If linux becomes illegal, all corporate support will be dropped. On top of that, programmers who contribute to Linux will likely be charged and sent to jail (since I predict that USA will switch to totalitarianism with a few more terrorist attacks, it wouldn't surprise me if software developers end up in jail (BTW, not trying to scare anyone but Usama bin Laden says that there will be some major attack against USA before February (not sure if this is in USA or somewhere else) and he says he will likely die in the next major operation)). It will become a risky proposition for developers to contribute to it (although other open-source software will still be released; remember that linux is just the kernel). This will definitely be a blow to linux.
The reason warez survives (BTW porn is not illegal in many places) is because it is driven by an underground system. The vast majority of people who download warez have no idea how it works. The ripped & cracked stuff that you download (if you engage in these activities) are not released by some no-name dude at home. MP3s may be an exception since pretty much anyone has access to the music as soon as it is released and they can rip them without any difficulty. But software is not the same case. Most people can't crack the software by themselves. Simply copying the CD does not work in many cases. You need to write a loader or a crack that bypasses the copy protection system (especially for games). Only talented people can do this (which excludes the majority--even if you are a software developer).
The warez is released by well organized groups that are fully underground. Even when the police busts these operations they hardly ever get the people involved. They only get some distributors or something. The underground pirate networks are very sophisticated and very organic. This essentially means that warez will exist forever (until software becomes obsolete--not for another few hundread years IMO:) ).
So, even if people contribute to an illegal linux operating system, it will be nothing like warez. Warez is mostly anonymous but people contributing to linux likely won't be. It should be easy for the authorities to trace the contributors. Already governments are all over software that tried to anonymize communications--linux will be even worse.
You say that "The Internet and the minds of its members are not property of SCO" but you are wrong. Linux WILL BE the property of SCO. It doesn't matter what people do. You may easily DISTRIBUTE linux BUT it will be next impossible to CONTRIBUTE source code without ending up in jail. So you might download the present version of linux well into the future, but hardly anyone will contribute anything new to it. Don't forget that the SPA (Software Publisher's Association) is much more powerful than the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America). People on slashdot don't realize this...
During the 20th Century, no country has gone from poor to rich without substantial foreign trade.
How about Nazi Germany from a poor country to somewhat wealthy one? It did it with very little foreign trade. Or how about USSR when it went from a poor monarchist state to a totalitarian Communist state?
Key examples include Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea.
That's true on the surface but it remains to be seen. USA has been bankrolling these countries for a while now. USA has massive trade deficits with a lot of these countries so one would expect them to get rich. I wonder what will happen when USA can't afford to do that.
Another thing, how does debt play into this? Can't I argue that capitalism is simply mortgaging the future for the present via debt? USA, for example, has a round $3 trillion debt. Would it be as rich if you took away that debt (i.e. forced it to pay it off)? South Korea has a debt of $231billion (its GDP-PPP is around $931billiin) so how much is due to this debt?
...those people are trying to make a living. when these socialist idiots go around claiming these workers are "victoms", the companies leave, making them unemployed!
I happen to be a socialist idiot that you are referring to. I don't think a capitalist like you will ever agree with me but I'll try rebutting you...
First of all, workers AS A WHOLE are worse off with these "free trade" deals. A poor person in a poor country might be willing to work for subscinence(sp?) wages but it impacts workers as a whole. Capitalists like you, like it. Because it benefits you. But workers as a whole are WORSE OFF. The reason companies move to another country is not because some guy in Canada can't do the job, or is dumb, or whatever. They move simply because a poor person in another country is willing to work for LESS. If those countries did not have a lower standard of living (or if all countries were "equal"), there wouldn't even be any movement.
Second, the poor workers are ALWAYS exploited. A capitalist like you either doesn't know or doesn't care. The vast majority of the free trade deals have had very little impact on the poor workers. The reason is because the EXTRA profits accrue to the corporations. Except with some industries in some countries* (eg. India and China), the vast majority of people just don't gain anything. Ask the farmers in Africa who can't even sell their products anymore, or the wage slaves in Latin America how much their lives are different. These people can't even afford their own product. People picking cocoa can't even afford chocolate.
Yes, people have a CHOICE in working. They can choose to work or not. But that is still exploitation. It doesn't matter if they have a choice or not: it's still exploitation.
The classic example I use is prostitution. But since you are in favour of child labour, let's talk about child prostitution. A lot of children in poor countries engage is prostitution. I'm sure you would say it's their choice, which is true. But that doesn't mean it is not exploitation. Just because some rich guy from a rich country can go and abuse these poor little kids doesn't make it any moral or desirable.
There are MANY countries where child prostitution is common (South East Asia and Africa come to mind). The government does nothing because it creates "jobs" and brings money from the wealthy foreigners. If child prostitution (or even adult prostitution) was banned, these people would be out of "work". So you are right: asking for human rights results in people/companies/investment/whatever moving to other countries. But there is something a heartless capitalist like you will never realize. People do things because of THEIR SITUATION. If these kids weren't poor, you think they would allow themselves to be raped every day by some rich guy? Of course not. It's just too bad you don't realize that. Until you are in the same situation as these people, you have no fucking idea what this is all about. To you, it is a theoretical view of free labour and free markets.
(* India and China have benefitted from "free trade" whereas nearly all the other poor countries such as most of Latin America, Africa, and other parts of Asia, have had little benefit. If you think I'm making this up, look at the fiscal situation of Latin America and Africa. Those countries (which followed USA like sheep) are in terrible mess. Countries like Argentina, which was the poster boy of capitalism (this is what the capitalists used to sell their plan to other countries) are a total mess now. The reason for this is simple. Unlike Latin America, India and China follow the US model of capitalism. That is to say, preach capitalism on one hand while doing everything in the interest of your own country including implementing anti-capitalist measures. This is what USA does all the time. They get the poor countries to open up their markets (so that their companies can buy all the national resources) but hardly do anything in return. Some smart people in
What's the point of talking about big-c communism? That's like talking about big-l liberalism or big-r republicanism, or whatever. It's pointless to talk about the parties that claim to represent something when in fact they don't... Only thing worth discussing are ideologies...
You are SEVERLY underplaying the social situation. It IS bad. It is getting better but notwhere near where it should be. There might be a ton of food but it is not distributed well. What's the homeless rate in India? If there is food how come many of these homeless are hungry and dying? Why do cities have large slums?
India may have been peaceful throughout the ages but with the Hindu fundamentalists are in power, it's becoming militaritic. India is not just developing weapons for itself, it is selling them to other countries, creating misery for others.
I'm not an Indian but I was born in a neighbour of it:)
Britain is more liberal so it is to be expected that they would reveal more information. USA on the other hand is very conservative and tries to hide everything (yes, the Democratic Party is somewhat conservative too). USA hasn't implemented any liberal principles sine the Found Fathers (nearly all of them were radical liberals), and FDR (he was very leftish).
It's ironic that the declassified documents talk about US plan to seize Middle East oil. Just last year, some consultant was presenting a similar plan to DoD... Now that USA carried out an outright invasion, I guess no need for covert plans anymore...
USA does it too... but is much more secretive and the time period is longer I believe. The CIA also has a habit of destroying documents more so than other spy agencies (Iran-contra comes to mind).
I'm a leftist so I do not like right-wing stuff. Wall Street Journal is very right wing. If you are a right-winger it's a great paper. For business issues, Wall Street Journal is great (after all, the elite capitalists of USA write for it). I don't have a problem with business stuff.
But since I'm on the left, I do not support their right wing opinions (especially on social issues and foreign policy). WSJ is probably the most pro-war newspaper in all of North America. It was pretty much calling for the war in Iraq (long before the US govt started their propaganda campaign). And have now started calling for a war in Syria. Of course, the fact that neoconservatives write for the paper may have something to do with it.
As a side note, it is ironic that the most capitalist paper in North America is pro-war. Last I checked, capitalism is supposed to be pro-peace. 'Trade over war' as they say... obviously that principle doesn't apply to the capitalist elites.
It's hard to compare the two. One is a newspaper and the other is a magazine. Obviously, newspapers have higher circulation and cover different issues. However, when it comes to magazines, Forbes is a near the top IMO. Forbes is likely more influentical than Time, Newsweek, Sports Illustrated, or any other popular magazine (of course, I'm picking different areas but the point is influence over their target market).
I'm down on capitalism because I'm an anti-capitalist:) Capitalism is an elitist system where a few hoard resources (and hence wealth). That's not the type of society I want to create. If you are an elitist (and just so happens to be rich), it's a great system. But to me, it's not.
I don't really have a favourite per se, but one that I'm interested in is called parecon (participative economics). It is sort of a mix of socialism and anarchism.
Of course, few people actually understand what Capitalism actually is.
Actually it is easy to understand capitalism--far more easier than fascism, socialism, anarchism, communism, and others. It is easy to understand capitalism because it is the most dominant system. Even if you don't know much, you will run into it throughout your life. All you need to do is open your eyes. In addition, modern day economics is nothing more than capitalist economics. So anyone that takes economics knows what capitalism is all about. Lastly, if you don't know what capitalism is, you can always refer to the bastion of capitalism, or a good capitalist website like this.
Trust me, I know my arch-enemies: the capitalists. The question is do you know me?
First of all, everything you said about freedoms is totally irrelevant. When I said free, I am talking about free in an economic sense (i.e. costs zero). Humans rights make human free but that is something else. It has nothing to do with capitalism. Also, capitalism often acts against the interest of humans. In other words, capitalism and human rights conflict. A classic case is worker exploitation. It is perfectly ok to pay some minimal amount (less than 50 cents/hour) to some poor person, pretty much keeping them as serfs (like during the monarchy days). People like me claim that some minimum wage is a right. Capitalists don't think so.
Capitalism is not "natural"
I am a hard core capitolist. I beleive that capitolism works because it's natural. It's a proccess created by the very act of people interacting together in a free sociaty.
If that is so, why did capitalism only begin a few hundread years ago? You are wrong. Capitalism has nothing to do with nature. You have probably been brainwashed by the capitalist economists who claim it is so but I don't think so. How did people live before money was invented? Clearly you cannot have capitalism without money. And so on.
Also, perhaps most importantly, capitalism requires the enforcement of private property. You certainly cannot claim that capitalism is natural when private property has to be enforced. Even hardcore capitalists support a minimal government to enforce private property. That essentially means that it is not "natural". If it is based on nature, why need government enforcement at all? How would capitalism function if there were no government (like 3000 years ago)?
Capitalism has nothing to do with nature. It's just too bad that capitalist economists have manipulated supply&demand and justifed it using nature. There is nothing NATURAL; humans make up everything that we want. Capitalism is as ARTIFICIAL as socialism, communism, fascism, or anarchism are.
Free Software
Free software is a threat to capitalism because it is based on socialist ideals. People come together to create something for the "common good" for free. This is a threat. Doing something like that eliminates scarcity (to a large part). Once scarcity is eliminated, capitalism just collapses. All its theories and underpinnings are based on the notion of scarcity. If something is NOT scarce, its cost would be $0. Where would that be on the supply & demand curve? There wouldn't even be a market (for the most part).
In other words, Free Software eliminates the emphasis on profits. That is clearly at attack on the heart of capitalism.
(Having said this, I realize that Free Software doesn't mean a cost of zero. People can charge whatever they want. Nevertheless, the fact that scarcity is (almost) eliminated will lower the cost to close to zero. )
This act of creating a OS with a GPL liscence that's decidedly for freedom has benifited humanity on a scale several time more impressive then all the hippy anti-microsoft-anti-capitolism protests combined.
Acts that benefit humanity are not generally rewarded under capitalism. It's benefitital to humanity as a whole to have public libraries, public schools, public roads, etc. Yet capitalism calls for privatization of everything which will automatically place severe restrictions on what the lower classes can access.
If IBM pulls out, it will be a huge blow to GNU/Linux. Sure, it will still go on but there will be far less resources... Settling with SCO is pretty bad too. I mean, what does that mean? Does it mean SCO is right? Does it mean it can go after other companies (other than IBM)?
Anyway, I'm unemployed now but yes I haved worked for corporations thoroughout my life. But what does that have to do with capitalism? There are basically two definitions of a capitalist. the Marxist view of a capitalist is someone who owns the MEANS OF PRODUCTION (not me). Or the other definition of capitalist is someone who supports capitalism (not me). You can hardly claim I am a capitalist by any stretch of your imagination.
Capitalism is the system that rules the earth. I am a slave to the capitalist overlords. So I work, live, and breathe under a capitalist system. But does that mean I am a capitalist? Nope! I do not support it but I partake in the system because I have no other choice.
I try not to support capitalism as much as I can. BUT since capitalists rule the earth, it is hard to avoid the system. For instance, banks (and other financial institutions) are the heart of capitalism. But it is very hard to keep money away from banks (for example). All your employers force you to deposit money in the banks (because it reduces costs for them). Similarly, the food I eat come from some multinational which abuses workers in some countries. I try to avoid the food from quesionable sources but it is kind of hard given that everyone does it. And so forth.
In any case, partaking in a system does not make you a supporter of it. The reason is because you are a slave to the system that is being practiced. For example, a few hundread years ago when slavery was common, abolitionists avoided owning slaves. Yet they benefitted from them. The slaves were the ones producing goods (particularly in agriculture) and even the abolitionists (who called for the overthrow of slavery) had to buy food that was produced by slaves. Does this make the abolitionist a slavery supporter? Not really. They are just forced to do it. It's VERY HARD to live in an independent life. The system is just too powerful and won't let you*.
Another example would be (say) 400 years ago with monarchy. There were a lot of intellectuals who did NOT support monarchy. They wanted to overthrow it. They were either republicans or democrats (not to be confused with the US politicial parties). These people wanted a government ruled by the people (or at worst, an intellectual elite like themselves). So they were against the system. However, they lived their whole lives utilizing the system. They had to do this because they had no other choice. The jobs these democrats had was funded by the monarch (the whole economy under monarchy is driven by the monarch), the products they consumed were created by the monarchs, and so on.
The point I'm trying to make is that partaking in a system does not make you a supporter of that system. Just like some Germans who were living under Nazism were NOT Nazis; and how people living in USSR were NOT Stalinists.
(* FOOTNOTE: To see what I mean by the system being too powerful, consider what happened to certain anarchist, communist and socialist (and other) communes that tried to disengage themselves from the capitalist system. They failed. The #1 reason is because the capitalists won't let you live freely. For example, anarchism (and many other alternative systems) require the abolishment of money (OR introduction of a new currency). Guess what? The goverment will put you in jail if you created your own currency. Why? Because a new currency is a threat to the existing system. There are many other problems like this)
I'm not into Kevin Smith films. I don't really his stuff... However, I have been meaning to see Clerks for a while but when the opportunity came (was playing on tv), I wasn't in tthe mood. Anyway, I'm probably just like the guy you are talking about (haven't seen the film but based on your description it seems accurate). I am highly tolerant of sexuality but this has nothing to do with sex. It's just totally disgusting and serves no purpose whatsoever--or does it?
Your guess isn't exactly correct. I'm not in India; I'm in Canada (have been for over 10 years). I'm not even from India originally, although my ethnic group is similar and I'm from a country that is close to it.
In any case, this has nothing to do with American culture. I'm VERY liberatarian on these issues (although I'm not a liberatarian; I'm a socialist since I support the state). So things like sex, nudity, pornography, prostitution*, etc are ok. BUT this stuff is just unbelievable! When I say it is the worst thing I have seen in my WHOLE LIFE, I mean it. It is just so disgusting that I don't know what to make of it. Do people actualy ENJOY showing this? Man it's just so horrible...
(* I was government intervention when it comes to prostition though. )
Take my word, in a few years, you'll see an Indian Britney Spears take off all her clothes at age 16 just so that horny Indian males will buy her CD. Arranged marriages will be a thing of the past and you will have to fight for your own wife.
As I said, I'm not in India. Also, I'm not like typical South Asians who are conservative to some degree. I'm ok with women taking off their clothes. That's ok with me because it is their CHOICE. As long as people don't force someone to do stuff, I'm ok with it. Even though women in Western countries are more sexually exploited, they have more freedoms. They do things with their own will.
Arranged marriages? That is a sub-optimal solution and leads to abuse of women by men. Even though the high divorce rates in USA and Canada, for example, need to be lowered, at least people make their own choices--however wrong they are. Having said that, people like me would probably be better off with arranged marriages. In Canada or whatever, I don't think too many girls like people like me (who aren't good looking, have no money, don't have a good job, no fame, and to make matters worse a geek, who happens to be a socialist). Things just cannot get any worse for me:(
I don't know any executives and have no idea how they spend their time. But are you sure these guys don't read business magazines and stuff? I think businesspeople DO read things like Forbes, Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek, The Economist, etc.
Those sources are where they get their ideas and strategies. Where do you think they get their strategies like downsizing, outsourcing, mergers & acquisitions, and so forth?
Anything that is free is a threat to capitalism. So the capitalists don't like to allow such things. Forbes, in particular, is run by capitalist elites.
Yuck... That is the WORST THING I have EVER seen in my life!!! I feel like throwing up. I can't believe someone would take a picture of that, let alone disgust others with it... I think humans have reached a new low with that picture:(:(:(
Star Trek universe is based on capitalism. Capitalism is inherently elitist so there will be lower classes in the future too (as long as the system exists). Lower classes are needed to service the higher classes--or else higher classes would cease to exist.
One can tell Star Trek is elitist and authoratarian by looking at how jobs are structured. Star Trek is very authoratarian (and similar to the military). The engineers are below the commanders, the doctors are at another level, and so forth. Clearly this is not egalitarian. One would hope that egalitarianism would have been reached by then and every job is treated equally (or with a job complex). Unfortunately, that's not true. Supposedly there are still inferior jobs paid less than others, with the commanders getting elite priviledges (like now under capitalism).
Another problem with Star Trek is that organization that rules humans: The Federation. The Federation resembles an imperialist (say modern day USA or past Britain) who forces everyone within their jurisdiction to their will. I hope such a thing never happens in our real life. The last thing we need are more bureacrats forcing people to do things--now on a galaxy level.
Slashdot Mirror
If linux becomes illegal, all corporate support will be dropped. On top of that, programmers who contribute to Linux will likely be charged and sent to jail (since I predict that USA will switch to totalitarianism with a few more terrorist attacks, it wouldn't surprise me if software developers end up in jail (BTW, not trying to scare anyone but Usama bin Laden says that there will be some major attack against USA before February (not sure if this is in USA or somewhere else) and he says he will likely die in the next major operation)). It will become a risky proposition for developers to contribute to it (although other open-source software will still be released; remember that linux is just the kernel). This will definitely be a blow to linux.
:) ).
The reason warez survives (BTW porn is not illegal in many places) is because it is driven by an underground system. The vast majority of people who download warez have no idea how it works. The ripped & cracked stuff that you download (if you engage in these activities) are not released by some no-name dude at home. MP3s may be an exception since pretty much anyone has access to the music as soon as it is released and they can rip them without any difficulty. But software is not the same case. Most people can't crack the software by themselves. Simply copying the CD does not work in many cases. You need to write a loader or a crack that bypasses the copy protection system (especially for games). Only talented people can do this (which excludes the majority--even if you are a software developer).
The warez is released by well organized groups that are fully underground. Even when the police busts these operations they hardly ever get the people involved. They only get some distributors or something. The underground pirate networks are very sophisticated and very organic. This essentially means that warez will exist forever (until software becomes obsolete--not for another few hundread years IMO
So, even if people contribute to an illegal linux operating system, it will be nothing like warez. Warez is mostly anonymous but people contributing to linux likely won't be. It should be easy for the authorities to trace the contributors. Already governments are all over software that tried to anonymize communications--linux will be even worse.
You say that "The Internet and the minds of its members are not property of SCO" but you are wrong. Linux WILL BE the property of SCO. It doesn't matter what people do. You may easily DISTRIBUTE linux BUT it will be next impossible to CONTRIBUTE source code without ending up in jail. So you might download the present version of linux well into the future, but hardly anyone will contribute anything new to it. Don't forget that the SPA (Software Publisher's Association) is much more powerful than the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America). People on slashdot don't realize this...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
During the 20th Century, no country has gone from poor to rich without substantial foreign trade.
How about Nazi Germany from a poor country to somewhat wealthy one? It did it with very little foreign trade. Or how about USSR when it went from a poor monarchist state to a totalitarian Communist state?
Key examples include Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea.
That's true on the surface but it remains to be seen. USA has been bankrolling these countries for a while now. USA has massive trade deficits with a lot of these countries so one would expect them to get rich. I wonder what will happen when USA can't afford to do that.
Another thing, how does debt play into this? Can't I argue that capitalism is simply mortgaging the future for the present via debt? USA, for example, has a round $3 trillion debt. Would it be as rich if you took away that debt (i.e. forced it to pay it off)? South Korea has a debt of $231billion (its GDP-PPP is around $931billiin) so how much is due to this debt?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
...those people are trying to make a living. when these socialist idiots go around claiming these workers are "victoms", the companies leave, making them unemployed!
I happen to be a socialist idiot that you are referring to. I don't think a capitalist like you will ever agree with me but I'll try rebutting you...
First of all, workers AS A WHOLE are worse off with these "free trade" deals. A poor person in a poor country might be willing to work for subscinence(sp?) wages but it impacts workers as a whole. Capitalists like you, like it. Because it benefits you. But workers as a whole are WORSE OFF. The reason companies move to another country is not because some guy in Canada can't do the job, or is dumb, or whatever. They move simply because a poor person in another country is willing to work for LESS. If those countries did not have a lower standard of living (or if all countries were "equal"), there wouldn't even be any movement.
Second, the poor workers are ALWAYS exploited. A capitalist like you either doesn't know or doesn't care. The vast majority of the free trade deals have had very little impact on the poor workers. The reason is because the EXTRA profits accrue to the corporations. Except with some industries in some countries* (eg. India and China), the vast majority of people just don't gain anything. Ask the farmers in Africa who can't even sell their products anymore, or the wage slaves in Latin America how much their lives are different. These people can't even afford their own product. People picking cocoa can't even afford chocolate.
Yes, people have a CHOICE in working. They can choose to work or not. But that is still exploitation. It doesn't matter if they have a choice or not: it's still exploitation.
The classic example I use is prostitution. But since you are in favour of child labour, let's talk about child prostitution. A lot of children in poor countries engage is prostitution. I'm sure you would say it's their choice, which is true. But that doesn't mean it is not exploitation. Just because some rich guy from a rich country can go and abuse these poor little kids doesn't make it any moral or desirable.
There are MANY countries where child prostitution is common (South East Asia and Africa come to mind). The government does nothing because it creates "jobs" and brings money from the wealthy foreigners. If child prostitution (or even adult prostitution) was banned, these people would be out of "work". So you are right: asking for human rights results in people/companies/investment/whatever moving to other countries. But there is something a heartless capitalist like you will never realize. People do things because of THEIR SITUATION. If these kids weren't poor, you think they would allow themselves to be raped every day by some rich guy? Of course not. It's just too bad you don't realize that. Until you are in the same situation as these people, you have no fucking idea what this is all about. To you, it is a theoretical view of free labour and free markets.
(* India and China have benefitted from "free trade" whereas nearly all the other poor countries such as most of Latin America, Africa, and other parts of Asia, have had little benefit. If you think I'm making this up, look at the fiscal situation of Latin America and Africa. Those countries (which followed USA like sheep) are in terrible mess. Countries like Argentina, which was the poster boy of capitalism (this is what the capitalists used to sell their plan to other countries) are a total mess now. The reason for this is simple. Unlike Latin America, India and China follow the US model of capitalism. That is to say, preach capitalism on one hand while doing everything in the interest of your own country including implementing anti-capitalist measures. This is what USA does all the time. They get the poor countries to open up their markets (so that their companies can buy all the national resources) but hardly do anything in return. Some smart people in
What's the point of talking about big-c communism? That's like talking about big-l liberalism or big-r republicanism, or whatever. It's pointless to talk about the parties that claim to represent something when in fact they don't... Only thing worth discussing are ideologies...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How about socialist societies? How about anarchist?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You are SEVERLY underplaying the social situation. It IS bad. It is getting better but notwhere near where it should be. There might be a ton of food but it is not distributed well. What's the homeless rate in India? If there is food how come many of these homeless are hungry and dying? Why do cities have large slums?
:)
India may have been peaceful throughout the ages but with the Hindu fundamentalists are in power, it's becoming militaritic. India is not just developing weapons for itself, it is selling them to other countries, creating misery for others.
I'm not an Indian but I was born in a neighbour of it
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Britain is more liberal so it is to be expected that they would reveal more information. USA on the other hand is very conservative and tries to hide everything (yes, the Democratic Party is somewhat conservative too). USA hasn't implemented any liberal principles sine the Found Fathers (nearly all of them were radical liberals), and FDR (he was very leftish).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It's ironic that the declassified documents talk about US plan to seize Middle East oil. Just last year, some consultant was presenting a similar plan to DoD... Now that USA carried out an outright invasion, I guess no need for covert plans anymore...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
There is a place but it's run by a university (as opposed to the government): National Security Archive ...
Canada is even worse I think... although Canada hasn't done enough evil things for it to hide them...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
And how about these requests...
I think you should leave the cave that you are living in... it might do some good to be sceptical once in a while.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
USA does it too... but is much more secretive and the time period is longer I believe. The CIA also has a habit of destroying documents more so than other spy agencies (Iran-contra comes to mind).
You can get all US declassified documents at the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Can you find me the documents relating to the transfer of German Nazi criminals to USA after WWII? Can't find that anywhere...
How about several JFK documents (I'm not too sure about this)?
How about CIA involvement with Usama bin Laden in the 80's? Or is that too soon?
It's funny but YOU are probably more brainwashed by others who are sceptical...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm a leftist so I do not like right-wing stuff. Wall Street Journal is very right wing. If you are a right-winger it's a great paper. For business issues, Wall Street Journal is great (after all, the elite capitalists of USA write for it). I don't have a problem with business stuff.
But since I'm on the left, I do not support their right wing opinions (especially on social issues and foreign policy). WSJ is probably the most pro-war newspaper in all of North America. It was pretty much calling for the war in Iraq (long before the US govt started their propaganda campaign). And have now started calling for a war in Syria. Of course, the fact that neoconservatives write for the paper may have something to do with it.
As a side note, it is ironic that the most capitalist paper in North America is pro-war. Last I checked, capitalism is supposed to be pro-peace. 'Trade over war' as they say... obviously that principle doesn't apply to the capitalist elites.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It's hard to compare the two. One is a newspaper and the other is a magazine. Obviously, newspapers have higher circulation and cover different issues. However, when it comes to magazines, Forbes is a near the top IMO. Forbes is likely more influentical than Time, Newsweek, Sports Illustrated, or any other popular magazine (of course, I'm picking different areas but the point is influence over their target market).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm down on capitalism because I'm an anti-capitalist :) Capitalism is an elitist system where a few hoard resources (and hence wealth). That's not the type of society I want to create. If you are an elitist (and just so happens to be rich), it's a great system. But to me, it's not.
I don't really have a favourite per se, but one that I'm interested in is called parecon (participative economics). It is sort of a mix of socialism and anarchism.
Of course, few people actually understand what Capitalism actually is.
Actually it is easy to understand capitalism--far more easier than fascism, socialism, anarchism, communism, and others. It is easy to understand capitalism because it is the most dominant system. Even if you don't know much, you will run into it throughout your life. All you need to do is open your eyes. In addition, modern day economics is nothing more than capitalist economics. So anyone that takes economics knows what capitalism is all about. Lastly, if you don't know what capitalism is, you can always refer to the bastion of capitalism, or a good capitalist website like this.
Trust me, I know my arch-enemies: the capitalists. The question is do you know me?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Freedoms
First of all, everything you said about freedoms is totally irrelevant. When I said free, I am talking about free in an economic sense (i.e. costs zero). Humans rights make human free but that is something else. It has nothing to do with capitalism. Also, capitalism often acts against the interest of humans. In other words, capitalism and human rights conflict. A classic case is worker exploitation. It is perfectly ok to pay some minimal amount (less than 50 cents/hour) to some poor person, pretty much keeping them as serfs (like during the monarchy days). People like me claim that some minimum wage is a right. Capitalists don't think so.
Capitalism is not "natural"
I am a hard core capitolist. I beleive that capitolism works because it's natural. It's a proccess created by the very act of people interacting together in a free sociaty.
If that is so, why did capitalism only begin a few hundread years ago? You are wrong. Capitalism has nothing to do with nature. You have probably been brainwashed by the capitalist economists who claim it is so but I don't think so. How did people live before money was invented? Clearly you cannot have capitalism without money. And so on.
Also, perhaps most importantly, capitalism requires the enforcement of private property. You certainly cannot claim that capitalism is natural when private property has to be enforced. Even hardcore capitalists support a minimal government to enforce private property. That essentially means that it is not "natural". If it is based on nature, why need government enforcement at all? How would capitalism function if there were no government (like 3000 years ago)?
Capitalism has nothing to do with nature. It's just too bad that capitalist economists have manipulated supply&demand and justifed it using nature. There is nothing NATURAL; humans make up everything that we want. Capitalism is as ARTIFICIAL as socialism, communism, fascism, or anarchism are.
Free Software
Free software is a threat to capitalism because it is based on socialist ideals. People come together to create something for the "common good" for free. This is a threat. Doing something like that eliminates scarcity (to a large part). Once scarcity is eliminated, capitalism just collapses. All its theories and underpinnings are based on the notion of scarcity. If something is NOT scarce, its cost would be $0. Where would that be on the supply & demand curve? There wouldn't even be a market (for the most part).
In other words, Free Software eliminates the emphasis on profits. That is clearly at attack on the heart of capitalism.
(Having said this, I realize that Free Software doesn't mean a cost of zero. People can charge whatever they want. Nevertheless, the fact that scarcity is (almost) eliminated will lower the cost to close to zero. )
This act of creating a OS with a GPL liscence that's decidedly for freedom has benifited humanity on a scale several time more impressive then all the hippy anti-microsoft-anti-capitolism protests combined.
Acts that benefit humanity are not generally rewarded under capitalism. It's benefitital to humanity as a whole to have public libraries, public schools, public roads, etc. Yet capitalism calls for privatization of everything which will automatically place severe restrictions on what the lower classes can access.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If IBM pulls out, it will be a huge blow to GNU/Linux. Sure, it will still go on but there will be far less resources... Settling with SCO is pretty bad too. I mean, what does that mean? Does it mean SCO is right? Does it mean it can go after other companies (other than IBM)?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Happy New Year to you too...
Anyway, I'm unemployed now but yes I haved worked for corporations thoroughout my life. But what does that have to do with capitalism? There are basically two definitions of a capitalist. the Marxist view of a capitalist is someone who owns the MEANS OF PRODUCTION (not me). Or the other definition of capitalist is someone who supports capitalism (not me). You can hardly claim I am a capitalist by any stretch of your imagination.
Capitalism is the system that rules the earth. I am a slave to the capitalist overlords. So I work, live, and breathe under a capitalist system. But does that mean I am a capitalist? Nope! I do not support it but I partake in the system because I have no other choice.
I try not to support capitalism as much as I can. BUT since capitalists rule the earth, it is hard to avoid the system. For instance, banks (and other financial institutions) are the heart of capitalism. But it is very hard to keep money away from banks (for example). All your employers force you to deposit money in the banks (because it reduces costs for them). Similarly, the food I eat come from some multinational which abuses workers in some countries. I try to avoid the food from quesionable sources but it is kind of hard given that everyone does it. And so forth.
In any case, partaking in a system does not make you a supporter of it. The reason is because you are a slave to the system that is being practiced. For example, a few hundread years ago when slavery was common, abolitionists avoided owning slaves. Yet they benefitted from them. The slaves were the ones producing goods (particularly in agriculture) and even the abolitionists (who called for the overthrow of slavery) had to buy food that was produced by slaves. Does this make the abolitionist a slavery supporter? Not really. They are just forced to do it. It's VERY HARD to live in an independent life. The system is just too powerful and won't let you*.
Another example would be (say) 400 years ago with monarchy. There were a lot of intellectuals who did NOT support monarchy. They wanted to overthrow it. They were either republicans or democrats (not to be confused with the US politicial parties). These people wanted a government ruled by the people (or at worst, an intellectual elite like themselves). So they were against the system. However, they lived their whole lives utilizing the system. They had to do this because they had no other choice. The jobs these democrats had was funded by the monarch (the whole economy under monarchy is driven by the monarch), the products they consumed were created by the monarchs, and so on.
The point I'm trying to make is that partaking in a system does not make you a supporter of that system. Just like some Germans who were living under Nazism were NOT Nazis; and how people living in USSR were NOT Stalinists.
(* FOOTNOTE: To see what I mean by the system being too powerful, consider what happened to certain anarchist, communist and socialist (and other) communes that tried to disengage themselves from the capitalist system. They failed. The #1 reason is because the capitalists won't let you live freely. For example, anarchism (and many other alternative systems) require the abolishment of money (OR introduction of a new currency). Guess what? The goverment will put you in jail if you created your own currency. Why? Because a new currency is a threat to the existing system. There are many other problems like this)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not into Kevin Smith films. I don't really his stuff... However, I have been meaning to see Clerks for a while but when the opportunity came (was playing on tv), I wasn't in tthe mood. Anyway, I'm probably just like the guy you are talking about (haven't seen the film but based on your description it seems accurate). I am highly tolerant of sexuality but this has nothing to do with sex. It's just totally disgusting and serves no purpose whatsoever--or does it?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Your guess isn't exactly correct. I'm not in India; I'm in Canada (have been for over 10 years). I'm not even from India originally, although my ethnic group is similar and I'm from a country that is close to it.
:(
:)
In any case, this has nothing to do with American culture. I'm VERY liberatarian on these issues (although I'm not a liberatarian; I'm a socialist since I support the state). So things like sex, nudity, pornography, prostitution*, etc are ok. BUT this stuff is just unbelievable! When I say it is the worst thing I have seen in my WHOLE LIFE, I mean it. It is just so disgusting that I don't know what to make of it. Do people actualy ENJOY showing this? Man it's just so horrible...
(* I was government intervention when it comes to prostition though. )
Take my word, in a few years, you'll see an Indian Britney Spears take off all her clothes at age 16 just so that horny Indian males will buy her CD. Arranged marriages will be a thing of the past and you will have to fight for your own wife.
As I said, I'm not in India. Also, I'm not like typical South Asians who are conservative to some degree. I'm ok with women taking off their clothes. That's ok with me because it is their CHOICE. As long as people don't force someone to do stuff, I'm ok with it. Even though women in Western countries are more sexually exploited, they have more freedoms. They do things with their own will.
Arranged marriages? That is a sub-optimal solution and leads to abuse of women by men. Even though the high divorce rates in USA and Canada, for example, need to be lowered, at least people make their own choices--however wrong they are. Having said that, people like me would probably be better off with arranged marriages. In Canada or whatever, I don't think too many girls like people like me (who aren't good looking, have no money, don't have a good job, no fame, and to make matters worse a geek, who happens to be a socialist). Things just cannot get any worse for me
Anyway, I am not who I seem to be
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Capitalists are never wrong. Forbes is run by some of the top capitalists in the world.
If you assume that, you'll live a happier life...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't know any executives and have no idea how they spend their time. But are you sure these guys don't read business magazines and stuff? I think businesspeople DO read things like Forbes, Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek, The Economist, etc.
Those sources are where they get their ideas and strategies. Where do you think they get their strategies like downsizing, outsourcing, mergers & acquisitions, and so forth?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Anything that is free is a threat to capitalism. So the capitalists don't like to allow such things. Forbes, in particular, is run by capitalist elites.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yuck... That is the WORST THING I have EVER seen in my life!!! I feel like throwing up. I can't believe someone would take a picture of that, let alone disgust others with it... I think humans have reached a new low with that picture :(:(:(
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Star Trek universe is based on capitalism. Capitalism is inherently elitist so there will be lower classes in the future too (as long as the system exists). Lower classes are needed to service the higher classes--or else higher classes would cease to exist.
One can tell Star Trek is elitist and authoratarian by looking at how jobs are structured. Star Trek is very authoratarian (and similar to the military). The engineers are below the commanders, the doctors are at another level, and so forth. Clearly this is not egalitarian. One would hope that egalitarianism would have been reached by then and every job is treated equally (or with a job complex). Unfortunately, that's not true. Supposedly there are still inferior jobs paid less than others, with the commanders getting elite priviledges (like now under capitalism).
Another problem with Star Trek is that organization that rules humans: The Federation. The Federation resembles an imperialist (say modern day USA or past Britain) who forces everyone within their jurisdiction to their will. I hope such a thing never happens in our real life. The last thing we need are more bureacrats forcing people to do things--now on a galaxy level.
Sivaram Velauthapillai