This is a reply to Kapkao thread "Why Socialism fails"
Posted on: July 24, 2010 - 4:53am
Offline
This is a reply to Kapkao thread "Why Socialism fails"
Why Socialism ? by Albert Einstein at http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm , I'm going to try to post the piece here - forget it,it don't work.
Signature ? How ?
- Login to post comments
"Human-animals have strange ways"
"Stable society" is irrelevant, if the human-animals involved do not wish their society to be stable.
I owe you nothing; you owe me nothing. We are not in debt to each other simply for existing.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
If we're going to have a planned economy, shouldn't we also have planned pregnancies and planned families?
What is ridiculous about the current socialist movement is that all problems are to be solved with higher taxes on whoever has money. If we're going to force corporations to behave 'responsible' why not force the Octomom to be responsible as well? We're all supposed to be responsible to one another, why is this only limited to paying taxes?
Answer: it's not a cooperative society where we are responsible to one another that the 'socialist' left wants, it something for nothing that they want. That is why they don't want welfare tied to mandatory job training and birth control.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
This is, perhaps, why leftism in general falls flat on it's face. (Not just socialism)
It has devolved into "Anti-rich" politics, plus the faltering ailment of "Social justice".
Social justice is a farce.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Of course, the propaganda against socialism helps to keep it from ever being examined rationally as well.
Just remember, any time you throw the words 'money', 'currency', 'rich', or 'poor' into your argument then you fail to address anything other than your own projections onto the concept.
It's ok. It isn't your fault. It's conditioning. However, I think the Joneses next door have more conditioning than you do. So you better hurry and keep up with them.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
socialism has been examined rationally, just gotta read the right people
Propaganda? More like "cop-out". I see quite a few dismissive/overly simplistic remarks in your post. You believe the economy is best placed in the hands of government and/or "community"; fine, that's your... belief. But that's all it is.
As for "conditioning", I chose my beliefs myself. What you suggest, is little more than an intellectual crutch and a bit of snarky finger-pointing. And there's plenty of 'crutches' to go around when it comes to the laughable notions of other atheists (besides myself).
A singular example of a government/community running an economy efficiently might help in your so-called "rational examination", however.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
He isn't going to get it. All he has are generic dismissals and personal attacks. Nothing else...
Although I will admit, he does at least attempt to reframe the argument in his favor, like many other socialists at RRS have.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Question to all Americans: When you say 'socialism', do you mean "Marx, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Evil" or Sweden?
I even found this b.s.:
"Private companies can never be incorporated within a socialist state. " Someone really missed China on the world map.
I think that there is a huge misconception and a VERY narrow treatment of term 'socialism' in the US media. 'Rightists' use 'socialism' as a scarecrow and a synonym for 'evil'; and 'leftists' are afraid to use it altogether.
Do you really think that bus/taxi drivers are dumb and/or lazy so much that they could not possibly become Wall St. brokers? Do you really think that Manhattan can operate without taxi drivers? So, both brokers and drivers are instrumentally important for the success of each other. So, what is social justification for an average $800,000 annual bonus for one group and not for another? Is it possible to consider the US the richest country when it has so many poor and hungry children? Capitalism, stupid.
Ha!
1) Not "anti-rich", but "anti-poor". Modern economy based on slavery is not sustainable.
2) Social justice is NOT a farce. ... well, it's a farce in the US, but who cares, right?
BTW,
do you know any better and more comprehensive modern philosophy than "dialectical materialism"????
*skims and scrolls*
If 100% were the only verbal opposition I face, I could easily snooze on it and calmly remark "remind me to care later". Then again, neither you nor Josh have offered anything of substance to rebuke my view on the subject.
Philosophy, as Bobspence astutely noted in another thread (where I incompetently attempted to provoke him by using Immanuel Kant), is still just someone else's opinion. So the best you have so far is a few quips of no particular value whatsoever. State-enforced charity is still... state-enforced charity.
Ken G. at least posted a link to Einstein's view on the subject, so by doing that, he has at the very least made some sort of contribution on the subject.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Kapkao,
I have no intension to argue with you especially since you do not seem to have personal opinion on the subject.... it's like talking to the hand.
If, in answering my question, the best you could generate is "state-enforced charity" ... it's ok, thank you very much, it is much better than many of your co-"patriots" could born out. It's not original and too trivial to discuss [your "state-enforced charity" is the foundation of any (perhaps true even for pre-historical ages) society, so can you show me an example of the opposite - a society that is functional and sustainable without any form of what you call "state-enforced charity"] , ... so let's move on to the next one.
100%
P.S.: Also, I am curious, what part of dialectical materialism is in odds with Kapkao's perception of life? Seriously, if you are an atheist, you are a materialist by def. If so, then what's wrong with Marx's theory? It works pretty well as we can learn from the collapse of the USSR. Democracy would never work if Marx were wrong and Kapkao with his anti "state-enforced charity" pseudo patriotism were right.
Signature ? How ?
Why can't America hve socialism. Because our history is rank with what is best for ME! wanted freedom of religion,or from the esignated church. Take land from somewhere else. Those indian people have nice land, take that. I can take money from these people claim a huge loss and go bankrpt, ad i still don't owe them anything!
No one wants to admit that there is not a single profession that is truly nationalistic, that will put the welfare of the nations first. even the civil servents are out for themselves, they don't do it for the morality or to improve the nation.
I'm glad that I'm alive today, I'm hopeing I die before the world wakes up and realizes that we all can't have 3-8 kids. it takes two to have a kid, then two kids it is. if you can't have one, find someone that will for you.
Even Russian hedgehog understands this. I like the idea of Burnie Madoff as the first american capitalist.
Indeed, watching Madoff's story, one should realize that there are "we the people" and "they ... not people?"
Also, I can't wait to see what will happen when all illegal immigrants are moves out of country altogether. Maybe the minimum wage should be lowered not increased .....
I'll take Shadowman's pov on socialism: like salad dressing, it has it's uses (imo, namely "safety nets" for members of the population who fall on harsh times through no fault of their own)
Philosophy=inefficient means of expression. It's still just someone's pov on life. (As Bob Spence so astutely pointed out)
When in doubt, go straight for the dictionary
Errrrrr.... ok? Remind me to care later on...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Oh! So it is about class-warfare, despite DarthJosh's meaningless finger-pointing and inane dismissals of the subject.
DJ was correct in that there is a lot of propaganda against socialism. But that is all he has in favor of his... post. There's a lot propaganda in favor of "social justice" that I'm not inclined to give a shit about anytime soon.
Ken, since you linked a piece to Einstein, let me refer you to something else he said...
Not so hard to understand on the basis of "Let's make a big, hierarchical government."
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
By definition, we could call the US communist as there is a very large visible governmental hand attempting to control the economy - the Federal Reserve Board. And they haven't been doing a very good job of it recently. The US is NOT socialist for the not so wealthy people and small businesses - especially after all the forced reductions in federal assistance in the last 30 years. The US IS socialist for big business.
Kap and EXC and some others are against "free handouts" but I know very few people who haven't worked hard a good portion of their lives who are getting these freebies. And they have more than paid their fair share of taxes at one point or another. Are there some who are getting a free ride? Yes, but I believe they are in the minority.
My mom was a case in point. At age 61 - geeze, not all that much older than I am now - how time flies - she was given full social security but not SSI. She couldn't work due to her heart condition. The cure would have been a total heart transplant and she didn't want one and no one else wanted to pay for one. She had worked as a bookkeeper since the age of 12 in the family business. No savings, as all her spare change went for health care. And then she spent the last few years in assisted living and nursing homes - paid for by Medicare. We - the family - could not have paid for her stay in these facilities. One month charges was more than I made in a month and I had the highest income of anyone in our family at that time. Without that assistance, I have no idea what we as a family would have been able to do.
So how do you determine who needs help due to circumstances beyond their control and who is just goofing off? Are you going to personally inspect each and every family that applies for assistance? There are accounting controls in place and the understaffed agencies do the best they can with the workforce they have. If you want more oversight, you have to pay more people to do the oversight. Demanding auditing without increasing payroll for auditors is just nuts.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Something for everyone in this article:
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/the-u.s.-middle-class-is-being-wiped-out-here%27s-the-stats-to-prove-it-520657.html?tickers=^DJI,^GSPC,SPY,MCD,WMT,XRT,DIA
The Middle Class in America Is Radically Shrinking. Here Are the Stats to Prove it
Posted Jul 15, 2010 02:25pm EDT by Michael Snyder in Recession
From The Business Insider
Editor's note: Michael Snyder is editor of theeconomiccollapseblog.com
The 22 statistics detailed here prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.
So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and "free trade" that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn't tell us that the "global economy" would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough.
Here are the statistics to prove it:
• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.
Giant Sucking Sound
The reality is that no matter how smart, how strong, how educated or how hard working American workers are, they just cannot compete with people who are desperate to put in 10 to 12 hour days at less than a dollar an hour on the other side of the world. After all, what corporation in their right mind is going to pay an American worker 10 times more (plus benefits) to do the same job? The world is fundamentally changing. Wealth and power are rapidly becoming concentrated at the top and the big global corporations are making massive amounts of money. Meanwhile, the American middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence as U.S. workers are slowly being merged into the new "global" labor pool.
What do most Americans have to offer in the marketplace other than their labor? Not much. The truth is that most Americans are absolutely dependent on someone else giving them a job. But today, U.S. workers are "less attractive" than ever. Compared to the rest of the world, American workers are extremely expensive, and the government keeps passing more rules and regulations seemingly on a monthly basis that makes it even more difficult to conduct business in the United States.
So corporations are moving operations out of the U.S. at breathtaking speed. Since the U.S. government does not penalize them for doing so, there really is no incentive for them to stay.
What has developed is a situation where the people at the top are doing quite well, while most Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to make it. There are now about six unemployed Americans for every new job opening in the United States, and the number of "chronically unemployed" is absolutely soaring. There simply are not nearly enough jobs for everyone.
Many of those who are able to get jobs are finding that they are making less money than they used to. In fact, an increasingly large percentage of Americans are working at low wage retail and service jobs.
But you can't raise a family on what you make flipping burgers at McDonald's or on what you bring in from greeting customers down at the local Wal-Mart.
The truth is that the middle class in America is dying -- and once it is gone it will be incredibly difficult to rebuild.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I think that he said that to a reporter,that was asking him about his mathematical skills.He did not keep records,as he once said that it would complicate his life.He was not against paying taxes,he thought that everyone should pay their taxes, he once said that civilization must be funded,we should not begrudge our share. He had a problem with the system (people that knew him said that he was against the way our tax dollars funded WARS ) he did not think that our taxes was used properly,he believed that taxes should be used to help people,after all he was a peace advocate.And one of his most famous quotes is "Everything should be made as simple as possible,but not simpler"and he also (allegedly)said "Not everything that counts can be counted,and not everything that can be counted counts." He also said that "Force always attracts men of low morality." I think that he was talking about tax auditors.For such a famous and important man he had little use for money or material things,he did not amass great wealth,even though he could have.
Signature ? How ?
Signature ? How ?
You have trouble reading?
In Europe, the welfare rats are more than visible. Europe doesn't care if you work or not; if you're a citizen of Northern or Western Europe, you get stuff for free.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I wouldn't mind seeing citations for most of the 'facts' you are asserting here...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Of course not. I'm asking just how do you propose to ensure it is only those who are there through no fault of their own. What more controls do you need in place to feel comfortable that any contributions you may make through taxes or fees are only going to those you feel deserve it?
You and I get stuff for "free" all the time. I just checked a half dozen books from the library this afternoon. I didn't have to pay for the library card or the books. I drove to the library on roads I did not pay for. I don't currently have food stamps, but I may have to go apply in a few weeks and I won't pay for them either. When I went to college, my tuition was subsidized by other people, I didn't pay the actual cost as I went to a state university, not a private one. At that point in my life, I had not contributed as much as I benefited.
Your glass is half empty - mine is half full.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Globalization generally sucks, and is little more than "lowest common denominator" thinking. As I recall, the early USA dealt with it by extensive tariffs on foreign-made goods. (edit; that is, they did so after the revolutionary war to encourage local economic growth)
However, the personal bias of
is so strong I can smell it from "The other side of the world". Seriously, there's a reason why blogs are seen as "The Weekly World newses" of the internet.
And since this thread is now devolving into support for Noam Chomsky -one of the most visible apologists for THE most brutal regimes on the planet, including Polpot's Khmer Rouge-,I now declare this thread moot.'bye.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I was posting in this thread because it had my name on it. Literally, of course. I now realize that I'm not as nearly inclined or, even, equipped to debate the issue as others.... might be on the subject of economics. People have their viewpoints; I'm fairly set and slated in mine.
Yes, you and I pay our fair share every time we pay property taxes, income taxes, and sales taxes. "Got things for free" is a joke, based on those examples.
The golden rule of economics - "There is no such thing as a free lunch".
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Of course not. Not for you or me or the lazy bums on welfare whether they are in the US, Canada, Britain, Scandinavia, France, etc. I view it as paying my fair share every time I look at my mortgage statement with the escrow account for taxes and insurance. Every time I look at my unemployment check with federal and state income taxes subtracted from it. Vehicle taxes and fees, gas taxes, we don't pay sales tax in Oregon but there are plenty of others. I have lived elsewhere - Washington state has no income tax but it has sales tax and a business operating tax, and Arizona has it all. Funny how businesses continue to start up and employ people regardless of how much tax the particular state and feds levy on business. Funny too, how the large corporations manage to pay the minimum tax while the little franchises and independent businesses pay the maximum.
All I want is for the big corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share. They use the roads and libraries, too. I realize "fair share" is ambiguous and we could argue over what that means for a very long time. So I will give an example. When Portland General Electric was owned by Enron - before Enron went bust - they collected over $1,000,000 from the rate payers in order to pay state taxes during a fiscal year. They then turned around and paid the minimum amount of corporate tax to the state - $10. Perfectly legal at the time. The state law has since been changed - if you collect money from the rate payers for state taxes, you must either pay the state taxes of the amount collected or pay it back to the rate payers. This is an example of the kinds of laws that need to be changed. PGE is not the only corp getting away with similar loopholes. If all such loopholes were closed, we wouldn't need to raise taxes on those who have no convenient loopholes to avoid paying taxes.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Yes. I was/am dismissive of discussions concerning socialism on this website.
Thanks for noticing that my observation concerning anti-socialist propaganda was correct.
Primarily, it is due to the fact that emotions cloud the judgments of the respective participants in each and every one of these 'type' threads.
Secondary, it boggles the mind that people will renounce the idea that they are conditioned to capitalism and in the same breath spew forth every disgusting epithet toward the ideology of socialism that I've heard from other capitalists. Many haven't taken the time to remove their own situations from the context of the argument.
I see the same pattern in so many things that in some cases, I just throw up the hands and walk the other way.
I draw the line at religion. I won't walk away from the religious, but I can let discussions like this one...
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Besides the propaganda angle, I almost mirror this attitude word-for-word. Politics is almost exclusively decided on the basis of sentiment and personal opinion, with reason taking a back-seat to intrigue, manipulation, histrionics, and propaganda (as you so mentioned).
I renounce it, because everything I've been conditioned to amounts to "leftist, bleeding heart theism" -at least, before the 21st century, and access to other ideologies on the internet became prevalent. I chose being an evil right-winger atheist of my own volition.
Granted I was an atheist already in late spring of 1994, despite the histrionic protests of dad shouting "THAT'S WHAT COMMUNISTS THINK!"
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Good question. I could support 'socialism' if it meant a rational social contract between all members of society. In it current form only people that can pay taxes are required to be responsible by paying ever increasing higher rates so others don't have to contribute.
Some yes, some no. Wall street is set up like an old boys club to protect it's members from competition. It needs to be democratized.
Yes people can walk or take subway/bus.
Why don't women fuck the guy with the $800K bonuses instead of the taxi driver? That would solve the problem, right?
When we see people risking their lives to leave capitalist counties and live in socialist states, I'll agree with you. There is nothing wrong with the basic concept of the free market rewarding work and innovation. The current system does not do this, it only provides welfare for the rich and powerful.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Of course, I am exaggerating. However, those who fuck $800K peers are not necessarily in control of birth prevention.
Second, I think many would like to go to socialist countries like Sweden and Norway, but I strongly doubt that anyone in those countries would welcome newcomers.
The good ole' U.S. of A. is the first and formost country of destination for all immegrants. No matter how much their county of origen, ethnic group, or political persuasion tells them that America is the "Great Satan" {it means temptation from allah} They and all other immegrants will opt for "America" the land of the free. Up untill they realize that they are not expected to keep ALL of their ethnic habits, i.e. female circumcision, honor killings, etc................
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Is this (honor killings etc.) a real issue in the U.S.?
No they are not. But there are a lot of immegrants who wish it were. Most immegrants realize there is a deffinate change when you come to a new country. The old ways must stay in the old country. Yet there are still others who can not adapt to the 'new ways '.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Signature ? How ?
You and your family are stranded on a island. With your wits and after months of physical labor, you and your loved ones have established a home with plenty of food and all of life's necessities. Along comes a stranger with a family who are similarly stranded. You can do one of 3 things. You could be charitable and make the personal choice of sharing your goods with the newcomer family. Or you could tell the family to take a hike and go to another part of the island and work hard like you did. Or you could listen to Jacob (forgive this injection of theistic nonsense but bear with it) who tells you that you have to follow his orders and give up your goods to this newly stranded family.
I think that Kap and EXC would be particularly critical of the third scenerio which seems to embody much of socialist ideology. I think all of us would likely be charitable unless the new family are dirtbags. But why should we be forced to be charitable?
Tit for Tat is the winning strategy. What you have described is similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma which was won by the Tit for Tat strategy. Two rules: 1st move - cooperate. 2nd move - do what the other party does.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/tittat/story.htm
You don't know if the new family are dirtbags until after you have made at least one move. If you start out by not cooperating, you will lose in the end.
Now, should you be forced to cooperate? Yes, or get the hell off the island. Fine, you worked hard. But with two families cooperating, you can work harder. Grow more, hunt more, repel more predators, build more. By not cooperating, you are throwing away the chance of making it big time. It's why survivalists will not make past the first or second generation. You can not perpetuate the species one family at a time. It has to be a larger group than that.
Is this the same in a over crowded world instead of a desert island? Yes, and no. There are enough humans that the species will survive without you. But why anyone should put up with your whiny asses I don't have a clue. Pull your weight, give a hand and a buck or two, or go live on a desert island without internet access where I don't have to listen to you gripe.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Signature ? How ?
From a personal perspective, the ONLY thing wrong with the modern advocacy of socialism is the preponderance of ne'er-do-wells whom espouse it. The loudest voices screech from the ranks of public housing dwellings by welfare and disability recipients. I assure you that they are not the only 'dogs in this hunt'. Certainly, one can see that they will be the first to 'suffer' since they would have to actually begin lifting their fingers for themselves.
Unfortunately, the modern proletariat is far too busy working to bring about a true revolution. But it is whispered in the lounge areas of the factories, in the booths of Waffle Houses, and all the places neo-cons and neo-progressives dare not to tread.
Of course, if the capitalists wish to continue shedding employees in favor of profit margins then we may yet reach that glorious metaphorical tipping point. lol. Time will tell.
That's my thought process. Scary, isn't it. The thought that you may actually have to learn and perform the mundane tasks done for you every day by those denigrated by you as lesser human beings, the 'working class'. And no amount of your precious PMS357 Green inked paper will convince someone to do it for you.
My smile is one of sadistic glee.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
So part of your wealth came from the sweat of your brow. But part of it also came by appropriating the land, water and other resources. You claim this as your property even though you did no work or risk to create it.
You could just have sat on the land, rented it out to others, then sold it later at a higher price. Done no work and got rich.
This is where the socialist are correct, we do have a flawed system that enables wealth without work. So the current rules for capitalism are not a meritocracy.
Since no one agrees to limit family size in this scenario, current and all succeeding generations are competing for access to the land(Israel/Palestine), and to spread their seed. It is inevitable that there will be war, terrorism, poverty and starvation as means to limit population growth. Religion and racism will be tools to win the battle.
One group demands special rights of land ownership, the others demand special welfare rights. Who wins is who wages war the best.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Unskilled service job employees and people working in industry pose the greatest threat to my political ideology?
I still have nothing to worry about...
edit:I thought I might add
When you have something of substance to put, then this ridiculous thread might continue on a more meaningful path. Anecdotal evidence, asinine prophecy, supposed thoughts of having some sort of "duty" to the rest of the human race, meaningless drivel about class warfare, authors and public speakers I can't be bothered to give a damn about any day of the week, and a hefty serving of hypocrisy from none other than yourself:
So, it isn't about class warfare, but then it is...
...funny.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
This has been bugging me. I guess I need the bug spray.
I posted that article because I thought it was an interesting juxtaposition of a number of statistics. Granted, the author picked statistics that supported his point. We all do the same.
I had some unspoken questions about the article and was hoping someone would pick up on it. Apparently not. But here they are explicitly, and the "you" does not mean to imply "Kapkao". Maybe the discussion needs its own thread, maybe no one is interested.
Are these numbers accurate? Do you have another set of numbers that support idea of the middle class expanding instead of contracting? How do these statistics fit your your world view of economics? What do you think is the cause(s)? Do you agree with the author's conclusion that if the middle class in the US disappears it will be very difficult to return to having a strong middle class?
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Moar bugspray, please!
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Only totalitarian ideologies (eg. religion) are stupid.
For socialism to optimally work, it requires a social contract between a truly benevolent government and good natured people who truly care for each other. This trust is found mainly among the Scandinavian countries wherein the masses do not exploit the system and willingly accept high taxes for universal healthcare, education, retirement, etc......In the United States, the masses trust only God and not each other. I have no illusion, hopes or dreams that the United States will evolve into a socialist Star Trek-like United Federation.
And honestly, if a welfare system does take shape in the US, one can only hope that such a system will not serve the interests of pathetic dimwited breeding factories like Jon and Kate Gosselin.
Signature ? How ?
I'm not the individual that said it wasn't about class warfare. Replies must be running together for you. It is just one piece of it though. One you seem happy to focus upon. Declaring that it is solely class warfare is about as narrow-minded as saying the civil war was solely states rights.
Unfortunately, the definition of 'working class' has been bastardized by the majority on all sides of the debate. So, it is class warfare just not between two classes. There are more sides to the argument.
Socialists like me have a deep disdain for the 'able to work, but unemployed whom are happy to receive welfare and/or disability.'
There is a piece of this discussion you seem loathe to remove your own interests from and that is that compassion is not a valid part of the argument. Simply declaring that 'you' don't view that as a valid reason isn't enough of an argument to dissuade proponents from using it.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Signature ? How ?
Except that you said...
So, either you're projecting on the "argument", or you're projecting on to the argument.
To me, frankly, it distinctly appears that every time you click on "new reply" in this thread, you shift the goalposts of this discussion around just enough to satisfy your own sentiments in political debate. How droll...
(Of course, it's also droll that I keep coming back to this thread even though I said I was done with it about 15 posts ago...
)
Thanks. This statement now officially goes both ways since, of course, consistency doesn't appear to be one of your innate talents.
And now this thread has further devolved into partisan politics with the above post. Cute...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Altruism is dead, old fart. Welcome to the "me-me-ME" generation.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Stingy indeed. But so are American "liberal" and "socalist" politicians. Why? Cause the majority don't really want social democracy. Collectively, Americans should be willing to pay 50 to 75% of their income towards taxes for retirement, healthcare and education. Wake up and realize that our so called left wing politicians are nothing more than champagne socialists and limousine liberals. They really don't give a tinkers tit about the plight of the working class as they sat back farting in their Avenue Six easy chairs, smoking cigars, drinking Chardonnay while the democrats bailed out the banks. Chomsky rightly addressed this in his views regarding the Tea Party protesters and the failure of leftwing activist and social justice movements:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2zYaKXeyXE
And BTW, whether you agree or disagree with Ayn Rand, because of her hardcore atheism, I can almost bet that most Republicans have no love for her.