Are there any other leftists here? 👀

[silent thunder]

Capitalism:  the rather naive notion that the greediest of individuals, left unregulated to operate only from their selfish motives would somehow work to the benefit of all.

[thelerner]

37 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

Capitalism:  the rather naive notion that the greediest of individuals, left unregulated to operate only from their selfish motives would somehow work to the benefit of all.

Sure it sounds bad when you use the word greediest, but substitute smartest or ambitious or inventive and its not so bad.  Course anything without compassion is likely to veer off the rails sooner or later. 

 

There is a genius to Market Forces(in determining quantity and quality of goods) that human planners screw up and other then sex, nothing inspires human behavior as much as the profit motive, even altruism is a distant 3rd, imo.   

[silent thunder]

...

Edited May 26, 2022 by silent thunder
nevermind...

[manitou]

Just now, thelerner said:

Sure it sounds bad when you use the word greediest, but substitute smartest or ambitious or inventive and its not so bad.  Course anything without compassion is likely to veer off the rails sooner or later. 

 

There is a genius to Market Forces(in determining quantity and quality of goods) that human planners screw up and other then sex, nothing inspires human behavior as much as the profit motive, even altruism is a distant 3rd, imo.   

 

I think altruism may even be a stronger motive than profit; it's just that most folks haven't gotten to the point where they place the welfare of the communal over their own desires.  There is an assumption that is often repeated by the talking heads on TV that people always vote according to their own interests.  There really are those of us who consider first the welfare of All, and reflect that in our votes.  There just aren't enough of us.

[silent thunder]

I am reminded however, that the loudest, brashest and most intrusive of actioners, tend toward those who naturally are drawn to positions power, (which to me is the first prerogative for denying access to it), or gravitate toward them, are those with the least inhibitions to taking any action required to arrive at and maintain a position of power.

 

Those of a tolerant, nurturing and compassionate ken, will by nature be unwilling to take any action to acquire, expand and maintain power among the power seeking.  The result is a system in which the least moral, most psychotic naturally gravitate to positions of influence due specifically to their uninhibited use of 'any and all means'.

 

The effects of which litter the history books and news outlets of current events worldwide.

 

Yet I am one small man, and so to affect actual, practical expressions of my spiritual nature is why my actions are all focused locally, hyper-locally... beginning first with self, and then family, and neighbors, then neighboring neighbors. 

 

For me, it is no longer possible to stand by and watch the steadily unveiled progression of hate in daily life, nor the proliferation of unregulated greed in use of land and work force.

 

 

[Taomeow]

10 hours ago, thelerner said:

Sure it sounds bad when you use the word greediest, but substitute smartest or ambitious or inventive and its not so bad.  Course anything without compassion is likely to veer off the rails sooner or later. 

 

There is a genius to Market Forces(in determining quantity and quality of goods) that human planners screw up and other then sex, nothing inspires human behavior as much as the profit motive, even altruism is a distant 3rd, imo.   

 

 

Unfortunately for us who went against nature, there's forces of nature that are stronger than market forces (aside from the fact that most of the world presently lives in a fully fledged corporatocracy, and the consolidation of corporate power is only getting more drastic and complete, swallowing up any vestigial market forces in a continuous gulp that is only getting wider), and nature did not create us to rule over billions...  or even over more than 120, to be precise.  Rule over more people with the help of any forces and you wind up brain damaged.  So it's not the "smartest or ambitious or inventive" that end up populating the top -- according to science, it's the brain damaged ones:  

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/power-causes-brain-damage/528711/?fbclid=IwAR3oCqcPUHDKaa2So4ShHi_tjtIPGvKSASWvfNNnRZI5oyEWAhFxP2BIGqw 

Edited August 5, 2019 by Taomeow

[thelerner]

In Chicago, retail rents are so high, that seemingly only chains have the deep pockets to get into malls.  So mall after mall has the same stores.  Nothing interesting, nothing independent, same old same old.  Its not the experience it was decades ago where at least some of the stores were bold, had interesting stuff, manned by owners with passion.  

 

Carmel in California had banned Chains stores and restaurant so going there was a breath of fresh air.  Total bans aren't a good answer but some reward for originality should be available. Maybe some slight tax on chains, that goes towards making it slightly easier or cheaper for one of kinds to exist, would be nice. 

[Nungali]

On 05/08/2019 at 4:03 AM, silent thunder said:

Capitalism:  the rather naive notion that the greediest of individuals, left unregulated to operate only from their selfish motives would somehow work to the benefit of all.

 

 

 

 

Just goes to show how little I know about politics  !   I had no idea that capitalism ever had a notion  of 'for the benefit of all '  in the first place

 

 

[thelerner]

Capitalism without kindness leads to feudalism.

(European) Socialism with unchecked kindness, implodes. 

[Earl Grey]

3 minutes ago, thelerner said:

Capitalism without kindness leads to feudalism.

(European) Socialism with unchecked kindness, implodes. 

 

Capitalism with kindness is known as social enterprise, where stakeholders have more importance than shareholders, but they both have to work together in order to mutually benefit. One example of social enterprise is where in Cambodia, a place I wrote about when I was doing some freelance journalism is summarized here in the defunct Chicago-based webzine Destra, which I am copying and pasting from the archived site as I do not want people to know my name from the direct link:

 

Quote

 

In a place known for poverty and struggle, non-profits and social enterprises in Cambodia are changing the lives of the people who work there.

 

Cambodia unfortunately has a reputation for corruption and scams. It’s a place where “non-profits” are name only, and don’t make much of an impact on others. Most of the time these organizations are plagued by mismanagement, internal strife and are staffed by dubious characters.

 

It’s easy to quickly grow into a cynic as the challenge to make positive impact in the country remains a long, uphill battle.

So it’s no surprise that many people initially dismiss book stores, cafés, and foreign-run businesses that openly and proudly identify themselves as nonprofits.

 

However, contrary to popular beliefs, it is easier to be inspired rather than it is to be jaded when looking at the determined and dedicated people behind a few non-profits and social enterprises in the small town of Siem Reap.

 

Siem Reap is a small town in Northwestern Cambodia (which is located between Thailand and Vietnam in Asia Pacific). Siem Reap is filled with friendly locals and is a rapidly growing small town full of unparalleled charm.

 

What every person can see in Siem Reap, whether on a quick jaunt or a long-term mission is that a large number of non-profits and social enterprises are on almost every corner, with new ones opening up all the time.

 

You may see non-profits such as hotels, cafés and manufacturing specialists. But the products and services they each offer to customers are not what captivate people’s attention, it’s the profound impact these organization are having on the lives of the employees who work there.

 

Working in a coffee shop serving food and drinks may not seem like it would make a difference beyond giving people a living wage, but there’s more to it than a paycheck where most people live with just under $1.25 US dollars a day.

 

Each employee gets a variety of benefits for personal growth. From the Soria Moria Hotel to the recently-opened New Leaf Book Café or the Common Grounds coffee shop to the Coco Khmer coconut products manufacturer, these businesses arm their employees with both professional and life skills so that they may better improve their economic and social circumstances.

 

Employees take part in profit sharing and learn new skills, that are transferable to industries outside of food service and hospitality.  

In the case of Common Grounds coffee shop, several employees have moved on to be employed by other local non-profits in positions such as finance.

 

The organization People for Care and Learning is one of the many social enterprises that notably hire people who would otherwise not have a chance of being hired by typical businesses. These include people who may not have finished their primary education or kids on the street so that they have a better chance at life instead of remaining in the poverty gap.

 

Moly, who currently works at Common Grounds, speaks glowingly about the opportunity has she have been given beyond her paycheck. Coming from a family of seven, she is one of the fortunate few to have an education and speak English. She has an opportunity to continue her university education because she was able to borrow money to pay for her school and pay it back with her salary. Currently studying Business Management, Moly hopes to work in manufacturing and production after she finishes her education and time at Common Grounds.

 

If any one characteristic is crucial for operating a social enterprise in Cambodia, it’s making sure that employees are paid a fair wage, one that is neither too low nor too high. The key to understanding this is that if their wage is too low, they can not save and get out of the poverty gap, and if their wage is too high, it creates resentment and jealousy, not just between other employees, but by their community and relatives who may demand the money. It’s crucial that what logically follows this is the training that explains why some employees earn more than others because they have more responsibilities or whose job duties require specialized skills.

 

One expat described Cambodia as analogous to the American Wild West: dangerous, still vastly untouched, teeming with dodgy individuals, but also full of opportunities and a chance for everyone to try something new, especially for social entrepreneurs seeking to make a difference.

 

In the case of New Leaf Book Café, its founders had no background in restaurant management. While volunteering at the Cambodian Children’s House of Peace, Ian and Georgina, New Leaf Book Café’s founders, met and the idea for a book shop and café was born. So in January of 2013, the two of them began their plans to open up a café to offer a service to travelers in search of good food and reading, which would be stocked with used, donated books.

 

Initially, as with all startups, they faced challenges, but ended up with overwhelming unexpected support. New Leaf Book Cafe estimated it would struggle in the beginning, but they actually a profit by the end of the second month.

 

One year later, New Leaf has gone beyond its initial scope and doesn’t show any sign of slowing down. Children’s books are donated to schools to help students learn English, and are offering training for IT, Finance, and English to their employees. Furthermore, New Leaf is also building awareness of other local, like-minded organizations such as a recording studio for local musicians.

 

“What is really great about social enterprise,” says Mikel Samaniego, President of the social enterprise-focused nonprofit organization Angels for Angels, “is that by nature, entrepreneurs are on the ground and know what they [their community] want and need. It’s why they can respond faster than governments caught up in bureaucratic red tape and nonprofits competing for funding, both often overstretched.”

 

If the success of businesses like New Leaf and workers like Moly for Common Grounds are an indicator of anything, we can be certain that despite the challenges in Cambodia, there are many individuals and groups who are ready to rise to the occasion.

 

[Apech]

4 hours ago, thelerner said:

Capitalism without kindness leads to feudalism.

(European) Socialism with unchecked kindness, implodes. 

 

 

Sorry but that's completely wrong.  Feudalism came before Capitalism and in some (limited) ways was more benign in that if you had a good lord then you were taken care of.  As a serf you had no personal freedom or social mobility but at least living in peasant communities on the land you had access to food (when there wasn't a famine).  Under capitalism and growing industrialisation you were thrown off the land and forced to work in factories, live in substandard housing and although the old aristocratic social system had broken down and you theoretically had more freedom there was little chance to take advantage of it.

 

Most people by 'European Socialism' mean something like the Nordic model - which means retaining private industry but high taxation to provide public services and welfare to a high standard.  You call it unchecked kindness but I call it providing a good standard of living and dignity to people.  This is completely uncontroversial in most of the world - except the US where you are wedded to a right wing approach where someone like Bernie Sanders is thought of as an extremist for advocating medicare for all etc.

[flowing hands]

5 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

Sorry but that's completely wrong.  Feudalism came before Capitalism and in some (limited) ways was more benign in that if you had a good lord then you were taken care of.  As a serf you had no personal freedom or social mobility but at least living in peasant communities on the land you had access to food (when there wasn't a famine).  Under capitalism and growing industrialisation you were thrown off the land and forced to work in factories, live in substandard housing and although the old aristocratic social system had broken down and you theoretically had more freedom there was little chance to take advantage of it.

 

Most people by 'European Socialism' mean something like the Nordic model - which means retaining private industry but high taxation to provide public services and welfare to a high standard.  You call it unchecked kindness but I call it providing a good standard of living and dignity to people.  This is completely uncontroversial in most of the world - except the US where you are wedded to a right wing approach where someone like Bernie Sanders is thought of as an extremist for advocating medicare for all etc.

 

Capitalism is like this example: Jeff Fairburn the former CEO of Persimmon Homes gave himself a £75 million bonus, but it was discovered that many of his staff were so poorly paid that they had to rely on Universal Credit to survive.

Example 2; 600 of the richest aristocrats in the UK doubled their wealth in ten years while 4 million people needed to use food banks.

An example of right wing policies: The Uk government cut welfare benefits by £42 billion, gave the Monarch more millions of tax payers money, while homelessness increased at a staggering rate.

[Apech]

42 minutes ago, flowing hands said:

 

Capitalism is like this example: Jeff Fairburn the former CEO of Persimmon Homes gave himself a £75 million bonus, but it was discovered that many of his staff were so poorly paid that they had to rely on Universal Credit to survive.

Example 2; 600 of the richest aristocrats in the UK doubled their wealth in ten years while 4 million people needed to use food banks.

An example of right wing policies: The Uk government cut welfare benefits by £42 billion, gave the Monarch more millions of tax payers money, while homelessness increased at a staggering rate.

 

God bless her majesty.

[thelerner]

6 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

Sorry but that's completely wrong.  Feudalism came before Capitalism and in some (limited) ways was more benign in that if you had a good lord then you were taken care of.  As a serf you had no personal freedom or social mobility but at least living in peasant communities on the land you had access to food (when there wasn't a famine).  Under capitalism and growing industrialisation you were thrown off the land and forced to work in factories, live in substandard housing and although the old aristocratic social system had broken down and you theoretically had more freedom there was little chance to take advantage of it.

 

Most people by 'European Socialism' mean something like the Nordic model - which means retaining private industry but high taxation to provide public services and welfare to a high standard.  You call it unchecked kindness but I call it providing a good standard of living and dignity to people.  This is completely uncontroversial in most of the world - except the US where you are wedded to a right wing approach where someone like Bernie Sanders is thought of as an extremist for advocating medicare for all etc.

Even in feudalism time, things were bought and sold.  My point though which isn't too far away from yours is that unchecked Capitalism can drive wealth to fewer people, making for a two tiered have and have not system.  Which to me is feudalistic, ie nobles and peasants.  You put a happy face on a 'good' lord and happy serfs but there's no guarantee of that or that they didn't live in substandard housing and deprivation from the aristocracy. 

 

What I call considered unchecked Socialism is going beyond a strong social net into an extreme of social engineering that creates an entitlement society that hamstrings intelligent production.  One that can't pay its bills, and slowly disintegrates or has to turn to strong men. 

 

Can we pay for it, is an important question.   In terms of Medicare for all, its a question of who pays and how much.  Right not the U.S uses a mostly business pays model and its not working very well.  Too many uninsured, even those w/ insurance can be bankrupted by catastrophic illness.  Reforming drug prices and insurance, widening the pool, might well lower costs and be worth trying.  The numbers have to work.  It'd be interesting to consider that against a less liberal buy in option.  

[Apech]

4 minutes ago, thelerner said:

Even in feudalism time, things were bought and sold.  My point though which isn't too far away from yours is that unchecked Capitalism can drive wealth to fewer people, making for a two tiered have and have not system.  Which to me is feudalistic, ie nobles and peasants.  You put a happy face on a 'good' lord and happy serfs but there's no guarantee of that or that they didn't live in substandard housing and deprivation from the aristocracy. 

 

I think there are always inequalities in capitalism - in a sense it doesn't matter that much if the lower end still have enough for a decent life.  The current state of inequality which is vast and growing is at least partly a consequence of austerity measures following the 2008 crash - where governments pumped billions in public money into the system by liquidating the banks and through quantitive easing.  These were bad policies which punished the poor and low income groups and allowed shareholder/owners to suck billions/trillions into their own hands.  If governments had let banks go bust while underwriting individual savings and used the public money for new deal style investment then we would be in a very different place right now.

 

 

4 minutes ago, thelerner said:

What I call considered unchecked Socialism is going beyond a strong social net into an extreme of social engineering that creates an entitlement society that hamstrings intelligent production.  One that can't pay its bills, and slowly disintegrates or has to turn to strong men. 

 

If you mean soviet style communism - there are a lot of factors why that failed - some to do with Russia itself and its geopolitical makeup and so on.

 

4 minutes ago, thelerner said:

Can we pay for it, is an important question.   In terms of Medicare for all, its a question of who pays and how much.  Right not the U.S uses a mostly business pays model and its not working very well.  Too many uninsured, even those w/ insurance can be bankrupted by catastrophic illness.  Reforming drug prices and insurance, widening the pool, might well lower costs and be worth trying.  The numbers have to work.  It'd be interesting to consider that against a less liberal buy in option.  

 

Can you afford not to is more the question, IMO.

[thelerner]

9 minutes ago, Apech said:

If you mean soviet style communism - there are a lot of factors why that failed - some to do with Russia itself and its geopolitical makeup and so on.

Actually I'm talking European style socialism.  Which I admire but historically, and you know the history better then I do.  When do you believe modern European socialism began?  During that time, how many of those governments went bust, had to devalue, change there currency, had there leaders abruptly replaced?  Were forced to swing to a stricter Capitalist approach (for awhile) to tighten the belt and get back into balance? 

 

Benefits without fiscal responsibility are a slow road to disintegration. 

 

Good socialism is best when it breeds strong entrepreneurialship.  Which comes with innovation and job creation.  We don't need people making 3000x more then regular workers but we need to encourage people of drive, expertise and vision.  They create value, they should get to keep a solid share of there it. 

 

Quote

Can you afford not to is more the question, IMO.

maybe not, it'd be scary for some but I'd willing to try medicare for all or one payer system.  There'd be strong resistance and some bugs in the roll out.

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by thelerner

[sean]

1 minute ago, thelerner said:

When do you believe modern European socialism began?  During that time, how many of those governments went bust, had to devalue, change there currency, had there leaders abruptly replaced?  Were forced to swing to a stricter Capitalist approach (for awhile) to tighten the belt and get back into balance?

 

I think you're ignoring the long, predictable, and cyclic history of capitalist economy failures (including the U.S.) and the often untold mass suffering and death in those histories. Capitalism is not some nice, fiscally conservative Dad coming in to balance the budget. It's predatory, structurally funnels money upward, dependent on cheap/slave labor, propped up by its own more insidious forms of authoritarianism and even fascism, and is itself inherently unstable.

 

Sean

 

[Apech]

8 minutes ago, thelerner said:

Actually I'm talking European style socialism.  Which I admire but historically, and you know the history better then I do.  When do you believe modern European socialism began?  During that time, how many of those governments went bust, had to devalue, change there currency, had there leaders abruptly replaced?  Were forced to swing to a stricter Capitalist approach (for awhile) to tighten the belt and get back into balance? 

 

maybe not, it'd be scary for some but I'd willing to try medicare for all or one payer system.  There'd be strong resistance and some bugs in the roll out.

 

 

 

Oh ok.  I guess the beginning of European socialism is the French revolution.  What you describe is really just the democratic system working.  People vote for left wing programmes and then swing right as time progresses.  Its just a matter of balance in the centre though as none of those left wing governments was revolutionary and none of the right wing governments was fascist.  In fact these days its quite hard to tell the difference in the centre - but the extremes have become more polarised.

 

Do you think that the US can go on (as the richest country in world) without giving all its citizens healthcare of some form?  Bizarrely the Democratic candidates seem to want it for undocumented immigrants first - does this make any sense?????  Weird.

[sean]

3 minutes ago, Apech said:

Do you think that the US can go on (as the richest country in world) without giving all its citizens healthcare of some form?  Bizarrely the Democratic candidates seem to want it for undocumented immigrants first - does this make any sense?????  Weird.

 

By first do you mean, on initial roll out or before being available to actual citizens?

 

I think part of the complexity of undocumented immigration in the U.S. is that, while right-wing populist rhetoric often postures against it to rally a working class base, the capitalist class massively profits from cheap labor that they can mistreat and fire with impunity. I think it's unfair to deny these people care while we transition to less byzantine pathways to citizenship, and stronger labor protections.

 

Sean

 

[ilumairen]

 

19 minutes ago, thelerner said:

Good socialism is best when it breeds strong entrepreneurialship. 

 

Wait.. what?

 

Is this an oxymoron? Or is there something I'm missing?

 

Wouldn't the idea of entrepeneurialship be at odds with the basic premise of communal or government ownership of means of production?

 

And what is being referred to as "European Socialism," and why is it being called socialist?

 

[Apech]

14 minutes ago, sean said:

 

By first do you mean, on initial roll out or before being available to actual citizens?

 

I think part of the complexity of undocumented immigration in the U.S. is that, while right-wing populist rhetoric often postures against it to rally a working class base, the capitalist class massively profits from cheap labor that they can mistreat and fire with impunity. I think it's unfair to deny these people care while we transition to less byzantine pathways to citizenship, and stronger labor protections.

 

Sean

 

 

I'm not sure - I just watched part of one of the debates where they raised their hands to this question.  Maybe they meant as well as everybody else rather than before.  But still it seemed a strange question.

 

 

[ilumairen]

Guys? Y'all are confusing the b'jesus outta little ole me. 

 

:bats eyelashes and sips tea:

 

Would one of you fine gentlemen be so kind as to offer me definitions for the more predominant words in use here, which I may be able to trust In and lean on in my wish to comprehend? Or should I just wander back to the kitchen and brew y'all some fresh tea?

 

[dawei]

9 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

I'm not sure - I just watched part of one of the debates where they raised their hands to this question.  Maybe they meant as well as everybody else rather than before.  But still it seemed a strange question.

 

 

 

I think more than one ended up clarifying their position after the debate.   This article explains how O-Care and DACA left the undocumented off their plans.  

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/2020-democrats-undocumented-health-care/593761/

 

[thelerner]

19 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

 

Wait.. what?

 

Is this an oxymoron? Or is there something I'm missing?

 

Wouldn't the idea of entrepeneurialship be at odds with the basic premise of communal or government ownership of means of production?

 

And what is being referred to as "European Socialism," and why is it being called socialist?

 

Yes, I'm referring to European style socialism, not Comunism or the formal definition of Socialism. 

 

These days in the US most people think of socialism as European style government.  A stronger social net and more services for higher taxes. The Canadian and European system. 

 

There should be a better name for it. Without the stigmas. 

 

I'd say Sanders is not a 'classic' Socialist, rather the European kind looking for a more equitable society without the government planning or control of business. 

[ilumairen]

58 minutes ago, sean said:

 

I think you're ignoring the long, predictable, and cyclic history of capitalist economy failures (including the U.S.) and the often untold mass suffering and death in those histories. Capitalism is not some nice, fiscally conservative Dad coming in to balance the budget. It's predatory, structurally funnels money upward, dependent on cheap/slave labor, propped up by its own more insidious forms of authoritarianism and even fascism, and is itself inherently unstable.

 

Truth.

 

https://m.usw.org/union/history

 

And then the unions also became hierarchical and grasping.. claiming more and more of their share of workers wages while creating odd and unforeseen dichotomies.

 

This world I know; the politics behind it, not so much. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by ilumairen
typo