The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

How My Generation Sees Socialism

allthatjazz... I'm glad I'm not the only socialist here. I'm exhausted from all the pro-capitalists lol and the people defending them aren't even capitalists but laborers being exploited by them!

Speak for yourself. I'm not being exploited by anybody. I work hard, and get compensated well for it. I drive a fuel-efficient car, shop around to get the best prices on things, and save money from every paycheck.

You talking down to us (and about us) isn't helping your cause, Kris. Being arrogant isn't a good way to win people over to your side.
 
Speak for yourself. I'm not being exploited by anybody. I work hard, and get compensated well for it. I drive a fuel-efficient car, shop around to get the best prices on things, and save money from every paycheck.

You talking down to us (and about us) isn't helping your cause, Kris. Being arrogant isn't a good way to win people over to your side.

I'm not trying to "win" anyone over to my "side." Moving aside from this discussion, what kind of work do you do? just a friendly gesture. :-)
 
Stop them?

No force will have to -- they'll stop themselves. The first thing they'll do is cause widespread poverty, followed by starvation and other deprivation, followed by war, followed by the sensible decision to go back to having money because so far no other system for conveying economic information has been devised.

Where do you attain this ideal? What philosophy in particular do you follow to conclude these particular ideals? Do you not believe human society will progress even further then we are now?

We socialists do not wish to have our own party, for that concept is quite hypocritical. I do not agree with the concept of the American Communist Party or parties such as the Communist Party Of China. I know the Party of china will lead to eventual failure for all the oxymora that preside in the party itself. For example we do not agree with the the entire aspect of the American democratic party, but we favor their agenda because they grant more power and rights to man kind on a larger basis. Gay marriage, clean energy, higher wages, are all on the table of the democratic party and that is why Socialists many times side with Obama, though Obama is of the Capitalist system. Future democratic agenda will change the way people think, and the more people change their way of thinking, the more human and intellectual we become. Socialists in other nations think like-wise, for they are the proletariat that tend to reconstruct the agenda of their own politics, and slowly fix the social problems at hand there. The republican party, with the concept of conservatism (conserving the structure at the present and preventing progressive change) just keeps society back-peddling.

Kulindahr, I believe you and I want some of the same goals for our present day society. You don't have to be a socialist but we can still be on the same winning team in the long run. :) You care about people, want change because you KNOW many things in our current system NEED to be changed because they are unfair. People deserve higher wagers and their dignity, people deserve decent education, health care, clothing, access to water and food, etc. I believe in making the structure healthier, for doing so expands the minds of our future generations.

Humans are not naturally greedy, humans VARY by nature, based on their psychological development and experiences as they grow in their own environment. That is why we have something called personalities. YOU don't need to be greedy, you can be whatever person you WANT to be. It's in your mind, and if something is a flaw, you have the power to change it!
 
Stop them?

No force will have to -- they'll stop themselves. The first thing they'll do is cause widespread poverty, followed by starvation and other deprivation, followed by war, followed by the sensible decision to go back to having money because so far no other system for conveying economic information has been devised.

If the rest of the race is fortunate, the John Galt phenomenon will occur, and all the truly capable people will just stop playing slave to the rest, bringing the "socialist" experiment to a crashing collapse hopefully before they've caused much more human misery than the twentieth century brought the world.

BTW, Do you have the intellectual ability to quote both aspects of socialism and capitalism that were submitted to the discussion by "allthatjazz?" I would like to hear your words and contradictions to every paragraph. Many times you pick one paragraph or a few paragraphs that you can find pieces of words to say why there is flaw present. Perhaps you find certain phrases easier to protest with the same recycled statements commonly thrown out there by pro-capitalists, and possibly others are more difficult. I don't know your reasoning but I am interested in hearing you respond to his entire conversation, rather then a small portion.

This is a difficult discussion on an online-based forum, for people can choose which parts to respond to seeing they have the security of making a few repetitive type of replies rather then exploring the other person's contributions whole wholeheartedly. JB3 Does the same thing. He picks a quote from part of a discussion and then runs away with the same stern, strict response of why this is wrong simply because, and it is without any further intellectual discussion. Simply that we, the socialists or liberals, need further education without any sources or procedures that contain the current education specifically, assuming he is correct because apparently he has mastered the philosophical aspects of his own ideals. His ideals, which we have never been informed of, remain questionable. I believe that freedom from "American Nationalism" allows us to escape from the arrogance ingrained into our psychology in society as a whole.
 
There a couple of problems with All That Jazz's analysis, I wish I had more time to dig into it, I might later if time permits. One his description of socialism is greatly lacking in how it works. Something he admits quite plainly in his text. Somehow all the people will democratically vote for what they want and need and somehow all that will be organized and made for them. Where is the middle piece, who takes the election data and determines how to use the available resources to make it happen? Its this missing middle piece where the pigs will come in. (Yes its an Animal Farm reference.)

In the capitalism post, generally defining the other sides positions and knocking them down is call strawman debate but that aside... The capitalist is the middle piece in this equation, he is the one that sees a need, gathers the resources to fill it and hires the workers to produce it. He does all of this at a risk that the workers don't share. Yet when he is right and benefits from taking that risk he is considered evil. The profit he makes exists solely because he saw a need and met it. And everyone benefits from that profit, the employees continue to be employed and make more money for their efforts.

He makes a quite interesting observation that capitalism can exist without free markets but I noted that he does so by noting the worst economies in the modern world except for China which finally starting introducing free market principles and has been improving ever since.

Kulindahr has an excellent point about what will happen if you tried to implement these ideas. Until you can fill that missing middle piece with something that will actually work in Human Nature and be more efficient in handling resources than capitalism, socialism and communism remains a pie in the sky dream.
 
There a couple of problems with All That Jazz's analysis, I wish I had more time to dig into it, I might later if time permits. One his description of socialism is greatly lacking in how it works. Something he admits quite plainly in his text. Somehow all the people will democratically vote for what they want and need and somehow all that will be organized and made for them. Where is the middle piece, who takes the election data and determines how to use the available resources to make it happen? Its this missing middle piece where the pigs will come in. (Yes its an Animal Farm reference.)

In the capitalism post, generally defining the other sides positions and knocking them down is call strawman debate but that aside... The capitalist is the middle piece in this equation, he is the one that sees a need, gathers the resources to fill it and hires the workers to produce it. He does all of this at a risk that the workers don't share. Yet when he is right and benefits from taking that risk he is considered evil. The profit he makes exists solely because he saw a need and met it. And everyone benefits from that profit, the employees continue to be employed and make more money for their efforts.

He makes a quite interesting observation that capitalism can exist without free markets but I noted that he does so by noting the worst economies in the modern world except for China which finally starting introducing free market principles and has been improving ever since.

Kulindahr has an excellent point about what will happen if you tried to implement these ideas. Until you can fill that missing middle piece with something that will actually work in Human Nature and be more efficient in handling resources than capitalism, socialism and communism remains a pie in the sky dream.

Human nature is not greedy, and by stating so you throw the whole concept of psychology in the trash. How socialism will come to be was explained already in deeper meaning. A description is best understood when one has a background in philosophy and has spent YEARS reading upon the subject rather a few days or weeks, reread this.



"We socialists do not wish to have our own party, for that concept is quite hypocritical. I do not agree with the concept of the American Communist Party or parties such as the Communist Party Of China. I know the Party of china will lead to eventual failure for all the oxymora that preside in the party itself. For example we do not agree with the the entire aspect of the American democratic party, but we favor their agenda because they grant more power and rights to man kind on a larger basis. Gay marriage, clean energy, higher wages, are all on the table of the democratic party and that is why Socialists many times side with Obama, though Obama is of the Capitalist system. Future democratic agenda will change the way people think, and the more people change their way of thinking, the more human and intellectual we become. Socialists in other nations think like-wise, for they are the proletariat that tend to reconstruct the agenda of their own politics, and slowly fix the social problems at hand there. The republican party, with the concept of conservatism (conserving the structure at the present and preventing progressive change) just keeps society back-peddling. "

Socialism will work and come to be based on the liberal measures we implement in our present day society. Basically, the future is determined on how we build our society TODAY. The mind is a powerful tool, because the mind constructs the future environment, and this pattern has ALWAYS taken place in history. The minds of the slavery era eventually developed into feudalism, because changes were made over time via ideas and inventions that gave more knowledge to the oppressed slaves that built that society. You know how we keep learning certain lessons and measures in our own personal lives as we grow older?

We gain tools to deal with certain obstacles and situations the older we grow. We fail to make the right choices when we are younger, because we do not obtain social skills and crucial tools at that time. Make more sense now? Stop worrying about other people and look at yourself, what kind of person are YOU? Change is ALWAYS possible, and when you say you can't do something, or society says it can't do something, it reveals just how childlike our society is in terms of its mentality as a whole. But alas, change is good and inevitable when progressive ideas are taking place.

Example, fighting for green energy is ONE key element to socialism. Green energy that is powered by solar panels and wind opens the doors to not requiring money to keep our world powered. You could fill the entire Nevada desert with solar panels and without ANY other plants using nuclear energy (Toxic waste that pollutes the earth and wastes millions to clean up) or coal which become a thing of the past because we LEARNED how dangerous those methods are. People continue sucking the blood of the earth (oil) and don't care that sink holes are developing around the earth causing massive damage and home losses and lets not forget the growing number of earthquakes. Just one example how Capitalism is damaging the planet because oil produces BILLIONS of dollars in profit for capitalists that make energy a business.

It's basically little baby steps that allow us to evolve naturally on our own. THAT is how socialism works. People learn on their own that things are MORE efficient without the concepts of "money" because the need to accumulate money/profit leads to so many other crises poverty and starvation being the biggest ones.

As for china, it was NEVER communist to begin with. I am going to write a summary of the history of the soviet union with specific key points in its government structure that will help everyone comprehend just how fucked up American text books are. I do not support the government of the USSR and I think its very sad how many lives were lost. China, I admire for its structure of Capitalism because they are progressing. I am not happy that they are CAPITALIST, I am happy they are moving forward, for they are NOT "going back to Capitalism." They were ALWAYS Capitalist to begin with. They used money and the notion of being a country and being surrounded by "countries" the entire time.

In a simplistic notion, Capitalism is taught in our textbooks that it is an economic model, but with a deeper and more complex observation that is omniscient, it is nothing more then an "era" of society. An imperfect era that is so heavily flawed NEVER lasts forever, because all the growing in that era develops something that is BETTER.
 
allthatjazz... I'm glad I'm not the only socialist here. I'm exhausted from all the pro-capitalists lol and the people defending them aren't even capitalists but laborers being exploited by them!

Reality to Kris:

You can be a laborer and a capitalist both. Most Americans are. Probably a lot of the people on JUB are.
Heck, you can be on disability and be a capitalist, too.
 
Reality to Kris:

You can be a laborer and a capitalist both. Most Americans are. Probably a lot of the people on JUB are.
Heck, you can be on disability and be a capitalist, too.

Please state how most Americans are capitalists. I am interested in hearing this type of discussion because your statement intrigues me deeply.

When are you going to reply to my paragraphs wholeheartedly (without picking certain points to your discretion and not responding to the most critical aspects) and make a philosophical analysis to share with me? You can always view things based on the way the present culture presents things black and white in our text books, propaganda, and economics. Every single point you have brought up, I am already informed and aware of. I could easily speak the rules of economics as they are understood to the average thinker. However everything has a far more complex perception when you think far more critically beyond what you have been taught. I am clearly talking a different language then you are which is what you don't grasp. If you want me to think the way the average American Joe analyzed the culture on how most people operate and perceive the notion of money to be, I could do that, but I'd be insulting my intelligence.

If you were an alien watching the social evolution of human society, from primitive communism to our present social era, and had to make an analysis of what the big picture was going on here on earth, what would your analysis be? Might it be different if you were not raised in this environment?
 
When a majority of people,break out of their mental prison, ideologically conditioned from schooldays, and want to change this and establish a free access society without markets in goods or people,organised upon the tenet ' from each according to their ability..to each according to their needs' ,where the world is perceived as the common heritage of all the world's people and opt to establish this democratically,no force will be able to stop them.

Stop them?

No force will have to -- they'll stop themselves. The first thing they'll do is cause widespread poverty, followed by starvation and other deprivation, followed by war, followed by the sensible decision to go back to having money because so far no other system for conveying economic information has been devised.

If the rest of the race is fortunate, the John Galt phenomenon will occur, and all the truly capable people will just stop playing slave to the rest, bringing the "socialist" experiment to a crashing collapse hopefully before they've caused much more human misery than the twentieth century brought the world.

Where do you attain this ideal? What philosophy in particular do you follow to conclude these particular ideals? Do you not believe human society will progress even further then we are now?

No ideals involved -- just practical sense.

Do away with markets in goods, and commerce collapses. Do away with money -- which doing away with markets entails -- and the information flow about what is wanted by whom and what the cost will be to get it, vanishes.

It's not possible to do away with markets; that means doing away with the exchange of things so people can have what they want and need. No markets would mean no houses, no food, no clothes, unless people went back to living off the land where they were, which since very few have a clue how would mean billions starving to death in short order.

Provide a way to do the information flow as efficiently as money does and there might be grounds for talking. But doing away with markets means living only on what you can get by walking.
 
BTW, Do you have the intellectual ability to quote both aspects of socialism and capitalism that were submitted to the discussion by "allthatjazz?" I would like to hear your words and contradictions to every paragraph. Many times you pick one paragraph or a few paragraphs that you can find pieces of words to say why there is flaw present. Perhaps you find certain phrases easier to protest with the same recycled statements commonly thrown out there by pro-capitalists, and possibly others are more difficult. I don't know your reasoning but I am interested in hearing you respond to his entire conversation, rather then a small portion.

Yes, and I'm not going to bother. His first post is just Marxist religion, where human nature is denied in order to get to some utopia that might work for some race that hasn't survived the rigors of evolutionary development, but not any real sentient entities -- or lesser ones, for that matter; even trees are selfish.

Besides that, the whole rant is clueless about the role of money. It proposes no alternative for providing the flow of information money does. "Democracy" is not an answer; in terms of getting goods to where they're wanted, democracy is part of the problem.

I don't pick out certain things to respond to because they're easier, but because they epitomize a statement. I don't argue as a "pro-capitalist", I argue from reality, from economics. You can wave your wand and change names all you want, but in any economic system there are costs and there are wants, and so far money is the only decent tool humans have come up with to convey that information. Do away with it, without something at least as efficient -- i.e. carrying the information as well or better and not taking up any more of people's time to do it -- and you end all but local economic activity.

Again, that's why Marxism is a religion: it asks people to take on faith not just that human nature will change, but that it will do so in a way that provides a new and very efficient way for economic information to move.
 
In the capitalism post, generally defining the other sides positions and knocking them down is call strawman debate but that aside... The capitalist is the middle piece in this equation, he is the one that sees a need, gathers the resources to fill it and hires the workers to produce it. He does all of this at a risk that the workers don't share. Yet when he is right and benefits from taking that risk he is considered evil. The profit he makes exists solely because he saw a need and met it. And everyone benefits from that profit, the employees continue to be employed and make more money for their efforts.

Except that's nearly as raw and theoretical as the description to which you respond. Managers these days (they're the class that's really missing in the equation) don't see needs, they see wants -- and they also work hard at manipulating wants. And there's little risk, in most cases; the managers play with other people's money these days, rarely their own, in ways such that the actual capitalists -- the ones whose money is being risked -- have little say in the matter.

Human nature is not greedy, and by stating so you throw the whole concept of psychology in the trash. How socialism will come to be was explained already in deeper meaning. A description is best understood when one has a background in philosophy and has spent YEARS reading upon the subject rather a few days or weeks, reread this.

Yes, human nature is greedy. In the rare cases where humans appear to not be greedy, they are at the very least selfish. I've taken a fair amount of psych and of counseling courses, and in practical terms selfishness and yes, greed, are taken to be fundamental.

In your socialist utopia, people are supposed to just accept that what the majority say they need really is what they need. But that doesn't work even in the plant kingdom: plants compete. They don't care about their neighbors, they care about getting all the nutrients and water and sunlight they can. Except in a few rare species, that holds true for the animal kingdom.

Example, fighting for green energy is ONE key element to socialism. Green energy that is powered by solar panels and wind opens the doors to not requiring money to keep our world powered. You could fill the entire Nevada desert with solar panels and without ANY other plants using nuclear energy (Toxic waste that pollutes the earth and wastes millions to clean up) or coal which become a thing of the past because we LEARNED how dangerous those methods are. People continue sucking the blood of the earth (oil) and don't care that sink holes are developing around the earth causing massive damage and home losses and lets not forget the growing number of earthquakes. Just one example how Capitalism is damaging the planet because oil produces BILLIONS of dollars in profit for capitalists that make energy a business.

No, we use oil because it's cheaper and easier than other things, and people won't pay for something more expensive just to avoid the downside. And energy is a business because we need energy.
In fact it's a very democratic process: when we fill up at the pump, we vote for more oil. When we buy clothes made of synthetic fibers, we vote for more oil.

And we don't have all those vast, environment-mangling arrays of solar panels because they cost more. That's not dollars, that's cost, the energy required to make, set up, and maintain them. So if we did your cover-the-desert bt with solar panels, energy bills would rise, not fall toward zero.

BTW, nuclear waste costing "millions to clean up" is false propaganda. We've know for decades how to deal with nuclear waste simply and cheaply -- that's not a technological problem, it's a political one (especially since a lot of what's classified as "nuclear waste" is less radioactive or dangerous than the Santa Monica freeway or the New Jersey Turnpike).
 
No ideals involved -- just practical sense.

No ideals or ethics are used to conclude your analysis? Do you think its rational someone might question certain concepts concluded by yourself after hearing that statement? What is your concept of "practical sense?" That can mean many different things to alot of people. Some think its practical sense to not fuck people on a global scale over for business.

Do away with markets in goods, and commerce collapses. Do away with money -- which doing away with markets entails -- and the information flow about what is wanted by whom and what the cost will be to get it, vanishes.

Yes eventually the idea of markets will vanish. You wouldn't need to worry about commerce (buying of selling of goods) because money wouldn't be a concept to begin with. Markets, money, selling and buying of people's badly needed resources for personal profit, are ALL aspects of Capitalism, not the permanent instincts of human development. Do you think after every social era that has been developed we are stuck at a certain point that we will never grow out of?

It's not possible to do away with markets; that means doing away with the exchange of things so people can have what they want and need. No markets would mean no houses, no food, no clothes, unless people went back to living off the land where they were, which since very few have a clue how would mean billions starving to death in short order.

You are just being really extreme. This statement shows you never read anything I explained which would help you understand how people would get what they need and want. And if you inferring we did away with money as of now, yes there would be tons of confusion and world chaos based on the mentality of our present society. I am well aware of that. But because changes always occur that massively impact the psychology of society as a whole, you can't conclude that commerce is society's permanent solution for eternity.

Provide a way to do the information flow as efficiently as money does and there might be grounds for talking. But doing away with markets means living only on what you can get by walking.

A way for information to flow more efficiently is not known for sure in every detail, for WE do not KNOW what future world events shall take place. We do not what liberal adjustments will be made in legislation all around the world in separate nations that will change our global perspective.

People in the future would know how to produce the basics of what we now know as highly advanced technology. For example, many kids know how to build a computer today when 20 years ago fewer did. In 50 years, people might know how to build their own cell-phone. In 30 years internet may be free around the world and may no longer be accepted as capital. Internet may be seen as a common human resource needed to acquire information. Capitalism will continue to exist, for capitalism is not something that is simply overthrown in a second when people wouldn't know how to fend for themselves. Such a thing is nonsense.

In the future we may have a global health care network that is provided "Free" based on money pooled in by a community of world governments because illnesses might become such a wide spread problem that nobody can afford to pay for medicine any longer. With a growing population and money as a limited resource, socialism will develop "behind closed doors" and society would be developing a more intellectual mentality as time went on. What would seem more practical is to find ways to get the resources to the citizens.

The citizens would basically be thinking "WTF" as poverty is no longer tolerable because poverty spreads FASTER then growing wealth. They would see no matter how many tweaks that are made to the money system, the flaws of it are simply inevitable. The people who have nothing (mostly everyone) eventually form their own communities and begin producing their own labor for the benefit of themselves or those that they know. People figure out through common sense they can produce their own goods or services, and those goods would be more efficient in quality because money is not an item. Companies have to budget what materials are used based on funds required to produce capital for the purpose of buying and selling. People would have the maturity to see (remember the mentality of people would be far more advanced and have an organic liberal pathology developed over hundreds of years) that they all along learned just how to do things themselves after being exploited by the Capitalist system for hundreds or thousands of years. Technology will be so easy to understand as education has become more practical in schools without a biased standpoint like it is today. Building a car, tv (something might be better then a tv by then or maybe people wouldn't rely so heavily on items such as these any longer because something better came along) would be simple knowledge to the average person. Cars wouldn't run on oil but air pressure, as these form of automobiles have already begun production in certain countries and are very efficient. The capitalists that distribute the goods would lose their power as people would see it makes more sense to do things communally rather then give power to those that would rather sell it to us. People would be less lazy and far more advanced in their thinking. Over time the Capitalists would blend in with society and the overthrow of the system would not be violent or aggressive but something that is mutually agreed as ideals develop and change.
 
Please state how most Americans are capitalists. I am interested in hearing this type of discussion because your statement intrigues me deeply.

401(k)
IRA
ESA

Anyone with money in any instrument that's meant to increase in value so they'll have more money in the future is a capitalist: they've put their money out to be used to make a profit. As an example, all union members are capitalists; their pension funds are out supporting the making of profit.

That development alone throws Marx out the window. For a huge portion of society, laborers and capitalists are the same people. I doubt he ever envisioned that the way that the laborers would come to own the means of production would be by becoming owners.
 
When are you going to reply to my paragraphs wholeheartedly (without picking certain points to your discretion and not responding to the most critical aspects) and make a philosophical analysis to share with me?

I'm not sure what you mean by "wholeheartedly".

I don't respond to large amounts of what you write because there's little or no cognitive content. When I pick a point, I do so because it's crucial or summarizing.

"Philosophical analysis"? Not sure what you mean there, but.... here's something:

for resources to come from their sources and get to where they're wanted, there has to be information flow. as a former student of botany, I see the flow of nutrients from roots to transport tissues to the rest of the plant as a good model: the flow of good through an economy should be very like that, it information is flowing smoothly and efficiently. only in a free-market economy do we see anything close to that. in state-controlled economies, we have observed that the flow becomes so contorted that the plant, so to speak, dies.

thus free-market economies are not a matter of any "system", but of how the world itself works: the markets are most effective at providing what people want because they operate in accordance with the way the real world really is.
 
Yes eventually the idea of markets will vanish. You wouldn't need to worry about commerce (buying of selling of goods) because money wouldn't be a concept to begin with. Markets, money, selling and buying of people's badly needed resources for personal profit, are ALL aspects of Capitalism, not the permanent instincts of human development. Do you think after every social era that has been developed we are stuck at a certain point that we will never grow out of?


You are just being really extreme. This statement shows you never read anything I explained which would help you understand how people would get what they need and want. And if you inferring we did away with money as of now, yes there would be tons of confusion and world chaos based on the mentality of our present society. I am well aware of that. But because changes always occur that massively impact the psychology of society as a whole, you can't conclude that commerce is society's permanent solution for eternity.


A way for information to flow more efficiently is not known for sure in every detail, for WE do not KNOW what future world events shall take place. We do not what liberal adjustments will be made in legislation all around the world in separate nations that will change our global perspective.

People in the future would know how to produce the basics of what we now know as highly advanced technology. For example, many kids know how to build a computer today when 20 years ago fewer did. In 50 years, people might know how to build their own cell-phone. In 30 years internet may be free around the world and may no longer be accepted as capital. Internet may be seen as a common human resource needed to acquire information. Capitalism will continue to exist, for capitalism is not something that is simply overthrown in a second when people wouldn't know how to fend for themselves. Such a thing is nonsense.

In the future we may have a global health care network that is provided "Free" based on money pooled in by a community of world governments because illnesses might become such a wide spread problem that nobody can afford to pay for medicine any longer. With a growing population and money as a limited resource, socialism will develop "behind closed doors" and society would be developing a more intellectual mentality as time went on. What would seem more practical is to find ways to get the resources to the citizens.

The citizens would basically be thinking "WTF" as poverty is no longer tolerable because poverty spreads FASTER then growing wealth. They would see no matter how many tweaks that are made to the money system, the flaws of it are simply inevitable. The people who have nothing (mostly everyone) eventually form their own communities and begin producing their own labor for the benefit of themselves or those that they know. People figure out through common sense they can produce their own goods or services, and those goods would be more efficient in quality because money is not an item. Companies have to budget what materials are used based on funds required to produce capital for the purpose of buying and selling. People would have the maturity to see (remember the mentality of people would be far more advanced and have an organic liberal pathology developed over hundreds of years) that they all along learned just how to do things themselves after being exploited by the Capitalist system for hundreds or thousands of years. Technology will be so easy to understand as education has become more practical in schools without a biased standpoint like it is today. Building a car, tv (something might be better then a tv by then or maybe people wouldn't rely so heavily on items such as these any longer because something better came along) would be simple knowledge to the average person. Cars wouldn't run on oil but air pressure, as these form of automobiles have already begun production in certain countries and are very efficient. The capitalists that distribute the goods would lose their power as people would see it makes more sense to do things communally rather then give power to those that would rather sell it to us. People would be less lazy and far more advanced in their thinking. Over time the Capitalists would blend in with society and the overthrow of the system would not be violent or aggressive but something that is mutually agreed as ideals develop and change.

This is mysticism. Your whole statement boils down to a statement of faith that humans will change in a certain direction. You provide no means or system for things working this way, just the assertion that people will be different.

Mixing it in with technological silliness makes it entertaining. The truth is that NO ONE knows how to make a cell phone or computer -- assemble it, yes, but that's entirely different. It's doubtful there's anyone who know how to make anything much more complex than a pencil -- where does the wood come from? how is it shaped? what is the "lead" made of? how is it obtained? how is it shaped? how does it get inside the wood?

But at the last you make some sense: the capitalists are already "blending in with society", because in developed countries, a majority of people are capitalists.
 
Human nature is not greedy, and by stating so you throw the whole concept of psychology in the trash. How socialism will come to be was explained already in deeper meaning. A description is best understood when one has a background in philosophy and has spent YEARS reading upon the subject rather a few days or weeks, reread this.

Human nature is many things. Yes altruism exists but so does greed. Are you saying there is no greed, selfishness or desire for power in all of Humanity? How do you explain those evil capitalists? The whole image of capitalists as depicted by your philosophy is one of greed and the accumulation of power and wealth. Yet you then wish to turn around and say that such desires don't exist in Humanity?


"We socialists do not wish to have our own party, for that concept is quite hypocritical. I do not agree with the concept of the American Communist Party or parties such as the Communist Party Of China. I know the Party of china will lead to eventual failure for all the oxymora that preside in the party itself. For example we do not agree with the the entire aspect of the American democratic party, but we favor their agenda because they grant more power and rights to man kind on a larger basis. Gay marriage, clean energy, higher wages, are all on the table of the democratic party and that is why Socialists many times side with Obama, though Obama is of the Capitalist system. Future democratic agenda will change the way people think, and the more people change their way of thinking, the more human and intellectual we become. Socialists in other nations think like-wise, for they are the proletariat that tend to reconstruct the agenda of their own politics, and slowly fix the social problems at hand there. The republican party, with the concept of conservatism (conserving the structure at the present and preventing progressive change) just keeps society back-peddling. "

Just an observation from my reading of section II of the manifesto today, Marx did not say that parties were 'hypocritical'. He said the communists did not need their own separate party since they would be part of the existing workers parties from which I gathered the communists, being "the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country" and having "over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletariat", would guide these lessor mortals to reaching the communist dream. As you might guess I found a certain arrogance in between the lines of Marx's description of the Communists in relation to the rest of the working slobs.

Socialism will work and come to be based on the liberal measures we implement in our present day society. Basically, the future is determined on how we build our society TODAY. The mind is a powerful tool, because the mind constructs the future environment, and this pattern has ALWAYS taken place in history. The minds of the slavery era eventually developed into feudalism, because changes were made over time via ideas and inventions that gave more knowledge to the oppressed slaves that built that society. You know how we keep learning certain lessons and measures in our own personal lives as we grow older?

If the mind can create the communist utopia it can also create the soviet nightmare or something like it. That is part of the arrogance I was talking about, the assumption that only we know 'line of march' of how history will unfold. I would be untrue to my personal philosophy to not agree the idea that Humanity has the power to shape its future for good or for ill but only a fool would assume that power will flow and develop in only one way. I see an infinite potential for catastrophe in trying to reach the communist dream. The line of the march is clearly before us until Squealer repaints the road lines.

We gain tools to deal with certain obstacles and situations the older we grow. We fail to make the right choices when we are younger, because we do not obtain social skills and crucial tools at that time. Make more sense now? Stop worrying about other people and look at yourself, what kind of person are YOU? Change is ALWAYS possible, and when you say you can't do something, or society says it can't do something, it reveals just how childlike our society is in terms of its mentality as a whole. But alas, change is good and inevitable when progressive ideas are taking place.

Example, fighting for green energy is ONE key element to socialism. Green energy that is powered by solar panels and wind opens the doors to not requiring money to keep our world powered. You could fill the entire Nevada desert with solar panels and without ANY other plants using nuclear energy (Toxic waste that pollutes the earth and wastes millions to clean up) or coal which become a thing of the past because we LEARNED how dangerous those methods are. People continue sucking the blood of the earth (oil) and don't care that sink holes are developing around the earth causing massive damage and home losses and lets not forget the growing number of earthquakes. Just one example how Capitalism is damaging the planet because oil produces BILLIONS of dollars in profit for capitalists that make energy a business.

Solar panels and windmills are expensive both to build and maintain, the cost will not be 'free'. You also fail to note that achieving that 'Green' goal will destroy the ecosystem of Nevada but who cares about saving the habitat of a whole state's animal population when we're out to save the planet, right. The law of unintended consequences apply even in a world without greed.

It's basically little baby steps that allow us to evolve naturally on our own. THAT is how socialism works. People learn on their own that things are MORE efficient without the concepts of "money" because the need to accumulate money/profit leads to so many other crises poverty and starvation being the biggest ones.

As for china, it was NEVER communist to begin with. I am going to write a summary of the history of the soviet union with specific key points in its government structure that will help everyone comprehend just how fucked up American text books are. I do not support the government of the USSR and I think its very sad how many lives were lost. China, I admire for its structure of Capitalism because they are progressing. I am not happy that they are CAPITALIST, I am happy they are moving forward, for they are NOT "going back to Capitalism." They were ALWAYS Capitalist to begin with. They used money and the notion of being a country and being surrounded by "countries" the entire time.

Its easy to pretend that your ideas are perfect if you simply dismiss the failures as 'They weren't communists' or 'they didn't understand Marx'. I found very interesting in the section I read today that Marx provided an example template of how to move towards a communist society. The Soviets pretty much tried to follow all ten of them plus the idea that Marx put forward that the revolution could be lead by workers who formed their own class in order to rule and put in place the communist framework and that special class would just fade away after all the old classes were demolished. An idea you said you had never heard before. Reading this template, I was rather struck how it would constitute a 'supposedly' temporary condition of 'state capitalism' on the route to the communist vision. The exact same thing you accuse the soviets of doing.

In a simplistic notion, Capitalism is taught in our textbooks that it is an economic model, but with a deeper and more complex observation that is omniscient, it is nothing more then an "era" of society. An imperfect era that is so heavily flawed NEVER lasts forever, because all the growing in that era develops something that is BETTER.

Capitalism is an economic system and so far the most effective one that has come along. That doesn't mean that something better can't come along, we just haven't envision it yet and I would be happy as clam if socialism could fill the bill but I don't see it and I do see great potential for disaster trying to make it there. But you are making a classic mistake that those who misunderstand evolution make all the time, the idea that evolution and growth automatically lead to things getting better. That is a flawed assumption, there is always a very real possibility for things in an imperfect entropic universe to get worse.

Karl Marx said:
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Whether or not greed and the desire for power are prime motivators of Human Nature or not, they exist and if you ignore them this vision will NEVER be realized as the Stalin/Napoleons will always be waiting to derail the process for their own purpose.
 
Except that's nearly as raw and theoretical as the description to which you respond. Managers these days (they're the class that's really missing in the equation) don't see needs, they see wants -- and they also work hard at manipulating wants. And there's little risk, in most cases; the managers play with other people's money these days, rarely their own, in ways such that the actual capitalists -- the ones whose money is being risked -- have little say in the matter.

Yes its pretty much a grade school view of capitalism but then as noted I was running late for work and I'm not really the best person to argue economics anyway. The main point is there is a BIG gaping hole in the ideas being presented, a hole that is critical in order for it work. You are probably more accurately pointing it out with the explaining the role of money in the system.



No, we use oil because it's cheaper and easier than other things, and people won't pay for something more expensive just to avoid the downside. And energy is a business because we need energy.
In fact it's a very democratic process: when we fill up at the pump, we vote for more oil. When we buy clothes made of synthetic fibers, we vote for more oil.

And we don't have all those vast, environment-mangling arrays of solar panels because they cost more. That's not dollars, that's cost, the energy required to make, set up, and maintain them. So if we did your cover-the-desert bt with solar panels, energy bills would rise, not fall toward zero.

BTW, nuclear waste costing "millions to clean up" is false propaganda. We've know for decades how to deal with nuclear waste simply and cheaply -- that's not a technological problem, it's a political one (especially since a lot of what's classified as "nuclear waste" is less radioactive or dangerous than the Santa Monica freeway or the New Jersey Turnpike).


By time you add the true overall environmental 'foot print' of all those mirrors and windmills combined with the costs of building them, nuclear power starts to look like a greener alternative.
 
Nothing more in today's reading scares the spit out of me more than these lines:

Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

Do you not see the potential for disaster of a country embracing ideas such as these? It should be glaringly obvious how the disaster that was the soviet union arose out the failed attempt of Lenin to 'create' a communist state.
 
Yes its pretty much a grade school view of capitalism but then as noted I was running late for work and I'm not really the best person to argue economics anyway. The main point is there is a BIG gaping hole in the ideas being presented, a hole that is critical in order for it work. You are probably more accurately pointing it out with the explaining the role of money in the system.

Money is essential. I've tried to figure out a way to convey information in a medium that isn't subject to being manipulated for its own sake, but haven't come up with one. So long as there are certificates, even electronically, that represent "want" -- which is what money does; it tells the worker just how much the employer wants that work done, etc. -- those certificates will be regarded as having worth for their own sake. The only possible way to address the situation that I can see is with vast computing power, but that just puts the symbol of want a step removed.

But Kris is onto something with the point about energy: until energy is essentially free, none of the rest of the system will change, but if energy could be free (and clean), there would be a chance at a societal shift. Yet that's just one part of what's needed; another is that computing power to handle the symbols of want, which double as certificates of cost. Yet so long as power over manipulation of those symbols is in human hands, the system will still be subject to corruption -- so not only do we need essentially unlimited free energy, we need essentially unlimited computing power free of human interference.

By time you add the true overall environmental 'foot print' of all those mirrors and windmills combined with the costs of building them, nuclear power starts to look like a greener alternative.

I saw a program on one of the learning/educational channels that looked at the impact of vast solar arrays. There's actually a project out in some stretch of the American Southwest where they're tracking changes in temperature, humidity, flora and fauna, and all. One team actually thinks that once they learn how the whole environment interacts with such arrays, we may be able to use solar projects as elements in fighting the spread of deserts, because they can serve to lower the average ambient temperature.

BTW, the environmental footprint is part of the cost, a strand of economics humans have ignored too long, to our peril.
 
Back
Top