Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
The Battle Isn't Right vs. Left.
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 990
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:47 am    Post subject: The Battle Isn't Right vs. Left. Reply with quote

It’s Statism vs. Individualism

Quote:
How high does the death toll need to get before people realize that communism, like its sister ideology of Nazism, is despicably evil?

_________________
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dominique_71
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 1691
Location: Switzerland (Romandie)

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:14 pm    Post subject: Re: The Battle Isn't Right vs. Left. Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
It’s Statism vs. Individualism

Quote:
How high does the death toll need to get before people realize that communism, like its sister ideology of Nazism, is despicably evil?


First, the ideology of communism is marxism, the ideology of fascism is capitalism. Nazism is fascism mixed with a publicly assumed racist agenda. In practice, communists, fascists and nazis always do the same when they get in power: they make an alliance with the industry and the banks against their peoples. This was true for Hitler and Mussolini, as well than for Lenin and his followers. Kropotkin was trying to tell Lenin about his error to concentrate all powers into the hand of the party, the history proved Kropotkin to be right when the USSR collapsed. As a result, Kropotkin was jailed and forced to go to France, where it was also jailed. The ones in charge doesn't like true libertarian anarchists like Kropotkin.

Marxism and Capitalism are the best enemies our society can have. That society is a social and environmental catastrophe, and both sides of the political elites want more centralisation in order to keep the power. They are all sociopaths which believes than, because they are in power, they will keep the control. The history of past civilizations show us than power concentration and centralisation always preceded their disparition. That show than globalization is an effort made by sociopaths and that it is condemned to fail.

A last word, I prefer to talk about centralisation vs. libertarianism, because centralisation of the power and of the wealth is what we get with the globalization, and also because anarchism and libertarianism implies individualism with its responsibility, which is solidarity between individuals. Which is not the same than being naive. Being naive is to think the social and environmental catastrophe that our actual way of life is, can have a future.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 245
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:42 pm    Post subject: Re: The Battle Isn't Right vs. Left. Reply with quote

Dominique_71 wrote:

First, the ideology of communism is marxism, the ideology of fascism is capitalism.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Adolf Hitler wrote:
We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions


Sorry, commie. Nice try. Go write a five year plan. We all know how well those worked out. :lol:
_________________
The Future Ain't What It Used To Be

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 990
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:04 pm    Post subject: Re: The Battle Isn't Right vs. Left. Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
Dominique_71 wrote:

First, the ideology of communism is marxism, the ideology of fascism is capitalism.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Adolf Hitler wrote:
We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions


Sorry, commie. Nice try. Go write a five year plan. We all know how well those worked out. :lol:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
_________________
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dominique_71
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 1691
Location: Switzerland (Romandie)

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:13 pm    Post subject: Re: The Battle Isn't Right vs. Left. Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
Dominique_71 wrote:

First, the ideology of communism is marxism, the ideology of fascism is capitalism.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Adolf Hitler wrote:
We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions


Sorry, commie. Nice try. Go write a five year plan. We all know how well those worked out. :lol:


Sorry but I am not a marxist (and not a capitalist either) because most marxists are like most capitalists, bigots for which the rest of the world doesn't exist if it doesn't make up to their expectations.

That's the problem with the socialists, they use a populist leftist dialectic for people to vote for them, but as soon they get in charge, they implement a far-right politics. It was already the case before Hitler when, just after the second Internationale, the socialists made an alliance with the right to vote the budget for the first world war. Another possibility at that time would have been to made an alliance with the communists and get a bigger majority to implement a leftist politics. They will never change, it is also the case today in Switzerland, the socialists get the federal department in charge of the migrants and they implement the same kind of racist politics toward the migrants of today (mass deportation by the blind and systematic application of the Dublin traité) than the swiss politics toward the Jews in the past (Switzerland was the first country in the world to put "J" on the passeports of the Jews, that before to send them back to the nazis). It is also the case in the US: the Democrats always made more wars than the Republicans, always. Socialists are just the worst hypocrite peoples in the whole humankind, they have been so from day 1, and they will never change it because it is their reason of being.

Also during WWII, the nazis did lost the war in Russia. The bank Hariman (not really a leftist bank, its director was a so-called Walker-Bush, the father and grandfather of the 2 US presidents) was used by all rich families of the US like the Ford, the Roquefeller, the Morgan, and so on, to make investments into the nazis, that from 1923 to the Stalingrad battle. It is only after that battle (which is 1 year after the US declared the war to nazi Germany!), when it become evident than the nazis will lose the war, than the US state ordonned to the Hariman bank to stop to finance the nazis. It is also documented than the same banks which financed the nazis was also making business with Staline. Left and right have the same agenda, only their propaganda based on the fear of the other is a little bit different. They are all sociopaths which blindly believe than to promote a way of life which is a social and environmental catastrophe is a progress.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1261
Location: Idaho, USA

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:14 pm    Post subject: Re: The Battle Isn't Right vs. Left. Reply with quote

Dominique_71 wrote:
the ideology of fascism is capitalism

8O 8O 8O

EDIT: Quantum tunneling...I've done it! I have successfully traveled to an alternate reality!
_________________
Git has obsoleted SVN.
10mm Auto has obsoleted 45 ACP.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dominique_71
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 1691
Location: Switzerland (Romandie)

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:38 pm    Post subject: Re: The Battle Isn't Right vs. Left. Reply with quote

wswartzendruber wrote:
Dominique_71 wrote:
the ideology of fascism is capitalism

8O 8O 8O

EDIT: Quantum tunneling...I've done it! I have successfully traveled to an alternate reality!


Their dialectic to get elected was leftist, but as soon they get in charge, they implemented the union of the forces of the state and of the corporations. Such a politics is not what I call a leftist politics, it is the same kind of politics the US is making today by sending its army to bomb and destroy other independent countries and sending their corporations to make big money with the "reconstruction" of the country. The result is the same: war and despair for the peoples, and big money for a few corporations and their owners. Yesterday it was progress and dictatorship, this is what they call progress and democracy today. Other words, same practical results.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1609
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's not "today". Apparently you haven't been paying attention. That was under Obama and the Democrats (leftists).
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 990
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How to Spot a Communist
_________________
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
e3k
Guru
Guru


Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 387
Location: Inner Space

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@Dominique_71 I agree with most of the initial post from you but regarding capitalism i would like to say this: Capitalism is beyond left or right it does only care for money. People are just factors involved in producing it. Not sure if you have read the history of dehomag. That story says that a corporation can profit from war. Dehomag was working for all sides. Germany, USA not sure about Russia probably it did not went so far. After the war they have collected all the the know how gathered in any country they worked for.

---intermission---

@Muso a non left or right approach would be to question capitalism as this seems to be the continuous try to build the Babylon Tower. Look at us! We all are (or try to) speak in one language currently. And that is after the fall of the tower.

---HTTP 302---
maybe music will explain this better: BELLY OF THE BEAST
_________________
((O.o))
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Really need to be pedantic here. Communism is the idea that "From each according to their ability and to each according to their need" for economic distribution. Marxism is a (debunked) theory about how a communist utopia can form based on class struggle and violent revolution. Capitalism is the exchange of goods and services by way of a currency. Fascism is a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism (duck duck go definition).

Note that a fascist country need not be a capitalistic one. A communist country need not be a Marxist one. Indeed, a Marxist country like the USSR, Cuba, or North Korea readily fits the definition of a fascist country.

In principle one could easily have a communist democracy, dictatorship, or even anarchy state, which would fail in practice. Similarly all these government forms could also be capitalist and history has show that all of those, including anarchy, can be stable. The exception is anarchy which always devolves into some type of strong man system.

Marxism is indeed tied to communism as it is only possible for the Marxist ideals to exist in that philosophy. It is the only political ideology that is tied to an economic system under discussion. If one wanted to do the same with capitalism the analogy would be the robber baron who viewed capitalistic success as indicating with social worth. I don't recall the name of that philosophy at the moment and needless to say it is not advocated for anywhere.

The reason that communism is an impossible system is quite simple. No one ever has anything to gain from working since by definition they get everything they need. And indeed, what they need is subjective and therefore impossible to define. Does everyone need a sports car? Who gets to make that call? And what is everyone's ability? What if their ability is 3 hours of farming a week? What if someone decides their ability is playing minecraft 24/7? Who decides what the ability of each person is? The inevitable result is a dictatorship or total collapse, proven over the past century.

Capitalism solves these problems by design. You decide your ability and are compensated appropriately. From that you decide your needs. If your needs outweigh your ability you can must get more ability. This keeps the system balanced as generally everyone's ability covers the basics. Sports cars and the like go to the ones who give the most back. Morality steps in outside of a pure Laissez-faire to prevent the minimum level of ability resulting in death or similar situations. Tested over thousands of years the system works.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 18084

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
need is subjective and therefore impossible to define. Does everyone need a sports car? Who gets to make that call?
I know your point, but the difference between need and want is significant. You want a sports car. And if no one needs to build one, then you'll probably never have the opportunity to obtain one.

The Doctor wrote:
And what is everyone's ability?
That's up to the fascist in charge. Consider the current tech environment of Psychopath Valley and social media.

The Doctor wrote:
Capitalism solves these problems by design. You decide your ability and are compensated appropriately.
I disagree that ability is a choice, although there's a degree to which a person may push themselves. But even that seems to have limits (drudgery, a passion, obscenely well paid). And the concept of compensated appropriately seems to have eroded for a number of decades.

The Doctor wrote:
This keeps the system balanced as generally everyone's ability covers the basics.
I'm not sure under what conditions this is true, but I don't believe it has happened with any capitalistic system which has existed. I also believe a system of pure capitalism excludes the possibility by definition.

Having picked nits, I don't believe a better system has existed, and I believe the current one* needs major improvements. * I'm dismissing any which have failed and continue to fail, and especially those which "just need the right leader, and surely _this one_ is benevolent."
_________________
Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:

The reason that communism is an impossible system is quite simple. No one ever has anything to gain from working since by definition they get everything they need. And indeed, what they need is subjective and therefore impossible to define.

This seems like a contradiction. It is impossibl3 to define what an individual needs, but they still get it?

Quote:
Does everyone need a sports car? Who gets to make that call? And what is everyone's ability? What if their ability is 3 hours of farming a week? What if someone decides their ability is playing minecraft 24/7? Who decides what the ability of each person is? The inevitable result is a dictatorship or total collapse, proven over the past century.

Capitalism solves these problems by design. You decide your ability and are compensated appropriately. From that you decide your needs. If your needs outweigh your ability you can must get more ability. This keeps the system balanced as generally everyone's ability covers the basics. Sports cars and the like go to the ones who give the most back. Morality steps in outside of a pure Laissez-faire to prevent the minimum level of ability resulting in death or similar situations. Tested over thousands of years the system works.

This may be part of the advantage of capitalism, but I think the bigger advantage is that capitalism solves the distribution problem pretty well. Making too much of something people don’t want, or too little of something people do want is very inefficient. In a market economy, price, moved by supply and demand, serves as the signal, or feedback mechanism, to correlate what people want and what people make. Without that feedback mechanism, there is no good way to figure out what people want, and hence production is highly inefficient. Central plannng is an attempt to compensate, but it is nowhere near as effective.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Capitalism solves these problems by design. You decide your ability and are compensated appropriately.
I disagree that ability is a choice, although there's a degree to which a person may push themselves. But even that seems to have limits (drudgery, a passion, obscenely well paid). And the concept of compensated appropriately seems to have eroded for a number of decades.
Not perfectly, but the CEO making obscene amounts of money is worth the company paying that money or they wouldn't do it. People can also learn new skills and, to a certain extent, work more to increase their ability. It isn't an infinite potential but unless someone is handicapped they can do quite a bit.

The system we have has been tinkered with quite a bit so wages aren't perfect. However the guy flipping burgers does make less than the guy fixing cars. This reason we should be lowering minimum wages. The idea that a minimum wage job should be a career is a bad mindset that many young people have fallen into. It must be, at most, a minimum. You don't motivate someone to stop flipping burgers and start fixing cars if it means no increase in pay.

100% agree there are artifacts, like HR departments, that only exist because of tampering with markets. Some of these are good, some are harmful. Good luck getting anyone to agree on which is which. It would be like trying to herd cats.
pjp wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
This keeps the system balanced as generally everyone's ability covers the basics.
I'm not sure under what conditions this is true, but I don't believe it has happened with any capitalistic system which has existed. I also believe a system of pure capitalism excludes the possibility by definition.
If you look at history you do find the poor people, such as coal miners, living in absolutely horrid conditions with adequate food and shelter. If you don't pay you workers enough to live you don't have workers. So capitalism in its most brutal form does this at least. Communism leaves the farmers in the Ukraine to resort to cannibalism and starve to death after taking the crops to feed the cities.
pjp wrote:
Having picked nits, I don't believe a better system has existed, and I believe the current one* needs major improvements. * I'm dismissing any which have failed and continue to fail, and especially those which "just need the right leader, and surely _this one_ is benevolent."
Can't argue with that.

richk449 wrote:
This seems like a contradiction. It is impossibl3 to define what an individual needs, but they still get it?
Why communism can never work. It is a contradiction.

richk449 wrote:
This may be part of the advantage of capitalism, but I think the bigger advantage is that capitalism solves the distribution problem pretty well.
I'd agree on that point.

Well, that turned out to be a quite a bit longer than intended.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1387

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Although in our times Harari assigns money a super god status, money may well be just one of the optimizations we humans made in our ability working together. The Dollar is a worthless sheet of paper and after that crypto coins go into fictous numbers, which were thrown away as digital waste had we received any of them some 15 years ago.

Money is not capitalism, but capitalism uses it. There have been ancestors of money back in the stone ages. In the aftermath of the American Revolution there had been fights who controls the issue of money for more than a hundred years. But that fight began with a discussion if at all corporations should be allowed in a democratic society.
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 990
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2019 2:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:

This may be part of the advantage of capitalism, but I think the bigger advantage is that capitalism solves the distribution problem pretty well. Making too much of something people don’t want, or too little of something people do want is very inefficient. In a market economy, price, moved by supply and demand, serves as the signal, or feedback mechanism, to correlate what people want and what people make. Without that feedback mechanism, there is no good way to figure out what people want, and hence production is highly inefficient. Central plannng is an attempt to compensate, but it is nowhere near as effective.


Completely agreed. The market is self correcting.
_________________
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
e3k
Guru
Guru


Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 387
Location: Inner Space

PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2019 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
The market is self correcting.
According to Keynes maybe. The reality is about monopolies and cartels. There you can see the only correction toward the income of the mighty.
_________________
((O.o))
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 990
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2019 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

e3k wrote:
Muso wrote:
The market is self correcting.
According to Keynes maybe. The reality is about monopolies and cartels. There you can see the only correction toward the income of the mighty.


Those only exist because of government. There would be no cartels were recreational pharmaceuticals legal, and monopolies are created with government assistance.
_________________
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 18084

PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2019 3:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
pjp wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Capitalism solves these problems by design. You decide your ability and are compensated appropriately.
I disagree that ability is a choice, although there's a degree to which a person may push themselves. But even that seems to have limits (drudgery, a passion, obscenely well paid). And the concept of compensated appropriately seems to have eroded for a number of decades.
Not perfectly, but the CEO making obscene amounts of money is worth the company paying that money or they wouldn't do it. People can also learn new skills and, to a certain extent, work more to increase their ability. It isn't an infinite potential but unless someone is handicapped they can do quite a bit.
I don't care how much they pay CEOs, although a lack of fiduciary responsibility may be at play. My comment about erosion of appropriate compensation was that of non-executives.

The Doctor wrote:
The system we have has been tinkered with quite a bit so wages aren't perfect. However the guy flipping burgers does make less than the guy fixing cars. This reason we should be lowering minimum wages. The idea that a minimum wage job should be a career is a bad mindset that many young people have fallen into. It must be, at most, a minimum. You don't motivate someone to stop flipping burgers and start fixing cars if it means no increase in pay.
The first issue is to look at the wages of the burger flipper, mechanic, and executives over time. Data I've seen in the past indicates (although not specifically for flippers and mechanics) that people make less money today while executives make more. Again, i don't care how much executives make. I agree that minimum wage jobs were not originally intended to be employment for household's primary wage earner(s). However, the situation that exists is such that more and more people who are not "first job seekers" are ending up in low-end jobs (specifically I've seen it in fast food).

I'm not saying I have an answer. I'm just saying the problem, whatever it is, appears to be getting worse. Add to that the apparent millennial (or whatever generation) hasn't been able to find decent employment and is having to work the "gig" economy. That all appears to point in the general direction of increasing numbers of people who might start to (re)consider politicians promising Free Stuff. That would appear to indicate a currently broken variation of a capitalist system.

The Doctor wrote:
If you look at history you do find the poor people, such as coal miners, living in absolutely horrid conditions with adequate food and shelter. If you don't pay you workers enough to live you don't have workers.
By your own comments, "enough to live in horrid conditions." Humans seem to be able to adapt to amazing circumstances. Although "adapt" seems to be inaccurate and erroneously suggestive of a positive outcome. Tolerate, put up with, and endure are slightly better terms.

The Doctor wrote:
So capitalism in its most brutal form does this at least. Communism leaves the farmers in the Ukraine to resort to cannibalism and starve to death after taking the crops to feed the cities.
We seem to be experiencing kamikaze capitalism. I'm not sure where that would fit on the Capitalism <-> Communism continuum.
_________________
Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2019 5:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that this discussion is in part wandering into the weeds a bit in an implementation vs ideal situation. Capitalism, as we see it practiced in modern times, certainly isn't pure capitalism. That is both good and bad. On one hand you have protection from false advertising, defective and dangerous products, etc. You also have companies protected from failure and people getting rich by gaming the system. For example, micro trading. I don't have a solution for this either.

I think the problem with millennials is that they where the daycare generation and have never been parented. At least, a significant percentage of them. Look at their demands from collages. They claim that at 18 they are too immature to control their own sexual activities and demand the university do it for them. They also demand things like stress animals and safe spaces. When they don't get what they want they throw a tantrum like a two year old. They also seem to view the world like a two year old. "Protect me from that! I don't like it!" "It is too hard, make it easy!" "That is unfair! Ban it!" "I didn't vote for Orange Man! Impeach him!" "Give me free stuff" It is the generation that never grew up.

The other problem is that everyone in authority told them that a few hundred thousand dollars in debt was a good trade for a college degree. If you do the math, they are really buying two or three houses at age 24 with no job or career. Its no wonder that they have fallen behind financially.

I think the solution to that problem is relatively straight forward. Make the colleges offer and guarantee student loans. If the University fails to give the proper education then they loose any unpaid tuition. With that level of risk the funds go down and costs get cut. There is a ridiculous level of bloat because the funding is free. There are also degree paths that are utter nonsense and should be eliminated. Students don't understand money so doubling their debt means nothing to them. The current system is exploitative and abusive and simply shouldn't continue.

I got out of college debt free. Now I'm pouring everything into making my dream job. Very few of my peers could do the same even if they wanted to. I also remember VHS, so I'm certainly the older end of the problem generation.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
e3k
Guru
Guru


Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 387
Location: Inner Space

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
e3k wrote:
Muso wrote:
The market is self correcting.
According to Keynes maybe. The reality is about monopolies and cartels. There you can see the only correction toward the income of the mighty.


Those only exist because of government. There would be no cartels were recreational pharmaceuticals legal, and monopolies are created with government assistance.
well the problem is still money. corrupt governments, lobbying and that kind of stuff still happens due to the power of money. also the current corporation conglomerates act like a government. there is no easy way out of it. the money machine tries to earn more and no cost is too high except the money cost... but this is more a philosophical topic than an economic one...
_________________
((O.o))
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 18084

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

e3k wrote:
well the problem is still money. corrupt governments, lobbying and that kind of stuff still happens due to the power of money.
Lobbying does not require the use of money (1) and it "still happens" in the US because it is a protected right (2).

Although I recognize that you were probably referring to direct or indirect exchange of money for "favors."

1) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lobby (verb)
2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
_________________
Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
e3k
Guru
Guru


Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 387
Location: Inner Space

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
e3k wrote:
well the problem is still money. corrupt governments, lobbying and that kind of stuff still happens due to the power of money.
Lobbying does not require the use of money (1) and it "still happens" in the US because it is a protected right (2).

Although I recognize that you were probably referring to direct or indirect exchange of money for "favors."

1) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lobby (verb)
2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

what i mean that it all happens because of the greed for money. which is an death and as people are not money.
_________________
((O.o))
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dominique_71
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 1691
Location: Switzerland (Romandie)

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

e3k wrote:
@Dominique_71 I agree with most of the initial post from you but regarding capitalism i would like to say this: Capitalism is beyond left or right it does only care for money. People are just factors involved in producing it. Not sure if you have read the history of dehomag. That story says that a corporation can profit from war. Dehomag was working for all sides. Germany, USA not sure about Russia probably it did not went so far. After the war they have collected all the the know how gathered in any country they worked for.

Yes, I know that history. The first corporations to make money with wars are the banks. Historically, the first customers of the banks was the weapon manufacturers and their buyers, mainly the kings. Under many centuries, no one could win a war in Europe without to have the bank of Vatican on its side. Today, the militaro-industriel complex is using more than 50% of the natural resources of the earth, what is most insane with this is than no one single politician want to stop this. The Delphi Initiative - Speech by Peter Koenig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dominique_71
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 1691
Location: Switzerland (Romandie)

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
Note that a fascist country need not be a capitalistic one. A communist country need not be a Marxist one.

Most marxist peoples are productivist, and they never explain how to build an industrial productivism without the capital. It is no surprise with that, because to build any kind of industry, you just need a capital, a huge amount of money. It is why at the first place they will never be something else or more or less, than the left of the capital. End of the story.

The Doctor wrote:
Indeed, a Marxist country like the USSR, Cuba, or North Korea readily fits the definition of a fascist country.

The USSR doesn't exist anymore. I don't know North Korea but I do have friends and family in Cuba, which imply I cannot agree with you. Any elected politician in Cuba get... elected. At the difference of the western democracy, it is not a political party that choose the candidates to the election but the people himself into public reunions of the neirborings and at their workplaces. After the elections, the same peoples can dismiss any elected politician for any reason, choose someone else to replace him or her, and organize a new election.

You can say they don't have a free press. That's right, they only have a Cuban press, but they can listen radio and TV from the US for free. Which imply they get the propaganda of both sides. Also, the US just enforced new parts of the Helms-Burton law, which imply the US blockade of Cuba will become more severe. According to international law, such a blockade is equivalent to a war situation, and for you the dictatorship is not the powerful country which declared that war with its blockade, but the small country which never aggressed the powerful one... Come on!

The Doctor wrote:
In principle one could easily have a communist democracy, dictatorship, or even anarchy state, which would fail in practice. Similarly all these government forms could also be capitalist and history has show that all of those, including anarchy, can be stable. The exception is anarchy which always devolves into some type of strong man system.

Anarchy and state just does not fit together, they are mutually exclusives. The same with the strong man system and anarchism, they are mutually exclusive. Anarchy is the only political regime where all peoples get in charge. Due to a severe limitation of the human brain (we can have real relationships only with a very limited number of peoples), such a political system can only be achieved into small scale societies. History show us than the ancient form of societies where all peoples was in charge of the politics, just disappeared when the first cities was built during the Antiquity. And History never get back. All that imply we will never again be able to build anarchist societies as long civilisation and their cities exist.

Also, to understand capitalism we must look how it was developed and how it is interconnected with our current society, the industrial civilisation. Capitalism get developed first during the European colonization of the rest of the world, and after that with the industrialisation. The industrial productivism of today is highly hierarchised, it go from slave labor in the mining industry, and up to rich shareholders. That hierarchy is added to, and reinforce the pre existing hierarchies based on money and power, to result in what we have today, a completely mad society which use more than 50% of its resources to make wars. We can call it what we want, some even call it democracy, it want change the fact than this way of life is the worst social and environmental catastrophe of all times. All that imply the main problem is not about left or right - they are part of the same way of life and as such, they are the best enemies that way of life can buy. The main problem is that way of life in itself and its suprematistic concept of civilisation which place that way of life as a must and other ways of like as nothing. That suprematism was globalised with the colonisation and industrialised. The result is a dying Earth and the so-called new green deal is just a huge greenwashing that will change nothing but even, with all the new industrial technologies to be developed, accelerate that final ecocide.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum