Quoting:
My name is resinchaser, and I am a member of the Heterosexual Canadian party.
End Quote

hehe, thats cool.

So you are a Heteronadian?

I guess that makes me a Heteromerican. :D

Quoting:
I'm ThunderVamp9, an American and there's a party in my pants.
End Quote

HA!  

thas funny. ;D

Quoting:
I'm ThunderVamp9, an American and there's a party in my pants.
End Quote

:o

Gee whiz, I'm sorry TV, I can't make it that night, I'm washing what's left of my hair !  ;)

Quoting:
I'm ThunderVamp9, an American and there's a party in my pants.
End Quote

I'm cs, an American, and part of the TV9 party!  
That was gross wasn't it?

Republican in every way except I am pro-choice.

Quoting:
I think that I disagree with Taoist on a lot of issues, but I agree with his bottom line:

"If it harm noone, do as you will"

I, too, would rather help my fellow humans than kick them in the teeth;
End Quote

Agreed 100%  That pretty much sums up my modus vivendi

Quoting:
the more that you trust government to accomplish this help, the more you reduce individual responsibility and create a class of people who are dependent upon the government.
End Quote

Not so much dependent upon the government, but incapable of taking personal responsibility for their own actions (e.g. suing McDonalds because their coffee was hot, and it didn't say "hot" on the cup).  I'm trying to batter it into my elder son that he does have responsibility even for accidents under his control - to take a couple of recent examples, he was in a football match, and his clearance caught the opposing player right where it hurts (I think all the fathers watching had tears in their eyes) - when I told him after the match that he should have said sorry to the player he'd floored, he answered "It was an accident" as though that absolved him of all responsibility; similarly, while playing in the house (where he's been told on many occasions not to), he caught his elder sister full in the face with the ball... and refused to say sorry because he didn't mean to hit her.

In his defence, Richard's seven - so I wouldn't expect perfect manners (all his siblings are better in that respect, though), but... if I (and his mother) don't try to excise that sort of behaviour now, what'll he be like when he grows up?

Quoting:
it has been said that if you are not a liberal/socialist when you are young, you have no heart.  But if you are still a liberal/socialist when you are in your 30s, you have no brain.
End Quote

It may have been said... don't make it true: I'm 36, and less radical than I was... but still very much a Liberal.

IIRC it was Ringo Starr who said "My head tells me to vote Liberal, my heart tells me to vote Labour but my wallet tells me to vote Conservative"

Phil

PS Love the avatar, JJ.  I'm a bit of an extreme Dilbert fan myself (though so far only one Dilbert parody on the boards)

Quoting:
I'm also a member of the Surprise Party, the Birthday Party, and the Party Party Party Party.
End Quote

Before anyone accuses me of plagerism again, I would like to cite my source on this one. Each of the above parties are all defunct Aussie political parties. They were banned because they violated a law that prevents individuals from making a mockery of the system.

I read about it in a magazine (can't remember the name). It was quite humorous.

Quoting:
Before anyone accuses me of plagerism again
End Quote

...and in one word he taught me the secret of success in mathematics: Plagiarize!
Plagiarize - don't let anybody else's work evade-your-eyes
Remember why the good lord made-your-eyes
So don't shade-your-eyes
But plagiarize, plagiarize plagiarize
(Only be sure always to call it, please: "Research")

All my own work, of course ;-)

Phil

Quoting:

...and in one word he taught me the secret of success in mathematics: Plagiarize!
Plagiarize - don't let anybody else's work evade-your-eyes
Remember why the good lord made-your-eyes
So don't shade-your-eyes
But plagiarize, plagiarize plagiarize
(Only be sure always to call it, please: "Research")

All my own work, of course ;-)

Phil
End Quote

Ok, Tom Lehrer..er...Phil. I believe you.  ;)


Cat

Quoting:
All my own work, of course ;-)
End Quote

Well..
The art of Originality is remembering what you heard but forgetting where you heard it!
Source: I forget....  ;D

Quoting:

I'm a bit of an extreme Dilbert fan myself (though so far only one Dilbert parody on the boards)
End Quote

Where is the Dilbert parody?  I did a search and did not find an Amiright parody with "Dilbert."

I got a chuckle out of your new signature - it IS a crazy world!

Quoting:
I just believe that the capitalist system of - as the Wobblies put it - dog-eat-dog is totaly  the opposite, anathma to that very simple and humane premise - on many levels. For one, profit is the result of the exploitation of the value that others labor, because human labor is the only commodity that can yield up more value than it commands in the market.  So I am a Socialist - I guess.  Let the revolution begin!!! ;)
End Quote

I like what you said about the Bill of Rights - which I find to be much more compatible with capitalism than with socialism.  Profits generally do not result from exploitation, but from providing a product or service that people want.  Are there problems with capitalism?  Yes, but the main problem with capitalism is capitalists, while the problem with socialism is socialism.

Quoting:


Profits generally do not result from exploitation, but from providing a product or service that people want.  Are there problems with capitalism?  
End Quote

Sorry, but I must disagree.  Think of it like this: Assume equalibrium in the supply and demand of a commodity.  A self-employed artisan buys tools and raw materials for X$, adds his labor to transform them (and wears out his tools, uses all his raw material) into this commodity and sells it for Y$, which is greater.  The difference between X and Y is obviously (I think) the value of H/is-er labor and skill.  The  capitalist buys raw material, tools, and the labor of others and makes the same commodity, spending X$.  So the value of all three eliments now appears in the commodity.  Since at equalibrium Adam Smith tells us (in The Wealth of Nations, 1776, many editions) that at equilibrium commodities trade for their value, the commodity sells for X$.  BUT THAT CAN"T BE RIGHT!  The fact is that, regardless of technology or any outside factors, profit is always the difference between the price of labor and the value that can be extracted from it.  The Census Bureau regularly issues statistic on the "value added in manufacture per wage worker dollar.  The value added is usually (for successful firms) greater than the wage.  In other words, workers are made to add more value to the products or services they produce than the value of their wage.  The difference is profit.  Of course disequalibrium can influence the amount of surplus value workers produce either up or down, but the ultimate source of profit is the difference between the price of labor and the value it can be made to create.  Of course, monopoly control of a commodity or service can alter the picture, allowing the monopolist to "exploit" both workers AND consumers.   I hope this is +/- clear, and that you see my point.  In the final analysis, the only thing we humans have to produce and reproduce our existance is our labor.  The question, under what "relations of production and reproduction" we do it.  Since I have added "reproduction" to the classical Marxist analysis I would have to call myself a Socialist feminist.  

Quoting:
Sorry, but I must disagree.  End Quote

::) What else is new?   ;D  I'm just messing with you DC.  I had to do it!  

Quoting:


::) What else is new?   ;D  I'm just messing with you DC.  I had to do it!  
End Quote

LMAO ;D

And I love it, I really do have a sense of humor, and appreciate humorus jabs and jibs.  I also hope you read and think about that post.  I assume you are a working person, and if so, can at leat understand -if not agree- with this (not my-don't want to be accused of plaigerism ;D) analysis.

Quoting:


LMAO ;D

And I love it, I really do have a sense of humor, and appreciate humorus jabs and jibs.  I also hope you read and think about that post.  I assume you are a working person, and if so, can at leat understand -if not agree- with this (not my-don't want to be accused of plaigerism ;D) analysis.
End Quote

Well, I'm not a working person, but I can understand where you're coming from.  Is there such a thing as a male feminist? ;)

Quoting:
Men can want equal rights for women, can't they?
End Quote

Well, I would HOPE so  ::)

Quoting:
Sorry, but I must disagree.  Think of it like this: Assume equalibrium in the supply and demand of a commodity.   
End Quote

Don Carlos, I would like to clarify some of the statements that you made to support your endorsement of socialism.  An economic equilibrium occurs when the price that a supplier wants for his product or service equals the price that a consumer wants to pay.  This might or might not provide a profit to the supplier.  If the supplier/employer offers the employees a fair salary/wage for their labor, then what difference does it make to them if there is a profit?  If employees think that they are underpaid (I know we all do), there are many opportunities in a capitalistic economy for them to find a position with the appropriate compensation.  If they cannot find such a position, then they really are not underpaid, and they should educate or train themselves to improve their marketable skills.

There are several reasons that capitalistic profits are beneficial.  One is to compensate the investor for the risk that he or she takes when contributing capital.  This capital enables the enterprise to purchase equipment, invest in research and development, to market the product, and to grow.  Many products and services require many different skills, administrative, sales and marketing, and direct labor.  If a company pays its employees $5 to produce a product that sells for $100, that might be called synergy, not exploitation.

Another reason that profits are beneficial is that many employees are also investors.  They frequently own stock in their employers and have a vested interest in their employer being profitable.

You might criticize the profit motive, but it is a lot better than the alternative – the loss motive(?), and a market based economy responds a lot more quickly to changes in consumers, technology, and all other factors affecting supply and demand than a non-market based economy.

The down side to capitalism is that occasionally there will be Enrons.  The down side to socialism is that frequently there will be empty shelves in grocery stores.  To me, it is an easy choice.  The perpetrators of Enron can be prosecuted.  The hungry mouths that result from empty shelves in grocery stores are harder to deal with.

Quoting:
Hello everybody
I'm taking a rare venture out of the Quizzes board to let you know (like you care?) that I am what I think of as a collective cynic.

Dictionary definition of a cynic:
a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view.

That's not to say that I refuse to believe that individual acts of altruism exist. They certainly do and I wish there was more of it around. However the evidence of human history indicates that collectively, as a species, we stink.

End Quote

:) :D ;D

I think a lot of people are, maddawg. And if they weren't before this fabricated war, they are now 8)

Quoting:


Well, I'm not a working person, but I can understand where you're coming from.  Is there such a thing as a male feminist? ;)
End Quote

I would think so, although there are some branches of feminism that would say NO, NO WAY, NO HOW.  I favor complete equality between the genders.  Although I find abortion morally wrong personally, I support every woman's right to choose.  I think women should be compensated for the unpaid labor they perform that supports production (they are paid, although unequally, for production in the market), and for the reproductive "work" they do.  So, and I'm not trying to be nasty or anythig, does that make me a feminist?  I don't really know, and I guess its not for me to say.  I'm certainly an allie to women's struggle for equality.

Quoting:


Don Carlos, I would like to clarify some of the statements that you made to support your endorsement of socialism.  An economic equilibrium occurs when the price that a supplier wants for his product or service equals the price that a consumer wants to pay.  This might or might not provide a profit to the supplier.  If the supplier/employer offers the employees a fair salary/wage for their labor, then what difference does it make to them if there is a profit?  If employees think that they are underpaid (I know we all do), there are many opportunities in a capitalistic economy for them to find a position with the appropriate compensation.  If they cannot find such a position, then they really are not underpaid, and they should educate or train themselves to improve their marketable skills.

There are several reasons that capitalistic profits are beneficial.  One is to compensate the investor for the risk that he or she takes when contributing capital.  This capital enables the enterprise to purchase equipment, invest in research and development, to market the product, and to grow.  Many products and services require many different skills, administrative, sales and marketing, and direct labor.  If a company pays its employees $5 to produce a product that sells for $100, that might be called synergy, not exploitation.

Another reason that profits are beneficial is that many employees are also investors.  They frequently own stock in their employers and have a vested interest in their employer being profitable.

You might criticize the profit motive, but it is a lot better than the alternative – the loss motive(?), and a market based economy responds a lot more quickly to changes in consumers, technology, and all other factors affecting supply and demand than a non-market based economy.

The down side to capitalism is that occasionally there will be Enrons.  The down side to socialism is that frequently there will be empty shelves in grocery stores.  To me, it is an easy choice.  The perpetrators of Enron can be prosecuted.  The hungry mouths that result from empty shelves in grocery stores are harder to deal with.

End Quote

Hi John Jenkins.
I spent the last TWO HOURS writing a response to your very interesting and thoughful post.  I was told it was too long, I tried to save it.  Its gone.  I will respond again, but just not right now.  I'm too frustrated.  You deserve a response as thoughtful as your post, and I will do one, in sections next time.  I'm just not up to writing it again.
Yours,
DC
PS: thanks

Quoting:
John Jenkins,

Good post. Smart post. I don't quite agree with it, but at least you didn't just go through the basic right wing neanderthall reaction to the word "socialism", which goes something like this: Socialism; Communism; Stalinism; 20 million civilians killed; KILL THE SOCIALIST! (not to say there aren't left wing parrots too)

But I would like to point out that Ken Lay is very unlikely to serve any kind of real jail time for this. I also think Capitalism has an inherent problem with corruption. I think if socialism could be done correctly and democratically, then we could create an ideal society in which the workers reap the direct results of their hard work.

Imperfect versions have been implemented over the years and many of them, like communist China and Russia, are used as examples to illustrate the failure of socialism. The problem is their version of socialism does not match up with the ideals of modern socialism. Their government was a laughable beauraucratic mess that stayed alive for 70 years by creating the illusion of a government for the workers.

If socialism could be implemented properly, I believe that we could finally create a society where everyone has equal freedoms and it would limit the ability of the strong to oppress/exploit the weak and the poor.
End Quote

JH,

You keep spouting this, and I bet it looks SOOOOOOOOOOOO good to you, but there's one thing you don't seem to comprehend in your youth, that you will fully realize as you grow older and mature, that makes all of your dreams just that - dreams:

Human beings are greedy, selfish, self-centered creatures.  It's in their make up, and is the same characteristics that lead them to war, to profit, and to exploitation.  Your ideals will never work with humans, because it's against human nature.

Quoting:
In a perfect world, John Harvey, socialism would probably be the ideal way to govern. Too bad the world is not perfect, and never will be.
End Quote

Oh, you give up too easily. I'm young and idealistic and I'd like to stay that way for a while before the harsh reality of the world beats it out of me. Until I meet this harsh reality, I will continue to stand behind my ideals and remain "in the clouds" as long as I can.

Sometimes with this bird's eye view that my cloud provides, I can see things that people firmly entrenched in what is "real" don't always see. I don't claim to know more than you know, but I do think that a little idealism is necessary for a proper view of the world. Being disenchanted with everything is a sure road to unhappiness and apathy.

Quoting:I don't claim to know more than you know, but I do think that a little idealism is necessary for a proper view of the world. Being disenchanted with everything is a sure road to unhappiness and apathy.
End Quote

yes, but at the same time, too much delusional wishful-thinking idealism will turn you into a middle-aged hate-filled anarchist that blames all that is government for not adopting your "utopian" idealistic way of life.

Quoting:
yes, but at the same time, too much delusional wishful-thinking idealism will turn you into a middle-aged hate-filled anarchist that blames all that is government for not adopting your "utopian" idealistic way of life.
End Quote

Come on, have a little respect for my intelligence. I'm not idealistic enough to believe that having NO GOVERNMENT would somehow turn our problems into butterflies and rainbows.

I have a lot of faith in our government and I would never advocate it's destruction. I want to change policies more than government. Our country can adopt socialist policies without changing our constitution. That's what I'm hoping for. I want a gradual change to socialism. I don't want some workers' revolution.

I'll keep my ideals, thank you, and you can keep you broken dreams.

Quoting:I'll keep my ideals, thank you, and you can keep you broken dreams.
End Quote

Hey, capitalism has done VERY well for me.  I'm not going to deny that fact. I think you have only chosen to consider the positve sides of Socialism, while ignoring the high potential for disaster that occurs with the transition to Socialism, as many other countries have experinced.  

You are young and thinking the best of  things, thats normal.  When I was in high school and college, I was just like you.  I though how great it would be if we went to Socialism etc, but over time I began to realize that its time to grow up and stop protesting for a fantasy world and to start living in reality.  

I made a total 180 degree turn in my political outlook in my early 20's, and I've never looked back since.  And now, after seeing on CNN, on an hourly basis, the crowd I used to be affiliated with, I am nothing short of ashamed of what I used to call myself in my youth, a liberal.  Thank God I saw the light and made the transition to the right.

Quoting:
I got a better question: Has it ever been done? I don't think socialism has ever been used as a form of government as it was intended.
End Quote

Nope.
Why won't socialism work on a grand scale?  Because people are not born equal and share the necessary collective idealism necessary for socialism to work.  Inequality of people goes beyond wealth, social structure, education etc, there are differances that are genetic too, some smarter than others and as we progress in our bilogical research we are seeing more and more traits that are more genetic than environmental.
I too was young and idealistic, I went into a college program in social services, I worked 2 years at a non-profit social services program.  It was a group home for adolescents with behaviorol problems.  I learned many things while working within social service, not all pleasant but many memorable.  The 2 major learning experiances was that the social thinkers were not "doers".  Debate and case studies and research, and study was what they did well, but getting the work done effectively wasn't.  The 2nd was that people need strong leaders.  Not the "bust you in the knee caps if you cross me" typed but people to set fair policy and to see it's met.  

Quoting:
Search for "socialism" on google. You'll find sites that can explain it better than I can.
End Quote

No thanks.

I know what Socialism is, and both the good and disastrous sides of it.  I don't need to read the opinions of senveral leftists such as yourslef on Google to tell me what Socialism is.

You need to consider the negative side of the issue before you embrace the good.  

The best way to do that is to analize the outcomes of the other countries that have experminted with Socialism, and to consider where they are now.  That alone should tell you that Socialism is ot the Utipoia you sem to think it is.

Quoting:
Stupid reasons why I'm a socialist

1. Communism is too oppressive.
2. Liberals and the Dems are great, but I'm crazier than they are, so....
3. Moderates are too susceptable to propaganda
4. Republicans are bought too easily
5. Conservatives see the world differently than I do. (very differently)
6. Anything farther right and you get the real weirdos. Pat Buchannan, I'm looking at you!
7. Libertarians are really weird. It's like a Democrat and a Republican got drunk at a party and, well, you got Ross Perot from it.

(Sorry if this offended anybody, this is all meant in jest. Please don't take it too seriously, I'm very sensitive and I don't need people calling me a godless commie. Those kind of names hurt.)
End Quote

Oh, but it's good. It's good, no offense on this end, but Ross Perot is not a Libertarian nor does he represent the Libertarian Party. This is what Libertarians are all about: The Cato Institute.

Generalizations like that will only make your point seem less relevant.

Btw, do you read ADBUSTERS? I like it myself, but that's because I like to cause real trouble on the outside 8)

Quoting:
If socialism could be implemented properly, I believe that we could finally create a society where everyone has equal freedoms and it would limit the ability of the strong to oppress/exploit the weak and the poor.
End Quote

Thank you for continuing the discussion in a thoughtful way.  Your statement cannot be  disproved because, as you point out, pure socialism has never been tried.  I tend to think, however, that the opposite is correct: a trend from the diluted capitalism that exists in the United States to a purer form of capitalism would lead to a stronger economy and more freedom for Americans.

Currently, the U.S. economy includes some government-run businesses, such as Amtrak, and many government-regulated industries.  Government involvement makes businesses less responsive to consumers, and the amount of time that businesses devote to complying with government regulation detracts from the time that business could commit to innovating new products or services.  Capitalism works because people respond to incentives.  If people and companies are rewarded in the market place for providing better products and services, they will come up with ways to provide better products and services.  Most high-tech innovations result from companies, such as Microsoft, in capitalistic economies.

While capitalism creates wealth, socialism distributes wealth.  With its complete reliance on state planning, socialism cannot reward innovation or respond to changes in the market place nearly as effectively as capitalism.  Have any innovations come out of socialist economies?

Would a purer form of capitalism prevent future Enrons?  Probably not.  Enron had several problems, including terrible accounting.  But one of its problems was its commitment to trying to influence government policies.  Enron donated a lot of money to both Republicans and Democrats to try to get friendly legislation passed.  If the role of the government in regulating the economy were reduced, businesses would have a lot less need to spend unproductive time and money trying to influence government policies.

Quoting:

Ross Perot is not a Libertarian nor does he represent the Libertarian Party. This is what Libertarians are all about: The Cato Institute.

End Quote

Good points, TB.  I hope that people do check out the Cato web site.  When Ross Perot first entered politics, I welcomed the thought of a politician with a business background.  That did not last very long when I learned of his protectionist and other views.

Quoting:


That did not last very long when I learned of his protectionist views.
End Quote

I thought it was interesting that he and Pat Choate would choose this economic reform for their platform. I think the last guy who tried that was Hoover :P

Quoting:
Socialist programs that the United States has:

-Welfare.
-Medical insurance.
-Social security.

Socialism doesn't work. Therefore, we should get rid of these programs for good and let buyers beware and those who don't plan ahead sink by their own ineptness.
End Quote

So, if you were to get into a bad accident and needed major surgery, you will be willing to pay boocoo bucks?





Cat

Quoting:


Don Carlos, I would like to clarify some of the statements that you made to support your endorsement of socialism.  An economic equilibrium occurs when the price that a supplier wants for his product or service equals the price that a consumer wants to pay.  This might or might not provide a profit to the supplier.  If the supplier/employer offers the employees a fair salary/wage for their labor, then what difference does it make to them if there is a profit?  If employees think that they are underpaid (I know we all do), there are many opportunities in a capitalistic economy for them to find a position with the appropriate compensation.  If they cannot find such a position, then they really are not underpaid, and they should educate or train themselves to improve their marketable skills.

End Quote

Hi John, here we go again, this time in sections.

I agree with your definition of equalibrium, but would again refer to Adam Smith and the idea that at equilibrium, commodities exchange for their value, which consists of the raw material, the value of tool depreciation, and the labor they contain.  The only variable in that equasion is labor, so if there are profits (and what manufacturer would continue producing without them?) they must be the result of labor.

You refer to "fair salary/wages".  Just what does that mean?  The worker wants the highest wages (s)he can get regardless of productivity.  The employer wants to pay the lowest wages possible (a loaded word) so as to maximize the surplus value (value beyond the cost of labor).  The deal, struck in this adversarial situation, has nothing to do with "fairness", which I would define as the exchange of equities - I give you $10 of value through my work, you give me a $10 bill.  But then, profit would be impossible.

Yes, a worker can change jobs.  That is my definition of capitalist relations of production.  There must be a free and mobile labor force or you'r talking about some other system.  But what controls the cost of labor?  You might want to read Fredrick W. Taylor on this (Scientific Shop Management/u], 1905 I think).  He claims that it is NOT productivity. His "experiment" with "Schmit" at the Bethleham Steel works demonstrates this.

Quoting:


There are several reasons that capitalistic profits are beneficial.  One is to compensate the investor for the risk that he or she takes when contributing capital.  This capital enables the enterprise to purchase equipment, invest in research and development, to market the product, and to grow.  Many products and services require many different skills, administrative, sales and marketing, and direct labor.  If a company pays its employees $5 to produce a product that sells for $100, that might be called synergy, not exploitation.

End Quote

You are certainly correct in arguing that the bourgeois theory of economics justifies profit as a reward for resk, but let me pose a question.  Where did the investor get that capital in the first place?  As I think is evident, from the surplus value created by others.  But that aside, Marx was a sensualist, and believed that each person should be able to develop the complete range of senses - I would  find life very dull without my Back, my salas, my boat, the 10 year old rum I am now sipping.  As a result, human needs must inevitably expand beyond the basics of food, clothing, shelter, and so, no "direct producer"could ever receive the full value of his or her labor.  A "socially necessary surplus" (in capitalism, profit) would always have to be deducted.  So that is not an issue.  The issue is, who should control that surplus.  Should it be the society as a whole or some individual?

I agree that in a modern economy there are many necessary functions beyond the direct production of things.  Those who do that work, and those of us who labor but produce nothing tangible (teachers, medicos, prof. police and firemen etc) also need to be included in there calculations.  But again, the question is, who should control this mass of stored up value we now call capital, and who should decide how it is allocated?

Quoting:



Another reason that profits are beneficial is that many employees are also investors.  They frequently own stock in their employers and have a vested interest in their employer being profitable.

End Quote

This is certainly the case.  However, wouldn't workers have an even greater vested interest in the success of their firms if they OWNED them, that is, if the profits were theirs to dispose of?  And if they were making the decisions, would there be cases like Enron, where management sacrificed workers' welfare for their own?  An old time Wobbly, interviewed on Deborah Shaffer's wonderful doc. said that sabotage was not "burning down saw mills, for what is the point of destroying your place of employment?"  Sabotage was "the consciuos withdrawal of efficience".  It happens all the time (I have done it), but would it if workers owned their places of employment, directly, and ran them?  

Quoting:


You might criticize the profit motive, but it is a lot better than the alternative – the loss motive(?), and a market based economy responds a lot more quickly to changes in consumers, technology, and all other factors affecting supply and demand than a non-market based economy.

End Quote

Here again, there is some truth in what you say, but IMO a series of problems.  "loss of motive" being one.  Motive has do do with "human nature", and is a complex subject.  IMO humans are both greedy and generous, self centered and compassionate, "good, and evil".  The question is, it seems to me, how do we devise a system that brings out the best in humans, and subdues (submerges?) the worst?  Do we wish to encourage greed and self centeredness, or genorosity and compassion?  I think it is clear that capitalism encourages (although cannot subdue) the former.  Voluntary charities demonstrate this.  Pure capitalist impulses would tell us that this is foolish.  I might add that there is a good deal of "Social Darwinism - read racism - no implication intended - latent in the pure market analysis.  

More to come...

Quoting:


The down side to capitalism is that occasionally there will be Enrons.  The down side to socialism is that frequently there will be empty shelves in grocery stores.  To me, it is an easy choice.  The perpetrators of Enron can be prosecuted.  The hungry mouths that result from empty shelves in grocery stores are harder to deal with.

End Quote

I'm glad you mentioned Enron, which wasted the value of the labor accumulated in its net  worth through corruption and fraud.  But consider this (which also refers to risk).  I ONCE saw an advertisement for an electric fork - once.  Obviously resourses had been comitted to its manufacture, and since it wasn't a sucess, those resources were lost.  You might (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth) say that it was the investor who lost, and I would have to agree that (s)he experienced the DIRECT lose.  I would have to add, however, that we all lost, because those resources could have been applied more productively to the benefit of us all.  And from this emerges the problem that I see with socialism.  Going backl to the growth of human need, in capitalism, the market both creates, and responds to needs (see Harr Braverman,  Labor and Monopoly Capital, Monthly Review Press, 1976 I think, especially Chapter 13, The Universal Market), and so the number of Bach and salsa CD's, sail boats, and good rum thatr is produced depends on demand and advertising or what we might call "created market".  But who decides in a socialist economy?  In terms of those commodities that already exist, this is not as important as  it is in terms of new things, electric forks vrs PC computers.  Capitalism, in this regard, is irrational and wasteful, but we get what we are willing to pay for and can afford.  Socialism is more rational, but depends on the rationality of those who make the decisions.  @0 years ago I would have said that word processing was nice, but not necessary, now, I can't live without it - Marx was right, human needs DO expand.

As to you "empty shelves" argument, I suspect it is an historical one, ie. those countries that have experimented with socialism have not been able to provide for their people.  True enough, but look at where they started from.  All of them, Russia, China, Eastern Europe, Cuba, were all economic basket cases before they became socialist.  Why should anyone expect that they would be able to create the economic conditions to provide abundance over night?  It took the capitalist countries +/- 200 years to do so for the majority of their people, who achieved a "middle class" life style only with great struggle.  Clearly, and Marx acknowledged this, capitalism is the most productive system that has ever emerged on this earth.  Its problem is not production, but distribution.

Let me also add an (anticipatory?) word on democracy.  Just as the socialist experiments took place in backward, underdeveloped countries, it also occured in autocratic ones, so, I think naturally, what emerged were autocratic forms of socialism (I know you didn't raise this issue, but others might, so I thought I'd address it).  Unlike Mr Bush & Co. I don't think democracy can be boxed up and shipped where ever we want and flower.  The same can be said for revolutions (which Castro tried to export in the '60s - didn't work).  So I think that socialism, when it comes to the US, will be very different than the Soviet, Chinese, or Cuban model, more democratic and more humane.

Again let me thank you for a very thought provoking and articulate post.  I look forward to more from you.  

Quoting:


Human beings are greedy, selfish, self-centered creatures.  It's in their make up, and is the same characteristics that lead them to war, to profit, and to exploitation.  Your ideals will never work with humans, because it's against human nature.
End Quote

As Katherine Hepburn put it in The African Queen (one of the all time greatest flix IMO) "It is human nature, Mr Allnut, that we are put here to rise above" or something like that ;)  Seriously, what you say about human nature is true - partly.  On the other hand, humans are kind, comassionate, generous, giving, and caring.  The question is, how do we learn to emphisise the good, and repress the bad?  There is no such thing as a FIXED human nature.  We are very adaptible creatures.  That's why we are so successful.

Quoting:


When I was in high school and college, I was just like you.  I though how great it would be if we went to Socialism etc, but over time I began to realize that its time to grow up and stop protesting for a fantasy world and to start living in reality.  

I made a total 180 degree turn in my political outlook in my early 20's, and I've never looked back since.  And now, after seeing on CNN, on an hourly basis, the crowd I used to be affiliated with, I am nothing short of ashamed of what I used to call myself in my youth, a liberal.  Thank God I saw the light and made the transition to the right.
End Quote

You sound like you might be David Brock, and I'm not refering to your sexuality, about which I could care less (in his book Blinded by the Right Brock bored me with his sexual odessey of into, and out of the closet).  He transitioned to the right too, but found out about who the right really is and what "the right" really believes in - racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism - that's their creed.  I don't accuse any of you self proclaimed conservatives of harboring ANY of these feelings, don't get me wrong.  But the big shots in the conservative movement DO harbor these very ugly sentiments, at least according to Brock, and as a former insider, his statements ring true.  Maybe we need a "grass roots" humanist conservative mavement, but that's not for me - certainly no liberal, much less a conservative - to say.  

Quoting:
I have a serious question about Socialism.  It sounds wonderful, but has it ever worked?  I don't really get into the  -ism's too much so I honestly don't know.
End Quote

This is a serious and thoughtful question that deserves much more of an answer than I could undertake here, although chech out my exchange with John Jenkins.

The short answer is, by U.S. standards, no.  That is to say that no self proclaimed socialist country has ever achieved the material standards of the US or most other western capitalist counties (although Cuba's infant mortality rate is lower that that for black people in the US - chech the UN World Health Org Figures).  But the question itself is, in a way, unfair.  The only countries that have attempted socialism have been underdeveloped ones, so naturally, they start out behind the 8 ball.  The question for us, in the US and developed world is not one of production, as it is for the underfeveloped, but one of distribution.  

Quoting:

The 2 major learning experiances was that the social thinkers were not "doers".  Debate and case studies and research, and study was what they did well, but getting the work done effectively wasn't.  The 2nd was that people need strong leaders.  Not the "bust you in the knee caps if you cross me" typed but people to set fair policy and to see it's met.  
End Quote

Yeah, intellectuals are to busy thinking to do anything, like the nobel lauriates recently arrested for protesting the war in Wasington.  And "people need strong leaders", like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, The Shah, George III, Louis XVI, Samosa, Pinochet, Papa Doc (& PapaDoc Jr.),  The list is endless, and disgusting.

Quoting:
You sound like you might be David Brock, and I'm not refering to your sexuality, about which I could care less (in his book Blinded by the Right Brock bored me with his sexual odessey of into, and out of the closet).  End Quote

I've never read it (and don't plan to) so I will take your word for it.  

Quoting:He transitioned to the right too, but found out about who the right really is and what "the right" really believes in - racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism - that's their creed. End Quote

Ok, you got me, I'm a racist-sexist-homophobe that hates Jews. ::) 

(sarcasm)

Quoting:I don't accuse any of you self proclaimed conservatives of harboring ANY of these feelings, don't get me wrong.  But the big shots in the conservative movement DO harbor these very ugly sentiments, at least according to Brock, and as a former insider, his statements ring true.  
End Quote

of course you do, you think all conservatives are like that, you've made that clear in many of your posts.


And its not fair for you to classify all the Big Shot conservatives as hateful Jew-hating, black-hating etc etc people.  Some are I'm sure, just as some are in the other end of the politcal spectrum(eh hem Dem. Sen Byrd).  There are some in every crowd, but its not your place to generalize and to classify every member of that crowd because of the actions/thoughts of a few.

(PS- I didn't intend for this to be in bold font, I can't get it to go to normal font for some reason)

Quoting:
Stupid reasons why I'm a socialist

I'm very sensitive and I don't need people calling me a godless commie. Those kind of names hurt.)
End Quote

Ok, you Godful commie ;D Just kidding.  But seriously, if we are going to discuss and debate, than we should all refrain from calling names, and, I might add, making age references.  Its not the age or the ideology of the poster that should concern us, but the quality of ideas.  So, 80's and others, lets get past this agest BS and start confronting ideas, as John Jenkins has so admirably done.

Quoting:


You sound like you might be David Brock, and I'm not referring to your sexuality, about which I could care less (in his book Blinded by the Right Brock bored me with his sexual odyssey of into, and out of the closet)...    
End Quote

Hahaha! There's gotta be a link between right-wingednism and closet homosexuality. There's just gotta be. There are some famous right-wingers who are homosexuals like Ernst Roehm and Pim Fortuyn. Senator McCarthy also had a top advisor who subsequently died of AIDS... Yeah, the ones who speak the loudest, those are the ones who crave the biggest hunka man 8)

Quoting:So, 80's and others, lets get past this agest BS and start confronting ideas, as John Jenkins has so admirably done.
End Quote

I made age references to describe how I too had the mindset and political thoughts when I was young and John Harvey's age.  

But...then I grew up. ;)

Quoting:
I don't know if I am a cynic or if I just don't have any faith in the human race, but even in high school I could see that socialism wouldn't work.  Yes "each to his need, each to his ability" would be great, if people would all follow.  There are too many people who wouldn't...there are way too many people out there who would take what they needed, but do anything else.  It never seemed right to me.  Capitalism has done good for me, too.  It sure made me grow up when I realized that I had to work if I wanted a roof over my head or if I wanted to eat.
End Quote

"Cynic" you certainly are.  And so we come back to human nature.  If you are right, then we are just a bunch of bruts who care only for ourselves, and mayby for our close relatives (and that could be refured by spousal and child abuse stats).  But on the other hand, how many people spend countless hours and $$$ to help others who they don't know for no reason that would benefit them?  I'm truley sorry, and I mean that sincerely, that you have such a jaundiced view of your fellow human beings, and of human nature.  I'm on my union's bargaining team, and we're going into negotiations, so my job is to get the best deal I can for the folks who elected me.  That's the system.  But that does not blind me to the legitamate interests of the other side.  I'm truely sorry that you have such a low estimation of who and what human are.

Quoting:I'm truley sorry, and I mean that sincerely, that you have such a jaundiced view of your fellow human beings, and of human nature...I'm truely sorry that you have such a low estimation of who and what human are.
End Quote

Carlos, its called reality.

Of course socialism would work in A PERFECT SOCIETY, but thats not reality.

You can keep spewing your plea to promote the benefits of socialism, luckily most of us are able to realize the huge potential for disaster that can come with it.  Unfortunately, as I said earlier, you and some others here who think socialism is the answer, refuse to acknowledge the negative side to socialism.  All you are showing is the good side.  Of course it sounds good, but thene again most things would if only the positives are acknowledged by those pressing the issue.

Quoting:


I made age references to describe how I too had the mindset and political thoughts when I was young and John Harvey's age.  

But...then I grew up. ;)

End Quote

I have no problem with you tracing your own intellectual odessey, just don't make it out to be some kind of natural journey.  In 1960 I supported Barry Goldwater _too young to vote though.  So I went from right to left - skipped the "liberal" middle as ineffectual, ineffective, and pussy-footing.  So what?  Who cares?  Lets talk about IDEAS, lets talk about what history can teach, lets not get personal.

Quoting:
I have no problem with you tracing your own intellectual odessey, just don't make it out to be some kind of natural journey...So what?  Who cares?  Lets talk about IDEAS, lets talk about what history can teach, lets not get personal.
End Quote

Well, considering the point of this particular thread is about everyone's place on the political spectrum, it is relevant to describe where I am, and how I got there.

If you don't care, thats fine.  I'm not here for your enjoyment.

Quoting:
Let's just put those Socialist reforms to vote and see how people are going to vote.
End Quote

TZ, you gonna make up the ballots?  Lets be careful about it's construction, don't need any "hanging chads" to spoil the talley. I think there would be enough controversy in this election as it is.

Quoting:
Let's just put those Socialist reforms to vote and see how people are going to vote.
End Quote

Now there is an idea...see how the people feel.  Of course the trick would be getting all the registered voters to actually vote. ;)

Quoting:


Ok you got me, I'm a racist-sexist-homophobe that hates Jews. ::) 

(sarcasm)

Again, you want to make this personal.  So, sarcasm aside, maybe you are a racist-sexist-homophobe that hates jews.  I haven't the slightest idea and could care less.  Presumably, you don't and you are not in power, or close to those who are.  So you can go stew in whatever prejudices you have, and enjoy your bile,  My point is, that according to Brock - you may have read his The Real Anita Hill - These prejudices permiate those who are at the forfront of the extreme right, and those who support them financially from behind the scenes.  So, if your sarcastic admission of hate is really sarcastic, and I have no reason to believe that it is your real feeling, then maybe you should learn more about the people who you support and what they really believe.  If you are a true conservative, wanting to preserve liberty, justice, democracy, and all that, I think, we BOTH treasuse and honor, I'm asking you to find out more about what the leaders of your movement really believe.  Not just what they say in public.

Please understand me.  I'm not trying to be smart or foxy, or "intellectual" or whatever.  I'm saying this as one very concerned citizen to another.  We may very well disagree on lots of topics, but lets agree to respect the opinions of others, no matter who, or how old they are.  Maybe its just your wit, but you do come across as insulting - I guess I do to, and I'm trying to control that.  It really doesn't facilitate debate.
Peace, DC







of course you do, you think all conservatives are like that, you've made that clear in many of your posts.


And its not fair for you to classify all the Big Shot conservatives as hateful Jew-hating, black-hating etc etc people.  Some are I'm sure, just as some are in the other end of the politcal spectrum(eh hem Dem. Sen Byrd).  There are some in every crowd, but its not your place to generalize and to classify every member of that crowd because of the actions/thoughts of a few.

(PS- I didn't intend for this to be in bold font, I can't get it to go to normal font for some reason)


End Quote

Quoting: command or 2 in your post.

but that aside, I think a clear indication that one has ran out of arguments is when they pull the lets not make this personal or lets respect others opinions card.  

You have just pulled both those cards, twice.

I made my opinions known, if you don't agree with them fine.  Provide a counter-point, not a sermon on how I was not respecting your opinion just because you have ran out of steam on the topic.  


You are impossible to debate with.  And I don't mean that in a positive way. ::)