Marxism

After much review of not only Islamic banking institutions, but also other banks in Sweden, I totally concede this point to you. I could not see how lending money without interest could possibly be advantageous to the bank or the economy, which in the long run would not be advantageous to even the consumer. It appears that non-interest banking is an ancient practice but was largely abandoned.And as a side note to Christians in general (which I am not) it appears even the bible condemns it. "Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest." -- Deuteronomy 23:19Nevermind.... I spoke to soon. "You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess." -- Deuteronomy 23:20The scariest thing for me is that such a principle could have alluded me for 32 years. I didn't exactly fall off the turnip truck last night, but I did not know this. So for what it is worth, thank you. You and I have a very different concept on many issues, greed being one of them. I have the same visceral reaction towards greed that you do. Bernie Madoff? AIG? I'm fairly certain that both you and I can agree on that and that we probably both almost destroyed our televisions trying to believe how people can be that big of a piece of infectious human excrement. Noted.But what you consider greed in many instances, I may consider that (and most of the civilized world) as simple commerce; simple business. My contention is that to point out all the ills associated with capitalism invariably neglects the tremendous good that comes from it.The only real factor I see is balancing self-interest which, like Adam Smith, I believe benefits the masses even if unintentionally, with greed. And to me, greed is a human condition not an economic principle.So how do we balance that, except with our own sense of morality? Because we are dealing with choices that have gains and has consequences. I don't see "wealth" as necessarily being synonymous with "greed." In most instances I see wealth as being proactive, enduring, perseverant, etc. With how many generous wealthy people I've met, to demonize them for their success, and then hand them the expectation that they should give to those who fold their hands, is absolutely unjust. Giving should come from the heart, not a government mandate. And if you are greedy and uncompassionate and never help the downtrodden, life will deal with these people. I don't believe in Karma as some magical property, but I believe in the sense of karma that bad things come back to you because of consequence.To me, the market is like nature and you shouldn't manipulate it too much. Nature will regulate.Greed, to me, is just as lecherous as the con-artist who plays the system to give themselves money. Poor people are often just as greedy, yet for some reason people don't see it. There are two extremes. One that views the wealthy as doing no right because they are wealthy, and the other that the poor can do no wrong just because they are poor. Greed is greed, to me.The reality is that not all poor people are poor because they are lazy sacks of shit. I'm fairly impoverished, living a very meager existence. I have been literally destitute in my life, not even 4 years ago. I know the travails, I know the struggle. I think for me the critical difference is in my point of view. I grew up in a world watching immigrants coming to this country and not complaining about their circumstances. They worked hard and extricated themselves out of the muck and mire. That to me is inspiring. That to me is the ability to embrace capitalism without falling victim to greed which, as I see it, everyone is in danger of.That is how I see the world, right or wrong. I swear on all that is holy (if you'll pardon the blatant religiosity of the statement) that it was not intentional. No, in other words I was just going quickly and found all of it to be unremarkable. I still don't see A + B + C as being a case of greed as much as I see it a case of a successful business model. Who dictates what is a fair price? The market dictates this. If I like this nice flat screen t.v., but don't think the price is worth the investment, I won't buy it. And I will either go find it cheaper or I will abstain from making the transaction at all.Who else will determine what is a fair price, especially if you don't know how much went in to making the product, shipping the product, etc? It's not a red herring, I was actually being more generous to your position by saying that you could further say it is "greed." The only thing is that I don't see it as greed. We could sit here all day long and argue about what is greedy, but I see it as often being necessary from a purely utilitarian point of view (again, not to say that I see it is as greed, but you might. We have very different concepts of greed, seems to me).With how many businesses I've seen go belly up means that you have to fight for survival just like everyone else. No one is the exception to this rule. Survival is still as pertinent today as it was for our ancestors who had to brave the elements and face wild beasts. The only difference is that the dangers of life have changed forms.Business owners are fighting for survival just as you and I are. They are people too who need to eat. They are also consumers, not just predators as they are often characterized. They can only feed themselves if they are making a profit, because all other monies are going in to sustaining the business. But the first principle of the business is for your own survival. And if you don't make any profit, you have no money in which to literally survive, let alone your business metaphorically surviving. It is an exchange. If you didn't have the option to buy, you might have a point. But you do. You are trading a product in exchange for money. It is like the employee who exchanges time and work for money. That A + B + C is necessary to make that exchange possible is just the finer details of that exchange. What or who determines a fair value, if not the consumer (market)?Lastly, I have asked for you to produce an economic model that embodies the fairness you seek. This is all very ambiguous and it seems convenient to moralize on a perch without offering anything other than criticism. Simply criticizing capitalism as a bad system offers me no solutions. If you seek to share with me your cherished ideals so that we can come to a resolution, I am then going to need input. So what then is the solution to the current dilemma?Also, can capitalism work minus the greed? Does capitalism necessitate greed?

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Could you?

Well I looked at Theodoric's source plus several others in order to try to get an idea of what the truth is. It seems to be that, among other things, Horowitz published an article about black-on-white murders by Taylor in his magazine. Taylor is clearly a white supremacist. Now would you allow a white supremacist column space in your hypothetical magazine if you did not sympathise with his views? Wouldn't you rather distance yourself as far from such people as you could? Horowitz makes the feeble claim that he doesn't actually share Taylor's views -- so why publish them in his magazine? Source is simply Wikipedia.

Straggler has been echoing my thoughts (strange but true) so I'll simply say that I will look forward to a reply to Message 152. I have had difficulty in establishing what you are essentially arguing here; at first it appeared that you believed the rich should not be taxed at all, now you are saying they should be, but you have not said how much or what exactly the money should be used for. I am concerned about the statement that taxes should not be used to help people who cannot support themselves, but I will wait for you to elaborate on that.Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

Hi Buzsaw,I would first like to say that the autobiographical anecdote you included in your last post is the most interesting thing I've read here in a while. You should write more about it somewhere else. I lived in Nebraska myself but long after the times you spoke of.I wonder if we can find some common ideological ground but I think it's going to be difficult, unlike the alt med stuff. I think we've had vastly different experiences and look at the world in quite different ways. But that's what makes interesting conversation, isn't it?As far as the Biblical Old Testament and economic systems are concerned, I don't see why there's an implicit idea here that we should be content to imitate what some tribes in the Middle East did thousands of years ago. Even when I was a Christian I would have seen no sense in this. We live in a vastly different society and that requires vastly different solutions. And thank goodness for that -- I would not want to be a woman in ancient Hebrew times.Maybe I should first explain that I am not wishing for the complete eradication of capitalism. I've got nothing against people setting up their own businesses and profiting from them. It's what the economy needs. It also encourages people who are natural entrepreneurs or who are naturally inventive to be productive in society. It sounds to me like you and your family had a positive experience and I think I can understand that. But maybe you can spare a thought for others who were also in the situation of losing their homes and hitting the road; those who ended up in California in shanty towns, for example. Those who weren't lucky enough to possess the bit of know-how or luck to pull themselves out of poverty. There were many of them, and there are many now. I have only learned the nature of ingrained, generational poverty since I have been working in the city as a teacher. It's tempting when you are on the outside of this to think, "Why don't they just get an education and a good job? Are they lazy or something?" Poverty and disadvantage are complex problems with no easy solutions, and beneficent wealthy business-owners are unfortunately not always waiting to grant the boon of fairly-paid jobs to those who need them.I know someone closely (too closely) who grew up in poverty and made good for himself in the capitalist system. He decided he was always going to have control over his life, always have plenty of money. What he has is never enough, and he hoards it. He had great "boss" qualities that got him high on the corporate ladder: he was cold, distant, demanding, a workaholic himself. He was never happy even with the money he had, and the thought of giving to charity would have felt threatening to him. There are many people like this in the capitalist system and while I am not entirely sure what Faith is trying to say, I do know that we can't expect such people to contribute much to society unless they are fairly taxed.There are too many people here in the UK who take advantage of those who work under them, in order to enjoy lower-stress highly-paid jobs with lots of perks. I know some of these, and I know about the suffering of those who work for them. And I've experienced it myself. "Thank God for rich folks" indeed. Some of them spread misery like a contagious disease, using their power over others to make themselves richer still.While such people are not going to disappear any time soon, we can mitigate their negative effects on society. Governments can pass laws against the worst abuses and enforce them. A decent minimum wage can guarantee a certain standard of living. And those who are considering buying their second yacht or the next in a fleet of BMWs can afford to pay more in taxes in order to support those who are not as fortunate as themselves. And without a welfare state, the poor suffer. There has to be a safety net for those who fall out of the system. Just because your family were able to save themselves (good on them), you can't expect everyone to be able to do the same. The world doesn't work like that for everyone. That's excellent for him. But the fact of the matter is that most wealthy people like to hang on to their money. The group of people in the USA who give the highest proportion of their money to charity is the working poor. I think there's some misunderstanding here of what socialism and its aims are, and what the real nature of blocs that called themselves communists really was -- maybe you can dip into some of the other discussions on this thread. But surely all it takes is some concern for the welfare of fellow human beings to want to see the excesses of the rich curbed in order to benefit the less advantaged in society.Edited by Kitsune, : typoEdited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

This makes me so angry I could spit, this business of trying to smear Horowitz with some supposed white supremacist. This is nothing but slander. I refuse to dignify your suspicions with any effort whatever to prove anything.Horowitz left the radical movement because of a murder by the Black Panthers of a white woman who worked for them, who was a friend of Horowitz's. They killed her because as their accountant she had discovered that they were misusing the money given to them as a supposed charity if I recall correctly. Her body was found along the shore of the San Francisco Bay some time later. The Black Panthers were criminals and Horowitz had been their staunch supporter until he recognized their true nature. Perhaps this is the source of the slander. Mustn't call murder murder.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I resent your insinuations and your suspiciousness. You are "concerned" about my statement that taxes should not be used to support people who cannot support themselves? Well I'm concerned about YOUR attitude.This is the essence of the stealing I was talking about. You take money out of the pockets of people who earned it to simply give away to others. The earner is deprived of any say in the matter, of volunatry giving to causes of his own choice. I've said this is NOT the right solution to the problem of poverty because it is stealing.From the beginning I've also said TAXES ARE NECESSARY for the legitimate work of government, to keep society running and protected for all of us, and your getting any other idea is unbelievably absurd. But you never bothered to read through my posts. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not sure if we are going to get much further in this discussion, but I would like to try. I titled my post "Faith's position" because I would like you to define what that is, since it would be helpful for everyone here to know. So far you have reacted against what you say is wrong, and you have said that people need to pay taxes. That's still rather vague, and it is also unclear what you see is the difference between "legitimate work of government, to keep society running and protected for all of us" and "taking money out of the pockets of people who earned it to simply give away to others." What is your definition of each of those?I am also curious about what you mean when you say that taxes should not be used to support people who cannot support themselves. How does that fit with the above? If you could explain what it is you are arguing about, there would be less confusion and perhaps less frustration for you because you believe people are misunderstanding you.There is also the point I made about someone giving all their millions to animal shelters while there are needy people on the streets. At least the dogs will have homes. IMO this is rather misguided but it is possible and legal. There needs to be another way of helping those people if the charitable giving of others doesn't do it.

I am not familiar with the case you described, but the killing of a white person by a black person does not IMO legitimise the act of allowing a white supremacist column space in one's magazine. It's furthering hatred and division. If I ran a magazine here, I would not invite a member of the British National Party to write anything, even if the topic was garden parties. I would not give them the slightest bit of publicity. I am not captivated by the qualities you seem to admire in this person because he looks like a right wing extremist to me, but I am also struggling to see how he fits into a discussion of socialism.Just a thought too -- it might be an idea to take a step back and take a breath before you post again, as Percy says he does himself; it's unlikely that anyone here will radically change their point of view and there seems to be a wide spectrum in this thread. A well-reasoned argument will carry more weight here than an emotional one.

WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT INSINUATION ABOUT THE WHITE SUPREMACIST? Somebody has distorted the facts. Horowitz could not possibly be supporting a white supremacist.And I can hardly believe you think I haven't already explained everything you are asking me to explain AGAIN! Something is wrong here that is beyond my ability to grasp.I will not explain anything. It's been explained.

I'll leave the question of clarifying your position open for now; I do not believe you have done so here, as other posters will I am sure agree, and I don't think I can carry on discussing until I know where you are coming from. In answer to your other question, after having done some research on the web, then perhaps you might try doing the same and opening your eyes to the real agenda of Mr. Horowitz. One of the best articles I have seen so far can be found here.

I know Horowitz. I will not read the propaganda against him on your ignorant say-so.EDIT: Seems to me the essence of leftist thinking is witch-hunting finger-pointing self-righteousness trying to bring down individuals, labeling people as bigots -- that's really the new "nigger" -- without any basic humanity in anything you say or do. You're just out to make people toe some line you've defined and destroy them if they don't. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith I think you need to understand, as has been explained to you elsewhere, that a post here generally should consist of a reasoned refutation of someone's argument, rather than repeated statements of "You're wrong because you don't believe what I do and I'm not going to listen to you or talk to you anymore." I wonder if you even looked at the article I posted?If you'd like to rejoin the thread discussion at some point with some actual information or elucidation, that would be refreshing.

I explained and explained and reasoned and explained. Sorry you missed it.I said I would not read propaganda against Horowitz. I'm sick of your witch hunt against him. Who do you think you are.Get back to the subject of Marxism, how about, and stop trashing people.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith, can I offer a friendly caveat here? You are allowing yourself to fall in to the role of a virulent right-wing extremist position that only serves to denigrate you, invalidate your position, and vindicate the very Leftists you accuse of slander. Perhaps that is their objective, so why take the bait?I don't know the whole story so perhaps I shouldn't speculate, but if I were I would suspect this type of behavior is what awarded you your lengthy suspension in the first place. Now that you are out on parole, you might want to choose your words more carefully because you aren't doing any favors for yourself or your position.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston