Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Decker on April 09, 2008, 07:13:42 PM
-
Normally I don't post unedited material.
"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."
Why Socialism?
By Albert Einstein
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.
Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has -- as is well known -- been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.
Second, socialism is directed toward a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and -- if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous -- are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half-unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supranational organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"
I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?
It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society -- in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence -- that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished -- just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human beings which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.
Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time -- which, looking back, seems so idyllic -- is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor -- not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production -- that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods -- may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production -- although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. In so far as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present-day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
-
Always good to hear from Einstein. I just scanned the article... seemed like a lot of good sense in there.
-
Good article. I believe that greed drives capitialism and that it destroys itself, eventually leading to a few Hoarding from the money. Then a mutiny will occur and chaos.
Socialism some believe,.. means that man settles for mediocrity, that he must strive for his betterment. However that just creates class division among the people leading to capitialist thinking.
True socialism would be a mutual agreement to help your fellowman while he helps you. Neither gains more to judge eachother and divide. I help you build your home and we eat meals for free. You help me build my home and the meals are free. At the end of the day we are satisfied for hard work and its soul building effects. We set goals and work to accomplish them.
Notice this does not mean handouts to the lazy...everyone can contribute something to a project.
LOL... Im a hippie now. ;D
-
Stalin would agree that Socialism works :)
-
True socialism would be a mutual agreement to help your fellowman while he helps you. Neither gains more to judge eachother and divide. I help you build your home and we eat meals for free. You help me build my home and the meals are free. At the end of the day we are satisfied for hard work and its soul building effects. We set goals and work to accomplish them.
Unfortunatly the world you describe here will only exist in Star Trek episodes.
-
Unfortunatly the world you describe here will only exist in Star Trek episodes.
Yay socialist utopia. ::)
-
I am convinced that the path to a new, better and possible world is not capitalism, the path is socialism. capitalism leads us straight to hell.
-
One of the concepts of Socialism is the idea that money, power and health care should be granted to everyone, including people who don't pull their own weight or do their fair share of the work. That's just plain wrong.
-
They are based on fundamentally different philosophies. Socialism devalues freedom and the rule of law. The rule of law says you should keep what is yours, socialism says the government should decide on the distribution of resources. Socialism says it is bad to keep what you earned but good to take the earnings of others.
Capitalism is just another word for free enterprize. Which is based on service to your fellow man. You can only get paid and earn a living by providing goods and services that your fellow man wants and is willing to buy. It is based on and compatible with Freedom and the rule of law. Socialism is not.
-
SOCIALISM Vs. CAPITALISM
by: C. Bradley Thompson
Throughout history there have been two basic forms of social organization: collectivism and individualism.
In the twentieth-century collectivism has taken many forms: socialism, fascism, nazism, welfare-statism and communism are its more notable variations.
The only social system commensurate with individualism is laissez-faire capitalism.
The intellectuals' mantra runs something like this: In theory socialism is the morally superior social system despite its dismal record of failure in the real world.
Under socialism a ruling class of intellectuals, bureaucrats and social planners decide what people want or what is good for society and then use the coercive power of the State to regulate, tax, and redistribute the wealth of those who work for a living.
Envy is the desire to not only possess another's wealth but also the desire to see another's wealth lowered to the level of one's own.
Socialism's teaching on self-sacrifice was nicely summarized by two of its greatest defenders, Hermann Goering and Bennito Mussolini.
The highest principle of Nazism (National Socialism), said Goering, is: "Common good comes before private good."
Socialism is the social system which institutionalizes envy and self-sacrifice: It is the social system which uses compulsion and the organized violence of the State to expropriate wealth from the producer class for its redistribution to the parasitical class.
It is both moral and just because the degree to which man rises or falls in society is determined by the degree to which he uses his mind.
Capitalism is the only social system that rewards merit, ability and achievement, regardless of one's birth or station in life.
Yes, there are winners and losers in capitalism.
The entrepreneur is that man or woman with unlimited drive, initiative, insight, energy, daring creativity, optimism and ingenuity.
The entrepreneur is the man who is constantly thinking of new ways to improve the material or spiritual lives of the greatest number of people.
Government taxation and regulation are the means by which social planners punish and restrict the man or woman of ideas.
Under socialism there are built-in incentives to shirk responsibility.
According to socialist doctrine, there is a limited amount of wealth in the world that must be divided equally between all citizens.
-
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” - Winston Churchill
-
Capitalism leads to the survival of the fittest, socialism the opposite.
We're humans with specific attributes which I believe means socialism will fail; example Europe, esp. Britain were the working person gets little, whilst the low life's reap the benefits of the system.
Natural selection has provided the perfect system for life on this planet and life as we know it, I can't see a creation by man being above that process.
-
One of the concepts of Socialism is the idea that money, power and health care should be granted to everyone, including people who don't pull their own weight or do their fair share of the work. That's just plain wrong.
Yep
-
I am convinced that the path to a new, better and possible world is not capitalism, the path is socialism. capitalism leads us straight to hell.
::)
-
Some socialist concepts may not be horrible but it relys on everyone pulling their share and contributing equally, which we know is impossible. So, the system will be more unfair. Plus, this concept stiffles any drive for creativity, competition and acheivement...which leads to advancement in nearly all aspects of society.
Extreme greed is where capitalism fails. When people who acheive give back, it is IMO, the best system.
-
Capitalism is the only social system that rewards merit, ability and achievement, regardless of one's birth or station in life.
There will always be winners and losers. The problem is socialism by itself encourages people to be losers by not holding them accountable for their actions or inactions.
However, Capitalism isn't all good by itself either as it potentially can make the playing field uneven for those who are trying to make something of themselves.
Capitalism with just a little bit of socialism in the right areas applied the right way is best IMO.
-
Capitalism with just a little bit of socialism in the right areas applied the right way is best IMO.
probably true but difficult to define.
-
Decker and War-Horse.. at least you can now openly admit to being about as politically perverse as they come.
Everyone else, good posts.
A little bit of socialism can be a good thing but it's so hard to define that breaking point. Until then the US is way left of center right now and I think conservatism is being lost on the newer generations.
-
Capitalism with just a little bit of socialism in the right areas applied the right way is best IMO.
probably true but difficult to define.
I agree. If you look at the system we have in the USA it's bloated and wasteful. There are too many people on welfare getting a free ride. There are agencies that are over staffed and inept at their functions. Our education system is poorly ran and underfunded in the wrong areas. The capitalistic part of Healthcare/drugs combined with malpractice suits makes it affording health insurance needlessly difficult. Implied monopolies have caused higher prices.
Lots of problems. But at the end of the day....... there's no place that I'd rather be than the USA! Because the streets really are paved with gold if you are willing to do the work.
-
Unfortunatly the world you describe here will only exist in Star Trek episodes.
I would tend to agree with this.
I don't know if I would go the extra mile beyond having a planned economy to having a planned economy with common ownership of the means of production.
I think capitalsim, in its present form, will be our undoing for the reasons Einstein sites:
*...Man's position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. (Capitalism thrives on acquisitive success--the most toys)
*We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor....(winner take all of laissez-faire capitalism)
*Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands....(antithetical to a democratic republic like the US's)
*Production is carried on for profit, not for use. (Exploitation is the name of this game...even the extent of exhaustion of resources)
I think that a moderated, i.e., anti-laissez-faire, capitalism is a good start.
-
Some socialist concepts may not be horrible but it relys on everyone pulling their share and contributing equally, which we know is impossible. So, the system will be more unfair. Plus, this concept stiffles any drive for creativity, competition and acheivement...which leads to advancement in nearly all aspects of society.
Extreme greed is where capitalism fails. When people who acheive give back, it is IMO, the best system.
I agree with you here. Laissez-faire capitalism, or any pretension to it, turns out to be a loser.
A moderated capitalistic system where a portion of private profits are returned to the government for redistribution to areas of need seems to be eminently sensible.
-
Decker and War-Horse.. at least you can now openly admit to being about as politically perverse as they come.
Why I dignify this crap with an answer is beyond me.
Everyone else, good posts.
Way to exercise those thinking skills. By the way, the herd's on the right...but I see you are already there.
A little bit of socialism can be a good thing but it's so hard to define that breaking point. Until then the US is way left of center right now and I think conservatism is being lost on the newer generations.
How is the US "way left of center right now?"
Conservatism has been dead for 50 years.
Rightwing nonsense embodied by the Reagan Revolution is what has become of "conservatism".
-
I agree with you here. Laissez-faire capitalism, or any pretension to it, turns out to be a loser.
A moderated capitalistic system where a portion of private profits are returned to the government for redistribution to areas of need seems to be eminently sensible.
I think you place too much faith in our elected officials to do right by our hard earned money. I, hopefully, don't think anyone here would have issues with helping those truly less fortunate. However, I think we've seen time and time again how our government has wasted our money on BS programs here and BS programs abroad.
-
I think you place too much faith in our elected officials to do right by our hard earned money. I, hopefully, don't think anyone here would have issues with helping those truly less fortunate. However, I think we've seen time and time again how our government has wasted our money on BS programs here and BS programs abroad.
I don't have faith in anything outside myself. But the will of the people as shown by the acts of their elected representatives can be an effective thing.
I agree, the government is far from perfect. But it does do some good things. The public must always be vigilant in taking stock of worthwhile governmental programs. I always think back to that senator that cried and threatened to quit Congress if the money was cut for a bridge to nowhere. That's what happens when people only give a shit about themselves and "what's in it for me?"
"...there was something in it for me if I could help him out."
--Fredo Corleone
-
I don't have faith in anything outside myself. But the will of the people as shown by the acts of their elected representatives can be an effective thing.
I agree, the government is far from perfect. But it does do some good things. The public must always be vigilant in taking stock of worthwhile governmental programs. I always think back to that senator that cried and threatened to quit Congress if the money was cut for a bridge to nowhere. That's what happens when people only give a shit about themselves and "what's in it for me?"
"...there was something in it for me if I could help him out."
--Fredo Corleone
You are right when you say the government does do some good things but how many times have we seen billions get pissed away and the American taxpayer holding the bill? I just disagree with those that say socialism is the way to go because, IMO, it just promotes more "what can the government do for me?" attitudes.
In the end we only have ourselves to blame.
We need to change our national symbol from the bald eagle to an old dried out pig with little piglets sucking the life out of it.
-
You are right when you say the government does do some good things but how many times have we seen billions get pissed away and the American taxpayer holding the bill? I just disagree with those that say socialism is the way to go because, IMO, it just promotes more "what can the government do for me?" attitudes.
In the end we only have ourselves to blame.
We need to change our national symbol from the bald eagle to an old dried out pig with little piglets sucking the life out of it.
All government is redistributive in some capacity. All government must be cultivated to be maintained effectively.
Every single class of people from the plutocrats to the street people wonder "what's in it for me from government?"
Government as tool of personal/class enrichment is the Bush style of governance. Government as a tool of economic and national sanity was FDR style of governance.
Unfortunately whatever the political regime might be, there will be those looking to take advantage of it...fairly or unfairly.
Do we consume resources and martial labor in a way that is intelligent or wasteful? How does open-ended indulgent acquisitive success as a goal work under this scrutiny?
-
In discussing a lot of this, it seems that the general idea of capitalism is good because it condones acheivement, progress and hard work.
However, I think there are some programs which, by nature, must be more socialistic. The more I think about medicine, the more I believe it should be regulated to some degree...like utilities. Not government ran, but government regulated/rules of play. The competitive market may not be best with regard to health.
-
Stalin would agree that Socialism works :)
Stalin was never a socialist.
-
Unfortunatly the world you describe here will only exist in Star Trek episodes.
Or in the Amish community. ;D
"The plain sects typically prohibit insurance, and they assist each other charitably in case of sickness, accident, or property damage. Internal Revenue Service Form 4029 allows one to claim exemption to Social Security taxes under certain very restrictive conditions, and members of the plain sects neither pay the taxes nor receive death, disability and retirement benefits from Social Security.
Because of the lack of insurance, limited access to modern transportation, and remote residences of many plain sect members, the State of Indiana did a study in 1972, finding to their surprise that the plain have equal or better access to medical treatment, compared to other citizens.
Dan Olmsted of United Press International asserts the incidence of autism is virtually nil among the Pennsylvania Dutch.[8] He thinks that it's because the Pennsylvania Dutch do not vaccinate their children, a position that differs from that commonly accepted by medical professionals."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_people#Health
-
“The planet is being destroyed under our own noses by the capitalist model, the destructive engine of development, ... every day there is more hunger, more misery thanks to the neo-liberal, capitalist model.” The great Hugo Chavez.
-
“The planet is being destroyed under our own noses by the capitalist model, the destructive engine of development, ... every day there is more hunger, more misery thanks to the neo-liberal, capitalist model.” The great Hugo Chavez.
Yeah, and in Venezuela "every day there is more hunger, more misery thanks to the"...not so great Hugo Chavez.
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5526589
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=206164.msg2844472#msg2844472
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=206164.msg2845938#msg2845938
-
that counts for the usa too.
-
that counts for the usa too.
Absolutely.
-
Absolutely.
At least in the USA everyone has the chance to work their way from the bottom and make something of themselves if their willing to work hard and make sacrifices. I've done it and I know scores of others that have done the same.
I wonder how far up the ladder I would have gone in a Socialist country? I'm betting not as far.
-
I'm going to try to be fair on this one... First of all, there isn't a purely communist country in this world. the USSR, like China, were/are not communist countries. They were/are totalitarian regimes. Neither the Soviets nor the Chinese people were/are in control of industrial production or were/are they classless societies.
Secondly, us humans are communal beings by nature. If you observe animals and, for example the Yanomamis, they hunt only what's necesary. It's us, capitalists, that take part in a suicidal system of survival that will most likely be the most destructive in the history of humankind. I mean, the two main precepts of capitalism: Free flow of abundant capital and continuous growth are unsustainable goals in the long run. Everybody knows that.
So, in the short run, capitalism may be "better", but in the long run it is the least desireable option.
-
Absolutely.
that counts for the usa too.
Oh brother.. the USA has done more to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and shelter the homeless than any other country the world over. You two are absurd.
"but, but... the US is bad too, right?!?!?" lol... get real :D
-
Oh brother.. the USA has done more to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and shelter the homeless than any other country the world over. You two are absurd.
"but, but... the US is bad too, right?!?!?" lol... get real :D
How can one be "absurd" after posting a one word post? How many countries have you visited, and what have you seen with your own eyes, in order to make up your own mind? Or do you believe everything that's presented to you by the media?
-
How can one be "absurd" after posting a one word post? How many countries have you visited, and what have you seen with your own eyes, in order to make up your own mind? Or do you believe everything that's presented to you by the media?
I've been to 5 countries on two continents, N. America and Asia. Not that it matters to learn the fact since the internet has been available.
Of course I don't believe everything the media tells me.. that's why I'm not a liberal. ;D
-
I've been to 5 countries on two continents, N. America and Asia. Not that it matters to learn the fact since the internet has been available.
Of course I don't believe everything the media tells me.. that's why I'm not a liberal. ;D
Putting that wooden puzzle, with 4 peices together in daycare today, does not count as "Been" there.
-
Putting that wooden puzzle, with 4 peices together in daycare today, does not count as "Been" there.
lol. poor britney, gets no respects on the boards.
-
has anyone here noticed that the new math is to PRIVATIZE the PROFIT and SOCIALIZE the LOSS????
actually maybe that's the old math
-
has anyone here noticed that the new math is to PRIVATIZE the PROFIT and SOCIALIZE the LOSS????
actually maybe that's the old math
That has always been the math. And in recent years, the trend has grown stronger.
-
One of the concepts of Socialism is the idea that money, power and health care should be granted to everyone, including people who don't pull their own weight or do their fair share of the work. That's just plain wrong.
WRONG IS HAVING A SOCIETY THAT DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ANYONE IN REGRDS TO MONEY, HEALTH AND EDUCATION AS THE REPUBLIC (NOT DEMOCRACY) THAT YOU HAVE IN AMERIKKKA. HOW DO ANY OF YOU TOLERATE THE NONSENSE OF AMERIKKKA IS BEYOND ME...YOUR GOVERNMENT IS FULL OF LIARS AND HOMOSEXUALS, YOUR JOBS/BUSINESS' ARE SENT OVER SEAS OR TO MEXICO WITHOUT REGARD TO YOUR OWN FINANCIAL NEEDS/INCOMES AND SURVIVALS AND YOUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM WON'T EVEN LOOK AT YOU UNLESS YOU ARE INSURED...NOW THAT IS WRONG!!!!
-
WRONG IS HAVING A SOCIETY THAT DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ANYONE IN REGRDS TO MONEY, HEALTH AND EDUCATION AS THE REPUBLIC (NOT DEMOCRACY) THAT YOU HAVE IN AMERIKKKA. HOW DO ANY OF YOU TOLERATE THE NONSENSE OF AMERIKKKA IS BEYOND ME...YOUR GOVERNMENT IS FULL OF LIARS AND HOMOSEXUALS, YOUR JOBS/BUSINESS' ARE SENT OVER SEAS OR TO MEXICO WITHOUT REGARD TO YOUR OWN FINANCIAL NEEDS/INCOMES AND SURVIVALS AND YOUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM WON'T EVEN LOOK AT YOU UNLESS YOU ARE INSURED...NOW THAT IS WRONG!!!!
Say's the guy who wishes to impose sharia law on the whole populace of the world.
Go and eat a pig penis salami sausage like you prophet enjoyed back in the old days.
-
WRONG IS HAVING A SOCIETY THAT DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ANYONE IN REGRDS TO MONEY, HEALTH AND EDUCATION AS THE REPUBLIC (NOT DEMOCRACY) THAT YOU HAVE IN AMERIKKKA. HOW DO ANY OF YOU TOLERATE THE NONSENSE OF AMERIKKKA IS BEYOND ME...YOUR GOVERNMENT IS FULL OF LIARS AND HOMOSEXUALS, YOUR JOBS/BUSINESS' ARE SENT OVER SEAS OR TO MEXICO WITHOUT REGARD TO YOUR OWN FINANCIAL NEEDS/INCOMES AND SURVIVALS AND YOUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM WON'T EVEN LOOK AT YOU UNLESS YOU ARE INSURED...NOW THAT IS WRONG!!!!
Piss off, Durka.
-
When you amerikkkans are standing on soup lines to get your daily ration of watered down chicken broth and crackers you will then open your eyes to the "SYSTEM" you are under. It is just sad that you can not see the error in the ways of your system which is sorely anti-health, anti-freedom, anti-life, anti- democracy etc etc. As a matter of fact if amerikkka was actually a democracy it would be reflective of a socialist society that concerned itself with the health, wealth and physical well being of its people. Amerikkka is none the less a capitalistic society that only concerns itself with greed and the accumulation material matter that benefits no one but the person acquiring it. Sadly it is commonly said over and over that "YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU", so what is the point in acquiring so much at the expense and destruction of so many when it won't benefit a person after they become sick or die? Amerikkkas corporate CEOs and executives (titles that means THIEVES) destroy corporations, loot its wealth, cause massive unemployment and loss of pensions, salaries, insurance etc etc and care not in the least about those effected by their actions and greed...and this is a system that you want and praise? When the sinisterness of that system leaves you unemployed and without a place to turn or go...I want to see what Nordic and W8tlftr do? They will be like those who Barack spoke of who will turn to guns, religion or antipathy...
-
When you amerikkkans are standing on soup lines to get your daily ration of watered down chicken broth and crackers you will then open your eyes to the "SYSTEM" you are under. It is just sad that you can not see the error in the ways of your system which is sorely anti-health, anti-freedom, anti-life, anti- democracy etc etc. As a matter of fact if amerikkka was actually a democracy it would be reflective of a socialist society that concerned itself with the health, wealth and physical well being of its people. Amerikkka is none the less a capitalistic society that only concerns itself with greed and the accumulation material matter that benefits no one but the person acquiring it. Sadly it is commonly said over and over that "YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU", so what is the point in acquiring so much at the expense and destruction of so many when it won't benefit a person after they become sick or die? Amerikkkas corporate CEOs and executives (titles that means THIEVES) destroy corporations, loot its wealth, cause massive unemployment and loss of pensions, salaries, insurance etc etc and care not in the least about those effected by their actions and greed...and this is a system that you want and praise? When the sinisterness of that system leaves you unemployed and without a place to turn or go...I want to see what Nordic and W8tlftr do? They will be like those who Barack spoke of who will turn to guns, religion or antipathy...
So many logical fallacies in this post it's hard to know where to start.
May a slice of bacon be upon muhammad.
-
So many logical fallacies TRUTHS in this post it's hard to know where to start.
May a slice of bacon be upon muhammad.
AND A YARD OF SALAMI IN YOUR MOTHER
-
They are based on fundamentally different philosophies. Socialism devalues freedom and the rule of law. The rule of law says you should keep what is yours, socialism says the government should decide on the distribution of resources. Socialism says it is bad to keep what you earned but good to take the earnings of others.
Capitalism is just another word for free enterprize. Which is based on service to your fellow man. You can only get paid and earn a living by providing goods and services that your fellow man wants and is willing to buy. It is based on and compatible with Freedom and the rule of law. Socialism is not.
Yes. I agree with this.
Really isn't much of a debate.
-
WRONG IS HAVING A SOCIETY THAT DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ANYONE IN REGRDS TO MONEY, HEALTH AND EDUCATION AS THE REPUBLIC (NOT DEMOCRACY) THAT YOU HAVE IN AMERIKKKA. HOW DO ANY OF YOU TOLERATE THE NONSENSE OF AMERIKKKA IS BEYOND ME...YOUR GOVERNMENT IS FULL OF LIARS AND HOMOSEXUALS, YOUR JOBS/BUSINESS' ARE SENT OVER SEAS OR TO MEXICO WITHOUT REGARD TO YOUR OWN FINANCIAL NEEDS/INCOMES AND SURVIVALS AND YOUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM WON'T EVEN LOOK AT YOU UNLESS YOU ARE INSURED...NOW THAT IS WRONG!!!!
"I TYPE IN ALL CAPS TO SHOW MY ANGER!!!!!!!! AAAAHHHH!!!!!!!!" >:(
Loser.. ;D
-
WRONG IS HAVING A SOCIETY THAT DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ANYONE IN REGRDS TO MONEY, HEALTH AND EDUCATION AS THE REPUBLIC (NOT DEMOCRACY) THAT YOU HAVE IN AMERIKKKA. HOW DO ANY OF YOU TOLERATE THE NONSENSE OF AMERIKKKA IS BEYOND ME...YOUR GOVERNMENT IS FULL OF LIARS AND HOMOSEXUALS, YOUR JOBS/BUSINESS' ARE SENT OVER SEAS OR TO MEXICO WITHOUT REGARD TO YOUR OWN FINANCIAL NEEDS/INCOMES AND SURVIVALS AND YOUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM WON'T EVEN LOOK AT YOU UNLESS YOU ARE INSURED...NOW THAT IS WRONG!!!!
Stop breathing.
-
let's hope so. :D
NT
;D amen. theres a few blind ball lickers like like bb and brittney but theyll be crying soon.
-
let's hope so. :D
NT
Yay socialism! :D
Entitlement is a wonderful thing! ::)
-
Yay socialism! :D
Entitlement is a wonderful thing! ::)
Your definition of socialism is fvcked up is all. Some christian you are........ ::)
-
Your definition of socialism is fvcked up is all. Some christian you are........ ::)
A man that doesn't work doesn't eat. Pretty straight forward even for a rock with lips like you.
-
A man that doesn't work doesn't eat. Pretty straight forward even for a rock with lips like you.
Agreed. Under the rule of socialism everybody works to contribute, penischaser.
-
Agreed. Under the rule of socialism everybody works to contribute, penischaser.
Right. Because that's exactly how it works in the socialist world of entitlement, Bukkake Boi. ::)
-
Right. Because that's exactly how it works in the socialist world of entitlement, Bukkake Boi. ::)
Yes everyone works to contribute. no free rides. Whats your problem with that lil rich man.??
-
Yes everyone works to contribute. no free rides. Whats your problem with that lil rich man.??
I don't have a problem with everyone working, Julian.
-
I don't have a problem with everyone working, Julian.
Then why are you against socialism, Fred.?
-
Then why are you against socialism, Fred.?
For obvious reasons that have already been discussed in this thread, Bukkake Boi Julian.
-
...
Really isn't much of a debate.
Not yet it isn't. Are you familiar with the Tragedy of the Commons?
"Fourteenth century Britain was organized as a loosely aligned collection of villages, each with a common pasture for villagers to graze horses, cattle and sheep. Each household attempted to gain wealth by putting as many animals on the commons as it could afford. As the village grew in size and more and more animals were placed on the commons, overgrazing ruined the pasture. No stock could be supported on the commons thereafter. As a consequence of population growth, greed, and the logic of the commons, village after village collapsed.
An apparent solution to avert the collapse of the commons was the introduction of private ownership. Common lands were parceled up into small tracts, each owned by a household. If a household greedily destroyed its plot, its demise was its own fault. However, as population grew, each new generation of households was left with a smaller and smaller portion of the original holdings. And, there was still the opportunity for some households to accumulate wealth by acquiring land from others, one way or another. Thus, private ownership did nothing to control greed. It merely shifted to a new arena...The number of landless households grew rapidly, each one descending deeper and deeper into abject poverty."
http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/commons.htm
American business and politics (the same thing?) rarely operate on long-term perspectives/planning. Short-term profit rules the day.
We will squeeze out of the environment every tree, fish, and drop of oil until exhausted in order to turn a profit today.
The automakers knew that oil is finite. So what do they do? Build Hummers!
Fisherman know the problems of 'fishing-out' an area. Yet they do it anyways.
Bush's economists know that tax cuts always result in a net loss to the government so Bush proposes a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut in the face of a 5 trillion dollar national debt.
Laissez-faire Capitalism--where everyone maximizes his own self-interest--results in this kind of destructive nonsense.
-
Not yet it isn't. Are you familiar with the Tragedy of the Commons?
"Fourteenth century Britain was organized as a loosely aligned collection of villages, each with a common pasture for villagers to graze horses, cattle and sheep. Each household attempted to gain wealth by putting as many animals on the commons as it could afford. As the village grew in size and more and more animals were placed on the commons, overgrazing ruined the pasture. No stock could be supported on the commons thereafter. As a consequence of population growth, greed, and the logic of the commons, village after village collapsed.
An apparent solution to avert the collapse of the commons was the introduction of private ownership. Common lands were parceled up into small tracts, each owned by a household. If a household greedily destroyed its plot, its demise was its own fault. However, as population grew, each new generation of households was left with a smaller and smaller portion of the original holdings. And, there was still the opportunity for some households to accumulate wealth by acquiring land from others, one way or another. Thus, private ownership did nothing to control greed. It merely shifted to a new arena...The number of landless households grew rapidly, each one descending deeper and deeper into abject poverty."
http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/commons.htm
American business and politics (the same thing?) rarely operate on long-term perspectives/planning. Short-term profit rules the day.
We will squeeze out of the environment every tree, fish, and drop of oil until exhausted in order to turn a profit today.
The automakers knew that oil is finite. So what do they do? Build Hummers!
Fisherman know the problems of 'fishing-out' an area. Yet they do it anyways.
Bush's economists know that tax cuts always result in a net loss to the government so Bush proposes a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut in the face of a 5 trillion dollar national debt.
Laissez-faire Capitalism--where everyone maximizes his own self-interest--results in this kind of destructive nonsense.
Both examples show that, greed unchecked, is destructive. How does this show that one is better than the other?
-
Laissez-faire capitalism is predicated partly on serving the purchasing power of the individual. Everyone acting in his own self-interest will eventually destroy the commons/resources.
You asked for it. Have it your way. You want it, you got it.
We are running out of oil yet we produce bigger and bigger trucks. We fish out our waters. We have the desertification of productive land. We have industry dumping toxic sludge into our water (I have so much anecdotal evidence of this).
This dynamic of the destructive force of self-interest, population growth, and out and out greed all conspire to destroy the very object of capitalistic expoitation--the natural resources belonging to us all.
It's not sustainable.
-
Not yet it isn't. Are you familiar with the Tragedy of the Commons?
"Fourteenth century Britain was organized as a loosely aligned collection of villages, each with a common pasture for villagers to graze horses, cattle and sheep. Each household attempted to gain wealth by putting as many animals on the commons as it could afford. As the village grew in size and more and more animals were placed on the commons, overgrazing ruined the pasture. No stock could be supported on the commons thereafter. As a consequence of population growth, greed, and the logic of the commons, village after village collapsed.
An apparent solution to avert the collapse of the commons was the introduction of private ownership. Common lands were parceled up into small tracts, each owned by a household. If a household greedily destroyed its plot, its demise was its own fault. However, as population grew, each new generation of households was left with a smaller and smaller portion of the original holdings. And, there was still the opportunity for some households to accumulate wealth by acquiring land from others, one way or another. Thus, private ownership did nothing to control greed. It merely shifted to a new arena...The number of landless households grew rapidly, each one descending deeper and deeper into abject poverty."
http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/commons.htm
American business and politics (the same thing?) rarely operate on long-term perspectives/planning. Short-term profit rules the day.
We will squeeze out of the environment every tree, fish, and drop of oil until exhausted in order to turn a profit today.
The automakers knew that oil is finite. So what do they do? Build Hummers!
Fisherman know the problems of 'fishing-out' an area. Yet they do it anyways.
Bush's economists know that tax cuts always result in a net loss to the government so Bush proposes a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut in the face of a 5 trillion dollar national debt.
Laissez-faire Capitalism--where everyone maximizes his own self-interest--results in this kind of destructive nonsense.
I'm familiar with a country that has the best legislative document ever written (the Constitution).
I'm familiar with a country that allowed an immigrant African to move here, create a halfrican, have that kid educated in the finest educational institutions in the country, earn a very high income, accumulate assets, become a state and national senator, and be on the verge of possibly becoming president of the United States.
I'm familiar with a country where a guy shows up as an immigrant, penniless, works his butt off, becomes one of the top movie stars in the world, amasses about $500 million in assets, and becomes governor of California.
I'm familiar with the countless stories of people starting off with nothing and becoming brilliant success stories through hard work.
I'm unfamiliar with any socialist country that has thrived over the long term like the greatest country in the history of the world.
-
I'm familiar with a country that allowed an immigrant African to move here, create a halfrican,
Cute ::) Go peddle your hate and your long-winded bullshit somewhere else.
about the "socialism-capitalism" debate
John Rawls had the balance right.
-
I'm familiar with a country that has the best legislative document ever written (the Constitution).
I'm familiar with a country that allowed an immigrant African to move here, create a halfrican, have that kid educated in the finest educational institutions in the country, earn a very high income, accumulate assets, become a state and national senator, and be on the verge of possibly becoming president of the United States.
I'm familiar with a country where a guy shows up as an immigrant, penniless, works his butt off, becomes one of the top movie stars in the world, amasses about $500 million in assets, and becomes governor of California.
I'm familiar with the countless stories of people starting off with nothing and becoming brilliant success stories through hard work.
I'm unfamiliar with any socialist country that has thrived over the long term like the greatest country in the history of the world.
Youre missing the point. You are listing sterling examples of the times. These ones at the top of your capitialist pyramid are demanding more and more from the support system of the middle and lower class. What decker is saying is that it is unsustainable over the long run when people like you will be eaten up to the control for those at the top.
Our resources and the money available to run the elite class is now being built on money that is being printed out of thin air....false money that raise inflation and makes the middle class dissapear to support itself. Do you see this as a chain in the events???? this is our course.....
-
Youre missing the point. You are listing sterling examples of the times. These ones at the top of your capitialist pyramid are demanding more and more from the support system of the middle and lower class. What decker is saying is that it is unsustainable over the long run when people like you will be eaten up to the control for those at the top.
Our resources and the money available to run the elite class is now being built on money that is being printed out of thin air....false money that raise inflation and makes the middle class dissapear to support itself. Do you see this as a chain in the events???? this is our course.....
don't humor the stubborn asshole.
-
I'm familiar with a country that has the best legislative document ever written (the Constitution).
I'm familiar with a country that allowed an immigrant African to move here, create a halfrican, have that kid educated in the finest educational institutions in the country, earn a very high income, accumulate assets, become a state and national senator, and be on the verge of possibly becoming president of the United States.
I'm familiar with a country where a guy shows up as an immigrant, penniless, works his butt off, becomes one of the top movie stars in the world, amasses about $500 million in assets, and becomes governor of California.
I'm familiar with the countless stories of people starting off with nothing and becoming brilliant success stories through hard work.
I'm unfamiliar with any socialist country that has thrived over the long term like the greatest country in the history of the world.
How does any of that address the sustainability of Capitalistic Economies.
Here's a short list of socialist countries that have been around much much longer than the US: France, Great Britain, and Austria.
-
How does any of that address the sustainability of Capitalistic Economies.
Here's a short list of socialist countries that have been around much much longer than the US: France, Great Britain, and Austria.
We have been sustaining pretty darn well for over 200 years. Incredible gains. Incredible opportunities. Unlimited potential for every individual. That's why people from all over the world come here in droves.
China has been around much longer than the U.S. too. :)
-
We have been sustaining pretty darn well for over 200 years. Incredible gains. Incredible opportunities. Unlimited potential for every individual. That's why people from all over the world come here in droves.
China has been around much longer than the U.S. too. :)
Were not talking about now. (even tho your too dumb to notice, now) The course we are on!! Get it?
More than once, i have thought you were an "alien mind controlled experiment" from the goverment..... :-\
-
For those with more than a smidgen of literacy.
From wiki. PRetty good entry on Rawls
Demanding that everyone have exactly the same effective opportunities in life is a nonstarter: achieving this would almost certainly offend the very liberties that are supposedly being equalized. Nonetheless, we would want to ensure at least the "fair worth" of our liberties: wherever I end up in society, I want my life to be worth living, with enough effective freedom to pursue my plans. Thus we would be moved to affirm a second principle requiring fair equality of opportunity, paired with the famous (and controversial) difference principle. This second principle ensures that those with comparable talents and motivation face roughly similar life chances, and that inequalities in society work to the benefit of the least advantaged.
-
For those with more than a smidgen of literacy.
From wiki. PRetty good entry on Rawls
The second principle is where greed and a sense of entitlement come in....... :-[
-
The second principle is where greed and a sense of entitlement come in....... :-[
Say more. I'm not following you.
-
Laissez-faire capitalism is predicated partly on serving the purchasing power of the individual. Everyone acting in his own self-interest will eventually destroy the commons/resources.
You asked for it. Have it your way. You want it, you got it.
We are running out of oil yet we produce bigger and bigger trucks. We fish out our waters. We have the desertification of productive land. We have industry dumping toxic sludge into our water (I have so much anecdotal evidence of this).
This dynamic of the destructive force of self-interest, population growth, and out and out greed all conspire to destroy the very object of capitalistic expoitation--the natural resources belonging to us all.
It's not sustainable.
No argument there but you're just providing more arguments of the dangers of pure unchecked capitalism and self-absorbing individual greed. It's just common sense that too much of a good thing is a bad thing.
-
The second principle is where greed and a sense of entitlement come in....... :-[
Say more. I'm not following you.
-
No argument there but you're just providing more arguments of the dangers of pure unchecked capitalism and self-absorbing individual greed. It's just common sense that too much of a good thing is a bad thing.
You're right.
I'm still not sold on Socialism. I think our system of a moderated capitalist scheme with a Planned Economy re the management of our resources can be effective. But we need strong, effective regulatory agencies and regulations to make that work.
-
Say more. I'm not following you.
Capitialism starts out on the self balancing rule of supply and demand. But when corruption enters for the greedy to escalate themselves...(Halliburton in iraq, political buyoffs printing money worth nothing) Then the ideals which hold it together start forming fascist and dictator type of thinking.
This squelches your second principle of fairness to the common man.
-
Capitialism starts out on the self balancing rule of supply and demand. But when corruption enters for the greedy to escalate themselves...(Halliburton in iraq, political buyoffs printing money worth nothing) Then the ideals which hold it together start forming fascist and dictator type of thinking.
This squelches your second principle of fairness to the common man.
Ah. well, our society is not the Rawlsian ideal.
Maybe it originates with people wanting to leave it all to their kids. THink Warren Buffett has the right idea on that one.
-
Ah. well, our society is not the Rawlsian ideal.
Maybe it originates with people wanting to leave it all to their kids. THink Warren Buffett has the right idea on that one.
Yeah, he sees what the sam walton kids have done......gotta stop that. ;D
-
Yeah, he sees what the sam walton kids have done......gotta stop that. ;D
What did they do?
-
What did they do?
Sold out to sweat shops all over the world. Thereby encouraging 12 yr olds to work 16hr days for .50 cents.
His goal was to stay in smaller towns and employ local communities.
-
Sold out to sweat shops all over the world. Thereby encouraging 12 yr olds to work 16hr days for .50 cents.
His goal was to stay in smaller towns and employ local communities.
It's the greed of the monstrous corporate entity. No man can stop it.
-
Debusseydickpussy nailed it. Socialism isn't merit based!
Free market capitalism = the reason why the west is what it is(one of the major reasons anyway).
-
Debusseydickpussy nailed it. Socialism isn't merit based!
Free market capitalism = the reason why the west is what it is(one of the major reasons anyway).
Why the west "was what it was",.... you mean. Corruption ruined capitialism.
-
Why the west "was what it was",.... you mean. Corruption ruined capitialism.
Corruption can ruin anything.
-
Corruption ruined capitialism.
Right and you think socialism has a better record in that arena? ah HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!! OH GAWD HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAH!!!!!!!!! :D :P JEZZUS AYTCH KEE-RIGHST HOT DAMN THATS A REAL KNEE SLAPPER!!!!!! WOO HOO!!! Oh man.. my gut hurts from laughing so hard. lol
-
Right and you think socialism has a better record in that arena? ah HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!! OH GAWD HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAH!!!!!!!!! :D :P JEZZUS AYTCH KEE-RIGHST HOT DAMN THATS A REAL KNEE SLAPPER!!!!!! WOO HOO!!! Oh man.. my gut hurts from laughing so hard. lol
Re- read my posts here. Ive defended the foundation of capitialism. Human tendencies have destroyed all forms of goverment.
-
Re- read my posts here. Ive defended the foundation of capitialism. Human tendencies have destroyed all forms of goverment.
Yet I doubt you would defend the constitution in it's entirety.
-
Yet I doubt you would defend the constitution in it's entirety.
Most likely ,yes. Thats why i hate the patriot act. facist/movements.
-
What is Wrong With Socialism and why is Capitalism better?
There are ills in all and greater ills in the monopoly of one over the other. Seems a good balance works best :)
-
One of the basic flaws of socialism is that it forces equality onto the citizens, when the citizens are by far NOT equal, in personality, in intelligence and other personal attributes that is useful for society.
Then, you have the problem of having to control the future in a dynamic world full of change.
Completely uncontrolled capitalism = a dumb idea. Socialism = an even dumber idea.
And do not forget: Human progress and economic value creation is mainly driven by a small minority of extraordinary talented and/or very hard working people, in science and in business, while most people are basically pawns, blindly performing the orchestrations of that small minority. Threating everybody basically equal, when certain people contribute a lot more is unethical, and diminish the opportunity to get the most out of these extraordinary people.
In Norway, we don't even have special schools for the extraordinarily intelligent kids, and the results has been that many of these kids develop low self confidence and even thoughts of killing themselves, when they should get proper teaching and challenges for their skill level, blossom and provide progress for society. There is actually a LAW in Norway stating that extraordinary talented kids should NOT get special threatment.
Debussey hates all ideology that tries to preach that everybody is the same, because they aint. Some people are extraordinary, and should be compensated for being so by not being limited in the payoffs of the things they contribute. These are the people that drive humanity forwards, plain and simple.
Bill Gates for example, has created trillions of dollars of value for everyone, and if socialism had existed, the computer revolution would most likely never take place.
debussey nailed it.
I will say there is a degree that socialism is a valuable addition to any system but should not be the dominant path. Same with Capitalism, we have seen and have not seen the end of the destructive problems associated with this wild west lawless form of capitalism we're under.
-
Debussey's speaks a lot of truth for a humanoid with an IQ of 52!
-
One of the basic flaws of socialism is that it forces equality onto the citizens, when the citizens are by far NOT equal, in personality, in intelligence and other personal attributes that is useful for society.
...
How does the common ownership (socialism) of the means of production force equality on everyone? What do you mean by equality?
How does Socialism hold back the gifted minority? Wouldn't they still rise to the top based on individual achievement? Even when the Catholic church was crushing science, Galileo still made his scientific contributions to the world.
I'm of the opinion that we need a managed economy. I can't quite get on board with Einstein's appreciation of Socialism.
-
Oh brother.. the USA has done more to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and shelter the homeless than any other country the world over. You two are absurd.
"but, but... the US is bad too, right?!?!?" lol... get real :D
Well, no. Instead of that, USA has done it's best to make more orphans, more disabled and dead people all over the world, than any other country in this planet. Just count casualties from wars after ww2, all gun related deaths and injuries inside USA in past 60 years or so, and you will see the light, you moron. Starting from Korea, all the way to present day, there has been war between USA and some far away country, just for killing innocent so called socialists, and for pumping up your over grown military budget.
-
Well, no. Instead of that, USA has done it's best to make more orphans, more disabled and dead people all over the world, than any other country in this planet. Just count casualties from wars after ww2, all gun related deaths and injuries inside USA in past 60 years or so, and you will see the light, you moron. Starting from Korea, all the way to present day, there has been war between USA and some far away country, just for killing innocent so called socialists, and for pumping up your over grown military budget.
I'm sorry you're country hasn't done nearly as much to benefit the world over, including protecting countries that probably don't deserve it, like yours.
No reason to get all "spineless" about it.
You can thank me later.
-
I'm sorry you're country hasn't done nearly as much to benefit the world over, including protecting countries that probably don't deserve it, like yours.
No reason to get all "spineless" about it.
You can thank me later.
Youre a weird, dude. How was he "Spineless" about it?
-
I'm sorry you're country hasn't done nearly as much to benefit the world over, including protecting countries that probably don't deserve it, like yours.
No reason to get all "spineless" about it.
You can thank me later.
Well, there is some benefits and drawbacks when you live in a nation which have just about 5,5 million people. One of those is a fact, that we cannot compete against USA in some statistics, like "most idiots in square mile", because you have more of them on every single square mile than our whole population put together. On the other hand, we can compete with you at an average IQ, which we are just one point behind you guys, we have better health care, less crime and we can drink you guys out of the map, even we do have just about 3,5 million adults who are old enough to use alcohol.
You guys are so overwhelmed by your illusion of greatness, that you doesn't see that you live in police state without even a clue about those rights which has given to you in your constitution...All you can do is obey and repeat those words which your political upper class feed to you by their propaganda system...It goes just about like this: AS AN AMERICAN, YOU HAVE a DUTY to FIGHT and DIE FOR YOUR COUNTRY by friendly fire, in some God forsaking country, at least 4000 miles away from home. When you heard that millions of times starting from you cradle, you start to believe it, and when you are old enough to military, you take it as a fact of life. You are fooled to the max and you doesn't even think about it, and that is sad. Your government has fooled you to believe that there is some threat in communism, but that is a lie. There is not any real threat in Socialistic nations, they are too week to be a threat to anybody, but your government use them as a propaganda weapon, and they can make you to believe that there is...
-
Well, there is some benefits and drawbacks when you live in a nation which have just about 5,5 million people. One of those is a fact, that we cannot compete against USA in some statistics, like "most idiots in square mile", because you have more of them on every single square mile than our whole population put together. On the other hand, we can compete with you at an average IQ, which we are just one point behind you guys, we have better health care, less crime and we can drink you guys out of the map, even we do have just about 3,5 million adults who are old enough to use alcohol.
You guys are so overwhelmed by your illusion of greatness, that you doesn't see that you live in police state without even a clue about those rights which has given to you in your constitution...All you can do is obey and repeat those words which your political upper class feed to you by their propaganda system...It goes just about like this: AS AN AMERICAN, YOU HAVE a DUTY to FIGHT and DIE FOR YOUR COUNTRY by friendly fire, in some God forsaking country, at least 4000 miles away from home. When you heard that millions of times starting from you cradle, you start to believe it, and when you are old enough to military, you take it as a fact of life. You are fooled to the max and you doesn't even think about it, and that is sad. Your government has fooled you to believe that there is some threat in communism, but that is a lie. There is not any real threat in Socialistic nations, they are too week to be a threat to anybody, but your government use them as a propaganda weapon, and they can make you to believe that there is...
Ehh............ some of what you say is true from a certain point of view i suppose, but as an American, living in America, none of that stuff really affects me. I have the option to choose to fight 4000 miles away. I work hard, have a good job, enjoy life, pay may bills and have the same freedoms I've always had. I see nothing changing. Don;t get me wrong. There are drawbacks, such as traffic. But all in all, I think i'd have the same things living in Finland, which i'd love to visit and stay for a while some day.
People prosper in Finland i'm sure as people prosper in America.
-
Well, there is some benefits and drawbacks when you live in a nation which have just about 5,5 million people. One of those is a fact, that we cannot compete against USA in some statistics, like "most idiots in square mile", because you have more of them on every single square mile than our whole population put together. On the other hand, we can compete with you at an average IQ, which we are just one point behind you guys, we have better health care, less crime and we can drink you guys out of the map, even we do have just about 3,5 million adults who are old enough to use alcohol.
You guys are so overwhelmed by your illusion of greatness, that you doesn't see that you live in police state without even a clue about those rights which has given to you in your constitution...All you can do is obey and repeat those words which your political upper class feed to you by their propaganda system...It goes just about like this: AS AN AMERICAN, YOU HAVE a DUTY to FIGHT and DIE FOR YOUR COUNTRY by friendly fire, in some God forsaking country, at least 4000 miles away from home. When you heard that millions of times starting from you cradle, you start to believe it, and when you are old enough to military, you take it as a fact of life. You are fooled to the max and you doesn't even think about it, and that is sad. Your government has fooled you to believe that there is some threat in communism, but that is a lie. There is not any real threat in Socialistic nations, they are too week to be a threat to anybody, but your government use them as a propaganda weapon, and they can make you to believe that there is...
I've never seen anyone more wrong about something.
-
I didn't read all this thread, I apologize, but I figured I'd post this pertinent Chomsky discussion
-
I still see nothing wrong with a managed economy. If we could only tighten the screws on the management of our own economic interests, I don't think we'd be in free-fall with these bail-outs.
One failure of unmoderated capitalism is the rise of big ticket business corruption at the expense of the People. Ask Fannie Mae's Board of Directors how 'socialism' sucks...or Bear Sterns or Ford.
-
The problem with socialism is lack of incentive for people to work hard and better themselves.........
If everyone (in theory) lives by the same means, with a very modest standard of living, regardless of what job they do.........why would anyone want to pursue advanced degrees or go above and beyond in their job? You can never implement a true (or successful) socialist government, because not everyone will "buy in" and a lot of people are just greedy by nature. Socialism and Capitalism are both great in theory, but we do not live in a perfect world and Capitalism is easier (and more realistic) to implement and maintain..........
-
The inherent problem with socialism and communism is that it is run by people. People are fallable, corrupt, greedy and wasteful by nature. This imaginary utopia which socialists and communists strive for is impossible. The idea that "people" in government somehow know whats better for me than myself is absurd. The only way to keep human beings free and honest is to allow them to survive and achieve as individuals. Capitalism is the only system that has survived the test of time.
-
I don't know why this is even a debate...we watched the Soviets fall and only after setting up economic free zones..did they begin to really prosper, yet most of the country is very third world.
-
I don't know why this is even a debate...we watched the Soviets fall and only after setting up economic free zones..did they begin to really prosper, yet most of the country is very third world.
Is Communism Socialism?
-
Nope (nice try Decker)...but both seek to regulate everything...one, much more then the other. I don't need a hug from Uncle Sam, I need him to get out of the way, some of u guys all want a big hug and a hand out. I don't want people taking my hard earned money and giving it to others, I don't want irresponsible people getting my tax dollars.
-
The problem with socialism is lack of incentive for people to work hard and better themselves.........
If everyone (in theory) lives by the same means, with a very modest standard of living, regardless of what job they do.........why would anyone want to pursue advanced degrees or go above and beyond in their job? You can never implement a true (or successful) socialist government, because not everyone will "buy in" and a lot of people are just greedy by nature. Socialism and Capitalism are both great in theory, but we do not live in a perfect world and Capitalism is easier (and more realistic) to implement and maintain..........
I don't think that stark commune style of living is best representative of socialism. I think Socialism is where the worker (instead of the capitalist) owns the means of production. I think, in the face of scarce essential resources, that management of those resources is smart. Should this be extended all facets of the economy or should the capitalist feature of production for profit still exist?
I think a mixture of the two is a good idea.
-
The inherent problem with socialism and communism is that it is run by people. People are fallable, corrupt, greedy and wasteful by nature. This imaginary utopia which socialists and communists strive for is impossible. The idea that "people" in government somehow know whats better for me than myself is absurd. The only way to keep human beings free and honest is to allow them to survive and achieve as individuals. Capitalism is the only system that has survived the test of time.
Is utopia the goal of socialism? Or is a sensible allocation of certain resources the goal? Capitalism is extremely wasteful...look at the car, housing and food industries for a taste of that waste. It is predicated on having it your way, right now regardless of need, potential or scarcity. Capitalism predisposes hollow acquisitive success.
Why here in the 24th century we have no need for money....
-
Nope (nice try Decker)...but both seek to regulate everything...one, much more then the other. I don't need a hug from Uncle Sam, I need him to get out of the way, some of u guys all want a big hug and a hand out. I don't want people taking my hard earned money and giving it to others, I don't want irresponsible people getting my tax dollars.
How is Big Government on your back?
This goes back to the idea that the US, its gov., and its people all contribute to your ability to make dollar one. You gotta kick a little something back for the effort.
-
I have no problem paying my taxes. Its when Uncle Sam decides to start helping everybody, helping em get houses, helping em with this program and that, with my money. And generally its people without jobs or people who can't pay us back. How about all the ridiculous earmarks. 3 million for otter studies, 6 million for a Coke museum, 10 million for Moose testical cancer cures..u get my point. Why
-
I have no problem paying my taxes. Its when Uncle Sam decides to start helping everybody, helping em get houses, helping em with this program and that, with my money. And generally its people without jobs or people who can't pay us back. How about all the ridiculous earmarks. 3 million for otter studies, 6 million for a Coke museum, 10 million for Moose testical cancer cures..u get my point. Why
That's a huge problem but it's not a problem b/c of Socialism.
Politicians get elected, for the most part, b/c they meet the needs of their constituency. They bring home the bacon-i.e., federal spending. That's how they stay in office. More spending brought home = pleasing the people = winning elections.
We call for cutting spending----but not in my state.
That keeps the vicious cycle going.
-
Thats just one issue....couple that with Universal healthcare and the money keeps flowing.
-
Thats just one issue....couple that with Universal healthcare and the money keeps flowing.
I don't view UHC as wasteful b/c of its utility and effectiveness.
-
Where is it effective...people hate it in England/Canada and they don't have 350 million plus. U guys rail against the gov all the time, now u want him regulating ur healthcare?
-
Socialism depends on everyone doing relatively equal work, which is absolutely not the case in American.
In an ideal world, socialism would certainly work. When I was a teenager, I talked about socialism being a wise system...as I got to understand people and the world, I see that pure socialism would be extremely unfair.
Pure capitalism is also not ideal because there are very greedy people.
So, like most other things in life, a compromise and combination is probably best.
-
I still see nothing wrong with a managed economy. If we could only tighten the screws on the management of our own economic interests, I don't think we'd be in free-fall with these bail-outs.
One failure of unmoderated capitalism is the rise of big ticket business corruption at the expense of the People. Ask Fannie Mae's Board of Directors how 'socialism' sucks...or Bear Sterns or Ford.
Should we be surprised you believe in socialism? No, you're a moron.
-
The problem with socialism is lack of incentive for people to work hard and better themselves.........
If everyone (in theory) lives by the same means, with a very modest standard of living, regardless of what job they do.........why would anyone want to pursue advanced degrees or go above and beyond in their job? You can never implement a true (or successful) socialist government, because not everyone will "buy in" and a lot of people are just greedy by nature. Socialism and Capitalism are both great in theory, but we do not live in a perfect world and Capitalism is easier (and more realistic) to implement and maintain..........
Good point. Why work hard to earn, save, and invest if the government will take what you have?
-
One of the concepts of Socialism is the idea that money, power and health care should be granted to everyone, including people who don't pull their own weight or do their fair share of the work. That's just plain wrong.
You mean like company CEOs and Chairmen of the Board? Yeah that is wrong.
-
You mean like company CEOs and Chairmen of the Board? Yeah that is wrong.
GCB, can you tell us what a CEO does? What are his day-to-day responsibilities to this company and shareholders?
Do you think anyone can simply step in and do it successfully?
-
GCB, can you tell us what a CEO does? What are his day-to-day responsibilities to this company and shareholders?
Do you think anyone can simply step in and do it successfully?
Not to mention that most CEO's don't really have a life to live because work is their life. 24/7. People could care less if people win the lotto, but if a hard working person earns it, it's wrong.
-
GCB, can you tell us what a CEO does? What are his day-to-day responsibilities to this company and shareholders?
Do you think anyone can simply step in and do it successfully?
No - I don't. But these guys are well compensated whether they do a good job or not.
-
Not to mention that most CEO's don't really have a life to live because work is their life. 24/7. People could care less if people win the lotto, but if a hard working person earns it, it's wrong.
Yes, I pray every night for these poor CEOs at their business lunches and golf days.
-
Yes, I pray every night for these poor CEOs at their business lunches and golf days.
So... what happens at these business lunches and golf outings with their business partners and clients?
How many people's jobs and livelihood depend on them to strike deals that can generate the revenue that keeps their company afloat?
Now, I am of the opinion that a CEO's bonuses and salaries should be tied to their companies profit margin. If the company they lead does poorly then ribs-n-dick for them. Getting fat bonuses or severances checks for running a company into the ground is BS.
But let's not kid ourselves and pretend what they do is easy. If it was easy everyone would be doing it.
-
I never said it was easy - but it is more about who you know then what you know.
-
A good example to illustrate my point:
Take a company run by a CEO - he has certain costs associated with running his business. If he lobbies the government to help break the unions and reduce wages and therefore doubles his profit has he really earned that extra profit?
-
I never said it was easy - but it is more about who you know then what you know.
Of course it's about who you know! Successful people network and those that are the best at their job are well known. The same goes for those that royally fuck up.
-
A good example to illustrate my point:
Take a company run by a CEO - he has certain costs associated with running his business. If he lobbies the government to help break the unions and reduce wages and therefore doubles his profit has he really earned that extra profit?
Dude, please don't ask me to argue on behalf of unions. They're just as corrupt as any fuck-all-the-rules CEO or politician.
-
Dude, please don't ask me to argue on behalf of unions. They're just as corrupt as any fuck-all-the-rules CEO or politician.
you aginst unions huh
-
Of course it's about who you know! Successful people network and those that are the best at their job are well known. The same goes for those that royally fuck up.
Yes but are they the best because they network or for some other reason?
-
you aginst unions huh
Yes.
I'm happy I don't belong to one.
-
Yes but are they the best because they network or for some other reason?
I don't know any CEOs so I can't speak on that.
All I can say is that in my experience people in my job field (Information Technology in the Baltimore/DC area) are made by their reputation. I've worked with several people that own their own company and are doing very very well. That wouldn't be the case if they did crap work.
I'm sure there are CEOs that got where they are because of the good old boy system but you also have to accept that there are those that got were they are because they are damn good and were in high demand.
-
Yes.
I'm happy I don't belong to one.
and your reasoning?
-
and your reasoning?
It's my opinion they're as corrupt as the politicians they serve.
I have no problem finding high paying work in the IT sector and don't need nor want to be involved in a union.
Do you support them? If so, why?
-
Where is it effective...people hate it in England/Canada and they don't have 350 million plus. U guys rail against the gov all the time, now u want him regulating ur healthcare?
It's effective in every single one of the 36 countries that scored better than the US in the World Health Organization's analysis.
-
Should we be surprised you believe in socialism? No, you're a moron.
Get Lost Eldon.
Nobody needs your worthless 'Berzerk Fury' personality today.
You add shit to discussions.
-
It's effective in every single one of the 36 countries that scored better than the US in the World Health Organization's analysis.
Decker, do you belong to a union?
-
It's my opinion they're as corrupt as the politicians they serve.
I have no problem finding high paying work in the IT sector and don't need nor want to be involved in a union.
Do you support them? If so, why?
my experience is they help against corrupt bosses or supervisors.and do a good job regulating safety for workers.I dealt with a company pre union that averaged 40 injury's per 30 day period.post union that was down to 12 injuries per 30 day period.and during this time profits of the company went up significantly.mainly from lower insurance costs.and lower employee turn over which resulted in a more competent work force.thats just one example.
-
Socialism depends on everyone doing relatively equal work, which is absolutely not the case in American.
In an ideal world, socialism would certainly work. When I was a teenager, I talked about socialism being a wise system...as I got to understand people and the world, I see that pure socialism would be extremely unfair.
Pure capitalism is also not ideal because there are very greedy people.
So, like most other things in life, a compromise and combination is probably best.
I think Socialism depends on the worker owning the means of production instead of the capitalist. Hell, even communism doesn't view the delegation of work duties evenly: "From each according to his own ability, to each according to his needs".
-
Decker, do you belong to a union?
Nope. My dad did though. Why?
-
my experience is they help against corrupt bosses or supervisors.and do a good job regulating safety for workers.I dealt with a company pre union that averaged 40 injury's per 30 day period.post union that was down to 12 injuries per 30 day period.and during this time profits of the company went up significantly.mainly from lower insurance costs.and lower employee turn over which resulted in a more competent work force.thats just one example.
I think the workforce, in certain situations, needs bargaining strength with management. Unions are effective in that respect.
-
Normally I don't post unedited material.
"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."
Why Socialism?
By Albert Einstein
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.
Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has -- as is well known -- been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.
Second, socialism is directed toward a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and -- if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous -- are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half-unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supranational organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"
I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?
It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society -- in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence -- that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished -- just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human beings which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.
Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time -- which, looking back, seems so idyllic -- is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor -- not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production -- that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods -- may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production -- although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. In so far as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present-day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
Unfortunately, most governments only work on paper. Most forms of government work if you have the money, to make it work for you. Democracy is the best of a bad lot of governments. If you read any governments preamble, or manafesto, they always have "grey areas", that are subject to "debate"......Socialism as most forms of government would work, if it was truly applied....The problem is people will make their own interuptations, then trouble begins....Capitalism, is what it is...."free enterprise"....Capitalism is the ruling class of Democracy....Whether you like it or not, it is here to stay.....
-
Nope. My dad did though. Why?
Just curious.
-
my experience is they help against corrupt bosses or supervisors.and do a good job regulating safety for workers.I dealt with a company pre union that averaged 40 injury's per 30 day period.post union that was down to 12 injuries per 30 day period.and during this time profits of the company went up significantly.mainly from lower insurance costs.and lower employee turn over which resulted in a more competent work force.thats just one example.
I'm happy your experience with them has been positive and I'll readily admit they're great when it comes to worker safety and workers compensation for those injured on the job. What turns me off about them is how they are used as political tools and how some workers are intimidated into joining them or risk getting black balled and denied work. It's my opinion that they can go too far and bite the hand that feeds them.
-
Just curious.
I was in a union when I worked for UPS.
-
I was in a union when I worked for UPS.
I've never belonged to one. There are no unions in the military and none in the IT sector (that I'm aware of).
I honestly don't think I'd want to join one. IMO, they've become too politicized.
-
There is no left or right, only a circle. The rich benefit at the expense of the poor in every situation regardless of socialism or capitalism.
-
I don't know any CEOs so I can't speak on that.
All I can say is that in my experience people in my job field (Information Technology in the Baltimore/DC area) are made by their reputation. I've worked with several people that own their own company and are doing very very well. That wouldn't be the case if they did crap work.
I'm sure there are CEOs that got where they are because of the good old boy system but you also have to accept that there are those that got were they are because they are damn good and were in high demand.
It's not the same in every industry - and what you say is true some are good at what they do.
-
A Chinese man in the documentary "Up the Yangtze" told this joke:
An American and a Chinese were out driving one day and came to a crossroads. To the right, capitalism. To the left, socialism. The American says, "Let’s go to the right." The Chinese says, "Yes, let’s go to the right, but first put on the left-turn indicator."