Is this biased reporting?

[Taem]

Hey, blow me with your pedantic semantics that circumvent the argument for the sake of pulling hairs.
[right][snapback]93500[/snapback][/right]

Fair enough, however for the sake of your arguments it would probably be more helpful if you better defined your examples to avoid possible misunderstanding in the future. You could say my pedantic (narrow-focus) was not so much trying to "circumvent" your argument, but rather to reach an understanding of your meanings.

[Eirinjas]

You also suggested that Kenedy and Lincoln were killed because of this, and that printing a lot of money would solve problems.  I'm not arguing that Kenndy didn't support the currency changes, hadn't heard of currency act, but for the other things you wrote,  sorry, doesn't wash.  Also, you still compared an ideal system to how the world actually works, which you haven't been able to explain, and still didn't bother responding to the points in my first post.
[right][snapback]93495[/snapback][/right]

Regarding your first post: Any -ISM, by it's nature, is integrative to some degree with other ideas. The important thing is the general philosophy - the basic model which you then build from. There is always SOME elasticity of the model.

The "fundamental" was addressed elsewhere and I'm not going to completely repeat myself. It means foundation and Capitalism is not based on any form of Humanism and is antithetic to all forms of Socialism - which is why Republicans are always cutting social programs. You know, that relatively insignificant slice of the pie so they'll have more money to wage wars so the military industrial complex can make it's dough. Much of the Federal Budget goes to paying off debt for wars that have been over for many decades now.

I don't care. Believe what you want. The information is out there if you care. I don't need to write a whole thesis to convince your ass on why I think a system of Anarchism, or a form of Socialism would be better than what we have now. #$%&ing go to Wikipedia.com and read about those philosophies and then you'll have an idea. That coupled with what I've posted here in this forum should be enough and if it isn't then "oh, well."

P.S. The world works this way because we allow it to. It could work any way we want if we chose to exert the effort. You can call Anarchism and Socialism unproven theories but Capitalism is also an unproven theory. It works to some degree for some people for some time (the Rich and the Middle class(middle class being the upper %20 or so of the population)) but at a cost that is unconscionable. It's an unstable system. If OPEC decides to switch to the EURO then the value of the US dollar will drop. If China suddenly stopped exporting resources and goods to America - we're #$%&ed. They hold all the economic cards now. We could have a stock market crash and suffer decades of depression TOMORROW.

[Ashock]

We could have a stock market crash and suffer decades of depression TOMORROW.
[right][snapback]93507[/snapback][/right]

We could also have you shutting up TODAY and suffer weeks of peace and quiet.... but we're not that lucky are we, Pavlick Morozov?



-A

[Chaerophon]

To suggest that Socialism or Communism or Anarchism have been tried and proved to be failures - excuse me? What? Where is the big, morally correct example of the success of Capitalism?

Actually, I never said that. Please try to avoid ranting at me - I've heard it all before. Expressing your opinion will suffice.

I'm a revisionist, just like Marx should have been and Engels ended up being. Blended models seem to be best able to maintain some semblance of popular control (think Scandinavia. Germany and Japan to a certain extent). Of course, to attain something like that in America would require a fullscale cultural about-face with regards to the native 'adversarial' collective bargaining model.

Ever heard of 'the American plan'? That's an interesting time in American labour history.

[Eirinjas]

We could also have you shutting up TODAY and suffer weeks of peace and quiet.... but we're not that lucky are we, Pavlick Morozov?
-A
[right][snapback]93510[/snapback][/right]

Well, that was a narrow-minded insult but when I consider the source I'm not surprised.

[Eirinjas]

Actually, I never said that.  Please try to avoid ranting at me - I've heard it all before.  Expressing your opinion will suffice. 

I'm a revisionist, just like Marx should have been and Engels ended up being.  Blended models seem to be best able to maintain some semblance of popular control (think Scandinavia.  Germany and Japan to a certain extent).  Of course, to attain something like that in America would require a fullscale cultural about-face with regards to the native 'adversarial' collective bargaining model. 

Ever heard of 'the American plan'?  That's an interesting time in American labour history.
[right][snapback]93518[/snapback][/right]

That was my opinion. Oh, and to backtrack a sec - I'm not suggesting we topple the system tomorrow and jump cold turkey on a new system. That's definitely one of the points of contention among Anarchists; whether we need a Revolution or whether we need to reform our way to those goals. Obviously, with the way society has developed it would be impossible to now divide things like farm labor proportionate to the population and with the current development and division of land, for instance. The foundation is essential though - to replace the current system, end wage slavery, redistribute the land according to need and not according to the bank account, and etc.,...

The capitalist propaganda of that era that manifested in things like 'The American Plan' are excellent examples of the unethical and destructive nature of the system. Labor has been losing ever since the mid 1800's. Real wages have been in decline for over two decades now and STILL the average Joe is lead to believe that Unions are the bad guys and corporations like Wal*Mart (which would rather shut down new stores than allow Unions) are the good guys. There are third world countries that have stronger labor unions than the U.S. - which, I think, is sad.

[Eirinjas]

So what you are saying is that poverty generates ignorance, and that the only way for ignorant people to "let off steam" is to riot? Get real! I don't understand where you’re coming from or how you think your "argument still stands?" In my opinion, your ideals and generalizations aren't helpful to society, rather facilitate a destructive mentality. It is ideas like yours that incite Anarchy to justify the means. It just dawned on me that when I read your posts, I feel like I'm reading the lyrics of a Rage Against The Machine song.

EDIT - After re-reading what you wrote, it seems to me your implying Capitalism is the cause of poverty and poverty is the cause of violence; thus Capitalism = violence in your words. This is more tangible to me than poverty = ignorance because I know a lot of very intelligent people who failed to make a living and would be considered poor however, I fail to see how Capitalism = violence as a truism in your arguments.
[right][snapback]93501[/snapback][/right]

You are stretching my words. I never said "the only way for ignorant people to 'let off steam' is to riot". If that's your comprehension of what I said then your comprehension skills have failed you. But, yes, poverty does generate ignorance to a degree and that's perfectly demonstrated in every study out there regarding education in this country. Personally, I could give two #$%&s what you think with regard to my ideals. I don't see how you can interpret them as fostering a destructive mentality when I'm preaching about meeting the needs for ALL in this country and putting an end to war. Poverty is destructive. War is destructive. I'll chalk it up to your less than steller comprehension skills though.

How does Capitalism = violence? Because it demands war, for one. That is self-evident.

[Nystul]

Your analogy of Wolves and Sheep IS an exact metaphor for Captialism.
[right][snapback]93445[/snapback][/right]

No, it's a metaphor for human nature. Changing the form of society will not change the fact that humans are self-interested beings. If humans were completely devoted to the good of society without any sense of greed or malice, then virtually any system including capitalism would work just fine. Since humans are in fact greedy, no system will work perfectly, but at least a system like capitalism recognizes that greed and attempts to channel it back into something useful for society.

You may as well be proposing a perpetual motion machine. You are trying to lobby for a form of society that wouldn't last 3 hours if some magic managed to make it come into being.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Why is everyone arguing with a child? Mentally or physically or both, this ignoramus is a child. Leave him alone to study his cliffnotes on the world.
Bleh, what a waste of time.
-A
[right][snapback]93394[/snapback][/right]

If he is physically a child, then we do well to emulate Kipling,

"But day by day they kicks 'im, which 'elps 'im on a bit,
Till 'e finds 'isself one mornin' with a full an' proper kit."

for how else is he to be guided to knowledge? ;)

And, if he is only mentally a child, it is a cruel, but long standing tradition, for fools to amuse their betters. :) (De)baiting an ignoramus has certain charms and helps the time pass.

--Pete

Aside to Eirinjas: You have left me speechless. My best reply is to paraphrase old Dr. Samuel Johnson, "[We] have found you an argument; [we are] not obliged to find you an understanding."

[Occhidiangela]

How does Capitalism = violence? Because it demands war, for one. That is self-evident.
[right][snapback]93521[/snapback][/right]

In the last few pages, you have been taken to task for your flawed logic trails, and you now attempt to assert a piont as self evident. Is it any wonder your utterances are treated with disdain?

Captialism is not a system of governance, it is a model of an economic system. As an economic system, it thrives when there is no war, since war significantly raises risks and costs and diverts resources to other than commercial purposes: it hurts the bottom line.

A capitalist scheme is better off under a regime of unrestricted trade, and a series of treaties and contracts supporting that trade, with the threat of sanction to back those treaties and contracts up: sanction varying from embargo, to boycott, to threat and even on occasion force. The very nature of trade is competitive as soon as two merchants deal in the same commodity. Trade is one the universal habits of human beings across the globe, one of the few things we all have in common, be it barter or esoteric financial transactions on the Tokyo Exchange.

"Capitalism = War" (You use "Violence," a poor word choice, far too imprecise. You could tne argue that Socialism = Violence since Unions have often used strikes that turned violent to influence a negotiation.). Not hardly. War (or armed suasion) for a capitalist economic system must be a "last resort" due to the extraordinary expense of war. That is a slightly different rationale than war as a last resort under the view that war as a step backward in the progress of relations among nations.

Capitalism = violence is also false when applied in micro: a man farming his own and benefitting from the produce thereof is hardly a path to violence. He owns the means of production, and may hire some help to bring in the sheaves. He need not use violence, but rather a deal/contract, to arrange fair quid pro quo for labor and service provided. A carpenter running his own shop and providing chairs and tables to all and sundry is a capitalist, yet he need not resort to violence to ply his trade.

The practical last resort feature of war/force is based on the opportunity cost problem: resources allocated to war cannot be invested into making a buck via trade, or improving the means of production. (See the problems of the English in the age of sail in terms of keeping up their fleet over the course of two centuries.) When the risk versus reward calculus shows a positive cost benefit for the expense of war with a big payoff (calculations which are often proven wrong once the war is undertaken and fought, a habit Clausewitz commented on in some detail) that materialistic approach has sometimes led to some conflicts being resolved via war or armed force.

Peel the onion back a bit further, and you find that the competitive nature of commerce, a fundamental interaction between people, often produces conflict arising from the natural problem of competitive edge. Conflict resolution does not always yield war. Sometimes it yields a new treaty, a new deal, sometimes it yields trade pattern changes, sometimes it yields embargoes, and sometimes it has come to war as conflict resolution.

Trade does not always take place between capitalist entities, yet trade does lead sometimes to conflict. If you were to assert that commerce often leads to conflict, and conflicts require resolution, you'd be correct. Sometimes commerce leads to war, force, or violence, as a method of conflict resolution.

That logic train is not reducible to capitalism = violence.

There were trade based conflicts long before capitalism emerged as an economic model, and there was and is violence and war based on many factors that are not commercially based. Wars are fought for reasons other than commerce, all due respect given to Smedley Butler's observation that, vis a vis the Banana Wars of the early 1900's, "War is a Racket."

Your comment on Unions losing strength since the 1800's is simply wrong, as the first half of the 20th century saw Unions grow in strength and political, and social, influence throughout the industrialized world. I have watched Unions lose their power withn my lifetime, (I am 46) and my father has seen them both wax and wane over the course of his lifetime. (He's 77.)

Occhi

[Minionman]

How does Capitalism = violence? Because it demands war, for one. That is self-evident.
[right][snapback]93521[/snapback][/right]

Not any capitalism I've ever heard of. (I'm talking ideal systems here, war seems to happen in almost every type actual society war seems to happen some how.) All it says is that "market forces" and competition will cause an ecomony to grow, it says nothing about war. The idea that "capitalism causes war" is based in some assumptions and some actual conditions.

If you want a system that in ideal conditions comes closest to needing war, I guess military rule. Otherwise, it seems that military rule, monarchies, and feudal systems, will most easily cause war. Some racist or "Nationalist" ideas seem to lead to wars as well, and yes, businesses will force wars somtimes. I wouldn't say, though, that systems with some parts of a business based economy have to lead to war any more than anything else.

[Taem]

But, yes, poverty does generate ignorance to a degree and that's perfectly demonstrated in every study out there regarding education in this country. [right][snapback]93521[/snapback][/right]

Aren't you the one that initially brought up the subject of The Great Depression in one of your other posts? In this national-scale example, the entire country was suddenly striken with poverty when the stock-market crashed, yet you didn't hear of many rioters, looters, or evil-doers because people were more interested in working togeather to solve their common problem. I don't see how this economic drop made anybody stupider, nor ignorant for that matter! I'd go so far as to say it enlightened people to potential problems within the system at the time!

I don't see how you can interpret them as fostering a destructive mentality when I'm preaching about meeting the needs for ALL in this country and putting an end to war.

In some of your other posts, you sound like a radical, bent on denouncing the evils of Capitilism. Your words remind me of other influential people throughout history that started movements and lead people to their ends. Sure, it is the influential people that can make you think about things - such as your doing with your opinions - and the influential that will bring about change, but this begs the question, is this "change" to our economic system desired or even neccessary? I am happy with the way America currently is economically speaking and view any radical change as a bad decision, to which I've interpreted your words - and still do - as destructive.

[Occhidiangela]

I am happy with the way America currently is economically speaking and view any radical change as a bad decision, to which I've interpreted your words - and still do - as destructive.
[right][snapback]93545[/snapback][/right]

Breaking down all the noise into a representative sample . . .

when I'm preaching about meeting the needs for ALL in this country and putting an end to war.

You are engaging in discussion with a "head in the clouds" Utopian who has within this thread offered Anarchism as a solution set to the complex problems of modern society, and who now preaches of a solution to war.

In other words, a naive fool.

I expended enough excess words engaging with him/her/it to get myself covered in mud for taking the trouble to wrestle with swine. Ashock was terse and correct in his assessment.

Occhi

[Doc]

As something of an anarchist I find all of this talk of anarchy amusing.

Geeze, where is Emma Goldman when we need her?

Not because you caused the Haymarket bomb, but because you are Anarchists, you are on trial.

I don't know why I included that quote. Seemed, well, fitting somehow. All this talk of unions, anarchy, and general crap being flung about in this here monkey cage. Hell, most of you wont even know where that quote comes from or why it has so much meaning.

Occhi, once again, very well said. You are becoming quite the wordsmith lately.

[Archon_Wing]

Breaking down all the noise into a representative sample . . .
You are engaging in discussion with a "head in the clouds" Utopian who has within this thread offered Anarchism as a solution set to the complex problems of modern society, and who now preaches of a solution to war.

Occhi
[right][snapback]93546[/snapback][/right]

Typically such Utopians don't have much solutions, so they really don't intrest me. ;p

Really, Capitalism causes war? Well, you've got a couple of thousands years of war unaccounted for.

You know that time that jerk tried to pick a fight with you? BLAME CAPITALISM!

Oh yea, You and I and many that are "slaves to capitalists" <--- (Oh look I'm cool by using emotional wording) are narrow-minded. We are not cool and unique and open minded. Of course, in some cases, people describing themselves as open minded should be taken seriously. You know, their mind has holes that allow things to fall out.

And to leave you with my ridiclous assumptions. Spagethii= violence. Because it's pretty damned obvious why.

[Chaerophon]

I don't have much time for the idea of 'institutionalized anarchy'. It doesn't even sound good in theory. You don't have to be a Hobbesian to suppose that, under such conditions, something will eventually go awry. Even if you don't believe that it is a general fact of 'human nature', it is inevitable that there will always be humans who take advantage of the opportunity to empower themselves. Why do you think that the excesses of capitalism are what they are?

Disempowering governments and 'returning to the earth' isn't going to make the Average Joe any better off at this stage of Western economic development. Once tribal society is broken, there is no going back - Polanyi was right. The task is to MANAGE capitalism, not destroy it; to put the market to use rather than allow so-called 'economic science' to dictate our moral direction. The failures of modern capitalism are many: capitalist interest does spawn war, it does subject peoples, it does lead to atrocities. However, this is not purely a result of inherent failures of the system; it is the result of a failure to control the system. Information control is the key. To my mind, democratic reform is the only possible answer.

As for this:

There are third world countries that have stronger labor unions than the U.S. - which, I think, is sad.

I agree.

[Chaerophon]

Fair enough, however for the sake of your arguments it would probably be more helpful if you better defined your examples to avoid possible misunderstanding in the future. You could say my pedantic (narrow-focus) was not so much trying to "circumvent" your argument, but rather to reach an understanding of your meanings.
[right][snapback]93503[/snapback][/right]

Sorry MEAT, I have to agree with our busy friend here - introducing a dictionary definition of tyranny is a weak attempt at discrediting his claims.

[Chaerophon]

If a government run system can be shown to be abetter cost to benefit exercise, then bring it on. The cost is the thing, not who we pay to administer the system.

Is that really the only concern? Seems to be an oversimplication to me. I find unequal access extraordinarily problematic. If the lives of individuals really are of equal worth, then I find it difficult to understand how heightened access for the wealthy can be justified in a system in which the weak cannot afford to be cared for. This symptom of for-profit health care speaks to a failure to equate the value of one man's life with that of his poorer brother in modern society. It is the normative implications that I find troubling - a classic failure of utility-based decision processes. Of course, this is not to mention the fact that 'public-health utility' may not even be maximized under such a system that rewards wealth; there are certain cultural externalities to be considered.

[Chaerophon]

You'll have to enlighten me: how did you go from calling for anarchism to celebrating John Locke???

[Occhidiangela]

[right][snapback]93566[/snapback][/right]

If the lives of individuals really are of equal worth?

Who makes that assumption? I find that a hard concept to wrap my head around. My life is worth more than the life of a convicted murderer. My contributions far outweigh his in context of civil society's aims: a social framework wherein we pretty much get along. That matter of worth is subjective, not objective, in any case, and I don't think it sound to presume it to be absolute.

But where does your principle come from?

Is it derived from a Christian principle, in the sense of the worth of each person/soul being based on condition of grace, rather than its state of wealth or other material measure? Our gifts vary, and our contribution varies, and our worth varies. So, in what sense "equal?" The trauma surgeon saves lives every week. Lose one of him, and we lose a few dozen each year for lack of him. Surely his worth is above average, is it not?

Again, in what sense equal? I ask that to get you to expound on the point.

As for practical application, equality under the law strikes me as the limit of equality being manageable by rule. Now, the hard part of course, is good rules with few loopholes. Easy to say, hard to pull off.

I don't know if a purely public health care system would be more or less expensive, more or less efficient, than our present system. The key problem with the current structure, as I see it, is that the subsidy provided by large corporations has disappeared as the industrial base shrinks. An opportunity cost of a "service sector society." At present, the will for any other agency in society to replace that subsidy has not been demonstrated.

There is no free lunch. There is a cost, be it financial or opportunity cost, for any service.

Occhi