Which is why real Communism will not be derived from top-down bureaucratic management like in the Soviet bloc. Lenin explicitly defied Marx with his Vanguard Party. I don't pretend a Marxist revolution will work, but calling what the Soviets did Communism is disingenuous to the very idea. Calling it Socialism misunderstands the ideology. Power structures were changed from Tsarist Russia to the USSR, but they were not weaken as is the principal tenet of Socialism. I would suggest that it was progress in a horrendously backward section of the world. So I personally do take some comfort, though I loathe what they did to the much more advanced areas of East Germany, Hungary, the Baltic states, and Czechoslovakia.
It is possible to unite under specific cause and have working together as a central component of self-interest. It is not obvious how to move from where we are to that system though. That is the missing component. In reality, that component could have such a massive cost (ubiquitous resources, modified human physiology) that it is truly impractical in the foreseeable future. Do not count it out because people in a completely different system act in a completely different way. That is a dim view of humanity that ignores vast historical and current socio-economic structures throughout the world where people do not act as they do in our system.
Your attitude is what makes you a loser. I don't use quotes. It's not a snide remark. It is the term I have always applied to those who will never be satisfied. You can strive for more while still being satisfied with what you have. That is the mark of a winner.
Adam Smith's capitalism sure. Few supporters of the free-market understand that Adam Smith did not ascribe markets their own force. He understood that force (the invisible hand) is the sum of irrational and random human behavior. Free market supporters are of the belief that markets are themselves a force and that people must act a certain way (ie rational) to participate. They do not allow for people being people, unless those people happen to have wealth.
Christianity that resembles neither Catholicism (power structures), American Evangelicalism (anonymous institutions), nor Mainline Protestantism (divided interpretations of the Bible and thus immediate cultural division). The theology absolutely meshes with Communism. The cultures do not.
I would use the words imbalanced power structure that creates classes. That's the problem with Communism. The equation keeps going long after Communism was already destroyed. As soon as one person has more say, there is no communism. Greed is hardly the biggest flaw, it's just one that libertarians seem to think they turn into a positive and so showcases the benefits of pure capitalism. No, it's much more basic than the possibility of a deadly sin corrupting institutions. It is the basic institution of the family and human growth that creates power structures. These power structures are of course necessary when a child is 5. At what point do they magically evaporate and we are completely equal?
You have not thought a lot of this out well. You seem to want to apply capitalism even though it explicitly does not exist. My understanding is that workers join the company on a temporary basis. They then build up their ownership of the company and at some point reach tenure when they become a full employee and partial owner in the company. A well established business using this model will have strong credit, so no worry there. No need for initial capital, but you would have to accept lower pay while building your ownership. This does counter a fluid job market. I don't find that a bad.
Profit motive is not greed. You are diluting the use of that word. Greed is a bad thing, always. It does not aid in any overall system. Greed greats monopolies, abuses market and political power, squeezes employees without choice, hires less capable but more obedient employees, etc etc. These hinder our economy and lead away from a truly capitalist system as market rules change to accommodate the most powerful actors.
Greed destroys capitalism as much as it destroys any other functional economic model.
The most annoying problem I have with Libertarians is that they make exactly the same mistake Marx and the rest of 19th century economists did. They thought we were rational actors who could see the steps necessary for a better future. So do the libertarians. For some reason it's correct when libertarians say we're rational, but then insist Marxists do not understand human nature. Just more and more religious zealotry and the pot calling the kettle black.
Their philosophies are hardly trivial. No philosopher has created the perfect system. Reading philosophies from another gives an individual an incredible understanding of how people thought of themselves in that era. It is obvious that people categorized themselves into rational, enlightened actors and irrational, closed-mind peons. How they handled these groups depends greatly on the philosopher and much intelligent thought can be gleaned. Reading them can also shed light on the mistakes we continue to make today. Often we see someone else do something and think "how stupid". We then turn around and make exactly the same mistake in a completely different context without drawing the parallel. Reading philosophy from this era engages our mind to see the mistakes of the past, link them with the mistakes of the present, and better understand how to prepare for the future.
Capitalism itself does not create an environment where we can all pursue happiness. That is why government intervention is necessary. Pure capitalism leads to feudalism. It is unsustainable without checks and balances. That's where socialism helps. Capitalism and socialism can and do co-exist. And when religion is removed from the equation (eg capitalism good, socialism bad mindset) and they are implemented by a government as complimentary components of the economy, we will all be able to pursue happiness.
Also, pretending that "markets" are something other than large groups of irrational, unequal actors with different goals (they are known as humans) is just wrong. The markets do not "correct" themselves. There is no natural state of a market. Markets are a reflection of the people that participate in them as well as the rules that govern them. In socialism, that means the government. In capitalism, that means the people wealthy and powerful enough to control the means of production and capital flow. Capitalism does not mean the absence of governing influence in markets.
The point you missed is that petroleum never used the free market either. Not a single form of energy has ever been researched, developed, or installed into the economy without major government help along every step of the way. Advocating the free market when speaking of energy is simply just nonsensical.
Formulas and equations are NOT covered by patents. Math is not patentable. A process that utilizes a specific equation or algorithm IS patentable. And by process, it's meant a physical process. Of course this can come down to a machine (computer) processing an algorithm (software), but then this would require a description of the machine. Software patents are difficult reads because they have to invoke the latter thinking without running into the problem that software is just math.
I personally found ways to use all my school time effectively. Whether it was digging into an encyclopedia or just reading a book, spending more time in school was always a bonus. Again, this could just be that I had excellent teachers. Seems to me that we need more money for better teachers then.
Not in that regard. We cut school costs because the masses are demanding government austerity. No corporation has cut costs because it's employees and customer base want austerity.
With good reason. Most parents who care also have no clue how to help. When they are offered suggestions its usually much too menial for that type of parent. So yes, please do stay out unless you're actually interested in helping. Just because someone cares does not mean they are helping.
Not true. Ostracizing "some" students is a great motivator. Ostracizing the other students only serves to create stress. This is called bullying, something that is in no way helpful for development.
Also, making parents pay for a child's failure is motivation for parents, not children. Not all parents have the ability to put that motivation to good use. You'll have incredible drop-out rates if such policies were implemented.
Sorry for the double post, but where in America is $100k still considered upper class? That's about mid-range middle class anymore. I'd have no problem if many teachers were near that salary either. Money well spent.
Your teacher's union isn't like mine. The max salary is around $65k (might have changed, my mom hasn't been in the system for 5 years). That $65 requires a PhD and 30 years of teaching. Granted, cost of living here isn't terrible, but only retirees come in making that amount. I started my first career job at $35k and had to live with my mom, coincidentally why I know the pay structure. How are we to have great teachers when we don't value them that much.
Universal access to a Bachelor's degree. And I don't mean more college loans. Turn community colleges into free education centers with strong emphasis on communication AND technical training. I've met some amazing welders who still can't find work because they have no idea how to sell themselves or even get through an interview without being overwhelmed.
But it does matter. Whether trust can be objectively valued or not is irrelevant to this problem. Trust is a real thing that drives any economy beyond pure barter (which still requires trust, but trust that can be backed-up with a club). Truthfully, S&P has a bigger job to do if trust isn't objective. It also means life is a bit more sweet and meaningful to me. But never throw out trust as important, especially as the economy is concerned. I've seen many mistakes made because the companies I have worked for didn't appreciate the trust they had built with customers and what that meant. Now that the trust is gone, our churn rate is much higher. I'm still not certain whether our competition being crap is a blessing or a curse.
Government financing and personal finances are not the same. Trying to break it down to a base level is a straw man. There are reasons the government and you do not do financing the same way. Yes, the government should still balance it's books properly. But you building a straw man hurts the situation.
No, you don't understand. GP's anecdote is a far edge case. Unemployment benefits are generally supplemented with other benefits or mooching. I live in Montana which has been generally unaffected by the financial crisis (though the food crisis and climate change are wreaking havoc). So the people I know generally have to supplement with parent's housing or the occasional gift. I also wonder if we're building another credit crisis. If you want to understand America, you first have to assume that everyone is living above their means. I just moved in with my girlfriend and her kid and found out that I don't have a choice as the cheapest places for rent with 2 bedrooms were $750. And my girlfriend's money and government benefits all go to the kid's daycare for the summer. Fall will be awesome as at least k-12 is government subsidized!
Slashdot Mirror
It's almost as though the concept was invented just for this very notion...
Which is why real Communism will not be derived from top-down bureaucratic management like in the Soviet bloc. Lenin explicitly defied Marx with his Vanguard Party. I don't pretend a Marxist revolution will work, but calling what the Soviets did Communism is disingenuous to the very idea. Calling it Socialism misunderstands the ideology. Power structures were changed from Tsarist Russia to the USSR, but they were not weaken as is the principal tenet of Socialism. I would suggest that it was progress in a horrendously backward section of the world. So I personally do take some comfort, though I loathe what they did to the much more advanced areas of East Germany, Hungary, the Baltic states, and Czechoslovakia.
It is possible to unite under specific cause and have working together as a central component of self-interest. It is not obvious how to move from where we are to that system though. That is the missing component. In reality, that component could have such a massive cost (ubiquitous resources, modified human physiology) that it is truly impractical in the foreseeable future. Do not count it out because people in a completely different system act in a completely different way. That is a dim view of humanity that ignores vast historical and current socio-economic structures throughout the world where people do not act as they do in our system.
Your attitude is what makes you a loser. I don't use quotes. It's not a snide remark. It is the term I have always applied to those who will never be satisfied. You can strive for more while still being satisfied with what you have. That is the mark of a winner.
Adam Smith's capitalism sure. Few supporters of the free-market understand that Adam Smith did not ascribe markets their own force. He understood that force (the invisible hand) is the sum of irrational and random human behavior. Free market supporters are of the belief that markets are themselves a force and that people must act a certain way (ie rational) to participate. They do not allow for people being people, unless those people happen to have wealth.
Christianity that resembles neither Catholicism (power structures), American Evangelicalism (anonymous institutions), nor Mainline Protestantism (divided interpretations of the Bible and thus immediate cultural division). The theology absolutely meshes with Communism. The cultures do not.
I would use the words imbalanced power structure that creates classes. That's the problem with Communism. The equation keeps going long after Communism was already destroyed. As soon as one person has more say, there is no communism. Greed is hardly the biggest flaw, it's just one that libertarians seem to think they turn into a positive and so showcases the benefits of pure capitalism. No, it's much more basic than the possibility of a deadly sin corrupting institutions. It is the basic institution of the family and human growth that creates power structures. These power structures are of course necessary when a child is 5. At what point do they magically evaporate and we are completely equal?
You have not thought a lot of this out well. You seem to want to apply capitalism even though it explicitly does not exist. My understanding is that workers join the company on a temporary basis. They then build up their ownership of the company and at some point reach tenure when they become a full employee and partial owner in the company. A well established business using this model will have strong credit, so no worry there. No need for initial capital, but you would have to accept lower pay while building your ownership. This does counter a fluid job market. I don't find that a bad.
Profit motive is not greed. You are diluting the use of that word. Greed is a bad thing, always. It does not aid in any overall system. Greed greats monopolies, abuses market and political power, squeezes employees without choice, hires less capable but more obedient employees, etc etc. These hinder our economy and lead away from a truly capitalist system as market rules change to accommodate the most powerful actors.
Greed destroys capitalism as much as it destroys any other functional economic model.
The most annoying problem I have with Libertarians is that they make exactly the same mistake Marx and the rest of 19th century economists did. They thought we were rational actors who could see the steps necessary for a better future. So do the libertarians. For some reason it's correct when libertarians say we're rational, but then insist Marxists do not understand human nature. Just more and more religious zealotry and the pot calling the kettle black.
Their philosophies are hardly trivial. No philosopher has created the perfect system. Reading philosophies from another gives an individual an incredible understanding of how people thought of themselves in that era. It is obvious that people categorized themselves into rational, enlightened actors and irrational, closed-mind peons. How they handled these groups depends greatly on the philosopher and much intelligent thought can be gleaned. Reading them can also shed light on the mistakes we continue to make today. Often we see someone else do something and think "how stupid". We then turn around and make exactly the same mistake in a completely different context without drawing the parallel. Reading philosophy from this era engages our mind to see the mistakes of the past, link them with the mistakes of the present, and better understand how to prepare for the future.
Capitalism itself does not create an environment where we can all pursue happiness. That is why government intervention is necessary. Pure capitalism leads to feudalism. It is unsustainable without checks and balances. That's where socialism helps. Capitalism and socialism can and do co-exist. And when religion is removed from the equation (eg capitalism good, socialism bad mindset) and they are implemented by a government as complimentary components of the economy, we will all be able to pursue happiness.
Also, pretending that "markets" are something other than large groups of irrational, unequal actors with different goals (they are known as humans) is just wrong. The markets do not "correct" themselves. There is no natural state of a market. Markets are a reflection of the people that participate in them as well as the rules that govern them. In socialism, that means the government. In capitalism, that means the people wealthy and powerful enough to control the means of production and capital flow. Capitalism does not mean the absence of governing influence in markets.
The point you missed is that petroleum never used the free market either. Not a single form of energy has ever been researched, developed, or installed into the economy without major government help along every step of the way. Advocating the free market when speaking of energy is simply just nonsensical.
Formulas and equations are NOT covered by patents. Math is not patentable. A process that utilizes a specific equation or algorithm IS patentable. And by process, it's meant a physical process. Of course this can come down to a machine (computer) processing an algorithm (software), but then this would require a description of the machine. Software patents are difficult reads because they have to invoke the latter thinking without running into the problem that software is just math.
I personally found ways to use all my school time effectively. Whether it was digging into an encyclopedia or just reading a book, spending more time in school was always a bonus. Again, this could just be that I had excellent teachers. Seems to me that we need more money for better teachers then.
Not in that regard. We cut school costs because the masses are demanding government austerity. No corporation has cut costs because it's employees and customer base want austerity.
With good reason. Most parents who care also have no clue how to help. When they are offered suggestions its usually much too menial for that type of parent. So yes, please do stay out unless you're actually interested in helping. Just because someone cares does not mean they are helping.
Home schooling here means that you want your kids to grow up fearing you and your god properly. It has nothing to do with education.
Not true. Ostracizing "some" students is a great motivator. Ostracizing the other students only serves to create stress. This is called bullying, something that is in no way helpful for development. Also, making parents pay for a child's failure is motivation for parents, not children. Not all parents have the ability to put that motivation to good use. You'll have incredible drop-out rates if such policies were implemented.
Sorry for the double post, but where in America is $100k still considered upper class? That's about mid-range middle class anymore. I'd have no problem if many teachers were near that salary either. Money well spent.
Your teacher's union isn't like mine. The max salary is around $65k (might have changed, my mom hasn't been in the system for 5 years). That $65 requires a PhD and 30 years of teaching. Granted, cost of living here isn't terrible, but only retirees come in making that amount. I started my first career job at $35k and had to live with my mom, coincidentally why I know the pay structure. How are we to have great teachers when we don't value them that much.
Universal access to a Bachelor's degree. And I don't mean more college loans. Turn community colleges into free education centers with strong emphasis on communication AND technical training. I've met some amazing welders who still can't find work because they have no idea how to sell themselves or even get through an interview without being overwhelmed.
But it does matter. Whether trust can be objectively valued or not is irrelevant to this problem. Trust is a real thing that drives any economy beyond pure barter (which still requires trust, but trust that can be backed-up with a club). Truthfully, S&P has a bigger job to do if trust isn't objective. It also means life is a bit more sweet and meaningful to me. But never throw out trust as important, especially as the economy is concerned. I've seen many mistakes made because the companies I have worked for didn't appreciate the trust they had built with customers and what that meant. Now that the trust is gone, our churn rate is much higher. I'm still not certain whether our competition being crap is a blessing or a curse.
Government financing and personal finances are not the same. Trying to break it down to a base level is a straw man. There are reasons the government and you do not do financing the same way. Yes, the government should still balance it's books properly. But you building a straw man hurts the situation.
No, you don't understand. GP's anecdote is a far edge case. Unemployment benefits are generally supplemented with other benefits or mooching. I live in Montana which has been generally unaffected by the financial crisis (though the food crisis and climate change are wreaking havoc). So the people I know generally have to supplement with parent's housing or the occasional gift. I also wonder if we're building another credit crisis. If you want to understand America, you first have to assume that everyone is living above their means. I just moved in with my girlfriend and her kid and found out that I don't have a choice as the cheapest places for rent with 2 bedrooms were $750. And my girlfriend's money and government benefits all go to the kid's daycare for the summer. Fall will be awesome as at least k-12 is government subsidized!
No, that is essentially what you said. If that's not what you intended, I suggest learning to communicate clearly.