NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060623/1027995.asp

Or are they? The local grocer made good, and quietly spent his money helping people. What do socialists have to say about that? Should he have given the money to the government, or did he do an exemplary job?

Kaminski gave so much to so many that it's difficult to quantify just how much he's given.

He donated millions to Roswell Park - including $1 million for an endowed chair in pediatrics and $1 million to build a two-acre park on the institute's campus.

He gave handsomely to other groups as well, including the Father Baker Home, the Salvation Army, Hilbert College and Camp Good Days and Special Times. He even helped neighboring families with mortgage payments, college tuition and lines of credit at his stand.

"It wasn't a handout. He was supportive and helped them maintain their dignity," said one of his nieces, Marsha Kaminski of Oakland, Calif.

"If they were helping themselves, he wanted to help, too," Eller said.

His gifts were kept quiet both because of his deeply humble nature and for his personal safety. Kaminski had been beaten and robbed several times over the years, and publicly revealing his wealth would only make him a larger target.

The reason I love capitalism is it doesn't matter whether someone's a greedy jerk or Mother Theresa...either way they gotta give me something I want to get my money.

Even Nazis, Commies, Anarchists, can all be useful in capitalist society. Otherwise you'd have to kill them or jail them. What a waste. :(

It's kinda funny that article was in the buffalo news, I live near Buffalo...

The reason I love capitalism is it doesn't matter whether someone's a greedy jerk or Mother Theresa...either way they gotta give me something I want to get my money.

Even Nazis, Commies, Anarchists, can all be useful in capitalist society. Otherwise you'd have to kill them or jail them. What a waste. :(
A working capitalist system also cripples racism, as those who can do the job best and at the lowest cost, regardless of race, will rise to the top.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060623/1027995.asp

Or are they? The local grocer made good, and quietly spent his money helping people. What do socialists have to say about that? Should he have given the money to the government, or did he do an exemplary job?

If he wasn't exploiting his local community to the bone and had a late-life guilt trip, and this actually ocurred as described, why would anyone complain. You do want people to complain... don't you.

I say well done, my man. It would be interesting to compare this good man's turnover to Enron's, however.

Just a thought ;)

Disclaimer: Not currently the bearer of any -isms.

The last country I lived in that called itself socialist no longer exists.

Mind you, no one ever had any problems with mortgage payments, college tuition or credit there either.

Sweet, sweet tax writeoffs.

Oh sorry, I forgot in the world of Deep Kimchi one example is all that is needed to prove his position is correct.

A working capitalist system also cripples racism, as those who can do the job best and at the lowest cost, regardless of race, will rise to the top.

I only wish we would catch up to where the Romans were thousands of years ago. Racism hadn't even been 'invented' yet. Sure Romans didn't like certain other cultures like Greeks, Jews and eventually Christians. But at least it had nothing to do with the flawed notion that your blood determines your superiority/inferiority. For them it was all about how loyal you were to the empire. Fair enough.

The Romans had an African emperor. We in the U.S. have yet to have any non-white President. (Not that it's too much of a problem but it just shows the cosmopolitan nature of Roman society)

We in the U.S. have yet to have any non-white President. (Not that it's too much of a problem but it just shows the cosmopolitan nature of Roman society)

Perhaps the reason we have Bush, and not Colin Powell, as President is because Colin and his wife aren't stupid enough to go through the Presidential election process.

I'd rather be bent over a log and assraped by 20 men on prime time television than go through the gauntlet of halfwitted "journalists" and "opponents" and "parties" that will do their best to stomp your name into the dirt.

At least after the assrape I can bathe.

I only wish we would catch up to where the Romans were thousands of years ago. Racism hadn't even been 'invented' yet. Sure Romans didn't like certain other cultures like Greeks, Jews and eventually Christians. But at least it had nothing to do with the flawed notion that your blood determines your superiority/inferiority. For them it was all about how loyal you were to the empire. Fair enough.

The Romans had an African emperor. We in the U.S. have yet to have any non-white President. (Not that it's too much of a problem but it just shows the cosmopolitan nature of Roman society)
Yeah, those Romans sure hated Greek culture :rolleyes:
I think you need History 101 again.

I'd rather be bent over a log and assraped by 20 men on prime time television than go through the gauntlet of halfwitted "journalists" and "opponents" and "parties" that will do their best to stomp your name into the dirt.
I'm sure I could be president - I could.. probably.. deal with half-witted punditys and right-wing idealogue pundits pretending they are journalists and hey, I passing college.

I never said all capitalists were greedy jerks, just the important ones, and the ones that are doing good probablly do it through socialist morals and ideas.

I'm sure I could be president - I could.. probably.. deal with half-witted punditys and right-wing idealogue pundits pretending they are journalists and hey, I passing college.

Don't forget the left-wing pundits and ideologues pretending they are journalists who will stab you in the back (like they did Dean).

As for the "I passing college" part, I think you need to edit your post for grammar.

They are not greedy they just think it'is allright....
tommorow they will sell monkey to their mother telling her ,they were bread to help nature.
Witch is good,Nature is preserved.:fluffle:
Ja greed has many mask, power is the most commun.but isn't ghettoised to that.
a dog will eat everything he can in no time,and will got sick,suffer constipation and will puke shit from it's mouth,he will still eat it's own puke....
That makes you think:eek:
PS:sorry for my bad english:headbang:

They are not greedy they just think it'is allright....
tommorow they will sell monkey to their mother telling her ,they were bread to help nature.
Witch is good,Nature is preserved.:fluffle:
Ja greed has many mask, power is the most commun.but isn't ghettoised to that.
a dog will eat everything he can in no time,and will got sick,suffer constipation and puke shit from it's mouth,he will still eat it's own puke....
That makes you think:eek:
PS:sorry for my bad english:headbang:

Es ist nicht schlecht. Ich spreche nicht Deutsches gut.

Sweet, sweet tax writeoffs.

Oh sorry, I forgot in the world of Deep Kimchi one example is all that is needed to prove his position is correct.
To further confuse the issue, I am a capitalist who is a greedy jerk, yet I also give to charity even though I don't try to claim the tax writeoffs.

Mwa ha ha.

To further confuse the issue, I am a capitalist who is a greedy jerk, yet I also give to charity even though I don't try to claim the tax writeoffs.

Mwa ha ha.

I've wondered - in the ideal Marxist view of the world, when we no longer have need of the state, and we all help each other according to our abilities and needs, won't that just be the same as a world of ideal Christian charity without the religious claptrap.

Wasn't he acting the same way? Giving to those who were in need according to his ability? Without the state?

Yeah, those Romans sure hated Greek culture :rolleyes:
I think you need History 101 again.

Spare me the condescending attitude Mr. President. Many Romans did dislike Greeks who came in to their cities with their effeminate habits, philosophy and poetry. That's why Virgil makes fun of them in The Aeneid.

I'm sorry :( I'm surprised you haven't left too. Does the population have a count down ticker?


It's kinda funny that article was in the buffalo news, I live near Buffalo...

To further confuse the issue, I am a capitalist who is a greedy jerk, yet I also give to charity even though I don't try to claim the tax writeoffs.

Mwa ha ha.

That is why charity exist,not because people are opressed,but because it helps.:headbang:
is that better?

I've wondered - in the ideal Marxist view of the world, when we no longer have need of the state, and we all help each other according to our abilities and needs, won't that just be the same as a world of ideal Christian charity without the religious claptrap.

Wasn't he acting the same way? Giving to those who were in need according to his ability? Without the state?
It seems that way to me. I know plenty of people who choose to give according to their ability, to those who are in need. Oddly enough, many of these same people strongly oppose a form of government that would mandate the very behavior they choose to engage in.

It's kind of like how I'm really a fan of having sex, but I'm not so much a fan of a government that forces me to have sex.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060623/1027995.asp

Or are they? The local grocer made good, and quietly spent his money helping people. What do socialists have to say about that? Should he have given the money to the government, or did he do an exemplary job?


Well, think about this.

If he lived in a Socialist society, all of that money would have gone to the government, which, in turn, would have been spent back on the communities of that nation ANYWAY. In either case, that Grocier would have done tons of good. In fact, by adding as much income has he would have to the nation, the income of every citizen in the nation would have risen marginally, therefore improving the economy, and therefore, the welfare of the ENTIRE NATION.

The difference in these two situations is this: In a Capitalist society, living next door to this grosser is a fat sow of a man who runs a nuclear power plant and abuses foreign workers who get paid less then minimum wages to do incredibly dangerous jobs with no benefits, while he rolls around in a pile of money with a mistress 1/3 of his age, while his wife sits at home drinking wine and doing nothing for her nation, while millions of people work every day just to get by.

In a Socialist nation, that fat sow would be unable to abuse his workers, they'd all get paid fairly, and he would, too, based on the level of of the contribution he makes to his nation.

KTNXLYLBYE.

Well, think about this.

If he lived in a Socialist society, all of that money would have gone to the government, which, in turn, would have been spent back on the communities of that nation ANYWAY. In either case, that Grocier would have done tons of good. In fact, by adding as much income has he would have to the nation, the income of every citizen in the nation would have risen marginally, therefore improving the economy, and therefore, the welfare of the ENTIRE NATION.

The difference in these two situations is this: In a Capitalist society, living next door to this grosser is a fat sow of a man who runs a nuclear power plant and abuses foreign workers who get paid less then minimum wages to do incredibly dangerous jobs with no benefits, while he rolls around in a pile of money with a mistress 1/3 of his age, while his wife sits at home drinking wine and doing nothing for her nation, while millions of people work every day just to get by.

In a Socialist nation, that fat sow would be unable to abuse his workers, they'd all get paid fairly, and he would, too, based on the level of of the contribution he makes to his nation.

KTNXLYLBYE.


Oh, like a "government" always makes the right decision... LOL

The difference in these two situations is this: In a Capitalist society, living next door to this grosser is a fat sow of a man who runs a nuclear power plant and abuses foreign workers who get paid less then minimum wages to do incredibly dangerous jobs with no benefits, while he rolls around in a pile of money with a mistress 1/3 of his age, while his wife sits at home drinking wine and doing nothing for her nation, while millions of people work every day just to get by.

In a Socialist nation, that fat sow would be unable to abuse his workers, they'd all get paid fairly, and he would, too, based on the level of of the contribution he makes to his nation.

KTNXLYLBYE.

Hurray for the fat sow. He's the reason the nuclear plant existed in the first place for the so-called 'foreign workers' to work in. His wife sitting at home drinking wine paid the people at the winery a hefty sum of money for their product. In a Socialist nation, the fat sows simply go by different titles. Except now they have the power of government to force people at gunpoint to do whatever their favorite lobby group wants them to. Spare us the utopian dreams, please.

you could argue hours about power.
The thing is power.
Why is it not working?

In a Socialist nation, the fat sows simply go by different titles.

President. Prime Minister. Dear Leader.

Spare me the condescending attitude Mr. President. Many Romans did dislike Greeks who came in to their cities with their effeminate habits, philosophy and poetry. That's why Virgil makes fun of them in The Aeneid.
Virgil wasn't Roman.
Virgil was a poet.
Where do you think Rome got the ideas for their religioun, philosophy, and poetry.

Es ist nicht schlecht. Ich spreche nicht Deutsches gut.
did you understand it?

Don't forget the left-wing pundits and ideologues pretending they are journalists who will stab you in the back (like they did Dean).

As for the "I passing college" part, I think you need to edit your post for grammar.
Shut up, I'm smrt.

did you understand it?
Yes, I did.

Shut up, I'm smrt.
Oh yeah? I can spel btter than ewe kan!

Oh yeah? I can spel btter than ewe kan!
Yoo hax!

Yes, I did.
what didn't you understand then?

It seems to me that the grocer was simply bypassing the state communism stage. After all, in capitalism, wouldn't he have used his hard earned money to provide himself with more luxuries than 'a computer'?

Virgil wasn't Roman.
Virgil was a poet.
Where do you think Rome got the ideas for their religioun, philosophy, and poetry.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570049/Virgil.html

Virgil, Roman Poet. Dude it's like the first line on every page about him. And I DID mention that despite adoping much of Greek culture, Roman citizens themselves had a kind of disdain for Greek people.

You need to take both History 101 and English 101.

what didn't you understand then?
I was trying to say that your English is better than my German.

It seems to me that the grocer was simply bypassing the state communism stage. After all, in capitalism, wouldn't he have used his hard earned money to provide himself with more luxuries than 'a computer'?
it is not going over what capitalism did ,but rather what it could.
and sorry but intranet is a product of this confrontation.
Howel russian(not communists) also made a computer system.

I was trying to say that your English is better than my German.
i never inplied it was better dan Dutch.

Oh, like a "government" always makes the right decision... LOL
My government kicked my kitten. :(

The local grocer made good, and quietly spent his money helping people. What do socialists have to say about that? Should he have given the money to the government, or did he do an exemplary job?

He did indeed do an examplary job. The problem however from a socialist point of view is that this display cannot hope to be replicated across the entire spectrum of small and large businesses.

I only wish we would catch up to where the Romans were thousands of years ago. Racism hadn't even been 'invented' yet. Sure Romans didn't like certain other cultures like Greeks, Jews and eventually Christians. But at least it had nothing to do with the flawed notion that your blood determines your superiority/inferiority. For them it was all about how loyal you were to the empire. Fair enough.

The Romans had an African emperor. We in the U.S. have yet to have any non-white President. (Not that it's too much of a problem but it just shows the cosmopolitan nature of Roman society)

As much as I admire certain aspects of ancient Roman society, to say that 'racism' didn't exist yet is... well... not entirely true. I suppose it depends on which time period you're speaking about. Italy fought a brutal civil war over Italian voting rights, because Italians didn't have Roman blood. And your ability to vote or enter the political life depended entirely upon your bloodline. Plus, disdain for other cultures is an aspect of racism.

However, to their credit, in patrician families an adopted heir can be just as, or more important than a blood heir.

Out of curiosity, which emperor was African?

EDIT: I realize my post was slightly off-topic. On the original topic, nothing but Kudo's for this selfless and wonderful man. If only more were like him.

it is not going over what capitalism did ,but rather what it could.
and sorry but intranet is a product of this confrontation.
Howel russian(not communists) also made a computer system.

Okay, I'm sorry, but all I got out of that is that Capitalism leads to greater technological advances? Anyways, I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out that neither an ideal communist society, nor an ideal capitalist society yet exists.

Okay, I'm sorry, but all I got out of that is that Capitalism leads to greater technological advances? Anyways, I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out that neither an ideal communist society, nor an ideal capitalist society yet exists.

Are you saying that a fake one is better without proving it can work?

The term African is misleading on many accounts. The less educated will think "omg, the was black emperor in Rome, l33t."

Remember back then the inhabitors of Nothern Africa were white european featured, this was before Arab incursions and assimiliation.

Even Hannibal who was Carthaginian, African, is in most busts portrayed with dark blond hair and high noble european cheek bones, as he probably was. Same most likely with your African emperor, he was African but hardly can count conclusively about racism since he was white as bread.

Also if there was no racism in Rome, I suppose they loved the Jews so much they an elephant tripped and destroyed the temple, or made them second class citizens, unable to vote or take office (along with every other ethnically different people they conquered, until they through some virtous act earned citizenship they were the equivalent of 1950s American niggers.).

The term African is misleading on many accounts. The less educated will think "omg, the was black emperor in Rome, l33t."

Remember back then the inhabitors of Nothern Africa were white european featured, this was before Arab incursions and assimiliation.

Even Hannibal who was Carthaginian, African, is in most busts portrayed with dark blond hair and high noble european cheek bones, as he probably was. Same most likely with your African emperor, he was African but hardly can count conclusively about racism since he was white as bread.

Also if there was no racism in Rome, I suppose they loved the Jews so much they an elephant tripped and destroyed the temple, or made them second class citizens, unable to vote or take office (along with every other ethnically different people they conquered, until they through some virtous act earned citizenship they were the equivalent of 1950s American niggers.).


no indeed only loosers and winners the first one work,the other one think...
J

Out of curiosity, which emperor was African?

It was Septimius Severus. People will argue about whether he was 'black' or not. That's why I used the term 'African', at least to point out that he was not Italian. He was descended from Phoenicians I believe. So bearing in mind the context, that was not a bad achievement for an ancient society no? (Especially when compared with Western society in the 19th-20th centuries).

Also, about the Jews, obviously the Romans had a problem with them, as Cybach said. My point is that it wasn't Hitler's brand of anti-Semitism because it was not simply for being Jews that the Romans disliked them. It was because their religion conflicted with some of the basic duties of a Roman citizen. It forbade them to worship any god but the God of Abraham, for one - meaning that, understandably, they had qualms about paying respects to the Emperor and Roman gods which was taken as very offensive by Roman citizens. Same thing happened with the Christians later on.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570049/Virgil.html

Virgil, Roman Poet. Dude it's like the first line on every page about him. And I DID mention that despite adoping much of Greek culture, Roman citizens themselves had a kind of disdain for Greek people.

You need to take both History 101 and English 101.
You do not want me to unsheathe my blade of +10 English mastery.
Virgil was a Roman poet, but he himself was not Roman. He was a non-Roman, Italian.

You do not want me to unsheathe my blade of +10 English mastery.
Virgil was a Roman poet, but he himself was not Roman. He was a non-Roman, Italian.

Oh please. :rolleyes:

If you want to play it that way, fine, many of the 'Italians' at that time were not fond of Greeks.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060623/1027995.asp

Or are they? The local grocer made good, and quietly spent his money helping people. What do socialists have to say about that? Should he have given the money to the government, or did he do an exemplary job?

Well, I'm not a socialist, but I would say that you apparently have no clue what socialism is, because you assume that he would have money in a socialist system. Instead, he would have been able to use his charitable nature in more direct methods, providing food directly to those who were needy. He also wouldn't have been robbed repeatedly, because no one would have needed or wanted to steal from him.

I realize that its verging on pointless to keep mentioning this, since people are apparently never going to seperate the two, but socialism and Stalinism are not the same thing. In point of fact, equating the two is sort of like equating the Gospel of Luke with the Malleus Malefecarum.

Well, I'm not a socialist, but I would say that you apparently have no clue what socialism is, because you assume that he would have money in a socialist system. Instead, he would have been able to use his charitable nature in more direct methods, providing food directly to those who were needy. He also wouldn't have been robbed repeatedly, because no one would have needed or wanted to steal from him.

I realize that its verging on pointless to keep mentioning this, since people are apparently never going to seperate the two, but socialism and Stalinism are not the same thing. In point of fact, equating the two is sort of like equating the Gospel of Luke with the Malleus Malefecarum.

Actually, what you're proposing as a socialist system sounds more like Stalinism to me. The grocer would provide food directly to the needy? No currency? What is this, back to bartering and haggling?

And people would need and want to steal from him because unfortunately we don't live in paradise and there aren't enough of our limited resources to satisfy people's inherently unlimitedwants.

Actually, what you're proposing as a socialist system sounds more like Stalinism to me. The grocer would provide food directly to the needy? No currency? What is this, back to bartering and haggling?

And people would need and want to steal from him because unfortunately we don't live in paradise and there aren't enough of our limited resources to satisfy people's inherently unlimitedwants.

In order of posting:

1) In a socialist system, bartering and haggling is not necessary. Everybody creates what they want to create, and everybody consumes what they need to consume. In effect, if a farmer needed a pair of pants, he would go to the tailor, tell him what he needed in a pair of pants, and the tailor would make him the most kickass pair of pants he could because he loves making pants. The farmer, for his part, would be sure to make and give enough food to the tailor so that he would never be hungry. As such, in such a system there is no need for money.

2) Resources are not necessarily limited. With industrial agriculture and industrial good production, we can easily make enough food, water, shelter, and consumable goods to feed, water, shelter, and provide for the material needs of every person on the planet. Goods are not distributed in such a manner, however, because the capitalist system encourages people not to buy based on need but on want or whim.

3) People do not have inherently unlimited wants. Your history textbook may have been different from Marx's, but neither he nor you ought to remember people clamoring for neverendingly increasing amounts of goods in the Dark Ages. People instead were content with what we would consider spectacular levels of poverty, even becoming more poor in order to practice charitable giving. The reason for this is sociological, but the clear inference is that there is no inherent need for more and more goods. Instead, our wants are tailored to the economic circumstances of our existence; in the case of capitalism, our sense of alienation from our labor and ourselves drives us to find meaning in our lives by what we consume instead of what we produce. That, not some goofy inherent urge, is what drives our current consumerist frenzy.

In order of posting:

1) In a socialist system, bartering and haggling is not necessary. Everybody creates what they want to create, and everybody consumes what they need to consume. In effect, if a farmer needed a pair of pants, he would go to the tailor, tell him what he needed in a pair of pants, and the tailor would make him the most kickass pair of pants he could because he loves making pants. The farmer, for his part, would be sure to make and give enough food to the tailor so that he would never be hungry. As such, in such a system there is no need for money.

2) Resources are not necessarily limited. With industrial agriculture and industrial good production, we can easily make enough food, water, shelter, and consumable goods to feed, water, shelter, and provide for the material needs of every person on the planet. Goods are not distributed in such a manner, however, because the capitalist system encourages people not to buy based on need but on want or whim.

3) People do not have inherently unlimited wants. Your history textbook may have been different from Marx's, but neither he nor you ought to remember people clamoring for neverendingly increasing amounts of goods in the Dark Ages. People instead were content with what we would consider spectacular levels of poverty, even becoming more poor in order to practice charitable giving. The reason for this is sociological, but the clear inference is that there is no inherent need for more and more goods. Instead, our wants are tailored to the economic circumstances of our existence; in the case of capitalism, our sense of alienation from our labor and ourselves drives us to find meaning in our lives by what we consume instead of what we produce. That, not some goofy inherent urge, is what drives our current consumerist frenzy.

1. Such nice people exist in your scenarios. Honestly, I wish everyone was like that. Unfortunately, there are some jobs that no one would want to do unless they're compensated for it. You think someone who shovels sh*t for a living will be happy getting the same compensation as a baseball player? He'd say no, screw this. Someone else will do this job. I want to be a baseball player.

2. I'll level with you somewhat on this one. I agree that there is a huge asymmetry in the distribution of resources. There are filthy rich and dirt poor, unfortunately. But where I disagree with you is the idea that the government or people's good intentions are any more reliable than people's desire for wealth.

3. People are animals. Animals always want something more. Some people have managed to grow out of their animal instincts like yogis and buddhist monks. Again, I wish everyone could be that unselfish. But it's foolish to depend on people to be like that. If you want to somehow force everyone to be satisfied with living on subsistence farming in some kind of modern day Dark Ages...I dunno know what to tell ya.

Well, I'm not a socialist, but I would say that you apparently have no clue what socialism is, because you assume that he would have money in a socialist system. Instead, he would have been able to use his charitable nature in more direct methods, providing food directly to those who were needy. He also wouldn't have been robbed repeatedly, because no one would have needed or wanted to steal from him.

What kind of socialism are you talking about?

It was Septimius Severus. People will argue about whether he was 'black' or not. That's why I used the term 'African', at least to point out that he was not Italian. He was descended from Phoenicians I believe. So bearing in mind the context, that was not a bad achievement for an ancient society no? (Especially when compared with Western society in the 19th-20th centuries).

Also, about the Jews, obviously the Romans had a problem with them, as Cybach said. My point is that it wasn't Hitler's brand of anti-Semitism because it was not simply for being Jews that the Romans disliked them. It was because their religion conflicted with some of the basic duties of a Roman citizen. It forbade them to worship any god but the God of Abraham, for one - meaning that, understandably, they had qualms about paying respects to the Emperor and Roman gods which was taken as very offensive by Roman citizens. Same thing happened with the Christians later on.

Thanks, I was curious. I'm not completely familiar with much of the post republican period. Looked up Septimus, and it would appear that he gained his throne through force (which was not entirely uncommon), so one wonder's whether or not Roman sensibilities would have made much of a difference. Romans were very cosmopolitan, but there was definitely a sense of superiority amongst them for being 'Roman', at least during the Republican period.

And you're right, they were far less concerned with 'race', then 19th/20th century folks. Blame it on Darwin and 'Survival of the Fittest'.

1. Such nice people exist in your scenarios. Honestly, I wish everyone was like that. Unfortunately, there are some jobs that no one would want to do unless they're compensated for it. You think someone who shovels sh*t for a living will be happy getting the same compensation as a baseball player? He'd say no, screw this. Someone else will do this job. I want to be a baseball player.

Our personalities in the socialist view are reflections of what it takes to survive in society. If you have a society with a war of all against all, then you get people who are militant and hostile. Certainly some will be less hostile and militant than others, but certainly those that succeed will be those who emphasize the traits needed to survive. Put simply, the socialist believes that the current system will create workers at once so desperate and so organized that they will at once throw off the old system and create a new system with a fundamentally new set of values. Nice people will exist in that system because its supposed to be a system in which those who are communal, industrious, and nice thrive.


2. I'll level with you somewhat on this one. I agree that there is a huge asymmetry in the distribution of resources. There are filthy rich and dirt poor, unfortunately. But where I disagree with you is the idea that the government or people's good intentions are any more reliable than people's desire for wealth.

It isn't people's good intentions that make it possible. It's the simultaneous accumulation of capital in the capitalist epoch, coupled with massive, systematic, and extreme exploitation of the people who create that capital that make it possible.


3. People are animals. Animals always want something more. Some people have managed to grow out of their animal instincts like yogis and buddhist monks. Again, I wish everyone could be that unselfish. But it's foolish to depend on people to be like that. If you want to somehow force everyone to be satisfied with living on subsistence farming in some kind of modern day Dark Ages...I dunno know what to tell ya.

I didn't argue that they would be satisfied with Dark Age technology today, and neither does the socialist. I said that people in the Dark Ages were satisfied with their method of distribution, even though it was not one that encourages rapid and continual accumulation of wants. And to be honest, that view accords with nature itself: if you watch a pack of chimpanzees that have abundant food, plenty of fresh water, territory to roam in, and no environmental pressures, do you think that they are going to continually hoard food, water, and shelter beyond what they need to survive? Of course not. Instead, they are going to be relaxed, playful, and even creative. Only men in a very certain historical epoch have ever deviated from this trend, which suggests that such a deviation is from what is natural, not toward what is natural. Hence the talk about alienation: capitalism forces men to engage in fundamentally unnatural modes of good accumulation and acquisition. It encourages men to have far more than what they need, unnaturally put pressure on the environment when they don't need to, and leaves many people who produce vast sums of goods to nevertheless have nothing.


What kind of socialism are you talking about?


Standard Marxism at the moment.

who is goin to say ,it is slavery?


but how?

sounds like a good guy to me.

Quit putting people who give to charity down DK.

sounds like a good guy to me.

Quit putting people who give to charity down DK.

Oh, he's first rate. I just find it odd that people would trumpet him as a triumph of capitalism when he's acting in a fundamentally uncapitalist way. After all, the purpose of profit in the capitalist system is to reinvest in the business to generate more profit. In point of fact, if you take uber-capitalists like Milton Friedman seriously, he's screwing up the functioning of the invisible hand with all that goofy charity.

Standard Marxism at the moment.

Okay. In that case, just one note, because it is so often missed in these discussions - the key distinction between capitalism and socialism, in both their Marxist conceptions and the conceptions of most theorists since Marx, is not the method of distribution but rather ownership of the means of production - private as opposed to collective. The differences of distribution arise naturally from the different forms of ownership. Thus (according to socialist thought), in capitalist society the private ownership of the means of production leads to vast inequalities in wealth and the exploitation and deprivation of the masses. In socialist society, the collective ownership of the means of production leads to some sort of egalitarian distribution. The store this man operated would be under the control of whatever method of political organization the working class assumes, and its manner of distribution would result logically from its status as such.

Oh, he's first rate. I just find it odd that people would trumpet him as a triumph of capitalism when he's acting in a fundamentally uncapitalist way. After all, the purpose of profit in the capitalist system is to reinvest in the business to generate more profit. In point of fact, if you take uber-capitalists like Milton Friedman seriously, he's screwing up the functioning of the invisible hand with all that goofy charity.

Personally if I had the money I would make capitalism work for charity.

I'd create a homeless rehab where they could go to school and get medical care while staying there in exchange for some labor.

They would farm, make clothing, electronics, and other products to sell to keep the business not only alive but growing and hopefully work well enough to franchise.

My plan is a lot more complicated thaan this of course and I'm sure there are a lot of bugs to work out to even see if it is possible but I think there is a good chance it is if done correctly.

If he wasn't exploiting his local community to the bone and had a late-life guilt trip, and this actually ocurred as described, why would anyone complain. You do want people to complain... don't you.

I say well done, my man. It would be interesting to compare this good man's turnover to Enron's, however.

Just a thought ;)

Disclaimer: Not currently the bearer of any -isms.

The last country I lived in that called itself socialist no longer exists.

Mind you, no one ever had any problems with mortgage payments, college tuition or credit there either.
The majority of businesses and their owners in a capitalist system are beneficial to society.

Our personalities in the socialist view are reflections of what it takes to survive in society. If you have a society with a war of all against all, then you get people who are militant and hostile. Certainly some will be less hostile and militant than others, but certainly those that succeed will be those who emphasize the traits needed to survive. Put simply, the socialist believes that the current system will create workers at once so desperate and so organized that they will at once throw off the old system and create a new system with a fundamentally new set of values. Nice people will exist in that system because its supposed to be a system in which those who are communal, industrious, and nice thrive.

And you'll have to jail or kill anyone who doesn't cooperate. Out of curiosity, why do you think the people in Soviet Russia and Communist China did not all of a sudden become nice generous people and create the utopia Marx wanted? (That's not meant to be a mocking question. I'd really like to know a socialist's explanation for that.)



It isn't people's good intentions that make it possible. It's the simultaneous accumulation of capital in the capitalist epoch, coupled with massive, systematic, and extreme exploitation of the people who create that capital that make it possible.
Make what possible? The asymettry of wealth? If so then yes...of course...it's not people's good intentions that make that possible. It's their greed, in the light sense of the word. In order to accumulate their desired level of wealth they must give others something they are willing to pay for.


I didn't argue that they would be satisfied with Dark Age technology today, and neither does the socialist. I said that people in the Dark Ages were satisfied with their method of distribution, even though it was not one that encourages rapid and continual accumulation of wants. And to be honest, that view accords with nature itself: if you watch a pack of chimpanzees that have abundant food, plenty of fresh water, territory to roam in, and no environmental pressures, do you think that they are going to continually hoard food, water, and shelter beyond what they need to survive? Of course not. Instead, they are going to be relaxed, playful, and even creative. Only men in a very certain historical epoch have ever deviated from this trend, which suggests that such a deviation is from what is natural, not toward what is natural. Hence the talk about alienation: capitalism forces men to engage in fundamentally unnatural modes of good accumulation and acquisition. It encourages men to have far more than what they need, unnaturally put pressure on the environment when they don't need to, and leaves many people who produce vast sums of goods to nevertheless have nothing.

Are we chimpanzees? Do we always follow what's 'natural' for fellow apes? Unfortunately we humans have grown beyond only wanting what we need to survive. Again...I for one don't want to be a subsistence farmer. You'd probably have to jail me or kill me in a Marxist society. At least a free market would make use of my unnatural desire for more than basic necessities.

All members of the boss class are enemies of the people. End of story - and one (or even a hundred) people like this grocer does not prove that wrong. Capitalists are indeed greedy jerks... and :upyours: to those who say otherwise.

Okay. In that case, just one note, because it is so often missed in these discussions - the key distinction between capitalism and socialism, in both their Marxist conceptions and the conceptions of most theorists since Marx, is not the method of distribution but rather ownership of the means of production - private as opposed to collective. The differences of distribution arise naturally from the different forms of ownership. Thus (according to socialist thought), in capitalist society the private ownership of the means of production leads to vast inequalities in wealth and the exploitation and deprivation of the masses. In socialist society, the collective ownership of the means of production leads to some sort of egalitarian distribution. The store this man operated would be under the control of whatever method of political organization the working class assumes, and its manner of distribution would result logically from its status as such.
Why change things when the current system of individual ownership works so well at generating wealth? Just tax the wealthy to the maximum point where they still see their effort as worthwhile and spend it on improving the lot without a large piece of the pie, and not waist it on ultimately futile military endeavors and the enforcement of morality based laws. It’s a lot less radical, and thus more people are willing to listen. When things are OK, most don’t want to rock the boat too harshly.

since you feel good with each other,
why bother it?

All members of the boss class are enemies of the people. End of story - and one (or even a hundred) people like this grocer does not prove that wrong. Capitalists are indeed greedy jerks... and :upyours: to those who say otherwise.


it's not greedy to want to live a comfortable life and accumulate wealth for security, but it's pretty greedy when you don't care how many other businesses you take out or how many peoples lives are ruined by your business practices in the aim to make money.

All members of the boss class are enemies of the people. End of story - and one (or even a hundred) people like this grocer does not prove that wrong. Capitalists are indeed greedy jerks... and :upyours: to those who say otherwise.
I considered leaving this alone, but the sheer idiocy of it has compelled me to reply. Seeking to pit classes against each other is no different from racism. It is divisive and dismissive of reality. Some people are naturally better at running things than others, and things need to be run, but nobody wants the responsibility unless it’s going to be worth their while. The “boss class” is necessary, as is the working class, without which the upper classes would have nothing and vice versa, as most people are incapable of organizing without leadership.

Are you saying that a fake one is better without proving it can work?

Nope. I'm trying to say that you can't point at the US and say 'this is what a capitalist society is like' and then point at Cuba and say 'this is what a communist society is like'.

All members of the boss class are enemies of the people. End of story - and one (or even a hundred) people like this grocer does not prove that wrong. Capitalists are indeed greedy jerks... and :upyours: to those who say otherwise.

And who are you going to use to make sure that your utopia survives but another 'boss class' that goes by the name of say...comrade Commisar instead of Chief Executive?

Do you want several bosses to choose from or just one that's armed with prisons and guns.

Nope. I'm trying to say that you can't point at the US and say 'this is what a capitalist society is like' and then point at Cuba and say 'this is what a communist society is like'.

Very true. That's why the fat cats and commies have been fighting for so long and that's why we will always be having this same argument. There are no pure free markets or pure communist societies and you'll probably never find one unless you only install those systems in small states where you have somehow convinced everyone to cooperate with your ideology.

And you'll have to jail or kill anyone who doesn't cooperate. Out of curiosity, why do you think the people in Soviet Russia and Communist China did not all of a sudden become nice generous people and create the utopia Marx wanted? (That's not meant to be a mocking question. I'd really like to know a socialist's explanation for that.)

Learn the distinction between "socialism" and "Stalinism" and you'll be off to a good start.

Why change things when the current system of individual ownership works so well at generating wealth? Just tax the wealthy to the maximum point where they still see their effort as worthwhile and spend it on improving the lot without a large piece of the pie, and not waist it on ultimately futile military endeavors and the enforcement of morality based laws. It’s a lot less radical, and thus more people are willing to listen. When things are OK, most don’t want to rock the boat too harshly.

Because any such solution would be unworkable.

Firstly, the wealthy will bail out. Force enough reductions in corporate profits, and investment will be reduced. In the present global economy, capital flight will occur, resulting in unemployment and economic stagnation.

Secondly, you will have created a contradiction between the method of distribution and the system of ownership. The people who own the means of production will do what they can to either roll back the reforms, or to find ways to minimize their costs - and under the present economic system they have the power to do so at the expense of other people.

As it stands, reformism is being rolled back in every First World capitalist economy I can think of; it is no solution.

Because any such solution would be unworkable.

Firstly, the wealthy will bail out. Force enough reductions in corporate profits, and investment will be reduced. In the present global economy, capital flight will occur, resulting in unemployment and economic stagnation.
The great thing about the US's current situation, at least, is that we already have more than enough tax dollars to nearly annihilate all major causes of poverty in mere decades. The money just needs to be spent in the right places. It needs to be spent on urban renewal, and job training programs, not on the military or war on drugs.
Secondly, you will have created a contradiction between the method of distribution and the system of ownership.
I don't see how. Charity has been a part of Western Civilization for thousands of years
The people who own the means of production will do what they can to either roll back the reforms, or to find ways to minimize their costs - and under the present economic system they have the power to do so at the expense of other people.

The rich gain nothing from poor who do not work. If enough of the rich can be convinced that the programs to improve the lot of life for the poor will also create productive workers, and if the middle class (the majority) can be swayed, then no one could stand against the reforms.
As it stands, reformism is being rolled back in every First World capitalist economy I can think of; it is no solution.
Perhaps they wouldn't be if socialists stopped focusing on their unworkable ideas and became a force for something that might work.

The world is never going to be perfect. The best we can do is make it fairly good. Idealism is pointless.

The great thing about the US's current situation, at least, is that we already have more than enough tax dollars to nearly annihilate all major causes of poverty in mere decades. The money just needs to be spent in the right places. It needs to be spent on urban renewal, and job training programs, not on the military or war on drugs.

Exactly. Although I'm no big fan of government spending in any case, our wars overseas and anti-drug campaign are a lot more expensive than the other programs and the funds would be better used by giving them back to the taxpayer either to invest with or to consume.

And I share your view that idealism is pointless. The best we can achieve is to give people the chance to pursue what makes them happy without telling them what they ought to be doing.

All members of the boss class are enemies of the people. End of story - and one (or even a hundred) people like this grocer does not prove that wrong. Capitalists are indeed greedy jerks... and :upyours: to those who say otherwise.
You know, it's been a while since I talked about my great uncle on this forum, but this thread seems like the perfect place.

Great Uncle Bob came over from The Old Country when things were getting ugly for Jews in Eastern Europe. With the help of his younger brothers, Bob started a business doing the one thing he was really good at: making booze. First they had a small vinyard and a modest winery. As it turns out, they made some pretty nice grape juice, and soon the vinyards were bigger and the one winery was four. One day they woke up and found they were a company. The wine was cheap, and much of it was bottled in Ohio (which doesn't exactly give it a lot of finesse), but they were a company none the less.

Somewhere along the way, Bob had to hire some employees. Somewhere along the way, he and his brothers became "bosses," though they started out as a bunch of guys trying to make a go of it in their new homeland. When Uncle Bob passed away (about 5 years back), the fire marshal actually had to come break up the gathering at his funeral reception because so many of his employees had showed up to pay their respects...the reception was over the fire code limit for occupancy.

What I'm interested in hearing is, when did they go from being "the people" to being "the enemies of the people"? Were they enemies of the people from the moment they stepped off the boat? Or was it when Bob bought that first vinyard? Or maybe it was when they decided to hire some people to help run their expanding business? Since Bob was the "boss" over his brothers from the beginning, and they were his first employees, was he their enemy?

The great thing about the US's current situation, at least, is that we already have more than enough tax dollars to nearly annihilate all major causes of poverty in mere decades. The money just needs to be spent in the right places. It needs to be spent on urban renewal, and job training programs, not on the military or war on drugs.

And you will get it spent on those programs how, exactly?

I don't see how. Charity has been a part of Western Civilization for thousands of years

And it won't solve our problems, either.

The rich gain nothing from poor who do not work.

They do if the poor are desperate enough to work for next to nothing.

If enough of the rich can be convinced that the programs to improve the lot of life for the poor will also create productive workers, and if the middle class (the majority) can be swayed, then no one could stand against the reforms.

So the rich are just going to be content to be "taxed to the maximum point"? I doubt it.

Perhaps they wouldn't be if socialists stopped focusing on their unworkable ideas and became a force for something that might work.

Um, that's what lots of socialists have been doing for around ninety years... it's gotten us Tony Blair, Gerhard Schroder, and Bill Clinton. Sorry, a failed policy is a failed policy.

The real "unworkable idea" is the notion that somehow capitalism can be changed if we become pro-capitalist enough.

The world is never going to be perfect. The best we can do is make it fairly good. Idealism is pointless.

I do not believe I ever claimed that the world was ever going to be "perfect."

What's wrong with greedy jerks?

Also, capitalism encourages hard work, because you have to earn everything you own. Communism, on the other hand, encourages laziness, because people can just live off of society.

Welfare shouldn't exist, especially for people who can work but choose to sit on their butts.

Also, capitalism encourages hard work, because you have to earn everything you own.

In theory. Unfortunately people cheat in our free market society making it look very unfair. Lots if not most people do earn their wealth legitimately but the few examples of greed overshadows all of that. If the government would crack down on corruption while promoting good work for good rewards, that'd be nice.

A working capitalist system also cripples racism, as those who can do the job best and at the lowest cost, regardless of race, will rise to the top.


shhhhhhhhhh

dont let that get out.