# Alternative to capitalism?



## Cruentus (Jun 1, 2004)

The subject of Capitalism has been in the Study recently. What I am interested in is what alternatives you think would be better, or do you think that there is no better alternative.

It is easy to critique, but difficult to come up with answers. I am interested in seeing some of the answers you all have.

artyon:


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 1, 2004)

O.K.....I'll start.

I think that Capitalism needs to evolve to a better system that hasn't been fully "discovered" yet.

I think that our Federal Government needs to excersise more regulatory control over corporations, especially on issues that effect society and healthy competition.

I think that Corporations need to be focused on making money, not social welfare.

I think that all Governments, especially State/Local Governments, need to be more socially concerned about things like living wage, healthcare, our education system, etc.

I think that Governments, especially federal, need to excersise far less regulatory control over citizens (more libertarian in terms of citizen regulation).

Answers? I think that we need to start by taking our civil liberties back. This can/should occur by giving States and Local Governments more power, but with the idea that less regulation on citizens is best. I think that each county should decide how to regulate it's people. Each state should decide how to regulate living wage, healthcare, etc. If a particular state wants to raise taxes to give everyone coverage, for example, then they should be able too.

Federal Government should focus on regulation of large corporate entities, because state/local governments do not have the capital to do so, plus most large corporations are at least international, if not global. The Fed would also worry about defense, and ensuring that States and counties are offering the minimum amount of rights to citizens. 

Federal Government would impliment a flat tax for all citizens, no breaks allowed. This includes corporations. The problem with our tax system is that even though Richer people are taxed more, they are also able to pay to find the loopholes to get major tax breaks. THey often pay far less then 28%. Corporations also often pay far less then 28%, and often times they don't pay taxes at all. There was a study that was done (I don't recall what the percentages were), but it estimated that if we went for a flat tax, everyone would be somewhere between 15 and 20% tax bracket to afford what we have now. This seems to be the way to go under a system like this. Also, because more power will be going to state/local governments, the Federal Flat tax would be far lower; say less then 10%.

Now State/local taxes will vary, depending on the services that people want. If people want better services, schools, or interstate healthcare, then this will cost money. So the State taxes will fluctuate, as will local taxes. This will help the efficiency because the larger the government entity, the more ineffecient things seem to go. Tax dollars tend to get "lost" at the federal level more then they do at the state, or local level. This way people in their locals can decide through their votes, and through their representatives, what they need, and what they can afford to have. The Fed will only set minimum standards for states, and states will set minimun standards for counties.

So, I'd like to see a move towards a very different system that seems to be a mix of libertarianism, socialism, and capitalism, with other undefined elements. Yes, there are loopholes, and many of these I couldn't cover in an internet forum due to time/length of post. 

If you have criticisms (as I am sure you will) then also post your alternative solutions. This thread is about solutions, not criticisms.

 :ultracool


----------



## someguy (Jun 1, 2004)

I'll assume you mean not pure capitalism.  But before I answere I'll ask that.  I think that the absolute best depends also on where you .  Changing also is difficult to go from on type of ecomonmy to another is hard.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 1, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> I'll assume you mean not pure capitalism.  But before I answere I'll ask that.  I think that the absolute best depends also on where you .  Changing also is difficult to go from on type of ecomonmy to another is hard.



Nope...my solution does not contain "pure" capitalism.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 1, 2004)

To the extent you're not simply arguing flat tax/state's rights and Federalism, what you're describing is pretty much called socialism. Like in Switzerland.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 1, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> To the extent you're not simply arguing flat tax/state's rights and Federalism, what you're describing is pretty much called socialism. Like in Switzerland.



Shhhh. You weren't supposed to tell EVERYONE.  :roflmao: 

It's close to socialism, but I am not fully convinced that it is "pure" socialism. In most socialist governments, I thought the Federal Government had more power then what I am proposing. Yes, I am kind of proposing a federalist-socialism, where Government isn't so "big," and people can maintain their individuality. 

Under what I am saying, however, individuality is very important. I believe that people should be able to earn money that is theirs, and the amount that they earn should reflect the value of what they are doing in society, and should reflect their hard work. I believe that individuals should have the right to own property. I believe that corporations should have the right to make money (just not at all costs). In the socialist "ideal" economic system, there is no company or individual ownership (all workers own the company) no management (all workers are supposed to manage themselves) , and the economy is "socially controlled." The idea of a socially controlled economy sounds great on paper, except in application this eliminates individualism. Plus, a Government-regulated socially controlled economy too easily turns into a totalatarian Government system, like the old Soviet Union. This is the fear of most capitalists. I believe that a capitalistic economy can work, but the Government needs to NOT be capatalist for it to work. In other words, the Government needs to ensure that certian things are in place, like fair competition and fair wages, while companies and people working for them should be worrying about being productive and making money. Under "pure" socialism, the focus isn't on making money (or, in my opinion, being productive).

I hope that made sense.

So I think that there are differences to pure socialism then what I am saying. But hey...I like switzerland!  :uhyeah:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 1, 2004)

Seems reasonable to me.

There are nice sf discussions of these issues in Kim Stanley Robinson's, "Mars," novels, as well as in Ken MacLeod's "Star Fraction," and its associated novels.

I like the concept of the Swiss society too...even (and REALLY don't tell anybody) the universal conscription/keep a serious weapon under seal in the home concept...


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 1, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Seems reasonable to me.
> 
> There are nice sf discussions of these issues in Kim Stanley Robinson's, "Mars," novels, as well as in Ken MacLeod's "Star Fraction," and its associated novels.
> 
> I like the concept of the Swiss society too...even (and REALLY don't tell anybody) the universal conscription/keep a serious weapon under seal in the home concept...



Cool. If I ever run for president, I'll expect your vote (but by then it won't matter because Diabold will have taken over all elections with electronic voting machines)  :uhyeah:

Oh, and yea...I won't tell everyone about keeping a serious weapon under seal in the home either if you won't!  :biggun:


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 1, 2004)

Any system could work in an ideal situation, but once you throw us flawed humans into the mix, any system will have problems.

For instance, communism sounds like a great idea, doesn't it?  Everyone works hard, and everyone reaps the benefit.  But everyone DOESN'T work hard.  You don't get great *individual* contribution when there is *collective* benefit.  The attitude is, "Hey, why should I break my back when Joe Schmo is doing nothing, and he earns the same as I do."  It's like a restaurant where the waitstaff pools their tips!

Capitalism is a great idea, too, if you have a level playing field.  The harder you work, the better you do.  But there is no level playing field, and no one looks out for the collective good.

And these cases represent the BEST case scenario, where everyone has basically good intentions.  Throw in some corruption, and any system is a mess.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 1, 2004)

In our current system, there have been organizations and families that have ties that go way back to medievil Europe.  These organizations have been gathering wealth for a thousand years.  So, you want to talk about an uneven playing field...that is why, at the end of the movie "Fight Club", when Tyler Durden blew up the World Bank, I was like _sweet _ and had to hit the showers. :supcool:


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 2, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I think that our Federal Government needs to excersise more regulatory control over corporations, especially on issues that effect society and healthy competition.





			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> I think that Governments, especially federal, need to excersise far less regulatory control over citizens (more libertarian in terms of citizen regulation).



Since corporations are just a group of citizens, don't you see the contridictions in the above two statements?

Quite simply put, there is no other system that is more moral than capitalism since none of the other systems respect the individuals right to act or not act and forces some part of the system to act for another part.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 2, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Since corporations are just a group of citizens, don't you see the contridictions in the above two statements?
> 
> Quite simply put, there is no other system that is more moral than capitalism since none of the other systems respect the individuals right to act or not act and forces some part of the system to act for another part.




Don,

No disrespect meant.

I do not think the term moral and capitalism are the correct terms together.

Capitalism is about money and trade. Yes individuals are allowed to enter into this game.

Democracy or in our case a Replublic, (* Where elected officials vote on matters for the pulic *), allows for the individuals rights, and rights to act or not act, into the system.

Just my take on it. I think it mean the similiar things, only in different words.
 :asian:


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 2, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I do not think the term moral and capitalism are the correct terms together.
> 
> Capitalism is about money and trade. Yes individuals are allowed to enter into this game.



The key is, no one is forced by another to do anything.

As an employer I can not force you to work for me.

As a buyer, I can not force you to sell me anything or do so for less than you want. 

If we do not agree on something, then neither one of us can force the other to our will. The seller can't sell and the buyer can't buy.

Other systems do force people to do things "for the common good", which is a good signal to grab onto your wallets.

Only capitalism respects the right of the individual to do no more than he wants to. All other systems so far have one person benifiting at the unwilling expense of another.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 2, 2004)

Mr. Roley

I would agree that protecting individual freedoms is very important.  Consider this though...

1.  Companies that egregiously pollute to produce cheaper product.
2.  Companies that lay off their American work force for third world semi-slave labor.
3.  Companies who threaten above, using it at as an excuse to reduce the benefits for American workers.

This list is not overlarge, but there are somethings that ARE for the greater good of society.  Does anyone else feel like they would like to add to my list?

upnorthkyosa  :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 2, 2004)

If everyone is serious about implementing the above, two things need to be done.  

1.  Convince non-voters to vote for politicians who support this.
2.  Pull moderate Republicans left of center.

Any ideas on how this could be done?


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 2, 2004)

Pheonix: I agree that human error is a problem in any system. That is why it is vital to eliminate structural problems in a system from the start, and why it is important to put checks and balances in place to try to curb human error. Capitalism, as it exists today, has structural problems, as does communism; these problems prevent the systems from working well.

Don: I appreciate your opinions, but I have to agree with Rich's statement. Capitalism is far from moral...it is about "capital." There is the guise that people aren't "forced" to anything under capitalism, therefore morality can be allowed to flurish, because under socialism people are forced to do things for the society, which may or may not be moral. I think this is only a guise, because first of all, ethics and laws will reflect what is good for "capital" in a capitalist society, not what is moral. Second of all, I don't believe that the idea that people aren't forced is true under capitalism, because there are different ways to force. Example, I know a newly married couple who want to have a family and be happy. Both work their asses off because in order to have a family, they need to live in a decent home rather then a little apartment. But, low and be hold, the wife needs dental care that will cost $8,000. Insurance will only cover $700. So, there goes their downpayment for the house. But, they can't come up with all that money today, so they'll have to borrow it from a creditor at a higher interest rate. Now, do they just pay minimum payements on the credit card, throwing their money away each month, to get into more debt for that house? If so, then by the time they get into the house and have a child or two, both parents will have to continue working just to support them. This means daycare, which means more money out of pocket, and now their children are being raised by Telivision and latchkey programs. And, don't forget that every 15 minutes on the Telivision someone will be telling them to buy more S**t to be happy; and the parents will be too busy working trying to make ends meet to tell their children otherwise. And, all these ads aimed at telling you to buy more stuff to be happy also say that your measurement of happiness is based off your peers, and how much crap they own in relationship to you. With this idea crammed into their kids heads, they will then get to go to school with some of the "social elite" who's parents were handed businesses by their parents, and they will have to wonder why they aren't good enough to compare with those other kids. Well, maybe that young couple should just "work harder" to pay for those medical bills. Maybe they should just "sacrifice more," and not save for things like retirement; that way they can push grocery carts when they are in their 70's and SS has completely dried up. And, if they can't do that, then maybe they should just make some sacrifices and invest in the lead bullet retirement plan; that involves a fairly inexpensive bullet to the head. Quick, easy, painless.

The sad thing is when that couple goes to church, and goes to the voting booth, and celebrates their "freedoms" that they believe that they have. Under capitalism, many people are enslaved. The only ones who are really free under capitalism are the ones who can afford to be. Truely, nothing is "free" under capitalism...not even freedom.

I am sure you and others will disagree, Don. But that is just my perception of things.

 :asian:


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 2, 2004)

Sorry; I had to "wrap it up" in my last post because I had a meeting to attend too. I wanted to say that my intent isn't to go on a diatribe against capitalism (or any other system), as it has positive aspects. Particularly, I think that capitalism does a far better job at driving the economy then any other system we have right now. The problem becomes, under capitalism, who are you driving the economy for? I wouldn't want to lose those elements of capitalism that drive the economy forward and encourage good work ethics. Just alter it to reduce as many of the negatives of capitalism as we can.

 :ultracool


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 2, 2004)

"Only capitalism respects the right of the individual to do no more than he wants to. All other systems so far have one person benifiting at the unwilling expense of another."

Well, that's certainly the party line...but in fact, it's simply not true, and it's self-contradictory.

1. You might want to check with the hundreds of millions working for lousy wages, in lousy conditions, for the benefit of a very few.

2. Yes, one is free under capitalism. Free to starve, to see one's family starve. Free to be what the society defines as immoral. Free to go against the grain...possible, but unlikely.

3. Capitalism relies on surplus value--upon "individuals," producing more than they want, and more than they need.

4. Capitalism defines morality as work.

Incidentally, corporations are considerably more than groups of individuals. I direct you to the song, "High Hopes," on the nature of quantitative/qualitative change.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 2, 2004)

How about a nation where corporations are making more profit than ever, but DECREASE their wages by 0.6%?

Oh, wait....that's America in the year 2004.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 2, 2004)

Oh yeah...about corporations.

Corporations are made up of groups of people, but when you have large corporations, there is no conscience with the group anymore; it is analagous to a machine that is only interested in the bottom line, making $$, and will do so through any possible means. I don't mind that corporations are out to make money at all. I just think that it is a dangerous paradox that we are then to believe that corporations (large entities with money and power, but no collective conscience other then to make money) will regulate themselves through simple market effeciency, and that Government should not step in to regulate. Then, the further irony is to then legislate vast amounts of regulation on individual citizens, who do have morals and values in society outside of making $$. It just doesn't make good sense.

Let corporerations do what they do best, which is making money; just regulate them through the federal government so that they don't harm people or each other.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 2, 2004)

One thing that has been consistent through the thread is that there has been no mention of the stock market and the role it plays in our economy. Seems that is isn't about making enough money, but more than enough money so your stock doesn't go through the floor.

Maybe it's food for another thread, but is the stock market and it's analysts and large shareholders the ones who are a bit to blame in all of this?


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 2, 2004)

Well, it seems to me that capitalism is the only way that achievers can be rewarded for their efforts.

This is a really tough issue.  In Canada, we call our system "social democracy", and let me tell you, that's not working well.  Regular stories about government corruption and mismanagement in the news.  This highlights for me the truth that its nearly impossible to keep your politicians honest.

The only real problem that I see with the Capitalist way, is we still need to maintain a social concience.  I think its evolving into this sort of thing, but I would like to see the continuance of Corporate regulatory evolution.  Then I would like to see them responsible, through taxation, for funding a portion of the government's social responsibilities.  The workers make money, the shareholders make money, the infirm or unemployable are taken care of, etc.

The major problem we have in Canada (with our huge social conscience) is that too many rely on social safety nets, and choose not to work.  Put that together with mismanagement of leftover public funding, and I get to take home less than 50% of what I earn (after all the various taxes).  

Really, I'm on the fence with this one.  I want to have the opportunity to excel, yet feel guilty when I hear the stories of the underprivileged, and angry when I see someone, who chooses not to work, driving a nicer car than mine!


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 2, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> One thing that has been consistent through the thread is that there has been no mention of the stock market and the role it plays in our economy. Seems that is isn't about making enough money, but more than enough money so your stock doesn't go through the floor.
> 
> Maybe it's food for another thread, but is the stock market and it's analysts and large shareholders the ones who are a bit to blame in all of this?



I'm fairly close to stock market issues (but for regulatory reasons I am not allowed to give advice online).

In terms of analysts, they are usually not the problem. The regulatory environment is very tight for them, so there isn't much room for falsifying research. The problem is that the regulatory environment is not very tight for the actual publically traded companies. So, if they falsify their accounting records and fudge their own financial reports, the fundamental analysts aren't going to notice a darned thing, and they are going to publish misleading research. None of this is intentional on the analysts part, however.

The stock market goes through a clear cycle, but that cycle lags the economy. The economy is based off of many different factors; supply and demand, trade, currency markets, commodities markets, inflation, bond markets, as well as the stock market. I have heard socialists and communist theorists claim that fluctuations in the markets will not be as great under their system, and the stock market will just continue on an upward trend like magic. I don't buy it for many reasons; for one there is no proof or research that I know of to support this hypothesis, for two supply and demand issues will still be there (as well as fluctuations in currencies interest rates, commodoties, etc.) meaning there will be a need for certian economic sectors over others in the same cyclical fashion. 

I think that the same capitalistic structure for business is appropriate, but that better regulation will keep companies honest, keeping the stock market effecient.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 2, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. You might want to check with the hundreds of millions working for lousy wages, in lousy conditions, for the benefit of a very few.



Ah yes, and how do the evil corporations put guns to people's heads and make them show up to work? If the people do not want to work for a certain company, they do not have to.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. Yes, one is free under capitalism. Free to starve, to see one's family starve. Free to be what the society defines as immoral. Free to go against the grain...possible, but unlikely.



That is nature. People starve unless they work. Sometimes they do not like the work they have to do under the conditions they want in order to survive. Again, that is nature and not something special to capitalism.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. Capitalism relies on surplus value--upon "individuals," producing more than they want, and more than they need.



If they want to produce more than they need they can. They can then use this surplus to exchange things they desire. Are you going to force people to be satisfied with what they have, "for their own good."



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 4. Capitalism defines morality as work.



You might want to explain that a bit more. Are you saying that not working is moral?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Incidentally, corporations are considerably more than groups of individuals. I direct you to the song, "High Hopes," on the nature of quantitative/qualitative change.



A song? Are we talking abotu the one with the ant? And how do we treat a group of individuals differently than a single individual in terms of the rights they have?

I see a lot of people blaiming the abuses of a few corporations on the systme of capitalism. You might as well be blaiming the male sex drive in half of the population for the rapes that happen every hour. If a company violates my rights by poisoning the drinking water with polution, that is an abuse blamable on the company. But this is an extreme example. And people may not like jobs going overseas for less money, but that is a matter between the company and the workers they hire (assuming of course all rights are respected and they are not held as slaves.) Many factories may not like you sending jobs overseas by buying Japanese cars, but no one can force you (without an abuse of the system) to buy what they want you to and not what you want. The same goes for the way companies hire their labor. You do not like jobs going to developing countries? Fine. No one is forcing you to buy those products or products made in America. The vast mass of people support the companies by buying their product.

Unless someone who thinks they know what is best for everyone else steps in and limits what they can do, "for their own good."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 3, 2004)

I see. SO--

1. Threatened starvation is in  no way coercive; neither is moral opprobrium, subsequent to lifelong indoctrination in the joys of work.

2. It is perfectly natural that hundreds of millions of children live in poverty and misery; clearly, it is also perfectly natural that a very few profit immensely from the labor of the very many.

3. Everyone is perfectly free to compete with gigantic corporations. Or, to work all the time and exchange the extra pieces of paper they get for the really important things in life, like clothes and knick-knacks.

4. Protestant work-ethic, dude. Read Max Weber. Read Henry Ford and Frederick Jackson Taylor; read Norman Vincent Peale, listen to Credflo Dollar...and wait a sec, you don't know anything about the system you're espousing. Wow.

5. "The abuses of a FEW corporations?" Sounds like a couple of oopsies and an occasional bad little boy, when the complete list reads like the closing credits to "Lord of the Rings." Sorry to be rude, but we're talking about an entire culture here--Enron (you know), Bechtel (illegal bidding for Iraq projects) ITT (helped finance the overthrow of Chile), United Fruit (read about Cuba and Latin America), Volkswagen (slave labor profits), Nike (child  labor, child labor, child labor), Dow Corning (Bhopal), Red Lobster (coral reef and fishery destruction)...how long a list you need? Good lord, it goes on forever...


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 3, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I see. SO--
> 
> 1. Threatened starvation is in  no way coercive; neither is moral opprobrium, subsequent to lifelong indoctrination in the joys of work.



I am going to stop you right there and deal with just this for it seems to be the center around what I hear a lot of arguing going on. It seems that you are not rallying against a way that people interact to exchange goods and services, but against nature and reality itself.

So, how did these companies break in and steal the food that the future employees were dependent on? How did they threaten to starve people if they do not do what they want?

When I said that capitalism is the most moral system invented, I said so because it is the only system where _nobody_ can _force_ another to employ them, buy their stuff, selll them stuff or make someone work for them. By "nobody" I mean _human beings_, either one or a group. And by "force" I mean by means of physical coercian and/or violence.

Now, if you do not work, you starve. But who is to blame for that? What person is to blame for the state of affairs that requires you to have food, shelter, medicine, etc? It is not a person or group that did that- it is nature. Naughty, naughty nature! Evil reality! We should pass a law requiring all human beings to be born without the need for food, water, shelter, etc. And until we achieve that, the best system is capitalism.

Now, having been born that nasty nature with the need for food, we have to get it somehow. Under capitalism, you do not have to work under anyone if you do not want. You have a choice. If there is no job you are willing to do or can do, how is that anyone else's fault?

Oh, and I think I should point out that under capitalism you can not only produce wealth, you can also give it away to those who you feel need it. No one is forcing you not to give to charity. "Charity begins at home" and I think it would be a great place to start if the people who want those richer than them to give to those with less (which includes them) they shoudl start by cutting back on their own consumption and giving their wealth to people less fortunate.

Whether you are talking about facism or communism, the goverments that have the most lofty talk about helping everyone and the force to take something from one and give it to another has ended up as brutal dictatorships that have killed millions of their own people. The concept itself is unsound. Controlling people instead of merely preventing them from being harmed by others is at it's core evil and has never had a good end. The Soviet Union gave us the word "gulag". It was a heck of a lot worse for the enviroment than the US ever was. And they got away with it because so many people believed that helping the whole of humanity justified all the little sins tha quickly multiplied and grew.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 3, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> That is nature. People starve unless they work. Sometimes they do not like the work they have to do under the conditions they want in order to survive. Again, that is nature and not something special to capitalism.



Here is the argument you predicted rmcrobertson.  My response to this...

Working to gather energy for life is part of nature.  Any primate species on an individual level must do this or they will not survive.  Capitalism fails to recognize another aspect of primate nature.  The ability to work together.  The ability to support each other.  Primates are social creatures.  They have evolved to take care of each other.  This why you feel compelled to charity when you see someone starving and down on their luck.  Especially when they resemble you in some fashion!  When the government mandates cooperation this too, is just a reflection of nature.  

Resistance to this mandate can also be seen as natural.  Many people do not want to be forced to help other people because they are somehow different from them.  Xenophobia - the flip side of primate society is the driving force behind this.  Yet, in this global society, as groups of people get closer and closer and more dependent on each other, the old xenophobia that fostered competition between primate families is becoming maladaptive.  We are becoming one giant tribe as we habitate this entire planet.  We need to learn how to cooperate as a gigantic group or we'll be in trouble.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 3, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Capitalism fails to recognize another aspect of primate nature.  The ability to work together.  The ability to support each other.



Capitalism does not fail to recognize the ability of humans to work together and support one another. However, it does not _force_ this on any individual.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 3, 2004)

Morality: the quality of being in accord with standards of right and good conduct

Ethics: rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions; as, political or social ethics; medical ethics.

The problem with calling business/capitolism 'immoral' or 'unethical' is that these terms describe what is and is not acceptable within an ideology. From a Judeo/Christian socialistic (NOT the political idea but the community minded idea within the religious stuff), some of the things in capitolism sound immoral. But then again capitolism is sort of economic Darwinism/Evolution so OF COURSE it is going to be at odds with most people's religiously/philosophically based values.

In the old 80's Japanese "business is war" school of capitolism things that would be considered culturally 'immoral' by civic minded, shinto/Buddhist (and other theological/religious doctrines that are practiced in Japan - including Christianity) would be considered 'good' or 'right' by the 'business/war' capitolism. capitolism is basically a big token reward system for the exchange of services and products to be exchanged and appropriated. HOW capitolistic economy is conducted is up to the people - like government or any other group thing, discussions that identify the 'ism' as an IT instead of "we" don't identify the problem or the cure because we are the designers of these 'isms'.

I don't think that capitolism really needs to be thrown out. I do think that the profit only drive has proven to be a problem. Businesses take on the personallity of the decision makers (corporate boards or sole proprietorships) and I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of 'people minded' companies is at a similiar proportion to the percentage of 'people minded' people in the world. When tempted by convenience, comfort and quality of life, very few consumers in first world countries will refuse to buy products or services because of social conscience. So I guess any reform to problems will have to start with either/or more government regulation of big business to make them move in more socially conscious directions (pollution control, labor treatment...) or consumers will have to rally together and support those businesses that are in keeping with sound practices that are more 'moral' to them. Evolutionarliy speaking, those that don't adapt will not survive.

Actions speak louder, so a company/owner is making high volume, low quality products or services that can be seen as an indicator of something. If the reverse is true that can be an indicator of something as well....


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 3, 2004)

Yes, and the British gave us the words, "concentration camp." We provided language like, "collateral damage," and, "My Lai," and, "firestorm." So 'scuse me if I do not feel that those morons in the Soviet Union had some marxist monopoly on horror. (and before you start, yes, I've read "Gulag Archipelago," and, "Cancer Ward." Back in the 1970s.)

You are resting--as capitalism must--on a fantasy of the human state of nature that is not backed by real evidence. I suspect that Marx also does this--but I far prefer his fantasy of our origins.


As for the notion that nobody's forced to do nothing in capitalism--c'mahn. Have you ever actually listened to working people? They sure seem to think that they are forced into the daily grind.

Your posts confirm the moral apparatus that supports the state of things as they are--a world in which money and jobs and buying and selling is far more important than people. It's my recommendation that you leave off the fancy theory, and do what Marx did--take a hard look at the real world, in which literally billions live in misery precisely because of the Way Things Are. 

Changing it is difficult, and quite dangerous. Leaving things as they are is utterly immoral.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 3, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Capitalism does not fail to recognize the ability of humans to work together and support one another. However, it does not _force_ this on any individual.



Which is why the capitalistic institution oppose unions???


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 3, 2004)

The more I think about the following argument, the more disturbed I get. It is human nature for everyone from scam artists to nazi goverments to demonize the future victims and justify their actions against with some sort of justification. So it stands to reason that those who look on the rich with greed and envy would come up with a justification for seizing the product of their labors. Demonzing the rich has become a high art form, but the following with it's psuedo science is truely scary.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Resistance to this mandate can also be seen as natural.  Many people do not want to be forced to help other people because they are somehow different from them.  Xenophobia - the flip side of primate society is the driving force behind this.




In short, people who believe that they should use the product of their labor in a way they choose are violently racist (xenophobic)? Strange how I have managed to be xenophobic while living in Japan all these years and producing two children with a member of a different race.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yet, in this global society, as groups of people get closer and closer and more dependent on each other, the old xenophobia that fostered competition between primate families is becoming maladaptive.  We are becoming one giant tribe as we habitate this entire planet.  We need to learn how to cooperate as a gigantic group or we'll be in trouble.



So we need to evolve, and those that have realized that they must be entrusted to take from soem to give to others are more evolved than those who want everyone to live their lives for themselves.

Can we say _untermensch_ and _ubermensch_ boys and girls?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 3, 2004)

Wasn't part of the Nazi diatribe against the Jews based (in part) on the Jewish people being amongst the "haves"? Interesting point.

I'm more "middle of the road" on this topic. I think that the strength of capitalism is the fact that anybody can achieve success. I grew up in a lower middle class family, did well in school, paid my own way through college (loaned my way is more accurate) and grad school all on my own merits. They're no silver spoons anywhere around my family home. If I had the interest, work ethic and drive, I suppose I could have gone into banking, trading, or some more profitable career and been well off by now. I chose what I was interested in. I dont believe in the "upper class holding the lower classes down" stuff. If you make the right choices (schooling, careers, social contacts etc.) you can make a good life here. Can a minority reach Bill Gates level? Maybe not. Are there minority businessmen much wealthier than me? Absolutely. As it is our "poor" are far from the poor of many other nations.

On the other hand I have to agree with Paul J., "I owe, I owe so off to work I go." I make a decent wage, but it all seems to go to bills. God forbid a major expense pops up, Id have to get another loan to pay for it. My father worked 30 years for a company that "outsourced" to Mexico, to young to collect retirement, too old to get hired easily. I dont believe in entitlement, but what is the best solution?


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 3, 2004)

> rmcrobertson:
> As for the notion that nobody's forced to do nothing in capitalism--c'mahn. Have you ever actually listened to working people? They sure seem to think that they are forced into the daily grind.



As I said before, there are different ways to force people to do things. Force under capitalism, unfortunatily, is very clever.

On that note, someone said that capitalism shouldn't thrown out. I would say that I have no problem with keeping the aspects that aren't harmful. I think that the key is that many need to get out of the mindset that "capitalism is the greatest and only way!" when there are clear problems with it that could be imporved, or "There may be problems under capitalism, but no system is perfect!" which is a cop out to justify not having to improve our system, or "Maybe Capitalism isn't the greatest, but I'd rather have this then the alternative" as if to say that our only alternatives are the horrors of a totalitarian-communist regime. 

I am glad to say that more people are voting for the possability of alternatives to capitalism then not. That means that people are thinking outside of the box. We should strive for continual imrpovement.

 :ultracool


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 3, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Wasn't part of the Nazi diatribe against the Jews based (in part) on the Jewish people being amongst the "haves"? Interesting point.



Not only that, but the nazis spun a tale of how those that did not have were in their condition because of the jews. In other words, the rich someohow forced the poor to be that way for some sort of evil reason. Thus the poor were justified in taking away from the rich and dispensing justice.

It is much easier to sleep at night thinking that rather than admiting that you saw that someone had something you wanted and you were going to support a goverment that promised to take it from them and give it to you.

You see why I look at the statments of the collectivism movement with a mixture of deja vu and horror.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 3, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Not only that, but the nazis spun a tale of how those that did not have were in their condition because of the jews. In other words, the rich someohow forced the poor to be that way for some sort of evil reason. Thus the poor were justified in taking away from the rich and dispensing justice.
> 
> It is much easier to sleep at night thinking that rather than admiting that you saw that someone had something you wanted and you were going to support a goverment that promised to take it from them and give it to you.
> 
> You see why I look at the statments of the collectivism movement with a mixture of deja vu and horror.


I keep seeing this "starchamber" theme where the wealthy get their fortunes from holding down the workers, "old" money that came over from ancient European oppression, unearned wealth where rich boys run around on yachts doing nothing, etc. What about guys like Bill Gates who went from some geek programmer working out of garage to the richest geek in the world?  The guy worked, made a popular product and reaped the rewards. He employs many people, donates tons of money to worthy causes and from what I hear is a pretty good guy. That being said should he be allowed to monopolize his market or engage in unfair business practices? No. Should he have any more "rights" under our system? No. Should he be demonized just because he was successful? No


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 3, 2004)

Wow. NEAT self-contradictions.

First off, you really need to read somebody like Adam Smith on the topic of where wealth comes from. In capitalist society, it comes from the many who produce enough surplus value; it flows to the few, who profit more than their work actually warrants because they own/control the means of production.

In other words, capitalist society--by definition--organizes value around the idea that a select few get wealthy, and most simply work hard.

Second off--what's with the cuddle-the-rich theory? Ya know, when I was a kid growing up in far more-traditional America, the wealthy were indeed viewed with considerable scorn--as they should be. (Two words: Donald Trump.) Yes, individuals are perfectly nice. Yes, Bill Gates is a good Horatio Alger story. But as a class--these guys have had advantages that you and I never got the slightest chance of having. Why kiss their collective butt?

You apparently think that the salmon swimming upsteam theory is perfectly good for human beings too--you know, a very few, "make it," nearly everbody else doesn't, so everything is just, hey, tickety-boo. 

Marx's arguments are all about people who, "people who believe that they should use the product of their labor in a way they choose ." Regrettably, that is not the way capitalism works.

Hey, didja hear the phone tapes of the Enron guys discussing screwing the West Coast?


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 3, 2004)

Tickety boo!?!?  :rofl: That was funny...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 3, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Can we say _untermensch_ and _ubermensch_ boys and girls?



Ja, ich verstehe Deutsch gut! (kinda)

Psuedoscience!  You need to pick up a book and start learning some anthropology.  Xenophobia is not violent racism, although it can lead to that.  Xenophobia is fear of difference.  Go back and reread what I wrote with that in mind.

If you are disturbed by this line of reasoning, I find that surprising.  You were the one who brought up the naturalistic rationalization for capitalism.  And now you are backpeddling because its not as simple as you made it sound.  Let me clarify, xenophobia developed is homo sapians because its aids groups with competition.  Groups of humans sometimes did (and still do) horrible things to one another because they competed for the same resources.  The fear of difference allows for neat separations to be drawn.  It allows for the us/them to develop.  Ethnocentrism, nationalism and all sorts of 'isms have evolved from this.

This bit of SCIENCE demonizes no one.  It lays out who we are plain and simple.  We compete and we cooperate.  A balance of the two is what primates naturally do - which is NOT what is currently happening.

upnorthkyosa

PS - this line of reasoning also defeats Nazi propaganda.  Variation is cherished in natural systems.  It makes them stronger.  Culling out traits is maladaptive.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 3, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Not only that, but the nazis spun a tale of how those that did not have were in their condition because of the jews. In other words, the rich someohow forced the poor to be that way for some sort of evil reason. Thus the poor were justified in taking away from the rich and dispensing justice.



And the capitalist does not spin out a line of reasoning that states that poor people are there because they don't work hard enough...kind of a double whammy isn't it?  Gives the phrase "working to death" a whole new meaning.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 3, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What about guys like Bill Gates who went from some geek programmer working out of garage to the richest geek in the world?



This example is not a common experience.  Unfortunately this type of thing is what is stretched out and blown up like a gigantic rubber carrot.  "Work harder my pretties and you just might end up like him".

I've got a pin.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 3, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Hey, didja hear the phone tapes of the Enron guys discussing screwing the West Coast?



Yeah, I heard about that.  "Hey, lets make make a bottleneck here by shutting down this switch!"  That is as American as apple pie.


----------



## TigerWoman (Jun 4, 2004)

Sorry, I'm not tracking with you, but how about the barter system?  Or is that a form of capitalism?  Works great around here amongst friends or people you can trust.  Otherwise it would have to be a direct exchange.  Ah, the simple life.  But not everything can be bartered. We all would have to live like the Amish.  No 'puter, guess that does that in.  And I don't suppose the Amish practice martial arts either...  I'll leave now, you all can get back to your discussion.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 4, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Wow. NEAT self-contradictions.
> 
> First off, you really need to read somebody like Adam Smith on the topic of where wealth comes from. In capitalist society, it comes from the many who produce enough surplus value; it flows to the few, who profit more than their work actually warrants because they own/control the means of production.
> 
> In other words, capitalist society--by definition--organizes value around the idea that a select few get wealthy, and most simply work hard.



That has got to be one of the biggest distortions of capitalism I have heard. It sounds like Marx, not Smith.

Simply put, under capitalism you are free to trade with anyone else and do what you want with the wealth you produce. It works best under a goverment that simply inures that no one can violate anyone else's rights (i.e, don't polluyte my water, break into my house, sell me something under false pretextes, etc) and little else to "improve" society as a whole. It tends to attract those that like the idea that they can't stick their noses in other people's business and no one can do tell them what to do unless what they do somehow affects them.

But to those that require a justification of their greed and envy, the idea of collectivism and the demonizing of those that have more than them will always be a strong reason why even after all the death camps and millions of people slaughtered by their own socialist goverments in the 20th century, there are still people who support it.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If you are disturbed by this line of reasoning, I find that surprising. You were the one who brought up the naturalistic rationalization for capitalism.



No, I never tried to make pseudo-science part of my aurgument about the moral superiortiy of capitalism. I merely stated that it is the only system where no person can use violence or the threat of violence on another to aquire and distribute the product of their labor. Systems that use force (as in goverments breaking down doors and taking grain crops, etc instead of the human need to eat) are built on a foundation of violence instead of voluntary cooperation.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 4, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What about guys like Bill Gates who went from some geek programmer working out of garage to the richest geek in the world?  The guy worked, made a popular product and reaped the rewards. He employs many people, donates tons of money to worthy causes and from what I hear is a pretty good guy.



My, how rude of you to provide an example of how capitalism works when so many people are trying to say it does not work.

Of course, Gates is a rare case. But if you try to say he is an exception, then you open up the fact that the rule about people not being able to do better under capitalism has holes in it. As I said, Gates is rare. He is about as rare as a Stephen Hawking or Einstein is for human potential. But there is that potential there.

Most times, those that push for people to take control of the wealth of others take people like Gates and demonize them. Truth to tell, people are people and there are many bad traits you can find in any group. The thing is, that while we can provide tons and tons of examples of corrupt and evil politicians, the collectavist movement wants to hand them control over the fruits of labor of everyone.

Me, I like the idea of leaving everyone alone as much as possible to giving such control over to others for ignorant people's own good. But anyone who wants those better off to help those less fortunate are quite welcome to do what they want with their own property.  :ultracool


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 4, 2004)

The point that seems to be forgotten in this discussion is that capitolism is an economic theory.  The only real governmental aspect of it is when capitolists tell the government to stay the hell out of it - and it was tried and proved to have some negative affects when the government didn't regulate business practices.

Some of the other alternatives/influences that are being mentioned are political/economic theories (communism/socialism...) and have also proven to have some negative affects when the government did regulate the **** out of the business practices (ever notice how the stereotype of USSR/Eastern Block products is that they are hearty but not too sophisticated?  They were constantly stealing technology from the west).

So, it is seriously ironic how so many of the "down with capitolism" folks here are also "down with governmental infringement on individual rights" people because some of those changes that you desire are going to infringe on someone's individual rights/civil liberties to start a business and climb the ladder of success - even if they are decent moral people.  Don't you see the duallity?

The only realistic way that 'we' can really influence/change capitolism (meaning the citizens of democratic type nations) is by proposing, lobbying and voting for politics and politicians who will establish even more business regulations - that would translate to more control over the private citizen and what we can and can not do with our own private property (for business or otherwise)....I'd say that we could stage an economy revolution to force change but that is about as realistic as Red Blade stepping forward or any other of the shadow trolls to reveal themselves.


As it stands, capitolism is an open system of economy.  If you want to be a "Judeo/Christian values" based capitolistic company you are FREE to run your business that way.  If the government is regulating your decisions (with the heavily socialistic/communistic overtones implied here) then they would not allow your religious values to dictate the tone of the company - they would dictate it to you - because it really isn't YOUR company but theirs.

Capitolism and democratic politics go hand in hand.  Pre/during and Post WWI there was a huge Socialism movement in the USA that damn near tore it apart if I remembe my 42nd Parallel reading.  The current US form of capitolism is loaded with socialistic influences because of unions, abudsmen (sp?), company 'liaison' employees who work with employees so the workers don't feel that they have to unionize, and governmental regulations of businesses (minimum wage, pollution standards, monopolies...)

I still say that it is a basic "people, in general are selfish/self interested" problem and not a capitolism problem.  There is corruption in socialism, communism.... because of basic human behavior - greed and power are addictive.

Change?  Change the self for the better, buy what you need and avoid debt as much as possible (RIGHT!), support companies that fit your social values (if you really are that concerned or pay that much attention - I buy chocolate even though I know that some of the companies look the other way about African child labor/slavery over the harvesting of raw material), be an example for others, vote/decide for the common good and drive on.  I still don't buy anything but Ford products even now that my father is retired (A plan is great) but they didn't do a bad job of taking care of him and I even worked there part time for a stretch


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> That is nature. People starve unless they work. Sometimes they do not like the work they have to do under the conditions they want in order to survive. Again, that is nature and not something special to capitalism.



Mr. Roley - you did indeed invoke nature to rationalize your argument for capitalism.  Please allow me to describe a few more _natural _ things for you.

Money = Energy.  So there is a lot about how money moves and does not move that is described by ecology.  With that premise, I want you to consider a basic ecologic law.  Energy spreads out.  What this means is that when energy pools, systems arise to drain that pool.  If a system has created an energy pool, then the system must exert energy to preserve that pool.  Not only is this ecologic, this is also entropic.  No psuedo-science, just the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in action.

A real world example of the above is this...the very rich in this country must work very hard at staying rich.  They must do everything in their power to not only preserve wealth, but to add to their wealth.  In capitalist societies, a social structure MUST be maintaned that accomplishes the above task.  This explains why so many of the laws in this country (formal and informal) favor the rich.  It also explains why the majority of our law makers are very wealthy themselves and why it takes so much money to get involved in politics.  

Money is the only thing that really matters in a capitalist society and preserving the flow of energy to the hands of the few is the REAL founding principle of this country.

For more information on this try, Howard Zinn "Peoples History of the United States."


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 4, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> As it stands, capitolism is an open system of economy.  If you want to be a "Judeo/Christian values" based capitolistic company you are FREE to run your business that way.  If the government is regulating your decisions (with the heavily socialistic/communistic overtones implied here) then they would not allow your religious values to dictate the tone of the company - they would dictate it to you - because it really isn't YOUR company but theirs.



So, to summerize. If you want to help people less fortunate than you, then a capitalistic system backed up by a goverment that intrudes only when one person attacks/violates/defrauds another, is the only way to do it on your own.

Every other system gives power to a politician to dispose of you and your labor as they will under the excuse of helping the _volk_ which has more power than the "greedy" individual.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 4, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Money = Energy.  So there is a lot about how money moves and does not move that is described by ecology.



Ah, I see. So if I offer you five _hundred_ dollars to kill you rmother and you refuse, and I then offer you five _million_ dollars to kill your mother you are then *forced* to kill your mother. There is no individual choice, no free will. I merely have to offer you enough money and your moral obligation to the persn to gave birth to you is null and void with no responsibility on your part.

And this is the same as if I put a gun to your head and _forced_ you to do something. After all, people can not be trusted to do the right thing unless they are cared for by a suitably evolved individual.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 4, 2004)

It seems screamingly clear that a number of folks do not understand the nature of the eeconomic system they are espousing. It the interest of knowledge, then--and to start with--here's the "Encarta," description of Adam Smith's ideas:

"Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' represents the first serious attempt in the history of economic thought to divorce the study of political economy from the related fields of political science, ethics, and jurisprudence. It embodies a penetrating analysis of the processes whereby economic wealth is produced and distributed and demonstrates that the fundamental sources of all income, that is, the basic forms in which wealth is distributed, are rent, wages, and profits.

The central thesis of 'The Wealth of Nations' is that capital is best employed for the production and distribution of wealth under conditions of governmental noninterference, or laissez-faire, and free trade. In Smith's view, the production and exchange of goods can be stimulated, and a consequent rise in the general standard of living attained, only through the efficient operations of private industrial and commercial entrepreneurs acting with a minimum of regulation and control by governments. To explain this concept of government maintaining a laissez-faire attitude toward commercial endeavors, Smith proclaimed the principle of the invisible hand: Every individual in pursuing his or her own good is led, as if by an invisible hand, to achieve the best good for all. Therefore any interference with free competition by government is almost certain to be injurious.

Although this view has undergone considerable modification by economists in the light of historical developments since Smith's time, many sections of The Wealth of Nations, notably those relating to the sources of income and the nature of capital, have continued to form the basis for theoretical study in the field of political economy. The Wealth of Nations has also served, perhaps more than any other single work in its field, as a guide to the formulation of governmental economic policies.


Note, please, that this is capitalism altogether without government regulation--the "libertarian," approach. Note, too, that there is no provision whatsoever in this economic system for human beings--there are, "individuals," it is true, but these are defined solely in terms of their ability to produce or collect or accumulate, "wealth," in one form or another.

If you actually READ Marx's, "Capital," you will note something odd: the description of capitalism as an economic system is the same as in Smith, or Ricardo, or "The Wall Street Journal," for that matter. The difference lies in the accounts of, a) origins of the system; b) its, "naturalness;" c) its effects upon "morality;" d) the consequences for the considerable majority of human beings; e) its status as, "the end of history," the logical end of human social development.

As for the statement, "Every other system gives power to a politician to dispose of you and your labor as they will under the excuse of helping the volk which has more power than the "greedy" individual, " well, it represents a grotesque avoidance of what capitalism is--precisely a system that gives the boss, the CEO, etc., the power to dispose of you and your labor. Or isn't there anybody else out there who's moved a lot to chase jobs, changed their life for the worse for a job, felt that they work their *** off and the boss makes the dough?

It is extraordinary that people will not connect what Raymond Williams called their, "lived experience," to the actual facts of the world in which they live. It is also extraordinary to see someone pooh-pooh barter and collectivization among the Amish, then end with a post-script from the New Testament! I musta missed the parts where Jesus said, "And the whole purpose of life and the universe is to accumulate wealth in this world. So go and dutifully screw thy brethren to Get Ahead, for that is My Word, and in the end the Invisible Hand will make it all OK. Oh yes, and it is Perfectly Fine By Me that there are the Poor."

Or to quote Blake before anybody start in on how charitable Americans are (in fact, but whocares about THAT, Americans give less than any other industrialized country as a percentage of GNP):

"Mercy would be no more
If we did not make somebody poor
And Pity no more could be
If all were as happy as we."

Some are willing to sacrifice the majortiy of people to an abstract theory of economics. I ain't; just stuck with it, till better days arrive.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 4, 2004)

> It seems screamingly clear that a number of folks do not understand the nature of the eeconomic system they are espousing.



Not being accusatory to anyone here, but I find that to generally be the case. Manufactured consent once again. "Capitalism" and "Free-Market" and "free-Trade" all good. "Patroit Act" and "freedom Fries," yummm. It must be good because that was what I have been told for my whole life, so I'll figure out my arguement behind why it must be good later.

Vote Bush.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 4, 2004)

The biggest hole in most of the commentary about Marxism/Communism is that those who are currently promoting/believing that this 'ism' was a direct reaction to the Czarist corruption within Russia of the time. Engel was reacting to the industrial corruption/apathy about the working class....

Don't confuse their commentary with our reader interpretations. Parallels/comparisons can be made, true, but the scale/range of the problems are going to be different.  The specifics that Marxist/Communistic theory was revolting against was some VERY drastic Have/Have not contrasts in a national structure that had NO social services programs (churches and family support/charity was the closest thing), and no educational/self improvement programs for the masses.... since that isn't the case in the US or most/all of the modern first world nations, I would say that the venom/disgust that people are commenting with is either misplaced or misunderstanding of the context of marxist commentary.

It is no different than the Religious protestantism that was a reaction to what they saw wrong within the Catholic church. You can either try and make small changes without destroying the whole, or you can reject the whole and create a different system entirely.... communism instead of capitalism...

ANY wholesale throw away reactionary response is going to be inherently critical of the thing that inspired the reaction... thus ignoring ANY positive/productive aspects of that system.

Also, consider any personal disillusionment/bitterness from personal experience on the part of Marx/Engel (Engle?) that can inspire commentary that blames the 'rich' or who ever for a problem.  People will, though not always aware of it, grind a personal axe as part of their motivation to make a difference - corrupting some of the tone and intent of that cause.

On a personal level consider who many people at some point have made parenting/adult decisions at least partially motivated by the "I won't be anything like my parents" inspiration - only later realizing that they were rejecting good stuff because of that motivation.  The personal axe grinding corrupted the path that they/we/...okay I took at times on my way to being 'my own man' (which in a way is a rephrasing of "I can do it, I'm a big boy now....).  Now amplify the range of impact because of publication/forum/purpose.... and the intent might be good, underlying motives can undermine the intent/tone.

The 'evil rich' of Marxist commentary is an accurate description I think. Carrying that stereotype to our modern day is prejudicial and just as bad as anti-semetism or racism. I don't think people would appreciate a "those martial artists all...." types of comments.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 4, 2004)

I agree about the weird Freudian implications of the Russian Revolution--and the subsequent attempt on the parts of divagationist scum like Zinoviev and beria to themselves become the Evil Fathers--points, incidentally, that contemporary marxians talk about all the time.

However, if you listen to things like the racist and woman-hating comments on the parts of the heads of Mitsubishi a few years back, or look at the recent Enron phone tapes, or any of a host of others, well, it's hard to think that these guys aren't still at least some evil.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Ah, I see. So if I offer you five _hundred_ dollars to kill you rmother and you refuse, and I then offer you five _million_ dollars to kill your mother you are then *forced* to kill your mother. There is no individual choice, no free will. I merely have to offer you enough money and your moral obligation to the persn to gave birth to you is null and void with no responsibility on your part.



Capitalism is a selective system.  The society it creates will evolve an individual that will accept your offer.  You could offer me any amount of money and I wouldn't kill my mother, but if you opened the offer up, someone would step forward.  There are some lines in which I will not cross in order to get ahead.  Others do not have that problem hence they will out compete me in the capitalist society.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 4, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Capitalism is a selective system.  The society it creates will evolve an individual that will accept your offer.  You could offer me any amount of money and I wouldn't kill my mother, but if you opened the offer up, someone would step forward.  There are some lines in which I will not cross in order to get ahead.  Others do not have that problem hence they will out compete me in the capitalist society.



Wow. Extremely good point, upnorth.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 4, 2004)

But they will be prosecuted and incarcerated/punished in a democratic society. Like Paul M. mentioned, capitalism is an economic system in our democratic governmental system. Most of the other "isms" are "combined" systems.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 4, 2004)

*http://www.post-gazette.com/printer.asp*

*Top 50: Defining success*



Tuesday, April 09, 2002

By Dan Fitzpatrick, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

The day Internet auctioneer FreeMarkets Inc. began trading its stock, making Glen Meakem a paper billionaire, someone asked the young executive if he ever imagined his company would be this successful. 

"I always knew it would happen this way," he said. 

More than two years later, Meakem, 38, admits to being "very ambitious" and wanting "to be as successful or more successful than the most successful people of my generation, in terms of achievements in my career . . . and also in terms of making money." Yet, now that Meakem has that at FreeMarkets, his definition of success has become more complex. 

"You won't find many people who are more ambitious in a career sense and money sense than me," he said. But, "if I am a crummy husband and a crummy father, I am not a success." He still values personal achievement and wealth, but success is "also about having a positive impact on others." 

Most people in business define success as Meakem does, in a personal way, putting their families, charities, employees or spiritual happiness above money, status and rank. But there is an inherent conflict there. People do not want to define themselves in materialist ways, but the larger culture often defines business success differently, concentrating more on profits, money, status and rank. 

"I would be lying to you if I were to tell you I would consider myself successful or my business successful if it didn't allow me to live a lifestyle I am content with," said attorney Steve Reinsel, a co-founder of Downtown law firm Santoro & Reinsel. 

The pursuit of success thus reflects a paradox of American life, and points to a series of inherent conflicts that have altered the definition of success numerous times in the last two centuries while at the same time spawning endless advice on how to achieve it. 

Pittsburgh executives reached by the Post-Gazette now define success as a mixture of survival, failure, innovation, change, performance and respect. To Sunil Wadhwani, founder of iGate, success is "creating something from nothing and really building a significant organization where nothing existed before." To Medrad Inc. Chief Executive Officer John Friel, success is his own happiness, the well-being of his employees and the health of his company. To Internet entrepreneur Marco Cardamone, it is "learning from failure." 

But rarely is it money. 

"I don't like the idea of doing things for money," said UPMC Chairman Jeff Romoff. Or, as Pittsburgh attorney Marlee Myers put it, "Money is the byproduct of success; it is not the definition of success." 



*Building character* 

The pursuit of success, and its inherent conflicts, began with Benjamin Franklin, a self-promoter, entrepreneur and 18th century statesman who remains the archetypal self-made man. He started life poor, worked hard, made money and achieved an international status that allowed him to dine with kings.

Drawing on puritanical and Calvinist beliefs that success was a sign of God's favor, Franklin developed the view that the pursuit of wealth was virtuous and would lead to success. It was part of "the bold and arduous Project of arriving at moral Perfection," he said. 

Franklin was the first to make money by telling others how to make money, too. In 1757, he published "The Way To Wealth," a how-to guide for accumulating wealth. Later, in his "Autobiography," Franklin described how other young people could "emerge from the poverty and obscurity in which I was born and bred, to a state of affluence and some degree of reputation in the world." 

To Franklin, the two most important virtues employed in the pursuit of wealth were industry and frugality. 

"The way to wealth," he wrote in "Advice to Young Statesmen," "if you desire it, is as plain as the way to market. It depends chiefly on two words, industry and frugality; that is, waste neither time nor money, but make the best use of both." From this philosophy came classic Franklin aphorisms such as "early to bed, and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise." Also, it produced, "A fat kitchen makes a lean will. Rather go to bed supperless than rise in debt." 

Among other virtues crucial for success, Franklin also listed temperance, silence, order, resolution, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquillity, chastity and humility. 

Idleness, he said, was a seductive trap. "Laziness travels so slowly, that poverty soon overtakes him." 

Franklin tried to hold himself to these same requirements by keeping a daily chart of self-examination. He focused on one virtue per week, and failed himself on the days he did not live up to his own advice. 

Franklin, unlike the early Puritans, removed religion from the pursuit of success, preferring to view it as a secular quest and within the power of each individual alone. Also, "he ignored the importance of luck, contacts, family influence and native intelligence," wrote Richard Huber, author of the book "The American Idea of Success." "The start was equal for all." 

Such an attitude played well in a country that valued rugged individualism. Back then, material success equaled true success, because it required honesty, integrity, hard work and determination to achieve it. Self interest was OK, as long as it was "enlightened self-interest." 

Reinforcing this view, in the late 19th century, were the fictional tales of Horatio Alger. Building on the work in magazines such as "Wealth and Worth," and such stories as "Where There's a Will, There's a Way," which appeared in the 1850s, Alger turned the pursuit of success into a heroic struggle that was symbolic of equal opportunity and the long climb from "rags to riches." 

An ordained minister-turned-writer, Alger churned out about 100 novels in the late 1800s, all of them touching on the theme of success. For the most part, Alger's heroes were young, male and poor, but always seeking "respectability" in the white collar world. 

Alger's first hit was "Ragged Dick," a book published in 1868. The protagonist, an orphan, struggles without any reward until he saves a wealthy man's drowning child. The father, grateful for the effort, hires the hero to work in a counting house and offers him a new suit of clothes. 

"Dick's great ambition to 'grow up 'spectable," Alger wrote, "seemed likely to be accomplished." 

Most of Alger's stories followed the same plot line: plucky, self-reliant youngsters rewarded with the kindness of a stranger, usually in the form of money or a job. Also, the hero always seized the opportunity when it arrived. 

No one businessman of the late 19th century reflected the Alger ethos better than Pittsburgh steelmaker Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie epitomized American-style success, believing like Franklin that the virtuous struggle for wealth would improve his character -- and fatten his pocketbook. 

Carnegie glorified the accumulation of wealth by telling his own story in books, articles, speeches and essays. Born poor in Scotland, Carnegie arrived in the United States at the age of 13, and rose from the messenger boy in a Pittsburgh telegraph office to become the richest man in the world at the turn of the century, when he sold Carnegie Steel for $480 million. 

Carnegie's story also echoes Alger's "Ragged Dick." 

In his book, "Empire of Business," Carnegie argued that "honest poverty" is the "soil" on which "alone the virtues and all that is precious in human character grow." His memory of the "wolf of poverty" spurred him to ceaseless amounts of work for his employers. In a June 23, 1885, address Carnegie gave to a group of graduating students at Pittsburgh's Curry Commercial College, Carnegie stressed these themes. 

"The rising man," he said, "must do something exceptional, and beyond the range of his special department. 

"He must attract attention. 

"There is no service so low and simple, neither any so high, in which the young man of ability and willing disposition cannot readily and almost daily prove himself capable of greater trust and usefulness, and, what is equally important, show his invincible determination to rise." 

Carnegie provided ample justification for the pursuit of success and the making of money, echoing themes established by Franklin more than century earlier. But he also put a new spin on the subject. In a 1889 essay entitled _Wealth_, he argued that some people acquire wealth due to superior talents, but that such an accumulation benefited the larger human race. 

"It becomes the duty of the millionaire to increase his revenues," he wrote. "The struggle for more is completely freed from selfish or ambitious taint and becomes a noble pursuit. Then he labors not for self, but for others', not to hoard, but to spend, The more he makes, the more the public gets." 

Carnegie, true to his word, gave away much of his fortune. As he concluded, "the man who dies thus rich dies disgraced." 



*Modern-day virtue *

Most executives now attribute success to a mixture of hard work, good fortune and persistence, drawing on the same themes established by Franklin and Alger. 

Consider the life of Marlee Myers, managing partner of Morgan Lewis & Bockius' Pittsburgh office and perhaps Pittsburgh's best-known technology attorney. Her grandparents were immigrants from Russia, and her parents lacked formal education. Her father, who never finished high school, ran a small Lee Jeans store in Downtown McKeesport, but lost the store to a redevelopment of McKeesport's business district. 

In the conventional sense, Myers said, her parents were not successful. But her own poor background made Myers "independent minded" and eager for achievement. She won a full scholarship to attend Carnegie Mellon University, dropped out at 19 to get married, then paid her own way to attend the University of Pittsburgh. 

She eventually went to law school, where she graduated No. 1 in her class. She got a job at the Downtown law firm Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, started representing technology clients, and formed Morgan Lewis' Pittsburgh office in 1996. She has represented many of Pittsburgh's best known technology companies, including FreeMarkets and Fore Systems, which was purchased by Marconi plc in the late 1990s. 

"I have moved up the ladder in American society by dint of education, hard work and pluck," she said. "It is a very typical American story ... My parents had essentially nothing. I was able to achieve my dreams and goals through working hard and trying hard at what I do." 

Former Allegheny Technologies Chairman Dick Simmons, who resigned three years ago as one of the nation's most respected steelmakers, did not have much money as a child, either. 

His father, who owned a gas station in Bridgeport, Conn., died while Simmons was still a teen-ager. Simmons, though, got a scholarship to attend the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He graduated with a debt equal to $35,000 in today's dollars. It took him four years to pay it off, while working for Allegheny Ludlum, the company he would eventually run a few decades later. 

Simmons, now 70, spent five decades in the specialty metals business, the highlight of which was a $195 million management buyout of Ludlum in 1980. Simmons also launched, with his own money, a venture capital firm that was one of the first to fund small, local technology companies. 

His story, he said, is not "rags to riches," but it does show how "you start out by having to be very lucky, by working hard and by taking risks. 

"I consider myself to be the luckiest man in the world," he said. 

Tom Murrin, a former high-ranking executive with Westinghouse Electric Corp., and a former dean of Duquesne University's A.J. Palumbo School of Business Administration, had a similar experience. Both his parents were poor, and never got beyond high school. His father, who dug tunnels and caught rivets atop skyscrapers in New York City, died while Murrin was still in high school. 

But Murrin was a good enough student and a good enough athlete to win a football scholarship to Fordham University. Walking to school an hour each way, every day, Murrin majored in physics because it was the "hardest subject" he could find and he played football, too, as a fullback. 

His coach was the then-unknown Vince Lombardi, who would later coach Green Bay Packers. 

Lombardi, Murrin said, taught him several important lessons about success. 

"One was you could do things much better than you could ever naturally want to or dream if you worked hard enough at it. He taught us how to work harder than we ever wanted to or felt we ever could." 

After Fordham, Murrin joined Westinghouse in 1951. Before rising in the executive ranks, he started on the factory floor, and became engineer, supervising engineer, manufacturing representative in Europe, as well as the company's youngest manufacturing manager and youngest general manager. 

"I was the youngest everything," he said. 

Thinking back, he said, "A lot of life is fate or luck." Like the boys in the Horatio Alger story, "I have been very fortunate that way." 

Unlike Murrin, Allegheny County Executive Chief Executive Jim Roddey began life in a "comfortable" middle class household, but he did not need a lower-class background to inspire thoughts of success. He remembers being successful early in life, first as a high school track star and then after he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. 

"I think I enjoyed being successful," he said. "You have a little taste of going to school and doing well and being recognized at the top of your class and being in sports and being on the starting team. You begin to form patterns, recognizing that it is better to win than it is to lose." 

As a businessman, Roddey experienced both success and failure. He worked for a man, CNN network founder Ted Turner , who "used to say that 'business was a game and money was how you kept score,' " Roddey said. "His definition of success was being king of the hill." Roddey said he has some of that attitude in him, but that money was never "the most important thing" for him. 

"All of my life I have set goals," he said. "To be success, first you have to set goals. If you reach those goals, then you have a clear definition of success." 

Like Roddey, FreeMarkets CEO Glen Meakem felt like a success early in life. In sixth grade, he remembers doing well in school, sports and the theater. "I haven't stopped feeling like a success since the sixth grade," he said. His first job in the business world was with Kraft General Foods. He felt successful right away, with raises and good performance reviews. But, "I saw myself as a CEO,'' he said. "I thought my odds of being a CEO were small following that career path." 

So, he left. 

"The really, really great business people were those who started their own company. Being the guy who worked your way up for 30 years and having four years as the CEO was sort of nice and you made a decent income, but people forgot your name in five years." The people who started companies "were people who changed business ... made a lot of money and made a great impact." 



*The decline of the dream and the new success* 

By the last third of the 19th century, the dominant concept of success was one of "opulent materialism competitively won," according to "Success in America," a book by Rex Burns. From the 1870s to the 1920s, a farm boy-turned-Baptist minister named Russell Conwell stressed this theme in more than 6,000 lectures known as "Acres of Diamonds," acting as an unapologetic promoter of materialism. 

"I say that you ought to get rich, and it is your duty to get rich," he said. "Money is power, and you ought to be reasonably ambitious to have it. You ought because you can do more good with it than you could without it." 

But some felt that rugged independence, even the "enlightened" self-interest promoted first by Franklin, was no longer moral but instead destructive. Muckrakers and progressives began to pick away at the image of the self-made industrialist. Many Pittsburgh executives were targets. One, of course, was Carnegie. 

Another was Charles Schwab. After joining Carnegie Steel in 1879 as a day laborer, Schwab made a fast rise to the top, becoming president at age 35, head of the largest and most profitable steel company in the world. Schwab later went on to form Bethlehem Steel, making it a formidable competitor to U.S. Steel. 

In "Succeeding with What You Have," a magazine article that appeared in American Magazine in November, 1916, Schwab made the point that it doesn't take big brains to succeed in business. "I have always felt that the surest way to qualify for the job just ahead is to work a little harder than anyone else on the job one is holding down." In another article titled "Ten Commandments of Success," Schwab said that "a man early in life must make up his mind to do one of two things: Either to have a good time in life; or to be successful in life. 

"He can choose one, but not both." 

But Schwab tasted the other side of success, too. He spent lavishly in his later years, and according to Time magazine, died nearly bankrupt in 1939, even though at one time he made $2 million a year as U.S. Steel's president. 

By the late 1930s, according to Robert Hessen's "Steel Titan," Schwab felt that some of his achievements in business had been forgotten and unappreciated. He told journalist B.C. Forbes in 1936, "I really feel that I have contributed something to the development of this country's resources -- Bethlehem [Steel] gives employment to some 30,000 people. It hurts me -- it hurts me very much -- to be branded as nothing but a greedy, selfish, self-seeking, mercenary, merciless fellow, callous towards workmen and towards everybody else." 

After World War II, the pursuit of success veered off the path worn by Schwab and Carnegie. Personal magnetism, instead of inner virtue, became a more important factor of success. In the 1925 best-selling book "The Man Nobody Knows," advertising executive Bruce Barton described how Jesus Christ, "founder of modern business," rose from poverty to become a great leader because he had "the personal magnetism which begets loyalty and commands respect." 

The personality approach reached its zenith, perhaps, with Dale Carnegie's 1936 book "How To Win Friends and Influence People." Born poor, Carnegie became an accomplished college debater and later, a salesman. At night, he gave courses in public speaking to a YMCA, in New York. The course was a hit, and he began teaching more classes in the 1920s and 1930s, calling the lectures "How to Win Friends and Influence People." 

He finally put the advice into print in 1936. 

Carnegie, in his book, promised to give people self-confidence, which would lead to success and a larger income. Among his rules were "Smile; Remember that a man's name is to him the sweetest and most important sound in the English language; Be a good listener; Talk in terms of the other man's interests; and Make the other person feel important -- and do it sincerely." 



*Not afraid to fail* 

When asked what it takes to be a success, most Pittsburgh executives provided similar answers, drawing their influences from Franklin, Alger and the two Carnegies, Andrew and Dale. Most mentioned hard work, a positive attitude and self-confidence. Some mentioned integrity, some mentioned discipline and some mentioned intelligence. 

Some mentioned luck. 

For Internet entrepreneur Marco Cardamone, though, the secret is simple: Learn from your failures. "My success is the result of learning from _a lot_ of failures," he said. 

At age 24, Cardamone was living in New York and making more than $100,000 a year as a computer animator. "I had what you would call early success." But when he tried to create a new animation product and sell it to cable networks, "I failed miserably." 

His failure put him on the verge of bankruptcy. 

He left Manhattan for Pittsburgh thinking that "this isn't easy and you are not guaranteed anything. The last thing you want to do is take what appears to be success for granted." In Pittsburgh, though, Cardamone started an Internet company called Electronic Images, and in 1997, he sold it for $65 million. Friends and colleagues congratulated him at the time of the sale, asking him if he now felt truly successful. 

"Everybody thinks I got a boatload of money," and therefore "must be successful," Cardamone said. But, "to believe that is very dangerous." Success, he said, "is not about you, but about the problems you solve for other people."


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 4, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> As for the statement, "Every other system gives power to a politician to dispose of you and your labor as they will under the excuse of helping the volk which has more power than the "greedy" individual, " well, it represents a grotesque avoidance of what capitalism is--precisely a system that gives the boss, the CEO, etc., the power to dispose of you and your labor. Or isn't there anybody else out there who's moved a lot to chase jobs, changed their life for the worse for a job, felt that they work their *** off and the boss makes the dough?



But you are avoiding the issue that a company can not use violence to get you to do what they want under what we call capitalism. But goverments can. So, if you do not like working for a boss, they can not force you to work for them, only convince you with things like more money, etc. The power a goverments weilds has been used in the past to force entire peoples from their farms at gunpoint to starve, end up in death camps, etc.

This is the central part that makes any other system than capitalism evil- it requires one person or group of persons to control others. Control equals power and absolute power corrupts absolutley as the saying goes.

The ideal goverment is one that does as little as needed to prevent civilization from collapsing. The idea is that anything the goverment _need_ not do it _should_ not due. The goverment is there to insure that person's A right to swing stops before it reaches person's B nose. Capitalism is the outgrowth of this philosophy.

People will not give the goverment complete control over everyone if they said they wanted it to build up slave camps and make themselves wealthy. But they will give a goverment power if they are given the excuse that is what is needed to make a perfect society.

And once this goverment is in place with the power to take from one and give to another, the power corrupts. The process has been outlined in Orwell's "Animal Farm." Whether the power corrupts the people in goverment or people who desire power seek it out when the system is created I do not know. But it is a fact that goverments that use "people" as part of their name have ended killing millions of them in death camps.

It does not matter what form of socialism you use, either the facist model (Nazi does mean national _socialism_ after all) or the communist model, they all give power over individuals in the name of doing good for the entire group and end up as horror. The more power, the greater the horror. It does not matter if we are talking about Mussolini or Mugabe, the systems that allow one person control over another all end up with a small few lording over the masses in a corrupt, dictatorial style that Caligula could only have dreamed of.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 4, 2004)

"But you are avoiding the issue that a company can not use violence to get you to do what they want under what we call capitalism. But goverments can. So, if you do not like working for a boss, they can not force you to work for them..."


...and you appear to be completely unware of the history and present methodology of the system you espouse. For one thing, the history of capitalism is precisely that government force is ALWAYS enlisted against labor and on the side of the owners and bankers, from whom it cannot be distinguished. 

Read about ITT. read about United Fruit in Latin America. Read about just why it is that German companies have recenlty been forced to pay war reparations. Read about Rockefeller. Read about the Opium Wars. 

Hell, go read this juicy set of photos and examples:

www.rootsweb.com/~kycoalmi

And above all, learn about the reality of what you're espousing.

Harlan County, dude.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 4, 2004)

Why would I, as a businessman even want to invest my own money to start a company and employ people if I was only going to be looked upon as an oppressor? Should the government run all sources of production?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> But they will be prosecuted and incarcerated/punished in a democratic society.



Which is why democracy and capitalism will always stand at odds with one another.  Democracy gives everyone a voice.  Capitalism gives voice to those who have the most money.  It fosters fascism.  Killing ones mother is comparable to many things that wealthy people get away with in capitalist societies.  For instance, how about having protesters shot for marching to get their water rights back.  The list goes on and on.  As long as one is rich and powerful enough to commit violence through proxy, the atrocity can be limitless.

Other then that, I agree, balanced is best.  This begs the question, is our country moving toward or away from this balance?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> But you are avoiding the issue that a company can not use violence to get you to do what they want under what we call capitalism. But goverments can. So, if you do not like working for a boss, they can not force you to work for them, only convince you with things like more money, etc. The power a goverments weilds has been used in the past to force entire peoples from their farms at gunpoint to starve, end up in death camps, etc.



Multinational Corporations have their own armies in many cases now days.  These contractors operate outside national law and do the companies dirty work.  In the United States, the Unions and the will of the people (weapons) protect one from these abuses.  In other country, these mercenaries have a freer reign.  You don't complain about your job, attempt to start a union, or advocate for humanitarian values in those places.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 4, 2004)

Take for example my previous occupation, I was a graphic artist for a mid size printing company. 3-4 men got together, pooled their resources and started a business. They grew and employed a good 60-70 people. Could have paid better, benefits weren`t great, profits were put into equipment and improvements. The owners had nice homes, cars etc. Where do you draw the line between telling these people what they can do with what they built (their business) and telling an individual citizen what they can and cant do with their own property?


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 4, 2004)

Tom,

Im in IM


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 4, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Which is why democracy and capitalism will always stand at odds with one another. Democracy gives everyone a voice. Capitalism gives voice to those who have the most money. It fosters fascism. Killing ones mother is comparable to many things that wealthy people get away with in capitalist societies. For instance, how about having protesters shot for marching to get their water rights back. The list goes on and on. As long as one is rich and powerful enough to commit violence through proxy, the atrocity can be limitless.
> 
> Other then that, I agree, balanced is best. This begs the question, is our country moving toward or away from this balance?


Facism? Another GOVERNMENTAL structure that is invasive and controlling of individuals...similar to how communism ends up looking in practice...

Your one of the 'protect the civil liberties' people and yet you are seemingly promoting a political process that has established State instituted abortions because of laws about the number of children in families in China, that has failed to feed/provide for its own citizens and ignores children starving in the street.  Is it capitolism or power hungry freaks that are the problem?  Is it the general apathy of citizens in any country?

How can any of you arguing for reduced/no governmental regulations of individual civil liberties still right these invocations for change to socialistic/communistic structures? You can' have it both ways.

Capitolism is not at odds with democracy, what other economic system would you recommend that fits with democracy? 

Capitolism is a system that basically allows you to run your business your way... if you are an evil bastard and treat people badly you will be that way in ANY economic or political structure. You have the freedom to climb or fall as far as you want. Carnegy and Rockafeller types promoted the idea that more was better, but no where in capitolistic theory does it say that you HAVE to consume and flood the market until you self destruct. Capitolism seeks balance and adjusts (remember Supply and Demand?). If there are problems in capitolism, it basically comes down to human flaws of greed/power. There are plenty of historical examples to show how any system has been abused because of that stuff.

Democracy gives every citizen equal opportunity to rise or fall as far as you want in the country without being told by the government who you can and can't talk to, where you can go, or what you can own. 

Gee, they sound linked to me. Maybe it isn't just capitolism that is the problem, but democracy as well... but let's hand over the political and social decision making over to the 'workers' (please read minimally educated, lacking in leadership training, little to no diplomatic skills to liaison with other nations, little to no engineering skills capable of solving utilities/public works problems, little to no understanding of medicine....it is incredible how communism/socialism is so popular with COLLEGE EDUCATED PEOPLE FROM CAPITOLIST/DEMOCRATIC CULTURES). Our "evil capitolism" has produced the most sought after education system (how many countries/foriegn business/families send their students to the US with the understanding that they bring that education back to help them out?), the highest living standard. We have an example of a citizen from Canada who doesn't feel to satisfied with the success of 'socialistic capitolism', I don' remember hearing about large exodus of citizens from democratic nations 'defecting' to communist ones, but I have heard about the reverse (Cuba, USSR....).

All of this "ALL rich are evil", "all poor are oppressed (as opposed to lazy or just have a different perception of 'quality of life' like native americans who take pride in the 'other than materialistic lifestyle...)" smacks of classism/socioeconomic prejudice....


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> All of this "ALL rich are evil", "all poor are oppressed (as opposed to lazy or just have a different perception of 'quality of life' like native americans who take pride in the 'other than materialistic lifestyle...)" smacks of classism/socioeconomic prejudice....



I don't think so.  I feel that this sentiment is created by our learning.  History, for example is filled with the abuses of aristocracy.  Even in our country.  I don't think this is an insincere sentiment.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 5, 2004)

Wow: the remarkable thing is the agreement. 

The fact that you all define, "success," as making money beautifully illustrates exactly what is wrong with capitalism, and that Marx was (alas) dead right.

Sure, in such systems a very few will strike it rich. If you'd like to believe the Alger books--or rather, the typical mis-reading of the Alger books, which always define success as having been achieved throughy sheer luck or blood relation--you can cruise along with the fantasy that the George Bushes and Dan Quayles of the world, the Donald Trumps and the Michael Eisners, became successes only because they were more talented and worked harder than anyone else. 

What a sad joke THAT is. For every Jobs or Gates, who arguably "made it," through talent and hard work, there are many and many and many who, "made it," because they grew up well-off, went to better schools, went to better colleges, took advantage of daddy's contacts, etc., and etc. and etc. 

The "meritocracy," doesn't exist, and never has. These few who, "make it," in a world defining everything as money, are pretty much the equivalents of lotto winners. 

Sheesh.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 5, 2004)

> "Everybody thinks I got a boatload of money," and therefore "must be successful," Cardamone said. But, "to believe that is very dangerous." Success, he said, "is not about you, but about the problems you solve for other people."


Just in case "some people" didnt read it in that post about entrepreneurship.

And Ill ask it again...Where do you draw the line between telling these people what they can do with what they built (their business) and telling an individual citizen what they can and cant do with their own property?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 5, 2004)

Andrew Carnegie:immigrant who rose to become one of the world's richest men, a legendary philanthropist.

Bill Gates:From college dropout to the world's richest man.

Colonel Sanders:Waited 65 years before he hit it big.

Conrad Hilton:Texas shopkeeper's son who built a billion-dollar hotel empire.

Dave Thomas:Wendies

Henry Ford
HJ Heinz
J.C. Penney
J.W. Marriott
Milton Hershey
Ray Kroc
R.H. Macy
Sam Walton
Steve Wozniak
The Coors
The Kellogg Brothers


These are just a few "capitalist success stories" I found on a quick google search. Dosent even include the guys like my co-worker who quit being a cop because his "side job" of installing alarm systems made him "financially secure". There are plenty of successes out there and just as many jealous people.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 5, 2004)

Hmm..well I'd certainly like to know that if I ever "make it" I will still be able to pass down my capital to the rest of my family for generations to come. What's wrong with that?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 5, 2004)

Don't expect this will help--or even slow some guys down for a second to think--but you might as well be listing lotto winners, which is what I already wrote. 

Sure, a few will, "make it." And, you are welcome to think that these few, "earned it," entirely on their own through merit, and anyone who doesn't, "make it," failed solely on their own. 

However, you are still insisting upon defining human beings only as economic units, which is what the Marxist objection to capitalism is in the first damn place. 

Moreover, you are forgetting that these guys do not "create," wealth out of nothing--that is a fantasy--but out of other people's labor, and raw materials, which make their "pure ideas," concrete realities.

And as for the right to pass on, "your," wealth, well, I hope all goes well for you and yours. Probably, you will pass on relatively little in property, let alone in the important things--education, health, a secure society, a sense of what's important in life.

And for the very few wealthy (yes, yes, I know about how many millionaries this country has, "created"--what a tired argument that is), they will "pass on," far more to their kids. I still await a full and comprehensive explanation of why it's fair for a few to start life with enormous advantages--other than, of course, the Darwinian argument that they are better fit to survive.

The best things y'all have been able to say for capitalism is that it's probably the best we can do, at least for the moment. I probably agree, but this is not what I would call a ringing endorsement--the old, "we're kinda stupid and naturally childishly selfish, and we think that some of the greedier members of the tribe oughta get more of the goodies and so should their kids, and anyway only money really matters, so capitalism is a Very Good Thing indeed," is a little on the weak side.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 5, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> ...and you appear to be completely unware of the history and present methodology of the system you espouse. For one thing, the history of capitalism is precisely that government force is ALWAYS enlisted against labor and on the side of the owners and bankers, from whom it cannot be distinguished.



"Always" is a big statement. But your argument kind of points out that if the goverment has the type of control you need to redistribute wealth, it will be corrupted. Since we can not trust the politicians and the goverment to be pure and not abuse their power, the logical, moral move is to insure that the giverment can do only that which only the goverment needs to do for society to survive.

Any other system, including those that let the goverment determeine just what you can do with your business, will be abused at some point.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 5, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I still await a full and comprehensive explanation of why it's fair for a few to start life with enormous advantages--other than, of course, the Darwinian argument that they are better fit to survive.



Perhaps it would be better if you attempted to explain why it is anyone else's business how a person is born with more advantages than they. We could be talking about someone with wealth, or a greater intelligence. Life may be unfair where one person is born sickly and another in good health, but hating and demonizing those that are born with more is somewhat evil. They having more does not force you to have less.

As for me, I want to do with my money as I will. As a father, I want my children to have as much of an advantage as I can make. So the wealth I have created will go towards making their life better and more prepared for the world. I created the wealth, I can do with it as I please IMO. And if I choose to use it to better my children's lives I can not see how complaining how my children don't deserve it can be called noble rather than an example of pure greed and envy.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 5, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Probably, you will pass on relatively little in property, let alone in the important things--education, health, a secure society, a sense of what's important in life.



So long as we're still able to in this country, that's a good thing.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 5, 2004)

"Perhaps it would be better if you attempted to explain why it is anyone else's business how a person is born with more advantages than they."

It's little things--like the 14th Amendment? The one that promises, "equal protection under the law?" And the whole idea of democracy? That everyone gets a fair shake and an equal start, and does with that what they will?

As for the, "the rich do nothing to hurt you and me," claim, again, you really might want to look into American history and the realities of economic life in this country. Among other things, take a little look at how much MORE white-collar crime costs us than other sorts of crime--and, take a brief peek at the things those in power actually say about the rest of us.

It continues to stun me that so many Americans--once, people with a healthy contempt for those in power, and a strong distrust of the wealthy who got their wealth through exploitation--have become apologists for the very people who have stuck it to them in terms of jobs, the environment, access to health care, access to education, and about a zillion other things. (We'll leave out the fact that the wealthy and powerful in this country do NOT send their sons and daughters off to go fight in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter.) And I am truly appalled by the notion that recognizing who's screwing whom means some kind of twisted, "greed and envy." 

Of course, with regard to much of the rest of the world, we are ALL extraordinarily over-privileged exploiters.

My advice is, git yerself some Billy Bragg and old Mekons records.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 5, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It's little things--like the 14th Amendment? The one that promises, "equal protection under the law?" And the whole idea of democracy? That everyone gets a fair shake and an equal start, and does with that what they will?



So how does anyone need "protecting" against someone being born with more? Protecting is the act of stopping an evil being done to another. So if someone is born with an advantage, that is an evil that must be stopped?

And as for the idea of democracy giving everyone a equal start- where the heck does that come from? It is impossible for everyone to be equal. I was not born with fashion model looks, I was not born with intelligence equal to that of Stphen Hawking, etc. But the fact that Hawking has more intelligence than I is not a violation of my rights, and one person owning more is _in itself_ a violation of anyone else's rights. If someone robs, steals or commits fraud to get that money, _that_ is a violation of another's rights, but the act of a father giving a child his money does not violate anyone else's rights. Hence, there is no need for protection.

Under democracy, we are all equal _under the law_ with no person being immune from the same laws that govern others. When this is broken by either a business leader, politician, etc, this is a violation of the principle that we are all equal _under the law_ but there is no way I am equal in terms of abilities with Micheal Jordan, Stephen Hawkings, etc. Democracy merely states that they have no more votes than I do. They were born with more abilities than I in certain areas. Life is unfair, isn't it?We would liek their abilities and advantages but can't. But we can take away money, and that is how the greedy and envious accept the idea of collectavism.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 6, 2004)

Hmmmm...I dont distrust, despise, hate or vilify any group or class out of hand. I was taught that you took each individual or organization and made your judgement based on their individual behavior.......otherwise your practicing an "ism" (race/class/etc.) of some sort aren't you?


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 6, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I don't think so. I feel that this sentiment is created by our learning. History, for example is filled with the abuses of aristocracy. Even in our country. I don't think this is an insincere sentiment.


Last I checked the president and the politicians don't have a Sir/Duke/Baron in front of their name, don't claim divine right BUT they do spend a hell of a lot of time taking every photo op they can with their sleeves rolled up, trying to leave the impression that they are common joes.  Besides, much like any piece of writing, the names and events in history that get all the attention are the points of conflict or change - for good or ill. I would think that it would be prejudicial and bias to base the actions of a few from any group of 'thems' as the standard of what the 'all of them' did.  Not all aristocracy were insensitive, corrupt asses.  Not all of them were moral, people minded humanitarians.  Same for now.  Not all businessmen/corporations are ENRONS/ADELPHIAS and not all of them are MICROSOFT/GATES like either.  THese are examples of extremes, but not the majority.  If it is wrong to make a "them" generalization about an ethnicity/nationality, then it should be just as wrong to generalize here.

We don't have aristocracy in our country.  We have wealthy/middle class/ and poor people.  we have economic strata, not a caste system of society and we are free to do the 80 hours plus of work and face the uncertainty of the risk to try and increase our wealth or do the 20 hours of work a week or less that it takes to stay in the poverty range.  I am not 'opressed' by any part of the US system.  It is my choice to be a worker bee, to trade material success for family time, personal pursuits and recreation.  I don't want to deal with the financial risk of business/market climbing and I don't want to have to deal with the paperwork/administrative stuff that comes with it (hiring, firing, accounting, benefits.....).  All my personal choice.  

If there are a rare, small percentage of people with the balls to face the risk and do the work it takes to get to a status of wealth and comfort that they can be considered 'wealthy' then they have earned it.  If they have left that wealth as inheritance and a legacy for their children, how is that any different from my father working hard and trying to provide me with opportunities to go to college, seek personal growth so that I can go farther than he did?

As I said before, the only way to 'equalize' the market or to reform it as it is, would be with governmental invovlement.  Since the majority of folks here feel that the government is already too far into our shorts, how do you propose to 'fix' things?


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 6, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hmmmm...I dont distrust, despise, hate or vilify any group or class out of hand. I was taught that you took each individual or organization and made your judgement based on their individual behavior.......otherwise your practicing an "ism" (race/class/etc.) of some sort aren't you?



I think that catch- all phrase would be "bigotry".

Certainly it would be interesting to take some of the statements made in this thread and subsitute the word "Muslim" instead of "the rich" and imagine how well they would go over with the general populace.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 6, 2004)

Roughly in reverse order:

1. No reason to, "distrust, despise, hate or vilify any group or class out of hand," eh? How exactly do you folks feel about, say, Nazis--as long as we're being hyperbolic? (Memo: interesting that the mind should jump to, "Muslims," in association with a) bias, b) political correctness, c) the notion of the enemy.) 

2. If you'll actually read what I wrote, you might see that there's no, "hatred," involved--only a claim that a) as individuals and as a class, "the rich," are no better than you and I; b) their "greater success," comes at other people's expense, and not at all necessarily through their own efforts. Oh yes--and a hideous suggestion that folks actually learn about the history of their country and the economic system they espouse.

3. The claim that the Donald Trumps and Michael Eisners and Dan Quayles of the world are the victims here, the poor sufferers who must face the bigotry of their oppressors every day, remains remarkable. However, it is very similar to the goofball claims that men are now the victims of feminists, white guys are oppressed by the ACLU and the NAACP, heterosexual men are being picked upon by those gosh-darn gay people, and on and on and silly on. I recommend a day or two holed up with Naomi Wolf's, "Backlash." 

4. We don't have an aristocracy? Really. How much did Bill Gates spend on his house in, where was it, Oregon? Does my browser typically feature the intellectual exploits of some poor kid who  made, say, the National Academic Decathlon team, or gasping comments about the J-Lo wedding? I drive by one of that loser Trump's casinos every day--how come HE'S still in business, if it's pure meritocracy? 

5. If everybody has equal opportunity, that would mean that kids at community colleges get equal education opportunities--and subsequently, employment choices--with, say, Ivy League kids. Anybody out there stupid enough to believe that one? If so, please send me 20 bucks. I will send the Tooth Fairy to your house, and she and the Easter Bunny will be bringing your fat check. (Note: I believe that I can confidently say that I am the only person on this thread who has taught extensively in both Ivy League and community college settings. And ya know what? Smarts and hard work are  NOT, repeat NOT, the major things that separate these students.)

6. Yes, yes, yes. I know, I know. It's the, "few bad apples," fantasy, right? That fixes everything. Sure there are abuses, but it's just a Few Bad Apples. There were abuses of prisoners in Iran, but it's just a Few Bad Apples. Enron happened, Bhopal happened, French pharmeceutical makers knowingly sold HIV-infected blood products to hemophiliac kids, Bechtel cheated to get Iraq contracts, ITT helped overthrow Chile, Microsoft got nailed for monopolistic practices, the Director of the NYSE tried to suck down 130 mil in pay last year, about eighteen other corporations got noticed for corrupt accounting practices, and let's not even get going on Martha Stewart and the tobacco industry and on and on and endlessly on. How long a list do you need?

7. What's the opposite of biting the hand that feeds you?

For the fourteenth time: it often isn't a matter of simple oppression. It's a matter of what Foucault called the productivity of power: "It produces...domains of objects and registers of truth." In this case, power produces an object called, "the rich," and the concomittant weird fantasy that the very fact of their having cheated in the Great Game of Life is proof that the Great Game of Life is utterly fair. 

And for the fifteenth time: do you really think that wealth is all that should matter, when we count success?


----------



## klif (Jun 6, 2004)

My second post here and I jump into a politic thread!


It really amazes me how seemingly smart and otherwise "normal" people can fall for the leftist/communist trap.  I guess they did a good job when they infitrated our schools and univerisities.  

I can understand some third world person, not educated, living in a cardboard hut, eating beatles, and then someone hands them an AK47 and says "let's kill that guy in the big house and redistribute his wealth to everyone."  Sure sounds good in the beginning.  What the Univerisity PhD's do not realize is, once "the people" are in control, they kill the educated ones first.   Cambodia is a good example.  After all, they do not want those teachers stirring up trouble like they had been.  

It all falls back to "liberal guilt" and the ego feeding.  Leftist all have this personal belief that somehow they are more "moral" than everyone else because they "care" about the little people.  So that way they can talk down to people that do not agree with them, and act like everyone else is stupid.  It's also an easy cop-out for their own failures.  "It's not my fault, the evil imperialistic/capitalistic/government/corporation/etc.  caused this!"

It's really sad.  The poorest of the poor in the USA have a better standard of living than most of the world's middle class.  Our middle class is rich compared to the rest of the world.  Our rich are richer than kings in other countries.

Most of you communists keep harping on "wealth" like everyone in the USA is having a race for wealth and stepping on each other to get there.  That is so far from the truth it isn't even funny.  The majority of people strive for a good standard of living to raise a family.  They do not strive to be the next Bill Gates.  They just want to be able to live decent, raise children, have fun, live a long life, die peacefully, and leave a little something for their kids.  There is no other place in the world where this is as easy to do than the USA, right now.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 6, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Roughly in reverse order:
> 
> 1. No reason to, "distrust, despise, hate or vilify any group or class out of hand," eh? How exactly do you folks feel about, say, Nazis--as long as we're being hyperbolic? (Memo: interesting that the mind should jump to, "Muslims," in association with a) bias, b) political correctness, c) the notion of the enemy.)


 


People choose to be Nazi's based on their political and social views. To accept naziism is to know that it despises jews. People can be born to nazi families and grow up to be non-nazis. And being part of naziism is to accept the central core of hatred. I could say the same thing about the KK, Islamic Jihad or any other orginization that had a central principle you had to accept in order to join of your own violation. I see no such principle or membership appliction for the rich. You can be born rich, or you can be Tiger Woods and become it. You do not have to sign up to do some evil deed in order to join the club.

To be born muslim, or rich, is not to accept a standard of hatred and such that joining the nazi party entails.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. If you'll actually read what I wrote, you might see that there's no, "hatred," involved--only a claim that a) as individuals and as a class, "the rich," are no better than you and I;




No one is saying that they are better than us. The thing is, you are saying that the entire class should be treated worse than us- with scorn. We do read hatred in your words, even in this post, towards those who have more than you.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> b) their "greater success," comes at other people's expense, and not at all necessarily through their own efforts. Oh yes--and a hideous suggestion that folks actually learn about the history of their country and the economic system they espouse.




Common fallicy to believe and espouse that one person can only succeed at by taking away from another. If Bill Gates did not produce the product he did, we would bnot have all the computers in our houses that we do. He offered a product, we bought, he did not stick a gun to our heads to accept computers.




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. The claim that the Donald Trumps and Michael Eisners and Dan Quayles of the world are the victims here, the poor sufferers who must face the bigotry of their oppressors every day, remains remarkable. However, it is very similar to the goofball claims that men are now the victims of feminists, white guys are oppressed by the ACLU and the NAACP, heterosexual men are being picked upon by those gosh-darn gay people, and on and on and silly on. I recommend a day or two holed up with Naomi Wolf's, "Backlash."




Take a look at the world and your own statements in this thread. No one is bashing any economic group other than the rich. The only hatred is towards them. What some of us want is for everyone to be treated equally, whther they be poor or rich. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 4. We don't have an aristocracy? Really. How much did Bill Gates spend on his house in, where was it, Oregon? Does my browser typically feature the intellectual exploits of some poor kid who  made, say, the National Academic Decathlon team, or gasping comments about the J-Lo wedding? I drive by one of that loser Trump's casinos every day--how come HE'S still in business, if it's pure meritocracy?




Because many more people than you decided to give them money. You may think that they do not deserve your money and you are free not to give it too them. I certainly will not pay for a J-Lo album. But other people have the freedom to do with their money as they please and as much as that may stick in your craw that they choose to give it to IBM, you don't have the right to control them because you believe you are more qualified to determeine how they should spend their money. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 5. If everybody has equal opportunity, that would mean that kids at community colleges get equal education opportunities--and subsequently, employment choices--with, say, Ivy League kids. Anybody out there stupid enough to believe that one? If so, please send me 20 bucks. I will send the Tooth Fairy to your house, and she and the Easter Bunny will be bringing your fat check. (Note: I believe that I can confidently say that I am the only person on this thread who has taught extensively in both Ivy League and community college settings. And ya know what? Smarts and hard work are  NOT, repeat NOT, the major things that separate these students.)




People who have more money can buy better things, including education. I wish I could have gone to Harvard, but I could not have done it without violating the rights of another by taking the money they earned or was given them. And in collectivist societies so far, the elite's children get better education than the masses just as much as in capitalist societies.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 6. Yes, yes, yes. I know, I know. It's the, "few bad apples," fantasy, right? That fixes everything. Sure there are abuses, but it's just a Few Bad Apples. There were abuses of prisoners in Iran, but it's just a Few Bad Apples. Enron happened, Bhopal happened, French pharmeceutical makers knowingly sold HIV-infected blood products to hemophiliac kids, Bechtel cheated to get Iraq contracts, ITT helped overthrow Chile, Microsoft got nailed for monopolistic practices, the Director of the NYSE tried to suck down 130 mil in pay last year, about eighteen other corporations got noticed for corrupt accounting practices, and let's not even get going on Martha Stewart and the tobacco industry and on and on and endlessly on. How long a list do you need?




If you try to say that each and every person that is rich is guilty and should not be treated on their own individual merits, then you are practicing bigotry. There may be as amny bad businessmen as their are corrupt politicians. Treating them all as if they were evil is bigotry. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 7. What's the opposite of biting the hand that feeds you?
> 
> For the fourteenth time: it often isn't a matter of simple oppression. It's a matter of what Foucault called the productivity of power: "It produces...domains of objects and registers of truth." In this case, power produces an object called, "the rich," and the concomittant weird fantasy that the very fact of their having cheated in the Great Game of Life is proof that the Great Game of Life is utterly fair.




You are making the bold statement that every rich person got there by cheating and foul play. Some may, some do not. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And for the fifteenth time: do you really think that wealth is all that should matter, when we count success?



Everyone has their own standard for what they call success. I do not subscribe much to a person's bank account, but do not think ill of them if they are rich. The key is they have the freedom to do what they want as long as those efforts do not violate anyone else's rights. I do not seek riches as a sign of my success and I am free to feel that way. People who seek wealth shold be given the same right to choose as I demand for myself.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 6, 2004)

Hey, thank you, thank you very much. It's because of my extensive indoctrination by ACLU-trained lesbians in our secret base underneath Hangar 18 near Groom Lake, Nevada...today floridation, tomorrow ze vourld.

What never fails to amaze ME, since you've chosen to assume that I am a stupid and uneducated dupe of the International Communist Conspiracy, is the assumption that gee, I may have a PhD (which really does mean, "piled higher and deeper," but gee, I never so much as saw, "The Killing Fields," or "Reds," or heard of the Cultural Revolution. Gee, I jes' totally missed out on some of the most reported and obvious events of the last 100 years, while I was studying how to pollute the Precious Bodily Fluids of this nation.

Of course, I have posted and mentioned guys like Pol Pot and their ties to leftist theory, but hey, I musta done it sleepwalking. Just as an opener, let me suggest that y'all might wanna go read a real book or two--try E.P. Thompson, "The Poverty of Theory." Or Cornel West, "Race Matters." Or any of the long, long list back through Solzhenitsyn, Raymond Aron, Orwell, Malraux and Sartre and frickin' Hemingway on the ugly history of marxist behaviour. 

Whoops, I forgot. All of us are mindless dupes. Only those who gloss over the death toll of capitalism (let's scope that out with, say, American Indians, the Vietnamese, the inhabitants of Bhopal, those Tennessee kids the government did the radiation experiments on back in the 1950s, the "disappeared," of Chile, of Argentina, of...hell, fill in the blank) know anything--though oddly enough, they seem only to repeat the same crap from the "Reader's Digest," I read, as a boy, back in 1962.

And as for this remark:

"The poorest of the poor in the USA have a better standard of living than most of the world's middle class. Our middle class is rich compared to the rest of the world. Our rich are richer than kings in other countries."

You badly need to get on the WHO website and check out just where this country stands in terms of literacy rates, childhood poverty, infant mortality, cancer rates, percentage imprisoned, yearly income, and so forth. You might find it edifying--oh wait, I forgot, it's the WORLD health organization. Aren't they spokesmen for the New World Order, led by the demon Azarael? 

A safer, and more-appropriate source: try scoping the way the the Sultan of Brunei lives on an old, "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."

Man, let me be blunt: I heard of every single thing you've mentioned about twenty-five years ago. The assumptions you're using are hand-me-downs from idiots like George Gilder, Dinesh d'Souza, Alan Bloom, the "American Spectator," Phyllis Schafly, and that loonbox Michael Savage. Fer cryin' out loud, go read, "The Closing of the American Mind," and, "Ill-Liberal Education," because at least Bloom has read books. (And doesn't it shake your tree in the least that I know who these guys are, and have read some of them, and I will be you a shiny nickel that you've never even HEARD of the writers I've mentioned, let alone read them? Kinda odd for a Communist stooge, ain't it?) They were common currency when academics discussed these issues, BACK IN THE LAST CENTURY. But hey, never heard of 'em. Only us helpless stooges of Stalin here.

Sincerely,
Boris Badenoff

P.S. Dear Don: YOU introduced words like, "hatred." I discussed a system. You are relying upon a social darwinist notion: the rich deserve greater advantages, because they have proved that they are more fit to survive by beecoming rich. This is a democracy, dude. Have a little faith in, "the people, yes, the people," who are every bit as capable and deserving as the Dan Quayles of the world. I mean, can you honestly claim that HE got to be rich and famous and Vice Prez through sheer merit--honestly, without bursting out laughing? Or Spiro T. Agnew, who as VP took fat envelopes stuffed with cash? Hell, if you want the Horatio Alger story, your hero oughta be Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, both of whom rose from nothing and did it a HELLUVA lot more honestly than our present Prez...


----------



## klif (Jun 6, 2004)

I said:

_It really amazes me how seemingly smart and otherwise "normal" people can fall for the leftist/communist trap. I guess they did a good job when they infitrated our schools and univerisities. _

you said: 





> I may have a PhD


I said:

_It all falls back to "liberal guilt" and the ego feeding. Leftist all have this personal belief that somehow they are more "moral" than everyone else because they "care" about the little people. So that way they can talk down to people that do not agree with them, and act like everyone else is stupid._

you said:



> The assumptions you're using are hand-me-downs from *idiots* like George Gilder, Dinesh d'Souza, Alan Bloom, the "American Spectator," Phyllis Schafly, and that *loonbox* Michael Savage.


Thanks I knew your true colors would come out.  Typical left winger, always resorting to insults and a posturing while trying to act "above" everyone.  

Your arguments are the hand-me-downs, about 1848 right?  How these fantasy land ideas continue to exist after years of failure, genocide, and misery will always amaze me.  But hey, we still have Nazis here, so why not communists too.  Your left wing, pseudo intellectual, babbling means about as much to me as a Klan speech.  All your go "read this book.." means nothing.  Why don't you talk to some people that have lived in communist countries and fled to come here?  

I bet you have a Che Guevara poster.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 6, 2004)

So...you've actually read Bloom, West, Aron, Sartre, and the rest? And my, my, my, absolutely none of your ideas come from Savage and the rest? Quel surprise.

Gilder is an idiot. The man actually argued that feminists were responsbile for the oncoming downfall if this country, on the grounds that they made decent white men impotent, which led to the breeding and breeding of the inferior classes--you know, black people. You may be happy with such an argument, but gee, I am not. "Idiot," is charitable. "Racist loonbox equalled only by Heinlein in 'Farnham's Freehold,'" would be more on the...money.

And axly, Sparky, about 1848? Back when I read this stuff all the time in grad school, people like Thompson and others were attacking the weird little marxist and patriarchal fantasy that the years 1844-1848 in  Marx's work represented an epistemological break with the discourse of history, and attacking the notion that this legitimated any sort of abuse on the grounds that one's "outsider," position allowed for a privileged understanding...whoops, you've no idea what I'm talking about, because you've never read the material. It's a shame to see students today writing things like, " All your "go "read this book.." means nothing," since going to find out for yourself was, I thought--wacky me!!--precisely the idea.

But  then, I was brought up in the 1950s. Back then, we believed in education, as well as the power and worth of ordinary people...among some nastier things, I'm sorry to say. I guess that now, when the Almighty Dollar reigns supreme for so many, all that's out the window. Shame to see the decline of the values that made this country.

Just incidentally, you will be in a far-stronger rhetorical position, if you'll simply suggest some things for me to read that establish your views as equally grounded upon knowledge. But then, no doubt you have enormous experience with refugees from Communist countries. Me, I only teach people who tell me stories about having to abandon their grandparents to get out of China, or about being a grade school student in Beijing at the time of Tienanmin Square, or live around the corner of the First Hmong Baptist Church in Providence, RI, or about fleeing Leningrad after the Sovet Union fell. I personally only know folks who lived through the Eighties in the USSR, or who led trips there--big irony; one of them told me that  last on her list of Things Not To Bring To the Soviet Union was, "46. Do not bring this list." Of course, I also know/ teach/ have hung out with people who have fled from Chiapas and Honduras, or who served as Chilean Marines, or...well, you get the point. Perhaps. 

It's doubtless more comforting to hang on to this picture of me in a basement, with the collected works of Ted Kosynszki and the Guevara poster. And I encourage it: it makes discussions so much funnier. Hell, if you'd read any Christopher Hitchens, I'd have a problem.

Hey, and as long as were on the subject of, "failure, genocide and misery," let me refer you to Thompson's, "Making of the English Working Class," Zinn's, "A People's History of America," (which I haven't read yet...but I AM looking forward to your reflexively attacking on the grounds of his being a lazy, mindless knee-jerk America-hater, because BOY have I got some quote for you, so please, please do jump that jump) and in brief, learn about your own world and its own history.

I know you'll skip over this, but you'll learn more if you'll read the books, think about what's written, and understand that people who disagree with you are not merely evil toads of marx. I'm probably being intemperate myself, but it has dawned on me that the folks who scream incoherently aren't going to go read the books and look at reality anyway, so I might as well amuse myself.

Oh, and just to really mess with your head...I own a copy of, "Red Dawn." I think it's a great movie. Your problem is that I don't get it confused with reality.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 6, 2004)

> Thanks I knew your true colors would come out. Typical left winger, always resorting to insults and a posturing while trying to act "above" everyone.


Boy if that didnt hit the nail on the head. Some people here are prime examples of "Your tone (rude,insulting,etc.) is so loud I cant hear a word your saying."

I suppose that if you read (and quoted) enough books that supported your view of the world, you would think you were "right" about everything too.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 6, 2004)

Gary Dahl became a millionaire in a matter of months, and he didn't even make it off the backs of immigrant child workers OR the lower class.

(Inventor of the pet rock)

See, not all rich guys are bad.


----------



## klif (Jun 6, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> .......Me, I only teach people who tell me stories about having to abandon their grandparents to get out of China, or about being a grade school student in Beijing at the time of Tienanmin Square........


and these things reinforce your beliefs?  



> Oh, and just to really mess with your head...I own a copy of, "Red Dawn." I think it's a great movie. Your problem is that I don't get it confused with reality.


Great another jab.  A communist PhD comic.  More true colors?

What is reality?  Someone who spends their life reading other's misguided writings and then teaches this sugar coated view, or people that have to work?  

BTW, I am amusing myself too.  We will never convince the other, but I hope it spurs thought and debate with the rest of those reading. 

W in 04


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 6, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> P.S. Dear Don: YOU introduced words like, "hatred." I discussed a system.



No, you are talking about a group of people, a class. And you are painting each and every one of them as an evil monster. This is bigotry. And if you would clam down instead of insulting everyone and trying to convince us that you are so much smarter than us, you may have time to take a look at what you are doing and realize just how hate-filled and bigoted it is.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> You are relying upon a social darwinist notion: the rich deserve greater advantages, because they have proved that they are more fit to survive by beecoming rich.



No, I am relying on the principle that everyone has a right to do something as long as those actions do not violate others such as robbery or violence. I may not like J-Lo records, but as long as no one is forcing a gun to people's head to buy them, then I have no say in the matter if people want to spend their money that way. Nor do I have a say in how J-Lo spends that money once it is in her pocket. I may not think that people who listen to particular types of music are very smart (ever hear of Morning Musume or Pink Lady?) but I have to respect their right to buy what they want with the money they earned if I expect my rights to be respected to do what I want without interference.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 7, 2004)

THOSE are your best arguments, gentlemen? That's the best you got? No specifics, no actual discussion, no textual support, no reasoned discussion, no facts cited, just, "clam down," you, "hate-filled and bigoted, "communist phd comic," you? 

Let's see. You haven't read the material. You don't know the history. You're unfamiliar with basics about capitalism as an economic system, present-day business practices, and even the news. You can only rehash claims I've heard since 1962 and "Reader's Digest." And best of all--and the only real sin--you're apparently utterly unwilling to go find out. 

(Just an educational point: the way to whup my arguments is to provide better arguments and better data, not scream at the top of your computerized lungs. And, tgrace, you might wanna go look at Bloom at least. He certainly wouldn't agree with me--I once argued with him and got slaughtered, quite deservedly--and he's far smarter than that loon Ann Coulter.) 

The real problem isn't that we disagree. It's that you're perfectly willing to insult your fellow Americans, to disparage their patriotism, to run down their character, and to attack anything that looks different. 

The interesting thing is that--for all your protests--I am far, far closer to traditional American values (which is in fact where I get most of this stuff) than you. Unfortunately, the radical transformation that capitalism has made from the mid-1980s has left a lot of the younger folks skewed.

Well, that's dominant ideology for ya. Too bad, because my points are really quite simple: a) the pursuit of cash and toys is not the only thing that matters; b) we can make the world better than this; c) everybody deserves an equal break; d) wealth does not make anybody into a little tin god.

But please keep going: it is fascinating to see people singing the praises of the wealthy.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 7, 2004)

Excuse me if I can summerize the last post by Robert.



> "You guys are close- minded idiots. So there, I am done with you."



I have seen this tactic before with people who have nothing left to argue with. From this point on, I do not expect much in the way of rational conversation.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 7, 2004)

Well, I can see your point, Don. After all, the way I kept talking about books, history, social facts and the like was just....just....wrong and unfair. Hell, I didn't even attack anybody's patriotism or sexuality--what kind of a discussion is that? And given your ability to read minds at a distance, you exactly understood what I was thinking anyway.

Hey, here's a far better way to make your argument for next time:

If you look at academic Marxists as they really are, you actually see a fair amount of the same old career-building that employs fancy twists on old ideas. One example would be the work and career of Fredric Jameson, well known for his essays on post-modernity and full-length works such as "The Political Unconscious." Not only has he parlayed ideas taken from Medvedev, Bakhtin and others (see for example his account of the, "semiotic rectaangle," structuring Conrad's, "Heart of Darkness"), but his climb to the top of the profession has been enacted in some of the garden spots of American academe, including the University of California at Santa Cruz and Duke University.

I can personally note that the, "academic marxist," has a habit of self-justifying their own wants far too easily: in conversation circa 1987, one assured me that a) they were a Marxist, and b) their family needed two Mercedes-Benzes. At the MLA Convention in 1986, it was remarkable that attendees at the Marxist Literary Group cash bar appeared to be the  best-dressed and groomed group at the convention, particularly those with the good tans (the Convention was held in late December, in Chicago) acquired on the beach in Cuba the previous week.

As for the moral probity (and indeed even sanity) of the academic Marxist, it is worth nothing that many of  Robertson's arguments are derived from the work of Louis Althusser, whose work has more than once been described by no less than E.P. Thompson as providing intellectual justification for Stalinism. Nor are Professor Althusser's  private affairs reassuring, given that he strangled his wife in a fit of insanity, and ended his life in an asylum after having, as they say, "found Jesus."

It would  also be instructive to examine the work of Paul DeMan, author of, "Blindness and Insight," among others,  discovered to have published several inexcusable articles in a Belgian anti-semitic jornal during the early years of World War II....

Or hell, look up Masood Zavarzadegh's hilarious career...when I was at Syracuse, he apparently refused to attend department meetings on the grounds that, "to do so would be to be complicit in the ideological reproductive apparatus of late capitalism." Still drew his checks, though...


See what I mean? If you want to make the argument about marx and academe, the actual facts and texts are far more-damning than all this screeching. Of course, they DO require doing yer homework--but believe me, the stuff about deMan and Althusser is well-known to academics interested in marxist ideas. Take ya maybe 15 minutes on a Googol search.

But hey, you didn't hear any of this from me, being as I'm a stupid, benighted Tool of Lenin. Feel free to cite my notes as your own...I feel sure that within three months, somebody will get on one of these forums and start yellin' that I  am too dumb to even know about deMan and Althusser.

Wait!! What's that pounding??? Oh my dear {expletive deleted as per ACLU regulations} it's the Party Thought Police!!! With the Maccabee Suicide Squad!!!

Sorry, gotta go crush freedom now. Do write, won't you? I'll be in the Gulag next door...


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 7, 2004)

Question for the couple of you who seem to be avid proponents of our current capitalistic system; *do you believe that there are no improvements to our system as it stands now that could be made? If so, then you must think that our current system is perfect....if that is the case, can you justify this?*

I ask because usually what I find is that people who are proponents of our current system of capitalism are usually that way out of fear, not out of love and understanding of the system. The idea is that communism/socialism leads to Stalinist, Nazi-ist, or Nationalist regimes, so anything that smells communist/socialist can't be good. Then, the idea is that anything that goes against the grain of our current system must be communist/socialist in some respect, so therefore cannot be good. It's usually not "Hey, this system is great because of bla!" It's more like, "No system is perfect, but thank god we're not like THOSE other systems/countries!"

Now I know that not all of you support capitalism out of pure fear, because some of you have mentioned aspects about the system that you believe to be good. But, I wonder if those stand on their own 2 legs w/o the underlying fear of "please don't let our system turn into 'the alternative'!"

It seems to me that fear is nessicary to gain the consent of the people to run the capitalist machine (no different then the facist or nationalist-communist machine). The problem with the above fear is that proponents of our system get caught into a dialectic (I'm not using the word in the purely Hegelian sense), or a set of propositions, premises, and conclusions that one fears stepping outside of. By fearing to step outside of the dialectic "box," one cannot visit the possabilities of improving our system at all.

Opinions?  :boing2: 

PAUL

BTW...I am not reading "Arrogent, leftist, communist nutcase" in Roberts posts, personally. The points I am getting are, "Do some research to think outside of the box before formulating concrete opinions" coupled with "Capitalism is not working well, and here is why" with a little sarcasm in between. Perfectly suitable for this discussion, but that is just my opinion.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 7, 2004)

Is the problem the economic system or the policies and effectiveness of the government that taxes and redistributes those taxes in social programs??

btw: I draw the line at calling people "idiots" and the like. I recall a few instances where you (Paul) didnt respond to well to "attitude" being projected at you, and cant say as I blame you.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 7, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> btw: I draw the line at calling people "idiots" and the like. I recall a few instances where you (Paul) didnt respond to well to "attitude" being projected at you, and cant say as I blame you.



I agree, but I didn't see where he actually called anyone an idiot, but I'll shyly admit that I very well may have missed it through speed reading not carefully enough.  :asian:


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 7, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Question for the couple of you who seem to be avid proponents of our current capitalistic system; *do you believe that there are no improvements to our system as it stands now that could be made? If so, then you must think that our current system is perfect....if that is the case, can you justify this?*
> 
> I ask because usually what I find is that people who are proponents of our current system of capitalism are usually that way out of fear, not out of love and understanding of the system. The idea is that communism/socialism leads to Stalinist, Nazi-ist, or Nationalist regimes, so anything that smells communist/socialist can't be good. Then, the idea is that anything that goes against the grain of our current system must be communist/socialist in some respect, so therefore cannot be good. It's usually not "Hey, this system is great because of bla!" It's more like, "No system is perfect, but thank god we're not like THOSE other systems/countries!"
> 
> ...




All fairly good points, but can't the same be said of communism? People would prefer it because of the fear they might be "left out in the cold" if they cannot work?

Are we so cynical on both sides that we cannot trust Human Nature to come to the need of others?


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 7, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> All fairly good points, but can't the same be said of communism? People would prefer it because of the fear they might be "left out in the cold" if they cannot work?
> 
> Are we so cynical on both sides that we cannot trust Human Nature to come to the need of others?



I think that the same could definatily be said about communism.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 7, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> All fairly good points, but can't the same be said of communism? People would prefer it because of the fear they might be "left out in the cold" if they cannot work?
> 
> Are we so cynical on both sides that we cannot trust Human Nature to come to the need of others?


In our capitolistic system people commonly settle into the middle of the socio/economic strata:  just enough balance of comfort where they can get by with a modicum of comfort/luxury but don't go so material crazy that they are working outrageous hours and neglecting family/personal recreation....  those who want more can go for it.  The government has added a socialistic stamp on our system with regulatory agencies like EEO, EPA, OSEA.... that make sure things are 'fair' and 'equal'.  Capitolism assumes that a major make up of human nature is competitive/personal best motivation.  Reality seems to point to a more 'balance' motivation and not an extravegance motivation.  That is not something that you can achieve personally in a predominately communistic influenced system - mainly because of the invasiveness of the political aspects of the system.

My 'fear' is that if there is too much 'socialism/communistic' influence - only logically instituted by the government - it will limit my ability to my constitutional right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' if I happen to pursue that life, liberty and happiness through business.  This is no different from the civil liberty infringement/governmental invasiveness that has been discussed previously with cars, licensing and other private property issues.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 7, 2004)

One problem: the classic argument for explaining why we "have," to have capitalism--an argument reiterated again and again and again on this thread--is that "human nature," is essentially greedy, acquisitive, and competitive. 

If you're going to claim that, it's a little hard  to turn around and argue for faith in the essential decency of human beings--not to mention the fact that the reason we are supposed to have, "a government of laws, and not of men," is that we do not want to have to rely simply upon individual acts of decency...


----------



## Tgace (Jun 7, 2004)

I find it amusing how we are debating about our materialistic, property grubbing tendencies from our $700-$?,000 computers.

Similar to when I was arguing with a vegetarian and pointed out his leather belt and shoes...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 7, 2004)

klif said:
			
		

> Your arguments are the hand-me-downs, about 1848 right?  How these fantasy land ideas continue to exist after years of failure, genocide, and misery will always amaze me.  But hey, we still have Nazis here, so why not communists too.  Your left wing, pseudo intellectual, babbling means about as much to me as a Klan speech.  All your go "read this book.." means nothing.  Why don't you talk to some people that have lived in communist countries and fled to come here?



Pretty much falls right in with the President..."I don't care about the numbers, I know the facts!"  Yes, Mr. Bush actually said that and I can't believe that you would deny yourself the opportunity to study the dissent!  Think ya got it all figured out eh?  For Pete's sake, aren't we martial artists here?  What about _Know Thy Opponent_?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 7, 2004)

I dont think he's saying that as much as he's reacting to the whole "your opinion is so much @#!$ unless you have read this list of books" mentality. I dont know about the rest of you here, but I come here when I have the time and to exchange opinion. I unfortunately dont have the time or motivation to approach this forum like im going before the UN or something. You get my opinion which is based on my life experience and my education. None of these e-debates is going to get me to read a laundry list of books that I personally have no interest in. If I were some sort of conservative literary guru that could spout off a list of counter authors/books, than maybe my opinion would mean more to some folks around here...Id rather read up on some topics that will help me do my job more effectively.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 7, 2004)

Would it be helpful to consider how energy in natural systems always finds ways to equalize?  A wealthy individual must expend a lot of energy to control that much energy.  Systems will always arise to redistribute.  Is that statement a justification or strategy?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 7, 2004)

Isnt that what taxation is about at its most basic level?


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 7, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One problem: the classic argument for explaining why we "have," to have capitalism--an argument reiterated again and again and again on this thread--is that "human nature," is essentially greedy, acquisitive, and competitive.
> 
> If you're going to claim that, it's a little hard  to turn around and argue for faith in the essential decency of human beings--not to mention the fact that the reason we are supposed to have, "a government of laws, and not of men," is that we do not want to have to rely simply upon individual acts of decency...



People have tended to be greedy, evil creatures in the past. Whether it is a few at the top, or a democracy, the history of humans tends to be rather dim when one group has control over another.

So, the best way to insure that there is no evil done to others is to limit the control one has over another by use of violence. The goverment is the only one that can use force to take things away from another person, lock them up, etc. So we need to limit what the goverment can do to the basic minimum with a lot of checks on it.

The goverment is there to prevent evil being done on others. It _is not_ there to FORCE people to do good. "Your right to swing ends before it hits my nose" is the key message here. We need a goverment to insure that we are not invaded and that companies do not seep poisonous gasses into the air we breath. No more than that. The goverment prevents people from raping others, not telling them what two willing people can do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

The rules of law are the same for everyone. No one is treated better or worse in the eyes of the law based on their age, birth, social class, etc. This is not to say that everyone is equal. I am not as smart as Stephen Hawking. But he is not exempt from any laws I have to follow.

Capitalism is the outgrowth of this philosophy that the best way to rule people is with as little interference as possible. No physical force is allowed, no fraud or extortion. But when we demand that people let us do what we want as long as we do not damage them in the process, we have to give the same respect to them.

We probably do not think that people should buy certain products, the pet rock as been mentioned in this thread and as far as I am concerned that was a complete waste of money. But as long as it is their money, they have the right to spend it as they please- whether it be on Mark Twain books or J-Lo concert tickets. 

Yes, industries can influence us to buy things that I think are stupid. But they can't use physical force. There is the choice of the consumer involved. I have to respect that choice if I want to have my right to choose respected. It is conceited to think that one adult should know better how someone else can spend their money better than the holder of that money.

When philosophies come along that require a goverment to FORCE others to do good, it has always ended up doing great evil. There was no socialist goverments before the 20th century, yet in just that 100 year span the amount of people killed under a goverment with "socialist" as part of their title is staggering. Whether it is the National Socialist under Hitler, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under Stalin, the loftier the goal, the greater the hell. Because the force needed by the goverment to distribute wealth is control- power! And power corrupts. The power of the whip hand does not attract saints.

The problem is that many people are greedy, and they desire to improve themselves at the expense of others. The noble sounding philosophies of collectavism are just justifications for their grabbing wealth. They demonize those that have more than them, explain that their poverty is somehow the rich's fault and are able to sleep with themselves after taking away what another has created.

So the way to avoid this is to interfere with others as little as possible. If they require help, anyone is free to help them in a free society. The key is that no one is FORCED to do anything under the excuse that it is for some greater food.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 7, 2004)

Not that this'll have the slightest effect, but:

"Capitalism is the outgrowth of this philosophy that the best way to rule people is with as little interference as possible. No physical force is allowed, no fraud or extortion...No one is treated better or worse in the eyes of the law based on their age, birth, social class, etc."

Uh....are you at all familar with what's been going on in the last two years? "No fraud or extortion?" Say what? And are you familiar with the history of this country--"no physical force is allowed?" Are we in the same sidereal universe? The currect news, and the historical record, are alike stuffed to the GILLS with examples in which the wealthy, and their companies, and their government, and their hired goons, have used force....

You might also want to scope out the history of, say, Chiapas province in Mexico (group of peaceful protesters against local landlords and owners and bosses walks up to roadblock, en route to town...Army units kill around 16...nobody says nothin'), or the ongoing history of the wealthy in Latin America.

Or you might look at E.P. Thompson, "Whigs and Hunters: The Origins of the Black Acts." (Aw hell, those pesky books again...hey, martial arts types...these acts prohibited carrying weapons including cudgels and quarterstaffs, and are directly analogous to the fabled Japanese banning of weapons on Okinawa) You might particularly find the chapter, "Consequences and Conclusions," of interest, since that is where Thompson--himself a founding member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and generally considered one of the four greatest marxist historians--chews out contemporary marxist academicians for their...well, let's just call it stupidity and utopianism.

Here's a nice quote for you:

"...we feel contempt {for the judges who condemned so many of the poor} not because we are contemptuous of the notion of a just and equitable law but because this notion has been betrayed by its own professors. The modern sensibility which views this only within the persepctives of our own archipelagos of gulags and stalags, for whose architects the very notion of the rule of law would be a criminal heresy, will find my response over-fussy. The plebs of 18th-century England were provided with a rule of law of some sort, and they ought to have considered themselves lucky. What more could they expect?

In fact, some of them had the impertinence, and the imperfect sense of  historical perspective, to expect justice."


----------



## klif (Jun 7, 2004)

_http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part1_



_What the public knows least about is the internal policies of Communist countries. While many countries in the world have had imperialistic foreign policies comparable to e.g. the Soviet Union's, the crimes inflicted by Communist governments against their own populations find almost no historical parallel. In particular, using almost any scholarly tabulations (and even official Communist pronouncements), the government of the USSR murdered more non-combatants than any other in the 20th-century. Communist China comes in second. Out of the top ten most murderous regimes in this century, five were Communist, according to the ranking provided by R.J. Rummel in his Death By Government (Communist regimes indicated in bold): _


_*Soviet Union* _
_*Communist China* _
_Nazi Germany _
_Nationalist China _
_Imperial Japan _
_*Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge* _
_Turkey under the Young Turks _
_*Communist Vietnam* _
_*Communist Poland* _
_Pakistan under Yahya Khan _


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 7, 2004)

Chumley, whatever the world knows, I've known pretty much the same stats you describe since about 1978.

You and I can agree on one thing: Robertson Jeffers' "long live freedom and damn the ideologies."

I tracked down your stats, and they look depressingly real--well-documented too, and I will be checking further, just in case there's some neo-Nazi group lurking, always a possibility on the Internet. But I'm fairly sure they're right.

Anybody done any similar stats on the death and immiseration caused by capitalism/colonialism from Europe? Looked at the...let's just call it a decline in American Indian populations from, say, 1492?

Hey, here's a start:

"Target	Hiroshima	Nagasaki	Tokyo Fire Raid	Average of 93
Attacks on Cities

Dead/Missing	70,000-80,000;	35,000-40,000;	83,000

Wounded	70,000;	40,000;	102,000	

Population Density	35,000 per sq mile;	65,000 per sq mile;	130,000 per sq mile	

Total Casualties	140,000-150,000;	75,000-80,000;	185,000	3,680

Area Destroyed	4.7 sq mile;	1.8 sq mile;	15.8 sq mile	

Attacking Platform	1 B-29	1 B-29	334 B-29s	

Vietnam, I seem to recall, our country killed something on the close order of 500,000 civilians....hm. I'm so very proud. 

Nothing to really go nuts with pride about there, wouldn't you agree? And how does Chairman Mao--who started off right, fighting the imperialists as Chiang (who by the way is on one of the websites you cited--as having been directly responsible for the deaths of around 10 million, and who was supported by the US and the Luce family...founders of, "Time," magazine?) would not, and ended up an insane old man, who never brushed his teeth and had them ship him virgins from the countryside.

I know. I agree. It's why, when the Situationists took over the Paris telegraph office in 1968, they apparently sent off cables to ALL the major capitals...Beijing, Moscow, Washington.

The cables said:

"SHAKE IN YOUR SHOES, RUNNING DOG ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE. THE WORLD WON'T BE HAPPY TILL THE LAST CAPITALIST IS HUNG WITH THE GUTS OF THE LAST BUREAUCRAT."


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 8, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Not that this'll have the slightest effect, but:
> 
> "Capitalism is the outgrowth of this philosophy that the best way to rule people is with as little interference as possible. No physical force is allowed, no fraud or extortion...No one is treated better or worse in the eyes of the law based on their age, birth, social class, etc."
> 
> Uh....are you at all familar with what's been going on in the last two years? "No fraud or extortion?" Say what? And are you familiar with the history of this country--"no physical force is allowed?" Are we in the same sidereal universe? The currect news, and the historical record, are alike stuffed to the GILLS with examples in which the wealthy, and their companies, and their government, and their hired goons, have used force....



When companies use hired goons to use violence against others, that is not part of the capitalistic system. Your example is like holding up Osama Bin Laden as an example of what Islam is all about or Jim and Patty Baker as an example of Christianity.

When people violate others rights, I want to goverment to stop them. That is all I want the goverment to do. The law applies to everyone. Ex president Clinton should not be free when there are people who commited the same act of lying under oath and are serving time. But the fact that that principle was violated does not make the principle invalid.

The wealthy should not be allowed to initiate force on others. No one should be allowed to initiate force on others. The principle applies to all, and has been violated. But that is a priciple I will fight for. When I see it being violated, I will work to correct it. 

Slavery is evil. We had it in this country. It was wrong. It goes against the principle of capitalism where everyone is free. But just because I am an American and it had slavery does not mean that I can not say that slavery is wrong and push for a more just system under capitalism.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 8, 2004)

klif said:
			
		

> [*]_*Soviet Union* _
> [*]_*Communist China* _
> [*]_Nazi Germany _
> [*]_Nationalist China _
> ...



Looking over that list, the thing that strikes me is that they all pretty much did what they did under the excuse of making the world a better place by forcing people to do good for others. Japan claimed it was saving Asia from European colonists and it is # 5. Nazi Germany was saving the world from the evils of the capitalist Jewish conspiracy, Pol Pot was trying to create a utopia, China trying to improve the lot of the poor etc. That was the excuse they gave their people so they could sleep at night anyways.

And when you look at American history, you see that a lot of what we did to the African slaves and natives were somehow justified as being for their own good. Either that, or we demonized them in order to justify some pretty loathsome acts.

Hence, I tend to like goverments that just leave us alone as much as possible. God save us from those that would save the world. "For the greater good," has got to be the scariest words in history.


----------



## klif (Jun 8, 2004)

Right on Don!

Interesting quote from the website I posted:


_When the serious killing starts, and where the important differences reveal themselves, is after one side is victorious. *Communist regimes usually escalate the killing after victory*, and typically keep it high for one or two generations. (Non-Communist) forces usually execute and imprison many of their opponents after victory, but rarely set up massive slave labor empires or impose man-made famines. In consequence they normally murder far fewer people in total, as a glance at the __list of leading mass murdering regimes__ confirms. _


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 8, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Looking over that list, the thing that strikes me is that they all pretty much did what they did under the excuse of making the world a better place by forcing people to do good for others. Japan claimed it was saving Asia from European colonists and it is # 5. Nazi Germany was saving the world from the evils of the capitalist Jewish conspiracy, Pol Pot was trying to create a utopia, China trying to improve the lot of the poor etc. That was the excuse they gave their people so they could sleep at night anyways.
> 
> And when you look at American history, you see that a lot of what we did to the African slaves and natives were somehow justified as being for their own good. Either that, or we demonized them in order to justify some pretty loathsome acts.
> 
> Hence, I tend to like goverments that just leave us alone as much as possible. God save us from those that would save the world. "For the greater good," has got to be the scariest words in history.


Don't forget too that Communism is oppressive of religion, education, culture....

Some film critics have said that some of the cultural craze over "Crouching Tiger..." was because it was a kind of filmic anthem of Chinese culture that had been suffocated under the enforced equallity of Chinese Communism.  Consider too, as martial artists, that the CMA have suffered GREATLY because of communist oppressiveness of culture.  Not only was it considered dangerous by the state to let them train, it was an expression of chinese culture that was partially based on religion and therefore could not be allowed...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 8, 2004)

Oh, ya hadda drag Clinton in. Fine. I must perforce give the classic replies: did Nixon do time for lying to investigators, and obstruction of justice in regard to burglary and wire-tapping? did Bush and Reagan for lying about Iran/Contra--you know, illegal military trde with Iran, financing right-wing death squads? No? Then of course you're right: Clinton should've gone to jail for lying about sex.

As for the fantasy that capitalism is inherently non-violent---say what? If capitalists tend to avoid force, why exactly is it that the entire labor history of this country involves goons hired by bosses (I include the National Guard, local militias, etc., used more than once by the likes of the Rockefellers) busting heads again, and again and again? Why does the history of Latin America look as it does? 

Just incidentally, Nazi Germany was indeed a capitalist state...one that functioned, in part, with the ideological support of Americans (Lindbergh; Joseph P. Kennedy; the German-American Bund) and the financial aid and complicity of all sorts of major corporations from various countries.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 8, 2004)

Capitalism, I would say, is inherently imperialistic and colonizing --- due to the general "meritocracy" mood it promotes. This, of course, was an evolution from the literal aristocracies and rigid caste/class systems we see in Western societies prior to the Age of Reason. Still, there's no denying the "meritocratic" attitude that capitalism commonly instills --- just think of the words that you would describe somebody who hasn't achieved much in his/her given profession, regardless of his/her level of actual happiness: "slacker", "loser", "unsuccessful", "struggling", and so on. Capitalism tends to define "success" or "worth" by how much material gain one has achieved (this is why people like celebrities, rock stars, and professional athletes are idolized --- even when they end up OD'ing, blowing their brains out, or jumping out of office windows). Thus, a meritocracy.

Of course, I'll take a meritocracy over a Spanish Inquisition any day of the week!! Its important to look at these things in a developmental/evolutionary context (which itself exists within an even broader context, and so on)...

Of course, juxtaposed to the common Marxist position, I do not believe any of this operates independently of the cultural worldview and values of the time. I think they co-evolve and co-create one another. Culture is most definately not just a result of socioeconomic modes of production --- as opposed to its correlate, its partner.

Thats why a lot of these problems are deeper than mere socioeconomics. Even if we "evolved" a new socioeconomic system that corrects all these faults, but the general consciousness of the culture is still at the level that created the fault in the first place, then we solve nothing. Affirmative action is testament to this --- its a great socioeconomic law (at least in theory), but isn't often supported by the cultural consciousness (both among minorities and non-minorities) to effect any great change. Thus, its practically useless in application. The same could be argued with capitalism --- all of this is a lot deeper than any single social system.

Even a democracy cannot be sustained if enough people don't _believe_ in democractic ideals in the first place --- this was why slavery was in the United States for nearly 100 years after its creation. The Founding Father wasn't the average American, the Puritan was.

Just my thoughts. Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> In our capitolistic system people commonly settle into the middle of the socio/economic strata:



This was not the case until FDR instituted the New Deal.  The economic boom that followed WWII caused was spread into more people as a DIRECT result of FDR's programs.  As of late, the Neo-Cons have set their sites on the policies of the New Deal itself.  They have been erroding it for years and, if they get their way, we will see it all dissappear in the next 10 years.  Therefore, we can probably expect to go back to the times that my Grandparents remember.  When recessions hit, people starved to death.  Simple as that.  If you want annecdotal proof that is easily accessible because you don't have time to read books, just take a look at some of things rmcrobertson describes as part of his early life.  Then compare it to ours and ask yourself the question, how are we getting screwed?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I dont think he's saying that as much as he's reacting to the whole "your opinion is so much @#!$ unless you have read this list of books" mentality. I dont know about the rest of you here, but I come here when I have the time and to exchange opinion. I unfortunately dont have the time or motivation to approach this forum like im going before the UN or something. You get my opinion which is based on my life experience and my education. None of these e-debates is going to get me to read a laundry list of books that I personally have no interest in. If I were some sort of conservative literary guru that could spout off a list of counter authors/books, than maybe my opinion would mean more to some folks around here...Id rather read up on some topics that will help me do my job more effectively.



As MAists we regularly bow down to those who have more information then us.  We respect that knowledge and we work to further our own.  Do we expect to learn everything our instructors know?  How about if they dedicated their lives to the practice?  We just may not have the time.  

The same can be said about people in debates like this.  We need to respect the fact that a person just may know way more about a subject then we do.  And then we need to find the humility to admit that we don't know as much.  This humility could also extend to the concept of using that source to form new beliefs.  Isn't that what learning from each other is all about?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2004)

klif said:
			
		

> _*Soviet Union* _
> _*Communist China* _
> _Nazi Germany _
> _Nationalist China _
> ...



Is this a list of Communist dead or a list of death by totalitarianism which is, in fact, anti-communist.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> 1.  When companies use hired goons to use violence against others, that is not part of the capitalistic system. Your example is like holding up Osama Bin Laden as an example of what Islam is all about or Jim and Patty Baker as an example of Christianity.
> 
> 2.  Slavery is evil. We had it in this country. It was wrong. It goes against the principle of capitalism where everyone is free. But just because I am an American and it had slavery does not mean that I can not say that slavery is wrong and push for a more just system under capitalism.



Two Points

1.  All multinational corporations have hired "security" which looks more like armed militia...aka goons.
2.  Redefine slavery to 1 cent per hour and suddenly millions are enslaved again.  Sure seems like we've been taking radical leaps in the direction of humanitarianism...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Just incidentally, Nazi Germany was indeed a capitalist state...one that functioned, in part, with the ideological support of Americans (Lindbergh; Joseph P. Kennedy; the German-American Bund) and the financial aid and complicity of all sorts of major corporations from various countries.



Don't forget Prescott Bush in this list.  Both Presidents have used money made from Auschwitz to finance their campeigns for president.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Would it be helpful to consider how energy in natural systems always finds ways to equalize?  A wealthy individual must expend a lot of energy to control that much energy.  Systems will always arise to redistribute.  Is that statement a justification or strategy?





			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Isnt that what taxation is about at its most basic level?



Why, yes it is.  Exactly my point.

Lets look at this from a realistic perspective.  Taxes.  Taxes pay for our government and are the very reason it is able to do the things that it can do.  Taxes are often used to argue about capitalism and its options.  Perhaps as American we need to look at the following premises regarding taxes and then look at how they fit into the picture of capitalism.

First off, I want to start with the premise that taxes are a measure of social responsibility.  When we pay our taxes we pay for the things that the government organizes and provides.  Therefore, the more we pay in taxes, the more we show that we are willing to pay for what we have received - which floats nicely into the American saying _there are no free lunches_.

Secondly, we live in a democracy so we have a responsibility to make sure our tax money is used for what we want it to be used for.  With that being said, government waste, programs that benefit the barest few, and programs that hurt the majority of the American people are unjust and should be discontinued.  

Thirdly, couldn't it be said that the wealthy of this country benefit from the society that they grew out of just as much as any wellfare recipient?  For instance, there are some societies that do not respect property rights and all of those sorts of things.  The US works toward protecting them so you have something to pass on to your children.  Therefore wealth is created by a combination of hard work and society providing the opportunity for that individual to succeed.  

How much does someone owe for that success?  Does this transfer directly to social responsibility..ie taxes?  How about if everyone in the country paid the same rate in taxes?  Did you know that the tax rate on the middle class has risen steadily since 1950?  Meanwhile the tax rate on the rich has fallen?  

In my opinion, the wealthy have benifited from the social structure of this country the most so they deserve to pay the most in taxes.  The poor, the least, so they pay the least.  If we had one tax rate, with no loopholes, for everyone this would be accomplished.  This is not what we have now.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 8, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As MAists we regularly bow down to those who have more information then us. We respect that knowledge and we work to further our own. Do we expect to learn everything our instructors know? How about if they dedicated their lives to the practice? We just may not have the time.
> 
> The same can be said about people in debates like this. We need to respect the fact that a person just may know way more about a subject then we do. And then we need to find the humility to admit that we don't know as much. This humility could also extend to the concept of using that source to form new beliefs. Isn't that what learning from each other is all about?


I dont care if my MA instructor can fly and shoot lightning bolts out of his ears, if he acts in a way I cant respect . Some actions speak so loud you cant hear whats said.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14862


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 8, 2004)

Just in case we're talking about me, the problem isn't who's got a bigger one.

It's a problem with making claims that aren't based on facts, books, or reality, and then gettin' all cranky about the suggestion that maybe facts, books, and realities are a nice thing.

The problem, even more, is not with who respects whom. It's a problem with more or less declaring, well, I am NOT going to go find out, and no pointy-head liberal collitch perfessor is a-gonna make me. 

And last, the problem--personally speaking and all that--is the way that some arguments and viewpoints always draw these insane attacks on one's love of country, moral character and common sense.

Democracies run on the notion that just about anybody can go find out what they need to know, they run on the notion that ordinary people can act of intelligence and compasssion, and they run on the notion that all citizens are in this big thing together, and they run on the notion that ALL views have something to contribute to the whole. 

So, when you attack the idea of going and finding out, when you start arguing that there's some elite class of the rich who have proven their superiority, when you start screaming that SOME just have no right to speak, when you start stamping your foot and demanding that some people should just shut up....you see where I'm going with this?

The basic problem, here, is that a) capitalism and democracy grew up together; b) capitalism and democracy are necessarily at odds; c) capitalism is fundamentally contradictory of every moral/religious code I've ever heard of.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 8, 2004)

> Just in case we're talking about me, the problem isn't who's got a bigger one.



OH! (As I sheath the monster and zip)

Sorry....but that was funny. :uhyeah: 

Continue....


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 9, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So, when you attack the idea of going and finding out, when you start arguing that there's some elite class of the rich who have proven their superiority, when you start screaming that SOME just have no right to speak, when you start stamping your foot and demanding that some people should just shut up....you see where I'm going with this?



Damn, when did that happen? I seemed to have missed the part where we suggested we all get down and kiss Donald Trump's feet. I have been arguing that eveyone be treated on their own individual merits instead of as part of a class, rich or poor.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The basic problem, here, is that a) capitalism and democracy grew up together; b) capitalism and democracy are necessarily at odds; c) capitalism is fundamentally contradictory of every moral/religious code I've ever heard of.



You know, I have been noticing that you have been adding little comments about what we must subscribe to if we are to call ourselves capitalists that I can not find in the dictionary definition. I am sure that you can find an author of a book that says, "I am a capitalist and I beleive XXXXX" but that does not mean that we have to believe what they do about the reasons for capitalism, or it's merits, or things like whether it is part of a natural law or not.

There are a hell of a lot of groups that call themselves capitalists. When you look at sources like Adam Smith, Libertarians, Objectavists, etc, you find that their opinions differ greatly on a lot of things. You want to tell Ayn Rand that the greatest attraction for capitalism is that it does the most good for the general populace? It would be worth bringing her back from the dead just to see her smack you over the head with that ciggarette holder she carried around.

When you boil all the differing groups common beliefs down, you get pretty close to the dictionary definition of capitalism as a system where people do not have their products taken from them by force to be distributed to others without their consent. _That's it!_ That is about all everyone can agree on.

So how in hell does that belief run counter to the ideal of democracy? Do you mean to define democracy as a system that insures that everyone is the same? That is not what a lot of people think. We think that democracy is where the goverment is chosen by a vote among the populace. Not a dictatorship and not a feudal king. You have to define democracy a lot different from what I see in the dictionary to say that it differs from the ideals of capitalism as defined in the dictionary.

And how does capitalism as a system where people have no claim on other's goods, that they can't come in by force to take what they want and distribute it as they wish, counter to most moral codes? I must have missed that part of the sermon when the pastor said, "And Christ said 'If thy neighbor does not want to help those less fortunate, go ahead and take his stuff.'"

Capitalism is the one system I have found that _at it's core_ does not say that I am born with a debt to some greater good. All other systems I see assume that my body, mind and soul all come second to some other force. Exxcuse me, who gets to choose what is that greater good that I have to come second to? The morons in congress, the people that allowed the goverment to cart away the Nisei americans, or maybe the philosopher kings?

Call me a malcontent, greedy, SOB, but I prefer to be let alone and make my own decisions. I will respect your decision to run your own life as well. Anyone who thinks they know what I should do better than I do myself is invited to go copulate with farm animals.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 9, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Just incidentally, Nazi Germany was indeed a capitalist state.



Which is why Nazi is a short version of the German word for National _Socialist_ Workers Party, eh?  :uhyeah: And that is why Hitler spent all that time trashing capitalism in his speeches, etc, right? :uhyeah:

The thing is, both the USSR and Nazi Germany were fundementally the same. They both believed in a system where the individual came second to the greater good. The differences they had were in determining what that greater good was. In reality, there turned out to be no greater good.

Facism believes that all efforts should go for the greater good of the people, the Volk. Business was allowed only as long as it met the needs of the greater good. Instead of a communist system where their businesses were supposed to be taken away and given to the people, they were allowed to run it as long as they followed the orders of the goverment in the name of the greater good. But both systems believe that the individual owes their life, business, property, etc to some greater good.

Hitler told his people that their poverty was not their fault, that the greedy capitalists who wanted to keep their wealth somehow cheated them of their goods and then promised to give them all Volkswagons so they could speed around on the autobaun he was going to build for them. The rich capitalists were going to get what they deserved and their wealth distributed among those less fortunate. The people licked their lips and voted him into office.

Of course, the people got the shaft in the end and the rich who were savy enough to latch onto the party became more wealthy and powerfull under the nazis. But take a look at Zimbawe today, or North Korea. There is the same principle at work where the masses are told that all must come second to the good of the whole, and a small elite profits while the rest of the country goes to hell.

So when people start talking about how we must put aside our greedy concerns for the greater good, I start getting flashes of deja vu and fear for the future.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 9, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Two Points
> 
> 1.  All multinational corporations have hired "security" which looks more like armed militia...aka goons.
> 2.  Redefine slavery to 1 cent per hour and suddenly millions are enslaved again.  Sure seems like we've been taking radical leaps in the direction of humanitarianism...



1. If all those goons do is protect something, fine. If they use them to intimidate others in a country like America, they are going to go to jail. I like America for this reason. This is a good use of a minimalist goverment. 

2. If we are going to play musical definitions, then if we say that all sex is rape then we should stone to death all males. Under the definition of slavery you find in the dictionary,  the slaves have no choice to walk away from a job and can't go out and get a new one. If they want to work for 1 cent an hour, then that is their choice. If you try to say that there is no other job, I am going to laugh in your face at the silliness of that and ask you what they would have done had the company now paying them had not come along.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 9, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Thats why a lot of these problems are deeper than mere socioeconomics. Even if we "evolved" a new socioeconomic system that corrects all these faults, but the general consciousness of the culture is still at the level that created the fault in the first place, then we solve nothing.



I think the problem goes deeper than cultural. People are people. They can be increadibly kind, and increadibly cruel when they can convince themselves that there is a justification for what they do.

Until you eliminate greed and envy from the human condition, you will always have the lure of collectavism. People can help the poor under any system. But under collectivism they see a chance to take from those better off than them and give it to themselves. And until you cure people of the ability to justify away their guilt and such that have led us to rob, rape, enslave and otherwise violate others throughout history, you dare not give one person or group of people the power to initiate violence against others to force them to do what they want for whatever justification they may come up with.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 9, 2004)

*I think the problem goes deeper than cultural. People are people.*

Well, be careful with statements like that. An individual _never_ exists completely independent of his/her cultural background and contextual framework. This is one of the enduring truths of postmodern philosophy, and shouldn't be ignored.

Still, it would be a fallacy to reduce individuals as being nothing but products of their culture/environment, I'd agree --- as, within any given culture, you'll find wide divergences of value, worldview, and perspective. This is why its fairly silly to blame the ills of history _solely_ on any social or cultural structure --- be it capitalism, socialism, or whatnot.

*People are people. They can be increadibly kind, and increadibly cruel when they can convince themselves that there is a justification for what they do.*

This is why I think a developmental perspective is also important. Contrary to popular belief, there just isn't any one single, preset, monolithic "human nature" --- different individuals (and cultures) have different "natures" depending on their own personal level of development (and this isn't as simple or linear as it sounds, as there are numerous developmental lines to be tracked). Some are saints, and some are sinners. Humanity has produced Neo-Nazis and Dalai Lamas. We're a motley crew, to say the least.

It'd be impossible to completely eliminate greed and envy from the "human equation", anyway. Even if every adult on the planet suddenly became a rational, morally resposible individual, all of our children would still be born at square one. There's always the chance for pathology, in any domain.

Still, I'd say that --- collectively --- humanity has been getting a little better throughout the millenia. No matter what its ills, capitalism is a far cry preferable to the Inquisitions, Crusades, caste systems, theocracies, and rigid patriarchal hierarchies of pre-modern times. Still, capitalism is far from the "end of history" as has been claimed.

And I still feel my "meritocratic" criticism of the system, and correlated culture, still holds true.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 9, 2004)

Yeah, I wondered when that lunatic Ayn Rand would come up in this conversation. 

On the topic of Nazism and capitalism, here's this from that Commounist souce, Wikipedia:

Economic Theory
Nazi economic theory concerned itself with immediate domestic issues and separately with ideological conceptions of international economics.

Domestic economic policy was narrowly concerned with three major goals: 

*	Elimination of unemployment 
*	Elimination of hyperinflation 
*	Expansion of production of consumer goods to improve middle and lower-class living standards.

All of these policy goals were intended to address the perceived shortcomings of the Weimar Republic and to solidify domestic support for the party. In this, the party was very successful. Between 1933 and 1936 the German GNP increased by an average annual rate of 9.5 percent, and the rate for industry alone rose by 17.2 percent. However, many economists argue that the expansion of the Germany economy between 1933 and 1936 was not the result of the Nazi party, but rather the consequence of economic policies of the late Weimar Republic which had begin to have an effect. 

In addition, it has been pointed out that while it is often popularly believed that the Nazis ended hyperinflation, that the end of hyperinflation preceded the Nazis by several years.

This expansion propelled the German economy out of a deep depression and into full employment in less than four years. Public consumption during the same period increased by 18.7%, while private consumption increased by 3.6% annually. However, as this production was primarily consumptive rather than productive (make work projects, expansion of the war-fighting machine, initiation of the draft to remove working age males from the labor force), inflationary pressures began to rear their head again, although not to the highs of the Weimar Republic. These economic pressures, combined with the war-fighting machine created in the expansion (and concomitant pressures for its use), has led some commentators to the conclusion that a European war was inevitable for these reasons alone. Stated another way, without another general European war to support this consumptive and inflationary economic policy, the Nazi domestic economic program was unsupportable. This is not to say that other more important political considerations were not to blame. It is only meant to state that economics have been, and are a primary motivating factor for any society to go to war.

Internationally, the Nazi party believed that a international banking cabal was behind the global depression of the 1930s. The control of this cabal was identified with the ethnic group known as Jews, providing another link in their ideological motivation for the destruction of that group in the holocaust. However, broadly speaking, the existence of large international banking or merchant banking organizations was well known at this time. Many of these banking organizations were able to exert influence upon nation states by extension or withholding of credit. This influence is not limited to the small states that preceded the creation of German Empire as a nation state in the 1870s, but is noted in most major histories of all European powers from the 1500s onward. In fact, some transnational corporations in the 1500 to 1800 period (the Dutch East India Company for one good example) were formed specifically to engage in warfare as a proxy for governmental involvement, as opposed to the other way around.

Using more modern nomenclature, it is possible to say that the Nazi Party was against transnational corporations power vis-a-vis that of the nation state. This basic anti-corporate stance is shared with many mainstream center-left political parties, as well as otherwise totally opposed anarchist political groups. 

It is important to note that the Nazi Party's conception of international economics was very limited. As the National Socialist in the name NSDAP suggests, the party's primary motivation was to incorporate previously international resources into the Reich by force, rather than by trade (compare to the international socialism as practiced by the Soviet Union and the COMECON trade organization). This made international economic theory a supporting factor in the political ideology rather than a core plank of the platform as it is in most modern political parties.

In a economic sense, Nazism and Fascism are related. Nazism may be considered a subset of Fascism, with all Nazis being Fascists, but not all Fascists being Nazis. Nazism shares many economic features with Fascism, featuring complete government control of finance and investment (allocation of credit), industry, and agriculture. Yet in both of these systems, corporate power and market based systems for providing price information still existed. Quoting Benito Mussolini: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." 

Rather than the state requiring goods from industrial enterprises and allocating raw materials required for their production (as in socialist / communist systems), the state paid for these goods. This allows price to play an essential role in providing information as to relative scarcity of materials, or the capital requirements in technology or labor (including education, as in skilled labor) inputs to produce a manufactured good. Additionally, the unionist (strictly speaking, syndicalist) veneer placed on corporate labor relations was another major point of agreement. Both the German and Italian fascist political parties began as unionist labor movements, and grew into totalitarian dictatorships. This idea was maintained throughout their time in power, with state control used as a means to eliminate the assumed conflict between management labor relations.


Effects
These theories were used to justify a totalitarian political agenda of racial hatred and suppression using all the means of the state, and suppressing dissent.

Like other fascist regimes, the Nazi regime emphasized anti-communism and the leader principle (fuhrerprinzip), a key element of fascist ideology in which the ruler is deemed to embody the political movement and the nation...

Hey. look. a) Nazi government and corporations were very closely tied; b) economics are primary in the causes of war; c) capitalist governments create corporations--like the British East India Company--to carry on war all the time. 

Good thing we don't have any heavy corporate involvement, or private contractors carrying out military assignments, in Iraq or anywhere else, ain't it?

I guess you can argue that these are corporations, and the problem is they're not really capitalist, but that seems a little weird. I guess you could take comfort from the info on unions--but they did say, "veneer," not core, and personally I'd read real unions as deeply subversive of Fascism, which is probably why the Nazis and fascists always wipe them out.

Next up: Capitalism 101: human nature and acquisition! what absolute, surplus, and exchange value are!! how profit works!!!

Preview trailer: See, in capitalism everybody competes for everything in an economic arena (generally speaking, there's also some sort of ideological mechanism for pretending that this arena is separate from, "real life," and that the true values are elsewhere, while simultaneously asserting that the economic is in fact primary after all...such contradictions are everywhere); there's no consideration of human values as such; the whole point is to get more than the next guy; when you, "get more," you use what you got to get more still; the "winners," have more of what they took from everybody else than anybody else; the general theory is that this rising tide raises all boats.

What, you never heard it's a dog-eat-dog world out there? Never heard about, "keeping up with the Joneses?" Never had that vague feeling that too much ain't enough, the desire to go shopping just to go shopping? never known anybody who as hard as they worked, never got ahead? anybody who got screwed out of a raise, a promotion, a job? anybody who worried all the time about bills? 

That's what capitalism is as a "lived experience," dude. 

I still say Dan Quayle is the perfect illustration of why the assertion that capitalism is fair is hilariously wrong.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 9, 2004)

*Preview trailer: See, in capitalism everybody competes for everything in an economic arena [...] there's no consideration of human values as such; the whole point is to get more than the next guy; when you, "get more," you use what you got to get more still; the "winners," have more of what they took from everybody else than anybody else; the general theory is that this rising tide raises all boats.

What, you never heard it's a dog-eat-dog world out there? Never heard about, "keeping up with the Joneses?" Never had that vague feeling that too much ain't enough, the desire to go shopping just to go shopping? never known anybody who as hard as they worked, never got ahead? anybody who got screwed out of a raise, a promotion, a job? anybody who worried all the time about bills?*

Yes, which was exactly why it produces meritocracies, as I explained earlier. You are collectively judged as having "made it" in life if you have achieved a large amount of material wealth and success --- regardless of how happy or self-fulfilled you may actually be. If you don't believe me, just ask Kurt Cobain. Or Elvis Presley. Or that CEO that just jumped out of his penthouse window last year. Or... you get the picture.

Is this "bad"?? Eh, probably. Depends on what you compare it to, really. Its still preferable to premodern Inquisitions and _literal_ aristocracies, in my opinion. But, "end of the world"??? Nah. Surely, we can do better...

But, communism?? Hrmmm.... methinks not. I think a few socialist elements need to be implemented, for sure, but there is a _lot_ within the capitalist scheme worth including --- such as the ability to open one's own business, and differentiations in pay for people that actually work harder. Still, it needs changing.

*generally speaking, there's also some sort of ideological mechanism for pretending that this arena is separate from, "real life," and that the true values are elsewhere, while simultaneously asserting that the economic is in fact primary after all...such contradictions are everywhere*

Yup. The dissociation of mind and body, a delightful consequence of materialism. Or, as others have called it: flatland, wastland, the disenchantment of the world, the colonizing of art and morals by an imperialistic science, the rise of one-dimensional man, so on and so on.

Its not just a cultural thing. And its not just an economic thing. And its most definately not just a collective thing, either --- this stuff impacts individuals.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 9, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> So how in hell does that belief (capitalism) run counter to the ideal of democracy? Do you mean to define democracy as a system that insures that everyone is the same? That is not what a lot of people think. We think that democracy is where the goverment is chosen by a vote among the populace...



Take a good look at our democracy.  There are some problems.  

First off, a good democracy requires information and education.  What if the sources of information and education have been centralized into the hands of a few?

Secondly, what does it take to participate in our democracy?  Money.  Copius amounts of money.  Every candidate must buy their way into the privately controlled information system in order to get their message out.  Therefore only those with money can represent us.

Thirdly, who votes?  It requires information to vote right?  It requires motivation.  What if the system has failed you too often?  What if you don't have access to good information on the candidates?  What if you can't see the benefit of exercising your right to vote?  That is something one needs to be taught, but there has been a disconnect somewhere in the line.  Take a good look at the poor inner city schools described in Jonathon Kozal's work "_Savage Inequalities_" and you will see how the classist system in which we grow up creates this monster.  Education is beholden to money too, and its only getting worse.  

This list could go on and on, but I think it answers your question.  At least from my point of view.  Capitalism puts money (energy) into the hands of the few.  Money (energy) determines the use of resources.  Everybody needs access to resources in a democracy, so if control of these resources in doled out by the hands of a few...well you don't really have a democracy.

We haven't reached this stage yet.  There is still a large middle class in this country.  I think what many are failing to realize, though, is that the middle class would not exist under an _entirely_ capitalist system.  Nor would our democracy.

The middle class is shrinking everyday, though.  The programs that gave people the resources to participate in democracy are being weakened and phased out.  The neo-conservative movement is directly responsible for this.  They predicate their societal philosophy on a foundation of local control and lack of regulation.  All this will do, though, is place the power to use resources back into communities that have the most energy (money).  Those with the least will be left out in the cold.  The redistribution of resources that is _essential _ in a democracy will be no more.  What will be be left with then?

Fascism.  That's right fascism.  When a society has melded bussiness and government completely, that is fascism by definition.  The power (energy/money) will be in the hands of the few and all pretenses of democracy will cease to exist.  This is the conservative agenda.  This is the end game that they strive for.  The destruction of the New Deal and all social programs is in the future.  The privatization of all government services is too.  Fascism?  You betcha.  Everyone takes care of themselves and those with the most resources to start will be able to take care of themselves the best.  Inheritly, unequal, but that is the nature of capitalism.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 9, 2004)

I agree, ahura-mazda help us  all.

Just incidentally, the argument is that communism evolves out of capitalism though historical necessity--and a big part of the reason for the disaster that was the Soviet Union was the attempt to run history on fast-forward.

Of course, that's a lot like the loopy claims from types like Thos. Sowell and The Center for the Moral Advancement of Capitalism (LOVE that name) that the only reason anything ever goes wrong with capitalism is government and liberals--a beautiful excuse for absolutely anything whatsoever. 

Problem is, those guys have to overlook a) the human experience of  capitalist society; b) the casualty rate; c) the predominance of immoral behavior right in the heart of capitalism; d) the way capitalism redefines every human activity in terms of money, market, and profit.

You'd think that martial artists, who endlessly kvetch about commercialization, would notice this once in a while.

And the other thing I object to is this ugly notion that anybody can succeed because anybody can start their own business...newsflash, folks, I don't want to start and run Wal-Mart, I never have. Among other issues (like what I like) I haven't the temperament for it. It's just like all the commercials, these days, that turn the businessman into a knight or superhero or whatever--it's the ideological heroicization of paper-shuffling and ordering other people about.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 9, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> 1. If all those goons do is protect something, fine. If they use them to intimidate others in a country like America, they are going to go to jail. I like America for this reason. This is a good use of a minimalist goverment.
> 
> 2. If we are going to play musical definitions, then if we say that all sex is rape then we should stone to death all males. Under the definition of slavery you find in the dictionary,  the slaves have no choice to walk away from a job and can't go out and get a new one. If they want to work for 1 cent an hour, then that is their choice. If you try to say that there is no other job, I am going to laugh in your face at the silliness of that and ask you what they would have done had the company now paying them had not come along.



The two points I made, go together nicely with the definition of slavery that I posited.  I changed one aspect.  1 cent per hour.  These workers do not have a choice.  They are poor and starving and they are pressed into work by the goons mentioned in point number one.  These good stand at the doors of the factories with their AK-47s and walk the lines making sure no one can talk to each other.  Sound familiar?  It should.  The same thing happened in the United States, when my grandfather grew up.  They did this to stop them from unionizing.  These people, _are_, essentially slaves.  Slaves to make your cheap sneakers...

What would they do without the factory?  What would they do without the corporations providing the opportunity to work?  Good question.  We'll never know though because the corporate sponsored dictator kills anyone who tries to find out.  I would surmise that these people would find ways to use the resources of their country in attempt to rise up from hardscrabble poor.  Which is exactly what was happening in Chile, that is, until Pinochet stepped in...

The poor are easy to control because they have no education but the _basics _ (as in back to the basics - see the parellels again ) that allow them to work.  They cannot participate in democracy and have no resources to create any opportunity for themselves other then the opportunity given to them by the multinationals.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 9, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Preview trailer: See, in capitalism everybody competes for everything in an economic arena (generally speaking, there's also some sort of ideological mechanism for pretending that this arena is separate from, "real life," and that the true values are elsewhere, while simultaneously asserting that the economic is in fact primary after all...such contradictions are everywhere); there's no consideration of human values as such; the whole point is to get more than the next guy; when you, "get more," you use what you got to get more still; the "winners," have more of what they took from everybody else than anybody else; the general theory is that this rising tide raises all boats.



Now you say that this is the reason for capitalism, that it rises all boats, that raising money is the only value, etc. Bull feces. Capitalism does not stop people from producing things that are not profitable or running charities. It does not require people to do good- like including access ramps for handicap people in a martial arts dojo. The system of capitalism does not require you to do anything more than leave other people alone to make money as they see fit. They do not have to even try to "win" in an economic sense. Some will try to defiine themselves by their profit, we are free not to. Saying money making is bad is illogical. Not making money is not evil, but no one should be forced to support someone else.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What, you never heard it's a dog-eat-dog world out there? Never heard about, "keeping up with the Joneses?" Never had that vague feeling that too much ain't enough, the desire to go shopping just to go shopping? never known anybody who as hard as they worked, never got ahead? anybody who got screwed out of a raise, a promotion, a job? anybody who worried all the time about bills?



I have never heard of any society or system that has eliminated any of those ills. Trying to say that these human ills are exclusive to capitalism is silly. Of course, I do not have to keep up with the Jonses, and I do not even try. I have that freedom under a minimalist capitalistic system. The neigbors may not treat me as well for not following fashion trends, but no one is sticking a gun to my head to stop me from telling them to copulate with themsleves by not following the trends.




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I still say Dan Quayle is the perfect illustration of why the assertion that capitalism is fair is hilariously wrong.



And you are free to hold that opinion. The fallicy is that you believe that capitalism must bring the best to the top. Nope, it only has to make them free. And it seems that your complaint is with democracy itself, since Qualye was part of the system and served in office.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Of course, that's a lot like the loopy claims from types like Thos. Sowell and The Center for the Moral Advancement of Capitalism (LOVE that name) that the only reason anything ever goes wrong with capitalism is government and liberals--a beautiful excuse for absolutely anything whatsoever.
> 
> Problem is, those guys have to overlook a) the human experience of  capitalist society; b) the casualty rate; c) the predominance of immoral behavior right in the heart of capitalism; d) the way capitalism redefines every human activity in terms of money, market, and profit.



There you go again, saying that everyone who beleives in capitalism has to beleive what you want them to becasue some other capitalist believes it.

First of all, yes a heck of a lot of the evils of capitalism comes from the goverment. Violent strike breaking being one case. Either the goverment looks the other way instead of doing its duty and protecting people from having violence done on them, or is an active partner in the violence. When the national guard has been used to fire on peacefull workers protesting, you can't say that the companies are the only ones to blame and then try to turn everything over to the tender mercies of the goverment.

And you again talk about in "C" as if there were some central immoral behavior in a system that can be summed up as "leave me alone." And in "D" you say that capitalism defines everthing in terms of money. Maybe, but I am free to look on people as I please under a capitalistic system without regard for their bank balance.




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And the other thing I object to is this ugly notion that anybody can succeed because anybody can start their own business...newsflash, folks, I don't want to start and run Wal-Mart, I never have. Among other issues (like what I like) I haven't the temperament for it. It's just like all the commercials, these days, that turn the businessman into a knight or superhero or whatever--it's the ideological heroicization of paper-shuffling and ordering other people about.



You do not have to go out and start Wal-Mart in a capitalistic society. You can, but you do not have to. You are free to do as you please. If you want to go off and spend all your time fishing after putting in the bare minimum to survive, you can. You can be Amish in America. I do not have the temperment to be a big businessman either. But I want to give those that do to have the freedom to try if they so desire.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 9, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Take a good look at our democracy.  There are some problems.
> 
> First off, a good democracy requires information and education.  What if the sources of information and education have been centralized into the hands of a few?



Like the goverment and Hillary Clinton?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Secondly, what does it take to participate in our democracy?  Money.  Copius amounts of money.  Every candidate must buy their way into the privately controlled information system in order to get their message out.  Therefore only those with money can represent us.



The problem is, if you allow other people to determine how the flow of cash for political ads and such are determined, they can throttle of any undesirables. I do not see much democracy under other economic systems at all.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Thirdly, who votes?  It requires information to vote right?  It requires motivation.  What if the system has failed you too often?




Wait a minute, you are going to FORCE people to be motivated for the greater good? If someone does not feel motivated to vote, I do not want o force them. In fact, I think the ability to stay home is a primary right of people.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This list could go on and on, but I think it answers your question.  At least from my point of view.  Capitalism puts money (energy) into the hands of the few.  Money (energy) determines the use of resources.  Everybody needs access to resources in a democracy, so if control of these resources in doled out by the hands of a few...well you don't really have a democracy.



And you propose giving all that energy in the hands of the goverment instead of the hands of the capitalists? At least under the capitalistic system I can tell IBM to go jump in the lake. The goverment can plant an Abrams tank on my front lawn. Or maybe you want the general populace to vote and determine how everyone's efforts should be distributed? Ah yes, and 51 percent will then find a way to enslave the remaining 49 percent.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Fascism.  That's right fascism.  When a society has melded bussiness and government completely, that is fascism by definition.  The power (energy/money) will be in the hands of the few and all pretenses of democracy will cease to exist.



So what you are advocating is facism? You let the goverment control business and that is the melding of business and goveement and seems to fit your definition. Under capitalism, you can vote with your dollars.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The two points I made, go together nicely with the definition of slavery that I posited. I changed one aspect. 1 cent per hour. These workers do not have a choice. They are poor and starving and they are pressed into work by the goons mentioned in point number one. These good stand at the doors of the factories with their AK-47s and walk the lines making sure no one can talk to each other.



Show me where this is happening in a free, capitalist country. I know this is going on in Communist China. But not in America. Not in a goverment where people can practice capitalism instead of having the goverment tell them what to do. If we were to find such a factory in the countries you want to change, the owners would be behind bars.

Oh, and if they choose to work for 1 cent an hour because they are starving and there is no other work around, I guess that they should thank any work that opens up for them. Nice of you to try to take away their only source of work, or remove the motivation it may have to give them a job and avoid starvation.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 9, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> The problem is, if you allow other people to determine how the flow of cash for political ads and such are determined, they can throttle of any undesirables. I do not see much democracy under other economic systems at all.



My point is that we can have a better democracy if we change a few things.

1.  Publicly funded elections.
2.  Instant Run Off Voting.
3.  Complete ban on private campaign financing.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Wait a minute, you are going to FORCE people to be motivated for the greater good? If someone does not feel motivated to vote, I do not want o force them. In fact, I think the ability to stay home is a primary right of people.



Relax man.  Your putting words in my mouth.  I wouldn't force anyone to do anything except learn.  I would hope that teaching everyone in this country the importance of the vote would be a paramount civic responsability of the government.  It is not doing this.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> And you propose giving all that energy in the hands of the goverment instead of the hands of the capitalists? At least under the capitalistic system I can tell IBM to go jump in the lake. The goverment can plant an Abrams tank on my front lawn. Or maybe you want the general populace to vote and determine how everyone's efforts should be distributed? Ah yes, and 51 percent will then find a way to enslave the remaining 49 percent.



Don't fool yourself.  A corporation can plant an Abrams on your lawn.  And if the government is eventually taken over by the corporatists you can expect it.  Let me tell you something about private military forces.  They are not subject to the Geneva Conventions or Internation Law.  They can do just about anything they want and there is no one but the board of directors of the company they work for to hold them accountable.  That is the main problem that people have with the private contractors in Iraq.  The private mercenaries involved with the Abu Ghraib debacle will not be punished other then maybe being fired.  If a private corporation decided _today _ to put a tank on your lawn, Technically (and that is with a big capitol T if ya know what I mean) the government would not have any legal precident to stop them.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> So what you are advocating is facism? You let the goverment control business and that is the melding of business and goveement and seems to fit your definition. Under capitalism, you can vote with your dollars.



Not at all.  You are confusing the direction.  We are discussing a dichotomy with totalitarianism on both ends.  With Communism (with a capitol C because there is a difference) the government controls business and trade with massive regulation.  On the other end of the spectrum you have fascism in which the government is controlled by private interests.  These private interests decide what the government does and they make laws that favor their giant corporations over others.  This is what our government is turning into under President Bush and his lot.  The problem in both cases is big government and that is something that I am whole heartedly against. 



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Show me where this is happening in a free, capitalist country. I know this is going on in Communist China. But not in America. Not in a goverment where people can practice capitalism instead of having the goverment tell them what to do. If we were to find such a factory in the countries you want to change, the owners would be behind bars.



Sorry, you are wrong again.  Please take a look at the situation that many migrant workers face in this country.  I'm sure Robert could fill you in on the conditions of the grape farmers.  Again, the problem is totalitarianism and big government.  It doesn't matter if your Communist or Fascist, when the government gets to big, the freedom of the people suffer.  Personally, my opinion is that the government needs to work for all of the people and not just the few...how do you do that and keep it small, well, I've got a few ideas and hey, none of them are impossible.  And yes, people are still allowed to get rich.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Oh, and if they choose to work for 1 cent an hour because they are starving and there is no other work around, I guess that they should thank any work that opens up for them. Nice of you to try to take away their only source of work, or remove the motivation it may have to give them a job and avoid starvation.



You missed the point.  The government of those countries and the multinationals _actively _ works to remove _ALL _ other options _BUT _ working for 1 cent per hour.  My solution is to destroy the power of the multinationals and let the people use their resources the way _THEY _ see fit, so _THEY _ can benifit from them.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 9, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If a private corporation decided _today _ to put a tank on your lawn, Technically (and that is with a big capitol T if ya know what I mean) the government would not have any legal precident to stop them.



I think that you really, really need to start checking all your facts. I honestly feel that you do not know the first thing you are talking about.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 9, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Perhaps it would be better if you attempted to explain why it is anyone else's business how a person is born with more advantages than they. We could be talking about someone with wealth, or a greater intelligence. Life may be unfair where one person is born sickly and another in good health, but hating and demonizing those that are born with more is somewhat evil. They having more does not force you to have less.
> 
> As for me, I want to do with my money as I will. As a father, I want my children to have as much of an advantage as I can make. So the wealth I have created will go towards making their life better and more prepared for the world. I created the wealth, I can do with it as I please IMO. And if I choose to use it to better my children's lives I can not see how complaining how my children don't deserve it can be called noble rather than an example of pure greed and envy.



You know, I am still waiting for a decent answer to this question. The only attempt so far has been this,



> It's little things--like the 14th Amendment? The one that promises, "equal protection under the law?" And the whole idea of democracy? That everyone gets a fair shake and an equal start, and does with that what they will?



And I then shot it down by pointing out the pesky fact that "protecting" means preventing an evil being done, not assuring that everything turns out the same. And democracy means nothing more than one person only gets one vote, with no king or tyrant. I see nothing in the constitution or in the ways that the writers of that document lived their lives that states that no one can be born to a better life than another. I see nothing that indicates that anything must be _assured_ by the goverment. The document reads that people are born witht he rights of life, liberty and the _pursuit_ of happiness. I.e. you can't shoot others, you can't chain them and make them work for you and you can't get in their way as they try to be happy.

The arguments I have heard against capitalism seem to mainly revolve around that _all_ rich people either got their money from evil means or inherited it. Well, in the first case, we have presented numerous cases of people who have made their lives better by honest means. The idea of treating them as part of a criminal class rather than on their own merits is immoral bigotry.

In the second case of inheritence, again- whose business is it if their parents choose to give their wealth to their children and not to you?

I do not pursue wealth as my primary focus in life. I prefer to do the minimum at work and spend the rest of my time devoted to my art and my family. But if I hit upon an idea that makes me ten million dollars (like the inventor of the pet rock) then I fail to see how anyone has the right to say I can not give it to my children if I choose. So what if your kids can't compete as well as mine because of the education, etc that my wealth would give them? How the heck did I cause you harm by trying my best for my kids?

Why gives anyone the moral to prevent me from giving my kids the best life I can?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 9, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I think that you really, really need to start checking all your facts. I honestly feel that you do not know the first thing you are talking about.



Please feel free to read this document.  

http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/mar01/

We've discussed this topic on this forum already.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 9, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Why gives anyone the moral to prevent me from giving my kids the best life I can?



Because we all live in this country and, to a certain extent, we all sink or swim together.  You do not exist as a microcosm onto yourself.  You are connected in ways you cannot even dream to people you don't even know.  Therefore people who are unsuccessful in the current system DRAG YOU DOWN.  You cannot escape this, short of killing those people.  In this country, you need to have the freedom to choose your own destiny, but you also need to understand that this country provided you the opportunity for that destiny.  How much do you owe for that opportunity?  Well, that is what you pay in taxes.  It's called social responsability.

The problem with capitalism is that it emphasizes personal responsibility over everything else, and I believe that we have talked enough about the things that this causes.  The problem with Communism is that it stresses social responsibility over everything else and I believe we have covered the problems that this causes.

So, in my opinion, if we could find a system that combines the two, we would have a better system then we have now.  Not perfect, but better.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 9, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Because we all live in this country and, to a certain extent, we all sink or swim together. You do not exist as a microcosm onto yourself. You are connected in ways you cannot even dream to people you don't even know. Therefore people who are unsuccessful in the current system DRAG YOU DOWN. You cannot escape this, short of killing those people. In this country, you need to have the freedom to choose your own destiny, but you also need to understand that this country provided you the opportunity for that destiny. How much do you owe for that opportunity? Well, that is what you pay in taxes. It's called social responsability.
> 
> The problem with capitalism is that it emphasizes personal responsibility over everything else, and I believe that we have talked enough about the things that this causes. The problem with Communism is that it stresses social responsibility over everything else and I believe we have covered the problems that this causes.
> 
> So, in my opinion, if we could find a system that combines the two, we would have a better system then we have now. Not perfect, but better.


Good points...where then do you draw the line between what you owe and what is owed you? If the nation decides to draft you, do you now conveniently say "Im a free individual American and I dont "Owe" anybody $%#^"?? If you think the government owes you an education, health care, etc. do you now say "As an American the system "owes" me these things"?? I suppose thats a fundamental question for us Americans. We pride ourselves with our upholding of individual freedoms. How do we "socialize" and not change that cornerstone??


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 10, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Because we all live in this country and, to a certain extent, we all sink or swim together.



In other words someone has decided that I am born into this world as a slave to others. Who determines what my responsibilities are if not myself? Where was the contract I signed to get these responsibilities?

You want to tell me that I can't give money to my kid because I owe the greater world something. Who determines what I owe?

Capitalism is the only system so far that tells me that my kids are not born slaves, owned by obligation to people like you. It is the only system that allows me to do everything I can to make sure they are as well prepared and cared for to meet the world.

Either we have a dictator telling us our responsibilites that we must do as slaves to the greater good (who chooses?) or we let the masses control us, and let the human spirit of greed, envy, etc rule all.

I owe the world nothing. The world owes me nothing. And get your damn hands off of my kid's future unless you can _prove_ that they have built up a debt. This whole line of global consciouness is just a very thin excuse for people to get their mits on what they did not earn.

You are quite free to help the world. Go ahead. Just don't tell me I am a slave to the greater good that _you_ have determined.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 10, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Please feel free to read this document.
> 
> http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/mar01/
> 
> We've discussed this topic on this forum already.



Kindly highight the section where it says that a corporation can technically park a tank on my front lawn and not be subject to the laws here.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 10, 2004)

Good lord, where does one even begin.

One is free to stamp one's little foot and declare that the clear, open facts of capitalism are not the clear, open facts of capitalism all one likes. But neither wishing, nor stomping, makes it so.

The hilarious assertion that value comes from nowhere is it complete contradiction to reality, but hey. Why not. Complete contradiction of human reality is what capitalism runs on anyway.

Why can't one say that making money is bad? After all, radix malorum est cupiditas is an old proverb--if you're going to demand that everybody believe that Making Money Is Good, why can't we say the opposite?

To quote Joanna Russ--how nice to be an expert on things that never happened. As starry-eyed as one cares to be, the historical facts are that capitalism has involved exploitation, child labor, ruthless colonialism, and--no doubt about it for anyone who will look--the constant invocation of military and police power to preserve, protect and defend the Almighty Dollar. These hallucinatory assertions that no capitalists never hurt nobody...that if they did, the cure is purer capitalism...and anyway Stalin killed people (I never borrowed your bucket, I gave it back last week, and anyway it had a hole in it when you loaned it to me...)..as long as we're on the topic of evasions, never DID get a response to questions about Bhopal, United Fruit, ITT and Chile, Bechtel Corp in Iraq...and on and on.

Why not tell you that you have a responsibility to other human beings (and when the hell did THAT become a bad thing? You know...Hemingway, John Donne, "For every dust clod washed away, England is the lesse...and therefore, never send to ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for THEE and all that? fundamentals of morality 101? Intro to Christian Thought? sheesh, like nobody never heard of Mrs. Be-Done-By-As-You-Did)? After all, you're insisting that everybody should be a slave to the Almighty Dollar.

What never fails to amaze me is the radically anti-American character of all this love of money and pure capitalism. This crap's new: it is NOT part of traditional American values.

Oh, and here's your answer, Sparky. Nobody hated, nobody demonized: that is your fantasy, not mine, and you are perfectly welcome to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and try to block out historical reality. Nobody tried to take nothin' from your kids--what one wants is more for your kids, a better education, better places to live, a better set of aspirations, and a world in which they do not have to live with having taken more than they deserve or have earned from others who have far less than they, a world in which they do not have to struggle to be blind to the realities of the ways far too many people suffer. A world, in fact, in which they can live up to the best in humanity--not the crappy little chasing after little green pieces of paper, shopping to plug up the holes in their lives, working primarily to stick it to the next guy, fighting to paper over the contradictions between the moral values their parents have tried to teach them and the realities of their daily lives.

I'm real sorry that you appear to find such goals laughable, or unattainable. 

I recommend a serious course of that great un-American, Henry David Thoreau: you are arguing radically un-American values and goals, and might wanna get back in touch with what this country was all about.

The problem is, of course, that you were raised in times after the decline of real values--which were not, whatever Professor Sowell might try to claim, all about the pursuit of wealth.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 10, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Why not tell you that you have a responsibility to other human beings (and when the hell did THAT become a bad thing? You know...Hemingway, John Donne, "For every dust clod washed away, England is the lesse...and therefore, never send to ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for THEE and all that? fundamentals of morality 101? Intro to Christian Thought? sheesh, like nobody never heard of Mrs. Be-Done-By-As-You-Did)? After all, you're insisting that everybody should be a slave to the Almighty Dollar.



No, I am not saying that everyone should be a slave to the dollar. I am saying that my children and I are no slave to you or anyone else. Your screaming can not change that fact.

When you boil all it down, you come to that unescapable fact that in other systems, you are born a slave. You are born with a debt that you can never repay. Dress it up as much as you want, that is the message. It is not a new one. It has had several manifestations throughout history. Among them are these,

"Since you were put on this Earth by God, you owe him. And as the representative of God, you are hereby ordered to send your daughter to the Pharoh's bedchambers tonight."

"We gave them civilization. They would be starving in the forest if it were not for us. The least they can do is work a little harder and stop complaining."

Get the picture?

You can call it God, Gaia or the, "ways you cannot even dream to people you don't even know." It comes down to some obscure, unseeable power that we all are born to and must bow down forever. This is what you would have us be slaves to.

I owe my life to antibiotics. Do I have to bend down to the corporation that made them possible? Damn if that is not going to set some livers quivering. My debt ended to them when I paid their fee. That is what we all say, but the debt I pay to the modern high priests will never end. 

Evil, sheer evil.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What never fails to amaze me is the radically anti-American character of all this love of money and pure capitalism. This crap's new: it is NOT part of traditional American values.



This is almost funny considering how you are the one complaining how people who disagree with you are questioning your patriotism. It is kind of like how you talk about how the rich have screwed us over and then turn around and say there is no hate or demonization. You can treat an entire class like that and try to say that _anyone_ who supports capitalism has to be a greedy money grubber and then try to say you are not a bigot? You can tell us that we are unAmerican, and should follow the doctrine of Henry David Thoreau, for he is the only true vision of what American values are and should be. And then you tell us to free our minds.

How can you keep so many inconsitencies in the same skull?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Nobody tried to take nothin' from your kids



Stop right there with your pontificating about how you want to make their lives better. You have contridicted yourself again. You have openly questioned why one person should be born with more wealth and advantage than another. Now you are saying that you would not prevent me giving my kids my wealth- you are trying to say that by taking away from my kids you can make a better life for them. That is why you have to take away my money from them. 

_For their own good. For the greater good._ 

Bovine Feces.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 10, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Kindly highight the section where it says that a corporation can technically park a tank on my front lawn and not be subject to the laws here.



Sorry, that would be enabling.  You, rugged individualist, should be able to find that for yourself.  :asian:


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 10, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Stop right there with your pontificating about how you want to make their lives better. You have contridicted yourself again. You have openly questioned why one person should be born with more wealth and advantage than another. Now you are saying that you would not prevent me giving my kids my wealth- you are trying to say that by taking away from my kids you can make a better life for them. That is why you have to take away my money from them.
> 
> _For their own good. For the greater good._
> 
> Bovine Feces.


Don,

You are relatively new to the "McRobertson experience", but the idea that he throws around his 'intellectual currency' (can you say scholar gentry?) as frivolously as a newly wealthy Rap Star 'flashing his bling bling' lends a little inconsistency to his 'capitolistic corruption' argument and LOADS of credibility to our 'people are people' argument....

If he was truly the marxist poster child, he wouldn't be lecturing and pontificating 

(from the keyboard of his corruptly funded educational institution computer that is connected by a high speed internet connection that he isn't paying for, but is being paid to have access to) 

as much as educating and sharing his obviously inequitable, unevenly distributed educational opportunities 

(according to his own theories, but I think we all had the choice to go or not go to higher levels that he has hinted at completing)

...but then he is promoting more of the communistic/Leninistic view that lead to the assassination of Ivan Trotsky -by his own state enforced equal brothers of the communisit revolution.

But hey, if his directive

(Read this, read that!)

tone and his sneering commentary

(your idea is laughable...)

are completely in keeping with his Orwellian, 1984 image of the world that he accuses the USA to be moving toward....then I am relieved that when the workers of the world unite, he

(along with the rest of the Intellectual Elite)

will be ousted from a position of power and put behind a shovel to labor with the rest of 'us."

Even with him on my ignore list, his quotes come through to haunt me.

Education does not automatically indicate intelligence. It might indicate opportunity and TONS of college loan debt though . Intelligence is not the only piece in the "respect your elders" puzzle either. There is bearing and conduct, there is respectful behavior and a demonstrative sensitivity to the people around you (which doesn't mean that you have to be nicey nice all the time, but you should pick your battles instead of just picking on people).

I feel like I have had educational sand kicked in my face by an academiac bully....


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 10, 2004)

Who is the government, Don?  Who are they?  Are they us?  Or are they suppose to be us?  The greater good is not determined by me, its determined by us.  YOU have a point of view that you are allowed to share when it comes to the greater good.  You can participate in this democracy and make that point of view alone.  You keep ranting about being a slave to what I think and I find that frightening as if you wouldn't have any power to disagree, as if we ALL aren't Americans...

I have a question for you, do you think the giveaway of your freedoms is so close at hand?

It is my friend.  It is.  

The Bush administration is just another group of the ultra-rich who, with their ubercon realpolitik, have decided to take over the government and make it work for their benifit.  When Robert decries a decline in traditional american values, he is absolutely right.  People used to work together.  People used to WANT to help each other and use the government as their tool to do it.  To illustrate this, I want to quote a republican president who presided over our country when my parents were born, which is, incidently around the time period that I believe that rmcrobertson grew up.  

President Eisenhower said, "a country that spends half of its annual budget on the military rather then its people is a tragedy to humanity."  Consider that statement.  Think about the changes that have come since then.  Think about how much farther to the right the republicans, the champions of capitalism, have moved.  Fascism is just around the corner.  Its peeking its head right now with people like John Ashcroft and Don Rumsfeld.  The things they say, the things they do.  They have increased the size of government but in a different way.  They have increased it so it benifits their hands.  The hands of the few, very wealthy.  

And that, in my opinion, is wrong.  

I don't need to tell you anything about the greater good.  You know what it is.  I have children too.  I want to give them a better life then what I have and I don't want to deny anyone the right to do that.  Guess what, the people who run this country they DO want to deny you that right.  With their massive deficits and gigantic government, they are going to take what we have wrought to pay for their war machines, their corporate welfare, their uberpolice and control of their wealth.  You cannot imagine the piles of energy (money) that they have amassed and, in a very natural sense according the second law of thermodynamics, they need to expend a lot of money (energy) to keep those piles.  It won't be there money.  It will be our money and it will be spent just like its being spent in Iraq.  If the Bush Administration did not have bussiness interests there, we would not be there.  Saddam was a purely evil dictator, but there were plenty of others to chose from.  

Look, I don't want to kill all the rich.  I just want to reduce their power over my life.  I don't want my tax money to be used to benifit them.  I want it to benifit my family and my fellow brethren.  What I'm talking about is a step back from capitalism.  A step back toward the middle of the paradigm to a place where democracy works best.  A place where all votes are counted and people have representation that is based not on how much money the raised, but on how they can best serve this country.  A place where the government is US again.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 10, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Who is the government, Don? Who are they? Are they us? Or are they suppose to be us? The greater good is not determined by me, its determined by us. YOU have a point of view that you are allowed to share when it comes to the greater good. You can participate in this democracy and make that point of view alone. You keep ranting about being a slave to what I think and I find that frightening as if you wouldn't have any power to disagree, as if we ALL aren't Americans...
> 
> I have a question for you, do you think the giveaway of your freedoms is so close at hand?
> 
> ...


So, are we talking alternatives to capitolism or political corruption?  How can we have realistic implimentation of more socially minded reforms without further infringement/regulation on civil liberties?  Lot's of bluster and debate,not a lot of resolution....


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 10, 2004)

*The problem with capitalism is that it emphasizes personal responsibility over everything else, and I believe that we have talked enough about the things that this causes. The problem with Communism is that it stresses social responsibility over everything else and I believe we have covered the problems that this causes.

So, in my opinion, if we could find a system that combines the two, we would have a better system then we have now. Not perfect, but better.*

Well said. I agree entirely.  :asian:


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 10, 2004)

Herrytech

I liked your points about meritism.  Is there an actual school of thought or literature that explores this -ism?  Meritism sounds very similar to Materialism where the 'thing' becomes the goal (in this case the 'thing' could be either an object or status).

The 'people' point about all of this is -whether culture (nurture) or personal make up (nature) - I think there will always be some standard measure of success.  Way back in the 'primitive days' it was probably something to do with hunting prowess and survivability.... and as life became more metaphorical and less literal (we talk about 'getting the axe' for firing and such when there was a time when it was a real thing being described).  The problem with any '-ism' is that all the elements that are taken into consideration and discussed, including people, become abstractions and generalizations.  That ability of the human mind, like any other tool, can be used for good or ill, regardless of the '-ism'.

What already in modern, real applications of capitolism (with all of it's blending with other -isms) has been a step toward better human consideration?  What further changes need to be made?  How do we make those changes and balance civil liberties with regulation?  I still say that governmental regulation is the only realistic vehicle for any possible changes, but are there other ways that someone else can think of?


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 10, 2004)

*Herrytech*

Oooh, I get my own nickname. Cute. 

*I liked your points about meritism. Is there an actual school of thought or literature that explores this -ism? Meritism sounds very similar to Materialism where the 'thing' becomes the goal (in this case the 'thing' could be either an object or status).*

Actually, it was "meritocracy".

Basically, it is a more recent (since about the early 1800's on) form of subtle artistocracies in which people aren't judged based on their station by birth, but on their level of material wealth and success (some of which, of course, is inherited). That's generally why people like rock stars, star athletes, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and hollywood celebrities are revered in circles of Western (yes, its not just an "American" thing) culture --- even when these individuals often end up OD'ing, committing suicide, or transmitting venereal diseases through blatant and unhealthy hedonism (another manifestation of that nasty materialism). That's also why shows like American Idol, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and the umpteenth reality TV shows are so popular nowadays. And, need I mention how the death of Princess Di completely overshadowed the death of Mother Theresa --- apparently for no other reason than she was "prettier"??

Many writers have commented on this stuff --- from Wilber to Whitehead to  Habermas to Weber to Marcuse to Foucald. Hell, even Marx complained about this kind of stuff in his time (although he manifested another version of materialism himself). T.S Eliot called it "the wasteland" in some of his works.

Really, though, its just one symptom of a much deeper problem --- which has socioeconomic, cultural, _and_ individual repercussions.

*The 'people' point about all of this is -whether culture (nurture) or personal make up (nature) - I think there will always be some standard measure of success. Way back in the 'primitive days' it was probably something to do with hunting prowess and survivability.... and as life became more metaphorical and less literal (we talk about 'getting the axe' for firing and such when there was a time when it was a real thing being described). The problem with any '-ism' is that all the elements that are taken into consideration and discussed, including people, become abstractions and generalizations. That ability of the human mind, like any other tool, can be used for good or ill, regardless of the '-ism'.*

Well, one of the points that Beck and Cowan make in their discussion of Spiral Dynamics is that all cultural epochs have a hierarchy of some sort. In premodern times, there were literal hiearchies and aristocracies. With the coming of modernity, we see meritocracies increasingly replace these. Even subtler hiearchies are being erected as we speak --- the current "relativists" have thier hiearchy: they think relative (and/or "politically correct") thinking is better than absolutism.

It seems to be in human nature to make value judgments.

*What already in modern, real applications of capitolism (with all of it's blending with other -isms) has been a step toward better human consideration? What further changes need to be made? How do we make those changes and balance civil liberties with regulation? I still say that governmental regulation is the only realistic vehicle for any possible changes, but are there other ways that someone else can think of?*

My ideas are stuff that others have already mentioned: universal healthcare, less spending on the military, more spending on education, a more equitable distribution of tax rates, limitations imposed on private funding of political campaigns, and so on.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 10, 2004)

Dear Not-Nearly-So-Tricksy:

Yah sure, but at least I write using my own name. I apologize for having read books, and for having said what I have to say with sufficient clarity that it can be understood. And ooh, that point (which I've never, never heard of or considered before, never ever) about participating in the economic and cultural realities of daily life...why, that just STUNG! Do feel free to keep a-distortin' and a-projectin'--so much easier than discussion. 

And Dear Don:

Still waiting to find out exactly where I did all the expropriating and the hatred--still suspecting that these fantasies aren't even yours (talk about expropriation!) but the same old same old libertarian/rightist attempt to continue those manly dreams of a state of Nature by other means.


And to both of y'all

Sorry you feel academically-bullied (he...he...USED BOOKS AND ARGUMENTS AND DISAGREED WITH ME!!!)...and  sorry, too, that you have such a distorted, stereotypic view of what Must Have Been my background. You couldn't possibly have things more wrong, but wotthehell. Explanations would be useless, especially since I've made them several times before and they merely drew more claims that I must be lying. Suffice it to say that I worked my way through school, that I am perfectly well aware (and have been since 1978) that that was a privilege, and...oh, what's the use? 

Personally, I call it bullying when people launch personal attacks, distort arguments, and find insults more interesting than ideas, but hey, not my burden. 

It's more interesting to consider the extent to which such nonsense represents part of the ideological armor around reality, anyway. 

Incidentally, Marx's argument is that capitalism will evolve because of its own internal, self-produced, contradictions. Like the ones that revolve around the absolute contradiction between economic life (which like it or not, rests in our case upon dog-eat-dog, with the proviso that some dogs start out with extra status, money, connections and education) and human decency (some grounded in religion, some in history, some in books, some in a vague sense of shared responsibility)...

Tell me again: when exactly did the fundamental American dream about individuality and freedom and shared work and fairness become less important than money and consumer goods? Was it I heard Daniel Schorr point out, last summer, that Roosevelt asked us to sacrifice when the war started...Bush asked us to go out and buy stuff.

I guess I was just brought up in the older, traditional country--and I liked that one better. The one in which people like my dad did not think it needful to kiss the *** of rich folks, and help them justify their status.

Seems to me that some folks don't want fairness and decent treatment for all. They want to be on top, and they dream that this pure capitalism will get them there.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 10, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> 1.  So, are we talking alternatives to capitolism or political corruption?
> 
> 2.  How can we have realistic implimentation of more socially minded reforms without further infringement/regulation on civil liberties?
> 
> 3.  Lot's of bluster and debate, not a lot of resolution....



You have three very important questions/points here.  I'll attempt to address them the best that I can.

1.  Some here wish to defend capitalism rather then suggest alternatives.  They claim that capitalism is the best system and that others pale in comparison because they lead to totalitarianism.  Others say that pure capitalism leads to totalitarianism.  The alternative to capitalism being discussed now is a mix of capitalism and socialism.

2.  The answer to this question is simple.  Democracy.  Real democracy will lead to a mix of personal responsibility and social responsibility because that is who we are as a species.  A society cannot exist where people do not have personal responsibility - they are never accountable for their decisions.  Likewise, a society cannot exist where people do not cooperatively help people succeed.  There HAS to be a mix of the two.

3.  Paul, that is not fair.  I have been giving solutions for problems throughout this discussion.  The rest is just an effort to explain the philosophical justification for the changes.  This last comment offends me, because it shows a lack of patience on your part.  It shows me that you are not willing to take the time to let a discussion play out.  It shows me that you would rather jump right to a solution without examining the details of the problem.  All I have to say is read LOTR and listen to the Ents.  They have a tad bit of wisdom concerning this.  Real solutions take time and anyone who has actually worked with the legislative process knows this.  Democracy takes a lot of energy because all viewpoints are taken into consideration and debated.  And that takes time and patience.

So, I guess I am just going to have to fire right back with this...are you subverting the democratic process with your insistence that we ignore the details by jumping to conclusion?  How _American _ is that?

For your information, I have advocated a system that allows people the structure of their society based on a consensus of votes cast by equal individuals.  I define equality as one vote = one person.  And I have defined a problem the amount of money a person has throws the above into disequalibrium.  My tentative solution is...

1.  Publicly fund all elections.
2.  Ban corporate donations to individuals and parties.
3.  Cap private donations at 1000 bucks.
4.  Institute Instant run off voting.

The reason that I would advocate this in this discussion is because I want to stop the march to the Right of our society.  The end of that path is totalitarianism just as much as a march to the extreme left would be.

I hope that helps.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 10, 2004)

The lots of bluster comment was not directed specifically at you but at the general "this is right, that is wrong" tone all around that has taken away from the clarity of 'alternatives' and 'suggestions'

As Tgace as commented, the screaming is so loud I can't hear to point... or something like that .

The problem with the blending is that it already exists in some degree, one of the Canadian posters commented on Socialistic Capitolism and how it doesn't seem to be productive in his opinion.  All you end up doing is creating a new -ism...

Capitolism goes hand in hand with Democracy as far as I am concerned because both promote the free mobility of its members to participate at what ever level they are motivated to rise of fall to.  

Real Democracy is going to be hard to come by when so many other cultural -isms create perception issues for the members.  Not to mention that 'one man (as in human), one vote (regardless of lifestyle, color, religion, age.....)' has NEVER existed in any culture.  There has always been some percieved line or range of what is or is not legitimate/'good'.  Even the grand model of democracy in Grecian history (usually Athens) had slaves and waged city state war... and consider that within the day of the Greek's that Sparta was the hallmark/ideal of Grecian culture.  Modern democrats all love to invoke the Golden Age of Grecian Democracy and therefore corrupt historical accuracy with their perceptions.

There are socialistic elements in our US democracy already.  There are already regulations on businesses to 'level the playing field' in areas of finance, environment, working conditions, wages.... so what do we do more or less/different in reality?  How do we get anything along these lines done when we can't even agree that security procedures around a presidential motorcade is just procedure and not quarrenting dissent?  

Just look at the 'image' of the wealthy that has been presented here, or politicians or anyone who can be percieved as having influence over someone else....even teachers of martial arts.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 10, 2004)

*Even the grand model of democracy in Grecian history (usually Athens) had slaves and waged city state war... and consider that within the day of the Greek's that Sparta was the hallmark/ideal of Grecian culture. Modern democrats all love to invoke the Golden Age of Grecian Democracy and therefore corrupt historical accuracy with their perceptions.*

It could also be mentioned that all the truly great philosophical giants from this point in history (y'know --- Pythagoras, Plato, Socrates, Xenophanes, etc.) all _at least_ flirted with communist-style ideas to one degree or another. 

Hell, Pythagoras actually created socialistic, self-reliant "philosopher communes" himself. The State response?? Burn them down. Hrmmm.....


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 10, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> *Even the grand model of democracy in Grecian history (usually Athens) had slaves and waged city state war... and consider that within the day of the Greek's that Sparta was the hallmark/ideal of Grecian culture. Modern democrats all love to invoke the Golden Age of Grecian Democracy and therefore corrupt historical accuracy with their perceptions.*
> 
> It could also be mentioned that all the truly great philosophical giants from this point in history (y'know --- Pythagoras, Plato, Socrates, Xenophanes, etc.) all _at least_ flirted with communist-style ideas to one degree or another.
> 
> Hell, Pythagoras actually created socialistic, self-reliant "philosopher communes" himself. The State response?? Burn them down. Hrmmm.....


I can't remember the Greek inventor's name who did it, but just imagine what these ancient people could have done if they had used his steam engine invention as more than just a party favor.....

Everything old is new again. I have said it before about Zen/Tao/Buddhism relative to Existentialism and such.... rediscovery, reinvention, recycling.... thus my point about the silly little line of human civilization being a loopy squiggling line that loops back over itself time and time again....

I must say that, for as heated and polarized as this discussion as been, it has been fairly mature (excluding my McRobertson Jab of course...)


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 10, 2004)

*I have said it before about Zen/Tao/Buddhism relative to Existentialism and such.... rediscovery, reinvention, recycling.... thus my point about the silly little line of human civilization being a loopy squiggling line that loops back over itself time and time again....*

Errr.... well, in one sense, things are circular. In another, linear.

You have to understand that the people that originally made these claims were what you could call the "cultural elite" --- the ones far ahead of thier times, as guys like Pythagoras and the American Founding Fathers clearly were.

Thus, it is only centuries later that a larger portion of humanity collectively "catches up" to what was once relegated to a few. 

Buddhism flirted with existentialism, structuralism, and contextualism for centuries. It has only been within the last few decades that these have all become widely-accepted, mainstream philosophies in our universities.

*shrugs* Then again, whadda I know??


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 10, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And Dear Don:
> 
> Still waiting to find out exactly where I did all the expropriating and the hatred--still suspecting that these fantasies aren't even yours (talk about expropriation!) but the same old same old libertarian/rightist attempt to continue those manly dreams of a state of Nature by other means.



Here is just _one_ example from as early as page three,



> Second off--what's with the cuddle-the-rich theory? Ya know, when I was a kid growing up in far more-traditional America, the wealthy were indeed viewed with considerable scorn--as they should be.



And don't try to say you have not tried to portray an entire social class in a bad light. You have not been saying treat people as individuals, you have been talking about "the wealthy" as an entire class. And talking about how you scorn them. (Example is right there for you to see.)

Others of us have been saying that we do not hold the rich up as greater than us, but we don't believe they are automatically the subject of scorn. To you, this is cuddling the rich.

This is bigotry. This is the justification you need to grab others wealth and do with it as you please.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 10, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Who is the government, Don?  Who are they?  Are they us?  Or are they suppose to be us?  The greater good is not determined by me, its determined by us.



Here is the crux of your aurgument; four people in a room. Three men, one female. The majority vote to have sex and the female has to sacrifice for the greater good.

Democracy is great. But one of the first things the framers did was to add on certain amendments saying, "congrass shall pass no law." So no matter how many people dislike a particular religion, the goverment can not shut them down.

Without this type of check on the goverment, democracy is mob rule and gang rape given legitimacy.

Without the assurance that everyone is born free without any obligation to another, we are just a page away from the Taliban with self proclaimed high priests for some mysterious force that can't be shown, measured and proven to exist.

A can feel gratitude if I like. I resent and will fight the statement that I must feel gratitude and show it because someone else has determined what I owe.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 10, 2004)

One of the joys of the new century, it appears, is seeing the language of civil rights applied to the really, really weird notion that somehow, the REALLY oppressed class consists of Rich White Guys. Upon whom women, gay people, minorites, unions, and us commie rats are endlessly picking. Weird, I tell you, weird.

As for the remark I made to the effect that traditionally, ordinary Americans have been deeply suspicious and in fact downright scornful of, "the rich," well, sorry, I stand by the historical reality.

What's happened recently is that Americans tend to be scornful of the liberal-left rich (probably fair enough) like the Kennedys, and adoring of the conservative (Pat Robertson) or "neutral," (Donald Trump) wealthy--at least that's how I see it; could be we always were suckers for this nonsense.

Don, dude, "the wealthy," as a class, make their wealth out of other people. That's how you get wealthy in the first place (yes, I noticed the claim that they actually create value from nothing...next, you'll be telling me that they Create New Jobs)...and, they hang on to their money by passing down the goodies to their kids as much as they possibly can. That may be their right, but it can't even remotely be described as fair (next, you'll be telling me that Life Isn't Fair, because, gosh, I never noticed that Deep Philosophical Truth): fair would be that everybody gets to start the race at the same place, with about the same tools, and then let the games begin.

But I do so love the notion that I am picking on the nobs, the Rockefellers, the Gettys, and those two little morons we see far too much of on TV. Every bit as much as I love the notion that  everybody should just drop what they're doing and chase the Almighty Dollar, so they too can be a Success.

This is a radical new notion, folks. Whenever you see it, think Babbitt.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2004)

From what Ive distilled so far, one of the only ideas presented here as a "solution" are... 

1. Publicly fund all elections.
2. Ban corporate donations to individuals and parties.
3. Cap private donations at 1000 bucks.
4. Institute Instant run off voting.

Which are valid points and we could debate, but is this really a "retooling" of capitalism? All it seems to me is a way to keep corporate influence out of politics. Good point, but if we are debating the economic system we live by, what would be an improvement over the way the "system" (capital/development/work/profit etc) is currently run? Should people only be allowed to make so much profit and have the remainder given to the state? Should a business be built on private funds, but then be turned over to the government? What would you suggest we do to the way we "do business" in America??


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 10, 2004)

Don't tell anybody, but one of the few things that creeps me out more than capitalism are the types who figure they can run out and fix all this stuff overnight, if you just follow Their Master Plan...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 10, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Here is the crux of your aurgument; four people in a room. Three men, one female. The majority vote to have sex and the female has to sacrifice for the greater good.
> 
> Democracy is great. But one of the first things the framers did was to add on certain amendments saying, "congrass shall pass no law." So no matter how many people dislike a particular religion, the goverment can not shut them down.
> 
> ...



You prove your position wrong because you KNOW gang rape is wrong.  You owe that woman her dignity and her position.  You owe her her humanity.  And those are damn large obligations and I will fight against anyone who says that they do not owe that to their fellow neighbor.  If you are truly an exponent of what you claim, where you owe your fellow humans nothing not even their humanity, then your scenario occurs.  If you are an exponent of what I claim, then your scenario will not happen.  That is the essence of morality isn't it?  Kinda what its all about in MA right?  

Imagine, the do-gooder, a liberal!   :flame:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 10, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> From what Ive distilled so far, one of the only ideas presented here as a "solution" are...
> 
> 1. Publicly fund all elections.
> 2. Ban corporate donations to individuals and parties.
> ...



One of the things that is being examined in this debate and is something that is very worthy of examination is this fallacy of business worship.  Ya gotta give it time because it provides a basis in which to offer solutions.  It counts the details and lays them out.  Democracy requires patience.

Other then that, you questions are very valid to this debate.  Something that I would like people to consider is this...do we actually have a free market?  Let me illustrate a simple example.  Why are we so depended on fossil fuels?  Simple answer, its cheap.  Why?  Take a look at the subsidies.  Fossil fuels recieve billions of dollars at the federal and state level in order to make them cheap.  This neatly explains why other alternatives for energy are not used.  They do not get the subsidies so they are more expensive.  Now consider this, alternative energy sources are becoming competitive despite the subsidies on energy.  What is the Bush Administrations solution?  More subsidies, to keep the prices _competitive_.  This is big government folks.  Does that sound like a free market to you?  It shouldn't, because, its fascism - a corporate controlled state that benefits the hands of the few.  Now imagine this, and this can be a solution for those of you who need that term to participate, what if we eliminate all of these favoritist subsidies?  Then ask yourself why those who are in favor of less regulation, free market, and small government have not done this?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2004)

So whats the solution? Communist style government control over business?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 10, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So whats the solution? Communist style government control over business?



No, the solution I posited is to actually reduce the size of government by cutting subsidies.  That way no alternatives are favored over another and the prices will be allowed to fluctuate naturally.  In the end, it gives us more options.  Alternatives are allowed to spring more naturally which spreads the wealth to more people in smaller companies...which is exactly why Republicans will never do this despite their rhetoric.  Small government is actually NOT their current goal.  The above is a good part of capitalism that I would let flourish if I could.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2004)

So you arent really recommending an "alternative to capitalism". Sounds more like the "idealized" concept of capitalism with more smaller businesses spreading the "energy" around over large corporations a la microsoft, walmart, time warner et al??


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 10, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One of the joys of the new century, it appears, is seeing the language of civil rights applied to the really, really weird notion that somehow, the REALLY oppressed class consists of Rich White Guys. Upon whom women, gay people, minorites, unions, and us commie rats are endlessly picking. Weird, I tell you, weird.



Robert,

It is wierd.

Really wierd.

We have a female manager leave our organization and they promote another female to replace her, where there are others with as much or more experience and qualifications.

The current company had a list proposed for people to promote. One was moved up based solely upon cultural back ground.

I worked at another company that started women higher, and gave them bigger percentages, to avoid the appearance of discrimination.

I was involved with a hiring committee at a Univeristy, and we were forced to go back and add more to the list. Our original list did not have sex or race info. No names, just raw data. Those that were asked to be put on the list were minorities.

Now, I do realize that on average, minorities do not have a long history of being treated equal. And for that I can say I am sorry, yet that is in the past. I have to live today. So, why if it was wrong in the past, is it ok to have discrimination in today's environment? Oh I see, we need to have quota's and percentages, including a 50% female population, when there is no where 50% female engineering students. Yet, you see most of the college hires for the summer are women or minorities, to help recruit for the future. This is good. Yet, is it fair and equal.

Robert, I cannot take back all that has been said to you and your family by stupid people, or all that has been done in the past the history of mankind.

I know that I have been called every racial slur you can imagine, from Spic to Sand ..., to ..., to Malotto, to wet back, to camel ..., to wop daga, and including white man, and Honkey, and cracker, ..., . The only one I have nto been called is drunken Indian. (* Native American Indian many generations ago being the reason I have some melon in my skin tone *) Not enough to claim it. Therefore, legally I am caucasion.

Yes, it is very real, that the pendulum has swung the way it has. I agree that it is not that way everywhere and in every country.  I am just letting you know what I have seen and dealt with myself. Not fair for anyone. Yet, I do not hate the world for putting me in this position. I try to work the system to better myself and to change the system as much as I can.

With Respect Robert, I agree it is very wierd. Not fair for anyone either.

 :asian:


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 10, 2004)

Whoops, I realized I fell for the Red Herring thrown out to distract me fromt he central issue. Let me try again.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Who is the government, Don?  Who are they?  Are they us?  Or are they suppose to be us?  The greater good is not determined by me, its determined by us.



Oh, so you are swaying that after making ten million dollars by fair means, I can not give it to my kids because of some great force you can't show me, measure or analyze (call it what you will- GOD) owns me from birth. But I should not be disturbed because I have one voice among millions as the fruit of my sweat and labor is dristributed.

Isn't that special?

What I do with my money is no conern to you. It is not harming you by being given to my children. The idea that my wealth came at someone else's expense is laughably Luddite. A myth.

Your idea that everyone should throw their wealth into a great pot and the majority will then decide what to do with it "for the greater good" falls flat on it's face with three simple words.

Pork Barrel Spending.

Oh yeah, we know what that is. A great example that the people will put their own interests second to the greater good. Whenever the Pentegon determines that a military base is not needed the local voters support the politician that will take all that lovely, lovely money away from their community "for the greater good" instead of trying to stop the move.

Going to teach people to be good? Going to force people to be more enlightened? The idea of anyone teaching "correct" ways of thinking and philosophy scares me more than a street gang walking my way.

But, of course, there can only be a few people in any group that stands out. Not every athlete can be Micheal Jordan, not every artist DiVinci, and not every scientest can come up with what Einstein did. So there will be more people who have less than the Donald Trumps and Bill Gates of the world. And the idea of taking their wealth and then dividing it up as they see fit must be pretty appealing to the envious and the greedy. It also helps if you justify it by saying that there is some great emergency, the rich are worthy of scorn and that they all owe it somehow to the greater power. Gee, what are we seeing here in this thread?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 10, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Your idea that everyone should throw their wealth into a great pot and the majority will then decide what to do with it "for the greater good" falls flat on it's face with three simple words.
> 
> Pork Barrel Spending.
> 
> Oh yeah, we know what that is. A great example that the people will put their own interests second to the greater good. Whenever the Pentegon determines that a military base is not needed the local voters support the politician that will take all that lovely, lovely money away from their community "for the greater good" instead of trying to stop the move.


Of course, the socialist's typical response to this is that the greed that causes people to put their own interests ahead of "the greater good" is a byproduct of corrupt capitalist mindset, and that in the ideal socialist community, people would be so enlightened.  I, of course, find myself dubious of this claim, since greed and corruption have existed long before capitalism has.  

I would add that, even if human nature is inherently for the greater good and sociocentrically oriented, would we really feel safe in a social setup built on this assumption?  



> The idea of anyone teaching "correct" ways of thinking and philosophy scares me more than a street gang walking my way.


Well, isn't that kinda what we do when we make laws not to kill or rape or steal because such actions are wrong?  I think you need to clarify, because any society is bound to teach certain ways of thinking (or at least promote).


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 11, 2004)

Dear Rich:

Thank you for the good manners and kind comments, which reinforce my occasional suspicion --don't let anybody know I said this--that others are more decent, and more intelligent, than I am. Oh well.

And as for the RP---for the sixth time, capitalism rests upon the idea that human beings (men, that is) are inherently greedy and acquisitive, so we need an economic system that dovetails with this theory of human nature. Read the material, eh?

Don, the "pork barrel," spending you decry? Beyond the fact that it includes things like the TVA and milk money for poor kids, you might want to reflect upon the fact that the B-2 bomber costs 500 million a copy--down from two billion. It cannot fly stealthily in rainy conditions (or be hangared outside, or in un-air conditioned environments) because the rain washes off the stealth covering. It was designed to fly over the Soviet Union (which, you may have notice, hasn't existed in fifteen years) as a second-strike aircraft, to carry oiut, "decapitation," strikes AFTER a nuclear exchange, when all the good radar systems had been wiped out. 

And on, and on, and pointlessly on. No doubt you will want to join with me in decrying such ridiculous expenditures. And in asserting that it's those damn welfare women (welfare has always taken about 1.5 % of the federal budget, those commies told me) who are Sucking This Country Dry.

But I have decided that you're absolutely right. Real wages are NOT declining, whatever those pinko statisticians say. The work week is NOT increasing, whatever the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports, those ...those liberals. People do NOT feel more and more overworked and less and less rewarded, those frickin' whiners. There is NO growing gap between the rich and poor. The lowest and highest paid at American companies are NOT further and further apart. NOBODY is unhappy with the system, and NOBODY is worried about losing their job to cheaper foreign labor.

The alien Dan Quayle was right. It's morning again in this country. We're tired of all the nattering nabobs of negativism.

Sincerely,
Rowdy Roddy Piper


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 11, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And as for the RP---for the sixth time, capitalism rests upon the idea that human beings (men, that is) are inherently greedy and acquisitive, so we need an economic system that dovetails with this theory of human nature. Read the material, eh?


The materials?  You mean all the books and articles written about how capitalism functions?  Or the principles it's based on?  Or comparsions of capitalism and communism/socialism?  Sure, let me get started on that, and get back to you in about 50 years.  

Or better yet, maybe I should just narrow it down to the Marxist literature that you define it according to.  Then I'm sure I'd agree with you entirely on the subject.  Then I could ignore all those other books that discuss the capitalist economy in terms of market values and individual economic freedom, rather than the idealogical oppression of Big Bad White Man over the poor oppressed masses.  

You can just say "read more" every time I or anyone else disagrees with you on the subject until you're blue in the face.  I'm not saying don't rely on texts in your responses, but for God's sake, respond instead of just say "go read what I've read".  "Go read more" is not a response, it's an avoidance tactic.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 11, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> From what Ive distilled so far, one of the only ideas presented here as a "solution" are...
> 
> 1. Publicly fund all elections.
> 2. Ban corporate donations to individuals and parties.
> ...



Keeping corporate influence out of politics is a wonderful start. Why?

The playing field needs to be evened out a bit so that healthy competition can occur. Otherwise, Kentucky fried steroid/synthetic chicken will be the only chicken you can eat, and you can only own a business that is successful if your the heir to the family who owns the wal-marts and pepsico's of the world. This idea of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" so you can be as successful as your hard work will allow is completely violated by the fixing of the competition for large corporations and the wealthy 1%, through our government. I think that the idea that the individual can "make something" of themselves through their own hard work is a good idea, and a very "American" idea; one that is totally violated by our current capitalist system.

This is why we need to "retool" capitalism as we see it today, because todays "capitalism" is completely synonomis to "facism". I think it should be retooled so much so that it doesn't really resemble capitalism as we know it. And no, this does not mean communism or socialism. This means something completely out of the political stereotypes and completely "out of the box" so to speak.

Now, like Robert said, I don't think that any of us will have all the answers today (and it would be scary and cult like to claim that one does). But, recognizing the problem is the 1st step towards a solution. So...we need to start voting for, and fighting for people who recognize the problems, and who are willing to take the baby steps needed to bring us steps closer to solving these problems.

But, what the hell do I know, I am just a crazy person who spends way to much time on the internet. Vote Ashcroft. 

Keeping with the wrestling figure trend...

Sincerely,

Macho Man Randy Savage

 :uhyeah:


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 11, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> The materials?  You mean all the books and articles written about how capitalism functions?  Or the principles it's based on?  Or comparsions of capitalism and communism/socialism?  Sure, let me get started on that, and get back to you in about 50 years.
> 
> Or better yet, maybe I should just narrow it down to the Marxist literature that you define it according to.  Then I'm sure I'd agree with you entirely on the subject.  Then I could ignore all those other books that discuss the capitalist economy in terms of market values and individual economic freedom, rather than the idealogical oppression of Big Bad White Man over the poor oppressed masses.
> 
> You can just say "read more" every time I or anyone else disagrees with you on the subject until you're blue in the face.  I'm not saying don't rely on texts in your responses, but for God's sake, respond instead of just say "go read what I've read".  "Go read more" is not a response, it's an avoidance tactic.



With all do respect (because Robert can defend himself without me having to take a side) but my perception isn't that Robert is just saying "go read more stuff you morons, and it better be my communist stuff." He has referenced several sources, including Smith and other "Capitalist" sources as well. And, he is argueing his points, and then telling you where you can pick up a book to reference his arguement. This seems like a pretty acedemic and educated approach to me.

Hey, disagree with his points all you want, no problem. I am just disagreeing with your last assessment.

 :asian:


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 11, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> my perception isn't that Robert is just saying "go read more stuff you morons, and it better be my communist stuff." He has referenced several sources, including Smith and other "Capitalist" sources as well. And, he is argueing his points, and then telling you where you can pick up a book to reference his arguement.



Actually, his tactics seem to be to find something like a section in Adam Smith's book where Smith says that capitalism is moral because it is a manifestation of natural law and then say that if we cupport capitalism 
_we must_ feel the same as Smith does.

And he holds up things like Walden Pond and say that it is a manifestation of "traditional American values" and expect us to bow to those values. He can trash Thomas Sowell and the like, but never explains how Sowell has less of a right to comment on American Values and only people he likes can. Some of us are rather resistant to authority and openly question everything. To hold up a person's way of thinking like that and proclaim it the correct doctrine just goes against our grain.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 11, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You prove your position wrong because you KNOW gang rape is wrong.



So people do not commit gang rape because (as everyone knows) it is wrong.

Blink.......blink......

So that means there is no such thing as gang rape?

Honestly, I think you need to sit down and think a bit. If you took some of what you write and apply it to other areas of what you write they clash heavily. There does not seem to be a stable core belief system about you. You can not trust a corporation made up of employees and stockholders to do the right thing, but expect a democracy to.

You don't trust people to do the right thing if they are in business, yet have no trouble turning over complete power to the ballot box. At the same time you don't like what we as a democracy did to the slaves, indians or Nisei Japanese.

You talk about how you can not violate a woman, but feel free in taking the money I would make off of my honest labor instead of letting me give it to my children.

Here is a principle I hold. I hold it up to show how everythign I believe can somehow come back to it.

_No person or group has the right to initiate violence/physical force against another. What a person, or group of willing people, does that does not intrude on anyone else is nobody else's concern and they have no say in the matter._

Can _you_ state what your central beliefs are in a similar fashion?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 11, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So you arent really recommending an "alternative to capitalism". Sounds more like the "idealized" concept of capitalism with more smaller businesses spreading the "energy" around over large corporations a la microsoft, walmart, time warner et al??



Yeah, it sounds like a better way to do things.  It sounds like the way things were done historically.  The "favor the richest" government we have now is just slowly making the rest of us more miserable.  You just can't make it with small businesses any more.  You can't compete with the subsidies and the favoritism.  Cut it all out.  Cut their influence and cut their aid and bailouts.  Let them sink when they sink and people will fill the gaps (hopefully) with small mom and pop businesses again.  

Of course, this may not even be enough.  The multinationals have so MUCH power...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 11, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Oh, so you are swaying that after making ten million dollars by fair means, I can not give it to my kids because of some great force you can't show me, measure or analyze (call it what you will- GOD) owns me from birth. But I should not be disturbed because I have one voice among millions as the fruit of my sweat and labor is dristributed.
> 
> Isn't that special?



Don, you show the true colors of a capitalist this quote.  Your scorn for democracy is like flipping the bird to everything American stands for.  Just because you make ten million dollars by what ever means, has NO bearing on the strength of your voice in a democratic society.  You are treated no differently.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 11, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Here is a principle I hold. I hold it up to show how everythign I believe can somehow come back to it.
> 
> _No person or group has the right to initiate violence/physical force against another. What a person, or group of willing people, does that does not intrude on anyone else is nobody else's concern and they have no say in the matter._
> 
> Can _you_ state what your central beliefs are in a similar fashion?



Nope, I can't.  My personal beliefs are constantly in flux as I consider other points of view and compare them to my own.  As I learn, I change.  Every year on my birthday, I celebrate those changes in my life and marvel at the difference.

Your personal philosophy fails to take into consideration what you owe the people around you.  You do not exist in a system of one and what you are is not merely a measure of yourself.  Whether you acknowledge this fact or not, it exists.  Other people contributed to making you what you are and you owe them a debt for that contribution.  If this were not so, then why would you want to give anything to your children?  And if you are anything like me, which I suspect that you are, then a lot more people then just my parents helped me become who I am.  I owe a lot of people.

Were you ever a Boy Scout?  If so, did you get the three citizenship merit badges required for Eagle Ranking?  I did.  I think you (and many others) need a remedial course.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 11, 2004)

Axly, Don, "his tactics"--insofar as supporting one's ideas is concerned--involve asking for either, a) textual support, b) factual support, or c) the support of one's actual experience. Yep, pretty unreasonable--and pretty hard to do, considering the difficulty of finding the relevant books on the Internet, looking up labor stats, or remembering how it feels to worry about the job market. 

Just as a piece of advice, you are never going to be in a stronger position to win an argument when you start saying that nobody needs no stinkin' evidence, and when you start saying that it's unfair for the other side to know what it's talking about. It just isn't that hard to come back against what I've been arguing.

For example, one simply says, yes indeed, human nature is in fact "greedy," if you want to look at it that way. It makes sense, considering what our ancestors had to go through along their evolutionary way, and we simply haven't biologically changed all that much. (Throw in a little bit of, say, Robert Ardrey here.)

So, we seem to be wired up to compete--especially the boys. (Throw in a good sentence from something on developmental psych.) Therefore, it's better if we have some way of competing bloodlessly, via a symbology--and that's what capital is, a set of symbols we can compete over less bloodily. Moreover, we probably want to have an economy that's shaped like the way people really are, rather than a fantasy of happy-happy joyland (insert smartass crack about Margaret Mead and Samoa here.).

Capitalism, you'd go on to say, is the quintessential utilitarian system: as Mill noted, it provides, "the greatest good for the greatest number," (Hell, that quote got used in "Star Trek II," a big whoop intellectual source). It doesn't offer perfection or utopia, but the best possible society.

Incidentally, you want to watch out for the silly distortions--they're emblematic of radio talk show hosts like Michael Savage, and they make your points look weak. For example, there's nothing I wrote that wouldd lead a reasonable reader to conclude that I'm claiming that Thos. Sowell has no right to speak--I simply argued that he was an apologist for corporate society, whose ideas were fundamentally wrong. I guarantee that that's mild, compared to what he'd say in return...not that he'd bother.

Oh, and, "RP7zillion," or whatever--if you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd find about 7 zillion references to the authors you seem to feel I'm somehow censoring. Unless of course you think that Allan Bloom's, "Closing of the American Mind," is somehow a commierat book, which would be a truly weird viewpoint. But as I said above, arguing, "He...he....he said we should  GO READ...bbbbbbooks!!! He's MEAN!!!" is not exactly going to put you in a good rhetorical position. If you've got better books, whip 'em out. If ya  don't--and so far, I see no evidence that you've read the basic texts in capitalism, or the Marx you reflexively attack--well, you might want to go find out. Or am I wrong, and there's no need to actually know what  you're talking about?

I quite enjoyed the truly weird remark about Thoreau. My understanding--again, though, I was brought up under conditions of more-traditional American values, on Navy bases and in small-town schools in the 1950s and 1960s--had been that "Walden," was about as traitional as it got in this country. Good to see more confirmation of the radical, tradition-destroying quality of advanced capitalism--and more of that weird, 180-degree out of true notion that it's people like Thoreau who are the true oppressors.

And just to put the cherry on top: the fundamental problem is that we have opposite views of what capitalism means. You think that it simply means the ex nihilo creation of value--I think it means you actually take value, from nature and from workers. We could  probably agree on capitalism as productive and transformative--I just think that this "production and transformation," works a lot like a virus, and I don't much care for the vision of endless money-grubbing in shopping malls and office complexes, from sea to shining sea.

But then, I was brought up to believe that life--particularly in America--was more than that.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 11, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yeah, it sounds like a better way to do things. It sounds like the way things were done historically. The "favor the richest" government we have now is just slowly making the rest of us more miserable. You just can't make it with small businesses any more. You can't compete with the subsidies and the favoritism. Cut it all out. Cut their influence and cut their aid and bailouts. Let them sink when they sink and people will fill the gaps (hopefully) with small mom and pop businesses again.
> 
> Of course, this may not even be enough. The multinationals have so MUCH power...


It sounds like you are trying to promote the return to 'small town/cottage industry' values. This would require either a very decentralized governmental body (like the one they had in Grecian democracy - and all those fun city state wars) or a very strong central government that would infringe on individual rights so much that it would regulate a very low 'glass ceiling' of potential of the individual business man (thus reducing his ability to hire and provide income for others).

How would the school systems in either system compare to what we have now (considering every other nation in the world sends students here to vampire off our system for a few years and then take that education back to the home country)?

How would the health care look?

How would the social services programs be funded - including famine/disaster relief, police forces, civil and national (city/state or strong national) defense look?

We have seen examples of how successful these historical citations were....and that is the reason they are history - because they peaked and faded.  Both the decentralized form (Greece) and the centralized strength (USSR/Communist China..) have been left in the past as governmental structures.

It might help to list out some of the governmental regulations on capitolistic practices that have given it it's socialistic flavor already.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 11, 2004)

As part of my ongoing effort to pollute the Precious Bodily Fluids of America, here are the first four paragraphs of Thoreau's, "Civil Disobedience."

I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto,"That government is best which governs least";(1)* and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure. 

** This American governmentwhat is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it.*Trade and commerce, if they were not made of India rubber,(3) would never manage to bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and, if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions, and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads. 

*** But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it. 

    After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black artsa mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniments, though it may be 

"Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note, 
*As his corse to the rampart we hurried; 
*Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot 
*O'er the grave where our hero we buried."*

 The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the*most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. 


Re-reading, I see the objection--THERE'S liberal commierattisme at its worst. No wonder rational men want to sweep away the tired dregs of the past, now that it's morning in America again.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 11, 2004)

Dear rmcrobertson:

I am not trying to say that textual evidence or reading books are useless in argumentation.  Far from it.  And you have shown that you've read much more books on this subject than I have, and make quite a big deal out of this fact.  Congratulations, do you want a cookie or a sticker?  

All I meant was that simply saying "go read the materials, eh?" is essentially saying "you haven't read these books, so you're not worth talking to".  You gave your position (aparently for the 6th or 7th time), and then said "go read books".  Instead of constantly pointing out how you've read books that others havent, why don't you just point out where my arguments are flawed?  

As a note, yes, I have read some (but not all) of Marx' works, and yes, I have read a number of economics books describing capitalist markets, etc.  My apologies for daring to enter a conversation without having memorized every text on the subject.  Like I said, if that's what's needed, I'll get back to you in 50 years.  

Now, I so far understand your argument to be the following.  By allowing for privatization and free market competition, capitalism creates an environment where the wealthy/upper class/executives/haves are able to use the poor/lower class/workers/have nots to amass more capital for themselves.  The "wealthy" use a social idealogy to convince the poor/lower class/workers that the system works and that their work is giving them a better life, when really it is only adding to the capitalist's profits.  

Compare that to the following argument.  Those who believe that fossil records prove that evolution trumps the Christian creation explanation have really been fooled by the Devil.  You see, the Devil created those fossils in order to deceive the children of God into a false belief that following science will lead them to enlightenment, when really it is only meant to afford the Devil more souls to consume.  

Now I'm no rhetorical analyst, but those two arguments seem pretty ****ing similar.  Both, in the face of a certain assertion, simply create some evil Other who has obviously deceived the person into believing that assertion.  Now tell me, where have I ****ed up?  I'm sure you believe I have.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 11, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Now, I so far understand your argument to be the following.  By allowing for privatization and free market competition, capitalism creates an environment where the wealthy/upper class/executives/haves are able to use the poor/lower class/workers/have nots to amass more capital for themselves.  The "wealthy" use a social idealogy to convince the poor/lower class/workers that the system works and that their work is giving them a better life, when really it is only adding to the capitalist's profits.
> 
> Compare that to the following argument.  Those who believe that fossil records prove that evolution trumps the Christian creation explanation have really been fooled by the Devil.  You see, the Devil created those fossils in order to deceive the children of God into a false belief that following science will lead them to enlightenment, when really it is only meant to afford the Devil more souls to consume.
> 
> Now I'm no rhetorical analyst, but those two arguments seem pretty ****ing similar.  Both, in the face of a certain assertion, simply create some evil Other who has obviously deceived the person into believing that assertion.  Now tell me, where have I ****ed up?  I'm sure you believe I have.



Pardon me, I know this comment wasn't addressed to me, but if you will allow me to bud in... :asian: 

The arguments actually don't look similar at all as they are stated and furthermore, once you look at the evidence, they are even more dissimilar.  This is where books come into the picture.  You can read books that describe these two arguments and learn about the evidence behind them and learn why people say they are incorrect or...well I guess you can take my word for it, or Roberts if you prefer, or anyone who has contributed thus far.

And that is the choice your left with.  I can spill out evidence until the cows come home and evidence has been spilled over 183 posts on this thread, but until you seek the knowledge for yourself, you really don't know if what people are saying is true or not.  And then you don't even know...but you do get more background.  You get more information, so you can judge for yourself.  And that is the point of learning, right, learning how to judge for yourself.

So, for starters, if you look at the two arguments, regarding the cause of wealth and the infernal origin of fossils, one of the things you will notice is that one is a process, an interaction between groups of people.  The other is an infernally devine trick that people believe may have happened.  In the former, one can watch this interaction between people happen.  In the latter, one will never see the Devil put bones in the ground to trick us.  Or the CIA for that matter...see the difference?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 11, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> . . .
> 
> I don't think_*,*_ that . . . would be scary. But, recognizing the problem is the 1st step towards a solution.  . . .
> 
> ...



I have read in between the lines and through the words to get this meaning from Paul 

Gee, I thought it was ok for wrestlers to take things out of context 


Seriously for a moment, if you do start to recognize the issues, and putting people in power who also recognize the issue, then this is called your democratic / republic process.

To vote on knowledge, hmmmm?!? 

(* I recognize that people will disagree, yet to be aware of the issues and to consciously make a decision as opposed to just voting or not voting at all is much better in my mind. *)

 :asian:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 11, 2004)

> In the former, one can watch this interaction between people happen. In the latter, one will never see the Devil put bones in the ground to trick us. Or the CIA for that matter...see the difference?


I don't see where in the capitalist system brainwashing (which is really what socialists claim the use of ideology is) is required.  The argument essentially turns an entire class of people, such as the wealthy or corporate executives, into a great evil who uses mind manipulation to make the masses buy stuff.  I personally don't consider myself being manipulated every time I decide to buy a certain CD, but then the socialist could just "point out" that my purchase is the result of the Big Bad Record Company manipulating my mind to think that I must purchase it.  I suppose that's how the argument works out.  I really don't see the major difference between that and the demonic origin argument.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 11, 2004)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n1-1.html

"Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?" (this ought to stir things up)



> What factor produced feelings of superior value on the part of intellectuals? I want to focus on one institution in particular: schools. As book knowledge became increasingly important, schooling--the education together in classes of young people in reading and book knowledge--spread. Schools became the major institution outside of the family to shape the attitudes of young people, and almost all those who later became intellectuals went through schools. There they were successful. They were judged against others and deemed superior. They were praised and rewarded, the teacher's favorites. How could they fail to see themselves as superior? Daily, they experienced differences in facility with ideas, in quick-wittedness. The schools told them, and showed them, they were better.
> 
> The schools, too, exhibited and thereby taught the principle of reward in accordance with (intellectual) merit. To the intellectually meritorious went the praise, the teacher's smiles, and the highest grades. In the currency the schools had to offer, the smartest constituted the upper class. Though not part of the official curricula, in the schools the intellectuals learned the lessons of their own greater value in comparison with the others, and of how this greater value entitled them to greater rewards.
> 
> ...


 

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3656eede4b17.htm

This one is pretty biased, but interesting too.



> Schumpeter suggested that, while the doer class tends to pay little attention to the intellectual class, the opposite is not true. It was only a matter of time before intellectuals turned from their studies to view entrepreneurs enviously: "If we are so smart, why are they so rich!" But envy is not admirable, so intellectuals naturally seek more self-flattering expressions of their resentment. Envy they craft into "social justice," which trumpets expanded political control over the economy, strict policing of the entrepreneurial sector, and a wholesale swap of private for political institutions. The focus of resentment, the doer class, they malign in familiar tones:
> 
> Entrepreneurs do not really create wealth, rather they gain wealth by exploiting the poor or disadvantaged.
> Business does not really address human needs, but rather creates, through advertising, artificial demands for wasteful consumption.
> ...


These are only "sound bites" from the links, and I dont necessarily support all of these guys beliefs, but in light of some of the debate revolving around "intellectualism" here I thought it interesting.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 11, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Don, you show the true colors of a capitalist this quote.  Your scorn for democracy is like flipping the bird to everything American stands for.  Just because you make ten million dollars by what ever means, has NO bearing on the strength of your voice in a democratic society.  You are treated no differently.



It has every bearing when talking about _how we are going to spend the ten million I earned!_ We are not talking about who gets to be president. We are talking about the fact that I make ten million dollars and I do not have a say in it other than one vote among millions. You have helped yourself to the fruit of my labor and prevent it from going ot my kids as I wish. What gives you the right to do so, other than you outnumber me?

A millionaire should have not more or less voice in a democracy. But _everyone_ should be able to keep what they make and not be a slave to 51 percent of the population. That is why I favor a minimilst goverment. And you seem to as well, except when it comes to how everyone distributes other people's wealth.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Your personal philosophy fails to take into consideration what you owe the people around you.



Because I happen to believe I was born free. I believe my children are born free. I feel thanks to my parents, and the men and women keeping me free by serving in the military. But I do not have to bow to them forever as you suggest. I am free to show my appreciation as I choose. Others can not come to me and tell me what I owe some great power that can not be measured, demonstrated and analyzed. 

I am responsible for my children and will care for them as long as it is my responsibility and perhaps more. You may say that this means they owe me for their very life. Poppycock!!! When they hit 18 they are free to turn their back on me if they so choose. I will not make them slaves to my will forever. Giving them birth and making their lives as comfortable as possible is not a loan, not a debt I want to lay on them. _It is a gift I give freely out of my love for them!!!_ If I do not say they owe me, then who the heck are you to say they owe anyone else and can not accept my wealth. It is you who cheapen the gift, the manifestation of my love towards my children by saying that they owe people around them. They would owe me more than anyone else and I say they are free. Stay away from them.

The good I try to do in the community, the way I try to improve things around me, these are all *gifts!* I do it out of love, not to incur some debt. I do not give an un-asked- for gift and then act as if the receiver owes me. No one asked me if I wanted any gifts they may have done by giving birth to me, etc and I acknowledge no right for people to come along and say that I was born with a debt that I will never pay off to some "greater good."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 11, 2004)

Well, that was a hilarious set of misreadings and statements of the obvious. 

1. Good for you, standing up for freedom and dignity, and protecting kids, particularly your own. I respect the moral courage that takes, particularly given the fact that everybody else on this thread is deeply opposed to protecting kids, human dignity, and freedom.

2. I enjoyed the similarity between the goofy critique of intellectuals, Who Are the Root of All Evil, and Marx's own critique of intellectuals--which is that their analyses, and subjectivities, are limited by their positioning within class society. Roughly speaking, intellectuals tend to provide ideological justification for whatever the economic/political/religious, "base," of society happens to be. In our society, intellectuals tend to be alienated--that suits capitalism best, especially in America, where we have what I consider to be almost as healthy a distrust of intellectuals as we did of the rich. 

3. Regrettably, I have met all sorts of intellectual types who simply don't fit the paradigms I keep seeing on this thread. Myself included--go blame Frasier Crane instead.

4. Nobody--at least not me--argued simply that, "capitalism creates an environment where the wealthy/upper class/executives/haves are able to use the poor/lower class/workers/have nots to amass more capital for themselves. The "wealthy" use a social idealogy to convince the poor/lower class/workers that the system works and that their work is giving them a better life, when really it is only adding to the capitalist's profits," nor simply that it's  their brainwashing that makes the world goes round. That's leftish paranoiac fantasy--you know, the Trilateral Comission, the Illuminati, the whatevers Did It. Personally, I argued that capitalism evolved out of prior economic/political/intellectual structures, and "took off," a couple hundred years ago--whereupon "it," got busy rewriting everything in its own terms.

5. Analyses of capitalism have something that rantings about evil-lution don't: historical grounds and evidence. If you want to believe that everybody gets a fair deal, that merit is always rewarded, that wealth never involves exploitation, etc. etc., etc. halluncinatory etc., you are more than welcome to. Personally, I like to take a look at the actual planet from time to time, but hey...

6. "Brainwashing," isn't what happens. What  happens is that members of an advanced capitalist society have learned to build their identities around such ideas as, "competition," and, "the wage-hour," and, "consumption," with terms like, "entrepreneurship," that represent a kind of combo winning-the-lotto (if you are a Big Hit) and utopian idea (Be Your Own Boss!!) and cover-up (freedom is only the freedom to run your own business!!!).

7. John Berger--there's those pesky books again!!!--points out several places, including in his, "Ways of Seeing," that advertising is emblematic of the way the ideology of capital works: a) the multiplicity of ads gets read as proof of democracy, since supposedly anybody can advertise and ads highlight waht  appears to be completely-free choice; b) ads insist upon creating an unfillable gap between "being," and "having," since they necessaily insist that you must go out and buy in order to transform yourself into something better, but what is sold cannot actually transform you, so you need the Next Big Thing, which can never give you the new self you're taught to want, so...c) ads are always parasitic upon the real, because they take advantage of  real needs and real pleasures but never really satisfy them, or insist that You Need More.

8. I see nobody wanted to tangle with Thoreau...funny; I would've thought a couple of you folks would jump all over phrases such as, "the government is best which governs least." I guess he isn't any more ameneable to the erection of the Great God Selfishness than any religion (with the possiblee exception of Satanism) I ever heard of.

9. Oh, and Fireball XL-5 or whatever code number you're using now? neither a cookie nor a sticker, thanks. I'll be perfectly happy with basic courtesy...and I will continue to respond to attempts at bullying pretty much the way I'm responding now...yes, yes, I know, it's my fault. It's all my fault.

10. I continue to be amazed by the rejection of American tradition, and the faith in Mammon. The class-based anger I kinda like...


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 11, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, that was a hilarious set of misreadings and statements of the obvious.



Nice smug, snotty, start to a post that assumes an air of superiority over everyone who dares to disagree with you.

The difference is, in the free capitalist America I strive for you are allowed to hold your bigotted beliefs, go off and live on a commune or become Amish. But in the world of intolerance that you would build, there can be no other way except the way _you_ have decided is best for all of us.

Now I am sure you will fall back to your tactic of trying to make fun of an obvious fact.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 11, 2004)

opcorn:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 11, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 5. Analyses of capitalism have something that rantings about evil-lution don't: historical grounds and evidence. If you want to believe that everybody gets a fair deal, that merit is always rewarded, that wealth never involves exploitation, etc. etc., etc. halluncinatory etc., you are more than welcome to. Personally, I like to take a look at the actual planet from time to time, but hey...
> 
> 6. "Brainwashing," isn't what happens. What happens is that members of an advanced capitalist society have learned to build their identities around such ideas as, "competition," and, "the wage-hour," and, "consumption," with terms like, "entrepreneurship," that represent a kind of combo winning-the-lotto (if you are a Big Hit) and utopian idea (Be Your Own Boss!!) and cover-up (freedom is only the freedom to run your own business!!!).
> 
> 7. John Berger--there's those pesky books again!!!--points out several places, including in his, "Ways of Seeing," that advertising is emblematic of the way the ideology of capital works: a) the multiplicity of ads gets read as proof of democracy, since supposedly anybody can advertise and ads highlight waht appears to be completely-free choice; b) ads insist upon creating an unfillable gap between "being," and "having," since they necessaily insist that you must go out and buy in order to transform yourself into something better, but what is sold cannot actually transform you, so you need the Next Big Thing, which can never give you the new self you're taught to want, so...c) ads are always parasitic upon the real, because they take advantage of real needs and real pleasures but never really satisfy them, or insist that You Need More.


I'm failing to see how this isn't an accusation of brainwashing.  I remember reading Berger a few years back.  He seemed to take the constructionists stance that companies use advertisements to influence consumers into believing that they need this or that product to become more perfect or satisfy some need--much like what you're stating.  This is brainwashing; convincing the person that they have a new need in order to control their behavior and thinking.  Keep in mind that's my own layman's definition; forgive me for not digging through my room for my Oxford's.  

The problem I find with it is that it completely removes any autonomy from the consumer.  It's basically saying that every consumer is a blank slate, on whom society writes every drive, every desire, with the consumer himself having no say in the matter.  Of course, then you have to wonder: if every person's drives and desires are completely determined by others who are in higher positions of power, who determines those people's desires and decisions?  



> 9. Oh, and Fireball XL-5 or whatever code number you're using now? neither a cookie nor a sticker, thanks. I'll be perfectly happy with basic courtesy...and I will continue to respond to attempts at bullying pretty much the way I'm responding now...yes, yes, I know, it's my fault. It's all my fault.


First off, Fireball XL-5?  Where the hell did you get that from?  Second off, how exactly am I attempting to bully you?  I find this quite strange coming from someone who litters his posts with mockery and pot shots at my choice in screenames.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 11, 2004)

LOVED the popcorn.

As for the other, nothing I could write could possibly be as revealing as: "The difference is, in the free capitalist America I strive for you are allowed to hold your bigotted beliefs, go off and live on a commune or become Amish. The difference is, in the free capitalist America I strive for you are allowed to hold your bigotted beliefs, go off and live on a commune or become Amish. The difference is, in the free capitalist America I strive for you are allowed to hold your bigotted beliefs, go off and live on a commune or become Amish. The difference is, in the free capitalist America I strive for you are allowed to hold your bigotted beliefs, go off and live on a commune or become Amish."

Sincerely,
John Booker


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 11, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Now I am sure you will fall back to your tactic of trying to make fun of an obvious fact.



Can I call 'em or what?

And the obvioius fact is that if you heap scorn on any group of people like muslims, gays or the wealthy instead of treating each member on their own individual merits and faults, that is bigotry. I do not expect biggots to admit to it. In fact, I have seen some pretty increadible mental gymnastics to explain away an obviously biggoted attitude. After the LA riots, some young blacks put forward the idea that the hatred they had towards whites was not racism because they had no economic power over them!  :idunno: 

In all the time that I have heard the comment "I'm not a racist but...." the following comment has always proved the speaker a racist. But I have never been able to convince them that they are one based on their statements.

So, go ahead and feel that you are not a biggot. You are free to believe whatever you want in the world I want to see. But if you dare to challenge your perceptions, go ahead and take out "the wealthy" from that comment about how you heap scorn on them and insert "Gays" or "Muslims" instead and run it by some of your friends.

I will expect you to find some sort of excuse, probably one tha involves making fun of others like myself, instead of taking up my challenge.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 11, 2004)

So uh, anyway, just kinda realized that this thread is titled "Alternatives to Capitalism".  Now, I haven't read through every post on here, but seeing as to how we've gone sufficiently off topic, would anyone propose a better economic system than capitalism?  A combination of that and socialism, or just go all out and go to socialism itself?  Or what?  I personally think that capitalism seems to be the best, but I am, of course, no expert.  

Just to try and reorient the flow of conversation here.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 11, 2004)

Bah. Too much mud-slingin', not enough discussin'.  :uhyeah: 

Seriously, guys. This thread is about capitalism and any alternatives to that system that might be admissable. 

Not who is and is not a biggot/rude/mean/naive/etc....

I've noticed that the crux of the discussions between Don and Robert as of late have focused more on who is "ignorant of the obvious" or who "scorns" certain groups of people. This is flaming, not discussing.

C'mon, now.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 11, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Bah. Too much mud-slingin', not enough discussin'. :uhyeah:
> 
> Seriously, guys. This thread is about capitalism and any alternatives to that system that might be admissable.


C'mon, heretic, were you really expecting a controversial thread with over 190 posts to stay on topic and remain impersonal?  Your optimism astounds me.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 11, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> So uh, anyway, just kinda realized that this thread is titled "Alternatives to Capitalism".  Now, I haven't read through every post on here, but seeing as to how we've gone sufficiently off topic, would anyone propose a better economic system than capitalism?  A combination of that and socialism, or just go all out and go to socialism itself?  Or what?  I personally think that capitalism seems to be the best, but I am, of course, no expert.



Of course, the problem with part of the thread drift is that democracy and such are also part of the mix as well.

I really do not think you can seperate different elements out. I think if you have a system that beleives that all men are to be left alone unless their actions violate others rights you have to have a form of capitalism welded to a system where the leaders may be voted on by a democracy, but not one that degenerates into mob rule.

No other economic system has the tolerance that Capitalism does. No other system has at its core the belief that a man is born free and not some slave to some god. But if you try to mix capitalism with a form of governing that believes differently, you end up with an unstable system. How can we have capitalism in the excuse that no man owns another, and yet have our goverment draft us unwillingly and send us off to war?

Interesting problem, eh? Pure democracy is gang rape given the justification of majority rules. The founding fathers built into the constitution in the first ten ammendments the protection of the individual agains the majority that controlled the goverment. 

Now, do we want to improve the way we run our democracy? I do. I want less power in the hands of busy do- gooding govermental functionaries who think they know better what to do with the fruit of my labor than I do. I want less power in the hands of corrupt politicians to be bought by either the masses (pork) or the elite few (campeign contirbutions.) I want the goverment to insure my right to be left alone and do what I want as long as it does not interfere with others _and no more!_ 

So, I think capitalism is the outgrowth to the philosophy, and the minimalist goverment the best guarenteer of it. I do not see how you can seperate the two.

Here is some fun. How about a Pournelle/ Heinlein type of goverment. Capitalism and the basic rights we are used to in North America. No one can shut you up or take away your stuff. But to vote in the elections you have to pass an objective test and serve in the military in a function that may get your **** shot off. If you do not have the basic drive and intelligence to pass the test, tough. If you want to choose how the goverment makes it's policay but never want to put your own tender pink skin on the line, tough.

Debate anyone?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 12, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> No other economic system has the tolerance that Capitalism does. No other system has at its core the belief that a man is born free and not some slave to some god. But if you try to mix capitalism with a form of governing that believes differently, you end up with an unstable system. How can we have capitalism in the excuse that no man owns another, and yet have our goverment draft us unwillingly and send us off to war?


Well, wouldn't that be the same justification that allows the government to tax us?  Contributing to the society and nation that you benefit from?  I mean, obviously giving your life and giving your money are different in the degree of sacrifice, in that one is the ultimate sacrifice, but it's the same principle, right?



> Here is some fun. How about a Pournelle/ Heinlein type of goverment. Capitalism and the basic rights we are used to in North America. No one can shut you up or take away your stuff. But to vote in the elections you have to pass an objective test and serve in the military in a function that may get your **** shot off. If you do not have the basic drive and intelligence to pass the test, tough. If you want to choose how the goverment makes it's policay but never want to put your own tender pink skin on the line, tough.


I don't see how the last requirement about military service is either objective or fair.  First obvious objection is a personal one of my own: what of the handicap people who CANT serve in the military to put their lives on the line?  Actually, for them, it's not just risking death, it's insuring it (or is it ensuring it?).  It's also saying that pacifists, or people who object to the war itself, essentially don't count as citizens of the nation, which is in no way an "objective" account.  At least not in a nation that proposes freedom to speak and think as you would so long as you don't violate the rights of others to do the same.  

Just some preliminaries.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 12, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Well, wouldn't that be the same justification that allows the government to tax us?  Contributing to the society and nation that you benefit from?  I mean, obviously giving your life and giving your money are different in the degree of sacrifice, in that one is the ultimate sacrifice, but it's the same principle, right?




Heh heh, good points. Some of us beleive that goverment (being an entity that intrudes on us) is an evil. However, since the alternative is anarchy, we beleive that it is a necessary evil that should be minimalized as possible.




			
				RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I don't see how the last requirement about military service is either objective or fair.  First obvious objection is a personal one of my own: what of the handicap people who CANT serve in the military to put their lives on the line?  Actually, for them, it's not just risking death, it's insuring it (or is it ensuring it?).  It's also saying that pacifists, or people who object to the war itself, essentially don't count as citizens of the nation, which is in no way an "objective" account.  At least not in a nation that proposes freedom to speak and think as you would so long as you don't violate the rights of others to do the same.
> 
> Just some preliminaries.



Well, In Heinlein's world, they made every effort to make sure that people's handicaps did not get in the way of serving in some form where you could get shot at. If you could not walk, they would make you a cook in specially equipped kitchen on a warship, etc.

But you raise some of the points I have been thinking about. Unless there is a constituional guarentee that the goverment can only do that which is absolutely neccesary to maintain civilization, what is to prevent the citizens to building nice houses for them at the expense of the civilians? Oh yeah, and what about the idea of changing the constitution?

As you can see, the idea of how to govern people is key to the debate. The economic system is just part of a whole. Some people have been blaming capitalism for our killing of the indians, slavery, treatment of the nisei, etc. Then _the same people_ praise the democratic system. Excuse me, were we a monarchy when these things happened?

So, we blame capitalism for that, but not democracy? It seems to me that we need to look at core issues and build from there.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 12, 2004)

Just as a general suggestion, Mr. Roley, you may very well find that discussing the supposed bias against the wealthy lot by going on a lot about, "gays," and, "Muslims," and "commies," and, "young blacks," works a lot better if you remember that there is only one, "g," in the word, "bigot."

It is also helpful to be accurate, if you're going to refer to science fiction novels for your political ideas. Pournelle's governments are a) monarchies, b) democracies taken over, essentially, by the military. 

You're quite right that Heinlein's "Starship Troopers," society guarantees citizenship to ANY enlistee, so long as they stick it out, no matter what their capabilities or handicaps happen to be--in fact, the book's explicit about that, so an argument about "not passing the test," does kinda go out the window. 

But unfortunately, doubt about government/corporate get-togethers appears throughout Heinlein's books. (Pournelle's not a smart enough writer to even notice.) In, "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress," the chief character is a revolutionary, fighting to get rid of an oppressive, colonialist government that is primarily interested in getting the Loonies to work harder for the corporation that esssentially owns the Moon. Of his most explicitly-political novels, "Double Star," insists upon the necessity of moral government, and upon bringing aliens into full political rights. "Citizen of the Galaxy," focuses on the efforts to expose and to eliminate slavery, which is explicitly described as being run by a giant corporation. "Red Planet," and that one set primarily on Venus, whose name I disremember, again feature freedom fighters opposed to colonialisms primarily run by corporations. 

Even his weird novels, like, "Magic, Inc.," attack the giant, satanic (quite literally...its CEO is Satan's nephew, Nebiros) corporations that are attempting to get a Microsoft-like monopoly on magic so that they can make more and more money and drive the little folks out of business. The same pretty much appears in, "Starman Jones," where the earth's essentially run by guilds and businesses, and the main character can't wait to get OFF.

Oh yeah, and books like, "Space Cadet," "The Star Beast," and "Have Space Suit, Will Travel," revolve around United Nations-like governments that run either the earth or the galaxy, and are explicitly described as benificient. 

In fact, about the only GOOD corporation I recollect in any of Heinlein is Harriman's in, "The Man Who Sold the Moon," a corporation clearly described as a mere front for another purpose entirely. Maybe that one in, "--We Also Walk Dogs." And I certainly admit that, "The Roads Must Roll," tells a story about a pretty nasty union...

And while stories like, "Free Men," appear to have influenced stuff like, "Red Dawn," if you actually go back and read, "Solution Unsatisfactory," you will find that the plot revolves around an Army colonel who takes over the world to protect it from what is explicitly described as a war-mongering, colony-hunting President and a weak, greedy Congress.

Personally, I like Kim Stanley Robinson's books about Mars, for thoughtful  considerations of politics and capitalisms, and what's-'is-name's books such as, "Cosmonaut Keep," and, "The Star Fraction," for accounts of what is all too likely to actually happen.

Oooops, there I go again. Words, words, words. Ya ticked me off with the pointless insults, or I wouldn't've stooped to being this snooty. But then again, I have a lot of affection for those Heinlein books.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 12, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I will expect you to find some sort of excuse, probably one tha involves making fun of others like myself, instead of taking up my challenge.



My track record at prophicies are pretty good so far. I even got a comment about my spelling, which is the standard way of putting down a person on the internet when you want to prove your superiority and can't deal with the debate.

Ho hum, I guess I am just stupid for thinking that the goverments in "Go Tell the Spartans" and such are democracies instead of monarchies, because the "kings" have to be elected and there is a senate. The same goes for the corporation that rules the moon in Heinlein's Moon book at the bidding of (ooops) a goverment. Along with other examples of goverments letting parts of it rule over others in his books.

Guess I am just too stupid to make a contribution to this conversation.
 :uhyeah:


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 12, 2004)

You know, I realized that I have not seen a lot of actual debate going on by the other side. By debate, I mean exchange of ideas and talking about the merits and such of each.

I see them attack things like Donald Trump and big corporations. I see them make fun of other people's comments and opinions. And I see them talk about the books they read and how we should try to be as knowledgeable as they.

But I do not see much in the way of talking about central core ideals and beliefs. They attack capitalism, but are not able to offer vaild systems to replace it. Whenever I try to nail one of them down to a constant principle, they dance away instead, mocking, attacking and trying to look smarter than anyone else.

Well, I am throwing down the guantlet Here is a principle and a belief that I challenge people to find _reasonable, calmly stated_ objection with and debate it if they would.

Here it is. 





> A person is born free and no one has the right to violate them. What they do that has no impact on anyone else is no one else's concern.



The system of goverment that best serves this is democracy. The economic system that best serves this is capitalism.

Anyone want to try to tell me a better system to reach this or try to point out flaws in my aurgument?

The closest has been the argument that we all owe gratitude to the varied elements that allow us to live and that we are NOT free because we have that obligation. I reject this notion because, while I beleive in paying my debts, a gift is something that is given freely. And the gift of life, etc is not something that we negotiated and knew the price of before agreeing. The idea of someone coming along and telling you that they now have control of you because of some gift given to you without asking is immoral. I don't care if it is one person or a million.

I think I have been influenced by the words of a document I hold in high esteem. Part of it reads as follows.



> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.



So men are created with rights, and among those rights is liberty- i.e. freedom. So men are born free of obligation to others. That they are created that way, does not mean they have to remain that way.

People are created equal by their creator, not the goverment. After the moment of their birth they have the unalienable rights, but they start ceasing to be equal. They will always have the same treatment as anyone else in the eyes of the law, but I really am not on equal footing with Stephen Hawkings.

The pursuit of happiness is key as well. As I wrote, people can do what they want unless it violates others. People are free to do what they seek to be happy. They can be hot shot stock brokers, or Amish farmers. I personally would not want to be a broker with it's stress, but one person's happiness is another man's nightmare. We can not judge and the language is not clear as to what happiness should be. And we can pursue it, but there is no assurance of it guarenteed in the document. No one has to help you achieve your happiness, that would violate the provision about liberty, their liberty if you forced them to achieve your happiness. Their liberty to pursue their happiness is also violated if you try to determine what that happiness should be. I may not like the pursuit of money that others do to be happy, but it is their choice, their way of being happy. I must leave them alone unless what they do has an impact on my life.

Now, I will be the first to admit that the country that gave us this document, the goverment that gave us American democracy, has not always lived up to its principles. Until the 20th century, women could not vote. Slaves were held until the later half of the 19th. We went on to kill the Indians and send the Nisei Japanese to internment camps. But the democratic principles are still valid. They were just ignored. The ideas that inspired these words are still decent, even if they were ignored by not giving blacks the right to vote until the 20th century. I feel we need to get back to these principles and they are still the most just, most decent system there is.

Can anyone find any flaws with the central principles around which my arguement is based?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 12, 2004)

Yep. 

"The complete interdependence of modern economic life seems to have escaped them entirely." --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Roads Must Roll." 

The basic problem can be explained, further, in terms of the Constitution's basic theory of rights: they are NOT unlimited, but always presented as balanced by other rights. Basically, this is because people do not live in a pure state of Nature, but as members of a society: as the Framers appear to've had very much in mind, we have in a sense already, "signed," a social contract. The famous example would be free speech, a "natural right," counterpointed by other rights, such as the right of the State to preserve order in emergencies. 

The contradiction between personal and social responsibility, rights, or what have you has been part of the Constitution from the start. My understanding is that, generally speaking, it's what the tension between Jeffersonian ideas and Hamilton's are all about.

However, I haven't as yet found any part of the "original," Constitution--or anthing later--that guarantees economic and/or corporate rights, or talks about capitalism being neat-o and groovy, except of course for guaranteeing equal rights under the law for everybody, rights that have usually been taken to be rights of equal access and opportunity. It is a radical, new reading of the Constitution to read capitalism into it the way you are doing, very similar to the Supreme Court decision that spending money in political campaigns and free speech are the same thing. 

Just so's you know, the general marxist account is that capitalism and democracy did indeed grow up together. That's why they are taken to be advances over feudalism, and the contradiction between the two is why they are not confused with the end-state of historical development. 

Both Marx and Jefferson, however, would've recognized The Donald for the shabby little wanna-be tycoon he is: you'd be much better off carrying the can for somebody like Sir James Goldsmith, or Richard Branson, or Sam Walton, or one of the several real tycoons who are by all accounts both successful businessmen and decent people.

And if you'd like to maintain low tones, well, my advice is, don't leap into conversations with a hearty, "You're Un-American," or a loud hey dumbass, you're a useless collitch boy, or a why don't you leave this great nation and join the Amish. I'd also recommend leaving off the goofball comparasions between rich people and the victims of, say, racism--until of course, us collitch types start turning dogs and fire hoses on the wealthy, or start saying, "He's a-driving a Lex-us. Somebody git a rope."


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 12, 2004)

While preachings about the rights of the individual, let's not forget that the State has certain rights, too, which is what we usually call "social responsibilities". No man is an island --- we're all in this together.

In my opinion, it is the goal of society to balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the State. Both are of equal importance.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 12, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'd also recommend leaving off the goofball comparasions between rich people and the victims of, say, racism--until of course, us collitch types start turning dogs and fire hoses on the wealthy, or start saying, "He's a-driving a Lex-us. Somebody git a rope."


Well yeah, nobody's busting out lynch ropes, but racism is fueled by the same type of thinking by which many liberals condemn the wealthy or upper class.  Basically, you're a member of this social group, so you have to be evil.  As you've noted, these liberals aren't acting out their condemnations in any forms of violence, but the belief structure is pretty much still the same.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> A millionaire should have not more or less voice in a democracy. But _everyone_ should be able to keep what they make and not be a slave to 51 percent of the population. That is why I favor a minimilst goverment. And you seem to as well, except when it comes to how everyone distributes other people's wealth.



Taxes redistribute wealth to social programs.  They have to happen.  Roads are a social program.  The military is a social program.  So are the police and fire departments...we just have to pay for that stuff.  I believe that every person should be taxed equally, at the same rate.  Not everything you own, but at the same rate.  So, if I have to give 15 % of my paycheck to the federal government, a millionaire should have to do the same.  As it stands now, people who make over one millions dollars in the country pay .5 % of their income in taxes.  That is what I'm talking about when I say that the system favors the rich.  THAT is what I'm talking about when I say we need to equalize social responsibility for everyone.  If we want to lower taxes, great.  Do it for everyone and make it fair, for everyone because we all are part of this country are we not?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2004)

So, if capitalism is so good and democracy is so good, I would like to ask a question...since the cornerstone of both happens to be the "free market" theory..._Who thinks we are living in a free market society?_"


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 12, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The basic problem can be explained, further, in terms of the Constitution's basic theory of rights: they are NOT unlimited, but always presented as balanced by other rights. Basically, this is because people do not live in a pure state of Nature, but as members of a society: as the Framers appear to've had very much in mind, we have in a sense already, "signed," a social contract. The famous example would be free speech, a "natural right," counterpointed by other rights, such as the right of the State to preserve order in emergencies.



I see no such spirit in the document, nor see any moral vaule in it.

When you talk about rights being balanced, I say that they can be summed up with the statement that your right to swing ends at my nose. A person cannot be violated by another. This applies to all. The right to free speech is absolute. But if you slander another, you violate them. No one can shut you up or force you to state a certain statement. We have to deal with each other and give respect that we wish to recieve, but I see nothing about how we are born into a social contract with obligations and things that we owe others.




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> However, I haven't as yet found any part of the "original," Constitution--or anthing later--that guarantees economic and/or corporate rights, or talks about capitalism being neat-o and groovy, except of course for guaranteeing equal rights under the law for everybody, rights that have usually been taken to be rights of equal access and opportunity.



The idea of freedom, that two willing people can do whatever they want without interference from others and that the are not owned by others seems to be a central principle around which capitalism is based. It is also the spirit of the declaration I quoted IMO. I see nothing that says that there must be equal oppurtunity. We are created equal at birth. That means that there is no hereditary right to rule as existed in Europe and which the colonies were rejecting. They did not beleive that one group of men were created by God to rule over another. I see nothing that says there must be equal access and opportunity. But I am sure there are many authors that hold that _opinion._ 




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> While preachings about the rights of the individual, let's not forget that the State has certain rights, too, which is what we usually call "social responsibilities". No man is an island --- we're all in this together.



There is no state as an entity. It is comprised of many, many individuals. It does not have any more right than any one of it's parts. The idea that we have social responsibilites and we are all together in this life is just another way of saying that someone else owns you. Who determines what our "social responsibilites" are? I believe each person has to make that decision for themselves. It can not be forced on them. Otherwise, without that central core of belief that a man is not to be violated by others and owes nobody anything form birth, we give justification to the acts of the goverment (dictatorship of one or of the majority) to enslave, kill, etc in the name of social responsibility and "the greater good." Unless you can show me an OBJECTIVE version of these responsibilites, then you have to say that enslaving 12 percent of the population for the greater good of the remaining 88 percent is justified. Or that the taking away of rights of the Nisei Japanese was jsutified byt he reasoning of the time.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Taxes redistribute wealth to social programs. They have to happen. Roads are a social program. The military is a social program. So are the police and fire departments...we just have to pay for that stuff. I believe that every person should be taxed equally, at the same rate. Not everything you own, but at the same rate. So, if I have to give 15 % of my paycheck to the federal government, a millionaire should have to do the same.



I agree with you to a certain extent. As I stated, I beleive the goverment is an evil, but a needed one. My big quibble is instead of saying "social programs" I would classify it as acts and institutions needed to maintain civilization, and no more. This is an objective view of what is needed, but even then the details are open to serious debate. There are things we need to protect us from all turning into some sort of Somalia. We need independent courts to settle our disputes, military, police and even groups like the EPA to prevent people from violating our rights, etc. These are vaild roles for goverment.

However, that which the goverment _need_ not do to prevent the collapse of civilization, it _must_ not do. Otherwise you get the nasty concept behind pork barrel spending raising its head. The agricultural subsidies that go in good portion to wealthy owners are an example of something that has been foisted on us with the vaugue excuse that it is for the greater good. So we keep the violations of us to the bare minimum and no matter how nice it would be if we were all to do a certain thing, we do not use the power of the goverment to force people to fund it.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> So, if capitalism is so good and democracy is so good, I would like to ask a question...since the cornerstone of both happens to be the "free market" theory...Who thinks we are living in a free market society?"



Not I. The excuse that we can violate others for the greater good is still part of the thinking today. I would like to move away from our mixed economy and back to the principles of every man owning the product of his labors without being owned by anyone else. For that I am called a greedy, xenophobic malcontent. 
 :supcool:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I agree with you to a certain extent. As I stated, I beleive the goverment is an evil, but a needed one. My big quibble is instead of saying "social programs" I would classify it as acts and institutions needed to maintain civilization, and no more. This is an objective view of what is needed, but even then the details are open to serious debate. There are things we need to protect us from all turning into some sort of Somalia. We need independent courts to settle our disputes, military, police and even groups like the EPA to prevent people from violating our rights, etc. These are vaild roles for goverment.
> 
> However, that which the goverment _need_ not do to prevent the collapse of civilization, it _must_ not do. Otherwise you get the nasty concept behind pork barrel spending raising its head. The agricultural subsidies that go in good portion to wealthy owners are an example of something that has been foisted on us with the vaugue excuse that it is for the greater good. So we keep the violations of us to the bare minimum and no matter how nice it would be if we were all to do a certain thing, we do not use the power of the goverment to force people to fund it.



You know, when we get down to the details, we agree on a great many things.  Sometimes these ideologic arguments are great because the bring in so many different aspects of our culture and sometimes they only divide us.

I am going to assume that you and I agree on a fair taxation scheme, something that treats nobody any different then anyone else.  All income is taxed at a particular rate and there are no loopholes or subsidies (which would favor a certain group).  This is what will pay for the below to whatever extent is decided upon by the people.

What do you think of this...If I were to prioritize the responsabilities of the government here is what they would be...

1.  Safety - Military, police/EMS, EPA
2.  Health Care - ensuring that all citizens of this country have access to health care.
3.  Education - ensuring that all citizens of this country have an opportunity to participate in primary, secondar, and post secondary education.
4.  Interior - main roads, national parks, and manage national lands ect
5.  Commerace - Ensure that humane business practices are followed by those we do business with and ensure the consumer is offered a "free market" where competition is allowed to operate naturally.  
6.  Peace - department that aids people in our country and in others in resolving their differences.

In my opinion, I see this structure as a very people centered government that works for us rather then the multinational corporations.  

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 12, 2004)

I reject everything except 1 and 6. I believe that a goverment is evil, but a needed evil to prevent the collapse into anarchy. 2 through 5 do not fill that need. 

Well, 5 is one of those "kind of" areas. If you are talking about regulations that prevent business from lying to you, then yes. Lying and fraud is a violation of another and the goverment has the role of preventing one group violating another. But really, that would fall under the first catagory if you think about it.

6 is another "kind of" situation. Are you talking about mommy state type of stuff? If so, no. But we do need an independent court system so that if I feel you have done me wrong we can deal with it without me packing up my friends and going over to your house in a lynch mob.

4 only to the extent that the goverment maintains the lands it owns and is not a threat to others. (i.e. not a tinderbox fire trap.)

Remember, the core idea is that no one owns another. That they are free to do what they want unless their right to swing comes in contact with someone else's nose. The idea of one person being forced to pay for someone else's health care may seem noble, but it violates that central, core principle. I do contribute to the pediatric AIDs foundation. I do not want to be forced to do something that someone else has determined is for the greater good.

We take taxes from people only becaue the alternate is the complete collapse of civilization. Anything else will probably end up like the argicultural subsidies after we are through justifying it and putting some distance betweent he payers and the recievers.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2004)

When I plastered down the criteria, I asked myself the following questions.  What is going help keep this country on the cutting edge?  What are some overarching things the federal government can provide without trampling states rights?  Maybe it would help if I explained in a little more detail.  Not too much detail though, because that would start infringing too much on a region's ability to modify and adjust.  

1.  *Safety*.  The country has got to be a safe place or nothing will happen.  We need police to enforce the laws.  We need EMS to deal with natural disasters.  And we need a military to "defend our borders" which is much different then defending our interests...I'm of the mind that we need to learn how to use the resources at our disposal otherwise we are going to have to obtain what we need through various forms skullduggery.  Or, more simply put, we need to live within our means.
2.  *Health Care*.  As far as the country goes now, we have 44 million people who have no access to health services.  100 million with access to substandard services.  There are 270 million people in this country and one of the biggest causes of bankruptcy in our nation beyond even that of credit cards, is medical bills.  When health care is a commodity and you have no way to pay for it, then you have no access to that commodity.  If everyone had access, wouldn't that help people contribute.
3.  *Education*.  Education is the greatest tool we have in our society.  Education is the nuts and bolts that allows people do what they do.  We already have a public education system in this country, but it isn't enough to even get you a job anymore.  I would extend it, helping people find carreers and become productive adults.
4.  *Interior*.  We need to manage our interior public structures and our public lands.  Not only to keep them safe, but to preserve them for future generations.
5.  *Commerace*.  Protecting people is one thing, but we also need to make sure that we have fair business practice in this country.  We need to preserve the free market system and break monopolies and trusts when they appear.  We need to keep alternatives on the market which encourages a healthy development of technology.  There also needs to be people who are on the lookout for flagrant abuses in human rights by companies in our country and by companies outside of it.  We need to hold companies inside of our country to the letter of the law and cease trading with companies who do not adhere to our standards.
6.  *Peace*.  Civil courts is one way to mediate disputes and that falls into this catagory, but there also needs to be an internation effort that seeks peaceful solutions instead of violent.  

So, I guess, on the federal level, that is what I would want my government to do for all of the citizens in the United States.  I think it is a fair mix of personal responsibility and social responsibility and that it will preserve our society and happiness far into the future.  I feel that a government like this would give our children a better country in the future.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Remember, the core idea is that no one owns another. That they are free to do what they want unless their right to swing comes in contact with someone else's nose. The idea of one person being forced to pay for someone else's health care may seem noble, but it violates that central, core principle. I do contribute to the pediatric AIDs foundation. I do not want to be forced to do something that someone else has determined is for the greater good.



Questions - what do you think is good?  What if we agreed on that?  What if we were neighbors and we had the power to work together to make that happen for our families?  What if a few more people want to join us and they don't neccessarily agree with everything that we do, but they like the benifits of working together?  What if we work our a compromise that allows us to live together and help each other out?  Is this a form of democracy?  At what point does it get out of control, because that is what I sense the issue is for you.  You want to control what you think is good for you and your family.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 13, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> The right to free speech is absolute. But if you slander another, you violate them. No one can shut you up or force you to state a certain statement. We have to deal with each other and give respect that we wish to recieve, but I see nothing about how we are born into a social contract with obligations and things that we owe others.





			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> There is no state as an entity. It is comprised of many, many individuals. It does not have any more right than any one of it's parts. The idea that we have social responsibilites and we are all together in this life is just another way of saying that someone else owns you. Who determines what our "social responsibilites" are? I believe each person has to make that decision for themselves. It can not be forced on them. Otherwise, without that central core of belief that a man is not to be violated by others and owes nobody anything form birth, we give justification to the acts of the goverment (dictatorship of one or of the majority) to enslave, kill, etc in the name of social responsibility and "the greater good." Unless you can show me an OBJECTIVE version of these responsibilites, then you have to say that enslaving 12 percent of the population for the greater good of the remaining 88 percent is justified. Or that the taking away of rights of the Nisei Japanese was jsutified byt he reasoning of the time.


These two statements seem, at least to me, to be contradictory.  In the first, you describe an absolute right to free speech, and a right not to be harmed or violated by others.  These are apparently rules by which the individual wills maintain themselves.  But then in the second quote, you say that there are no social responsibilities and that the state consists only of a group of individual wills, and that the enforcement of social responsibilities would lead only to mob rule.  This isn't really that accurate; the right to free speech and the right not to be violated are themselves social responsibilities, which in turn are the ideas of the state.  What you argue is that social responsibilities are just excuses used by the 88% to overule the 12%, which sounds surprisingly Marxist.  But it's the opposite; the social responsibilities of free speech or freedom of and from religion are what prevent the 88% from overpowering the 12%.  My question is, if there can't be any social responsibilities or abstract principles acting on society (since, in your view, the state is nothing more than a bunch of individuals), how can you say that there are rights to free speech or a principle that "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose"?

God I hope that made sense.  It's 2:30 AM, so forgive me if not.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 13, 2004)

Well, one is certainly entitled to an extreme "libertarian," viewpoint, though it is utterly at odds with the Constitution and the body of laws derived form the Constitution over the last 200 years....where, sorry, there really is a social contract, one set of rights really is balanced by another, and there really is stuff like the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. 

There is also the beginning of the damn thing: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal...."

You'll find such libertarian views beautifully represented in right-wing science fiction: the aliens land, the US gets nuked, whatever, and fer the first time a Man can really be free to be A Man, with his Big Gun a-swinging by his side, and his big-boobed woman  a-snugglin' close. Or, you can read Ayn Rand's nutty (and in part unreadable) novels--I recommend the first one, "We the Living," it's shortest.

We actually live in a very sophisticated, representative democracy with a somewhat-controlled capitalism as our primary economic system. These fantasies about Complete Independence are fun (I like Pournelle's novels, at least, "Footfall," which says something not-so-good about my mind, I expect), but they are fantasies--the precise fantasy, indeed, that marx identified at the heart of, "Robinson Crusoe."

The fact is--the "objective fact," if you like--there are all sorts of things that we depend upon which we cannot possibly produce ourselves, or in any small group. Personally, I'd be happier if we mainly still lived in small towns--but we don't, and barring some catastrophe we aren't going to, and if we even began to try we would have to get into some SERIOUS population reduction.

Personally, my recommendation is that we work on understanding reality, accept the slow march of history, quit lurching about trying to fix everything in five minutes, and focus on the innumerable little things we can indeed control.

And incidentally, I continue to be stunned by the notion that rich white guys are the TRULY oppressed class, and that understanding little things like haves and have-nots is the same things as, say, racism.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 13, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And incidentally, I continue to be stunned by the notion that rich white guys are the TRULY oppressed class, and that understanding little things like haves and have-nots is the same things as, say, racism.


I'm stunned by the fact that you found that notion in what I wrote.  I never said that "rich white guys" (apparently, all wealthy people are white and male, because I only referred to the wealthy in my post) are or aren't oppressed.  I never said that understanding that there are people who are better off than others is a form of racism.  I simply stated that the mentality that says "you're wealthy, so you deserve my hatred and condemnation" is the same mentality that says "you're black, so you deserve my hatred and condemnation".  That's it.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 13, 2004)

Maybe I shouldn't say "mentality", since most intellectuals who condemn the wealthy are in fact quite smarter than most people who hate blacks (i.e. rednecks).  I think "thought process" would be better.

Just an edit.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 13, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> When I plastered down the criteria, I asked myself the following questions.  What is going help keep this country on the cutting edge?



If you are thinking of us at being at war, then you have to think about how to beat the other guy. I do not think of that first. Trying to raise everybody's boats in the water is somehow counter to the idea that everyone is free to follow their own path. The Amish do not care about America being cutting edge. If you put that as a primary criteria, then you have to marginalize their rights. 

The trap you are falling into is that we are born with the conceit that we know better than anyone else what is good. After all, if what we beleive is not the best, we would change our opinion and path. But everyone else has the same type of beliefs and many of them differ from yours. So by saying that you want to impose your vision of the world in order to imporve it, you disgregard the opinions of others and their right to make their own path. 

You want to make this country cutting edge and would turn the resources that we have towards that goal, even if people have to sacrifice. Well, there are some people who believe that we should not be cutting edge and should instead all spend our time in meditation and prayer for the improvement of the human condition. Who is correct? I know what path I would like to see this country take, but what OBJECTIVE criteria can I provide for it? The monk types, the Taliban types, the greed types, all feel as strongly and can make their case as to why society should be run in their vision. Who has the right to make the decision of where we as a society shall go? The best version I have come up with so far is to limit the impact of others to only those who desire it and just leave everything else alone. No one vision of the future that we all work for, just leaving people alone and let them try to maybe influence each other by educating and debate. If the monk type can convince BUT NOT FORCE the rest of us to spend only the minimum time working for our survival and the rest of the time contemplating reality, then how can you say that your goal of making the country cutting edge should be forced on people?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Questions - what do you think is good? What if we agreed on that? What if we were neighbors and we had the power to work together to make that happen for our families? What if a few more people want to join us and they don't neccessarily agree with everything that we do, but they like the benifits of working together? What if we work our a compromise that allows us to live together and help each other out? Is this a form of democracy? At what point does it get out of control, because that is what I sense the issue is for you. You want to control what you think is good for you and your family.



I have no problem with that as long as people are free to come and leave the group. So if you wanted to form a commune, then as long as you are not holding people at gun point to stay, I do not have ANY say in the matter. The thing is, if we are talking about the goverment of a country, then the whole idea of getting everyone to work together is going to run into problems with people who just want to be left alone, (again- the Amish) and with the idea of who gets to choose just who to determine what the greater good is.



			
				RandomPhantom700  said:
			
		

> These two statements seem, at least to me, to be contradictory. In the first, you describe an absolute right to free speech, and a right not to be harmed or violated by others. These are apparently rules by which the individual wills maintain themselves. But then in the second quote, you say that there are no social responsibilities and that the state consists only of a group of individual wills, and that the enforcement of social responsibilities would lead only to mob rule.



Because what I mean by "social responsibility" is that people somehow OWE society. Acting responsibly in society is close and I can see how you would make the mistake due to the similarity in language and you being up at 2:30. But when I say that the individual has no social responsibility, I mean that he can not be chattel for the state or other gorup of people. They cannot tell them what to do. But he, like everyone else can't violate anyone else. He can't be forced, and he can't force others. The rule applies to all.

Did that make sense?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, one is certainly entitled to an extreme "libertarian," viewpoint, though it is utterly at odds with the Constitution and the body of laws derived form the Constitution over the last 200 years....where, sorry, there really is a social contract, one set of rights really is balanced by another, and there really is stuff like the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.
> 
> There is also the beginning of the damn thing: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal...."



Equal protection under the law. Great. No one can be exempt from the laws. Compare that with the way they used to run things in monarchies where the king could shoot peasents if he wanted, but not vice versa. I can not treat you differently under the law than you can me. The whole thing about social responsibility I was talking about. The rules must apply equally to all. It does not mean that the goverment is supposed to insure that every person is the equal of another in terms of business, eduation, etc, nor set the stage for that.

The Declaration of Independence said that, "all men are created equal." It says nothing about that being the role of the goverment. I have no hereditary right to rule over you. No race of people are created with the devine right of kings. We were created equal. If you read the document, you see that this is the state of being BEFORE the goverment comes along. But of course, someone has to lead. He is not going to be equal to everyone else (except, in the eyes of the law and how he is treated by the legal system) but those nasty colonists decided to choose their leaders by democracy and not worry about bloodlines.

The rest of your post unfortunatley degenerated into more mocking about things like big boobed women rather than anything serious to debate.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 13, 2004)

"All men are created equal". What they do to elevate or debase themselves after their creation is up to them.

What are we saying here, that after death all of a "rich white guys" assets should go to the state so his children have to start out poor and work their way up like good ole dad?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> You'll find such libertarian views beautifully represented in right-wing science fiction: the aliens land, the US gets nuked, whatever, and fer the first time a Man can really be free to be A Man, with his Big Gun a-swinging by his side, and his big-boobed woman  a-snugglin' close. Or, you can read Ayn Rand's nutty (and in part unreadable) novels--I recommend the first one, "We the Living," it's shortest.



  :boing2: 

Hahahaha, this sounds like heaven on earth.  I can see the attraction.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "All men are created equal". What they do to elevate or debase themselves after their creation is up to them.
> 
> What are we saying here, that after death all of a "rich white guys" assets should go to the state so his children have to start out poor and work their way up like good ole dad?



Nope.

When the wealth changes hands, though, it becomes income and needs to be taxed just like any other income.  How else can that person repay their debt to the society that provided them with the chance to inherit that income?  the tax rate needs to be fair though.  It can't suddenly be 50 % of the pile.  Its gotta be the same as any other average working Joe.  

The truth is that the Death Tax, used to exist.  President Bush and the Republican congress abolished this with their giant tax cut package in 2001.  It used to be 2 % of your inheritance.  I pay about 15 % of my income to the federal government and I would expect my children to pay the same amount from any money they made off of me.  This doesn't seem to fair to me.

Abolishing the Death Tax was just another way to shirk social responsability.  

Don Roley

Look, you can accept the libertarian viewpoint of government until you realize that any form of government at all has got to be paid for somehow.  Paying for it, is social responability, in that you pay for the services you recieve.  If there were no such thing as social responability, there would be no government.  So, by its very existance, a government structure and priorities is a measure of social responsability and is forced on people whether they like it or not.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 13, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Because what I mean by "social responsibility" is that people somehow OWE society. Acting responsibly in society is close and I can see how you would make the mistake due to the similarity in language and you being up at 2:30. But when I say that the individual has no social responsibility, I mean that he can not be chattel for the state or other gorup of people. They cannot tell them what to do. But he, like everyone else can't violate anyone else. He can't be forced, and he can't force others. The rule applies to all.
> 
> Did that make sense?


Yeah, I see the difference you're talking about.  You seem to consider social responsibility as an obligation to particular people or classes, and therefore consider it bad, while praising the obligations to the general society, such as the right to free speech and freedom of religion (I'm assuming the religion one, by the way).  

I think so long as you recognize those rights and freedoms as what they are--responsibilities and obligations that the individual does have towards society--then we really have no issue.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 13, 2004)

The, "OBJECTIVE," fact of the matter is that we are born into a complex social system, and while I suppose speaking in the abstract if there's no Big Guy in the Sky there's no absolutely-fixed standards for anything at all, we do in fact owe our lives to social cooperation. I guess I just like to pay my debts.

And if  we are to avoid the kind of fascism advocated by the likes of Ayn Rand (superior people should rule and make all decisions--lesser, little people  should  just shaddap), we pretty much are stuck with social obligations of varying kinds. 

It's all very well to talk theoretically about utopias of one kind or another, but the fact of the matter is, we're pretty much stuck with this world, this society. The attempts to abruptly change all that have not been...encouraging.

The Constitution begins with a general theoretical statement, upon which everything else gets built. That's why the idea of, "equality," appears before any of the rules and regulations: it's the underpinning of the whole damn thing. And so is the idea of, "pursuit of happiness," which means that you should get  to do pretty much what you want with your life.

But while the underlying theory is vital, it simply isn't MORE important than the rest of the document, and its judicial interpretation over time. It doesn't guarantee perfection, it doesn't guarantee that A Few Good Men get to do what they want--it maps out a government that (utilitarian ideas, remember?)  secures the greatest freedom possible for the most people possible.

And it certainly doesn't promise unbridled rights; that's absurd, and would only be vaguely possible if you go live by yourself a zillion miles from anybody else. 

It's all very well to argue that REAL democracy rules out things like slavery. Regrettably, the way democracy was originally defined in this country, states that wanted the institution allowed you every right to own people, to own slaves. That changed--we fought a war about it--because the country decided that one's "individual," rights did NOT include certain kinds of ownership. 

There are innumerable examples of the same thing in our history. Funnily enough, though, these, "rights," that get thrown about on this  thread and elsewhere always seem to include rights like the  right to screw over workers, to blow off environmental regs (and common sense!), to discriminate against whoever you please whenever you please, to flatten everything into a parking lot for one more verdamnt shopping mall. 

These are, profoundly, business and market and corporate rights. They are not except in abstract theory individual rights. The very capitalism you're arguing for rests on the idea of taking something from the individual (their labor, one way or another) and returning in exchange these little pieces of paper and lumps of metal. 

I still note that folks didn't want to tangle with the long, proud tradition of American suspicion of the wealthy, especially those who simply inherited their wealth. One can perhaps respect a real robber baron--they're energetic, "productive," I suppose, and fun to watch--but their descendants? What precisely is  democratic about the notion that because of your accidental birth, and your blood, you're entitled to more than the next kid? That's aristocracy by other names. That's a BIG chunk of the pressure behind our Revolution in the first place.

Sorry, but the going off about the poor, oppressed rich is something I've hard before. And believe me, when folks go off on this one, they sure as hell aren't thinking about some hard-working Asian woman: read Pournelle's novels, for  example, or any of the other sf stuff (John Ringo is good for this, and semi-fun to read) in which a) them liberals is the real Problem, b) the aliens land, c)  the Good Folks step in, opposed by them cowardly liberal, d) the cream--read white guys--rises to the top, e) the Menace (the liberals, that is--they always kinda work things out with the aliens) Is Defeated, f) the New World Order ariseth, g) the big-boobed woman (read Ringo and Pournelle: no, "C" cup need apply) claims Her Man, h) we start a Real Big...space program. 

It's real fun, and I enjoy it, but it's about as politically intelligent as I was running around the house with models, making rocket-and-explosion noises when I was nine. 

The problem is that democracy and capitalism are at odds, and so  are the idea of rights and the reality of social structures. 

Hate to mention a real book, but that's what Freud was talking about in, Civilization and Its Discontents." Which everybody would've read parts of in high school and college, if educators hadn't turned chicken, communities upset by real books  and ideas, and governments obsessed with running schools like businesses.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 13, 2004)

Dear rmcrobertson:

Ignoring any counterarguments I might propose for the time being, I have a simple question, considering the title of this thread.  What do you propose would be a better alternative to capitalism?  Certainly with all these critiques about market values and the wealthy (who are apparently the spawn of Satan, for all the humanity you attribute to them) and the capitalist sytem in general that you are more than willing to rant about, you have at least some suggestions as to how to change it?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 13, 2004)

Socialism would obviously be preferable. 

However, I haven't the faintest how we get there from here--as I already mentioned repeatedly.

And as for your continued misreading of what I wrote about the very wealthy, let me try again: the problem isn't them as individuals (they often behave very badly, but so do the rest of us), it is that their whole position in life depends upon the expropriation of labor, or the exploitation of the natural world, or stock speculation, or their inheritance of acculumated wealth. Therefore, they have a vested interest in maintaining a system in which they have more than anyone else.

The ordinary justification of this is that the wealthy, as a class, "create," value because of their more-intelligent and harder work, or their  greater ingenuity, or their development of new businesses, or their greater spending, etc. etc. While this is a marginally-justifiable argument with, say, a  Richard Branson or a Bill Gates, it  is extremely hard to apply to the likes of Dan Quayle, or our current president, or all sorts of Kennedys and Rockefellers.

What  business did Dan Quayle ever work hard at?  Where's his big invention, his brilliant innovation? When our current Prez was in the Texas oil bidness, what exactly did he do other than take advantage of his family's connections? How  much did he end up  costing Texas taxpayers on things like his sweetheart deal with the Rangers?

And do you really want to argue  that he got into Yale on his own merits? C'mahn--again, if you want to argue for the powerful and moderately well-off ascending on  their own work and talents, you really want to look more at guys like Bill Clinton.

What some of  your arguments are doing is deifying the wealthy and the powerful. I'm simply  arguing something more old-fashioned and realistic: fat cats have set things up so They Get More. 

Which might be OK, except for one thing: that set-up depends on the idea that a helluva lot of people who are  equally talented and equally-hard working get less. I simply refuse to pretend otherwise.

I have no idea how to actually change that--because, it seems to me, that the cures are all worse than the disease. I expect that in fact we'll pretty much blunder more or less forward. 

It is  good to remember, incidentally, that in some significant ways--like dentistry and civil rights--this is a better country than it was when I was a kid.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 13, 2004)

That actually wasn't a bad post - expect for the first line 

Also, lot's o' people got money they didn't earn. But it comes with the territory.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 14, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And if  we are to avoid the kind of fascism advocated by the likes of Ayn Rand (superior people should rule and make all decisions--lesser, little people  should  just shaddap), we pretty much are stuck with social obligations of varying kinds.



You know, I have noticed that you really can't debate a point and have a logical argument. You fall back time and time again on tactics like the above, villifying and misrepresenting those that you disagree with. I bet you that you can not find anything in what she wrote that backs up what you say she does about how superior people should rule and everyone else shut up. You just throw that little bit out there, demonizing those that do not agree with you and then engage in other logical fallicies.

One of your most common ones is demonstrated by the following quote.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, one is certainly entitled to an extreme "libertarian," viewpoint, though it is utterly at odds with the Constitution and the body of laws derived form the Constitution over the last 200 years....where, sorry, there really is a social contract, one set of rights really is balanced by another, and there really is stuff like the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.



Two things about this,

First of all, you are engaging in the logical fallicy of "appeal to authority." The idea that some one source is the only one worth listening to, and you do not have to detail the logic behind the statement. If you said, "I like the 14th amendement because...." and then went on to make your aurgument, then that would be something else. But you throw it out like people who dislike gays point to the bible and say that debate ends there. And I am sure that the MartialTalk members in Sydney are saying, "Why the bloody hell to we have to bow down to what the effing Yank founding fathers had to say?"

Secondly, you are again misrepresenting what the source you point out to says. Of the 14th amendment, the only thing that comes close to what you are talking about is the first section.



> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



Now, tell me where in that is the section that says that all people should have a equal start in life? The states cannot deprive people of their life, liberty or _property_  (Wow- imagine that) without due process. Nor deny anyone equal protection of those laws. So the goverment can't treat blacks by one law and whites another. The same goes for gays, women, JohovaH's witnesses, etc. _Nowhere_ does it say that the goverment should intrude on the private interactions of it's peoples. It says what the goverment _can't do._ Not what it should.

And again, the other arguments laid out by Upnorthkyosa and the like all center around the idea that we are born into this world with some sort of obligation. I reject it, as it means that we are not born free. And I challenge anyone to point out in an objective fashion _exactly_ where and how these debts are made, the agreement we make for the, and how much their value is.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 14, 2004)

I understand that you reject such arguments, Don. 

However, what you're offering is rejection; denial; you may call it, "presentation of the OBJECTIVE conditions," all you like (funnily enough, that's precisely what Stalinists were wont to do), and it will still not suddenly elevate your version into the Received Truth.

The recitation of, "objective," and the foot-stamping insistence that you and only you have a lock on Truth, that you and only you respect other people's individuality, that you and only you...well, you take my point, is precisely why I mentioned Ayn Rand's quasi-fascist books. Sure, sure, I know, if I'd only really read them (I have, except for John Galt's 200+ page incoherent rant in "Atlas Shrugged," which I am convinced nobody has actually read, nor should they), and I'd just stop vilifying--i.e. repeat your approved Party line--I would See the Light.

As for the claim of mere, "appeal to authority," well, axly Don, that would involve an appeal to one authority or text, and an insistence that that Authority be accepted without question. See Vincent Ryan Ruggiero, "Beyond Feelings: A Guide to Critical Thinking," Seventh Edition, Boston: McGraw/Hill, 2004, especially page 121: "A rational appeal to authority says, "Here is what one or more authorites say," and proceeds to shyow why that appeal should be accepted. An irrational appeal to authority says, "Here is what one or more authorities say, accept it unquestioningly."

If you will read what I wrote, you will-or should not that I referred to John Stuart Mill, Jefferson/Hamilton (as having different views on the topic of this thread), the Preamble and 14th Amendment, and the extended history of case law and Supreme Court decisions on the question of equal protection under the law.  

If you will actually read what I wrote, you will find that I typically phrase statements in something other than dogmatic terms; for example, writing of the notion that the rich are rich because they're superior, I say, "this is a marginally-justifiable argument with, say, a Richard Branson or a Bill Gates...{but it} is extremely hard to apply to the likes of Dan Quayle, or our current president, or all sorts of Kennedys and Rockefellers." Then, I ask questions--and if ya don't like me argument, well, provide facts to refute it. 

If you will read what I wrote, furthermore, you will find that all those books I cite (sorry--footnoting's a habit, as it is with most of us scholarly types: that is the way we're trained) represent a pretty borad range of political and intellectual viewpoints. This is hardly the same thing as demanding that everyone accept my version of reality and general theory, and throwing various accusations, slurs and innuendoes at anybody who doesn't agree. Perhaps somewhere Allan Bloom and E.P. Thompson are dancing check to cheek, but I doubt it.

So, Don, don't try to teach your grandma how to suck eggs.

As for Ayn Rand, well, I stand by what I wrote. Her fundamental doctrines, expressed in her goofball novels, revolve around the idea that a Few Men Are Superior (curiously enough, these Few are pretty much explicity Aryan types...imagine MY surprise), the the Masses need to get out of their way, and that All Independent Women are looking to get beat up and raped in a bathroom. 

As for What To Do About Capitalism--pretty much, I think that in these times we're stuck with, "Visualize Whirled Peas," "Practice Random Acts," and "Jesus Is Returning Soon--Everybody Look Busy."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 14, 2004)

I was looking for a choice quote or two--looks like the Objectivists have them all tied up, and I found something better: mockery.

Scope out www.walkingfish.com/objectivism

I particularly recommend, "The Floating Head of Ayn Rand," and the abridged--two pages--version of "Atlas Shrugged."


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 14, 2004)

> As for What To Do About Capitalism--pretty much, I think that in these times we're stuck with, "Visualize Whirled Peas," "Practice Random Acts," and "Jesus Is Returning Soon--Everybody Look Busy."



And don't forget, "Just another slave of the welfare state," "Annoy a liberal, work hard and be happy," "Mel Gibson for Governor," and my all time favorite, "Kick their a$$ and take their gas!"   

I prefer, "That's O.K....I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway," and "It's time for regime change in america," and "annoy a conservative, think for yourself." but that's just because I like to piss everyone off.  :uhyeah:


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 14, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So, Don, don't try to teach your grandma how to suck eggs.



I think people can see my point about how you cannot debate me with facts, logic, etc and depend on these types of attacks and evasions. In fact, looking over the 
list of logical fallicies I am hard pressed to find one you _don't_ employ to try to make your case.

Too bad you can't deal with the matter in a calm, logical fashion. I guess we shall have to end it here. I am going off to learn how to suck eggs.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 14, 2004)

You know, Don, I'm glad you gave that link to the website defining logical fallacies. Because ***** that I am, I went ahead and printed that out, and did a little checking on this thread.


Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author.
	Quite simply put, there is no other system that is more moral than capitalism since none of the other systems respect the individuals right to act or not act and forces some part of the system to act for another part.

Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences.
	That is nature. People starve unless they work.

False Dilemma: two choices are given, when in fact there are three options.
	If they want to produce more than they need they can. They can then use this surplus to exchange things they desire. Are you going to force people to be satisfied with what they have, "for their own good."

Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true.
	No one is forcing you to buy those products or products made in America. The vast mass of people support the companies by buying their product.

Non-support (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased)
	I am going to stop you right there and deal with just this for it seems to be the center around what I hear a lot of arguing going on. It seems that you are not rallying against a way that people interact to exchange goods and services, but against nature and reality itself.

False Analogy: The two objects or events being compared are relatively dissimilar.
	{In response to a suggestion that a fairer distribution of advantages would be good}, No one is forcing you not to give to charity. "Charity begins at home" and I think it would be a great place to start if the people who want those richer than them to give to those with less (which includes them) they shoudl start by cutting back on their own consumption and giving their wealth to people less fortunate.

Whether you are talking about facism or communism, the goverments that have the most lofty talk about helping everyone and the force to take something from one and give it to another has ended up as brutal dictatorships that have killed millions of their own people. The concept itself is unsound. Controlling people instead of merely preventing them from being harmed by others is at it's core evil and has never had a good end. The Soviet Union gave us the word "gulag".


Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy.
	It is human nature for everyone from scam artists to nazi goverments to demonize the future victims and justify their actions against with some sort of justification. So it stands to reason that those who look on the rich with greed and envy would come up with a justification for seizing the product of their labors. Demonzing the rich has become a high art form, but the following with it's psuedo science is truely scary...

In short, people who believe that they should use the product of their labor in a way they choose are violently racist (xenophobic)? Strange how I have managed to be xenophobic while living in Japan all these years and producing two children with a member of a different race.

Recognize the quotes? They can all be found by page three of this thred, which is where I quit.

You might wanna start with a straw.


It would be my argument that the, "objectivist," claim, typically, can only produce logical fallacy of one type or another when closely examined. Fundamentally, capitalism rests--again--on a) an unsubstantiated claim about the nature of Nature; b) a conclusion drawn from that calim as to the nature of Man (I'm using the sexist language deliberately); c) a "moralizing," of nature and biology; for example, it is good to produce, because our nature and Nature more generally are shaped around work; d) an elision of history, and its replacement with a set of idealisms (real people don't matter; the fact of work and misery does not matter; what matters is homo economicus as a productive force, and the ideal world that is always just about to come into being; e) an association of any and all criticism with an attack on decency and Nature in all her manifestations; f) a constant shifting of terms, so that (as was mentioned in "North Dallas Forty," "Whenever we say it's a business, you say it's a game, and whenever we say it's a game, you say it's a business'); g) a replacement of real human relations with the natural world, spirituality, other human beings with notions of production/accumulation/consumption; h) and always, always, the hyperproduction of alibis, excuses and denials.

The very premise of this thread is that capitalism is radically bad for people. I agree--question is, would other things be worse? And an associated question--wouldn't radical change itself likely be a disaster for a helluva lot of people, even if we got where we wanted to go at the end--and there's a logical fallacy, which assumes that it would be possible to build a good world on the backs of the misery of many.

Sad thing is, this whole debate was better handled on all sides by, "The Watchmen."


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 14, 2004)

Yep yep, you're right. I don't want o be classed as a facist nazi like Ayn Rand. After all, you won't support your accusation that she is one, but will stand by it. And if I am on the same side of the argument with her, then I might be called one too. Just like how I tried to take you to task for your mocking tone instead of logical debate, and you pulled up a site where someone on my side also had a mocking tone. Gee, I guess we all are guilty of that and you are justified in responding in kind.

I mean, I am tempted to say that your comment, "Fundamentally, capitalism rests--again--on a) an unsubstantiated claim about the nature of Nature;" is a straw man argument, and that I never made such a claim, nor did many others. But I am sure you can produce all sorts of people that do make that claim. I guess they must be right, the rest of us wrong and we must bow to the correct defenses of capitalism- which of course you can destroy.

I see a lot of that type of stuff, but who am I to doubt you?

So I guess my time here is done.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 14, 2004)

Uh...you never made any claims about Nature? Or rested your arguments upon them?

That is nature. People starve unless they work...It is human nature for everyone....."

Huh? 


Oh. So Rand's best-known books DON'T contain the ideas that a) only a very, very few Superior Men do anything important; b) mostly, the great unwashed masses just get in the way of the Few Superior Men; c) there is a secret cabal of evil men (named stuff like, say, Schwartz) who are trying to keep the Few Superior Men down; d) women exist to validate the Few Superior Men; e) any woman who pretends to be the Superior Man's equal is aching to be beaten bloody and raped on a bathroom floor. Whoops, what am I saying, "contain," they actually tell you/show you this stuff explicitly.

Yes, I suppose I was using a loose definition of fascism, since Rand explicitly rejects a) religion, b) ordinary corporations, unless they're run by a Great Man, c) any obedience to authority. That's her story, anyway.

And Howard Roark is 5'4", has kinky hair and an olive complexion, and descends from Egyptians. 

"And I'm a Chinese jet pilot."


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> f) a constant shifting of terms, so that (as was mentioned in "North Dallas Forty," "Whenever we say it's a business, you say it's a game, and whenever we say it's a game, you say it's a business');



I think this pretty much sums up the reality TV show Survivor.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I mean, I am tempted to say that your comment, "Fundamentally, capitalism rests--again--on a) an unsubstantiated claim about the nature of Nature;" is a straw man argument, and that I never made such a claim, nor did many others. But I am sure you can produce all sorts of people that do make that claim. I guess they must be right, the rest of us wrong and we must bow to the correct defenses of capitalism- which of course you can destroy.



You did make such a claim.  Check pages 1-3.  Anyways, do we really need to reduce this debate to I said this and didn't say this?  That usually means everything that will be said is going to be said.  Not to imply that everything HAS been said on both sides.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 15, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You did make such a claim.  Check pages 1-3.




Well, you are being polite and attempting to engage in a logical conversation. But I do not think my statements of how people who do nothing, no work of any type, tend to starve to death as being a natural law that Capitalism in based on. If I had to look for a natural law that something is based on, then I have to go back to your insistence that there is some sort of social contract that brings us into this world owing something. THAT seems to be a classic case of saying that because this is the way nature/reality is, we must do a certain thing. You may be totally convinced of it, but so were the guys 500 years ago who looked at the wonders of the world and declared that there MUST be a god, and so we should follow the orders of the guys in the funny hats.

They were just as convinced that they were right as you are, they had just as much proof, and they also tended to believe that the guys 500 years before them were idiots for believing the silly ideas that no one did when they were in power. I do not believe there is a power like that, you cannot poke, prod or measure it, and there is no more proof for it than there is for God. Guess what? We were wrong before, we could be wrong now. I dare say, we you probably are wrong. So when people talk about these natural states of affairs that we all owe society, I just see a new group of high priests telling us what is needed.

And until you can prove that such a natural law exists (i.e. hard, cold scientific method) and I owe something to the world, you can not convince me that there is anything we should do in the name of this greater power. We have seen that road time and time again.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 15, 2004)

Again, you are resting your argument upon a logical fallacy--the one, in the material you cited, Don, which is listed under, "Causal Fallacies," as: "Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect."

You've just claimed anyone arguing for a, "social contract," depends upon the notion that such a contract is reflective of underlying natural reality. This is not at all true: such a contract depends upon the idea that human beings do not live in states of nature, that we therefore need some sort of arrangement for our social order, that we make these arrangements ourselves, with the provisos that a) the best arrangements take nature into account, and b) because these arrangements come out of long histories and exist in complex structures, we cannot write whatever kind of society we choose overnight. 

The same fallacy runs throughout a lot of these arguments. Moreover, there's a lot of reasoning by false analogy: for example, looking at present-day and historical reality shows that some people start life with advantages of money and social position, that many did nothing whatsoever to earn those advantages, that many of the best-off contribute nothing, so anybody who notices this must be biased, indeed even (weirdly) just like racists. The problem with this is, of course, that racisms keep certain groups down; social criticism recognizes that our society's professions of, "equal opportunity," are nonsensical, given the fact of capitalism.

There are two fundamental ways to see all thses issues: essentialism, and, "cultural construction." Most of you folks are essentialists: you ground your arguments on one notion or the other of timeless, unchanging, universal solid realities such as Nature, or God, or Archetypal Reality, that are outside history in any form. Problem is, there never quite seems to be any evidence for these things. They are simply a priori categories that allow you to get the argument started--much as in the Constitution, the opening lines about, "self-evident truths," and rights being, "endowed by their Creator," is just a place to get going.

I'm wit' da cultural construction: Marx was right, "Men make history (sorry for the sexist language, but that is what Karl said, and he had Jenny to do the wash and watch the kids), but they do not make it from materials of their own choosing." The world we know is made up of language, history, economies, customs, traditions, and a thousand other things, ALL OF WHICH WE MADE. They reflect, "nature," or whatever more or less well--but we made this stuff. 

The reason we can't easily change capitalism is not that it is grounded in nature, human nature, God's will, timeless moral truths, or any of that stuff. It's because it's a system with a history, that has worked more or less well for quite some time, that is deeply engrained in the way we see reality. And, it's because abrupt changes of social order are dangerous--especially in advanced, complex societies with lots and lots of technology.

I'm not the one who keeps calling on biology and Nature and whatever, Don. I'm not the one who won't pay attention to the way human beings actively make the world. I'm not the one who will not look at reality, or explain it away with a breezy, "Well, in this best of all possible worlds, anybody can be anything, so if they're poor and unhappy it's their own damn fault." 

By the way, the reason I'm bothering with this is that I think this is about the best people like me can do, these days: decode what's going on, and--from time to time--bounce back some of the more obvious issues.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 15, 2004)

*There are two fundamental ways to see all thses issues: essentialism, and, "cultural construction." Most of you folks are essentialists: you ground your arguments on one notion or the other of timeless, unchanging, universal solid realities such as Nature, or God, or Archetypal Reality, that are outside history in any form. Problem is, there never quite seems to be any evidence for these things. They are simply a priori categories that allow you to get the argument started--much as in the Constitution, the opening lines about, "self-evident truths," and rights being, "endowed by their Creator," is just a place to get going.

I'm wit' da cultural construction: Marx was right, "Men make history (sorry for the sexist language, but that is what Karl said, and he had Jenny to do the wash and watch the kids), but they do not make it from materials of their own choosing." The world we know is made up of language, history, economies, customs, traditions, and a thousand other things, ALL OF WHICH WE MADE. They reflect, "nature," or whatever more or less well--but we made this stuff.*

I'm wit' both. I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.

I also notice that extreme manifestations of either position (yes, cultural constructivism, too) are dead ends. And, often end up contradicting themselves. The performative contradiction, y'know.

And, regarding "proof" --- well, there may be more of it than you realize. Of course, it depends on which criterion you establish as a basis for "proof" to begin with (i.e., some only regard externally-observable, sensorimotor phenomena as "proof" --- which, of course, is a hypocritical position, but nonethless...).

Some forms of cultural constructivism are interesting, though. They decry against "essentalism" but their Universal Principles for How Humans Create Realities are essentially the same thing as any Jungian archetype. The performative contradiction, again. Y'know --- kinda like how some people talk about the "privileged position" and how bad it is, but then go around and judge everyone else's philosophy on the basis of their own. How is that not "priviliged"??

Hee. Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 15, 2004)

Nope. You might want to look up a good discussion of the topic--something like Kaja Silverman's "The Subject of Semiotics."

In their clear form, the cultural constructivist arguments insist that nothing about people and the world is a priori--we made it all, one way or another. I must say, too, that I really don't buy these, "at their extremes the one side turns into the other side," arguments.

There is a version of this, I suppose, available in Derrida's, "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences." His argument is that--and this would apply to Marx among others--these, "decentered," theories have a habit of relying upon some unanalyzed category kept "outdie," the structure being analyzed, and therefore beyond analysis--the classic example, for him, would be the idea of what you might call the producing subject, hidden away in Marx.

But the question isn't one of one turning into the other. It's a question of cheating on the analysis.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 15, 2004)

Sorry, Rob, but I don't buy the double-standards.

*In their clear form, the cultural constructivist arguments insist that nothing about people and the world is a priori--we made it all, one way or another.*

And therein lays the performative contradiction.

They claim that nothing about people and the world is a priori --- except for the principles of cultural constructivism. The principles by which they claim we "create" the world are themselves a priori concepts that they use to judge all and sundry by. A performative contradiction.

I mean, your statement that I quoted above if flatly hypocritical --- it claims that nothing is a priori, but then goes on to say that the idea of "we making it one way or another" applies universally. 

The simple, raw truth is that the Universal Principle of Cultural Construction is an a priori archetype by any other name --- which just really means that they have a supposedly universal, timeless principle outside of the constraints of history and time that they use to judge everything by. They're just a tad disingeous for claiming otherwise.

And I don't buy that for a second.

*There is a version of this, I suppose, available in Derrida's, "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences." His argument is that--and this would apply to Marx among others--these, "decentered," theories have a habit of relying upon some unanalyzed category kept "outdie," the structure being analyzed, and therefore beyond analysis--the classic example, for him, would be the idea of what you might call the producing subject, hidden away in Marx.*

Which is all well and good, but the problem is confounded when these guys are just as guilty as the "decentrists" that they indict.

Its basically put this way: there is no principle outside of time and history by which to judge all others EXCEPT for the principle that there is no principle outside of time and history by to which to judge all others. There is no universal archetypal truth by which to view history EXCEPT for the universal archetypal truth that no such archetype exists. There is no privileged view by which to judge all others, EXCEPT for the view that claims this is so. 

Its subtle, its tricky, but its there nonethless. Hypocrisy. The performative contradiction. Call it what you will. Its there.

And, once again, I don't buy that for a second.

But, hey, I'm sure you've got all your sources in order --- the same sources that are guilty of this stuff over and over, that just prove the points above in their own writings. I'm sure Derrida explains how he can indict history's philosophers for having a "privileged position", but never explains why his position isn't just as privileged. I'm sure the constructivists can explain why their own philosophies aren't just "social constructions" subject to the same criteria they indict all others by. I'm sure it is explained why these sentiments of "anti-essentalism" are themselves not essentalistic (since they are making claims for supposedly timeless, universal rules that govern reality).

I'm sure they do all that --- when hell freezes over.

As before, both essentalism and constructivism are true. But partially true, nonetheless. Don't mistake the trees for the forest, man.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 15, 2004)

See trees, see forest, quite well. Stop. Avoid logic-chopping at all costs stop. "Animal House," level heretical discovery that we all are like atoms in a giant hand not helpful in regard stop. You not understand argument stop.

From "Encarta," which basically has it right:

"Derrida's work focuses on language. He contends that the traditional, or metaphysical way of reading makes a number of false assumptions about the nature of texts. A traditional reader believes that language is capable of expressing ideas without changing them, that in the hierarchy of language writing is secondary to speech, and that the author of a text is the source of its meaning. Derrida's deconstructive style of reading subverts these assumptions and challenges the idea that a text has an unchanging, unified meaning. Western culture has tended to assume that speech is a clear and direct way to communicate. Drawing on psychoanalysis and linguistics, Derrida questions this assumption. As a result, the author's intentions in speaking cannot be unconditionally accepted. This multiplies the number of legitimate interpretations of a text. 

Deconstruction shows the multiple layers of meaning at work in language. By deconstructing the works of previous scholars, Derrida attempts to show that language is constantly shifting. Although Derrida's thought is sometimes portrayed by critics as destructive of philosophy, deconstruction can be better understood as showing the unavoidable tensions between the ideals of clarity and coherence that govern philosophy and the inevitable shortcomings that accompany its production."

The whole point is that attempts at asserting one's absolute authority over meaning are inevitably going to fail, WHATEVER that assertion happens to be, because the "origins," of one's attempts are always already elsewehere, and one cannot catch up. This includes the idea that "one," and, "asserting," and every other proposition in what I just wrote represents another failed attempt at complete assertion of authority.

If you want to claim that this locates absolute authority in the denial of absolute authority, be me guest. But that's kind of really, really sophomoric--like sitting around, stoned, and arguing that, like, we could all be atoms in a giant fingernail, and did you ever think about are we a man dreaming he's a butterfly, or...

Yes, there are arrogant deconstruction types. Sure, gosh, college professors can be dicks, never knew that before. Wow. 

The point of citing Derrida, here, was pretty ordinary: it was to point out that one of the difficulties of political change is that the reasons for your assertions, demands, whatever, "slides beneath," your consciousness in the moment you make the assertions, which a) helps open up the buried relations of power (for example, Karl pontificated about capitalism while Jenny washed his shirts, which helps explain why the revolutions guys start are perhaps doomed from before the start), b) serves as a warning to wanna-be revolutionaries (the revolution has an unconscious to which you will never have full access, so watch out, and a little modesty wouldn't hoit).

Even if you had a point, the important thing is to try and locate--in particular rather than general terms--just where the "unconscious," went in the case of Derrida's hypocrisy, and just what the conditions were that sent it there.

These "Gotchas!" simply ain't much....especially when what you are really doing (CATCH that sliding signifier!) is trying to assert the primacy of your own authority over the, "simple, raw truth."

Personally, I'm just trying to assert my authority over slippery words and elusive ideas, and I know damn well that the attempt is doomed.


----------



## StraightRazor (Jun 15, 2004)

WOW what a number of overeducated (and proud of it) blowhards there are here!! Where does an inconsequential little peon (read US Citizen) like me fit into all your grand plans? Apparently if I havent read a buch of books by guys Ive never heard of my opinion dont "mean squat roun hea".


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 15, 2004)

I might suggest that you take a look through this thread and see what actually got said, though I certainly understand how you would've gotten this idea. 

Nothing I wrote is beyond your reach: not the ideas, not the books, none of it. 

In point of fact, I'd argue, the way that ordinary citizens react to books, ideas, etc., is a good sign of the mess we're in. One name for that is, "functional illiteracy:" people can read, so the system can announce that everybody can read; but people don't read, so the system doesn't have to worry about producing any understanding. 

It's not so long ago--when I was a kid, in fact--that while there were a lot of names like, "egghead," around, regular folks wanted their kids to be educated, and valued education when they saw it. It didn't mean kowtowing before every schmuck with a few fancy words and a degree (in fact, part of American beliefs have always included telling rude jokes at such people's expense), because ordinary Americans used to have a lot more well-grounded faith in the power of their own ideas, and even their own wisdom. But that came out of an agrarian society, in which people's values often derived from their work on farms where they could see that what they did and thought mattered; it came out of skilled work, in which people often got screwed but in which they could actually take some justifiable pride; it came out of immigrant experience, which led folks to value education and to fight for it. 

Because of Don Trump and his ilk, that's pretty much evaporated for too many people. And regrettably, the eggheads have helped, by providing intellectual support for crap like the Vietnam War, and ideological support mechanisms for the middle class.

But all this stuff is within your--and pretty much anybody's--reach. If it weren't, I couldn't get cussed out by anonymous posters for being too high-falutin' and elitist and ignert about Real Life, which is pretty damn funny given my background. (There was that time me and Tom Joad was a-walkin' through the dusty roads of West Texas, and...but I digress.) It's too bad, but as I mentioned, it's one of the signs of the mess we're in, that real books, and serious ideas, and honest intellectual discussion--which you used to hear all the time when I was a kid--has been replaced by various forms of warmongering crap. (Is a perfessor allowed to say, "crap?")


Hell, there's people now think Rush Limbaugh, Savage, and the rest of those idiots on, "Crossfire," are intellectuals.


----------



## StraightRazor (Jun 15, 2004)

Soooo.....Does that mean

"by all means son, your opinion is welcome here."
-or-
"By all means you CAN read up on all these topics, then come back and your opinion will be welcome here."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 16, 2004)

Both. And, it means that once upon a time Americans did not automatically take references to a few books, and intellectual complexity, as a reason for either kowtowing or automatic rejection.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 16, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> so anybody who notices this must be biased, indeed even (weirdly) just like racists. The problem with this is, of course, that racisms keep certain groups down; social criticism recognizes that our society's professions of, "equal opportunity," are nonsensical, given the fact of capitalism.


I said hates, not notices.  I said that those who HATE the wealthy simply for having money think the same as those who HATE other races simply for having different skin color.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 16, 2004)

Yes, I know what you wrote. 

And again, it is odd--or would  be, if not for the "backlash," that Naomi Wolf among others discusses, in which men, white men, rich guys, whatever, weirdly somehow become the Real Victims. 

The difference is that the way that being wealthy rests upon the explotiation of others is a historical fact, verifiable in all sorts of ways. The notion that, say, black people are somehow inferior is a racist fantasy, one which has had, unfortunately, all sorts of effects. Similarly, the notion that women are now oppressing men is a fantasy, one with some unhappy effects.

Fantasy...fact. Fact...fantasy. They're different. 

The other point was that despising wealth doesn't have much to do with the individuals involved, except for what sure look like the de-moralizing effects of wealth upon many of the wealthy. It has to do with the fact that many suffer so that a few can become wealthy.

You really must stop echoing these...well, let's just call them, "notions," from the Michael Savages of the world. It's exactly like the argument I had with a neighbor, about eight years ago, who cranked up Zeppelin as loud as he could, about 4 AM on early Thursday morn..when I asked him to turn it down, he cussed me out and told me that I Had Problems, or a little music wouldn't bother me. So I ate his liver, with a big Amarone.

And I miss the days when, at least in books and songs and cartoons, ordinary Americans did not kowtow to the wealthy, or believe fervently that Only Money Mattered, or act blind to where money comes from (when a boy dollar bill loves a commodity very much, he...), or provide excuses for people who look down on them.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 16, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The other point was that despising wealth doesn't have much to do with the individuals involved, except for what sure look like the de-moralizing effects of wealth upon many of the wealthy. It has to do with the fact that many suffer so that a few can become wealthy.
> 
> And I miss the days when, at least in books and songs and cartoons, ordinary Americans did not kowtow to the wealthy, or believe fervently that Only Money Mattered, or act blind to where money comes from (when a boy dollar bill loves a commodity very much, he...), or provide excuses for people who look down on them.


So are you demonizing the entire strata of 'rich' and refusing to recognize the individuals for what they are, individuals?  Heretic made the point about Meritocracy... I think it is a valid one.

I don't know if there has ever been a time in any country that status, either through title or money wasn't pursued, envied or somehow associated with priviledge status. 

What possible solution to the woes do you offer? What would be better than what is according to your perspective?


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 16, 2004)

StraightRazor said:
			
		

> WOW what a number of overeducated (and proud of it) blowhards there are here!! Where does an inconsequential little peon (read US Citizen) like me fit into all your grand plans? Apparently if I havent read a buch of books by guys Ive never heard of my opinion dont "mean squat roun hea".



Hee hee, reminds me of a quote from Poor Richard's almanac,




> A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one.



Ben had a way with words, eh?

And of course, when those learned individuals are deceptive, it gets worse. I point to the fact that Ayn Rand has been accused of promoting Aryan racial ideals and such in her novels. I read them and can tell you that the despcriptions of the contents are very distorted. But of course, if you have not read her stuff for yourself, you have to take someone's word.

Except that a simple internet web search will come up with the fact that this supposed champion of Aryan racial ideals was born Jewish.

Oops!

Of course, I am sure there will be some snappy comeback, some lame explination, maybe even an insincere apology. But this point really is just the part of the iceberg that we can see. Why was Rand brought up in the first place except to demonize anyone that may share the same side of the debate with her? And also to divert the attention of those arguming the same points she might into defending her.

Go ahead and debate Robert if you want. I am sure he has some snappy patter and more of the same of his tactics so far to dish out. But after learning through a few examples that when he says one of his sources says XXX, it may not be even slightly close to that, and all the deceptive tactics and demonizing of those that hold different opinions, I doubt there can be an honest debate. For that, both sides have to be honest and in this case one side has tried to portray an author who would have died in Hitler's gas chambers by saying that the charecters and philosophies in her novels represented Aryan facist ideals.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 16, 2004)

Don,

Tried sending you a PM, your folder is full.  Please contact me via email if you like (accessible via my profile) or PM me when your folder has more room.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 16, 2004)

I think there are many ways of becoming wealthy. So THE way to become wealthy does not always necessitate exploitation. Look at Oprah.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Well, you are being polite and attempting to engage in a logical conversation. But I do not think my statements of how people who do nothing, no work of any type, tend to starve to death as being a natural law that Capitalism in based on. If I had to look for a natural law that something is based on, then I have to go back to your insistence that there is some sort of social contract that brings us into this world owing something. THAT seems to be a classic case of saying that because this is the way nature/reality is, we must do a certain thing. You may be totally convinced of it, but so were the guys 500 years ago who looked at the wonders of the world and declared that there MUST be a god, and so we should follow the orders of the guys in the funny hats.
> 
> They were just as convinced that they were right as you are, they had just as much proof, and they also tended to believe that the guys 500 years before them were idiots for believing the silly ideas that no one did when they were in power. I do not believe there is a power like that, you cannot poke, prod or measure it, and there is no more proof for it than there is for God. Guess what? We were wrong before, we could be wrong now. I dare say, we you probably are wrong. So when people talk about these natural states of affairs that we all owe society, I just see a new group of high priests telling us what is needed.
> 
> And until you can prove that such a natural law exists (i.e. hard, cold scientific method) and I owe something to the world, you can not convince me that there is anything we should do in the name of this greater power. We have seen that road time and time again.



Our understanding of the universe has certainly changed from Aristotle to Gallileo to Einstien.  And the current picture may also be wrong.  But, I need to ask this question, why has it changed?  And to answer it...evidence.  I think your call for evidence is extremely valid and poignant.  If you believe in social responsability, what makes you do so?  Hopefully, by answering this question, we can cull out the high priests...

And now, to the evidence.  Before I lay down anything, I want to know what you expect.  You have stated that you need cold hard scientific method, if this is true, then we won't have any problems.  If this is also true, then you must be prepared to accept evidence that goes contrary to your beliefs.  If you are not prepared to do this, then the entire following paragraph is a waste of time.

First off, I want to refer you to the concept of interactive populations.  When ecologists study these populations, they find it very difficult because there are connections upon connections and small changes sometimes do nothing and sometimes blow up disproportionately.  Humans live in an interactive society, one that is based upon balancing individuality and sociality.  Take a look at the works of some anthropologists like Margaret Mead and you'll find the science behind this statement.  Some people have confused this with the hive mentality (eurosociality) where the individual literally does not exist in a sense and every action is determined by a rigid genetic structure that supports the _whole_.  We, on the other hand, are free to make decisions regardless of our peers.  Yet we, to a certain extent, are unable to completely free ourselves from the consequences of those decisions or other individual's decisons dependent upon those other individuals for our survival.  Therefore our society developed in order to provide a social framework, containing individuality in a net of sociality so that your individual decisions, adaptive or maladaptive, have a dampening effect on the whole.  The rules and the laws of our society all point to this ecologic concept, where every individual is linked loosely, doing their own thing and at the same time helping each other out.  

This argument is a great example of people acting out individually by denying social responsability, but I think that when we turn off our computers and put our kids to sleep we see the contrary.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 16, 2004)

1. I still haven't seen the slightest response to the fact that Ayn Rand's (and just as an aside--why'd she change her name so radically?) novels revolve around the notions that a) only Great Men are important; b) the GMs are opposed by a howling mass of inferior whiners and parasites; c) the GMs are white, white white and the whiners--are the opposite; d) women enjoy being beaten and raped...etc. etc., etc. Still waiting, still waiting to hear how there's nothing Fascist here. I guess it's a lot simpler to attack me personally--and I agree; doing the reading, thinking about what you've read, facts n'  quotes, are a lot harder.

2. I see that, still, ya ain't reading the writing. Or thinking about what you're writing yourself: for example, this, "demonizing the rich," claptrap doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote. It's a simple way out of dealing with the fact of what wealth is, and the methods by which one acquires it. And by the way, arguing that societies always have their  elites hardly helps matters. This is America. They taught me back in Mr. Pritts' sixth grade class, 1963, small-town USA that we're better than that. Why suck up to the wealthy? Why value wealth so much? Where I come from, money  didn't make you better. Back in Bible School, they taught me that Jesus didn't value money. Funny how nobody wants to discuss that little issue.

3. I continue to find it depressing that Americans have got to a point where they no longer value education. It's bad enough, in fact, that apparently when you cite Encarta you become a terminal egghead, a pointy-head intellectual. And again, I see that nobody wants to tangle with the idea that intellectuals--like the wealthy!--are neither to be venerated nor ignored...mainly because the whole system of public education, back when I was a kid in that traditional America we're always hearing so much about, tried to teach kids that they could  be just as knowledgeable as anybody else.

4. I see that as far as this demonizing goes, the very folks busy making such accusations (good thing I didn't discuss Nazis, or I'd get accused of demonizing them, too) cheerfully demonize intellectuals, liberals, and leftists as much as they possibly can. They cheerfully demonize politicians they don't like. But boy, let some fool note that Dan Quayle has never done a lick of work in his life, that the children of the rich don't always deserve their positions, and by gum, it's demonization.  

5. These are some of the reasons that capitalism sucks. 

6. Oh yes. Oprah has made her billion exploiting the loneliness and desperation of badly-educated, unhappy people--like Jerry, and Montel, and Dr. Phil, and all the rest of 'em. And Margaret Mead's observations of Samoa--as good as that book is--were wack.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 16, 2004)

> 6. Oh yes. Oprah has made her billion exploiting the loneliness and desperation of badly-educated, unhappy people--like Jerry, and Montel, and Dr. Phil, and all the rest of 'em. And Margaret Mead's observations of Samoa--as good as that book is--were wack.



There are no victims due to her show. And you'd have a tough time proving (at least to me, maybe not yourself) she produces that show for selfish reasons.

Oh, and what color is she? I thought all this evil capitalism was the work of Rich White Male Heirs?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 16, 2004)

Well, if you don't find the spectacle of a talk show host sucking the tears of some poor family--with the aid of a "psychiatrist," whose primary job is to make sure that the poor bastards keep exposing themselves on the air!--a problem, what can I say? 

However, more interesting is the assertion that she's not doing the show for selfish reasons, perish forbid. I'd have thought that an advocate of capitalism would be all in favor of her making money, first and foremost...

And again, please show me where it was that I wrote that all capitalists were white and male. I simply noted that that's what they usually are, in this country. Do you have facts to the contrary?


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 16, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, if you don't find the spectacle of a talk show host sucking the tears of some poor family--with the aid of a "psychiatrist," whose primary job is to make sure that the poor bastards keep exposing themselves on the air!--a problem, what can I say?



That I might, but you don't describe Oprah.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> However, more interesting is the assertion that she's not doing the show for selfish reasons, perish forbid. I'd have thought that an advocate of capitalism would be all in favor of her making money, first and foremost...



Not every one who makes a lot of money is selfish. Is there a cut-off point where she should say, "Gee, ya know..I think I've made enough. Who else want's to take over now?"



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And again, please show me where it was that I wrote that all capitalists were white and male. I simply noted that that's what they usually are, in this country. Do you have facts to the contrary?



Simply noted? And for what reason I wonder? One needn't look far to find where you mention the rich come from the rich. Whites rule the country by oppressing the blacks, yadda yadda yadda..we today owe them and all the Indians..blah blah blah...(OK I'm stretching it here). And my quote to you was "all evil capitalism".


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2004)

Perhaps its a measure of integration where I can have the wool pulled over my eyes by Condoleeza Rice...a very intelligent and successful black woman.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 17, 2004)

Mike--what you don't seem to get is that in capitalism--the system you are advocating so strongly--there is no point at which one says that enough is enough. And if you don't think that Oprah's show exploits misery--OK, fine, what is that show all about?


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 17, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Mike--what you don't seem to get is that in capitalism--the system you are advocating so strongly--there is no point at which one says that enough is enough. And if you don't think that Oprah's show exploits misery--OK, fine, what is that show all about?



Not only that, but how many "workers" are enslaved to support her lifestyle and show? How many have to kowtow to her, lest they lose their very low paying job? Similarly, how many low-waged bell-hops and maids with no health care or means to support their families work for one of the lovely Trump establishments?

This isn't the fault of Trump or Oprah per say. It is just the system of slaverly that we have created.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 17, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Mike--what you don't seem to get is that in capitalism--the system you are advocating so strongly--there is no point at which one says that enough is enough. And if you don't think that Oprah's show exploits misery--OK, fine, what is that show all about?



Oh gosh - people are going to think I watch it all the time or something....but anyways, I think there have been segments on the good things in life, not just the bad.

As for making enough, the good thing about capitalism is that you can choose to leave it once you do make enough, like my former employer. Sold the company and ka-ching! He's flying around in his own jet now.

Oh - and there are no slaves forced to work here in the US. At least not legally.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 17, 2004)

So flying around in your own jet and pointlessly tearing up the ozone--that's the proper goal of life? 

First off, Mike, what happened to "his,"  company and its workers after he got his and took off?

Second off--again, there's something basic that I can't seem to get across: I never wanted to be a businessman. Yet the values you're espousing are  entirely those of businessmen....who are, basically, telling us that anybody can be a success, just become one of us. 

That's kinda why I mentioned is that the problem with capitalism is that it keeps insisting that business is all there is to life.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 17, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So flying around in your own jet and pointlessly tearing up the ozone--that's the proper goal of life?


No. The point was he made enough money to support himself and get "out" or change spots in the "system." Now he is more of a consumer.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> First off, Mike, what happened to "his,"  company and its workers after he got his and took off?


It was bought by a larger company and some people were laid off. I know, the 'his' quote relates to 'human resources' which is kinda a dirty word in the business sense.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Second off--again, there's something basic that I can't seem to get across: I never wanted to be a businessman. Yet the values you're espousing are  entirely those of businessmen....who are, basically, telling us that anybody can be a success, just become one of us.


Which values? The worker bee can save - granted it will take longer - but still has the opportunity. Not in all jobs, but the type of work you do is dependant on education (among other things I'm sure). A value of capitalism is that you can make enough money to set yourself up for life.

I know where this is leading because next you're going to say that more money should be paid to those worker bees rather than to the top.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> That's kinda why I mentioned is that the problem with capitalism is that it keeps insisting that business is all there is to life.


It's a type of market but there are many more things in life. Night-time programming and advertisements would lead you to believe differently but if you have your values centered on something other than material items you're better off than most.

I'll even add to the list of problems by saying it can keep people pidgeon-holed for life if they do not know ways to move up. But what happened to personal responsibility and why all the blame on capitalism? Is big business keeping people where they are?

Sincerely,


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 17, 2004)

Sorry, Mike, but it won't wash. Re-read your post: he started a business, then became a success--so now, "he's more of a consumer." You didn't mention that he'd started a charity, or become a better man, or devoted himself to martial arts--you said that a) he made money, b) he's now  spending it. That's how capitalism works, for better or for  worse: those are the choices. Anything you want, so long as it's one of these two things.

Further, you tell me that for  him to, "make it," others lost their jobs. Not that they weren't good workers, not that the company went belly-up, none of that: that he sold out, and they got  screwed. I can pretty much guarantee you, furthermore, that he knew perfectly well that this would happen, in advance. I can also pretty much guarantee you that whatever this company did, they will now do it progressively worse and worse, because the Big Guys who bought them out will squeeze as much profit as possible. That's how acquisitions work. 

"A value of capitalism is that you can make enough money to set yourself up in life?" Sure, if you're on top, and you're lucky. The "worker bees?" C'mahn--do they  get set for life? Or even retirement, these days? Just by hard work? One of the differneces between capitalist theory and reality is that the theory says work hard, you get ahead--the reality is, work hard, so the boss can sell the company and fly around in a jet.

"Move up?" That's what, "personal responsibility," means nowadays? Hate to tell ya, but it is  logically impossible for  everybody to "move up," what with corporations and businesses being shaped like pyramids--many, many Indians, a very few chiefs. 

If you have your values centered on something other than the material, Mike, you cannot possibly be a success in the terms you're advocating.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 17, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So flying around in your own jet and pointlessly tearing up the ozone--that's the proper goal of life?
> 
> First off, Mike, what happened to "his," company and its workers after he got his and took off?
> 
> ...


Capitolists pay local property taxes which go toward public education, so the larger/more prosperous the business the more funding toward education.  If they happen to have bought one of those disgustingly extravagant houses that is in the same school district the property tax on that also goes to the school... capitolists have also on occasion to fund scholarships to give kids an extra boost toward education, and made donations to public schools of money/material.... "Carnegie Hall" was named after the famous capitolist and was a way to promote the arts to the masses.  

Carnegie and Rockafeller (at least the wives of these moguls, among others) funded and staffed the original Sunday schools - which weren't really about religion but were a haven from work for kids from families that either needed them to work for food on the table or couldn't afford to get them educated.

It isn't perfect, neither are people, but these are examples of how capitolists have seen that there is more to life than 'money.' But no one can argue that it is a hell of a lot easier to appreciate education/sophistication and the arts/enlightenment on a full belly and no distractions like the bill collectors knocking on the door.....


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 17, 2004)

Axly, bad news. At least in California, property taxes do not fund schools any more. There's a little creep named Howard Jarvis in our history. You might also read recent news articles on how much corporations do NOT pay that they should be paying. 

And while the Carnegies et al did make some of the grants you mentioned, well, a)  they did it as handouts; b) they did it to get better-trained workers; c) they did  it to help keep, "the masses," in line.

Now, "they," do it for tax breaks, and as advertising for the most part.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 17, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sorry, Mike, but it won't wash. Re-read your post: he started a business, then became a success--so now, "he's more of a consumer." You didn't mention that he'd started a charity, or become a better man, or devoted himself to martial arts--you said that a) he made money, b) he's now  spending it. That's how capitalism works, for better or for  worse: those are the choices. Anything you want, so long as it's one of these two things.



I meant he has more money to "consume" with. He puts it back into the system. When he owned the company, more money was going in to him. While at the company he donated thousands to the community. 1) Are you angry that he agreed to sell? 2) Should someone be bound to the workforce until they can no longer perform or reach a predetermined age by the government? 3) Should the new company be forced by some law to keep all the sam people on the force?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Further, you tell me that for  him to, "make it," others lost their jobs. Not that they weren't good workers, not that the company went belly-up, none of that: that he sold out, and they got  screwed. I can pretty much guarantee you, furthermore, that he knew perfectly well that this would happen, in advance. I can also pretty much guarantee you that whatever this company did, they will now do it progressively worse and worse, because the Big Guys who bought them out will squeeze as much profit as possible. That's how acquisitions work.



As the workers knew fully well that when they take a job they are at risk of being redeployed in these types of cases. You just never know when. The jobs being lost were not a necessity for him to make it. It was a choice of the new company. I had only been there 3 months when the aquisition was announced. I'm still there. I wonder why? There are buyouts that are meant solely to get the technology and EVERYONE is sent packin, but that wasn't the case here.




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "A value of capitalism is that you can make enough money to set yourself up in life?" Sure, if you're on top, and you're lucky. The "worker bees?" C'mahn--do they  get set for life? Or even retirement, these days? Just by hard work? One of the differneces between capitalist theory and reality is that the theory says work hard, you get ahead--the reality is, work hard, so the boss can sell the company and fly around in a jet.




For a small percentage. When the company sells, their shares vest..I'm know some who made out pretty well on it. Take your skills to the next place. It's impersonal, but that's competition. He didn't need to sell the company to fly around. He could a just as well quit. Worker bees work hard, but what is their overall contribution? Not all roles are equal. Education is what is of value and if the company can use you you get more. If you sweep floors you are more easily replaceable vs. if you mange network security. (Although those guys are gettin cheaper now too, hehe)

You get paid according to your abilities and what the work is worth. Sorry if you get less, but it takes longer to save for retirement. The guy with the million dollar idea doesn't need to work as long does he?

You seem to think all bosses aint worth their paychecks.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "Move up?" That's what, "personal responsibility," means nowadays? Hate to tell ya, but it is  logically impossible for  everybody to "move up," what with corporations and businesses being shaped like pyramids--many, many Indians, a very few chiefs.



What other shape should their be? Honestly? But you're right, you move up to a role that fits your skills or education. We don't all have the same skills. That's why the skilled go up. Someone's always gonna be at the top, and someone at the bottom. We ain't all equal after 21.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> If you have your values centered on something other than the material, Mike, you cannot possibly be a success in the terms you're advocating.



Sure. Agreed. But I aint advocatin nuttin. Success in life is not only being rich. Just succes in capitalism. Is capitalism all that there is in our lives? Does it control us?

I aspire to be a successful teacher someday. Sure there is money needed for the dojo rent so I stay open but if that's all I make and I turn out good students, I think I'm successfull. Not in terms of money of course but that is not all that matters.

But they are buying a good or service from me. Hey, capitalism, on a smaller scale. But I'll never sell.

Anyways, tell me what you're drivin at here. I sense you dislike some things about capitalism. Maybe all of 'em. Is it bombing out because we are all inherently sinners and need something government enforced with less freedoms to keep us in line?


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 18, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And while the Carnegies et al did make some of the grants you mentioned, well, a) they did it as handouts; b) they did it to get better-trained workers; c) they did it to help keep, "the masses," in line.
> 
> Now, "they," do it for tax breaks, and as advertising for the most part.


And I suppose Rockafeller or one of the major moguls who was a rags to riches story handed out silver dollars to kids on the street NOT because that is exactly what he started with and was, in his mind, giving someone inspiration/support to be self made...themselves (that was clumsy).

With the tone of your rhetoric, What would you do as you dolled out the keys to your intellectual kingdom?  Who would hold those keys and who would decides what it costs to "Be like you" in the pursuit of your "Cultural currency?"

I am pretty sure that the Ivy league educations that the later generations of these families are encouraged to get is because the Carnegies, Kennedys and others have no respect for education.....  are we now going to discuss the privatization of Universities and Colleges?  The corruption within Educational funding in higher institutions.... but that would include you as either the benificiary of said evil, or a perpetrator of innocent "intellectual newbies."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 18, 2004)

Dear Balder or Heimdal or whatever:

In reverse order.

a) We ARE moving toward privatizing universities and colleges. That's part of the reason they're getting so expensive. That's also why our  government keeps  chopping loan programs, taxing tuition rebates, etc. Two-tier educational system, dude.

b) If you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd note that again  and again and again I've written something that boils down to: education should be free and accessible to everyone. My ***** is that it's not.

c)  Why, you're right. Rich people like Trump LOVE us. Yassuh, massa. There's no ego involved in their charities (of course, once upon a time Americans thought that self-sufficiency and earning their way was preferable to handouts); no tax breaks; no reinforcement of their ideological position. None whatsoever. 

Oh, and incidentally--other than your own prejudice and the crap that comes from the Michael Savages of the world, what exactly are you using for evidence that I plan on becoming some sort of Intellectual Czar in the New World Order? Sorry, I've no interest whatsoever in becoming the guy who, "dolled out the keys to your intellectual kingdom," which would bore me to tears.


----------

