Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marxism
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 526 (552711)
03-30-2010 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by onifre
03-30-2010 6:26 PM


Re: No true Scotsman are communists . . .
Ehh, no not really. Saying it that way makes it sound (at least to me) that they had a problem with the rich.
Do you know who the Bourgeoisie was? It wasn't the proletariat's.
Marx didn't have a problem with class struggle per-se, he simply felt their was a better way to handle productivity that removed the social classes. But he only cared about the removal of the social classes because it would eliminated exploitation and alienation of the working class by the wealthy.
Oni, the two men were consumed by the concept of class struggle. The whole theory can be summarized in two words: Class Struggle
It seems like you are describing the very thing you are saying it is not about.
There's your problem, no one has said it was advantageous, at all. No one has said that it's theoretically advantageous either. All we have said is, the communist movements that have been tried are not the true ideals set forth by Marx and Engel.
The impression that resonates is an affection towards marxism, a defending of marxism, and an alienation of anything contrary to marxism.
Advantageous in what sense?
In the sense that somebody would adopt it and implement it as part of its economic policies.
quote:
why have they not tried it?
Because, true Marxism/Communism is not the desire of dictators.
That doesn't answer why no one has allegedly tried it. Why hasn't it been tried?
It works for unions, at least in principle.
Unions have exploited the hand that feeds them, so unions are not a good example. Unions started out with good intentions and certainly have helped in many areas. But they have the same record of racketeering the mob has. With unions you have to pay your dues to the people on the top of the food chain, right? So how is that any different than any other corporation? Unions are also incredibly political. They are the largest lobby for the democrat party. Unions are for the Left what Big Oil is for the Right. I have a huge bone of contention with unions.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by onifre, posted 03-30-2010 6:26 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2010 7:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 102 by onifre, posted 03-30-2010 9:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 526 (552726)
03-30-2010 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Straggler
03-30-2010 6:43 PM


Re: Power to the Population.....
quote:
All form of government need specific individuals to organize it. That obviously does not mean that a Direct Democracy would exist where everyone has an equal say and an equal status for the sole fact that some people have to be in charge.
But it doesn't mean there has to be a dictatorship with an immovable and unaccountable ruling elite who cream off the best for themselves at the expense of all others. Does it? If so why?
How can a government run without people in charge running it? The vision was for the proletariat's, the working class, to end the class struggle that Marx and Engels saw was endemic of the overall problem. If this is the case, this is simply changing who controls power, not the abrogation of it.
I think there can be a consensus of some sort (even in a large population) of what constitutes a contribution to society and the relative basis upon which that might be rewarded.
Then why is there so much political strife and division now and always has been? Are people suddenly and inexplicably going to come to some sort of consensus under Marxist rule? If so, why?
Our current system lets the market dictate that almost entirely. And we end up in the situation where a sports star is essentially deemed as millions of times more worthwhile than a nurse. Is this necessarily right? Is it socially unavoidable? Maybe. Maybe not. I am asking the question.
That's a social phenomenon that is certainly not unique to any society. I don't see that as being relevant, except to note that people look upon the extraordinary because human nature marvels at those who break from the common modality and break free from the mold. Marxism is a cookie cutter that wants to make everyone the same and stamp out individuality. I don't see that as virtuous.
quote:
I don't see penalizing successful people and redistributing poverty as a sign of "fairness."
Nor do I. Who does?
Marxists!
The question is - What is success? And on what basis should it be rewarded?
Success is something defined by the individual. What I imagine success as working hard, earning respect, and in the interest of high achievement, being compensated for that achievement.
Should a highly specialised doctor make the same amount of money as a person who operates a cash register? If not, why not? And would that simple principle of being more highly compensated for a higher level of profession be the same under Marxism? If so, why? If not, why not?
My main concern remains the size of the population in which it is possible for this collective identity to manifest itself to the degree required by Marxism in practise.
I don't understand. Can you please elaborate?
The self interest of the Western world does not benefit those working in third world slum conditions for poverty wages to provide us with cheap goods and services so that we can maintain that differential.
Sure it does. Do you think these people work there with a gun to their head? What you consider a shitty job is an amazing job for them that is keeping them and their family alive. If you can't provide a basis for why they can't leave their job, then you have no basis for even mentioning it in a negative connotation.
Capitalism is great at providing a large portion of the wealthy with what they desire. But it indisputably has a massive cost in terms of requiring a majority labour market to do this in relative poverty and is also indisputably very wasteful in terms of finite natural resources.
Capitalism is the only economic system that has proven to limit poverty in the known world. There is no room for comparison. Until it can be demonstrated that a better form of system exists, it is useless to even disparage it.
If you have to keep consuming you have to keep creating. Regardles of actual need. We operate the world on the basis of manufactured need in the first world largely supplied by impoverished labour in the third world.
Who's fault is it that third world countries are third world? Are you suggesting that a country like the Bahamas would be better off without capitalism? Because from my vantage point, the only reason why Bahamians are still alive is because of capitalism. They have no natural resources and almost 90% of their economy comes from tourism. They benefit from it. Just because one nation is more prosperous than another doesn't mean the smart nation should be guilted for their success. It would be wise, like China finally wised up to, and to get in the game and compete. Because what else can you do?
No truly Marxist system would rely on a dictatorial elite as far as I understand the term "communism" in that conceptual context. That every "communist" system has been a trenchant and authoritarian dictatorship implies to me that "power to the people" has been used to dupe the populace into accepting such extreme governance rather than as any sort of manifestation of anything actually envisaged by Marx.
The question that still begs to be answered by anyone is: If Marxism is theoretically so amazing, yet hasn't been tried, why has no one dared to implement it?
Or is the truth that it has been tried numerous times, and numerous times has failed?
All EvC members are entitled to their view. But some members are more entitled than others.
Touche!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2010 6:43 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Straggler, posted 03-31-2010 8:54 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 526 (552732)
03-30-2010 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Theodoric
03-30-2010 7:09 PM


Re: Power to the Population.....
Yes they should assist. School lunch programs are for the masses. The Feds subsidize every school lunch.
I asked you if the government should be paying for food (everyone's food) on the basis that people need food?
They stimulate the economy for one
You know what stimulates the economy even better? Working and paying for your own food.
quote:
Are you saying that the government determines the price of food?
They do for milk.
I can't seem to find any evidence of that. If you have any corroborating evidence that the United States government tells grocery stores how much to sell milk for, please post it.
Regardless, prices are determined by the market not the government. If you sell something for too much, people will go to the lowest bidder. If you want to compete for economic survival, you have to let the market dictate how much you sell something for.
One of the duties of our government is to not allow an unfettered free market.
Only in the case of monopolies, which is a rarity.
quote:
In this country, the role was supposed to be small and specific to protection, infrastructure, and postal routes.
According to your right of center view. Many, many people would disagree with that interpretation. Just because this is your belief does not make it a correct belief.
All we can know is what they stated, and the very clear message was the maximization of individual rights while minimizing the government's role.
quote:
I misspoke, Mussolini was certainly not a communist. Dictator, yes, communist, no.
Oh so this was a list of dictators not communists.
It was a list of dictators who are communists. My inclusion of Mussolini was accidental since he and other fascist regimes were against communism.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Theodoric, posted 03-30-2010 7:09 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by dronestar, posted 03-31-2010 9:28 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 526 (552737)
03-30-2010 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by RAZD
03-30-2010 7:53 PM


Re: Capitalism is about exchange and nothing more.???
Sharing is consistent with human nature, you can see this in primate behavior, as well as the concept of justice, which is based on everyone getting fair shares.
Ah, so you go to work for strangers I take it, and give your paycheck to strangers, and your home is shared publicly with strangers, and your car is not really your car and so on? It's all publicly divided, I take it?
Capitalism = exchange plus profit.
Of course profit is involved. That kind of goes without saying. Nobody makes products so they can break even, as it would tend to defeat the entire purpose of business.
If you borrow money from the bank, you have to pay back what you borrowed plus interest = more than you borrowed. This is capitalism.
A more succinct term would be called business or commerce or credit.
If you borrow a hammer from a friend, all he asks is that you give it back in the condition it was lent in within a reasonable time. This is human nature.
Yep, amongst friends or neighbors. But amongst strangers, there needs to be a system of collateral as there is less guarantee that you will recoup those funds that you invested in the hammer should that hammer mysteriously disappear. There would also be no incentive in lending the hammer out, and there would be no incentive on returning the hammer as it is "public domain" in a marxist society.
If you buy a product from a company you will usually pay the cost of materials plus the cost of manufacturing the part
Is that extraordinarily strange? Because I'm wondering what place on earth deviates from such simple economic principles that doesn't include an incredibly repressive society.
I don't know about you, but for me, greed and selfishness is about getting more than your fair share of any transaction, and that seems to be a built in element in unregulated capitalism.
If you as the consumer feel that you are not getting your fair share, you have the option to go to a lower bidder. Those kind of incentives drive the market, RAZD. No need for government spooks to determine the lives of free people in a free society to trade freely as they please in a free market.
Now we can also discuss whether there are any fully implemented actual economic systems that are 100% capitalistic, or whether every one in the world today has some kind of regulation because capitalism on it's own is an abject failure. In every case I know of the regulations are to more justly balance the profits among people and to take into consideration the social aspects in regulating transactions.
Plead your case and I will follow.
Bill Gates is not rich because he personally made things. He is rich because he charged more than a fair price.
He's rich because he sold massive amounts of his products. Simple supply and demand. The market had the demand, he had the supply. That's economics 101.
Can you explain to me what version of society (as it applies to economics) you think a nation should aspire to? Because these invectives of the horrors of capitalism really make no sense without a detailed alternative.
If RAZD could form his perfect society with willing participants, what would it look like?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2010 7:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2010 10:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 526 (552806)
03-31-2010 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by RAZD
03-30-2010 10:40 PM


Re: Capitalism is about exchange and nothing more.???
If it were an exchange system and nothing more then A can be exchanged for B and B can be exchanged for A at any time. Thus the loan would be repaid with the same amount that was lent, just as the hammer was returned by the good neighbor.
You are speaking of two different things. You go back and forth between lines of credit (i.e. loans) to purchasing items outright.
For loans, there has to be some kind of incentive for say, a bank, to loan you their money. That incentive is interest. It makes loaning the money worth while, otherwise what is the point? You as the consumer have the choice to get a loan elsewhere because their APR is too high and tantamount to extortion.
Profit means charging more than the actual value of the product, it means charging B+P for A. Asking for more than the value of an item is being greedy.
RAZD, honestly, that is the only way any company can survive in which to give you goods. What business exists to loose money, that you think this is exclusive to greedy people?
Is you having a savings account and wanting to place more money in to that account for your economic security tantamount to greed? Or are you just being responsible? What in your estimation is the line between greed and business savvy?
He's rich because he not only charged more than the product was worth, but as much as he could coerce out of people with little other choice.
He provided something the world had never seen, which means no one can say "he charged more than its worth." The people determined its value based on the value they extract from it. They have the choice to buy it or not to buy it. If no one buys it, it forces the seller to bring down prices because they otherwise aren't making a return investment. You have to spend money in order to make money.
So I'm glad that you agree that "Capitalism works because it feeds off the greed of people" and that all your equivocating shows exactly the same attitude: that greed is justified by capitalism.
If you want to be derogatory and equivocate greed with capitalism, I really could care less what you call it. Just know that you are describing business and nothing more. Provide me any other system in modern civilization that deviates from this simple economic model.
Nice quote mine. Now you have shown that you are dishonest as well as equivocating.
No, you're just making assumptions because you have nothing else to go by except to say that it is greed. I just took a snippet because its a redundancy. I saw nothing about it extraordinary.
quote:
Message 94: If you buy a product from a company you will usually pay the cost of materials plus the cost of manufacturing the part (includes all the overhead and labor) plus a margin.
Yep, nothing extraordinary about it, whatsoever! In fact, even more money is embedded in the product because large companies have to pay millions of dollars in taxes. Instead of paying for them at the end of the year, they do this piecemeal by marginally hiking up prices to offset what they need to pay in taxes.
So much goes in to making a product. Raw materials, research and development, assembly, paying employees, shipping costs, etc. If they didn't make some kind of profit then it would be you that is the greedy one, expecting people to make shit for you and them getting little in return.
If you don't like a companies prices, shop elsewhere. The sheer irony in this is that you aren't forced to give your money to anyone. The only group of people who forcefully take your money, whether you like it or not, is the one thing you think is the solution to all the problems: Government.
I have asked you to present to me your system of business that deviates from the economic principle you see as "greed." If you have nothing substantive to add to the debate with specifics, then you really have no room to complain about anything. You are otherwise just regurgitating marxist sound bites.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2010 10:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by RAZD, posted 03-31-2010 8:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 161 by DC85, posted 03-31-2010 9:20 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 526 (552965)
03-31-2010 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by RAZD
03-31-2010 8:18 PM


Re: Capitalism is about exchange and nothing more.???
Do you know that Muslims regard charging interest as immoral? Fascinating concept, lending without interest... In other words, your thesis that interest is necessary for banks to provide loans is false.
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 23:19
Nevermind.... 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 23:20
The 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.
Have you tried to buy a PC without microsoft on it? Some choice.
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.
what outrages people is the greed and selfishness of the top managements at the expense of the rest of the people. Greed is rewarded in capitalist economies.
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.
It is not an assumption that you clipped off the part of my post that made look like I said something else. It is not an assumption that with the clipped part restored your comment on it looks ridiculous and irrelevant. It is not an assumption that you made a mistake.
I swear on all that is holy (if you'll pardon the blatant religiosity of the statement) that it was not intentional.
In other words you don't comprehend the difference
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.
Your reply would be hilarious if it wasn't so ludicrous, because A + B ia a fair price for a product, and you have completely ignored the issue that C is the excess (greedy) profit over and above the fair price.
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?
FYI - those taxes are part of the cost of producing the product (the B part), and they don't come out of the excess profit charged (the C part) - it's overhead. Once again you have equivocated between charging a fair price and charging an excessive price for the value delivered, and tried to obscure the issue by bringing in a red herring fallacy.
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.
Certainly your simplistic claim that "Capitalism is about exchange and nothing more" is falsified.
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.
Amusingly I have not asked for companies to give me goods, but rather to sell them at their fair value.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by RAZD, posted 03-31-2010 8:18 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2010 9:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 526 (553042)
04-01-2010 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
04-01-2010 8:26 AM


Re: Christian basis for socialism
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 04-01-2010 8:26 AM Faith has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 526 (553090)
04-01-2010 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Theodoric
04-01-2010 10:00 AM


Re: Christian basis for socialism
Lets look at Horowitz objectively. I don't give a rats ass about where he came from or the Black Pantehrs or any of that. Because it does not matter in the context of his current behaviour.
Perhaps we should just drop the whole Horowitz thing. He's a political pundit, not a political figure.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Theodoric, posted 04-01-2010 10:00 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Theodoric, posted 04-01-2010 11:40 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 526 (553101)
04-01-2010 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Theodoric
04-01-2010 11:40 AM


Re: Christian basis for socialism
Faith has presented him as an expert on Marxism. I have been trying to show that he is not a reputable source.
If she is citing him as an expert, then I agree she needs to identify him as an expert if you challenge it.
It is not incumbent on me to accept someones inability to accept reality.
I don't see how his apparent racism discredits him from the ability to be an expert on marxism.
Are you just finding racist quotes in an attempt to discredit him as an individual who is prone to bias, and therefore cannot be a reliable or objective source, or just as a way to smear him?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Theodoric, posted 04-01-2010 11:40 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Theodoric, posted 04-01-2010 2:19 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 04-01-2010 2:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 526 (553115)
04-01-2010 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Theodoric
04-01-2010 2:19 PM


Re: Christian basis for socialism
Classic hyro. Attack mode again huh?
WTF?!?! Theo, I was not saying that combatively or antagonistically at all. I apologize if that is how it came across, but those were not my intentions.
You constantly question peoples motives. You think you know how everyone thinks.
No, that's why I ask questions. It is because I don't know, but would like to know.
David Horowitz is a racist and a fearmonger.
Maybe so, I am just asking if that precludes him the ability to be an expert in marxism because of that. I don't see the relevance, so I am asking for your personal input.
You want to defend that he is not a racist and extremely biased?
I don't want to defend him or throw him under the bus. I just want to find out what relevance this has with the current discussion, which is marxism.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Theodoric, posted 04-01-2010 2:19 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Theodoric, posted 04-01-2010 3:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 526 (553162)
04-01-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Theodoric
04-01-2010 3:22 PM


Re: Christian basis for socialism
I apologize for jumping back at you. It was uncalled for and I sincerely apologize. I guess I ahve just gotten in the mode of taking all responses as antagonistic. I will try my best not to get back into that mode.
It's cool, you and Faith have worked each other up in to a frenzy, so it is understandable to be on guard.
You are correct Horowitz does not matter. The issue there is dropped as far as I am concerned. Thank you for knocking me back into place. I needed it, and you may have noticed in the past I tend to need a knock now and again. Feel free to do it again if you see me getting this way.
We all get a little heated some times. The discussions we have here are often very controversial and we all have passionate feelings about much of the subject matter. It happens some times. No harm, no foul.
Back to the topic. I have persistently asked Faith for responses to my posts that were on topic. I do not get any responses. I guess from my viewpoint this thread is dead.
It may be. I think arguing marxist and capitalist philosophies are difficult because there a LOT of abstracts concepts in them. Maybe the dust will settle and the forum can regain its composure and try at it again as amicably as possible.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Theodoric, posted 04-01-2010 3:22 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 526 (553164)
04-01-2010 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Faith
04-01-2010 2:33 PM


Wow, calm down!
I know it's a lost cause to say anything here, but you guys are just flapping your gums mindlessly about a man about whom you know nothing. You just make up whatever suits your prejudices. You lie when you call him a racist. You lie. You just love flinging that accusation around. What does it do for you to call people such names, give you some kind of self-righteous buzz? Slander is a terrible sin, terrible, but it seems to be the favorite occupation of some around here.
Faith, be calm. You are getting worked up in to a seething frenzy and losing sight of your objective. If this is slander, then simply prove them wrong. Don't sit here and tell everyone that slander is a "terrible sin" and then turn around and call everyone liars. That just makes you look like an ass or a child throwing a temper tantrum.
So they're calling Horowitz a racist. Big fucking deal. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Doesn't really matter either way because that is not a hill worth dying on. Show the evidence in support of your decision because that is all you can do. Or just let it go and move on with the actual discussion, which is marxism.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 04-01-2010 2:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 526 (553208)
04-01-2010 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by RAZD
04-01-2010 9:00 PM


Re: Capitalism is not enough, Marxism is not enough, so ...
I so shouldn't have responded to this thread tonight (I need some sleep) but alas, here we are.
Thank you. Sometimes it is a bit surprising when one's concepts are contradicted by certain evidence, and it takes an open mind to realize when they are wrong.
You're quite welcome. As difficult a pride swallowing siege it may be to admit when one is wrong, right is right. Truth is my chief concern and I have to keep an open mind in order to see it. Unlike people who pray for Bush or Obama to fail, just so they can say they were right, I would rather be proven wrong for the sake of all.
Likewise, what burns ICANT, Faith, etc about welfare, healthcare, etc is the fairness thing, feeling that some people would be getting more than they deserve.
I have always found it fascinating to see socialists and capitalists arguing, when their main reactions are the same. Both seem to have virtuous reasons behind their philosophies, the only difference is how they perceive it. Both see it as an issue of fairness, but they interpret what is fair differently.
Socialists tend to view it as have's and have not's. If you are wealthy and the other is not, apparently because the have not's have some reason for being a have not, generally because of some disparity that is beyond their control and the playing field was never fair: race, gender, poor, etc that invariably continues in a cycle.
Me being a libertarian, you and I more than likely agree on many social issues. From this aspect most libertarians tend to deviate away from conservatives and gravitate more with liberals. Where libertarians tend to part ways and sort of rejoin with conservatives is in the sphere of economics.
My sense of fairness comes from allowing people to choose their own destiny. If you do well for yourself, then you shouldn't be expected to pick up the slack for those who didn't. For instance, my daughter's concept of fairness, in my opinion, is very skewed. If my son has earned something, her sense of fairness is also receiving the same thing on that occasion, apparently just for gracing us with her presence! Her rationale is that if one has, the other should have too. My theory is that both should have the equal opportunity to earn in every instance, but sometimes they both don't earn it (whatever it may be at the time) simultaneously. I'm not then going to reward her just for existing. There is no principle in that.
That, in a very scaled down and metaphorical version, is how I view our current discussion. I hope that gives you some insight.
The corporation made the family and very generous offer, and they were near retirement age, so they took it. In true fashion they also shared the buyout bonus with the workers. Two years later the company was broke, the dealers were all complaining about shoddy merchandise that was too cheaply and people were no longer buying at the price asked, and the product no longer performed as the previous product had, because corners were cut in production. Employees were asked to take wage cuts etc. Profit was maximized at the expense of everything else. The company was closed and the assets sold to the highest bidder, and employees that had worked there for years were left on their own.
That is definitely a very sad state of affairs and an all too common theme. It really hits home how much bad leadership produces shit. While I certainly feel sympathetic for all the employees that lost their jobs (I've been there too), the reality is that most businesses do not succeed. Knowing that, I view it how I view death. Death is sad, there are no two ways about it. No one likes it, no one wishes upon anyone. Despite that, being realistic we know it is an inevitability. Competition exists in every form of society, not to mention nature. Whether we like it or not, that is the state of affairs. It is therefore imperative that we do all we can for survival.
If we extrapolate that and look at history, never has poverty been vanquished completely. It has been mitigated, it has been stifled, but never eradicated. I dare say it is easier cure AIDS than poverty. It's sad, but true.
This may not be common, but the experience was pretty telling to me. One is a model of a fair company and the other is a model of a capitalistic company, one where profit was the only goal.
The dictionary is quoted as saying:
quote:
An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.
The encyclopaedia is quoted as saying:
quote:
In such a system, individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government control. The function of regulating the economy is then achieved mainly through the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how resources are used and allocated.
Your business, by all accounts, sounds as if it falls in to this category. The CEO executives who drove your business in to the ground, also seem to fit the category. The difference being in bad investing, bad business practice, and unethical business practices. I don't believe at all that capitalism has to be unethical. In fact, if you want to succeed in the long haul, it is in a company's greatest interest to be ethical. Those that don't end up like AIG or Enron from pure greed.
Not being satisfied with wealth, no matter how much one has, and still wanting more is greed.
Agreed.
Long story short, we should be able to agree that capitalism is not without faults
Nothing is without faults, so we surely agree.
without regulation results in more problems than it solves.
My concept of regulation and the government's role is the job of mediating, making sure companies are playing by the rules, watching for illegal transactions, etc. Someone needs to be there to protect citizens from fraud and to keep the hucksters who dupe people accountable for their actions.
What I don't like seeing is government micromanaging to the point where it forces, through mandate, risky business moves. For instance, it has been a government mandate for banks to make risky loans that they know will default, and sure enough do.
The increase of ridiculous taxes like the new soda tax being another one of the more obvious ways to extort money.
The Obama Adminstration of course paints a benevolent picture of caring about obesity, citing,
"While many factors promote weight gain, soft drinks are the only food or beverage that has been shown to increase the risk of overweight and obesity, which, in turn, increase the risk of diabetes, stroke, and many other health problems."
In reality this is just one more tax, in a sea of silly taxes, to pay for a health care system that will indebt the US economy an additional 1 trillion dollars in to the already mindboggling debt.
The government often operates like an unethical mega-corporation. That is one thing that I have often found ironic, if not downright hypocritical of those of the socialist persuasion.
I would be interested on getting your take on it.
We should also be able to agree that a good economic system needs to be fair to the largest majority possible.
As a utilitarian at heart, I wholeheartedly agree.
This is the essence of socialism, a mixture of sharing and self-interest, allowing people to earn a fair wage, taking care of the sick, elderly and infirm, enable people to seek higher education, allow small businesses to thrive, and having those that benefit from such an economy paying taxes according to their degree of benefit to support the country that makes such benefit possible.
I agree that the aim of socialism is to take the best of those two worlds. While I still remain skeptical of socialism (because of my fundamental belief that as government increases, personal freedoms decrease) I am obviously not blind. I can see that most European nations exist as socialists and in general do very well for itself.
There is no "market" entity, instead what you have are people. People will regulate their society, for good or bad, and including their economy, based on their collective will, including their sense of fairness.
When I say "the market," it is a reference to the collective of individuals trading and selling.
To conclude with this portion, I think this was far more constructive and I hope we can constrain our passions enough in the future to continue debating as amicably as tonight.
On a personal and caring note, it has been a while since I checked up on you and your cancer. Is it still in remission? I genuinely hope so and urge you to always fight the good fight.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2010 9:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2010 3:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024