Socialism does work

[Karl]

Excuse me, but I did some more (scientific) tests to verify the result of that first test.

Successfully.

 

 

 

Rather I was pointing to the discrepancy of his patronizing behavior especially at the beginning of the thread on one side,

and his repeated claims "to be just above the mud" on the other.

 

Well I'm happy to be your dawg. I can be whatever you want me to be.

[Jetsun]

The old debate between the superiority of the free market model and the Marxist type socialist state model is over, the free market won pretty much emphatically, all you have to do is look at countries like South Korea and post war Japan in comparison to its neighbours to see that much.

 

But the debate now about the role of socialism isn't about that. The free market model has evolved into being dominated by huge corporations increasingly wielding control and power over the world, who by their nature will exploit people and the environment if it means more profit, there are no moral drives or considerations in how they operate, most of the top executives have to exhibit psychopathic traits in order to get to the top. 1% of the population now own over half of the worlds wealth and their proportion grows each year, while billions live in abject poverty. So clearly things aren't exactly right.

 

Not that I have any definitive answers about how to solve all of that, but I see no evidence that blind adherence to free market capitalism is going to solve it. The model in Scandinavian countries is by American standards pretty much socialist and they have better education, healthcare, life expectancy, quality of life, lower crime rate, better care of the environment, while remaining prosperous and competitive economically. The cost of that model is that they pay high tax, but if you can see that the taxes you pay go to keeping your country in a decent state and don't go on phoney wars and straight to the 1% then people are happy to pay.

 

Some people argue paying high tax is like taking away your money by force, but you only make your money in the environment and infrastructure around you which is created by the people and government you live in, you and your business don't exist in a bubble. Some people say that if you pay high tax you are more controlled and less free, but is a Scandinavian really less free than an American? in many ways they are more free, they are better educated and have more freedom of the press and more freedom not to be murdered. 

[ralis]

You mean why don't they agree with yours ? LOL National SOCIALIST party - big clue can you see it. Where do you think he got his ideas ? Oh let me think-from a socialist of some kind called Marx where socialist ideologies came from. He interpreted Marx differently that's all.

 

As I stated before that name was given at the beginning of the movement in which he included various groups for the purpose of gaining power. Do you understand that he dissolved the unions and put in work camps anyone that he considered a threat. Therefor, there was no socialist, but fascist, period! Your ideas are made up from revisionists and cranks such as Rush Limbaugh. Further, every text and academic on the subject, including historical documents, are in disagreement with you! Personal opinions are worthless and have nothing to do with history. 

 

I assume you may be under thirty years of age? Ever been to college?

[ralis]

The old debate between the superiority of the free market model and the Marxist type socialist state model is over, the free market won pretty much emphatically, all you have to do is look at countries like South Korea and post war Japan in comparison to its neighbours to see that much.

 

But the debate now about the role of socialism isn't about that. The free market model has evolved into being dominated by huge corporations increasingly wielding control and power over the world, who by their nature will exploit people and the environment if it means more profit, there are no moral drives or considerations in how they operate, most of the top executives have to exhibit psychopathic traits in order to get to the top. 1% of the population now own over half of the worlds wealth and their proportion grows each year, while billions live in abject poverty. So clearly things aren't exactly right.

 

Not that I have any definitive answers about how to solve all of that, but I see no evidence that blind adherence to free market capitalism is going to solve it. The model in Scandinavian countries is by American standards pretty much socialist and they have better education, healthcare, life expectancy, quality of life, lower crime rate, better care of the environment, while remaining prosperous and competitive economically. The cost of that model is that they pay high tax, but if you can see that the taxes you pay go to keeping your country in a decent state and don't go on phoney wars and straight to the 1% then people are happy to pay.

 

Some people argue paying high tax is like taking away your money by force, but you only make your money in the environment and infrastructure around you which is created by the people and government you live in, you and your business don't exist in a bubble. Some people say that if you pay high tax you are more controlled and less free, but is a Scandinavian really less free than an American? in many ways they are more free, they are better educated and have more freedom of the press and more freedom not to be murdered. 

 

Well said!

[Geof Nanto]

Mainly error and certainly a trial.

 

Yes, that's how complex systems evolve. It's slow but thorough, and the outcomes will never be determined by human will. That's reality. Your idea of 'pure capitalism' is just another conceptual framing based on a partial and imaginary model of reality.  

Edited July 20, 2015 by Yueya

[Karl]

The old debate between the superiority of the free market model and the Marxist type socialist state model is over, the free market won pretty much emphatically, all you have to do is look at countries like South Korea and post war Japan in comparison to its neighbours to see that much.

 

But the debate now about the role of socialism isn't about that. The free market model has evolved into being dominated by huge corporations increasingly wielding control and power over the world, who by their nature will exploit people and the environment if it means more profit, there are no moral drives or considerations in how they operate, most of the top executives have to exhibit psychopathic traits in order to get to the top. 1% of the population now own over half of the worlds wealth and their proportion grows each year, while billions live in abject poverty. So clearly things aren't exactly right.

 

Not that I have any definitive answers about how to solve all of that, but I see no evidence that blind adherence to free market capitalism is going to solve it. The model in Scandinavian countries is by American standards pretty much socialist and they have better education, healthcare, life expectancy, quality of life, lower crime rate, better care of the environment, while remaining prosperous and competitive economically. The cost of that model is that they pay high tax, but if you can see that the taxes you pay go to keeping your country in a decent state and don't go on phoney wars and straight to the 1% then people are happy to pay.

 

Some people argue paying high tax is like taking away your money by force, but you only make your money in the environment and infrastructure around you which is created by the people and government you live in, you and your business don't exist in a bubble. Some people say that if you pay high tax you are more controlled and less free, but is a Scandinavian really less free than an American? in many ways they are more free, they are better educated and have more freedom of the press and more freedom not to be murdered. 

 

Except we don't have free market capitalism, that's the myth. We have a mixed model of which fascistic economics dominates. We have big corporations tied to governments which can be seen by the revolving doors of corporate to political and back. The biggest players being banks/wall street, pharma, Agri, auto/aircraft manufacturing and weapons production. The free market-such that it is-is effectively managed by the financial and political systems in order to try and extract maximum production and political income. It is a centrally managed economy with a limited degree of freedom, but it certainly isn't free market in any sense. The bailouts from the Tarp programme, the ex-Im bank Boeing subsidies, the tariffs imposed on imports, IP protectionism particularly in relation to agri and pharma.

 

The common denominator in all this is the existence of the state and its government. The government doles out privileges in order to get support. There appears to be no way of limiting it. No matter how carefully the system is planned to limit power, eventually it breaks out. It's for this reason I say a firm no to government. I can't see anyway of limiting its growth and the spread of corporatism as a result of this growth. I see no alternative but to say no. Its simply a logical decision based on the available information. The inevitable ' but what would replace it' is no longer something I care to determine.

[Karl]

As I stated before that name was given at the beginning of the movement in which he included various groups for the purpose of gaining power. Do you understand that he dissolved the unions and put in work camps anyone that he considered a threat. Therefor, there was no socialist, but fascist, period! Your ideas are made up from revisionists and cranks such as Rush Limbaugh. Further, every text and academic on the subject, including historical documents, are in disagreement with you! Personal opinions are worthless and have nothing to do with history. 

 

I assume you may be under thirty years of age? Ever been to college?

 

So did Stalin. Your point is moot. I'm afraid every text does not agree and even if it did, this would not make me wrong or right. All you are doing is an appeal to authority, you are unable to reason without reference to others thoughts on the subject. As many pieces of written history certainly do contain a degree of personal opinion I can only disagree with your premise.

 

I wouldn't assume anything and I told you before I am entirely self taught-fortunately by the looks of things.

[ralis]

So did Stalin. Your point is moot. I'm afraid every text does not agree and even if it did, this would not make me wrong or right. All you are doing is an appeal to authority, you are unable to reason without reference to others thoughts on the subject. As many pieces of written history certainly do contain a degree of personal opinion I can only disagree with your premise. I wouldn't assume anything and I told you before I am entirely self taught-fortunately by the looks of things.

 

Professional academics in your opinion are no better than you are in regards to academic research and publishing? I take exception to that notion if that is your premise. If you are self taught and possibly home schooled, you are not well versed in having critical discussions within a peer group and are unwilling to receive constructive criticism, especially, when a person such as myself references historical peer reviewed documentation as a foundation for an argument. 

[Karl]

Yes, that's how complex systems evolve. It's slow but thorough, and the outcomes will never be determined by human will. That's reality. Your idea of 'pure capitalism' is just another conceptual framing based on a partial and imaginary model of reality.  

 

Really ? Wow that's insightful. So, you mean everything stands still because mind created concepts are not reality ? What a ludicrous statement. Your words on the page are proof that you are transferring concepts into reality. Man acts- how does man act ? What makes man act ? If man could not imagine and create concepts we would still be swinging from tree branches. So my idea of 'pure capitalism' is not only possible, but probable.

[ralis]

Really ? Wow that's insightful. So, you mean everything stands still because mind created concepts are not reality ? What a ludicrous statement. Your words on the page are proof that you are transferring concepts into reality. Man acts- how does man act ? What makes man act ? If man could not imagine and create concepts we would still be swinging from tree branches. So my idea of 'pure capitalism' is not only possible, but probable.

 

No! He is talking in regards to systems theory and in this case complex non linear dynamic systems in which the main characteristic is change and such systems are sensitive to initial conditions. So called pure capitalism would have no basis in which to function, given the myriad variables such as human behavior, planetary environment (a complex system), resources and so forth. What you are proposing is a perfect system which can never happen given the complex variables that I just stated.

[Karl]

Professional academics in your opinion are no better than you are in regards to academic research and publishing? I take exception to that notion if that is your premise. If you are self taught and possibly home schooled, you are not well versed in having critical discussions within a peer group and are unwilling to receive constructive criticism, especially, when a person such as myself references historical peer reviewed documentation as a foundation for an argument. 

 

More ad argumentum verecudiam and more ad hominem attacks. I don't think you have any idea what a critical discussion is. I will bid you goodnight I'm tired of this game.

[Brian]

This thread has been fun and, if the Bum's were a nearly monolithic capitalistic block rather than a nearly monolithic statist block I would have taken the opposite side.

 

Here, though, is the straight poop -- our political leaders and their media sycophants are playing us all.

 

The only form of governance which does not require virtue is despotic totalitarianism, and that form abhors virtue. With virtue, however, the mechanisms of governance become inconsequential. We should, therefore, seek to cultivate virtue in ourselves, in our families and in our communities. If we can do that, nothing else needs to be done. If we cannot, nothing else will make much of a difference.

[ralis]

More ad argumentum verecudiam and more ad hominem attacks. I don't think you have any idea what a critical discussion is. I will bid you goodnight I'm tired of this game.

 

Deferring to authority is absolutely appropriate. That is part of the peer review process.

[Karl]

This thread has been fun and, if the Bum's were a nearly monolithic capitalistic block rather than a nearly monolithic statist block I would have taken the opposite side.

Here, though, is the straight poop -- our political leaders and their media sycophants are playing us all.

The only form of governance which does not require virtue is despotic totalitarianism, and that form abhors virtue. With virtue, however, the mechanisms of governance become inconsequential. We should, therefore, seek to cultivate virtue in ourselves, in our families and in our communities. If we can do that, nothing else needs to be done. If we cannot, nothing else will make much of a difference.

Absolutely and on that positive note I'm off to bed.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Or something like that...

I once knew a person with an IQ of 163.  He was one really self-centered MF!

[ralis]

More ad argumentum verecudiam and more ad hominem attacks. I don't think you have any idea what a critical discussion is. I will bid you goodnight I'm tired of this game.

 

 

Seven years at the university in which I had many discussions of a critical nature. Also being married for ten years to a woman who was completely brilliant in which there were many critical discussions. She argued from sound logic and could have been a trial lawyer.

 

BTW, the logical fallacy you accuse me of is entirely different than providing references to historical documents as a basis for discussion.

Edited July 20, 2015 by ralis

[Marblehead]

The old debate between the superiority of the free market model and the Marxist type socialist state model is over, the free market won pretty much emphatically, all you have to do is look at countries like South Korea and post war Japan in comparison to its neighbours to see that much.

Better still perhaps, look at the differences between North Korea and South Korea.  The same peoples - just different forms of government.

[Marblehead]

I assume you may be under thirty years of age?

May also be under the influence of something.

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[Marblehead]

163? What is the standard deviation in the normal distrubution used to evaluate this result? 20?

That "american" value then would equate a "german" value of 122, "above average" but no big deal.

With a usual standard deviation of 15 (as used in Germany) there is no IQ above 160

and I know only one person with a result near that value in a scientific psychological cognitive test.

I can't answer your questions or even make comment to what you said.  The year was 1971 and I have no idea what standard was being used back then for American (probably military) testing.

[Apech]

My IQ is well above norm, mind you norm is pretty stupid.

[ralis]

163? What is the standard deviation in the normal distribution used to evaluate this result? 20?

That "american" value then would equate a "german" value of 122, "above average" but no big deal.

With a usual standard deviation of 15 (as used in Germany) there is no IQ above 160

and I know only one person with a result near that value in a scientific psychological cognitive test.

 

My measured IQ is in the upper 1%. I guess that is why some of the bums here don't like me.   I took the MENSA test, but I do the whole thing backwards and still qualify. 

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[Geof Nanto]

The only form of governance which does not require virtue is despotic totalitarianism, and that form abhors virtue. With virtue, however, the mechanisms of governance become inconsequential. We should, therefore, seek to cultivate virtue in ourselves, in our families and in our communities. If we can do that, nothing else needs to be done. If we cannot, nothing else will make much of a difference.

 

I like the Daoist perspective of cultivation of de  "in ourselves, in our families and in our communities". (However I also accept and appreciate that there is much diversity in our individual needs and actions. The path of classical Daoism is not for everyone.) Along similar lines, this contribution from David Cooper's Convergence with Nature: A Daoist Perspective works very well when applied to any sort of political activism.....

 

 

It is because self-cultivation is not focused on the 'inner' rather than the 'outer' that it requires an appropriate attunement and comportment towards the natural world. Engagements with nature......help to secure the moral space – the arena in which to develop virtue – which Daoists hope to occupy. This is why the metaphor of Daoists as gardeners of the world – as cultivators of personal landscapes – is an apt one.

 

While Daoists engage with natural environments, their engagement is also a retreat – not from an 'outer' to an 'inner' world, but from a frenzied world of activity and ambition to a quieter haven. From this haven, they have no illusions about 'saving the planet'. Like one distinguished nature writer, they eschew "plans for reorganisation and reconstruction". But, also like him, they will want "to reduce somewhat the level of suffering where they encounter it" and, more generally, to serve in small, local and undramatic ways to protect and enhance the natural environments with which they engage. In doing so, they live naturally or spontaneously, for their actions are not dictated by principles and plans, but are mindful and pliant responses to the situations and contexts they encounter.

 

Daoists, then, are unlikely to be found among `eco-warriors', but they will be found tending gardens, feeding birds in winter, protecting local wildlife from clumsy combine harvesters, opposing plans for a factory farm near their villages, and encouraging their neighbours to appreciate the useful uselessness of a threatened grove of trees. If this sounds insufficiently radical, one should recall that it is a way of living that is achieved only through a deep transformation of the self.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Yueya

[Geof Nanto]

No! He is talking in regards to systems theory and in this case complex non linear dynamic systems in which the main characteristic is change and such systems are sensitive to initial conditions. So called pure capitalism would have no basis in which to function, given the myriad variables such as human behavior, planetary environment (a complex system), resources and so forth. What you are proposing is a perfect system which can never happen given the complex variables that I just stated.

 

Thanks for that Ralis. I couldn't have framed a better reply myself. A grounding in systems theory certainly opens a whole new perspective on discussions such as this one. It pleases me greatly to know someone else on this forum is conversant with this radically different paradigm.