[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Ukraine - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:51pm
 
Wordle - daily game - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 10:54pm
 
Breaking News - kurtster - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:31pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:27pm
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:11pm
 
NYTimes Connections - n4ku - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:03pm
 
Uploading Music - macadavy - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:18pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - zevon - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:17pm
 
Oldest Rock song on RP - johkir - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:07pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 3:28pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Orbiting Earth - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:19pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:17pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:13pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:06pm
 
Israel - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:03pm
 
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes. - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
Irony 101 - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:15pm
 
RP automation with iOS Shortcuts App - pradler4kant - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:57am
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:31am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:27am
 
March 2024 Photo Theme - Many - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:07am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Beaker - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:30am
 
NY Times Strands - geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:37am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - pilgrim - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:19am
 
Business as Usual - black321 - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:09am
 
Trump - rgio - Mar 28, 2024 - 7:29am
 
Outstanding Covers - thisbody - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:51am
 
Today in History - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:28am
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - haresfur - Mar 27, 2024 - 6:21pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Mar 27, 2024 - 3:48pm
 
Please Don't Post Here - Red_Dragon - Mar 27, 2024 - 11:02am
 
Motivational Office Cliches... - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 26, 2024 - 10:20pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - Red_Dragon - Mar 26, 2024 - 6:18pm
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - islander - Mar 26, 2024 - 8:00am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - Beez - Mar 26, 2024 - 7:24am
 
Food - Steely_D - Mar 26, 2024 - 1:41am
 
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands) - kingen - Mar 25, 2024 - 2:43pm
 
China - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:59am
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:20am
 
Play history seems to indicate that I"m streaming 24/7, b... - jarro - Mar 25, 2024 - 10:44am
 
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse - Coaxial - Mar 24, 2024 - 6:22pm
 
New Music - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 24, 2024 - 5:07pm
 
Dental Floss Tycoons, and other Montana Myths, Facts, and... - Red_Dragon - Mar 24, 2024 - 12:32pm
 
Basketball - oldviolin - Mar 23, 2024 - 2:50pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 23, 2024 - 1:54pm
 
Joe Biden - kurtster - Mar 23, 2024 - 11:17am
 
Technical Streaming Note for Nerdy RP DIYers - sjagminas1 - Mar 23, 2024 - 10:16am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Proclivities - Mar 23, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Other Medical Stuff - Antigone - Mar 22, 2024 - 3:06pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - oldviolin - Mar 22, 2024 - 11:06am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Mar 22, 2024 - 9:17am
 
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones - Bill_J - Mar 21, 2024 - 8:54pm
 
Can you afford to retire? - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 21, 2024 - 2:15pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 21, 2024 - 11:10am
 
What Did You See Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 20, 2024 - 5:13pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 20, 2024 - 4:31pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Antigone - Mar 20, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Russia - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 20, 2024 - 11:44am
 
2024 Elections! - Lazy8 - Mar 20, 2024 - 7:26am
 
Economix - R_P - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:36pm
 
Name My Band - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:53am
 
Delicacies: a..k.a.. the Gross Food forum - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:12am
 
New Forum Member on "What Makes RP Great" - miamizsun - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:38am
 
Cache stopped working on old Android Phone - Eisenwindel - Mar 19, 2024 - 1:50am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - Bill_J - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:23pm
 
Damn Dinosaurs! - oldviolin - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:16pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - geoff_morphini - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:58pm
 
Great guitar faces - skyguy - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:33pm
 
Despots, dictators and war criminals - R_P - Mar 18, 2024 - 12:41pm
 
Media Matters - thisbody - Mar 18, 2024 - 10:03am
 
NASA & other news from space - miamizsun - Mar 18, 2024 - 4:13am
 
MEALTICKET - drinpt - Mar 17, 2024 - 4:13am
 
What makes you smile? - Steely_D - Mar 16, 2024 - 7:31pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » RightWingNutZ Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 131, 132, 133 ... 169, 170, 171  Next
Post to this Topic
Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 1, 2010 - 6:51pm

 kurtster wrote:

No, not necessarily limited to those countries.  Using the term somewhat interchangeably, but in current circumstances Communism is uber Socialism.  I'm glad you understand the points I was attempting to make.  Primarily, that the more control a government has over business, the less innovative business under that government is likely to be.  Government's role is not to take or condone risks.  Behold the Lada, Yugo and that East German vehicle whose name escapes me.

Capitalism takes risks and is the engine for technological development.  Socialism is the management of the status quo as in how existing technology is used and manged as it relates to a society's needs.  Capitalism is vital for developing future technologies and taking us places we cannot presently imagine.  To kill capitalism as so many advocate would be to lock us into our present.  And I don't know anyone who likes our present circumstances very much.  Some sort of balance can be achieved, needs to be achieved.  Capitalism can exist without Socialism, but I doubt that the opposite can be found to be true.
 
I appreciate what you are saying, but I don't believe that there is a noticeable movement in this country "to kill capitalism", as you phrased.  President Obama is not the anti-Christ, despite what Limbaugh or Beck may say - and he is not the Messiah either (as others may maintain).  They are not attempting to inflict "socialism" upon the United States, and I don't understand why people are so willing to believe that they are.  You must be aware that certain social programs benefit society - also some do not (of course). 
Some of these threads have gotten so inflammatory that I've generally avoided them.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 1, 2010 - 3:58pm

 Proclivities wrote:

I understand your points but I'm not sure which definition of "Socialistic" you mean.  There are many thriving, visionary, and proactive nations that have numerous socialistic programs in place.  The Scandinavian countries come to mind, but they also happen to be Capitalist countries with representative democracies.  Were you referring to the "Socialistic" countries as being just China, Cuba, Laos, Nepal, North Korea and Vietnam? Those are technically "Communist" nations: I didn't know if you were using the terms interchangeably.

 
No, not necessarily limited to those countries.  Using the term somewhat interchangeably, but in current circumstances Communism is uber Socialism.  I'm glad you understand the points I was attempting to make.  Primarily, that the more control a government has over business, the less innovative business under that government is likely to be.  Government's role is not to take or condone risks.  Behold the Lada, Yugo and that East German vehicle whose name escapes me.

Capitalism takes risks and is the engine for technological development.  Socialism is the management of the status quo as in how existing technology is used and manged as it relates to a society's needs.  Capitalism is vital for developing future technologies and taking us places we cannot presently imagine.  To kill capitalism as so many advocate would be to lock us into our present.  And I don't know anyone who likes our present circumstances very much.  Some sort of balance can be achieved, needs to be achieved.  Capitalism can exist without Socialism, but I doubt that the opposite can be found to be true.

Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 1, 2010 - 11:18am

 kurtster wrote:

The Kibbutz is a wonderful example of a group of people coming together with a common vision and purpose.  The scale is small and usually limited in scope or purpose.  Poor performers are also expelled, without a safety net.  As long as the vision is embraced and performance or contribution is up to spec, then there are no problems.  Sometimes a kibbutz fails due to lack of need for the services or goods produced as technologies and needs change.  It can be hard to anticipate future situations.  Sometimes these products and services can be rendered obsolete or illegal due to legsilation or a paradigm shift.  ......
..........My view is that a Socialistic society is largely reactionary and unable to anticpate future needs.  It would be required to create the future needs in order to remain effective, while a Capitalistic society is proactive, taking risks and anticipating the future by taking chances.   Some win and some lose  A government by its very nature is incapable of taking chances based upon speculation.  It must act only on settled standards and practices....
 
I understand your points but I'm not sure which definition of "Socialistic" you mean.  There are many thriving, visionary, and proactive nations that have numerous socialistic programs in place.  The Scandinavian countries come to mind, but they also happen to be Capitalist countries with representative democracies.  Were you referring to the "Socialistic" countries as being just China, Cuba, Laos, Nepal, North Korea and Vietnam? Those are technically "Communist" nations: I didn't know if you were using the terms interchangeably.


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 1, 2010 - 10:40am

 hippiechick wrote:

Why wouldn't the professor work as a professor? Why would he be a street cleaner?

Are you familiar with Kibutzim (plural of kibbutz)? They were extremely successful for many years, although they have the same draw, because individual interests have superceded the needs of the group.

 
The Kibbutz is a wonderful example of a group of people coming together with a common vision and purpose.  The scale is small and usually limited in scope or purpose.  Poor performers are also expelled, without a safety net.  As long as the vision is embraced and performance or contribution is up to spec, then there are no problems.  Sometimes a kibbutz fails due to lack of need for the services or goods produced as technologies and needs change.  It can be hard to anticipate future situations.  Sometimes these products and services can be rendered obsolete or illegal due to legsilation or a paradigm shift. 

How one makes the leap from a group of a hundred to 300 million is totally another thing.  Who decides on the vision and purpose ?  Remember the perenial 5 year plan ?  Is a bureaucrat capable of anticipating the future when their primary purpose is that of administrating to the present ? 

My view is that a Socialistic society is largely reactionary and unable to anticpate future needs.  It would be required to create the future needs in order to remain effective, while a Capitalistic society is proactive, taking risks and anticipating the future by taking chances.   Some win and some lose  A government by its very nature is incapable of taking chances based upon speculation.  It must act only on settled standards and practices. 

China can be cited as an example of a creativity vaccuum.  China has contributed nothing to technology, since gunpowder, pasta and the abacass.  It buys or steals technology to meet its needs.  China simply does not take chances, nor does it innovate anything.  It just manages its status quo.

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Mar 1, 2010 - 7:58am

 Argonaut wrote:
Am I missing something here? Explain to me please how do you imagine a proffessor working as a street cleaner together with the drugs dealer and/or mentaly ill? hippiechick wrote:

In theory, communism is not a bad thing. If a group of people is agreeable to living communally, then it works.

However, Stalinism, Trotskyism, etc. isn't true communism. It's the ruling class having everything they want, while the rest suffer. If it was true communism, The government would be out working with the people.Besides, you are talking about -isms that existed 100 yrs ago. Things have changed. The terms used in the 20th Century are no longer applicable. Start trying to think out of the box, Kurt.

Are you familiar with thesis, antithesis, synthesis?
 

 
Why wouldn't the professor work as a professor? Why would he be a street cleaner?

Are you familiar with Kibutzim (plural of kibbutz)? They were extremely successful for many years, although they have the same draw, because individual interests have superceded the needs of the group.


samiyam

samiyam Avatar

Location: Moving North


Posted: Feb 27, 2010 - 8:05pm

 hippiechick wrote: 
  Tough Love

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Feb 26, 2010 - 7:03am

Jim Bunning Repeatedly Blocks Unemployment Benefits Extension, Tells Dem 'Tough Shit'


jadewahoo

jadewahoo Avatar

Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 9:25pm

 oldviolin wrote:

Is he the Pahana? Because if he is...

 
I Hopi not... I don't think the rest of the prophecy was written on bowling balls, but on subway walls.

oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 9:16pm

 jadewahoo wrote:

You didn't get it, the bowling ball, because you have to wait your turn in line. Like a bread line, only this one is a bowling ball line. And Fat Fingers Fred is in front of you.
 
Is he the Pahana? Because if he is...
jadewahoo

jadewahoo Avatar

Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 9:10pm

 Manbird wrote:

I agree: Communism is having to share the same stupid bowling ball with everybody at Johnson's 16th St. Mega Lanes even the sweaty guy with the fat fingers who smells like fish tacos and italian sausage all day. 

 
 oldviolin wrote:


I didn't get it...

 
You didn't get it, the bowling ball, because you have to wait your turn in line. Like a bread line, only this one is a bowling ball line. And Fat Fingers Fred is in front of you.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 9:03pm

 dionysius wrote:


No, no, no, you completely misunderstand. You have personal obligations, but you have social obligations, too. Go ahead and do whatever the hell you want to do. "The State" doesn't tell you what to be. That's the freedom bit we all like. Be a marine geologist if you like. We, as a society, will even pay for your education towards that. But let's say "the market" says we need more doorknobs. Then there will be be more opportunities (and pay) for those people who are okay with making them. Like it's supposed to work now, ideally, in a capitalist society. Only in a socialist society there would be less worry about retirement, unemployment, health care, job security, etc. It doesn't mean the end of history. But it should mean the end of exploitation and class struggle. A solid floor beneath everyone, for that pursuit of happiness. Not a guarantee of happiness, but a equally fair shot at it.

You have to contrast this with the situation obtaining now. There is massive inequality now, because those who get are mostly those who already have. Capital is rewarded far, far more than labor, in whatever proportion you choose to measure it in. The gap between rich and...not just poor, but the middle class, is growing, not shrinking. This is a concern for social stability in the USA. Socialism means not just shared sacrifices, but shared prosperity. Prosperity not shared is simply theft.

 
OK ...

So what happens to those who refuse to go along with the program ?  Can this program operate in a time of war as well as peace ?  If there was no war, then we could have some sort of a chance of getting around to this.  How does a Sovereign Nation make this work, when there are those trying to destroy a said Sovereign Nation ?  Life has a way of getting in the way of plans.  Unless we have a One World Government ...  I just cannot presently comprehend how we can move ahead with limits on potential earnings for everyone.  What becomes of the driven individual ?  or the slacker parasite of society who refuses to work or do anything to bring something to the table ?  Is it fair that the slacker has just as nice of a place to live in as one who is productive and works hard ?  How do we deal with these people ?  We cannot always play to the tie, life is about winning and losing, survival of the fittest.  Moral and ethical dilemmas.  How does a truly Socialistic society deal with the bad parts, lack of cooperation, corruption, personal failures, incompetence,  the parts nobody wants to talk about ?  How are disabilities dealt with ?  What purpose does keeping a totally disabled person alive serve society as a whole ?

These are big broad questions and so is the concept.  I'm hitting the rack, these past couple of hours have been nice.  I'll wait for the replies and see where this goes tomorrow.

oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 8:20pm

 Manbird wrote:

I agree: Communism is having to share the same stupid bowling ball with everybody at Johnson's 16th St. Mega Lanes even the sweaty guy with the fat fingers who smells like fish tacos and italian sausage all day. 

 

I didn't get it...
dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 8:17pm

 kurtster wrote:


I think that phrase contradicts itself.  Who gets to decide who lives where and who does what ?  No room for individualism, darn that ism thing again.  I prefer the beach, yet the government decides that I should live in North Dakota.  I want to be a marine geologist, but the government says we don't need any and I must make doorknobs for public housing, because we need more doorknobs.  Equal opportunity for what ?  To do what I really want to do ?  Or equal opportunity to do for the government ?  

 

No, no, no, you completely misunderstand. You have personal obligations, but you have social obligations, too. Go ahead and do whatever the hell you want to do. "The State" doesn't tell you what to be. That's the freedom bit we all like. Be a marine geologist if you like. We, as a society, will even pay for your education towards that. But let's say "the market" says we need more doorknobs. Then there will be be more opportunities (and pay) for those people who are okay with making them. Like it's supposed to work now, ideally, in a capitalist society. Only in a socialist society there would be less worry about retirement, unemployment, health care, job security, etc. It doesn't mean the end of history. But it should mean the end of exploitation and class struggle. A solid floor beneath everyone, for that pursuit of happiness. Not a guarantee of happiness, but a equally fair shot at it.

You have to contrast this with the situation obtaining now. There is massive inequality now, because those who get are mostly those who already have. Capital is rewarded far, far more than labor, in whatever proportion you choose to measure it in. The gap between rich and...not just poor, but the middle class, is growing, not shrinking. This is a concern for social stability in the USA. Socialism means not just shared sacrifices, but shared prosperity. Prosperity not shared is simply theft.
(former member)

(former member) Avatar

Location: hotel in Las Vegas
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 8:16pm

 dionysius wrote:

It's more than a critique; it's a program!!! It does not have to be revolutionary violence that accomplishes that program; in fact I'd prefer it it if it weren't. But it is more than just sniping at capitalist excesses and injustices, and more than mere reformist amelioration of the same. It is a fundamental overhaul that privileges people over markets, and erases real class distinctions and barriers. Modern Marxism must be peaceful, nonviolent, democratic, and determined. Hardnose, commonsense agitation, education and organization are the only tools towards accomplishing this, not elitist "vanguard" ideologies and unfocused anarchism. You can have capitalism, too, but only within a socialist framework, if you want social justice and equality linked to freedom of action and productivity. There's our Hegelian synthesis.

And you said to Kurt—

It does not mean public ownership of everything!!! My toothbrush is mine, and yours is yours. However, the open land, water, air, uranium and opera is for everyone to share, equally. The largest possible public domain, in all senses. The commons, rather than fenced-off private lots of different sizes.

It means public provision of the necessary things of life, however that society chooses to define it. Be it education, food, housing, employment, heath care, etc. A classless society, with true equality of opportunity, and not one way, one track, one enclave for rich people and others for everyone else. Merit and work rewarded, not greed and placement and networking. A solid floor beneath everyone, with room for personal improvement above that. A real synthesis of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. A market that serves us, and not us the market.

Not utopia. But a better place than now.
 

It is interesting, and I must point out the difference—  I said analyzing, and I meant objective...  you chose critique, which implies a judgment...  to me, Marxism is a materialistic tool to understand the machinations of capitalism in economic terms of labor, profit, capital investment, etc., with no social chafe attached...  I have always thought that the weakness of Marx's conclusions (critiques) was his failure to see a way to operate within the system of capitalism with collective bargaining — labor unions — workers of the world, unite!  But again, to me, Marxism, with its objective materialism, is an excellent mode of analysis for all economic systems...  I am kind of groping in the dark here, and I apologize for that...

I know I be so elite but here is something I find interesting from the Stanford Encyclopedia—

Historical materialism - Marx's theory of history - is centered around the idea that forms of society rise and fall as they further and then impede the development of human productive power. Marx sees the historical process as proceeding through a necessary series of modes of production, culminating in communism. Marx's economic analysis of capitalism is based on his version of the labour theory of value, and includes the analysis of capitalist profit as the extraction of surplus value from the exploited proletariat. The analysis of history and economics come together in Marx's prediction of the inevitable economic breakdown of capitalism, to be replaced by communism. However Marx refused to speculate in detail about the nature of communism, arguing that it would arise through historical processes, and was not the realisation of a pre-determined moral ideal.


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 7:59pm

 dionysius wrote:


It does not mean public ownership of everything!!! My toothbrush is mine, and yours is yours. However, the open land, water, air, uranium and opera is for everyone to share, equally. The largest possible public domain, in all senses. The commons, rather than fenced-off private lots of different sizes.

It means public provision of the necessary things of life, however that society chooses to define it. Be it education, food, housing, employment, heath care, etc. A classless society, with true equality of opportunity, and not one way, one track, one enclave for rich people and others for everyone else. Merit and work rewarded, not greed and placement and networking. A solid floor beneath everyone, with room for personal improvement above that. A real synthesis of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. A market that serves us, and not us the market.

Not utopia. But a better place than now.

 

I think that phrase contradicts itself.  Who gets to decide who lives where and who does what ?  No room for individualism, darn that ism thing again.  I prefer the beach, yet the government decides that I should live in North Dakota.  I want to be a marine geologist, but the government says we don't need any and I must make doorknobs for public housing, because we need more doorknobs.  Equal opportunity for what ?  To do what I really want to do ?  Or equal opportunity to do for the government ?  

Edit: and who decides Mac or PC ?
dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 7:44pm

 kurtster wrote:

But what about the part of a Socialistic society where the government owns everything, there is no private property ?  Am I missing something or are we ignoring a crucial part of what Socialism really is ?  How do you reconcile privacy and private property with the program ?  How does one have motivation without ownership or the possibilty of ownership of personal property for example ?  We rent everything from the government and have no form of private transportation ?
 

It does not mean public ownership of everything!!! My toothbrush is mine, and yours is yours. However, the open land, water, air, uranium and opera is for everyone to share, equally. The largest possible public domain, in all senses. The commons, rather than fenced-off private lots of different sizes.

It means public provision of the necessary things of life, however that society chooses to define it. Be it education, food, housing, employment, heath care, etc. A classless society, with true equality of opportunity, and not one way, one track, one enclave for rich people and others for everyone else. Merit and work rewarded, not greed and placement and networking. A solid floor beneath everyone, with room for personal improvement above that. A real synthesis of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. A market that serves us, and not us the market.

Not utopia. But a better place than now.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 7:30pm

 dionysius wrote:

It's more than a critique; it's a program!!! It does not have to be revolutionary violence that accomplishes that program; in fact I'd prefer it it if it weren't. But it is more than just sniping at capitalist excesses and injustices, and more than mere reformist amelioration of the same. It is a fundamental overhaul that privileges people over markets, and erases real class distinctions and barriers. Modern Marxism must be peaceful, nonviolent, democratic, and determined. Hardnose, commonsense agitation, education and organization are the only tools towards accomplishing this, not elitist "vanguard" ideologies and unfocused anarchism. You can have capitalism, too, but only within a socialist framework, if you want social justice and equality linked to freedom of action and productivity. There's our Hegelian synthesis.

 
But what about the part of a Socialistic society where the government owns everything, there is no private property ?  Am I missing something or are we ignoring a crucial part of what Socialism really is ?  How do you reconcile privacy and private property with the program ?  How does one have motivation without ownership or the possibilty of ownership of personal property for example ?  We rent everything from the government and have no form of private transportation ?

dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 7:12pm

 romeotuma wrote:


To me, at its essence, Marxism is a materialistic methodology for analyzing capitalism...



 
It's more than a critique; it's a program!!! It does not have to be revolutionary violence that accomplishes that program; in fact I'd prefer it it if it weren't. But it is more than just sniping at capitalist excesses and injustices, and more than mere reformist amelioration of the same. It is a fundamental overhaul that privileges people over markets, and erases real class distinctions and barriers. Modern Marxism must be peaceful, nonviolent, democratic, and determined. Hardnose, commonsense agitation, education and organization are the only tools towards accomplishing this, not elitist "vanguard" ideologies and unfocused anarchism. You can have capitalism, too, but only within a socialist framework, if you want social justice and equality linked to freedom of action and productivity. There's our Hegelian synthesis.
Manbird

Manbird Avatar

Location: ? ? ?
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 7:10pm

 dionysius wrote:


:sigh: The name "communist" and some Marxist trappings and rhetoric were hijacked by repressive Russian nationalists, and this somehow becomes everyone's historical misunderstanding of Marxism. That's why I won't use the term, though I prefer it to "socialist" for a number of etymological reasons. People are right to equate Hitler and Stalin—not much to choose between them, really. We need to look to ourselves and our motivations, always. Chauvinistic nationalism of any stripe is bad news, and that includes American nationalism.
 
I agree: Communism is having to share the same stupid bowling ball with everybody at Johnson's 16th St. Mega Lanes even the sweaty guy with the fat fingers who smells like fish tacos and italian sausage all day. 


dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 6:53pm

 hippiechick wrote:

Well, they call themselves Communists, but, really they are Totalitarians.
 

:sigh: The name "communist" and some Marxist trappings and rhetoric were hijacked by repressive Russian nationalists, and this somehow becomes everyone's historical misunderstanding of Marxism. That's why I won't use the term, though I prefer it to "socialist" for a number of etymological reasons. People are right to equate Hitler and Stalin—not much to choose between them, really. We need to look to ourselves and our motivations, always. Chauvinistic nationalism of any stripe is bad news, and that includes American nationalism.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 131, 132, 133 ... 169, 170, 171  Next