[Zimphire]

Originally posted by wolfen:
Poor Criminal --> Maybe he steals a car, finances his habit, or assaults someone for a few hundred bucks.

Rich Criminal --> Maybe he wipes out the pensions of a few thousand people, dumps toxic waste into the city water supply, or compromises the political process.

Unfortunately, no system has found a way to prevent both criminality and wealth at the same time. Unfortunately, capitalism is the fastest way to convert the first into the second. The historians call it "progress."


wolfen

I am going to take it for granted you aren't calling everyone that is rich, a crook.

[MacmanX]

Originally posted by Ken Masters:
I'm not a wolf or a sheep, but a hybrid�

Not really a wolf, but not actually a sheep..

But a wolf-eep.

Baahwoooooooo!

I don't really feel like arguing about crapitalism. I just love the thought of a Wooleep.

Cheers!

[itistoday]

Originally posted by sniffer:
The government there is a social democratic party as far as I know.

Perhaps there's a misinterpretation on my part, but the CIA database as of 2002 says clearly that their government is a constitutional monarchy. And after reading a bit more in that section, you'll see they function quite similarly to England.

[mark9939]

Capitalism is the reason I live in America. It's what we're built around.

America will never become a communist state, and if it does, I'm outta here.

-M

[itistoday]

Originally posted by mark9939:
Capitalism is the reason I live in America. It's what we're built around.

America will never become a communist state, and if it does, I'm outta here.

-M

Heh, me too, except I'll be taking the next flight back to Mother Russia! lol... oh the irony...

[slow moe]

Originally posted by ambush:
Oil is running low, mainly because of the big pockets capitalists of this world. (We could sooooo switch to Hydrogen, we can, except the Oil lobby is too powerful)

Earth is being polluted, mainly by the big pockets capitalists of this world.

Kids are obliged to work in factories to survive in Taiwan, while in America (an Europe, and other non-poor parts of the world), we complain about triffles.

Some people are so rich (all the big bosses, Bill Gates, etc etc.) while some people (what, 70% of the Earth's population?) can barely eat something every two days.

People are starving to death in Africa, while the US is investing thousands of bilions in their Army.

And the list goes on and on and on and on.

Most people here had the chance to have medium-class or even upper-class parents, so most of them won't complain.

However, I think that us, middle-class and upper-class people have the mission to build a better tomorrow, where classes would be abolished.

It just can't continue like that, you have to agree with me on this point. We're going straight to auto-destruction, and it's not even funny.

It's a known fact, the main alternative to Capitalism, Marx's Communism, conflicts with the bloody human nature. But there has to be a solution.

P.S.: This really belongs to the Lounge. It's not just about politics.

I ain't trying to be mean, and I ain't trying to hurt your feelings, but that was about the stupidest post I've ever read. I understand what it is your talking about, and it is sad that so much suffering goes on in this world, but there is a thing called personal responsibility. It's up to you to work hard, get educated, and become successful. If you want the government to provide for everyone, think again, because I ain't paying for nobody's sorry ass.

This is the difference between liberals and republicans. A liberal has two cows, and his neighbor has none. The liberal will feel guilty, and give the neighbor a cow. A republican has two cows, and his neighbor has none. So what.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by slow moe:
If you want the government to provide for everyone, think again, because I ain't paying for nobody's sorry ass.

Ummm, hate to break it to you, but do you know where your taxes go? Ever heard of social programs?

[itistoday]

Originally posted by slow moe:
This is the difference between liberals and republicans. A liberal has two cows, and his neighbor has none. The liberal will feel guilty, and give the neighbor a cow. A republican has two cows, and his neighbor has none. So what.

What? Republicans aren't necessarily conservative. Were you trying to compare Liberals to conservatives or Democrats to Republicans?

[mark9939]

Originally posted by slow moe:
This is the difference between liberals and republicans. A liberal has two cows, and his neighbor has none. The liberal will feel guilty, and give the neighbor a cow. A republican has two cows, and his neighbor has none. So what.

Is it about time for this to be moved to the politics forum?

[itistoday]

Originally posted by mark9939:
Is it about time for this to be moved to the politics forum?

I think it's about time this thread is Lockinated� for facilitating Marxist beliefs.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by itistoday:
Perhaps there's a misinterpretation on my part, but the CIA database as of 2002 says clearly that their government is a constitutional monarchy. And after reading a bit more in that section, you'll see they function quite similarly to England.

you're right about it's a monarchy. I was just pointing out what party that is in charge there. The earlier statement "it works in Sweden" isn't all wrong. What you might call welfare is what socialism means in "social democratic". It's not equals to communism. But it's still really really far out on the left wing from what you are used to in the states i.e.. And yes, it's a mixed solution.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Yea just run around randomly and break things, easy

Originally posted by itistoday:
I think it's about time this thread is Lockinated� for facilitating Marxist beliefs.

I see that we have not only misconceptions about socialism and communism, but also about anarchism - which was to be expected, anyway...

Ehm, BTW... how is "Lockinating�" a thread "for facilitating Marxist beliefs" less authoritarian than the bureaucratic "socialism" (= state capitalism) that existed in the former, so-called Soviet Union? What about Free Speech�?

I'm still rather shocked at the complete, forced identification with "socialism" that most apologists of capitalism associate with the ex Soviet regime: how was that in any way "socialist" (if you care about the more original definition of socialism, of course), except maybe for the beginning? It's approximately like saying that Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc. are socialist (while, at most, they are - or, better, have been, until the '70s - social-democratic: see the Olof Palme period) - except that, for the ex Soviet Union, "their" so-called socialism or communism (which had nothing to do with the original aspirations of a free and classless society!) was obviously a farce.

One (not the only one!) of the explanations of the failure of those previous forms of "real socialism" (!) is that power corrupts - and this can happen, of course, both in capitalism, socialism, communism, and even anarchism, if there isn't a valid and widely shared, ethically-based common foundation (a foundation mainly based on rationality, love, passion, human values, individuality, collectivity, etc. etc.)...

[sniffer]

I think this whole discussion would have been much more interesting if people just could stop believing socialism equals communism equals USSR. As communism seem to be such a "dangerous" word for Americans. (Sorry for making stereo types here). You have some sort of "socialism" in the states as well, you just have another word for it. It's the same thing as else where. There is no such thing as 100% one side or another. Both socialism and capitalism have some good things in it. The question is pretty much to what degree we want the western capitalism to expand. As I now is moving back to the original topic, I would say, "no!", for the sake of our children. There has to be some degree of control of what we should allow the big companies or greedy politicians to do. There is simply just limitations on how much we can harvest of the world resources. It's that simple.

[Eriamjh]

Ahh, the great "Capitalism sucks and will fail" thread.

Hasn't happened yet. Won't happen soon.

Do not confuse capitalism with democracy.

If profit is bad, what is good?

It is always the young who think socialism, facsism, communism, etc. should be "given another chance" because somehow their implementation was flawed. Face it, none of them has ever worked and will probably never over the long term anywhere.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by sniffer:
There has to be some degree of control of what we should allow the big companies or greedy politicians to do. There is simply just limitations on how much we can harvest of the world resources. It's that simple.

Now wait just a minute. Have you read the US Constitution?

It is all about keeping power away from politicians. There's your limitations. What you need to do is actually get the people in office to comply with the Constitution. (Hint: they do not. Easy example: We needed a constitutional amendment to be able to prohibit alcohol. Why is it we don't need one to prohibit other substances? )

Corporations are governed by the states. Want them to have greater limitations? Get your state politicians to impose them. Don't be surprised if corporations leave your state in the process, leaving people looking for work.

What you really require with regard to corporations is a sense of balance and responsibility, and in politicians, compliance with the guiding document of government, the Constitution.

[designbc]

Originally posted by ambush:
If you knew Cuba's history maybe you'd understand.

I'M CUBAN. I DO KNOW ABOUT CUBAN HISTORY. I LIVED IN CUBA UNTIL 1998. THERE IS NOTHING TO UNDERSTAND.
The system in Cuba is a total failure. Leave Quebec and go to Havana. But not as a tourist with the pockets full of capitalist money. No, live as any other Cuban. THEN YOU WILL UNDERSTAND.
And remember that you won't be free to express your opinions, you couldn't even be here in this forum. In Cuba you won't have Internet access. It's forbidden. Too much information.
Don't you know of all the people in Cuba that are in jail just because they think different? I do.
DON'T YOU TELL ME ABOUT CUBA. YOU KNOW NOTHING.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Ummm, hate to break it to you, but do you know where your taxes go? Ever heard of social programs?

I would rather see my money pay for only the things the government is suppossed to provide under the Constitution, which is about 16 different things, and no more.

Originally posted by sniffer:
You have some sort of "socialism" in the states as well, you just have another word for it.

Yeah, it's called "social entitlement programs" and they're caused by rotten politicians using and creating them for the purpose of getting huge blocks of minority votes.

[designbc]

Originally posted by neon_duke:
Even if it is an ideal world, nothing guarantees your success in it.

In Capitalism, nothing guarantees your advancement. But nothing prohibits it either. You're free to make the most you can out of what you've got to work with. The system is there to help you by providing opportunities to do that - not all opportunities are equal, true, but again, that's life. Nothing legally or physically restricts your access to those opportunities except luck.

In Collectivism, on the other hand, the system itself prohibits your advancement - anyone who can achieve is automatically burdened with an ever increasing share of those who cannot achieve. Therefore the difference between "rich" and "poor" is settled by grinding off the high spots until no achievement is desirable or even possible.

Totally agree.
As I said before, I lived in Cuba my whole life and thats a good sample of what Collectivism can do.

I came to USA five years ago. Since then, I learned English (not perfect, but I can communicate), I worked hard, I got a job in a big company. Design a magazine from home at night. Bought a condominium. Had a baby (my wife actually). Sold the condo. Bought a house.

I'm happy? Yes
Do I break my ass working hard? Yes
Will I be millionaire? Possibly not, but it doesn't bother me. I know I'll give my son a decent life and plenty of opportunities.

And... I send money every month to my family in Cuba to help them survive the "dream of a perfect society". Otherwise they would starve.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by designbc:
Totally agree.
As I said before, I lived in Cuba my whole life and thats a good sample of what Collectivism can do.

I came to USA five years ago. Since then, I learned English (not perfect, but I can communicate), I worked hard, I got a job in a big company. Design a magazine from home at night. Bought a condominium. Had a baby (my wife actually). Sold the condo. Bought a house.

I'm happy? Yes
Do I break my ass working hard? Yes
Will I be millionaire? Possibly not, but it doesn't bother me. I know I'll give my son a decent life and plenty of opportunities.

And... I send money every month to my family in Cuba to help them survive the "dream of a perfect society". Otherwise they would starve.

It's people like you that make America great. Thank you.

[typoon]

Originally posted by slow moe:
I ain't trying to be mean, and I ain't trying to hurt your feelings, but that was about the stupidest post I've ever read. I understand what it is your talking about, and it is sad that so much suffering goes on in this world, but there is a thing called personal responsibility. It's up to you to work hard, get educated, and become successful. If you want the government to provide for everyone, think again, because I ain't paying for nobody's sorry ass.

This is the difference between liberals and republicans. A liberal has two cows, and his neighbor has none. The liberal will feel guilty, and give the neighbor a cow. A republican has two cows, and his neighbor has none. So what.

I think you've got that a bit wrong. The republican will not give the person the cow but will help the person get his own cow. THAT is the difference between a liberal democrat and a republican.

[neon_duke]

Originally posted by designbc:
Totally agree.
As I said before, I lived in Cuba my whole life and thats a good sample of what Collectivism can do.

I came to USA five years ago. Since then, I learned English (not perfect, but I can communicate), I worked hard, I got a job in a big company. Design a magazine from home at night. Bought a condominium. Had a baby (my wife actually). Sold the condo. Bought a house.

I'm happy? Yes
Do I break my ass working hard? Yes
Will I be millionaire? Possibly not, but it doesn't bother me. I know I'll give my son a decent life and plenty of opportunities.

And... I send money every month to my family in Cuba to help them survive the "dream of a perfect society". Otherwise they would starve.

And here it is in a nutshell. A person who was given a big disadvantage in the circumstances of his birth. Yet through his own effort, he has made a life of freedom and responsibility for his family. In the process he has learned English more fluently than many Americans/English people I know, and in five short years he's established a great future for himself, by himself. Congratulations, designbc. I salute you.

To the person who equated a rich man swindling people and dumping toxic waste with a poor man stealing a car, you're right; just not in the way you think. The relevant fact is that the rich person is also a criminal, not that the rich person is a Capitalist. Making money by any unethical means is, by definition, not Capitalism.

I suggest that anyone who thinks Collectivism is anything except pure evil look into the writings of Ayn Rand. Particularly, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. More on the book can be found here.

"If one wishes to advocate a free society�that is, capitalism�one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principle of individual rights. If one wishes to uphold individual rights, one must realize that capitalism is the only system that can uphold and protect them." -Ayn Rand Learn more here.

[typoon]

Originally posted by designbc:
Totally agree.
As I said before, I lived in Cuba my whole life and thats a good sample of what Collectivism can do.

I came to USA five years ago. Since then, I learned English (not perfect, but I can communicate), I worked hard, I got a job in a big company. Design a magazine from home at night. Bought a condominium. Had a baby (my wife actually). Sold the condo. Bought a house.

I'm happy? Yes
Do I break my ass working hard? Yes
Will I be millionaire? Possibly not, but it doesn't bother me. I know I'll give my son a decent life and plenty of opportunities.

And... I send money every month to my family in Cuba to help them survive the "dream of a perfect society". Otherwise they would starve.

As slow Moe said, Thank you. It's people like you and those who come from Oppressive countries who "get it" they understand the American Dream. They understand that they can control there own destiny in America and can become what they wish to be and however rich they want to be.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Now wait just a minute. Have you read the US Constitution?

It is all about keeping power away from politicians. There's your limitations. What you need to do is actually get the people in office to comply with the Constitution. (Hint: they do not. Easy example: We needed a constitutional amendment to be able to prohibit alcohol. Why is it we don't need one to prohibit other substances? )

Corporations are governed by the states. Want them to have greater limitations? Get your state politicians to impose them. Don't be surprised if corporations leave your state in the process, leaving people looking for work.

What you really require with regard to corporations is a sense of balance and responsibility, and in politicians, compliance with the guiding document of government, the Constitution.

You point it out very well. I know my comment is mostly idealistic.

But regarding:

Corporations are governed by the states. Want them to have greater limitations? Get your state politicians to impose them. Don't be surprised if corporations leave your state in the process, leaving people looking for work.

This is a very classic argument. How legal it is pretty much relative. As the globalization expends (corporations gets independent of borders and to some extend frees them self from their orig government/state) you will always find a place where you get cheaper labor etc. This debate is especially common in the public debate here in my country where we have some of the highest taxes and salaries in Europe. Taken out of the air, we compare us self with Sweden, which in turn, compare them self let say Germany, etc. There is always countries with better arrangement for corporations to settle. But still, our economy is very strong these days.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by typoon:
I think you've got that a bit wrong. The republican will not give the person the cow but will help the person get his own cow. THAT is the difference between a liberal democrat and a republican.

yup. That was my point. I should have been more clearer, but it was late.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by typoon:
I think you've got that a bit wrong. The republican will not give the person the cow but will help the person get his own cow. THAT is the difference between a liberal democrat and a republican.

Bart Simpson: Grampa, didn't you wonder why you were getting checks for doing nothing?

Grampa Simpson: I just figured it was because the Democrats were in power again.

[typoon]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Bart Simpson: Grampa, didn't you wonder why you were getting checks for doing nothing?

Grampa Simpson: I just figured it was because the Democrats were in power again.

Ahhh so much can be learned from the Simpsons.

[nayr x]

You all might as well be arguing about the band playing in the ball room of the Titanic. It might change is the music we waltz to tonight, but this ship will still end up in the same place...

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by slow moe:
Yeah, it's called "social entitlement programs" and they're caused by rotten politicians using and creating them for the purpose of getting huge blocks of minority votes.

"Rotten politicians"? How about "smart capitalists"? You realize that without social programs, capitalism probably would not have lasted as it has. Capitalism is VERY adaptable, and because it changes to fit the times, it has prevailed, but that doesn't guarantee it will always. The masses were very unhappy in the Capitalist past, social programs appeased them, and now they are brought up to believe that they love Capitalism as they're brought up to believe that they must buy Doritos...

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by itistoday:
I think it's about time this thread is Lockinated� for facilitating Marxist beliefs.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by designbc:
(Cuba rant)

Sure, you lived it, but Cuba is not something to look at to judge Socialism as a whole (it would be like getting picked on by one person of an ethnic minority and judging his people as a whole). Castro is not the best example of a benevolent leader. Socialism COULD work well (with adjustments and the right leaders) and people could be happy under it, but that won't happen for awhile as long as Capitalism is the system that controls the world. Anarchism could be great, but most people would not stand for it, unfortunately many people need a ruler to look to.

[Stradlater]

Most of your pro-capitalists need to educate yourselves on what socialism really is. You're judging all on failed pseudo-Socialist states working within the world system of Capitalism, often with aspects that just prevent it from working. Not all Capitalist states have done well, but the system has been successful on the whole...

Marx was an incredibly intelligent man, if not incredibly idealistic.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Most of your pro-capitalists need to educate yourselves on what socialism really is. You're judging all on failed pseudo-Socialist states working within the world system of Capitalism, often with aspects that just prevent it from working. Not all Capitalist states have done well, but the system has been successful on the whole...

Marx was an incredibly intelligent man, if not incredibly idealistic.

From what I understand about Marx's writting. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't he suggest something to the effect that the government control everything and everyone is equal in a socialist state? I might be wrong about this. Why would anyone want to work if they are being given everything? Where would the growth and money to pay for these things come from? Maybe I'm not understanding this.

[ambush]

Originally posted by typoon:
From what I understand about Marx's writting. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't he suggest something to the effect that the government control everything and everyone is equal in a socialist state? I might be wrong about this. Why would anyone want to work if they are being given everything? Where would the growth and money to pay for these things come from? Maybe I'm not understanding this.

You work for your country. I'd better work for my country than for some obscure big pockets capitalist that lives somewhere in Hawaii in a 60 million palace. no?

You're a bit confused, but at least you know it. Maybe you could read the Das Capital Synopsis? It's not too long.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by designbc:
Totally agree.
As I said before, I lived in Cuba my whole life and thats a good sample of what Collectivism can do.

I came to USA five years ago. Since then, I learned English (not perfect, but I can communicate), I worked hard, I got a job in a big company. Design a magazine from home at night. Bought a condominium. Had a baby (my wife actually). Sold the condo. Bought a house.

I'm happy? Yes
Do I break my ass working hard? Yes
Will I be millionaire? Possibly not, but it doesn't bother me. I know I'll give my son a decent life and plenty of opportunities.

And... I send money every month to my family in Cuba to help them survive the "dream of a perfect society". Otherwise they would starve.

^
glad to see the American dream still has signs of life. Although I'm inclined to believe you would be successful regardless of where you lived. Something to do with desire and hard work, I think.

[typoon]

Originally posted by ambush:
You work for your country. I'd better work for my country than for some obscure big pockets capitalist that lives somewhere in Hawaii in a 60 million palace. no?

You're a bit confused, but at least you know it. Maybe you could read the Das Capital Synopsis? It's not too long.

Yes but if I work for my country who gets rich? It ain't gonna be me. Maybe some politician. But not the common man. In America ANYONE can become rich. Not just the kid born to a rich family but the poor kid from the streets can also be rich. There are many cases of this happening. That would not happen in the Utopia you seek. In that case no one but the politicos would get rich while everyone else worked for there country. I doubt you have many rich people but the politicos in a place like China or Cuba.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
^
glad to see the American dream still has signs of life. Although I'm inclined to believe you would be successful regardless of where you lived. Something to do with desire and hard work, I think.

I doubt it considering he wasn't able to do it in his former country. If he could I'm sure he would have stayed there.

[designbc]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Sure, you lived it, but Cuba is not something to look at to judge Socialism as a whole (it would be like getting picked on by one person of an ethnic minority and judging his people as a whole). Castro is not the best example of a benevolent leader. Socialism COULD work well (with adjustments and the right leaders) and people could be happy under it, but that won't happen for awhile as long as Capitalism is the system that controls the world. Anarchism could be great, but most people would not stand for it, unfortunately many people need a ruler to look to.

All the so called socialist countries were dictatorships actually,including Castro.

It is funny how you blame Capitalism for the failure of Socialism.
As has been told previously, the economic foundations of socialism have to fail. If I'm gonna have the same as everyone, why should I work harder? I'm gonna get it anyways. You need a motivation. And don't tell me that old myth that you work for your country, for the planet and for the green forest. You know human nature doesn't work that way. You need REAL motivations.
Is it a nice dream? Yes.(Everybody happy having everything, sounds like paradise)
Is it a reality? No
Could it work? Not in a thousand years

[designbc]

Originally posted by typoon:
I doubt it considering he wasn't able to do it in his former country. If he could I'm sure he would have stayed there.

That's for sure.

[Sven G]

... The problem of "becoming rich" is obviously one that rises in an unfair society where egoism prevails (in the meaning of people being excessively self-centered); the usual argument of "incentive to excel", etc. is similar: in capitalism, people get things done mainly becuase they "must", in order to survive and to outperform the competition. This, of course, has indirect benefits - but those benefits could be far more powerful if they were direct, i.e. obtained in a more spontaneous way.

In socialism - "true", free socialism: it's anarchistic (that is, no state) variant, thus - or communism you would work neither for your boss, nor for your country, etc.: you would work for yourself and others as a human collectivity of free individuals - not because you are forced to compete with your neighbors, but because it is both pleasurable and useful to work (creatively and indipendently together with others), for ones's own good and for the common good at the same time.

Of course, in this form of socialism there are some of the "capitalistic" (but I wouldn't use that word) characteristics also present today, such as free enterprise and possession of the fruits of one's work (which today happens mostly if you are an indipendent worker, and only to some extent): but all this would be in a stateless context, and thus in a free community of equals (while still positively different); and the absence of a state would make it very difficult for boss wannabes to try to establish their rule, as they would have no protection from the police, the military, etc.

Getting "rich" in a freely socialistic society would not mean to earn money to "buy things", also as money would certainly be recognized as redundant and abolished, sooner or later: rather, it would mean to live in a humanly fulfilling way, based on spontaneous (but also, at the same time, complex and articulated) collaboration, creativity, solidarity, personality, and so on.

Is "human nature" in the way of all this? That depends on how one considers "human nature", of course...

[neon_duke]

But why should it be inherently pleasant and satisfying to work for my fellow man? Especially if my fellow man finds it pleasant and satisfying to allow me to work for him.

I agree that work is satisfying, when I'm earning a wage and buying things I want and need. The sweat of my brow (mental, or physical) provides food for my table. I take nothing from the system I have not earned. That is deeply satisfying, regardless of my wage. True Capitalism. Pack in, pack out; no one is beholden to me and I am beholden to no one. I'm free to choose those that meet my standards to deal with.

Collectivism, on the other hand, enslaves me to every other human being on the planet, no matter how worthless; just because they need me. I have no choice: they are human, they are alive; that grants them equal right to what I produce, no matter what they do. No thanks.

It is funny that Socialists always point out that Man is not good enough for socialism; never the other way round. I think they have their priorities backward.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by neon_duke:
But why should it be inherently pleasant and satisfying to work for my fellow man? Especially if my fellow man finds it pleasant and satisfying to allow me to work for him. [...]

Hmm... maybe because he isn't so much himself when he tries to exploit you...?

You see... it's all about the "human nature" thing: it's improvable!

[NYCFarmboy]

socialism = shared misery

[Sven G]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
socialism = shared misery

... If the individual is "miserable" in the social context - well, then, indeed...

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Sven G:
... If the individual is "miserable" in the social context - well, then, indeed...

Yes..as proven by the high suicide rates in socialist countries such as Sweden.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
[...] such as Sweden.

... Which isn't socialist (or, better, hasn't been socialist), but rather social-democratic (together with constitutional monarchy: go figure how this combination could be "socialist" in any way, even if "the king is your friend", etc. etc.): i.e., a "politically correct" mixture between state socialism and capitalism.

Nevertheless, Olof Palme was, IMO, one of the most honest politicians ever, together with Willy Brandt, etc. - of course, they were rather limited by their social-democratic vision - clearly a compromise, and thus doomed to not last so long, - but the "positive climate" of the '60s and '70s made their leadership a good thing, after all...

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Sven G:
... Which isn't socialist (or, better, hasn't been socialist), but rather social-democratic (together with constitutional monarchy: go figure how this combination could be "socialist" in any way, even if "the king is your friend", etc. etc.): i.e., a "politically correct" mixture between state socialism and capitalism.

Nevertheless, Olof Palme was, IMO, one of the most honest politicians ever, together with Willy Brandt, etc. - of course, they were rather limited by their social-democratic vision - clearly a compromise, and thus doomed to not last so long, - but the "positive climate" of the '60s and '70s made their leadership a good thing, after all...

Ok..how about Cuba then... for some reason folks want to swim away from socialism there.

Have yet to see someone on South Beach jump in the water shouting down with Capitalism and then swimming towards the socialist utopia of Cuba.

[itomato]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
On the pollution issue... I have to say... I'm utterly unconcernd about it, which is rather odd as a biologist.

We may die; we may kill ourselves and other organisms off; but the earth will still survive.

We're not destroying the earth; we're just changing it. If we all die, new life will spring up in our place.

Not to say I support it, but just that in the end, WE lose out. Not the planet.

Yes it does. You can survive cancer - have half your stomach surgically removed, lose your hair, and generally be sick as hell for a loooong time. But you survive. Are you living? No. Just surviving.

[Ghoser777]

This sounds like fun...

I actually think capatilism is going to become obsolete in the near future, maybe no in our life times, but soon. The reason? First, look at what's happening in terms of file sharing for electronic content. We have right now almost costless replication, something that never existed before for digital media. Digital Rights Management and the like are all trying to limit the use of technology that allows us to make fast and easy duplicates to protect intellectual property rights and the profit that can be made by licensing those rights.

What I think is going to happen in the realm of physical objects is the same that's currently happening for digital objects - we're soon going to be able to make things without having to go through an expensive and time consuming production and transportaion process. Yes, we'll still need minerals and materials, but I think things like nanotechnology will eventually allow us to make food on the spot instead of processing it in a farm and at the whism of mother nature. So then we'll come to a crossroads with capitalism - do we protect it by somehow limiting the technology or not? DO we really want to justify people having to starve and work themselves to death for food that we can so easily and efficiently make?

It sounds like Star Trek, but I really think we're going towards that. Until we get there, capitalism is fine by me. It has its draw backs, but so does every system. But we've good some huge production and demand issues on the horizon that could compltely shatter the foundations of capitalism.

Matt Fahrenbacher

[itomato]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Ok..how about Cuba then... for some reason folks want to swim away from socialism there.

Have yet to see someone on South Beach jump in the water shouting down with Capitalism and then swimming towards the socialist utopia of Cuba.

That's because Cuba isn't a socialist utopia. America isn't a capitalist utopia, either. People who have very little, and are disgruntled with the whole failed experiment see that they can live very well compared to Cuba, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, what have you.

Do you have any idea how many million people live on the garbage and refuse of others? Rather than live in a garbage dump in their own country, some people emigrate to another nation where there is more to be had for less. This isn't necessarily a side-effect of Capitalism, per se, but what happens when people over-satisfy their needs.

Steve Jobs - Apple CEO $200 million dollars? Me - Typesetter $18K (If I'm lucky)

How much money do you need to live an extremely happy life? What if that lifestyle was an inalienable right? What if it came through the global redistribution of wealth? A system whereby people who reign in billions and billions more dollars than they need funnel the lion's share through a public "welfare" (not Welfare as we know it, the noun) system.

Healthcare? Paid for.
Reliable transportation? Paid for.
School clothes for your kids? Paid for.
Fancy an oversized TV? Pay for that kind of crap outta yer pocket.

If the entire world re-prioritized around life and happiness instead of money, stuff, and the endless pursuit of more stuff, the social, political, and environmental decay that is taking place right now would slowly heal.

Capitalism is bullsh!t.

Stuff != happiness.

You are not what you drive, eat, wear, listen to, drink, or watch on TV.

You are you. Listen to it.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Ok..how about Cuba then... for some reason folks want to swim away from socialism there.

Have yet to see someone on South Beach jump in the water shouting down with Capitalism and then swimming towards the socialist utopia of Cuba.

Cuba, again, is state "socialism": a centralized, "know all what's best for you" government. This the degeneration - due to concentrated power corruption, etc. - of the authoritarian (see Marx) socialist ideal - not the ideal in itself! And, IMO, the libertarian (see Bakunin) socialist ideal is much better indeed...