx.  "Capital".  Capitalists are so afraid of it, that they spend tons of dollars and weeks of speeches to make sure the majority is brainwashed like ... Kapkao (sorry, nothing personal, but you are a really good example).

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: That

Beyond Saving wrote:

 That would be great except I don't have a home. I live out of hotels and sometimes can be moved from one to another with only a few days notice so I don't have a stable address to receive mail at. I try to limit places I have mailing stuff to me and always have it overnighted so I don't get moved and forget about it. Once I had a couple bottles of wine shipped to me and I forgot and was moved. Then about a week later the hotel call me and I had to drive halfway across the stupid state to go get it.

Don't worry, I didn't just get Skyzersdad's book, I don't trust him enough to spend on overnight shipping for one book. I got a bunch of them. Someone has to stimulate the economy. 

And why do we all have to pay for libraries anyway? I think they should charge a fee for those that use them. But they are pretty low on my list of ways the government is wasting tax money. 

 

 

.... I wonder... are you a suspect in Afghanistan war documents leak case?

 BTW, if you happen to travel through Oklahoma/Arkansas area, you are welcome to stay a night or two at our home, just let me know.

 


Skyzersdad
Skyzersdad's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2010-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Skyzersdad wrote:   Yes,

Skyzersdad wrote:

  Yes, most new businesses fail and they fail for as many reasons as their are businesses.  The rule of thumb for restaurants is that they generally fail five times in order to get the capitol costs down to where the income from the restaurant will be sufficient to cover the cost of the equipment and furnishings.  There are many reasons people go into business and  most do not anticipate making massive profits.  Sometimes it is because they have been frozen out of working for someone else.  Sometimes it is to be able to do something you love without watching it perverted by somebody else.  Very few of us expect to get rich.  I sure don't

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yeah, now that I look back on it I probably should have left the term "massive" out. But regardless, when you go into business you anticipate your idea is going to make profits for you. I don't know anyone who went into business expecting to lose money. When I was talking "massive" profits I was thinking more of the venture capitalists who invest serious amounts of money in ideas that sound far fetched or really push the edge. For example, Andy Bechtolsheim invested 100k in a couple of college kids with the idea that a quality search engine could make money. He had no guarantee that he would ever see a penny of that money come back but was willing to take the risk for the potential profits. Which turned into a great gamble as Google has made the man over a billion dollars.

Well bully for them - seriously.  I am glad they were able to pull it off.  It would drive me crazy.  I do dog training, yes I make a profit and the limit on my gross - for my own reasons - is $25,000 per year.  That is all I WANT to make.  I figure if I can do this for 20 hours a week, I am doing just fine.

 

Skyzersdad wrote:

I agree that most people have a competitive streak.  For most people though, it occupies a fairly small part of their lives. I have known only a few individuals who seemed to always turn every relationship into a competition.  After a while, they have wound up being pushed out of every group they were initially a part of.  Much like the lone wolf. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I don't know. I play poker a lot so most people in my social circle are also poker players. Anyone who plays poker long term is extremely competitive. So I guess it depends on who you are around and whether you can maintain a friendship while being highly competitive. I've seen some people who can't understand how we can go after each others money and play psych games with each other so aggressively at the table and be great friends away.

 Well there you have it.  I don't play competitive games of any sort.  Cards, sports, chess, etc.  I am glad you enjoy it, but it does nothing for me.

Skyzersdad wrote:

I didn't expect you to go buy it!  I got a copy from the library.  

Beyond Saving wrote:
Of course I bought it, I'm a capitalist! The library is socialist!  Actually, where I am working now is in the middle of nowhere and the library here sucks. Your lucky to find the book you are looking for if it is a best seller. It doesn't even have The Wealth of Nations

How sad.  And just who did you get pissed off so badly they sent you to Siberia?


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:  I think

Ken G. wrote:

  I think that this guy is a very worthwhile read,in his book "What We Leave Behind"points out how we misuse our landbase.His name is Derrick Jensen.   

 

Sorry to tell you, but in my "academic" opinion this guy is an idiot.  Certainly, he has yet to figure out what the hell he is talking about.  Cities are know for good 5000 years. Civilizations extinct and born.  Some cities survive multiple civilizations.  And this Dr. Idiot tells us that cities are to die?! Well, I think I have a better prediction: he will die before NYC dies.  Smiling

 

 


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Skyzersdad wrote: I don't know who first coined the phrase ...--

       Either do I,but my uncle Bill would say "Capitalism will always work,cause Socialism will always bail out the wealthy ones in our society." Now I can finish reading your post,I don't know how to use the quotes,so I would read some thread and if I want to quote some one,I'll leave a comment,then return to read the rest of the post-thread.  

Signature ? How ?


Skyzersdad
Skyzersdad's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2010-07-13
User is offlineOffline
 Ken G. wrote:Sorry to tell

 

Ken G. wrote:

Sorry to tell you, but in my "academic" opinion this guy is an idiot.  Certainly, he has yet to figure out what the hell he is talking about.  Cities are know for good 5000 years. Civilizations extinct and born.  Some cities survive multiple civilizations.  And this Dr. Idiot tells us that cities are to die?! Well, I think I have a better prediction: he will die before NYC dies.  Smiling

I am with you on this one.  When I did Environmental Health, a lot of it was dealing with land use issues.  Adequate access, water, septic/sewer, land stability, etc.  The numbers I worked with were pretty clear that living in a city is usually much more environmentally responsible than going out in the woods, building roads, drilling wells, putting in a septic system and building a house.  I think the last time I looked, the average person living in Manhattan had a carbon footprint half the size of someone living in suburbia.

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
WOW!This was said 61 years

WOW!

This was said 61 years ago!

" Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights."

 

... and the USA is still there!  Bravo, capitalists! 

I even have an idea what happened.  In early 50th, the cold war was started.  By all means, the US people ought to be kept more happy about capitalism then socialism.  The oligarchs introduced two great ideas:

1)  Let people to become a bit more socialists, let's make middle class, give them a bit money , make them a bit more happy and positive about us.

2)  It is very dangerous to have influential middle class.  So, let's indoctrinate then into fear (communism, atomic bomb) and religion (remember, "In God We Trust", "One Nation Under God" - 50th !!!! ) Bingo.

Now, in 2000th, by all means oligarchs are trying to keep Russia a great enemy.  If needed, I am sure, people like Goldman Sachs will sell a nuclear bomb to Osama bin Laden just ot keep the US society NOT TO GO AFTER THEM.  If there were no 9/11, they would figure it out. 

 

But the good news is that many of them (oligarchs) gave up.  The evidence for this is in that they try to cash out quickly.  It may be though that the reason for this is not the working class awakening, but simply the fact that they screwed up everything they could and start to pray on each other (Madoff). 

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Skyzersdad wrote: I think

Skyzersdad wrote:

 I think the last time I looked, the average person living in Manhattan had a carbon footprint half the size of someone living in suburbia.

 

I think, it is ok for agriculture producers to have a large footprint (I don't mean suburbans working in cities though), but whatever.  

My point is that for mankind to live in a city was a historical necessity for having a SUSTAINABLE society.  Without cities the society will be unsustainable.  This is historically proved by a few thousands of years.  And this freak is ignoring this?!?!?!

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: That

Beyond Saving wrote:

 That would be great except I don't have a home. I live out of hotels and sometimes can be moved from one to another with only a few days notice so I don't have a stable address to receive mail at. I try to limit places I have mailing stuff to me and always have it overnighted so I don't get moved and forget about it. Once I had a couple bottles of wine shipped to me and I forgot and was moved. Then about a week later the hotel call me and I had to drive halfway across the stupid state to go get it.

Don't worry, I didn't just get Skyzersdad's book, I don't trust him enough to spend on overnight shipping for one book. I got a bunch of them. Someone has to stimulate the economy. 

And why do we all have to pay for libraries anyway? I think they should charge a fee for those that use them. But they are pretty low on my list of ways the government is wasting tax money. 

 

Ah, been there.  Hard to get a post office box when you don't have a permanent address, too.  I was thinking if you moved around town, a box would work.  But if you are moving around the state, that is no help, either.

Maybe it could work.  If you have a friend or relative who will let you borrow their street address, you could get a box in a city you hit fairly often.  Then just stop by the post office nearest where you next light, and have your mail forwarded from that box to the new post office.  Trying to be helpful, but probably just trying.  USPS can be pretty bureaucratic at times.

I've never been to Ohio.  How long does it take to travel halfway across the state?  I'm used to traveling long distances as in 4-5 hours to cross a state.  It is currently 6 hours to visit my in-laws and two of my sons.  And they live in Washington, the next state north.  Well, Portland is not exactly on the coast but definitely on the west side and they all live just a few miles from the Idaho border.  So you have to cross the state not quite entirely and then go north a ways as well.  Is it 4 hours to cross Ohio?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5484
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 cj- It takes about 5 hours

 cj- It takes about 5 hours to go from north to south and about 4 1/2 to go east to west. 

100%- thanks for the offer. Currently my company only works Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania but if we ever expand that direction I'll have my wine shipped to your house and meet you for dinner. As far as I know I am not a suspect by subpoenas have a hard time finding me  

skyzersdad- worse than siberia have you ever seen the movie Deliverance? Yeah, I'm in redneck country and I'm a tax man. My ex brother in law is co-owner of the company so maybe my ex-wife had something to do with it.

Ken G- Yeah, the guy is nuts. If your going to post videos to prove a point maybe you should find someone with some coherency. He really didn't help your cause. Now if you just want us all to laugh at a good joke keep it up. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:Karl

100percentAtheist wrote:

Karl Marx.  "Capital".  Capitalists are so afraid of it, that they spend tons of dollars and weeks of speeches to make sure the majority is brainwashed like ... Kapkao (sorry, nothing personal, but you are a really good example).

No offense taken.

 

Who am I supposedly brainwashed by?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Yeah,the guy is nuts.Some coherency.....

      Now if you just want us all to laugh at a good joke,keep it up. OK here another guy I know that you'll laugh at,Michael Albert on Capitalism --  

Signature ? How ?


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:Michael Albert

Ken G. wrote:

Michael Albert on Capitalism --  

His economic system is simply a form of socialism that has been successfully realized in Sweden.  I would support him. 

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao

Kapkao wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

Karl Marx.  "Capital".  Capitalists are so afraid of it, that they spend tons of dollars and weeks of speeches to make sure the majority is brainwashed like ... Kapkao (sorry, nothing personal, but you are a really good example).

No offense taken.

Who am I supposedly brainwashed by?

I suppose "brainwashed" could describe anyone you personally disagree with politically or economically...

The simple truth is that your claim is misguided.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Kapkao

Kapkao wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

Karl Marx.  "Capital".  Capitalists are so afraid of it, that they spend tons of dollars and weeks of speeches to make sure the majority is brainwashed like ... Kapkao (sorry, nothing personal, but you are a really good example).

No offense taken.

Who am I supposedly brainwashed by?

I suppose "brainwashed" could describe anyone you personally disagree with politically or economically...

The simple truth is that your claim is misguided.

 

When I drive to work/home, I often enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh &co.  You "sounded" very alike Rush talking about Obama the socialist/Marxist/communist/fascist (so much for one Obama!) and capitalism/free market is the best system on this planet. 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5484
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:When

100percentAtheist wrote:

When I drive to work/home, I often enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh &co.  You "sounded" very alike Rush talking about Obama the socialist/Marxist/communist/fascist (so much for one Obama!) and capitalism/free market is the best system on this planet. 

Obama is a socialist/marxist/communist of some stripe. It is difficult to really nail down exactly which category he really falls into without a deep philosophical discussion with him although based on his book he was a Marxist in college, it is unclear how far he has moved from his college views. Regardless, it is obvious that he does not believe in the free market. Just because he won't admit it for obvious political reasons doesn't make it false. 

In my book, freedom is the best system. Let me get one thing clear, even if you could present some economic system that would produce more wealth for everyone but lacked freedom I would not want any part of it. I value my freedom far more than any amount of money. However, since government is inherently corrupt my arguments benefit from anti-freedom policies consistently leading to corruption and thus proves itself more inefficient in addition to being anti-freedom.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

Karl Marx.  "Capital".  Capitalists are so afraid of it, that they spend tons of dollars and weeks of speeches to make sure the majority is brainwashed like ... Kapkao (sorry, nothing personal, but you are a really good example).

No offense taken.

Who am I supposedly brainwashed by?

I suppose "brainwashed" could describe anyone you personally disagree with politically or economically...

The simple truth is that your claim is misguided.

 

When I drive to work/home, I often enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh &co.  You "sounded" very alike Rush talking about Obama the socialist/Marxist/communist/fascist (so much for one Obama!) and capitalism/free market is the best system on this planet. 

 

I am anti-Obama, but for reasons unrelated to economics. A lot of lame duck politics have been pushed into law over the years by him

I don't listen to Rush, primarily because he's said a LOT of stupid shit over the years. If you get the chance, go to google images in advanced search, and look up "Limbaugh Dance" in .gif format. Rush made fun of Marty McFly (Michael J Fox) because he has parkinson's disease, and supported a Democratic candidate who advocated for state-funded embryonic stemcell research. Something about popping oxycontin pills a while back, as well.

I do, however, agree with a lot of his listeners. (save for the part about "isolationism" and what have you -I'm of the staunchest opinion that USA should stop being the World's baby-sitter.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)