China hasn't changed anything recently. Everything you said was true before, as is now. For instance, its alliance with Russia isn't something new. It was always like that and will likely reamin that way (since Russia is the main supplier of weapons to China).
China is the #1 long-term enemy of USA according to CIA reports. The reason China is not important to the US government right now is because it is isolationist. As long as China doesn't get in the way of US imperialism, it won't matter to USA. USA considers the axis of evil, Iran, and North Korea, along with the "minor" axis of evil Libya, Syria, and Cuba to be greater threats. These smaller countries pose greater threat to US empire building.
Can the world expect to see more nations launching unprovoked attacks on other nations, if Bush gets away with it?
Bush DID get away with it. This is nothing new. USA, as well as other large powers, have gotten away with illegal and immoral invasions. The only difference now is that the countries will make pre-emptive wars (also known as preventive wars) a part of their military strategy. In other words, they will publically admit to such a stance. In the past, no one publically said anything. Any sort of invasion was always under the banner of "freedom" or some other propgandist term.
Already, Isreal seems to have adopted such a policy. Their recent attack on Syria, which the US backed, is an indication of openness. Russia has also openly said they follow a pre-emptive war strategy. I expect Britain to formally adopt such a strategy soon, followed likely by several Asian nations.
I don't know why you are comparing USSR to USA. I never said USSR was better than USA. USSR was totalitarian and was horrible. It has nothing to do with what I support. The only aspect of USSR that I would compare is the ecnomics. Comparing the rest, like laws, politics, etc is pointless--USSR is not worthy of even consideration.
Uhm... NO. To change the US Constitution, you need to go through a complicated process that no one person could affect to a great degree. Even more so since the society is 50-50 divided between left and right wing.
Either you are a lawyer, or you are quite naiive. You are like every one of these ill-informed citizens who take the word of the govt. What you are saying is true but there is NO REASON why it cannot be changed. During "good times" what you are saying will be true: courts will behave properly, dictators won't have power, etc. HOWEVER, during "bad times", anything goes. Laws can be easily broken and changed to suit those in power. I will give you two good examples.
First example is Nazi Germany (especially before the war). Before the war, no one would have thought that Germany could become fascist and start carrying out genocide. As a matter of fact, it had one of the best legal systems in the WORLD. It had judges seperate from govt, had different branches of govt (kind of like USA), etc. But once the Nazis took over, they started rewriting all the rules. Very few people know this but many of the key actions of the Nazis (like stripping Jews of property, putting them in concentration camps, burning books, killing communists, etc) were LEGAL. Nazis did not break a single rule. Once you control the govt, you can start changing the laws. It's quite easy. Sure, USA has a lot of "checks and balances" but so does every other country. None of them mean anything during "bad times"--my second example shows why.
Even though USA has a constitution, it can be "ignored" during "bad times". The first point is freeing slaves after the Civil War. According to the US constitution, slaves were property (just like land or stone, or gold). The US constitution strongly protects individual property rights. AFter the Civil War, the slaverowners were forced to free their slaves even though that was against the Constitution. Don't get me wrong: I'm not a slave supporter! But this just shows how you can "sidestep" the Constitution whenver you want. Another situation was what happened with Japanese Americans during WWII. They were stripped of their property (only compensated well after WWII) and locked up in internment camps. Both of these actions are totally against US laws. Needless to say, they were ignored.
Don't ever worship the laws! They are written by the elites for the elites. The courts may seem independent, but they can always be manipulated (usually by stacking the Supreme Court with people who share you ideology). At worst, you can even threaten a judge's life to make them carry out something (hasn't happened in USA recently but very common in many parts of the world, including Italy).
The difference between US consititution (or any other that works) and USSR one (which, unlike you, I have read - in russian - and witnessed at "work" first hand) is the minor concept known as "checks and balances".
I don't know why you are brining USSR into this. USSR was a totalitarian government! None of its laws meant ANYTHING! It wouldn't surprise me if Stalin wrote 70% of them to suit himself. Under totalitarian regimes, courts, laws, and government are nothing more than an illusion. They are just there so that people could pretend they mattered, when in reality they didn't. In USSR, the KGB will snatch one when they wanted, and the courts will just let it happen.
It's too bad that a Soviet like you didn't realize that the whole notion of courts in USSR was bogus. All that mattered was what the Party said. The same thing applies to many parts of the world now. Courts and laws in countries like China, Kuwait, Sa
It doesn't matter if Western wages fall as long as the prices of goods fall even faster. And they are.
Can you back that up? I don't think prices have fallen more than wages over the long term in any country in modern history (not counting periods of wars, revolutions, etc).
Without doing any research, I think price of goods don't really fall that much over a sizeable period of time. Certain goods may fall but many won't. For example, technology product costs may have decreased a lot but these are a small component of a person's cost of living. The main costs are housing, food, and energy (heating & gasoline). None of these ever decrease. I'm guessing that a 50% increase in housing costs will put thousands of people on the street, and a 50% increase in energy costs will bankrupt economies and start wars.
I don't know how much I'm going to enjoy my new $5 70" plasma HDTV television with Blueray DVD player (built by 10 year old kids in Port Moresby being paid in fishing hooks) while living in a tent on public land.
If the capitalists have their way, they will privatize everything so you won't even find any land to live on. Besides, "homeless" people like you will likely be in jail, if not worse.
Are the workers slaves? Are they being forced to work? If the answer is no, then they are not being exploited, they are merely securing for themselves the best employment out of all of the available options.
By your definition, there is no such thing as exploitation of workers! If workers work, they are not exploited; if they don't work, they are not workers.
Exploitation has to do with what people (or society) perceives are immoral or wrong. Just because someone works in a field doesn't mean they are not exploited. For example, prostitutes suffer great harm (not all of them of course). They are constantly beaten up, raped, and so forth. Nevertheless, they still do it. I am guessing YOU would NOT consider them to be exploited, while most people (including the prostitutes themselves) consider themsleves exploited.
The key to moving in the direction of 100% free trade is in building an understanding among people (workers) that it always benefits them in the long run.
I just love capitalists and their logic. Let me just say it once: what you are saying does not benefit THE worker, although it may benefit A worker. Try to figure out what that means...
Example number three: Soviet Union had a very nice constitution. Very friendly. The problem was, that, like the other laws, it didn't have much power.
That was precisely my point. RIGHT NOW, some person could take over USA and start altering all the laws. In addition, it must be noted that the legal system is a tool of the elite to begin with.
Well, of course it won'y happen if people aren't poor.
Capitalism will ALWAYS have classes since it is an elitist system. There must always be someone at the bottom to do the "dirty work". Otherwise, how would the wealthy elites live?
I remember this survey that was done here (here = Estonia) some years ago. It turned out that an awful lot of people (maybe even half of them, I don't remember the exact numbers) though they were middle class, although in reality were struggling to get by (it was not too long after the breakup of the SU).
First of all, what the people think is irrelevant. I could take a poll and ask people if they favour peace over war and 99% of the earth's population will say so, even the hawks would say that.
In addition, you don't seem to understand the concept of classes. It is a RELATIVE term. It is based on the standard of living (and hence cost of living) for each country or region. A POOR person in USA is 100x (if not more) richer than a middle class person in China. A homeless person in USA can stand on the street corner and get $5 in a few hours. This is the daily--or even weekly--salary in many other parts of the world.
Should the "middle class" in America lose their wealth, I don't think they will start a revolution. They didn't do it in 1930's, when Communists were much stronger, it's even less probable they would do it now.
You are wrong there. It nearly happened in the early 1900's (during the depression). The communists were so close to taking over. What stopped them was Rosevolt(sp?; I think it was him??) who actually initiated a whole bunch of socialist policies. Passing these policies is what stopped the collapse of the US system. In fact, modern day conservatives are angry and can't get over that fact. USA is not a socialist country and has never had any socialist ideals. But whatever little socialist ideals it does have, came from that period.
I haven't made up my mind (I know, easy way out but that's not an excuse--I REALLY haven't made up my mind yet). I'm a cross between a socialist and an anarchist--if that even makes sense. The system that I like right now is called Parecon. Check it out.
I see that you are one of the last surviving pure Marxists. Marx makes a good read, I'll grant you.
I'm glad that you give Marx SOME credit:)
Because his theory makes assumptions and predictions, and the predictions haven't come true.
Modern economics, which is nothing more than capitalist economics, makes a lot of assumptions that aren't true either. As a matter of fact, modern economics is almost next to useless. So many of the assumptions are so wrong that you can't predict some of the key aspects of (capitalist) economics. Examples include inability to predict stock markets to any degree of accuracy (eg. prices are not what they are SUPPOSED to be), unable to explain certain recessions and deflations (eg. can't explain Japan; I also read that Milton Friedman, one of the Gods of capitalism, cannot seem to explain why Argentina is in the mess it is), inability to explain high compensation (eg. economists don't know why corporations pay large amounts to executives--I'm not making this up), etc. The (capitalist) economics that you worship is even worse than Marx's views. At least his views are 150 years old; yours are not even 50 years old and they are already false for the most part.
And since economics is the study of human behavior in the aggregate, that pretty well sinks the ship.
Since modern day economics is run by a bunch of fools and has very litle to do with SOCIAL SCIENCE, your comments are meaningless. For instance, modern-day economics does not price pollution or other environmental issues, it doesn't consider the impact on workers, etc.
As in, I want the bread for free and he wants all my money. The resolution we have is called a supply-demand curve, which is how a free market in anything sets prices.
The supply/demand curve is not a solution; it is simply a description of certain events. It is basic economics and have nothing to do with capitalism. A solution would involved ALTERING the supply/demand curves one way or another. In addition, the problem I mentioned has less to do with supply/demand and more to do with allocation of profits/benefits. For example, if the employees owned a corporation, it would solve SOME problems and would not impact the supply/demand stuff.
One of them tries to increase production to make more money. The other tries to increase production to satisfy his superiors and to get a promotion. Once you put a human with human motives in charge, they act the same.
There is a solution to that issue. Unfortunately, it wasn't achieved. What doomed Communism, along with totalitarian Stalinism, is that they never reached an egalitarian state. In other words, you HAD to have a society that was CLASSLESS. In practical terms, each person should have been paid similar wages (adjusting for a bunch of issues like transporation costs, difficulty, desirability, etc). The so-called Communists never got there. Instead of having an elistist society with many classes like capitalism, you ended up with two classes: Party members and non-Party members. You either belonged to the so-called Communist Party or you didn't. Those that did ended up receiving more benefits and power. This was the root problem with the Communism that were attempted. The Party members ended up abusing everyone except themselves. Hence, the so-called Communism wasn't egalitarian--a prerequisite for communism--and instead was an elistist system, no different than the capitalism, monarchy, or colonialism it tried to vanquish.
At least the factory owner won't run without maintenance and ruin all his machine tools 20 years early, like the socialist will. By then, it'll be someone else problem, right?
That is irrelevant and doesn't really mean much. Other people above have commented that this is true even under capitalism. I want to make another point. Capitalism still harms society but in the opposite of what you are saying. Under capitalism, people O
Before you get carried away with these predictions, remember that Marx himself made similar ones about upheaval and worker's revolution in Europe that have conspicuously failed to materialize.
Actually there are several reasons it didn't materialize as soon as he predicted. However, I think it WILL happen.
People in the US want Bill Gates' property to be secure to him because they want their own property to be secure to themselves, and of course also because the high financial and social mobility suggests to them that they may soon be wealthy too.
Actually that is not the reason. Most Americans don't have much property, and they certainly don't need the government protecting it for them. If anything, a huge chunk of Americans are armed simply to protect themselves. The real reason it hasn't happened yet is because of the strong middle class. It is my view that a revolution will only happen if the middle class is weak or does not exist. In other words, if the middle class in USA lose their wealth and become working class, working poor, or poor, as it is happening in Argentina, it will happen.
Democracy, when restricted in it's "tyranny of the majority" by a social compact like the US Constitution, is a freedom- and human-dignity-enhancing system of governance. It happily coexists with capitalism.
The constitution is a piece of document. A great document but nevertheless a document. It can be manipulated by those in power. Two good examples are stripping of property from Japanese Americans during WWII (totally anti-capitalist and against the Constitution), and freeing slaves after the Civil War (slaves=property and freeing them is anti-capitalist and illegal according to the Constitution).
Pure capitalism and pure democracy are contradictory. You just cannot have democracy under capitalism. The reason is because capitalism is elitist. A select few (often less than 15%) of the population control a huge chunk of the corporations, markets, and property. If you had true democracy, the majority (which is poorer) would overthrow the minority that hoards the wealth. I predict that you will see this conflict happen in at least 20 countries within our lifetime (you can start by observing Argentina and Venezuela)
If morality does not factor business decisions at some point then profits will drive the entire world into oblivion as they crash countless economies, burn up all our resources and pollute the planet until it is uninhabitable - all because of the bottom line.
That pretty much sums up the goal of capitalists...
Kuncinich is great. He was also one of only two (other being Dean) to speak against the Iraqi imperialist war. But the chance of Americans electing a progressive is the same as you being an alien. Ironically, Kuncinich is probably the one that will stick to his promises the closest, while others will lie and break all their promises. Yet he will be ignored...
USA has a trade deficit with practically every country on earth! If foreigners stop investing in USA, or if the demand for US dollar (aka petrol dollar) falls, watch out... To make matters worse, USA also has a $6trillion debt so I'm not sure how that's going to be repaid...
No, I'm not against USA; I am, however, against capiatalism:)
What China is doing is EXACTLY the same philosophy that USA has been following. Namely, preaching free-trade on one hand and carrying out nationalist protectionist policies. The countries that did not follow the US-style of capitalism are the biggest losers (eg. Latin America).
China tying their currency is perfectly ok. This is coming from capitalists such as the IMF.
If you think USA isn't doing anything wrong (from a capitalist point of view), consider the fact that USA subsidizes like crazy. Certain agricultural sectors in USA would be all bankrupt if they weren't subsidized.
So, overall, China IS leeching from USA. But at the same time, USA is leeching from many other countries. In some sense, capitalism can best be characterized by one country leeching and exploiting another. Unfortunately, the big countries all dominate while the little ones are severly hurt.
Can't we have lower prices, better pay, competition without losing our jobs?
Not under capitalism... Note: I'm speaking about the short-term (in the long-term it is possible for prices to be lowered while wages increase)
Why not?
Because competition will necessarily mean that wages are lowered to the minimum possible. So, as long as the VAST MAJORITY of the workers in the world are paid very little (i.e. less than $10/day), those will be the wages that are paid. The only reason wages are higher in the Western world is because of socialist, interventionist policies of the past. You remove all of those and the wages will plummet. For example, if you remove the minium wage in say USA, I am sure many companies will get away with paying a lot less.
The ultimate point in all this is, as Karl Marx once said, owners (capitalists) and workers (proletariat) have differing goals. The owners want to pay the LOWEST wages possible and make the employees work LONGER, while the employees want the HIGHEST wages and want to work LESS. This is a conflict that cannot be resolved under capitalism. As I mentioned before, socialist policies (like minimum wage, tariffs, subsidies, etc), along with nationalism, colonialism, and imperialism, are what kept wages high in the past.
What you are saying is wrong because the following flaw:
This is falacious reaoning. Most of these workers are taking the jobs because they are the best paying jobs available in their local economy...
Although it is true that these jobs in the developing countries are the best paying, that point is moot. Why? Because people will work, not just in those "high paying" jobs, but also in practically everything else. The crux of hte problem is that the majority of the workers in the world are underpaid and exploited. You can literally go to any one of a hundread countries and find workers to do WHATEVER you want.
That's why I find it interesting that capitalists are all in favour of a global (capitalist) economy. But they never explain what is going to happen. I claim that Western wages will have to be dragged down significantly but capitalists don't think so...
BTW, you are wrong in saying that you can't oppose a global economy. There is no such thing as a global economy. It is a bogus concept cooked up by neo-liberal economists. If free-trade agreements fail, that's the end of the global economy. Also, you will never truly have a global economy because countries will always value themselves--their sovereignty--more than a global economy. This isn't happening right now but it will once things get a little bit worse. How much do you want to bet that traditional conservatives (like Pat Buchanan, who are nationalists) will gain power at the expense of neoconservatives (who are mostly neo-liberal economists and are against US protectionism)?
Actually, Chomsky is an authority on linguistics. Outside of this field, he lies about everything in an effort to promote fascism, or even anti-semitism.
I find it funny how you guys always revert to the anti-Semite argument. Anyone critical of Isreal is out there to kill all Jews huh?
The USSR was socialist and fascist, as was Nazi Germany.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Fascism and socialism are distinct systems. They don't even get along.
Socialism (i.e fascism) on top of capitalism is no capitalism at all: if the elites control it all, how can their be economic freedom?
This statement pretty much solidies your lack of knowledge on this matter (since you equate socialism with fascism). In any case, to answer you question, you can practise fascism on top of capitalism because fascism deals with politics only--it does not go into economics. Socialism, on the other hand, deals with both politics and economics. Since capitalism is an economic system, you can't practice socialism with it (they have contradictory ideologies when it comes to economics). You can easily practice fascism with capitalism. Fascists and anyone belonging to their ideology, which is pretty much everyone since others are killed off, are free to do whatever they want on the economic side. Their freedoms are only limited in politics.
Nazi Germany, for example, was pretty much run by private entrepreneurs, and other private businesses. There was very little centralization of the economy. What WAS centralized was the political elements. So, if you spoke against the government, you could be jailed; but if you just happily ran your business without getting into politics, you were perfectly fine.
"Class war" only exists where it is promoted by bigots and other ignorant folk.
Really? They should give you a Nobel Prize for that discovery;)
To a much lesser degree than socialism.
Less than Stalinism, yes...
It did. For thousands of years. Any time you found merchants or traders who were able to trade for the actual value of things with little harassment by greedy government elites. It goes back to prehistory.
Only YOU must be following that definition of capitalism. Even capitalists themselves do not consider capitalism to have existed more than a few hundread years ago. You also seem to mix up trade and capitalism. Trade is not the same thing as capitalism--or did you not know that before?
...it should be possible to build a computer that thinks like a human without copying one particular human.
Doing so would be nothing more than creating a human! For instance, if a automaton behaved, thought, and acted exactly like humans, they are humans in my eyes--are they not?
I don't call that "free will". I call that "the illusion of free will".
There is no illusion here at all. I think we are arguing semantics. If a human--or any other being--is non-deterministic, it has free will. That's pretty much the definition...
BTW, you might consider that humans aren't that great at choosing a random number either. Ask someone to pick a number between 1 and 10 and the first thing that pops into their head is usually 7.
lol not in mine;) Anyway, we are fairly random. By the way, by random I do not mean that the outcomes have equal probability. For instance, if humans random numbers are skewed towards '7', it can still be random.
Capitalism is anti-elitist, especially compared to to socialism which grants almost divine powers to elites.
I guess you mean stalinism when you say socialism. If yes, then I agree. In fact, stalinism is one of the most elitist systems (it's very close to pure totalitarianism). However, it still doesn't deflect the blame with capitalism. Capitalism, regardless of how you look at it, is inherently elitist. A system that allows a select few to hoard wealth (and consequently power) is elitst!
No, under a system of freedom, peoeple are able to evaluate things for their real value.
Elitism has nothing to do with the notion of "freedom". You could be quite free yet be living in an elitist system. For instance, you may have the right to start a business, sell/buy whatever, but monopolies and oligopolies could rule every aspect of your life. You would be very "free" but it will still be elitist.
Is that why socialist regimes like to execute farmers by the tens of millions in engineered famines?
Stalinist regimes do that because they are totalitarian. It is done in order to destroy the dissenting voices. Killing people is the quickest way to eliminate people that challenge your power. Totalitarians do that all the time...
I wrote up a long message yesteday but ran into the 25-post limit:( I'll keep it brief. You dont' address any of my points. I'm talking about the VALUE of an activity or good. I'm not saying that people should all work in farming or that the US population should be more involved in it. All I'm saying is that when a necessity, like food, is valued so little compared to luxury goods, it questions the value system of society. Of course a capitalist will claim the nature of scarcity and revert ot arguments that you put forth (oversupply, etc). But, capitalism itself claims that oversupply shouldn't exist.
BTW, there was a typo in my original post. I think the word 'not' is missing...
I still disagree with you. Human intelligence is NOT a program of if's and else's. You may end up modelling it at such, but the fact of the matter is that you will never duplicate the brain that way. This is mostly because of randomness.
The modern computers that learn are very primitive and I don't think anyone seriously considers them to be learning.
BTW, were you the guy who posted that racist remark above?
Yes those things exist but it still doesn't change anything I said about learning. Consider your comment "...we also have a predisposition for speech, which is why we have such complex vocal apparatus." Note that there was a time when speech was very rudimentary. I doubt if we even spoke any "complicated" language 10000 years ago. We evolved, learned, and developed NEW speech. Similarly, humans didn't even write 5000 years ago. There are probably 500 written languages now but very few of them even existed 2000 years ago. What does this say? We LEARN NEW things--something automatons, like computers, haven't shown that they can do...
I don't understand your logic. Why do you say that we would have died off, and the DNA wouldn't have existed if randomness did exist?
In fact, I would argue that life exists PRECISELY because of the randomness. The probability of life is so slim that the chances of finding another lifeform in the millions of other planets is very small. The only reason we--and all organisms--exist is because of some random result.
As far as DNA and complex molecules are concerned, I don't see a problem. Yes, randomness will try to alter it but inheritence (such as theory of natural selection and evolution) mean that there is no problem here.
I think the key point that you are overlooking is that randomness does not mean that the probability of an outcome is very high. The probability distributions are skewed in favour of certain outcomes. For instance, the probability of a coin ending up as head or tail is very high but the probability of it ending up on its side (which it can) is tiny.
Slashdot Mirror
China hasn't changed anything recently. Everything you said was true before, as is now. For instance, its alliance with Russia isn't something new. It was always like that and will likely reamin that way (since Russia is the main supplier of weapons to China).
China is the #1 long-term enemy of USA according to CIA reports. The reason China is not important to the US government right now is because it is isolationist. As long as China doesn't get in the way of US imperialism, it won't matter to USA. USA considers the axis of evil, Iran, and North Korea, along with the "minor" axis of evil Libya, Syria, and Cuba to be greater threats. These smaller countries pose greater threat to US empire building.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Can the world expect to see more nations launching unprovoked attacks on other nations, if Bush gets away with it?
Bush DID get away with it. This is nothing new. USA, as well as other large powers, have gotten away with illegal and immoral invasions. The only difference now is that the countries will make pre-emptive wars (also known as preventive wars) a part of their military strategy. In other words, they will publically admit to such a stance. In the past, no one publically said anything. Any sort of invasion was always under the banner of "freedom" or some other propgandist term.
Already, Isreal seems to have adopted such a policy. Their recent attack on Syria, which the US backed, is an indication of openness. Russia has also openly said they follow a pre-emptive war strategy. I expect Britain to formally adopt such a strategy soon, followed likely by several Asian nations.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't know why you are comparing USSR to USA. I never said USSR was better than USA. USSR was totalitarian and was horrible. It has nothing to do with what I support. The only aspect of USSR that I would compare is the ecnomics. Comparing the rest, like laws, politics, etc is pointless--USSR is not worthy of even consideration.
Uhm... NO. To change the US Constitution, you need to go through a complicated process that no one person could affect to a great degree. Even more so since the society is 50-50 divided between left and right wing.
Either you are a lawyer, or you are quite naiive. You are like every one of these ill-informed citizens who take the word of the govt. What you are saying is true but there is NO REASON why it cannot be changed. During "good times" what you are saying will be true: courts will behave properly, dictators won't have power, etc. HOWEVER, during "bad times", anything goes. Laws can be easily broken and changed to suit those in power. I will give you two good examples.
First example is Nazi Germany (especially before the war). Before the war, no one would have thought that Germany could become fascist and start carrying out genocide. As a matter of fact, it had one of the best legal systems in the WORLD. It had judges seperate from govt, had different branches of govt (kind of like USA), etc. But once the Nazis took over, they started rewriting all the rules. Very few people know this but many of the key actions of the Nazis (like stripping Jews of property, putting them in concentration camps, burning books, killing communists, etc) were LEGAL. Nazis did not break a single rule. Once you control the govt, you can start changing the laws. It's quite easy. Sure, USA has a lot of "checks and balances" but so does every other country. None of them mean anything during "bad times"--my second example shows why.
Even though USA has a constitution, it can be "ignored" during "bad times". The first point is freeing slaves after the Civil War. According to the US constitution, slaves were property (just like land or stone, or gold). The US constitution strongly protects individual property rights. AFter the Civil War, the slaverowners were forced to free their slaves even though that was against the Constitution. Don't get me wrong: I'm not a slave supporter! But this just shows how you can "sidestep" the Constitution whenver you want. Another situation was what happened with Japanese Americans during WWII. They were stripped of their property (only compensated well after WWII) and locked up in internment camps. Both of these actions are totally against US laws. Needless to say, they were ignored.
Don't ever worship the laws! They are written by the elites for the elites. The courts may seem independent, but they can always be manipulated (usually by stacking the Supreme Court with people who share you ideology). At worst, you can even threaten a judge's life to make them carry out something (hasn't happened in USA recently but very common in many parts of the world, including Italy).
The difference between US consititution (or any other that works) and USSR one (which, unlike you, I have read - in russian - and witnessed at "work" first hand) is the minor concept known as "checks and balances".
I don't know why you are brining USSR into this. USSR was a totalitarian government! None of its laws meant ANYTHING! It wouldn't surprise me if Stalin wrote 70% of them to suit himself. Under totalitarian regimes, courts, laws, and government are nothing more than an illusion. They are just there so that people could pretend they mattered, when in reality they didn't. In USSR, the KGB will snatch one when they wanted, and the courts will just let it happen.
It's too bad that a Soviet like you didn't realize that the whole notion of courts in USSR was bogus. All that mattered was what the Party said. The same thing applies to many parts of the world now. Courts and laws in countries like China, Kuwait, Sa
It doesn't matter if Western wages fall as long as the prices of goods fall even faster. And they are.
Can you back that up? I don't think prices have fallen more than wages over the long term in any country in modern history (not counting periods of wars, revolutions, etc).
Without doing any research, I think price of goods don't really fall that much over a sizeable period of time. Certain goods may fall but many won't. For example, technology product costs may have decreased a lot but these are a small component of a person's cost of living. The main costs are housing, food, and energy (heating & gasoline). None of these ever decrease. I'm guessing that a 50% increase in housing costs will put thousands of people on the street, and a 50% increase in energy costs will bankrupt economies and start wars.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't know how much I'm going to enjoy my new $5 70" plasma HDTV television with Blueray DVD player (built by 10 year old kids in Port Moresby being paid in fishing hooks) while living in a tent on public land.
If the capitalists have their way, they will privatize everything so you won't even find any land to live on. Besides, "homeless" people like you will likely be in jail, if not worse.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Are the workers slaves? Are they being forced to work? If the answer is no, then they are not being exploited, they are merely securing for themselves the best employment out of all of the available options.
By your definition, there is no such thing as exploitation of workers! If workers work, they are not exploited; if they don't work, they are not workers.
Exploitation has to do with what people (or society) perceives are immoral or wrong. Just because someone works in a field doesn't mean they are not exploited. For example, prostitutes suffer great harm (not all of them of course). They are constantly beaten up, raped, and so forth. Nevertheless, they still do it. I am guessing YOU would NOT consider them to be exploited, while most people (including the prostitutes themselves) consider themsleves exploited.
The key to moving in the direction of 100% free trade is in building an understanding among people (workers) that it always benefits them in the long run.
I just love capitalists and their logic. Let me just say it once: what you are saying does not benefit THE worker, although it may benefit A worker. Try to figure out what that means...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Example number three: Soviet Union had a very nice constitution. Very friendly. The problem was, that, like the other laws, it didn't have much power.
That was precisely my point. RIGHT NOW, some person could take over USA and start altering all the laws. In addition, it must be noted that the legal system is a tool of the elite to begin with.
Well, of course it won'y happen if people aren't poor.
Capitalism will ALWAYS have classes since it is an elitist system. There must always be someone at the bottom to do the "dirty work". Otherwise, how would the wealthy elites live?
I remember this survey that was done here (here = Estonia) some years ago. It turned out that an awful lot of people (maybe even half of them, I don't remember the exact numbers) though they were middle class, although in reality were struggling to get by (it was not too long after the breakup of the SU).
First of all, what the people think is irrelevant. I could take a poll and ask people if they favour peace over war and 99% of the earth's population will say so, even the hawks would say that.
In addition, you don't seem to understand the concept of classes. It is a RELATIVE term. It is based on the standard of living (and hence cost of living) for each country or region. A POOR person in USA is 100x (if not more) richer than a middle class person in China. A homeless person in USA can stand on the street corner and get $5 in a few hours. This is the daily--or even weekly--salary in many other parts of the world.
Should the "middle class" in America lose their wealth, I don't think they will start a revolution. They didn't do it in 1930's, when Communists were much stronger, it's even less probable they would do it now.
You are wrong there. It nearly happened in the early 1900's (during the depression). The communists were so close to taking over. What stopped them was Rosevolt(sp?; I think it was him??) who actually initiated a whole bunch of socialist policies. Passing these policies is what stopped the collapse of the US system. In fact, modern day conservatives are angry and can't get over that fact. USA is not a socialist country and has never had any socialist ideals. But whatever little socialist ideals it does have, came from that period.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I haven't made up my mind (I know, easy way out but that's not an excuse--I REALLY haven't made up my mind yet). I'm a cross between a socialist and an anarchist--if that even makes sense. The system that I like right now is called Parecon. Check it out.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I see that you are one of the last surviving pure Marxists. Marx makes a good read, I'll grant you.
:)
I'm glad that you give Marx SOME credit
Because his theory makes assumptions and predictions, and the predictions haven't come true.
Modern economics, which is nothing more than capitalist economics, makes a lot of assumptions that aren't true either. As a matter of fact, modern economics is almost next to useless. So many of the assumptions are so wrong that you can't predict some of the key aspects of (capitalist) economics. Examples include inability to predict stock markets to any degree of accuracy (eg. prices are not what they are SUPPOSED to be), unable to explain certain recessions and deflations (eg. can't explain Japan; I also read that Milton Friedman, one of the Gods of capitalism, cannot seem to explain why Argentina is in the mess it is), inability to explain high compensation (eg. economists don't know why corporations pay large amounts to executives--I'm not making this up), etc. The (capitalist) economics that you worship is even worse than Marx's views. At least his views are 150 years old; yours are not even 50 years old and they are already false for the most part.
And since economics is the study of human behavior in the aggregate, that pretty well sinks the ship.
Since modern day economics is run by a bunch of fools and has very litle to do with SOCIAL SCIENCE, your comments are meaningless. For instance, modern-day economics does not price pollution or other environmental issues, it doesn't consider the impact on workers, etc.
As in, I want the bread for free and he wants all my money. The resolution we have is called a supply-demand curve, which is how a free market in anything sets prices.
The supply/demand curve is not a solution; it is simply a description of certain events. It is basic economics and have nothing to do with capitalism. A solution would involved ALTERING the supply/demand curves one way or another. In addition, the problem I mentioned has less to do with supply/demand and more to do with allocation of profits/benefits. For example, if the employees owned a corporation, it would solve SOME problems and would not impact the supply/demand stuff.
One of them tries to increase production to make more money. The other tries to increase production to satisfy his superiors and to get a promotion. Once you put a human with human motives in charge, they act the same.
There is a solution to that issue. Unfortunately, it wasn't achieved. What doomed Communism, along with totalitarian Stalinism, is that they never reached an egalitarian state. In other words, you HAD to have a society that was CLASSLESS. In practical terms, each person should have been paid similar wages (adjusting for a bunch of issues like transporation costs, difficulty, desirability, etc). The so-called Communists never got there. Instead of having an elistist society with many classes like capitalism, you ended up with two classes: Party members and non-Party members. You either belonged to the so-called Communist Party or you didn't. Those that did ended up receiving more benefits and power. This was the root problem with the Communism that were attempted. The Party members ended up abusing everyone except themselves. Hence, the so-called Communism wasn't egalitarian--a prerequisite for communism--and instead was an elistist system, no different than the capitalism, monarchy, or colonialism it tried to vanquish.
At least the factory owner won't run without maintenance and ruin all his machine tools 20 years early, like the socialist will. By then, it'll be someone else problem, right?
That is irrelevant and doesn't really mean much. Other people above have commented that this is true even under capitalism. I want to make another point. Capitalism still harms society but in the opposite of what you are saying. Under capitalism, people O
Before you get carried away with these predictions, remember that Marx himself made similar ones about upheaval and worker's revolution in Europe that have conspicuously failed to materialize.
Actually there are several reasons it didn't materialize as soon as he predicted. However, I think it WILL happen.
People in the US want Bill Gates' property to be secure to him because they want their own property to be secure to themselves, and of course also because the high financial and social mobility suggests to them that they may soon be wealthy too.
Actually that is not the reason. Most Americans don't have much property, and they certainly don't need the government protecting it for them. If anything, a huge chunk of Americans are armed simply to protect themselves. The real reason it hasn't happened yet is because of the strong middle class. It is my view that a revolution will only happen if the middle class is weak or does not exist. In other words, if the middle class in USA lose their wealth and become working class, working poor, or poor, as it is happening in Argentina, it will happen.
Democracy, when restricted in it's "tyranny of the majority" by a social compact like the US Constitution, is a freedom- and human-dignity-enhancing system of governance. It happily coexists with capitalism.
The constitution is a piece of document. A great document but nevertheless a document. It can be manipulated by those in power. Two good examples are stripping of property from Japanese Americans during WWII (totally anti-capitalist and against the Constitution), and freeing slaves after the Civil War (slaves=property and freeing them is anti-capitalist and illegal according to the Constitution).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Pure capitalism and pure democracy are contradictory. You just cannot have democracy under capitalism. The reason is because capitalism is elitist. A select few (often less than 15%) of the population control a huge chunk of the corporations, markets, and property. If you had true democracy, the majority (which is poorer) would overthrow the minority that hoards the wealth. I predict that you will see this conflict happen in at least 20 countries within our lifetime (you can start by observing Argentina and Venezuela)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If morality does not factor business decisions at some point then profits will drive the entire world into oblivion as they crash countless economies, burn up all our resources and pollute the planet until it is uninhabitable - all because of the bottom line.
That pretty much sums up the goal of capitalists...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Kuncinich is great. He was also one of only two (other being Dean) to speak against the Iraqi imperialist war. But the chance of Americans electing a progressive is the same as you being an alien. Ironically, Kuncinich is probably the one that will stick to his promises the closest, while others will lie and break all their promises. Yet he will be ignored...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
USA has a trade deficit with practically every country on earth! If foreigners stop investing in USA, or if the demand for US dollar (aka petrol dollar) falls, watch out... To make matters worse, USA also has a $6trillion debt so I'm not sure how that's going to be repaid...
:)
No, I'm not against USA; I am, however, against capiatalism
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What China is doing is EXACTLY the same philosophy that USA has been following. Namely, preaching free-trade on one hand and carrying out nationalist protectionist policies. The countries that did not follow the US-style of capitalism are the biggest losers (eg. Latin America).
China tying their currency is perfectly ok. This is coming from capitalists such as the IMF.
If you think USA isn't doing anything wrong (from a capitalist point of view), consider the fact that USA subsidizes like crazy. Certain agricultural sectors in USA would be all bankrupt if they weren't subsidized.
So, overall, China IS leeching from USA. But at the same time, USA is leeching from many other countries. In some sense, capitalism can best be characterized by one country leeching and exploiting another. Unfortunately, the big countries all dominate while the little ones are severly hurt.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Can't we have lower prices, better pay, competition without losing our jobs?
Not under capitalism... Note: I'm speaking about the short-term (in the long-term it is possible for prices to be lowered while wages increase)
Why not?
Because competition will necessarily mean that wages are lowered to the minimum possible. So, as long as the VAST MAJORITY of the workers in the world are paid very little (i.e. less than $10/day), those will be the wages that are paid. The only reason wages are higher in the Western world is because of socialist, interventionist policies of the past. You remove all of those and the wages will plummet. For example, if you remove the minium wage in say USA, I am sure many companies will get away with paying a lot less.
The ultimate point in all this is, as Karl Marx once said, owners (capitalists) and workers (proletariat) have differing goals. The owners want to pay the LOWEST wages possible and make the employees work LONGER, while the employees want the HIGHEST wages and want to work LESS. This is a conflict that cannot be resolved under capitalism. As I mentioned before, socialist policies (like minimum wage, tariffs, subsidies, etc), along with nationalism, colonialism, and imperialism, are what kept wages high in the past.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What you are saying is wrong because the following flaw:
This is falacious reaoning. Most of these workers are taking the jobs because they are the best paying jobs available in their local economy...
Although it is true that these jobs in the developing countries are the best paying, that point is moot. Why? Because people will work, not just in those "high paying" jobs, but also in practically everything else. The crux of hte problem is that the majority of the workers in the world are underpaid and exploited. You can literally go to any one of a hundread countries and find workers to do WHATEVER you want.
That's why I find it interesting that capitalists are all in favour of a global (capitalist) economy. But they never explain what is going to happen. I claim that Western wages will have to be dragged down significantly but capitalists don't think so...
BTW, you are wrong in saying that you can't oppose a global economy. There is no such thing as a global economy. It is a bogus concept cooked up by neo-liberal economists. If free-trade agreements fail, that's the end of the global economy. Also, you will never truly have a global economy because countries will always value themselves--their sovereignty--more than a global economy. This isn't happening right now but it will once things get a little bit worse. How much do you want to bet that traditional conservatives (like Pat Buchanan, who are nationalists) will gain power at the expense of neoconservatives (who are mostly neo-liberal economists and are against US protectionism)?
RAM
Actually, Chomsky is an authority on linguistics. Outside of this field, he lies about everything in an effort to promote fascism, or even anti-semitism.
;)
I find it funny how you guys always revert to the anti-Semite argument. Anyone critical of Isreal is out there to kill all Jews huh?
The USSR was socialist and fascist, as was Nazi Germany.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Fascism and socialism are distinct systems. They don't even get along.
Socialism (i.e fascism) on top of capitalism is no capitalism at all: if the elites control it all, how can their be economic freedom?
This statement pretty much solidies your lack of knowledge on this matter (since you equate socialism with fascism). In any case, to answer you question, you can practise fascism on top of capitalism because fascism deals with politics only--it does not go into economics. Socialism, on the other hand, deals with both politics and economics. Since capitalism is an economic system, you can't practice socialism with it (they have contradictory ideologies when it comes to economics). You can easily practice fascism with capitalism. Fascists and anyone belonging to their ideology, which is pretty much everyone since others are killed off, are free to do whatever they want on the economic side. Their freedoms are only limited in politics.
Nazi Germany, for example, was pretty much run by private entrepreneurs, and other private businesses. There was very little centralization of the economy. What WAS centralized was the political elements. So, if you spoke against the government, you could be jailed; but if you just happily ran your business without getting into politics, you were perfectly fine.
"Class war" only exists where it is promoted by bigots and other ignorant folk.
Really? They should give you a Nobel Prize for that discovery
To a much lesser degree than socialism.
Less than Stalinism, yes...
It did. For thousands of years. Any time you found merchants or traders who were able to trade for the actual value of things with little harassment by greedy government elites. It goes back to prehistory.
Only YOU must be following that definition of capitalism. Even capitalists themselves do not consider capitalism to have existed more than a few hundread years ago. You also seem to mix up trade and capitalism. Trade is not the same thing as capitalism--or did you not know that before?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
...it should be possible to build a computer that thinks like a human without copying one particular human.
;) Anyway, we are fairly random. By the way, by random I do not mean that the outcomes have equal probability. For instance, if humans random numbers are skewed towards '7', it can still be random.
Doing so would be nothing more than creating a human! For instance, if a automaton behaved, thought, and acted exactly like humans, they are humans in my eyes--are they not?
I don't call that "free will". I call that "the illusion of free will".
There is no illusion here at all. I think we are arguing semantics. If a human--or any other being--is non-deterministic, it has free will. That's pretty much the definition...
BTW, you might consider that humans aren't that great at choosing a random number either. Ask someone to pick a number between 1 and 10 and the first thing that pops into their head is usually 7.
lol not in mine
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The US has not engaged in any acts of imperialism since before WW2. Before then, there were plenty of imperialist adventures.
Clearly you have no idea what imperialism is... The present war in Iraq, for example, is nothing more than imperialist action.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Capitalism is anti-elitist, especially compared to to socialism which grants almost divine powers to elites.
I guess you mean stalinism when you say socialism. If yes, then I agree. In fact, stalinism is one of the most elitist systems (it's very close to pure totalitarianism). However, it still doesn't deflect the blame with capitalism. Capitalism, regardless of how you look at it, is inherently elitist. A system that allows a select few to hoard wealth (and consequently power) is elitst!
No, under a system of freedom, peoeple are able to evaluate things for their real value.
Elitism has nothing to do with the notion of "freedom". You could be quite free yet be living in an elitist system. For instance, you may have the right to start a business, sell/buy whatever, but monopolies and oligopolies could rule every aspect of your life. You would be very "free" but it will still be elitist.
Is that why socialist regimes like to execute farmers by the tens of millions in engineered famines?
Stalinist regimes do that because they are totalitarian. It is done in order to destroy the dissenting voices. Killing people is the quickest way to eliminate people that challenge your power. Totalitarians do that all the time...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I wrote up a long message yesteday but ran into the 25-post limit :( I'll keep it brief. You dont' address any of my points. I'm talking about the VALUE of an activity or good. I'm not saying that people should all work in farming or that the US population should be more involved in it. All I'm saying is that when a necessity, like food, is valued so little compared to luxury goods, it questions the value system of society. Of course a capitalist will claim the nature of scarcity and revert ot arguments that you put forth (oversupply, etc). But, capitalism itself claims that oversupply shouldn't exist.
BTW, there was a typo in my original post. I think the word 'not' is missing...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I still disagree with you. Human intelligence is NOT a program of if's and else's. You may end up modelling it at such, but the fact of the matter is that you will never duplicate the brain that way. This is mostly because of randomness.
The modern computers that learn are very primitive and I don't think anyone seriously considers them to be learning.
BTW, were you the guy who posted that racist remark above?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yes those things exist but it still doesn't change anything I said about learning. Consider your comment "...we also have a predisposition for speech, which is why we have such complex vocal apparatus." Note that there was a time when speech was very rudimentary. I doubt if we even spoke any "complicated" language 10000 years ago. We evolved, learned, and developed NEW speech. Similarly, humans didn't even write 5000 years ago. There are probably 500 written languages now but very few of them even existed 2000 years ago. What does this say? We LEARN NEW things--something automatons, like computers, haven't shown that they can do...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't understand your logic. Why do you say that we would have died off, and the DNA wouldn't have existed if randomness did exist?
In fact, I would argue that life exists PRECISELY because of the randomness. The probability of life is so slim that the chances of finding another lifeform in the millions of other planets is very small. The only reason we--and all organisms--exist is because of some random result.
As far as DNA and complex molecules are concerned, I don't see a problem. Yes, randomness will try to alter it but inheritence (such as theory of natural selection and evolution) mean that there is no problem here.
I think the key point that you are overlooking is that randomness does not mean that the probability of an outcome is very high. The probability distributions are skewed in favour of certain outcomes. For instance, the probability of a coin ending up as head or tail is very high but the probability of it ending up on its side (which it can) is tiny.
Sivaram Velauthapillai