The Government isn't strengthening or weakening its control, since it still has the sole position of allowing patents, either way.
Rather than changing its control, it'd simply be reforming the process required to grant control over these ideas to others.
He's not advocating weakening Government control, he's advocating weakening corporate control, and more responsible Government guidelines regarding the dispatch of control.
> They're not effective because they use totally the wrong approach. I can > become a well-rounded individual on my own WITHOUT sitting through > the rantings of some clueless ivory-tower type about how how evil capitalism > and democracy are. > > HU/SS classes use the "this is how I think, therefore this is how you should > think. Now memorize and regurgitate it" approach. So that's what > you do memorize his rantings, regurgitate them onto the exam papers, and > forget the entire horrible expierence when the semester's over.
This wasn't my experience with social electives. They involved a good deal of discussion and interaction, and had nothing to do with Ivory towers. However, it was expected that one would know what groups belonged to what philosophy, and what and why they believed it. This shouldn't be too much different from good History classes in HS, save they're more informative. Understanding philosophies is more a matter of analytical thinking and critical reading skills, with memorization simply being the means of retainment.
> Real classes, OTOH, such as the CS/PS/MA series give you problems that > require thought. They teach you how to solve problems. They require you to > exercise your brain. Therefore the knowledge is retained.
University mathematics and physics are more often than not just as memorization oriented as any other subject. Rarely will you find yourself doing proofs for everything you study, or discovering principles on your own. You'll more often be introduced to a method of solving, and then be given practice sets in order to memorize and pick out which method belongs to which type of problem. At the same time social electives have subject questions and essays, where one analyzes and elaborates on the meaning of what you're reading.
> The difference between the "ranting zealot" and "challanging taskmaster" > approaches to education is why, while the author of the "socialist > Manifesto" escaped me till you replied; I can still knock out the pseudocode > for Cohen-Sutherland or UNIX Quicksort in a few minutes, and have > them functional in C shortly thereafter.
It's the "Communist Manifesto," not the "socialist Manifesto."
If you had the misfortune of code-based algorithms courses, then it seems that implementation details are simply a matter of rote memorization. That is, you weren't involved in developing algorithms from scratch, probably didn't do proofs for most of them, or any of the other thought-oriented approaches. Having implemented them in a class seems none too different than writing an analysis of any given philosophy. Certainly if I said "develop for me, an algorithm to do X," and you spent time contemplating the algorithm and doing the abstract mathematics and such, you'd see more a though i.e. "task master" approach, as opposed to a "problem set" approach.
On a somewhat unrelated note, what would you suggest is the behavior of a ranting zealot?
> Mabye SOME people CAN just photographiclly remember all of the random > spewings of clueless old geezers. I, usually have to have to THINK > about something to retain it past finals time, however.
Though I must admit I was born with a good memory, I have to confess to spending as much time contemplating the various philosophies I come in contact with, as I do mathematics or physics. To treat one as worthy of study, and the other as something I should simply "memorize" without thought, would be akin to cutting off a leg. Most importantly, I like to seek out and learn about topics, indepent of "old geezers," though I still find their thoughts as invaluable as anyone else's.
> OTOH... You want well rounded? Well, hundred year old politics is definately > NOT by forte. Wanna talk history of Ska music, and the influence
I'd be willing to discuss any or all of these topics, though I must confess ignorance to a few e.g. ska, punk history, etc.
> Or if you MUST talk politics, how 'bout modern, relevant stuff; like DMCA > issues? Or the Fed's idiotic "war on drugs" where armed robbers, > rapists, and other violent criminals are being set free to make room in the > jails for durg offenders with mandatory minimum sentences? Or perhaps > the archaic and barbaric death penalty and the people about > to be executed despite many discrepancies in the trial evidence? Or why I > won't shop at the gap, and why I won't buy nike shoes or exxon > gas?
Though you might disagree with Marx, his philosophies may be quite relevant today. Given that many of the problems Marx attempted to address have yet to be solved, at the very least his ideas can serve as an influence in more modern ideas. We are, after all, just standing on the shoulders of giants.
> There's plenty intresting of stuff to be "well rounded" about without > obsessing about a proven-wrong 100-year old dead crackpot.
Marx wasn't a crock pot, nor have I ever seen any proof that all of his ideas (which account for more than just the Communist Manifesto) are wrong, nor even that Communism is "bad." If you've any information otherwise, I would be more than a little interested in reading material.
> Ah, but that's the kicker isn't it... Socialism, as it has been practiced in > every socialist regeim that existed, HAS been a brutal, > oppressive, police state. Take your pick: USSR, China, Cuba, N Korea, > N Vietman, Cambodia, etc... So what is "real" socialism... The > theoretical ideas of a long dead philosopher; or the actual fruits of his > work, as it has been put into existance?
There have been no real socialist regimes, and certainly no communist regimes. None of the above were or are communists, and none of them even fit the meaning of socialism. For example, the People's Republic of China, is no more a Republic than it is a Communist state. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was no more Socialist, than it was a Republic, than it was Communist. These are all totalitarian regimes, which no form of the above allow.
The actual fruits of Marx's labor may very well be things like public education, socialized health care, welfare programs, labor laws, and any other number of things that Marx was fighting for, that didn't exist in his day. To suggest that Marx's ideals flourish in China is an insult to him.
> Well, lets see... Last I checked, I don't live in a socialist > country (Limbaugh-esque rantings about the "People's Republic of > Kalifornia" notwithstanding) and yet, I, and all of my co-workers, have these > papers in our bottom-left drawers that say "Option Grant" on > them...
And countless people working for a wage unable to support themselves toil, while people's rights are bought away as the DMCA is passed, at the same time that a man is fired for seeking to treat his carpal tunnel, as people wait in line in a soup kitchen, as G.E. gets away with dumping countless amounts of PCBs in your lakes and streams, while someone without health insurance breaks a leg, while another man is denied a potentially life saving treatment, because it may not work, while another U.S. corporation owned factory opens up in China exploiting slave labor.
In any event, many of the benefits of the modern U.S. are "socialist" in nature.
> Well, they DID threaten to destroy the US you know... does "We will bury you" > ring a bell? AND there's the little matter of the conquest of half > of Europe, and the threats to take the other half, right after we...
The U.S.S.R was never a communist nor socialist state. It may have ended up one after the revolution, but Stalin ended up in control, and he executed or enslaved the majority of the revolutionaries.
> Oh, and there is the little matter of the cuban "revolution" and pointing > nuclear missiles at us from 90 miles, right in the perfect position for a > no-warning "decapitation" strike. The Berlin blockade and Berlin wall, and > the Afghanastan invasion are also not very good ways to convince > people that you're "peaceful socialists" trying to bring about a "workers' > paradise".
They were neither.
> Now, McCarthy was, of course, inexcusable. A cliche to the tune of
Crazy, I'd say;-)
> comes to mind. And I'm not familiar with any "witchhunts" under Reagan. But I
Ahh, Reagan. While he was the head of the Screen Actor's Guild, he was a key agent in the blacklisting of actors that were thought to be, or were openly communists or socialists. These people were in turn unable to get jobs, and any number of other good things. He testified in front of Congress about his labors, and the U.S. Government of course had nothing against persecuting people because of their beliefs. They were commies, after all!
Reagan the President was more of a joke, where as in his youth his was a bigot that made up for his inability to act by making sure others weren't given the oppurtunity. But of course since the U.S.S.R collapsed during his Presidancy, people will stand up today and say they're "Reagan Republicans," and everyone sees this as a good thing.
I certainly agree that there's no gurantee that being a bigot will deny you a political position. After all, right now it's perfectly acceptable to deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals, and to refer to them as abominations in large crowds, and on TV. In fact, many members of the Vermont legislative branch have been targeted for removal, because they voted for civil unions.
However, in the case of the Germans, I would hope that had they known that Hitler would starve, gas, burn, and work to death millions of jews, that they'd be less inclined to support his rampage. Blaming the Jews for the retched state the Allies left Germany after WW I is one thing, but condoning genocide is entirely different. Honestly, though, I can't say for certain if such an atrocity would be seen as a bad thing to the German people of the time. It is my hope that it would both be considered intolerable that the jews be massacred then, and that it would be intolerable for homosexuals to be massacred in the U.S. today.
Of course neither persecuting jews, nor persecuting homosexuals is acceptable, society approved genocide is simply the most heinous act it could do. Though if countries can start with abortion, capitol punishment, categorical persecution, and other things, perhaps they can grow to accept genocide. Thoughts?
> ((rant mode on)those F-ing required HU/SS > electives... BOREING!!! who assigns "required > electives" anyway, what an oxymoron. The least
Their intention is a good one; to create a well rounded, well informed individual. Whether or not this is effective is an entirely different story.
> they could have done if I HAD to take non-CS > classes is let me take PS chemistry > or physics electives. But NOOOOO You *HAVE* to > put up with that humanities/social science (heh > "social science" there's another oxymoron) crap.
Believe it or not, there's more to actually living than algorithms. As for "social sciences", they're no more an oxymoron than any other sort of science. Certainly there's a lack of percision to the analysis and prediction of psychological or economic events, but that says more for our ignorance, than there being no "science" to social issues. We must keep in mind that there was a time where biology involved crude practices, but it's certainly improved over the years. So while I too sometimes smirk when I see some individuals claim to be scientists in one or another social study, I hold the belief that someday there'll be a more informed and reliable system.
> sigh... no wonder our educational system is > going down the toilet. > At least *I* got my BSCS while it still is a > *CS* degree and means something. ok well, (rant > mode off))
What it is worth is up to debate. I think that not recognizing the "Communist Manifesto", and not knowing of Marx's works shows that your educational process did indeed fail you, somewhere. But really this is only the opinion of someone that appreciates all sciences, and not just Physics or Computer Science. To a more specialized scientist, these things might be less important, and I don't wish to come off as implying that you're stupid or inferior, because you're neither.
> But one of the primiary tenants of the socialist > philosophy, as I recall, is the establishment of > the socialist state by means of a violent > overthrow of democratic society. And > subsequently any private property WOULD be > siezed by the government and redistributed as it > saw fit. "The socialist manifesto", or something > it was called. Supposedly, it was written by the > guy who invented socialism in the first place.
As I alluded to earlier, this is the Communist Manifesto (written by Marx and Engels), and though while it's one interpretation of it, it's not entirely what one should consider as the intended interpretation of it, as it's not. If you read the article carefully, and use a little European and American history, you can paint a picture of an industry-enslaved world, where worker's rights were virtually nonexistant. They'd work some 16 hours a day, in poor working conditions, without public education, and any number of other retched things. There was, as there is now, quite a social divide. Of course the effects of being on the other side were much worse than they are now, because of social reforms in most of the post-industrial world. With that image in hand, we can look at setting in which the Communist Manifesto was written. It did indeed call for the removal of a class system, the procurement of what was refered to as Burgeois property by the collective, but not simple property, such as "artisan's property." If you carefully read the entire manuscript, they go into detail as to what this entails. The group involved, however, wasn't to be a totalitarian regime e.g. Stalin's, but rather all of the working class, in a free society. If you had more carefully read the document, you would also note their stance on other socialist philosophies, and would not accidently mistake it for a Socialist Manifesto. In fact, in some versions it explains why it wasn't called that, because of other groups claiming the title of Socialist.
Of course you should also note the many noble institutions indicated, that we've later implemented in post-industrial societies, such as public education. Other things like the distribution of population we've done the opposite of, but that's not remotely important.
It really was intended to be a worker's paradise, since the worker would not be owned by corporations, but rather the corporations by the workers. Perhaps some of the ideas are a bit narrow sighted, but there were many good things that modern societies have adopted, and many other good things that might not be so bad to adopt, but won't be because of the amount of wealth situated in the hands of a small number of people, and the propaganda spewed about socialism and communism in the U.S. Luckily, many European countries haven't been infected with McCarthy's nonsense, and Reagan's witch hunts, and socialism isn't a dirty word there. I'd venture that many of the individuals that live there also don't refer to the Chinese as communists, since they've probably been educated properly. Honestly, though, I don't know for certain, so if anyone outside the U.S. would like to comment, I implore them to do so.
I'd not consider Marx or any of the early socialist/communist thinkers as soft-headed, but that's mostly irrelevant anyway.
Propaganda honestly doesn't make for the implementation of a certain social or economic system. That is, simply because Stalin called his system socialist, doesn't mean it was. Any more than totalitarian regimes that refer to themselves as "Republics" or "Democracies" are in fact either of those things.
Had Stalin's group not destroyed and enslaved the original Russian revolutionaries, you may very well have seen a real socialist nation.
More apt than Coacoa seems Carbon, since there's already MS Office for the old MacOS. It'd be easier and cheaper to simply develop for this, than to muck with Objective-C and Coacoa.
Firstly, I'd like to commend you on the cordial nature of this reply. Perhaps I've simply caught you on a bad day, and I apologize for my harsh words and allusions.
> But RISC is neither more cool, nor higher clock > speed than IA-32
Currently, this is true. Assuming we simply compare pure RISC approaches, to hybrid approaches like the P6+, K6 (or was it K5?), and K7, it is true that now we don't see higher clock rates. Apparently with the 21264, they saw a great increase in performance with a drop in clock speed, and then incremental improvement in that area. With the 21164, we had a much higher clock speed of up to 500MHz when a P6 was at 200MHz. Intel has done a very good job at scaling their processor core, which isn't CISC, and providing the benefits to the IA32 ISA layer. The same could be done for the Alpha, one would presume, or Intel could offer an entirely non-CISC processor with a similar core, and you'd expect a high clock speed high performing simple processor core.
Instead it would appear Intel's long term plan is IA64, which is quite an improvement over the IA32 ISA layer. Perhaps this has changed, I don't know. I must admit to having stopped paying attention, in the last year or so, to Intel's plans.
Though not what I'd consider a RISC RISC implementation, the recent PowerPC does consume a great deal less power than Intel's offerings, and they provide some expensive, yet novel notebook computers. Putting a P3 on one's lap is unpleasent for extended periods of time, where as Apple's notebooks don't provide any problem for me.
Transmeta's Crusoe isn't even remotely CISC, even though it provides a translator for IA32. It also uses a great deal less power than a P3.
If anything, the P3 may be a good example of a hot RISC-like core CISC IA32 ISA translator.
So apparently depending on what else one straps on, you may or may not see a power benefit.
As for Alpha/SPARC notebooks (if you can call them that...more like briefcase books =P) there isn't much demand for them.
> You can talk "theoretically", but none of the > theories are close to what has happened.
I'd rather say that they happened, but things moved on. Intel moved to a more RISC-like approach to core design, others went to adding more, others branched off to do new things.
In the future Intel platforms won't resemble IA32 at all, and the cores will be post-RISC but not CISC-like. It's a matter of evolution, where real CISC approaches seem to be dead (in terms of mainstream use).
> On integer it does. On FP it doesn't, yet.
Only if you look at the K7, which would probably beat the Alpha in integer performance.
IA32 will probably be dead legacy translation on IA64, before Intel offerings beat the Alpha in floating point ops. I could be wrong, of course.
Let me clarify my meaning of "on top" for you.. By on top, I was refering to raw performance as dictated by SPEC, where the Alpha has consistently been the leader.
I'm aware that the Alpha will always be a fringe processor, and will eventually die. I'm not an Alpha zealot, so this doesn't really concern me. I was more interested in the naive statements regarding CISC as King, and RISC as the lap dog.
The CISC microcode layer of modern IA32 provides little more than a higher level interface to similar programming complexity inferred by the parent poster. The underlying beast is the retched poor performer (or so he says) of a RISC-like architecture.
Sorry for the second follow up, but I finally overpowered my laziness and looked for a quote.
> I didn't say it was superior, I said it was > extremely competitive.
> > > Despite this, IA-32 is still the fastest > > > architecture around. The fastes CPU currently > > > shipping on SPECint2000 is the 1 GHz Pentium > > > III. The RISC architectures are more difficult > > > to program, but are also slower!
Sounds "superior" to me. Perhaps "easier" and "faster" isn't "superior."
> If simplicity means higher performance
I never said simplicity meant higher performance. Simplicity can mean higher performance, however I said consistancy in performance.
> Clock speed has nothing to do with performance. > I see you are really clueless and new to this. > PA-RISC is about a third the clock speed of the > 21264 but is about as fast.
One of the benefits of RISC has traditionally been a simpler implementation, which means less heat, and as such theoretically higher clock speeds. This is obvious with the clock speed vs. performance of the 21164, which I'm certain someone of your great intellect should be well aware of.
Other "RISC" processors have taken an often less RISC approach to design, and achieved equitable performance at lower clock rates, but haven't been able to scale the clock rates of their processors.
As for "CISC" processors, they are traditionally more complex, generate more heat, but should perform better at a lower clock speed than a real "RISC" implementation. This is fairly obvious in computing history, which I'm certain you've noticed over the many years you've been a jerk. =)
> Right. Please offer me the memory ordering rules > for the 21264, and your asembly language > implementation of Dekker's algorithm. You don't > the first clue about cache consistency.
Great forum for code, eh? Give me your e-mail address.
You don't know the first thing about flaming people and still keeping a semblance of intellect. You should learn from the great usenet masters. =)
> If simplicity means higher performance, then why > does IA-32 have the fastest microprocessor in > the world on 50% of the days in the last 18 > months, and simpler architectures such as Sparc > and PowerPC aren't even competitive at all, > ever?
Firstly, IA32 doesn't have the fastest processor on 50% of the days. Secondly, the IA32 at this point is a pseudo-architecture, and not an underlying processor architecture. The processor architecture of the modern x86 is a simple RISC-like design, with a CISC decoding mechanism. Obviously Intel has certainly been able to compete with purely CISC IA32 implementations. Or perhaps the current x86 line isn't competitive with my 386. The fact of modern IA32, is that the underlying procesors are held back by the actual IA32 ISA, since the rest of it is obviously excellent.
Complexity can often achieve excellent performance at a certain specialized task, but lacks the flexibility and consistancy of a general approach. This is rudimentary though on algorithms, much below your expertise.
Lastly, I'm truly sorry to have attempted to discuss, rationally, such a topic with a grand master of electrical engineering and computer science. I ask for forgiveness for my act of heresy.
I seem to remember there being a cliche about arrogance and stupidity, but it's escaped me.
If CISC (if you can call a P3 CISC with a straight face) is so superior, why does it ever get beaten by a RISC processor, very much a RISC processor 333MHz slower?
Intel can increment their P3 line, and Compaq theirs. And in the end, just as in the past, the Alpha will come out on top.
> Or do you really like to memorize fifty > different cache consistency states?
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
> It's not memory vs. speed when less memory IS > greater speed. What part of i-cache, and a ten > stage decoding pipeline do you not understand?
What part of you're wrong don't you understand? Simplicity offers consistancy in performance, complexity requires effort to maintain performance.
> Despite this, IA-32 is still the fastest > architecture around. The fastes CPU currently > shipping on SPECint2000 is the 1 GHz Pentium > III. The RISC architectures are more difficult > to program, but are also slower!
Wow, that's a real load of nonsense. The highest performing machine on CPU2000 is the AlphaServer DS20E Model 6/667. A machine that's running several hundred MHz less than the P3, I might add. It beats it hands down in integer performance, and totally destroys it floating point operations. Yes, slower indeed!
In practice, programming for the Alpha isn't very hard. It's all a matter of mindset.
The instruction density of IA32 is one of the things keeping it back on its RISC core. The old memory vs. speed tradeoff at it again.;-)
Yeah, that's real elitest of you. Just forget about the benefits of good OO design, and label the people that didn't as brainwashed. You'll make all sorts of 0x7a69 friends doing that, eh?
Re:The Environment is a Property-Rights Issue
on
Natural Capitalism
·
· Score: 1
>.. evidence you seek only to smear capitalism, > not understand it. Capitalism and slavery are > incompatible -- mutually exclusive, actually.
It's actually meant to be funny. *sigh* Telle est la vie.
Tell a mother of three that must work two jobs at minimum wage and still live off of welfare, that she's not a slave.
For that matter you could have slavery, so long as you don't particularly consider your slaves as the consumer base. I'd hardly call animals more than slaves, and I'm certain that African Americans will be more than happy to testify to their lot in South, since they weren't considered "human."
> No man has a right to something someone else > must provide. When people have a right to the > product of your labor, you are a slave to them.
Oh, I see. So an employer doesn't have a right to the products his workers create? Obviously you mean "without reimbursement." Apparently, however, people have the right to profit at the expense of others. So while a man works for $7/h laying a foundation, the construction company is making probably $200,000 off of the labor of he and a few other men.
> You probably think that altruism is a good thing > -- but altruism simply means being a sucker. It > means turning off your judgement and not living > foryour own sake, but for anyone who > wants something from you. Baa-aa-aa. Baa-aa-aa.
Personally, I'd much rather see the world function via altruism than Government mandate. I'm afraid that it's people like you that get in the way. That's alright, you're still entitled to a meal on me.;-)
Un imbécile et son argent...
> Both, actually. When it is used to express "the > will of the people" to oppress other people, > then it is oppressive. When it keeps people from > harming each other -- from perpetrating force or > fraud on one another -- it is a liberator, not > an oppressor. A government is required to > capitalism to work, simply to remove force and > fraud from people's transactions (to the extent > possible).
So preventing people for harming each other isn't oppression, eh? So obviously keeping corporations from exploiting the working class isn't oppressive. They harm them by paying them too little, by dumping waste in their waters, by providing them poor work environment, by working them too many hours, by denying them potentially life-saving treatments. So if the Government was to prevent all of this, it'd be ok, right? After all, it's simply keeping citizens from harming other citizens. You may not be as evil as I thought;-)
>... ignorant slander and stereotyping. You > probably hobble good dancers, punish successful > inventors and wet your bed. As much as I club > baby seals, anyway.
No one I know resorts to stereotyping. Like me and my "horrible collectivist hell." None of that's slander, btw.
And I'm almost free of that pesky bed wetting problem.
> No one, except the government. If it's for the > benefit of society (an ill-defined group term > with no real referent), you'll let fists be > swung. I.e., force employed to achieve your
What if I defined the benefit of society as instituting the laws required for your ideal capitalist existance? What if I were to say, steal your livelihood from you, and burn it? Then perhaps I could murder a loved one, and then physically assault you. Then I could claim that you attacked me, and that I witnessed you kill your wife, and torch your business for insurance. Then I went to the public and start a rumor of you molesting peoples' children.
Ahh, but they aren't Government fists then, are they?
If there're laws that keep me from killing your loved ones, burning your business, and slandering your good name, what exactly is wrong with laws that protect individuals from exploitation by those with money, or enact programs to gurantee that no one should starve, or be denied education? Is it because it might cost you money? Money that would be absolutely worthless, without a functioning society to spend it in. Ask the French aristocrats of the 1780s how much their money was worth.
> goals. You're not actually a pacifist. > You're more than happy to use other people -- > the government -- to forcibly achieve your > goals. You just won't get your hands dirty > yourself. That is cowardice. Don't eat meat if > you're unwilling to kill it yoursel
My goals aren't to kill anyone. My goals are to protect the people from those that would "do them harm," ensure a healthy and educated population, and a clean environment for all to live in. For as long as there are individuals that will attempt to exploit others, there simply must be a mechanism for prevention and punishment.
I'd much rather people simply chose to behave, but this is reality, and you simply can't be oblivous to these abuses. After all "you need Government" in your own words. The next time someone is murdered, I'd like you to tell one of their loved ones that they're a coward, to their face, for looking for the courts to uphold the laws.
Re:The Environment is a Property-Rights Issue
on
Natural Capitalism
·
· Score: 1
> You seriously need to read on capitalist > literature.
Been there, done that, and sent the t-shirt back because it was made by slave labor.
> Thus we arrive at an impass.
impasse
> Your worldview (what little I have inferred > about it) is to me a horrible collectivist hell, > devaluing all individuals (except perhaps 'the > leaders' for the betterment of "the group," -- > which includes all individuals generally but > none specifically. I'm sure mine, what little
I've several views for different contexts of reality. I'm honestly not naive enough to believe that any one political philosophy is suitable for all time frames of human existance. There are some elements that I would consider universal, however.
No individual is any more important than any other individual. No individual should be guranteed rights that another is denied. As you can plainly see, "leaders" aren't any more important than you or your neighbor.
Everyone has the right to the necessities to live. This means health care, education, food, a place to live, public transportation, and anything in the future that might become essential to a practical life.
Government should be of the people, and play as little a role in human society, as is necessary to have an equitable and peaceful existance with each other, and the world in which they live.
Yes, I can hear your jaw dropping right now.
These principles are simple (I have a few more, but this is good enough for now), but can requiring a lot or very little to accomplish.
Whether or not you have a large Government regulatory body is largely dependent on the actions of those that would harm the environment for profit, exploit others for profit, attempt to gain power over others, or to deny others' the right to live. Government is currently the best tool for achieving these goals. In a hundred thousand years, perhaps man will be much different, and you won't need to tell G.E. to not dump PCBs in your water, because it's obviously not the right thing to do.
> you think you know of it, strikes you in a > similar fashion. I think my worldview is based > on the principle that your right to swing your > fist ends where my nose begins, whereas yours is
Your world view, if it as like the typical libertarian view, is a very selfish and mostly social-darwinian one. It more than likely involves a view of the Government as an oppressive entity, instead of a democratic means of expressing the will of the people. No doubt you often complain about the Government, but don't actively attempt to make it reflect your views. Or perhaps your views are socially unacceptable, and you simply realize that a large percentage of the people won't agree with clubbing baby seals, because you can make a buck at it.
In any event, corporations are not democratic institutions, and rather than being centered on providing a service, are more interested in exploiting the public for all that they can, because every other knuckle-dragging corporation institution is doing the same. You can be part of, and change the Government. Doing the same to a large multinational corporation is an entirely different story.
> based on deciding in a mob (majority)-rules > manner who gets their noses busted -- > because no one has the night to not have their > nose busted unless the group says so.
I don't think anyone should swing that fist in the first place. But if someone does, you'll be damned if you'll see me sitting back and going "oh well, things are bad out there, but they'll get better if only more people are swinging their fists."
Start giving some of it back to the people that actually make it, instead of letting fat-ass business owners horde it.
> And I never said I hadn't heard the term. I said > it was an oxymoron. And you have the gall to > question my "learnedness," when you don't even > read my posts carefully before replying. You've > "qouted" all kinds of things I've not actually > said.
Actually, Einstien, I was paraphrasing you. But of course you never mentioned any form of nationalization, or the U.S. Government buying corporations with money. In fact, right now I'm making up the direct quote of "THe end result is the same though: government ownsership of business."
I even made up the bad typing, and then appended it to your original post! I am skilled, indeed.
"totalitarian socialism" is an oxymoron. Hey, but from a generation of people that refer to China as communists, and praise Presidents for persecuting people, I can understand why you would call it "totalitarian socialism."
And though you never said you didn't know what "State Capitalism" is, it's rather clear from your other posts that you didn't, and still don't.
I was originally attempting to inform you of the many inaccuracies in your original and subsequent posts. You, for some reason, took this as an insult. Why you feel someone attempting to educate and point areas of study, in order to conquer your ignorance, as an insult, I don't know. Ignorance is not bad; you and I're are ignorant of a universe of things. Refusing to learn, and being a jerk, is uncalled for.
Re:The Environment is a Property-Rights Issue
on
Natural Capitalism
·
· Score: 1
You: > > > ANd it's because, under the capitalist system, > > > people have rights and the means with which to > > > defend themselves, and/or collect > > > recompense after the event. People often lament > > > the 'litiguousness' of the U.S. Believe it or > > > > not, that is in the main a good thing. Sure, > > > > there's crackpot get-rich-quick lawsuits, but > > > > most are for real reasons.
Me: > > > Well, firstly, capitalism has little to do with > > > political freedoms.
You: > > Capitalism has a lot to do with political > > freedoms. Perhaps you should read up on > > socioeconomic systems a little.
Me: > Please, tell me what social rights capitalism > gurantees me. Apparently in my study of > economics I neglected to read the Capitalist > Bill Of Rights, that gurantees me political > freedoms, as opposed its idealogical theory > being based upon economic freedoms.
You: "Capitalism is not a political system. Governments aren't based on it."
Oh, so now you agree!
As for the rest, capitalism can exist in a non-politically free society. You can deny people the ability to vote, and they're still quite capable of working the mills.
> I said nothing about not using the government. > In fact, I specifically said a government is > required. Sue them. Present evidence to the EPA > or other oversight agencies. That's what they're > there for, and that's their proper function in a capitalist system.
Oh, so those consumerist freedoms of not buying their products is no longer the central part of controlling the corporations? I see, it's Government regulation. After all, that's where those laws that allow you to sue for damages come from. I'm glad that you agree that regulating corporations with the Government is a good thing, since your buying power buys squat.
> I have. And those corporations may or may not be > capitalist; it's kind of funny to term a > coporation "capitalist" anyway. It's not like > it's a real person, or anything.
Well, I guess we can't all the U.S. capitalist, since it's not really a person.
Capitalism's ideal is that corporations should recieve minimal amount of interference from any outside source. Given this freedom, it says that it can provide goods at their "correct" value, through competition. As part of this you develop cheaper processes to manufacture goods, you hire people for as little as they'll work, you provide just as much of a work environment as the market dictates, and so on and so forth. There's nowhere that says "Don't setup shop in a developing country, and exploit its labor force." I think you'll find that most corporations do that. But don't worry, because Intel offers its Chinese workers *stock options*. All is safe now, with their high wages of squat, and their *stock options*!
I almost feel like commenting on the pointlessness of elaborating on PNTR. The point is, you really came to the table uninformed, and due to PNTRs current strife, there's been a lot of discussion about China through the various mainstream outlets. Thus even you could prevent forest fires.
> ANd I never said "China and the U.S.S.R are > commies," or "the U.S. Government is trying to > buy corporations with social security money!" > You didn't even read the post you're replying to > carefully! Pot, kettle, etc.
Erm, try reading your own posts sometime.
From the original: > Take, for instance, the currently fashionable > idea of 'investing' social security taxes in the > stock market. If the people advocating that came > right out and said they wanted to nationalise > U.S. businesses -- bring them under direct > government control -- the citizens would balk. > But by "investing the funds for our retirement" > for us, it's okay. THe end result is the same > though: government ownsership of business. If > they just nationalize, it's simply a faster way > of doing it than by taxing the citizens and > businesses, and then using the money to buy the > stock of those businesses. Either way, the > government will eventually end up with a > controlling share of U.S. businesses.
No, I see no mention of someone mentioning the U.S. Government buying corporations with social security. Nope, not a single statement in there suggests that;-)
The article I gave you wasn't for commentary, it was the first link of many that mentioned "State Capitalism." You'd think you'd have picked up on that.;-)
> "State Capitalism" is an oxymoron. What the > Soviets, et al, had, was totalitarian socialism > and forced industrialization.
"totalitarian socialism" is an oxymoron. You seriously need to read some socialist literature. It's "State Capitalism" or if you'd like to use a term you may very well have heard of before, "facism." When people are exploited for labor and denied resources by a totalitarian regime, it's rather stupid to keep calling it socialism.
I'm sorry, do these corporations own my newly purchased land in Montanna?
I am suggesting regulation is preferable to letting YOU destroy MY planet.
It's laughable to think that industries pollute their own property alone.
Re:The Environment is a Property-Rights Issue
on
Natural Capitalism
·
· Score: 1
> Capitalism has a lot to do with political > freedoms. Perhaps you should read up on > socioeconomic systems a little.
Please, tell me what social rights capitalism gurantees me. Apparently in my study of economics I neglected to read the Capitalist Bill Of Rights, that gurantees me political freedoms, as opposed its idealogical theory being based upon economic freedoms.
> People always use the excuse "one person can > make no difference" to justify either inaction > or throwing away the system and starting over.
Please, inform me as to how you'll alter any of what I said, without a vote in the activities of the corporation, and without using the Government.
Show me how radical consumerist beliefs alter the behavior of corporations. After all, corporations are so nice today, aren't they?
> Haha! That's rich. "State Capitalism" is an > oxymoron. What they practiced is socialism, > without the "power is exercised by the whole > community" bit.
You've done so much reading on economics, you've never heard the term "State Capitalism." Now that's funny, you learned individual.;-)
Just a prelininary search found this: http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamset c/socfrombel/sfb_6.htm
> So? Who mentioned Reagan? Clinton is in many > respects a better president. He's a little more > honest about being a lying power-hungry thug > than other recent presidents.
Why do you say so much, yet say nothing at all? The statement I made is entirely about your ignorance of the existance of a U.S. Socialist party. Reagan, in case you've never read a history book, was a key figure in blacklisting communists in his acting years. Clinton, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.
> Hmm. Yes. Well, the chinese army certainly makes > a lot of money, but I don't see how you could > construe the chinese situation as "capitalism." > It's not like they have a free market over > there.
*sigh* Please read a little about U.S. corporations that have setup shop in China to take advantage of their cheap, exploitable labor. Our corporations are very much capitalists.
Also, I'd suggest you actually learn a little about Chinese economics, just for good measure. You'd think with all of the talk over PNTR, even someone with superficial knowledge of world economics would pick something up.
> And it's wrong. It thought you would have picked > up on that from my post. For instance, the ADM > Subsidy (ethanol fund). Bad. Sports arenas being > paid for by taxpayers and the profits going to > the teams and private owners. Bad. Tax breaks to > relocate your business. Bad. "End coprorate > welfare and statism now."
Ugh. This has nothing to do with Government investment of funds to gain interest, in order to lower tax burdens on PEOPLE. Do yourself a favor, go to your next town meeting, and ask someone about it. I'll gurantee you that they gain interest on any funds that they hold for any period of time. This helps *everyone*, not businesses.
> I have. I've also read a lot of other things. > I've even thought about things myself, and > talked them over with others who have different > viewpoints. Which is why I have an informed > opinion. Maybe you should try it?
I'm afraid your opinion isn't very well informed, and at best informed from a very small pool of information. I'd suggest you stop looking at your equally uneducated peers for information, and take to reading a few books, and perhaps a few college classes.
As for your insult, I think that's rather unfair. I was only trying to offer you advice, so that you'd not say things like "there's no socialist party," "China and the U.S.S.R are commies," or "the U.S. Government is trying to buy corporations with social security money!"
Hell, if you watched c-span you'd know more than that.
> Yeah, right. The cleaning crew shouldn't just > come in after hours and empty the wastebaskets, > they should leave a few schematics on the > whiteboard on their way through the cubicle > farm.
I'm not certain what this even has to do with making decisions democratically, but I'll elaborate a bit.
It's rather simple, really. Workers vote on issues, such as profit reinvestment, health care, hiring or firing staff, or any other number of things. It works rather well for small businesses, which is optimal for wealth distribution.
> That sounds great to me. Fire anybody on staff > who can't afford a proprotional share in the > company.
It's called delayed investment. When you join you pay in a certain amount, or you work and gradually pay for your share of the company.
There's really a lot to this, but if you want, I could probably supply you with the information. For some reason, though, I don't think you're interested.
Hardly. Children dying from white lung fever, or being mamed or killed by machinery is hardly an improvement over working a family farm.
People starve when someone has the misconception that he is entitled to everything there is to have. Kings, Tsars, Aristocrats, and business owners have all filled this position.
The Industrial Revolution only ended the exploitation of children in the U.S. and England, by being so horrible that the working class faught back, after years of exploitation. They faught for that eight hour work day, they faught for child labor laws, they faught and still fight today.
Child labor exists in other countries for the same reason it existed in this one; a corrupt or oblivous Government sat back and watched it happen.
Re:The Environment is a Property-Rights Issue
on
Natural Capitalism
·
· Score: 1
Well, firstly, capitalism has little to do with political freedoms.
Also, the U.S. produces the most green house gasses of any country in the world by a large margin, and the only country that will usurp our emissions title is China, because all of our factories have been moving there for years. We generate the most waste by a large margin, as well, with our throw away consumerism society.
Read some EPA and non-Government reports, they're enlightening.;-)
Corporations, unlike Democratic nations (Yes, this includes Republics) are virtually immutable by citizens, sans using Government regulation. This is because they're private feudal institutions.
If you think you can change a large corporation's policies, I would like you to make corporations that use Chinese slave labor to produce their wares, to stop. Please, cripple them by being the one amongst one billion U.S. consumers to not buy their products, because they happen to be $5 cheaper. While you're at it, I would like you to make Microsoft stop using aggressive capitalist tactics to dominate various software markets. If you'd be so kind as to make the corporations to the West of my home State stop producing acid rain here, I'd be most appreciative. If you would, please make G.E. remove the PCBs from our lakes and rivers.
You often confuse Capitalism with Democracy, since Capitalism makes no claims as to protecting "human rights." Government could simply enforce contracts, and capitalism would flourish. For a good example, take a look at the corporations with factories in China, who then sell their goods here. Technically Democracy makes no explicit claims towards human rights, but self-Governed people are more often than not, going to vote to keep themselves from being exploited by each other.
Socialism has nothing to do with the U.S.S.R or China, which use a totalitarian "State Capitalism." The ideas behind Socialism exist, because of exploitation of the working class by corporations during the early 1800s. Its ideals are democracy with social equality. Sound much like Stalin's behavior? I didn't think so.
There is a Socialist party in the U.S., though I can understand why you'd think otherwise, given the immoral behavior the Government and capitalists used to attempt to exterminate communism and socialism. Ironically, Reagan is seen as some sort of icon, when he participated in the persecution of these people.
People call the U.S. a corporate State because of the amount of money the corporations pour into it, in order to keep laws being passed to regulate it, or to pass laws that allow it more control over the behavior of the public. I'd resent non-democratic institutions attempting to subvert my desires, by trying to buy the people I voted for, too.
This may come as a shock to you, but the Government (local, state, federal) already invest storages of money in various ways, in order to make a profit. The goal of this is usually to lower a tax burden, or prevent an increase in the tax burden. It has nothing to do with the Government trying to buy corporations.
What you're probably thinking of is the Replublican's desire to privatize social security. This plan would have individuals deal with their own retirement plan. Often the people for this will mention how much more someone who invested in the stock market might make, instead of with the current system. To suggest that the Republican part is attempting to nationalize corporations is almost laughable.;-)
I suggest you read a little about Capitalism, Socialism, the English and U.S. Industrial Revolution, and the Russian revolution. It's all quite interesting, and you'll have a more informed perspective.
Perhaps you should read some Marx, since I doubt you have.... http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manif esto.html
Certainly the goals were valid, but there's a lot of anger in it.
To compare Stalinist Russia to democratically run and worker-owned corporations is fairly amusing. But then it's not that unusual, given the ignorance propogated by McCarthy.
You're free to choose to be free; I certainly can't force you to be.
[350 million people were not murdered in the making of this post. After I killed the accountant, no one offered to take his place.]
Slashdot Mirror
The Government isn't strengthening or weakening its control, since it still has the sole position of allowing patents, either way.
Rather than changing its control, it'd simply be reforming the process required to grant control over these ideas to others.
He's not advocating weakening Government control, he's advocating weakening corporate control, and more responsible Government guidelines regarding the dispatch of control.
> They're not effective because they use totally the wrong approach. I can
;-)
> become a well-rounded individual on my own WITHOUT sitting through
> the rantings of some clueless ivory-tower type about how how evil capitalism
> and democracy are.
>
> HU/SS classes use the "this is how I think, therefore this is how you should
> think. Now memorize and regurgitate it" approach. So that's what
> you do memorize his rantings, regurgitate them onto the exam papers, and
> forget the entire horrible expierence when the semester's over.
This wasn't my experience with social electives. They involved a good deal of
discussion and interaction, and had nothing to do with Ivory towers. However,
it was expected that one would know what groups belonged to what philosophy,
and what and why they believed it. This shouldn't be too much different from
good History classes in HS, save they're more informative.
Understanding philosophies is more a matter of analytical thinking and critical
reading skills, with memorization simply being the means of retainment.
> Real classes, OTOH, such as the CS/PS/MA series give you problems that
> require thought. They teach you how to solve problems. They require you to
> exercise your brain. Therefore the knowledge is retained.
University mathematics and physics are more often than not just as memorization
oriented as any other subject. Rarely will you find yourself doing proofs for
everything you study, or discovering principles on your own. You'll more often
be introduced to a method of solving, and then be given practice sets in order
to memorize and pick out which method belongs to which type of problem.
At the same time social electives have subject questions and essays, where one
analyzes and elaborates on the meaning of what you're reading.
> The difference between the "ranting zealot" and "challanging taskmaster"
> approaches to education is why, while the author of the "socialist
> Manifesto" escaped me till you replied; I can still knock out the pseudocode
> for Cohen-Sutherland or UNIX Quicksort in a few minutes, and have
> them functional in C shortly thereafter.
It's the "Communist Manifesto," not the "socialist Manifesto."
If you had the misfortune of code-based algorithms courses, then it seems that
implementation details are simply a matter of rote memorization. That is, you
weren't involved in developing algorithms from scratch, probably didn't do
proofs for most of them, or any of the other thought-oriented approaches.
Having implemented them in a class seems none too different than writing an
analysis of any given philosophy.
Certainly if I said "develop for me, an algorithm to do X," and you spent time
contemplating the algorithm and doing the abstract mathematics and such, you'd
see more a though i.e. "task master" approach, as opposed to a "problem set"
approach.
On a somewhat unrelated note, what would you suggest is the behavior of a
ranting zealot?
> Mabye SOME people CAN just photographiclly remember all of the random
> spewings of clueless old geezers. I, usually have to have to THINK
> about something to retain it past finals time, however.
Though I must admit I was born with a good memory, I have to confess to
spending as much time contemplating the various philosophies I come in contact
with, as I do mathematics or physics. To treat one as worthy of study, and the
other as something I should simply "memorize" without thought, would be akin to
cutting off a leg. Most importantly, I like to seek out and learn about topics,
indepent of "old geezers," though I still find their thoughts as invaluable as
anyone else's.
> OTOH... You want well rounded? Well, hundred year old politics is definately
> NOT by forte. Wanna talk history of Ska music, and the influence
I'd be willing to discuss any or all of these topics, though I must confess
ignorance to a few e.g. ska, punk history, etc.
> Or if you MUST talk politics, how 'bout modern, relevant stuff; like DMCA
> issues? Or the Fed's idiotic "war on drugs" where armed robbers,
> rapists, and other violent criminals are being set free to make room in the
> jails for durg offenders with mandatory minimum sentences? Or perhaps
> the archaic and barbaric death penalty and the people about
> to be executed despite many discrepancies in the trial evidence? Or why I
> won't shop at the gap, and why I won't buy nike shoes or exxon
> gas?
Though you might disagree with Marx, his philosophies may be quite relevant
today. Given that many of the problems Marx attempted to address have yet to be
solved, at the very least his ideas can serve as an influence in more modern
ideas. We are, after all, just standing on the shoulders of giants.
> There's plenty intresting of stuff to be "well rounded" about without
> obsessing about a proven-wrong 100-year old dead crackpot.
Marx wasn't a crock pot, nor have I ever seen any proof that all of his ideas
(which account for more than just the Communist Manifesto) are wrong, nor even
that Communism is "bad."
If you've any information otherwise, I would be more than a little interested
in reading material.
> Ah, but that's the kicker isn't it... Socialism, as it has been practiced in
> every socialist regeim that existed, HAS been a brutal,
> oppressive, police state. Take your pick: USSR, China, Cuba, N Korea,
> N Vietman, Cambodia, etc... So what is "real" socialism... The
> theoretical ideas of a long dead philosopher; or the actual fruits of his
> work, as it has been put into existance?
There have been no real socialist regimes, and certainly no communist regimes.
None of the above were or are communists, and none of them even fit the meaning
of socialism. For example, the People's Republic of China, is no more a
Republic than it is a Communist state. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
was no more Socialist, than it was a Republic, than it was Communist.
These are all totalitarian regimes, which no form of the above allow.
The actual fruits of Marx's labor may very well be things like public education,
socialized health care, welfare programs, labor laws, and any other number of
things that Marx was fighting for, that didn't exist in his day. To suggest
that Marx's ideals flourish in China is an insult to him.
> Well, lets see... Last I checked, I don't live in a socialist
> country (Limbaugh-esque rantings about the "People's Republic of
> Kalifornia" notwithstanding) and yet, I, and all of my co-workers, have these
> papers in our bottom-left drawers that say "Option Grant" on
> them...
And countless people working for a wage unable to support themselves toil, while
people's rights are bought away as the DMCA is passed, at the same time that a
man is fired for seeking to treat his carpal tunnel, as people wait in line in
a soup kitchen, as G.E. gets away with dumping countless amounts of PCBs in
your lakes and streams, while someone without health insurance breaks a leg,
while another man is denied a potentially life saving treatment, because it may
not work, while another U.S. corporation owned factory opens up in China
exploiting slave labor.
In any event, many of the benefits of the modern U.S. are "socialist" in nature.
> Well, they DID threaten to destroy the US you know... does "We will bury you"
> ring a bell? AND there's the little matter of the conquest of half
> of Europe, and the threats to take the other half, right after we...
The U.S.S.R was never a communist nor socialist state. It may have ended up one
after the revolution, but Stalin ended up in control, and he executed or
enslaved the majority of the revolutionaries.
> Oh, and there is the little matter of the cuban "revolution" and pointing
> nuclear missiles at us from 90 miles, right in the perfect position for a
> no-warning "decapitation" strike. The Berlin blockade and Berlin wall, and
> the Afghanastan invasion are also not very good ways to convince
> people that you're "peaceful socialists" trying to bring about a "workers'
> paradise".
They were neither.
> Now, McCarthy was, of course, inexcusable. A cliche to the tune of
Crazy, I'd say
> comes to mind. And I'm not familiar with any "witchhunts" under Reagan. But I
Ahh, Reagan. While he was the head of the Screen Actor's Guild, he was a key
agent in the blacklisting of actors that were thought to be, or were openly
communists or socialists. These people were in turn unable to get jobs, and any
number of other good things. He testified in front of Congress about his
labors, and the U.S. Government of course had nothing against persecuting
people because of their beliefs. They were commies, after all!
Reagan the President was more of a joke, where as in his youth his was a bigot
that made up for his inability to act by making sure others weren't given the
oppurtunity. But of course since the U.S.S.R collapsed during his Presidancy,
people will stand up today and say they're "Reagan Republicans," and everyone
sees this as a good thing.
I certainly agree that there's no gurantee that being a bigot will deny you a political position.
After all, right now it's perfectly acceptable to deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals, and to refer to them as abominations in large crowds, and on TV. In fact, many members of the Vermont legislative branch have been targeted for removal, because they voted for civil unions.
However, in the case of the Germans, I would hope that had they known that Hitler would starve, gas, burn, and work to death millions of jews, that they'd be less inclined to support his rampage. Blaming the Jews for the retched state the Allies left Germany after WW I is one thing, but condoning genocide is entirely different. Honestly, though, I can't say for certain if such an atrocity would be seen as a bad thing to the German people of the time.
It is my hope that it would both be considered intolerable that the jews be massacred then, and that it would be intolerable for homosexuals to be massacred in the U.S. today.
Of course neither persecuting jews, nor persecuting homosexuals is acceptable, society approved genocide is simply the most heinous act it could do. Though if countries can start with abortion, capitol punishment, categorical persecution, and other things, perhaps they can grow to accept genocide. Thoughts?
> ((rant mode on)those F-ing required HU/SS
> electives... BOREING!!! who assigns "required
> electives" anyway, what an oxymoron. The least
Their intention is a good one; to create a well rounded, well informed individual. Whether or not this is effective is an entirely different story.
> they could have done if I HAD to take non-CS
> classes is let me take PS chemistry
> or physics electives. But NOOOOO You *HAVE* to
> put up with that humanities/social science (heh
> "social science" there's another oxymoron) crap.
Believe it or not, there's more to actually living than algorithms. As for "social sciences", they're no more an oxymoron than any other sort of science. Certainly there's a lack of percision to the analysis and prediction of psychological or economic events, but that says more for our ignorance, than there being no "science" to social issues. We must keep in mind that there was a time where biology involved crude practices, but it's certainly improved over the years.
So while I too sometimes smirk when I see some individuals claim to be scientists in one or another social study, I hold the belief that someday there'll be a more informed and reliable system.
> sigh... no wonder our educational system is
> going down the toilet.
> At least *I* got my BSCS while it still is a
> *CS* degree and means something. ok well, (rant
> mode off))
What it is worth is up to debate. I think that not recognizing the "Communist Manifesto", and not knowing of Marx's works shows that your educational process did indeed fail you, somewhere. But really this is only the opinion of someone that appreciates all sciences, and not just Physics or Computer Science. To a more specialized scientist, these things might be less important, and I don't wish to come off as implying that you're stupid or inferior, because you're neither.
> But one of the primiary tenants of the socialist
> philosophy, as I recall, is the establishment of
> the socialist state by means of a violent
> overthrow of democratic society. And
> subsequently any private property WOULD be
> siezed by the government and redistributed as it
> saw fit. "The socialist manifesto", or something
> it was called. Supposedly, it was written by the
> guy who invented socialism in the first place.
As I alluded to earlier, this is the Communist Manifesto (written by Marx and Engels), and though while it's one interpretation of it, it's not entirely what one should consider as the intended interpretation of it, as it's not.
If you read the article carefully, and use a little European and American history, you can paint a picture of an industry-enslaved world, where worker's rights were virtually nonexistant. They'd work some 16 hours a day, in poor working conditions, without public education, and any number of other retched things. There was, as there is now, quite a social divide. Of course the effects of being on the other side were much worse than they are now, because of social reforms in most of the post-industrial world.
With that image in hand, we can look at setting in which the Communist Manifesto was written. It did indeed call for the removal of a class system, the procurement of what was refered to as Burgeois property by the collective, but not simple property, such as "artisan's property." If you carefully read the entire manuscript, they go into detail as to what this entails.
The group involved, however, wasn't to be a totalitarian regime e.g. Stalin's, but rather all of the working class, in a free society.
If you had more carefully read the document, you would also note their stance on other socialist philosophies, and would not accidently mistake it for a Socialist Manifesto. In fact, in some versions it explains why it wasn't called that, because of other groups claiming the title of Socialist.
Of course you should also note the many noble institutions indicated, that we've later implemented in post-industrial societies, such as public education. Other things like the distribution of population we've done the opposite of, but that's not remotely important.
It really was intended to be a worker's paradise, since the worker would not be owned by corporations, but rather the corporations by the workers. Perhaps some of the ideas are a bit narrow sighted, but there were many good things that modern societies have adopted, and many other good things that might not be so bad to adopt, but won't be because of the amount of wealth situated in the hands of a small number of people, and the propaganda spewed about socialism and communism in the U.S.
Luckily, many European countries haven't been infected with McCarthy's nonsense, and Reagan's witch hunts, and socialism isn't a dirty word there. I'd venture that many of the individuals that live there also don't refer to the Chinese as communists, since they've probably been educated properly. Honestly, though, I don't know for certain, so if anyone outside the U.S. would like to comment, I implore them to do so.
I'd not consider Marx or any of the early socialist/communist thinkers as soft-headed, but that's mostly irrelevant anyway.
Propaganda honestly doesn't make for the implementation of a certain social or economic system. That is, simply because Stalin called his system socialist, doesn't mean it was. Any more than totalitarian regimes that refer to themselves as "Republics" or "Democracies" are in fact either of those things.
Had Stalin's group not destroyed and enslaved the original Russian revolutionaries, you may very well have seen a real socialist nation.
More apt than Coacoa seems Carbon, since there's already MS Office for the old MacOS. It'd be easier and cheaper to simply develop for this, than to muck with Objective-C and Coacoa.
Firstly, I'd like to commend you on the cordial nature of this reply. Perhaps I've simply caught you on a bad day, and I apologize for my harsh words and allusions.
> But RISC is neither more cool, nor higher clock
> speed than IA-32
Currently, this is true. Assuming we simply compare pure RISC approaches, to hybrid approaches like the P6+, K6 (or was it K5?), and K7, it is true that now we don't see higher clock rates.
Apparently with the 21264, they saw a great increase in performance with a drop in clock speed, and then incremental improvement in that area. With the 21164, we had a much higher clock speed of up to 500MHz when a P6 was at 200MHz.
Intel has done a very good job at scaling their processor core, which isn't CISC, and providing the benefits to the IA32 ISA layer. The same could be done for the Alpha, one would presume, or Intel could offer an entirely non-CISC processor with a similar core, and you'd expect a high clock speed high performing simple processor core.
Instead it would appear Intel's long term plan is IA64, which is quite an improvement over the IA32 ISA layer. Perhaps this has changed, I don't know. I must admit to having stopped paying attention, in the last year or so, to Intel's plans.
Though not what I'd consider a RISC RISC implementation, the recent PowerPC does consume a great deal less power than Intel's offerings, and they provide some expensive, yet novel notebook computers. Putting a P3 on one's lap is unpleasent for extended periods of time, where as Apple's notebooks don't provide any problem for me.
Transmeta's Crusoe isn't even remotely CISC, even though it provides a translator for IA32. It also uses a great deal less power than a P3.
If anything, the P3 may be a good example of a hot RISC-like core CISC IA32 ISA translator.
So apparently depending on what else one straps on, you may or may not see a power benefit.
As for Alpha/SPARC notebooks (if you can call them that...more like briefcase books =P) there isn't much demand for them.
> You can talk "theoretically", but none of the
> theories are close to what has happened.
I'd rather say that they happened, but things moved on. Intel moved to a more RISC-like approach to core design, others went to adding more, others branched off to do new things.
In the future Intel platforms won't resemble IA32 at all, and the cores will be post-RISC but not CISC-like. It's a matter of evolution, where real CISC approaches seem to be dead (in terms of mainstream use).
> On integer it does. On FP it doesn't, yet.
Only if you look at the K7, which would probably beat the Alpha in integer performance.
IA32 will probably be dead legacy translation on IA64, before Intel offerings beat the Alpha in floating point ops. I could be wrong, of course.
Let me clarify my meaning of "on top" for you..
By on top, I was refering to raw performance as dictated by SPEC, where the Alpha has consistently been the leader.
I'm aware that the Alpha will always be a fringe processor, and will eventually die. I'm not an Alpha zealot, so this doesn't really concern me. I was more interested in the naive statements regarding CISC as King, and RISC as the lap dog.
The CISC microcode layer of modern IA32 provides little more than a higher level interface to similar programming complexity inferred by the parent poster. The underlying beast is the retched poor performer (or so he says) of a RISC-like architecture.
Sorry for the second follow up, but I finally overpowered my laziness and looked for a quote.
> I didn't say it was superior, I said it was
> extremely competitive.
> > > Despite this, IA-32 is still the fastest
> > > architecture around. The fastes CPU currently
> > > shipping on SPECint2000 is the 1 GHz Pentium
> > > III. The RISC architectures are more difficult
> > > to program, but are also slower!
Sounds "superior" to me. Perhaps "easier" and "faster" isn't "superior."
> If simplicity means higher performance
I never said simplicity meant higher performance.
Simplicity can mean higher performance, however I said consistancy in performance.
> Clock speed has nothing to do with performance.
> I see you are really clueless and new to this.
> PA-RISC is about a third the clock speed of the
> 21264 but is about as fast.
One of the benefits of RISC has traditionally been a simpler implementation, which means less heat, and as such theoretically higher clock speeds. This is obvious with the clock speed vs. performance of the 21164, which I'm certain someone of your great intellect should be well aware of.
Other "RISC" processors have taken an often less RISC approach to design, and achieved equitable performance at lower clock rates, but haven't been able to scale the clock rates of their processors.
As for "CISC" processors, they are traditionally more complex, generate more heat, but should perform better at a lower clock speed than a real "RISC" implementation. This is fairly obvious in computing history, which I'm certain you've noticed over the many years you've been a jerk. =)
> Right. Please offer me the memory ordering rules
> for the 21264, and your asembly language
> implementation of Dekker's algorithm. You don't
> the first clue about cache consistency.
Great forum for code, eh?
Give me your e-mail address.
You don't know the first thing about flaming people and still keeping a semblance of intellect. You should learn from the great usenet masters. =)
> If simplicity means higher performance, then why
> does IA-32 have the fastest microprocessor in
> the world on 50% of the days in the last 18
> months, and simpler architectures such as Sparc
> and PowerPC aren't even competitive at all,
> ever?
Firstly, IA32 doesn't have the fastest processor on 50% of the days. Secondly, the IA32 at this point is a pseudo-architecture, and not an underlying processor architecture. The processor architecture of the modern x86 is a simple RISC-like design, with a CISC decoding mechanism. Obviously Intel has certainly been able to compete with purely CISC IA32 implementations. Or perhaps the current x86 line isn't competitive with my 386.
The fact of modern IA32, is that the underlying procesors are held back by the actual IA32 ISA, since the rest of it is obviously excellent.
Complexity can often achieve excellent performance at a certain specialized task, but lacks the flexibility and consistancy of a general approach. This is rudimentary though on algorithms, much below your expertise.
Lastly, I'm truly sorry to have attempted to discuss, rationally, such a topic with a grand master of electrical engineering and computer science. I ask for forgiveness for my act of heresy.
I seem to remember there being a cliche about arrogance and stupidity, but it's escaped me.
Alpha:
Test date: Nov-1999
P3:
Test date: Mar-2000
4% int 47% float
If CISC (if you can call a P3 CISC with a straight face) is so superior, why does it ever get beaten by a RISC processor, very much a RISC processor 333MHz slower?
Intel can increment their P3 line, and Compaq theirs. And in the end, just as in the past, the Alpha will come out on top.
> Or do you really like to memorize fifty
> different cache consistency states?
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
> It's not memory vs. speed when less memory IS
> greater speed. What part of i-cache, and a ten
> stage decoding pipeline do you not understand?
What part of you're wrong don't you understand?
Simplicity offers consistancy in performance, complexity requires effort to maintain performance.
> Despite this, IA-32 is still the fastest
;-)
> architecture around. The fastes CPU currently
> shipping on SPECint2000 is the 1 GHz Pentium
> III. The RISC architectures are more difficult
> to program, but are also slower!
Wow, that's a real load of nonsense.
The highest performing machine on CPU2000 is the AlphaServer DS20E Model 6/667.
A machine that's running several hundred MHz less than the P3, I might add. It beats it hands down in integer performance, and totally destroys it floating point operations.
Yes, slower indeed!
In practice, programming for the Alpha isn't very hard. It's all a matter of mindset.
The instruction density of IA32 is one of the things keeping it back on its RISC core. The old memory vs. speed tradeoff at it again.
Yeah, that's real elitest of you. Just forget about the benefits of good OO design, and label the people that didn't as brainwashed.
You'll make all sorts of 0x7a69 friends doing that, eh?
> .. evidence you seek only to smear capitalism,
;-)
;-)
... ignorant slander and stereotyping. You
> not understand it. Capitalism and slavery are
> incompatible -- mutually exclusive, actually.
It's actually meant to be funny. *sigh*
Telle est la vie.
Tell a mother of three that must work two jobs at minimum wage and still live off of welfare, that she's not a slave.
For that matter you could have slavery, so long as you don't particularly consider your slaves as the consumer base. I'd hardly call animals more than slaves, and I'm certain that African Americans will be more than happy to testify to their lot in South, since they weren't considered "human."
> No man has a right to something someone else
> must provide. When people have a right to the
> product of your labor, you are a slave to them.
Oh, I see. So an employer doesn't have a right to the products his workers create?
Obviously you mean "without reimbursement."
Apparently, however, people have the right to profit at the expense of others.
So while a man works for $7/h laying a foundation, the construction company is making probably $200,000 off of the labor of he and a few other men.
> You probably think that altruism is a good thing
> -- but altruism simply means being a sucker. It
> means turning off your judgement and not living
> foryour own sake, but for anyone who
> wants something from you. Baa-aa-aa. Baa-aa-aa.
Personally, I'd much rather see the world function via altruism than Government mandate. I'm afraid that it's people like you that get in the way.
That's alright, you're still entitled to a meal on me.
Un imbécile et son argent...
> Both, actually. When it is used to express "the
> will of the people" to oppress other people,
> then it is oppressive. When it keeps people from
> harming each other -- from perpetrating force or
> fraud on one another -- it is a liberator, not
> an oppressor. A government is required to
> capitalism to work, simply to remove force and
> fraud from people's transactions (to the extent
> possible).
So preventing people for harming each other isn't oppression, eh? So obviously keeping corporations from exploiting the working class isn't oppressive.
They harm them by paying them too little, by dumping waste in their waters, by providing them poor work environment, by working them too many hours, by denying them potentially life-saving treatments.
So if the Government was to prevent all of this, it'd be ok, right? After all, it's simply keeping citizens from harming other citizens.
You may not be as evil as I thought
>
> probably hobble good dancers, punish successful
> inventors and wet your bed. As much as I club
> baby seals, anyway.
No one I know resorts to stereotyping. Like me and my "horrible collectivist hell."
None of that's slander, btw.
And I'm almost free of that pesky bed wetting problem.
> No one, except the government. If it's for the
> benefit of society (an ill-defined group term
> with no real referent), you'll let fists be
> swung. I.e., force employed to achieve your
What if I defined the benefit of society as instituting the laws required for your ideal capitalist existance? What if I were to say, steal your livelihood from you, and burn it? Then perhaps I could murder a loved one, and then physically assault you.
Then I could claim that you attacked me, and that I witnessed you kill your wife, and torch your business for insurance.
Then I went to the public and start a rumor of you molesting peoples' children.
Ahh, but they aren't Government fists then, are they?
If there're laws that keep me from killing your loved ones, burning your business, and slandering your good name, what exactly is wrong with laws that protect individuals from exploitation by those with money, or enact programs to gurantee that no one should starve, or be denied education? Is it because it might cost you money? Money that would be absolutely worthless, without a functioning society to spend it in. Ask the French aristocrats of the 1780s how much their money was worth.
> goals. You're not actually a pacifist.
> You're more than happy to use other people --
> the government -- to forcibly achieve your
> goals. You just won't get your hands dirty
> yourself. That is cowardice. Don't eat meat if
> you're unwilling to kill it yoursel
My goals aren't to kill anyone. My goals are to protect the people from those that would "do them harm," ensure a healthy and educated population, and a clean environment for all to live in.
For as long as there are individuals that will attempt to exploit others, there simply must be a mechanism for prevention and punishment.
I'd much rather people simply chose to behave, but this is reality, and you simply can't be oblivous to these abuses. After all "you need Government" in your own words.
The next time someone is murdered, I'd like you to tell one of their loved ones that they're a coward, to their face, for looking for the courts to uphold the laws.
> You seriously need to read on capitalist
> literature.
Been there, done that, and sent the t-shirt back because it was made by slave labor.
> Thus we arrive at an impass.
impasse
> Your worldview (what little I have inferred
> about it) is to me a horrible collectivist hell,
> devaluing all individuals (except perhaps 'the
> leaders' for the betterment of "the group," --
> which includes all individuals generally but
> none specifically. I'm sure mine, what little
I've several views for different contexts of reality. I'm honestly not naive enough to believe that any one political philosophy is suitable for all time frames of human existance. There are some elements that I would consider universal, however.
No individual is any more important than any other individual. No individual should be guranteed rights that another is denied.
As you can plainly see, "leaders" aren't any more important than you or your neighbor.
Everyone has the right to the necessities to live. This means health care, education, food, a place to live, public transportation, and anything in the future that might become essential to a practical life.
Government should be of the people, and play as little a role in human society, as is necessary to have an equitable and peaceful existance with each other, and the world in which they live.
Yes, I can hear your jaw dropping right now.
These principles are simple (I have a few more, but this is good enough for now), but can requiring a lot or very little to accomplish.
Whether or not you have a large Government regulatory body is largely dependent on the actions of those that would harm the environment for profit, exploit others for profit, attempt to gain power over others, or to deny others' the right to live.
Government is currently the best tool for achieving these goals. In a hundred thousand years, perhaps man will be much different, and you won't need to tell G.E. to not dump PCBs in your water, because it's obviously not the right thing to do.
> you think you know of it, strikes you in a
> similar fashion. I think my worldview is based
> on the principle that your right to swing your
> fist ends where my nose begins, whereas yours is
Your world view, if it as like the typical libertarian view, is a very selfish and mostly social-darwinian one. It more than likely involves a view of the Government as an oppressive entity, instead of a democratic means of expressing the will of the people.
No doubt you often complain about the Government, but don't actively attempt to make it reflect your views. Or perhaps your views are socially unacceptable, and you simply realize that a large percentage of the people won't agree with clubbing baby seals, because you can make a buck at it.
In any event, corporations are not democratic institutions, and rather than being centered on providing a service, are more interested in exploiting the public for all that they can, because every other knuckle-dragging corporation institution is doing the same.
You can be part of, and change the Government.
Doing the same to a large multinational corporation is an entirely different story.
> based on deciding in a mob (majority)-rules
> manner who gets their noses busted --
> because no one has the night to not have their
> nose busted unless the group says so.
I don't think anyone should swing that fist in the first place. But if someone does, you'll be damned if you'll see me sitting back and going "oh well, things are bad out there, but they'll get better if only more people are swinging their fists."
To the obsession with that essay: ROFL
> Yeah, the crisis is, "How do we spend it all?"
Start giving some of it back to the people that actually make it, instead of letting fat-ass business owners horde it.
> And I never said I hadn't heard the term. I said
> it was an oxymoron. And you have the gall to
> question my "learnedness," when you don't even
> read my posts carefully before replying. You've
> "qouted" all kinds of things I've not actually
> said.
Actually, Einstien, I was paraphrasing you.
But of course you never mentioned any form of nationalization, or the U.S. Government buying corporations with money.
In fact, right now I'm making up the direct quote of "THe end result is the same though: government ownsership of business."
I even made up the bad typing, and then appended it to your original post! I am skilled, indeed.
"totalitarian socialism" is an oxymoron. Hey, but from a generation of people that refer to China as communists, and praise Presidents for persecuting people, I can understand why you would call it "totalitarian socialism."
And though you never said you didn't know what "State Capitalism" is, it's rather clear from your other posts that you didn't, and still don't.
I was originally attempting to inform you of the many inaccuracies in your original and subsequent posts. You, for some reason, took this as an insult. Why you feel someone attempting to educate and point areas of study, in order to conquer your ignorance, as an insult, I don't know.
Ignorance is not bad; you and I're are ignorant of a universe of things. Refusing to learn, and being a jerk, is uncalled for.
You:
;-)
> > > ANd it's because, under the capitalist system,
> > > people have rights and the means with which to
> > > defend themselves, and/or collect
> > > recompense after the event. People often lament
> > > the 'litiguousness' of the U.S. Believe it or
> > > > not, that is in the main a good thing. Sure,
> > > > there's crackpot get-rich-quick lawsuits, but
> > > > most are for real reasons.
Me:
> > > Well, firstly, capitalism has little to do with
> > > political freedoms.
You:
> > Capitalism has a lot to do with political
> > freedoms. Perhaps you should read up on
> > socioeconomic systems a little.
Me:
> Please, tell me what social rights capitalism
> gurantees me. Apparently in my study of
> economics I neglected to read the Capitalist
> Bill Of Rights, that gurantees me political
> freedoms, as opposed its idealogical theory
> being based upon economic freedoms.
You:
"Capitalism is not a political system. Governments aren't based on it."
Oh, so now you agree!
As for the rest, capitalism can exist in a non-politically free society. You can deny people the ability to vote, and they're still quite capable of working the mills.
> I said nothing about not using the government.
> In fact, I specifically said a government is
> required. Sue them. Present evidence to the EPA
> or other oversight agencies. That's what they're
> there for, and that's their proper function in a capitalist system.
Oh, so those consumerist freedoms of not buying their products is no longer the central part of controlling the corporations?
I see, it's Government regulation. After all, that's where those laws that allow you to sue for damages come from.
I'm glad that you agree that regulating corporations with the Government is a good thing, since your buying power buys squat.
> I have. And those corporations may or may not be
> capitalist; it's kind of funny to term a
> coporation "capitalist" anyway. It's not like
> it's a real person, or anything.
Well, I guess we can't all the U.S. capitalist, since it's not really a person.
Capitalism's ideal is that corporations should recieve minimal amount of interference from any outside source. Given this freedom, it says that it can provide goods at their "correct" value, through competition. As part of this you develop cheaper processes to manufacture goods, you hire people for as little as they'll work, you provide just as much of a work environment as the market dictates, and so on and so forth.
There's nowhere that says "Don't setup shop in a developing country, and exploit its labor force."
I think you'll find that most corporations do that.
But don't worry, because Intel offers its Chinese workers *stock options*. All is safe now, with their high wages of squat, and their *stock options*!
I almost feel like commenting on the pointlessness of elaborating on PNTR. The point is, you really came to the table uninformed, and due to PNTRs current strife, there's been a lot of discussion about China through the various mainstream outlets. Thus even you could prevent forest fires.
> ANd I never said "China and the U.S.S.R are
> commies," or "the U.S. Government is trying to
> buy corporations with social security money!"
> You didn't even read the post you're replying to
> carefully! Pot, kettle, etc.
Erm, try reading your own posts sometime.
From the original:
> Take, for instance, the currently fashionable
> idea of 'investing' social security taxes in the
> stock market. If the people advocating that came
> right out and said they wanted to nationalise
> U.S. businesses -- bring them under direct
> government control -- the citizens would balk.
> But by "investing the funds for our retirement"
> for us, it's okay. THe end result is the same
> though: government ownsership of business. If
> they just nationalize, it's simply a faster way
> of doing it than by taxing the citizens and
> businesses, and then using the money to buy the
> stock of those businesses. Either way, the
> government will eventually end up with a
> controlling share of U.S. businesses.
No, I see no mention of someone mentioning the U.S. Government buying corporations with social security. Nope, not a single statement in there suggests that
The article I gave you wasn't for commentary, it was the first link of many that mentioned "State Capitalism." You'd think you'd have picked up on that.;-)
> "State Capitalism" is an oxymoron. What the
> Soviets, et al, had, was totalitarian socialism
> and forced industrialization.
"totalitarian socialism" is an oxymoron. You seriously need to read some socialist literature.
It's "State Capitalism" or if you'd like to use a term you may very well have heard of before, "facism."
When people are exploited for labor and denied resources by a totalitarian regime, it's rather stupid to keep calling it socialism.
Nice shooting, Tex.
I'm sorry, do these corporations own my newly purchased land in Montanna?
I am suggesting regulation is preferable to letting YOU destroy MY planet.
It's laughable to think that industries pollute their own property alone.
> Capitalism has a lot to do with political
;-)
t c/socfrombel/sfb_6.htm
> freedoms. Perhaps you should read up on
> socioeconomic systems a little.
Please, tell me what social rights capitalism gurantees me. Apparently in my study of economics I neglected to read the Capitalist Bill Of Rights, that gurantees me political freedoms, as opposed its idealogical theory being based upon economic freedoms.
> People always use the excuse "one person can
> make no difference" to justify either inaction
> or throwing away the system and starting over.
Please, inform me as to how you'll alter any of what I said, without a vote in the activities of the corporation, and without using the Government.
Show me how radical consumerist beliefs alter the behavior of corporations. After all, corporations are so nice today, aren't they?
> Haha! That's rich. "State Capitalism" is an
> oxymoron. What they practiced is socialism,
> without the "power is exercised by the whole
> community" bit.
You've done so much reading on economics, you've never heard the term "State Capitalism." Now that's funny, you learned individual.
Just a prelininary search found this:
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamse
> So? Who mentioned Reagan? Clinton is in many
> respects a better president. He's a little more
> honest about being a lying power-hungry thug
> than other recent presidents.
Why do you say so much, yet say nothing at all?
The statement I made is entirely about your ignorance of the existance of a U.S. Socialist party. Reagan, in case you've never read a history book, was a key figure in blacklisting communists in his acting years.
Clinton, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.
> Hmm. Yes. Well, the chinese army certainly makes
> a lot of money, but I don't see how you could
> construe the chinese situation as "capitalism."
> It's not like they have a free market over
> there.
*sigh* Please read a little about U.S. corporations that have setup shop in China to take advantage of their cheap, exploitable labor. Our corporations are very much capitalists.
Also, I'd suggest you actually learn a little about Chinese economics, just for good measure.
You'd think with all of the talk over PNTR, even someone with superficial knowledge of world economics would pick something up.
> And it's wrong. It thought you would have picked
> up on that from my post. For instance, the ADM
> Subsidy (ethanol fund). Bad. Sports arenas being
> paid for by taxpayers and the profits going to
> the teams and private owners. Bad. Tax breaks to
> relocate your business. Bad. "End coprorate
> welfare and statism now."
Ugh. This has nothing to do with Government investment of funds to gain interest, in order to lower tax burdens on PEOPLE. Do yourself a favor, go to your next town meeting, and ask someone about it. I'll gurantee you that they gain interest on any funds that they hold for any period of time. This helps *everyone*, not businesses.
> I have. I've also read a lot of other things.
> I've even thought about things myself, and
> talked them over with others who have different
> viewpoints. Which is why I have an informed
> opinion. Maybe you should try it?
I'm afraid your opinion isn't very well informed, and at best informed from a very small pool of information. I'd suggest you stop looking at your equally uneducated peers for information, and take to reading a few books, and perhaps a few college classes.
As for your insult, I think that's rather unfair. I was only trying to offer you advice, so that you'd not say things like "there's no socialist party," "China and the U.S.S.R are commies," or "the U.S. Government is trying to buy corporations with social security money!"
Hell, if you watched c-span you'd know more than that.
*sigh* Real imaginative...
> Yeah, right. The cleaning crew shouldn't just
> come in after hours and empty the wastebaskets,
> they should leave a few schematics on the
> whiteboard on their way through the cubicle
> farm.
I'm not certain what this even has to do with making decisions democratically, but I'll elaborate a bit.
It's rather simple, really. Workers vote on issues, such as profit reinvestment, health care, hiring or firing staff, or any other number of things. It works rather well for small businesses, which is optimal for wealth distribution.
> That sounds great to me. Fire anybody on staff
> who can't afford a proprotional share in the
> company.
It's called delayed investment. When you join you pay in a certain amount, or you work and gradually pay for your share of the company.
There's really a lot to this, but if you want, I could probably supply you with the information.
For some reason, though, I don't think you're interested.
I thought eco-economics when I read it, but I imagine these are one in the same.
Hardly. Children dying from white lung fever, or being mamed or killed by machinery is hardly an improvement over working a family farm.
People starve when someone has the misconception that he is entitled to everything there is to have. Kings, Tsars, Aristocrats, and business owners have all filled this position.
The Industrial Revolution only ended the exploitation of children in the U.S. and England, by being so horrible that the working class faught back, after years of exploitation. They faught for that eight hour work day, they faught for child labor laws, they faught and still fight today.
Child labor exists in other countries for the same reason it existed in this one; a corrupt or oblivous Government sat back and watched it happen.
Well, firstly, capitalism has little to do with political freedoms.
;-)
;-)
Also, the U.S. produces the most green house gasses of any country in the world by a large margin, and the only country that will usurp our emissions title is China, because all of our factories have been moving there for years.
We generate the most waste by a large margin, as well, with our throw away consumerism society.
Read some EPA and non-Government reports, they're enlightening.
Corporations, unlike Democratic nations (Yes, this includes Republics) are virtually immutable by citizens, sans using Government regulation. This is because they're private feudal institutions.
If you think you can change a large corporation's policies, I would like you to make corporations that use Chinese slave labor to produce their wares, to stop. Please, cripple them by being the one amongst one billion U.S. consumers to not buy their products, because they happen to be $5 cheaper.
While you're at it, I would like you to make Microsoft stop using aggressive capitalist tactics to dominate various software markets.
If you'd be so kind as to make the corporations to the West of my home State stop producing acid rain here, I'd be most appreciative.
If you would, please make G.E. remove the PCBs from our lakes and rivers.
You often confuse Capitalism with Democracy, since Capitalism makes no claims as to protecting "human rights." Government could simply enforce contracts, and capitalism would flourish. For a good example, take a look at the corporations with factories in China, who then sell their goods here.
Technically Democracy makes no explicit claims towards human rights, but self-Governed people are more often than not, going to vote to keep themselves from being exploited by each other.
Socialism has nothing to do with the U.S.S.R or China, which use a totalitarian "State Capitalism." The ideas behind Socialism exist, because of exploitation of the working class by corporations during the early 1800s. Its ideals are democracy with social equality. Sound much like Stalin's behavior? I didn't think so.
There is a Socialist party in the U.S., though I can understand why you'd think otherwise, given the immoral behavior the Government and capitalists used to attempt to exterminate communism and socialism. Ironically, Reagan is seen as some sort of icon, when he participated in the persecution of these people.
People call the U.S. a corporate State because of the amount of money the corporations pour into it, in order to keep laws being passed to regulate it, or to pass laws that allow it more control over the behavior of the public. I'd resent non-democratic institutions attempting to subvert my desires, by trying to buy the people I voted for, too.
This may come as a shock to you, but the Government (local, state, federal) already invest storages of money in various ways, in order to make a profit. The goal of this is usually to lower a tax burden, or prevent an increase in the tax burden. It has nothing to do with the Government trying to buy corporations.
What you're probably thinking of is the Replublican's desire to privatize social security. This plan would have individuals deal with their own retirement plan. Often the people for this will mention how much more someone who invested in the stock market might make, instead of with the current system. To suggest that the Republican part is attempting to nationalize corporations is almost laughable.
I suggest you read a little about Capitalism, Socialism, the English and U.S. Industrial Revolution, and the Russian revolution. It's all quite interesting, and you'll have a more informed perspective.
Perhaps you should read some Marx, since I doubt you have....f esto.html
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/mani
Certainly the goals were valid, but there's a lot of anger in it.
To compare Stalinist Russia to democratically run and worker-owned corporations is fairly amusing. But then it's not that unusual, given the ignorance propogated by McCarthy.
You're free to choose to be free; I certainly can't force you to be.
[350 million people were not murdered in the making of this post. After I killed the accountant, no one offered to take his place.]
Er, you mean, send their kids to work in in the factories and mills. Nice try though, but perhaps you should read some history books. ;-)
It wasn't industry that moved us beyond the horrors of the Industrial Revolution, it was social reform and laws.