Moved from D1 forum

[FireIceTalon]

Your post defeats itself. Good day sir.

I had a post written, but this gem really encapsulates the entire thing. Your posts have taken nonsensical ranting, self-contradiction, and a total disregard for everyone else's arguments to an entirely new level. I can't decide whether you are ignorant of the relevant history, ignoring it by living in a fantasy world, or both. (Clue no. 1: "Marxist" and "Totalitarian" can, and frequently do, describe the same thing. Labels are not exclusive.)

You're either trolling, or you can't help it. Either way.

-Jester

Hate to break it to you, so far not one of you has given me a convincing argument as to why Im wrong. Its just the typical Tea Bagger rhetoric that ive read a million times elsewhere that doesnt even need statistics to prove wrong, but simple logic and conventional wisdom does the trick. Considering im a political science/history major and sociology minor, I think I know what im talking about, but since you equate Marxism with being the same thing Totalitarianism (lmao!), it appears you dont. But this is typical of right wing nut jobs. You guys suffer from putting your own perspective on history (in particular American History) then accounting for actual facts, buy into the various myths entrenched in our culture (even though most of them are horseshit, such as everyone having equality of opportunity...if you cant even acknowledge that certain groups of people are marginalized in society more than others we cannot even have this discussion much less agree on it), blind patriotism, hypocrisy, anti-intellectualism (someone who has greater knowledge than you is automatically an elitist), and false consciousness that relies on myth and folklore rather than rationality or even blatant statistics that prove you wrong (seen throughout yours and your fellow capitalistic fanboys arguments in this thread). This is why I cant talk to right wing nut jobs, because they have no clue what they are talking about. Though even if they did know, our fundamental differences on how we see the world are probably not compatible or at least reconcilable. Anyway, have at it.

Here is a couple recommendations for you:

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-Un...952&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/America-Working-Pe...pd_sim_b_1

[--Pete]

Hi,

Warren Buffett was from a middle class family.

Most middle class families are not headed by businessmen-turned-Congressmen. Warren Buffett's superwealth is a matter of his own brilliance as an investor, which is entirely in line with your point, but I'm not sure his origins were quite so humble. His father, by most standards, was quite successful, although nowhere near as much as his son.

OK, change that to upper middle class family. And his father's to a middle class family.

If FIT's problem were with inheritance, I'd say he had a point, though I probably would not agree with him.

--Pete

[Kevin]

Do you really think everyone here has an equal opportunity for success? Do you really think someone who grows up in Harlem has the same opportunities to achieve the American Dream

Yes. And if you miss out on all the "feel good" stories of it happening all the time in america, you need to stop watching whatever it is you are watching and do some research. Loser Makes Good, Poor man ends up rich, and similar tales happen all the time in America. But because of the media are swept under the rug for the more "enticing and scandalous" stories about wieners, and boehners and other political partisan crap.

I'm not saying that everyone will end up a rags to riches story, but the fact that they happen is further proof that anyone with enough determination, grit, and desire can make things better for themselves.

Being ignorant to the possibility of that happening doesn't make your point correct.

This post is the definition of "ignorance is bliss". Take the rose colored glasses off.

I think you need to quit watching Hoax News, sorry Fox News, and pick up a book. LOL at people becoming rich all the time in America and the media sweeping them under the rug!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! That is probably the funniest thing ive read in a while, it truly made my day. Now, explain the 45 million people who live in poverty and the top 400 wealthiest citizens having more then the bottom 150 million combined. You are so delusional and misinformed, its a joke. Though the statistics prove you wrong, simple common sense here I think is enough. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between rules and exceptions, as I stated before the "rags to riches" individuals are a very very tiny minority. LOL at someone from Harlem, who has to worry about survival and just walking down the street safely to get home having the same opportunity as someone in the Hamptons......just, LMAO. Wow. I am right, Americans truly dont get it, and the above post confirms it. Im done with this thread, you guys keep sipping on that Horatio Alger Myth kool-aid. ROFL.

So is a person who came from a family where the household income for a family of 6, adjusted to current dollar values, was $20,000 and they are making $45,000/yr in their mid 30's for a household of 1, in those same dollar values not a success story? You seem to want to think they have to become fabulously rich. Almost no one does.

Of course there are people that come from homes that made $200,000 a year and they only make $35,000 a year. Several of the numbers out there seem to indicate that current generations will be the first in a long time that are, on average, worse off than their parents. That is something to be concerned about, yes.

By the way http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml is what those poverty statistics are based off of. $10,890 a year is $5.21 and 1/2 an hour (2088 work hours in a year is the figure that I normally see for a standard 40 hour work week).

It's anecdotal, but I personally know quite a few people who came from homes that were below the poverty line, that paid for their own college, made a career, and are now doing just fine. They may not be wealthy, but they aren't lacking in anything they need and are quite happy. I know people that didn't want to work for someone else and started their own business. Most succeeded, some failed because they made mistakes. All of them recovered.

You can not summarily say the opportunities are not there. You will come back with your canned "LOL YOU ARE A BRAINWASHED MORON" response to this, but capitalism means that you CAN take that risk and succeed or fail. If you fail, you can try again!

Do I think that our country could use an overhaul of the political system? Of course, I say it all the time on these boards. As you mention Germany, Sweden and other countries that have a capitalist economy also have more socialist governments. Our representative democracy is not the only political system you can run on the capitalistic economic model.

Pete covered human nature. We have instincts they get applied to things that they didn't initially evolve for. We like to eat fats and sugar, because when food was a scarce thing the people that liked eating that had an energy advantage. Now, that instinct is a detriment because that type of food is so readily available and you have to fight your instincts to not over indulge.

It holds true with "power" too. Wanting power, gaining security, securing your genetics got passed on, helped the species survive under pressure. Those pressures get lifted, the instincts are still there AND WILL STILL BE THERE. They just get applied to other things. The reality is that no matter what economic or political model you put out there, some/many people will try to bend it to their will to get power. Part of the point of democracy is to help control that instinct. Capitalism allows it, people try to form monopolies, but in many markets that can be very hard to do, and new markets can be created by clever folks.

Pete covered all this already though.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Considering im a political science/history major and sociology minor, I think I know what im talking about, ...

Ah, yes. The old appeal to authority. Please, be sure to let us know what school you are attending. Those of us (not me) with children looking for a college or university would appreciate the warning. Not only is your political viewpoint simplistic, ignorant, and illogical, but your attempts to support it show a complete lack of linguistic and grammatical ability. If you are managing to perform at what is considered an acceptable level wherever you are going to school, then I suggest they get a shovel, dig up the bar, and raise it so you have to do more than shuffle to clear it.

--Pete

[Jester]

Hate to break it to you, so far not one of you has given me a convincing argument as to why Im wrong. Its just the typical Tea Bagger rhetoric that ive read a million times elsewhere that doesnt even need statistics to prove wrong, but simple logic and conventional wisdom does the trick. Considering im a political science/history major and sociology minor, I think I know what im talking about, but since you equate Marxism with being the same thing Totalitarianism (lmao!), it appears you dont. But this is typical of right wing nut jobs. You guys suffer from putting your own perspective on history (in particular American History) then accounting for actual facts, buy into the various myths entrenched in our culture (even though most of them are horseshit, such as everyone having equality of opportunity), blind patriotism, hypocrisy, anti-intellectualism (someone who has greater knowledge than you is automatically an elitist), and false consciousness (seen throughout yours and your fellow capitalistic fanboys arguments in this thread). This is why I cant talk to right wing nut jobs, because they have no clue what they are talking about. Anyway, you can go back to your Facebook and continue being a good little consumer, you wont be the only one Have at it.

Hi, I'm Jester. Pleased to meet you. I am, by your description, the following:

a) A "tea bagger"
b) A "right wing nut job"
c) Someone with an American perspective on history
d) A blind (presumably American?) patriot
e) A hypocrite
f) An anti-intellectual
g) A capitalistic fanboy
and most hilariously...
h) Someone impressed by polysci/history/sociology undergrads.

Long time readers of this forum will find this description of me to be gut-bustingly hilarious in pretty much every detail. Did opposite day come early this year?

On the accurate side, I do use Facebook. So you're about one for fifty, on wild, random, baseless, prejudicial accusations. Is this how you argue in seminars, how you write papers in your sociology classes? I should hope not.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

So funny that you guys accuse me of wild random generalizations but turn around and do the same thing. But then again, as I said before, hypocrisy is one of the primary trademarks of capitalists. Heh.

And now you want to question my writing abilities??? *SMH* Don't think you want to go there, as writing is one of my strengths (I don't speak at seminars, thankfully, because I will be the first to admit Im not a good speaker by any means, too much stage fright for me to be so). I've received an A on every research paper that I've wrote thus far in every class that I have taken where one was assigned, and where both grammar and content were grading factors. I can post a couple if you like, try me

[Kevin]

So funny that you guys accuse me of wild random generalizations but turn around and do the same thing. But then again, as I said before, hypocrisy is one of the primary trademarks of capitalists. Heh.

And now you want to question my writing abilities??? *SMH* I've received an A on every research paper that I've wrote thus far in every class that I have taken, where both grammar and content were grading factors. I can post a couple if you like

You can but the papers you wrote ARE NOT WHAT YOU POSTED. How does proving you can do something disprove what you DID DO.

Re-read your own posts and tell me that they don't have grammatical errors.

I know for a fact I can write better than how I have on this forum many times, and that my writing here is not consistent. That does not invalidate pointing out that posts where I didn't write to the best of my ability had errors or did not convey my meaning as I intended.

Of course I clearly said that my information was anecdotal, you of course did not. Your "common sense" arguments carry weight, but of course my common sense counter examples do not.

Hypocrisy indeed.

Of course my involvement in the discussion has little to do with you because you aren't discussing, you are preaching. However the discussion that is happening amongst others has been interesting.

[--Pete]

Hi,

e) A hypocrite

Shouldn't that be "an hypocrite"?

Long time readers of this forum will find this description of me to be gut-bustingly hilarious in pretty much every detail.

I thought he nailed it. I would have instantly recognized that as a description of you.

--Pete

[FireIceTalon]

We all can write better than we post on a forum, because here grammar and typos arent so important as on a research paper that we have to fine-tune because our grade, and thus our future, depends on it I dont take the time out here to fine tune my posts so they are perfect, and I do not think anyone should really be expected to so long as their points are reasonably understood and conveyed, which mine are, as are pretty much everyone elses as well (whether you agree with them or not is beside the point).

My common sense arguments carry weight because they have historical evidence and FACT to back them up, yours do not. For example: you guys think everyone has equal opportunity for success, when historical evidence AND statistics show that various groups have been marginalized in society, such as African Americans, Latinos, women, gays, and the poor, among others. Thus, your version of common sense, is proven to be false. In general I try not to rely too much on anecdotal evidence because our personal experiences can displace us from reality and the overall big picture. I remember when Obama became president and it was either Oprah or Will Smith, I forget which, that said "black people dont have an excuse anymore!", and was just thinking to myself how ridiculous of a statement that is. Basically with that statement, they completely whitewashed and erased/disregarded the historical struggle that black people have faced (and still face today, though perhaps in different ways) and completely rejected all the young black men and women that didnt and still do not have the "luck" or fortunate circumstances that Obama did. Whether its because they lack the social and culture capital, but either way, my point stands.

If you dont find my discussions, or "preaching" as you so eloquently labeled them, interesting, no one is forcing you to read them

[Jester]

So funny that you guys accuse me of wild random generalizations but turn around and do the same thing. But then again, as I said before, hypocrisy is one of the primary trademarks of capitalists. Heh.

Speaking of generalizations, I am not a member of some collective hive mind, and if I were, it certainly wouldn't be with Kandrathe. I'd rather things I didn't say not end up in my mouth, under the idea that we are somehow all one entity. I criticized your post for having basically thrown the whole empirical history of Marxism *as practiced* out the window in favour of a fantasy. That is not a generalization about you, but a substantive criticism of your post. You, on the other hand, flew off the handle and made wild (and wildly inaccurate) claims about me. Anything unkind I said in response was none of wild, random, or generalized: they followed quite clearly from your own nonsensical babble, aimed directly at you and your arguments - not at Marxists, not at leftists, not at some category of people, but you and you alone.

And now you want to question my writing abilities???

Yes. Oh, lord, yes. My inner educator wants to scream at you for your three question marks, for your having begun a sentence with "and," for a hundred logical, formatting, spelling, capitalization, and other sundry errors. Your posts on this forum have been one train wreck after the other. I wouldn't even mind, except that you have repeatedly mounted your educational high horse, even though (if I recall correctly) every single person you are arguing with has more and more advanced degrees than you. Some of us teach this stuff.

Don't think you want to go there.

Dear sir, I would vacation there.

I can post a couple if you like.

Here's a better idea: submit this discussion to a professor, replete with its ranting, its ad hominems, its mad stereotyping, its repeated lumping of wildly diverse voices together as a single, hated "other" called "Capitalists." It might be interesting to see the results.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

So funny that you guys accuse me of wild random generalizations but turn around and do the same thing. But then again, as I said before, hypocrisy is one of the primary trademarks of capitalists. Heh.

Speaking of generalizations, I am not a member of some collective hive mind, and if I were, it certainly wouldn't be with Kandrathe. I'd rather things I didn't say not end up in my mouth, under the idea that we are somehow all one entity. I criticized your post for having basically thrown the whole empirical history of Marxism *as practiced* out the window in favour of a fantasy. That is not a generalization about you, but a substantive criticism of your post. You, on the other hand, flew off the handle and made wild (and wildly inaccurate) claims about me. Anything unkind I said in response was none of wild, random, or generalized: they followed quite clearly from your own nonsensical babble, aimed directly at you and your arguments - not at Marxists, not at leftists, not at some category of people, but you and you alone.

And now you want to question my writing abilities???

Yes. Oh, lord, yes. My inner educator wants to scream at you for your three question marks, for your having begun a sentence with "and," for a hundred logical, formatting, spelling, capitalization, and other sundry errors. Your posts on this forum have been one train wreck after the other. I wouldn't even mind, except that you have repeatedly mounted your educational high horse, even though (if I recall correctly) every single person you are arguing with has more and more advanced degrees than you. Some of us teach this stuff.

Don't think you want to go there.

Dear sir, I would vacation there.

I can post a couple if you like.

Here's a better idea: submit this discussion to a professor, replete with its ranting, its ad hominems, its mad stereotyping, its repeated lumping of wildly diverse voices together as a single, hated "other" called "Capitalists." It might be interesting to see the results.

-Jester

Basically those last two parts translate to: "I know this guy is probably a better writer than I am, so I will admit defeat and offer another proposition instead to dodge the original challenge". Id be willing to to wager some cash in Vegas that I could and would out-write you any day of the week.

As far as people here having higher degrees than me, how could you possibly know what degrees I have or do not have?? ROFL. For one who hates people that make ignorant assumptions, you sure are the poster boy for it. That foot taste any good? Nevermind I dont want to know. And even if they do have higher degrees, I have no interest in getting a Tea Partyism or American Fascism PHD, where the rewriting of history and embracing of myth and folklore over rationality and logic is par for the course, so you can go on and keep that

[Kevin]

We all can write better than we post on a forum, because here grammar and typos arent so important as on a research paper that we have to fine-tune because our grade, and thus our future, depends on it I dont take the time out here to fine tune my posts so they are perfect, and I do not think anyone should really be expected to so long as their points are reasonably understood and conveyed, which mine are (whether you agree with them or not is beside the point).

My common sense arguments carry weight because they have historical evidence to back them up. For example, you guys think everyone has equal opportunity for success, when historical evidence AND statistics show that various groups have been marginalized in society, such as African Americans, Latinos, women, gays, and the poor, among others. Thus, your version of common sense, is proven to be false. In general I try not to rely too much on anecdotal evidence because our personal experiences can displace us from reality and the overall big picture.

If you dont find my discussions, or "preaching" as you so eloquently labeled them, interesting, no one is forcing you to read them

You're right and I haven't actually read all of them, in part because your grammar and style has gotten so bad in some of them that it didn't seem like you were taking them seriously so why should I?

I also have not seen ANYONE argue that everyone has equal starting conditions. In fact if you like I can point out several other threads on this board where people in this thread discuss those issues, at some great length. YOU are making the ASSUMPTION, that since we don't just fawn over your preaching, that we believe this.

Yes, women are still socially repressed, yes there are communities that are mostly ethnically minorities, but there are communities that are predominately caucasian as well, that have been economically repressed and that there are more barriers/hurdles for these people. That has as much or more to do with political and social systems than economic systems. You are trying to make the claim that it is ALL because of capitalism. You have not made a single argument, and neither has Marx, that this is true.

You helpfully pointed out examples of capitalistic countries (Sweden and Germany) that have come up with other solutions for some of these issues and that I agree are doing better in many ways.

You have also summarily dismissed what has happened when people have tried a practical application of your wonderful system. I agree that it hasn't been implemented correctly, and as I've touched on, that is because human nature, since people are not black and white, means it probably never can be.

I have proposed ideas for changes to our current system, because it has worked better than anything else so far. The US makes changes all the time to try and make it better, and until very recently, the average person has had it better than their parents, which is a good indicator of progress. In fact your own examples of Sweden and Germany (yes you had others) show how changing TO capitalism can make things better and yes they very well may show ways that the US could benefit from as well. Of course the historical examples of countries that tried to be Marxist have all failed.

Good ideas aren't always practical ideas.

[FireIceTalon]

You would have to be illiterate to not understand my posts, grammatical errors or not. That excuse wont wash with me. The fact you try to use my posts here to try and undermine my credibility both in my ideas and how I write is just a desperate "Red Herring" attempt to try and steer the argument away from the original point.

Well then, if you acknowledge that not everyone has an equal starting position, then how can there be equality of opportunity, as you guys keep claiming there is? Saying there is equal opportunity but then admitting not everyone has an equal starting position in life is a contradiction.

I never said capitalism was the CAUSE of inequalities for minorities and women. Indeed, women and minorities problems are socially constructed rather than economically. But social and political structures ALLOW for the economic difficulties of many minorities and women to be PERPETUATED. So the cause may be political or social, but the manifestation is also economical, as well as social and political. Capitalism divides people not so much by race or gender as by the broader category of class. But capitalism can (and has been) used as a justification to keep certain groups of people marginalized in society, even if it is not the direct cause, based on America's embracing of social darwinism,;which is probably the most evil and destructive ideology to ever be contrived. It just so happens that many of the poor are minorities. It is really interesting to note how we dont acknowledge the economy is in the tank until the middle class gets hit, even though the poor and working class struggle regardless of how well the current economy may be doing (relatively speaking), on a daily basis. But even if all the sudden, overnight, women and minorities were no longer marginalized, this still does not address the larger context of inequality: class. And THIS IS caused, at least in part, by economics (though political and social factors play a role too).

In capitalism, we want to privatize everything, so only those who can pay are entitled. There is now even talk of privatizing community colleges in some states, which is just another assault on the working class and poor. Privatize is a dirty word in my view but nonetheless it is what is occurring.

As for human nature preventing Marxism from being practical, Ive seen this argument many times, but I dont really buy it, for two reasons. First, who is to say what our nature truly is? This is getting into bigger more philosophical questions now, where no definite answer can be found. And just what determines our nature? Are we born a certain way, or is our nature more influenced by external factors such as environment, economic conditions, geography, etc (basically the whole nature vs nurture debate). I tend to believe the latter is a bigger factor, but that is just my opinion. Also, if we truly want to achieve our self interests first, why would we implement a system like capitalism that will only fan the flames of our nature instead of trying to contain them? This is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. This survival of the fittest mentality is bad because those who are less fortunate get left behind, and in many cases, it is the majority. This is the central theme of which Marxism was developed from. When you oppress a group of people, be it socially, economically, or otherwise, they are going to fight back, and possibly violently if necessary.

Also, I wouldn't say Sweden, Denmark, or even France are capitalistic. Their economic and political systems are still very highly based on and around socialism, even if there is elements of the free market that do exist. At the end of the day there, profits are not nearly as stressed as they are here.

[Jester]

Basically those last two parts translate to: "I know this guy is probably a better writer than I am, so I will admit defeat and offer another proposition instead to dodge the original challenge".

Are you off your nut? Perhaps I was right about opposite day. I make no claims about my own writing ability, which our audience can judge for themselves. About yours, however, I said (with a dash of humour), "challenge unhesitatingly accepted," an acceptance which you, apparently, did not absorb.

You want to post your vaunted essays? Fine. Post 'em. I'm sure the searing light of your brilliance will illuminate the murky depths of your posts in this thread, revealing their hidden-but-profound logic.

As far as people here having higher degrees than me, how could you possibly know what degrees I have or do not have?? ROFL.

You claim to be a polisci/history major and sociology minor. That would be the description of an undergraduate degree. (Whether you are finished or not is unclear.) If you had higher qualifications, presumably you would have listed them, given how brashly you trumpet your purported expertise. (Also presumably, you'd have better posts.) I know I've got that beat, and I'm certain at least one other does, off the top of my head.

And even if they do have higher degrees, I have no interest in getting a Tea Partyism or American Fascism PHD, where the rewriting of history and embracing of myth and folklore over rationality and logic is par for the course, so you can go on and keep that

Once again, you clearly haven't got the first, faintest clue about me. This is not steeped in mystery, my opinions are all archived here. Search the forum, under my name, for Jeremiah Wright, or for health care, or the iraq war, or carbon emissions legislation, or any other topic you care to name. But since you can't even be bothered to distinguish those you are actually arguing against from your two minute hate ideological enemies, I can only conclude that, until you change your attitude, you cannot be reasoned with.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Very well. I have many to choose from, but I think my paper on John Rawls and Justice as Fairness in American Society is a good one. I'm on my laptop at the moment, when I get it off my other computer ill post it, though its around 10 pages....but im sure you can manage (least I hope so).

[Kevin]

You would have to be illiterate to not understand my posts, grammatical errors or not. That excuse wont wash with me.

Oh, I think it's clear what you are preaching in most of your post. Which is why several people have picked them apart for being contradictory. The poor writing also made it appear that you had no respect for the reader, of course you've stated you have no respect for the reader in clear words. Why would that make someone want to listen to you?

Well then, if you acknowledge that not everyone has an equal starting position, then how can there be equality of opportunity, as you guys keep claiming there is? Saying there is equal opportunity but then admitting not everyone has an equal starting position in life is a contradiction.

Because the opportunity is not denied to them. Just because I had to work, and take out loans, and prove myself worthy of an academic scholarship, so it was harder for me to go to college doesn't mean I couldn't go. Oh and I could have gone anywhere. I base that on the fact that I was accepted to MIT and while there are reasons why I did not choose to go there, I could have, and it was economics. My family was below the poverty line for most of my childhood. After I moved out at the age of 18, I believe I have given more money to my parents than they have to me. I don't track it, but while they give me gifts and such, I also give them gifts and such too. Was it harder for me than my classmates that had parents that were able to pay for all or most of their college? Yes. Was it easier for me than someone who was raised by a single mother who was addicted to crack and didn't pay attention to them, who lived in a neighborhood filled with others in the same situation, who didn't get much education because the school couldn't cope? Yes. Is college out of reach for that person? No, it isn't. It is much much harder for them, but the opportunity is still.

Some of the people you dismiss out of hand have suggested ways to help fix those inequalities, with systems that will survive in practice and not just in idea.

You could give me a 20 meter head start on Usian Bolt and he would still beat me in a 100 meter dash. Because he is better at running than I am. Does that mean he shouldn't be allowed to run that fast? Is there anything preventing me from trying to get faster if that is what I want? No. Of course if you give me a 60 meter head start on him, I am fast enough that I would win. I can run 40 meters in under 6 seconds still, he still needs over 9 to go 100. None of that will change that he is faster than me. I should not be given a head start so that we finish at the same time.

I never said capitalism was the CAUSE of inequalities for minorities and women. Indeed, women and minorities problems are socially constructed rather than economically. But social and political structures ALLOW for the economic difficulties of many minorities and women to be PERPETUATED. So the cause may be political or social, but the manifestation is also economical, as well as social and political. Capitalism divides people not so much by race or gender as by the broader category of class.

No, capitalism divides people by their ability to make money. The amount of power this grants to some people may not seem right, and there are systems that are put in place to put checks on this. But regardless of the system, since human nature is what it is, there will always be someone that tries to have more power than someone else because more power means better chance to survive, and we are hard wired to try and survive, no matter what other trappings we put on it. Every PRACTICAL system needs to put checks in place to stop this, regardless of the system.

But capitalism can (and has been) used as a justification to keep certain groups of people marginalized in society, even if it is not the direct cause, based on America's embracing of social darwinism,;which is probably the most evil and destructive ideology to ever be contrived. It just so happens that many of the poor are minorities. It is really interesting to note how we dont acknowledge the economy is in the tank until the middle class gets hit, even though the poor and working class struggle regardless of how well the current economy may be doing (relatively speaking), on a daily basis. But even if all the sudden, overnight, women and minorities were no longer marginalized, this still does not address the larger context of inequality: class. And THIS IS caused, at least in part, by economics (though political and social factors play a role too).

The economic system does not help people self select. That is part of why our political system tries to create programs that will help people find something they are good at, but it should not FORCE them to do something. Even if I would be a better, oh lets just say car mechanic, than I am a computer programmer. I should be allowed to try and be a programmer if that is what I want to do, even if I fail, and even if I and society would have been better off if I were a car mechanic.

I actually believe that we should have some safety nets. I think our healthcare system should be changed. I think everyone is better off if those with the greatest skill at making money do invest that money in someway to help people that are in situations that create higher barriers of entry, and I do think that for some of those programs the government is the best source for them, and so taxing them to force them to give is fine. I do not think that everyone should get X dollars every year and if you make more it goes in the pot and if you made less it comes out of the pot. Yes I'm simplifying the equation and turning EVERYTHING into money since, well money can buy you everything.

In capitalism, we want to privatize everything, so only those who can pay are entitled. There is now even talk of privatizing community colleges in some states, which is just another assault on the working class and poor. Privatize is a dirty, in my view but nonetheless it is what is occurring.

Private does not mean inaccessible, especially when it comes to education. I work at a public university, of course we only get 24% of our funding from state and federal sources now. Well direct funding. The federal government can and does provide money in the form of loans, or grants, to many students. I don't have the numbers, but NPR recently talked about the University of Pheonix, a for profit university, that when you factor in the loans and grants to students, gets I think they said 70% of their money from the federal government. I'm sure our University is right around the same level as are most other universities.

Now there are academic requirements to get into a university, as there should be. But you know what, even in your Marxist utopia I think there would still be those requirements and there would still be people that COULD NOT GET IN. Because not everyone is equal. Some people are faster, some people are smarter. You yourself have claimed in this thread that Jester made an argument because you felt he thought you were a better writer. That may be, you may be a better writer, because there are better writers. Not everyone should go to Harvard, because if everyone did, it wouldn't be Harvard. But everyone has the chance to go to Harvard. You can be 40 years old and get into Harvard. In fact I'd rather entrance be based more on intelligence than money because that makes the footing more level. The person who was born addicted to crack through no fault of their own still has the opportunity to go to Harvard, though it will be a hell of a lot harder for them.

The situations that created that crack baby should not be left unchecked. You believe that it is capitalism that is propagating it. I believe it is human nature for people to put themselves first that is propagating it and that we need to keep working to build a system that will keep that in check so that people aren't living like that. I believe the practical implementation of our democracy and capitalistic society as implemented here in the United States has done a pretty good job, but is by no means perfect and if you collected all my thoughts and ideas, you would see that I have been saying that other people that had the example of the US to follow, have done somethings better and that I would like to see the country try some of them for most of my life. I wrote a "paper" back in 4th grade (so in the mid 80's) about how I thought Japan was doing better than the US economically and also even mentioned that I thought South Korea despite it's small size compared to the US might take off as well. I wrote a paper in 6th grade about how our health care system should be more like that of Sweden.

I think we need to keep working at it, I pretty much always have. I think the ease with which Marxist ideals can be corrupted to centralize power makes it a system that won't survive human nature though.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I can only conclude that ... you cannot be reasoned with.

You would do better arguing with a rutabaga.

BTW, be careful of his ultimate argument -- putting you on his ignore list. He gave me that honor before this thread migrated.

Basically, academic credentials are unimportant -- except his. Anecdotal support is useless -- except his. Semantics are incidental -- except his. Historical precedent is nonsense -- except his.

Add a few root vegetables, some cabbage, and a nice chunk of corned beef and you'd have a great dinner -- it would go over big in Boston.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Because not everyone is equal. Some people are faster, some people are smarter.

I just had an image of a "Marxist" symphony orchestra -- anyone can participate because everyone is equal.

--Pete

[FireIceTalon]

You would have to be illiterate to not understand my posts, grammatical errors or not. That excuse wont wash with me.

Oh, I think it's clear what you are preaching in most of your post. Which is why several people have picked them apart for being contradictory. The poor writing also made it appear that you had no respect for the reader, of course you've stated you have no respect for the reader in clear words. Why would that make someone want to listen to you?

Well then, if you acknowledge that not everyone has an equal starting position, then how can there be equality of opportunity, as you guys keep claiming there is? Saying there is equal opportunity but then admitting not everyone has an equal starting position in life is a contradiction.

Because the opportunity is not denied to them. Just because I had to work, and take out loans, and prove myself worthy of an academic scholarship, so it was harder for me to go to college doesn't mean I couldn't go. Oh and I could have gone anywhere. I base that on the fact that I was accepted to MIT and while there are reasons why I did not choose to go there, I could have, and it was economics. My family was below the poverty line for most of my childhood. After I moved out at the age of 18, I believe I have given more money to my parents than they have to me. I don't track it, but while they give me gifts and such, I also give them gifts and such too. Was it harder for me than my classmates that had parents that were able to pay for all or most of their college? Yes. Was it easier for me than someone who was raised by a single mother who was addicted to crack and didn't pay attention to them, who lived in a neighborhood filled with others in the same situation, who didn't get much education because the school couldn't cope? Yes. Is college out of reach for that person? No, it isn't. It is much much harder for them, but the opportunity is still.

Some of the people you dismiss out of hand have suggested ways to help fix those inequalities, with systems that will survive in practice and not just in idea.

You could give me a 20 meter head start on Usian Bolt and he would still beat me in a 100 meter dash. Because he is better at running than I am. Does that mean he shouldn't be allowed to run that fast? Is there anything preventing me from trying to get faster if that is what I want? No. Of course if you give me a 60 meter head start on him, I am fast enough that I would win. I can run 40 meters in under 6 seconds still, he still needs over 9 to go 100. None of that will change that he is faster than me. I should not be given a head start so that we finish at the same time.

I never said capitalism was the CAUSE of inequalities for minorities and women. Indeed, women and minorities problems are socially constructed rather than economically. But social and political structures ALLOW for the economic difficulties of many minorities and women to be PERPETUATED. So the cause may be political or social, but the manifestation is also economical, as well as social and political. Capitalism divides people not so much by race or gender as by the broader category of class.

No, capitalism divides people by their ability to make money. The amount of power this grants to some people may not seem right, and there are systems that are put in place to put checks on this. But regardless of the system, since human nature is what it is, there will always be someone that tries to have more power than someone else because more power means better chance to survive, and we are hard wired to try and survive, no matter what other trappings we put on it. Every PRACTICAL system needs to put checks in place to stop this, regardless of the system.

But capitalism can (and has been) used as a justification to keep certain groups of people marginalized in society, even if it is not the direct cause, based on America's embracing of social darwinism,;which is probably the most evil and destructive ideology to ever be contrived. It just so happens that many of the poor are minorities. It is really interesting to note how we dont acknowledge the economy is in the tank until the middle class gets hit, even though the poor and working class struggle regardless of how well the current economy may be doing (relatively speaking), on a daily basis. But even if all the sudden, overnight, women and minorities were no longer marginalized, this still does not address the larger context of inequality: class. And THIS IS caused, at least in part, by economics (though political and social factors play a role too).

The economic system does not help people self select. That is part of why our political system tries to create programs that will help people find something they are good at, but it should not FORCE them to do something. Even if I would be a better, oh lets just say car mechanic, than I am a computer programmer. I should be allowed to try and be a programmer if that is what I want to do, even if I fail, and even if I and society would have been better off if I were a car mechanic.

I actually believe that we should have some safety nets. I think our healthcare system should be changed. I think everyone is better off if those with the greatest skill at making money do invest that money in someway to help people that are in situations that create higher barriers of entry, and I do think that for some of those programs the government is the best source for them, and so taxing them to force them to give is fine. I do not think that everyone should get X dollars every year and if you make more it goes in the pot and if you made less it comes out of the pot. Yes I'm simplifying the equation and turning EVERYTHING into money since, well money can buy you everything.

In capitalism, we want to privatize everything, so only those who can pay are entitled. There is now even talk of privatizing community colleges in some states, which is just another assault on the working class and poor. Privatize is a dirty, in my view but nonetheless it is what is occurring.

Private does not mean inaccessible, especially when it comes to education. I work at a public university, of course we only get 24% of our funding from state and federal sources now. Well direct funding. The federal government can and does provide money in the form of loans, or grants, to many students. I don't have the numbers, but NPR recently talked about the University of Pheonix, a for profit university, that when you factor in the loans and grants to students, gets I think they said 70% of their money from the federal government. I'm sure our University is right around the same level as are most other universities.

Now there are academic requirements to get into a university, as there should be. But you know what, even in your Marxist utopia I think there would still be those requirements and there would still be people that COULD NOT GET IN. Because not everyone is equal. Some people are faster, some people are smarter. You yourself have claimed in this thread that Jester made an argument because you felt he thought you were a better writer. That may be, you may be a better writer, because there are better writers. Not everyone should go to Harvard, because if everyone did, it wouldn't be Harvard. But everyone has the chance to go to Harvard. You can be 40 years old and get into Harvard. In fact I'd rather entrance be based more on intelligence than money because that makes the footing more level. The person who was born addicted to crack through no fault of their own still has the opportunity to go to Harvard, though it will be a hell of a lot harder for them.

The situations that created that crack baby should not be left unchecked. You believe that it is capitalism that is propagating it. I believe it is human nature for people to put themselves first that is propagating it and that we need to keep working to build a system that will keep that in check so that people aren't living like that. I believe the practical implementation of our democracy and capitalistic society as implemented here in the United States has done a pretty good job, but is by no means perfect and if you collected all my thoughts and ideas, you would see that I have been saying that other people that had the example of the US to follow, have done somethings better and that I would like to see the country try some of them for most of my life. I wrote a "paper" back in 4th grade (so in the mid 80's) about how I thought Japan was doing better than the US economically and also even mentioned that I thought South Korea despite it's small size compared to the US might take off as well. I wrote a paper in 6th grade about how our health care system should be more like that of Sweden.

I think we need to keep working at it, I pretty much always have. I think the ease with which Marxist ideals can be corrupted to centralize power makes it a system that won't survive human nature though.

You have some interesting thoughts, Gnoll, and I would say of all the people Im debating here, you are the most objective and reasonable, in particular with this post. Some of it I agree with, some of it not so much. But perhaps we can talk more about the issues rather than how many question marks I put after a sentence (lol). The Harvard thing is pretty much right on, it should be based on merit, not on money. Sadly this is not the case, and its hard to say if it ever will be. I have my doubts though, because at the end of the day, our institutions want to make a buck just as much or more than they want to educate us. Even as an admirer of Marxist theory, I do not believe in total handouts in everything by society, but education is one of those things that definitely should not have profits involved even if we must have a capitalistic society. A school is supposed to be an institution of philanthropy and learning, not profit. The same pretty much goes for the healthcare system.

I still disagree with you on that equality of opportunity issue though. You yourself said that it is way harder for someone who grew up in a crack infested environment to get into Harvard. The opportunity may be there, but like you said, its much much harder, so it's not really an equal opportunity if you think about it.

Our tax system needs modification, no doubt about that. But I don't think money can buy you everything, lol. Afterall, my girlfriend chose me over another guy because she was more attracted to me, and we were more compatible (he had more money than me though). We are happily in love. I don't think money can buy that. Now that Beatles song is stuck my head, lol.

To be fair, my attacks on capitalism are based on the current economic crisis that our country is in, but even when the economy is "good", it is my belief that what we are seeing now is a inevitable result in a capitalistic society. Unless of course as you suggested, we have more safety nets, reform education and healthcare, etc. But then this is sort of bordering on that evil S word that Americans fear so much, lol. Im all for it, but it seems most are not. We have seen repeats of these booms and busts for decades now, with 1929 and 2008 being the most notable examples. Private does not mean totally inacessable, but nevertheless, it essentially states that those who can pay can play, those who cannot, go without. In the case of community colleges, this is often an only option for many low income or economically disadvantaged students, and to privatize it would deny hundreds of thousands if not millions their ability to seek higher education. We have made alot of progress from the past. But at the moment, I think we are headed in the wrong direction, and interestingly enough, so do my opponents at the other end of the spectrum, but our difference in view comes from the context of what the problem is, and what we seek to achieve.

As for your running example, I take it you believe in inheritance and staggered starts as being just? This goes back to equality of opportunity, which we fundamentally disagree on I guess. All in all we probably disagree more than we agree, but I respect your point of view regardless. Take care.

*Edit*

My paper on John Rawls talks about much of this stuff in a bit more detail, and I said alot of the things I've said here, if in a more eloquent/articulate and fine-tuned manner . Paper was worth 100 points, got a 96 on it, as well as an A in the class itself (History of Western Political Thought). Ill post it later.

[DeeBye]

Are you sure? I suspect some of my tax goes toward someones boondoggle (e.g. General Electric paid negative taxes last year...)

Well my taxes don't go to the same place that yours do, but I absolutely see your point. Big businesses getting huge tax breaks to the point of absurdity like that it ridiculous, but it's not like all or even most of your taxes go that way. The plural of anecdote etc....

I was more thinking of the struggling little guy. I'll pay a little extra so he can have a little of what he needs to survive. I'm happy to pay more in taxes so kids can have a better education, public water is safe and clean, and poor people in my little socialist country can have the luxury of seeing a doctor when they need to (as opposed to when they can afford to).