 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 29-12-2009 20:16, m1j wrote:
> [snipped warp text]
>>
> It is just like talking to a Scotsman
> and don't hear a word because he has such an interesting accent.
>
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
>
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a sy
nonym of “Communism”
What do *you* think the difference is? They sound pretty similar, except
one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by "the peop
le".
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-12-2009 11:54, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
>> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a synonym of
>> “Communism”
>
> What do *you* think the difference is? They sound pretty similar,
> except one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by
> "the people".
In the Netherlands communism is associated with Russia and China. We had
a communist party (now part of a larger alliance). It was closely linked
to Moscow, very dogmatic and very surprised when it became known what
Russian communism actually meant in practice.
Socialism is a much broader term. Our labour party (in size number 1,2
or 3 of our political parties over the last decades) is a socialist
party. Socialist parties are very well represented in the European
parliament as well. The main characteristic is that they will always
think first about what a proposal means for the working class, those
without the money to buy political influence (or that is the theory).
In short: to Europeans the difference is huge. Americans using the term
'socialism' are generally regarded with a friendly sort of paternalism.
They clearly don't know what they are talking about, but that is OK,
they are Americans.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-12-2009 11:08, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Well, you never know with Americans. Some seem to religiously believe
>> that everybody has at birth the same possibilities*.
>
> No, it's more like everyone should get the same opportunities.
I don't have a problem with 'should'. I do have problems with people
implying that it is already the current state.
> But if
> you're unable to take advantage of the opportunity, you don't get to
> leech off someone else.
As a socialist ;) I should reply that quite a lot of people are unable
to take advantage, simple because in practice they don't get the
opportunity. It is economically sound to kill everybody with a
disability and with an IQ of less than 80, but you can also take your
responsibility as a society to act as an extended family and take care
of them. You might call that leeching, I don't. In most cases it is not
that extreme, but we feel that it is sensible to prevent people to sink
down deep in poverty, because if they do, they and their children (ad
infinitum?) will never contribute to society again. Besides, the one who
is accused of leeching may be you in ten years time, struggling to feed
your family.
> Everyone should be allowed to buy a house. That doesn't mean we take
> houses from people who own two and give them to people who are too poor
> to buy their own, you see.
I am not aware that anybody suggested that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-12-2009 11:16, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I know that almost everybody wants themselves and their loved ones to
>> live longer. That does not imply that all these people also think
>> everybody should pass that time wearing digital watches.
>
> The two go together.
That is what you think ;)
>> Hmm, not sure if you would win a logical contest with that, but I
>> understand what you mean. Or actually I don't. What type of economical
>> system do you know that preaches absence of government control, other
>> than extremist capitalism?
>
> Extremist capitalism doesn't preach no government control. That would be
> anarchy. I don't know of any capitalist who thinks having the government
> not in control of enforcing contracts (for example) is a good thing.
I was a bit sloppy there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-12-2009 11:35, Stephen wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 29-12-2009 20:16, m1j wrote:
>> [snipped warp text]
>>>
>
>> It is just like talking to a Scotsman and don't hear a word because
>> he has such an interesting accent.
>>
>
>
Why? I really love listening to it. Trying to figure out what they do to
their vowels and consonants. What phrases and words they use. Really
fantastically interesting. Sorry, what were you saying?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Americans. ;)
> > It is just that your contribution is so full of typical right wing US
> > propaganda terminology. You may have a point but the way you phrase it
> > makes it hard for me to follow. It is just like talking to a Scotsman
> > and don't hear a word because he has such an interesting accent.
>
> Personally I think socialism (meaning that private property and private
> enterpreneurship is banned, and everything is controlled by the government
> and, in an ideal/utopistic situation, the government shares all capital
> equally with all citizens) might be an enticing ideology because it's "fair"
> (after all, it's unfair that some people can live in multi-million dollar
> mansions, own one expensive sports car for every day of the week, and travel
> regularly to the Bahamas in their own private jet, while so many people
> are living in cardboard boxes on the streets). However, from a pragmatic
> point of view socialism just doesn't work. It causes progress stagnation,
> which ends up lessening everybody's quality of life in the long run.
>
> Capitalism endorses competition. People will strive for bettering their
> own lives (to get rich, famous or otherwise in a better position in life).
> While this sounds (and somewhat is) a sign of greed, in the grand scale of
> things it's actually greed that benefits the society as a whole: By bettering
> his own life, this person is pushing forward progress, indirectly bettering
> everyone's life in average.
What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
marketplace will provide them. If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
the marketplace will prove them. If they want the absolutely cheapest
chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
The key point here is nagging. "Capitalists" are tired of nagging about what
they do in the marketplace and, to echo Scrooge, say, "I wish to be left alone."
Capitalists seek some idyllic realm where they can be free to practice their
wares (and warez), free of not only state intervention but also the actual
social and scientific consequences (ozone depletion) of what they are doing.
We don't necessarily need a world where the hand of capitalists are restrained
by the state, but we desperately need more nagging.
Socialism is three wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Capitalism is one sheep telling three others that fences deprive wolves of
liberty.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 11:08, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> Well, you never know with Americans. Some seem to religiously believe
>>> that everybody has at birth the same possibilities*.
>>
>> No, it's more like everyone should get the same opportunities.
>
> I don't have a problem with 'should'. I do have problems with people
> implying that it is already the current state.
Certainly. But there's a delicate balance between freedom and "should get
the same opportunities." We have a set of laws that cover it, and that set
of laws are constantly being argued and refined. We have equal opportunity
employment laws (outlawing discrimination in hiring based on a particular
list of factors), disabled person access laws (mandating that buildings open
to the public have to have ramps, for example), and so on.
>> But if you're unable to take advantage of the opportunity, you don't
>> get to leech off someone else.
>
> As a socialist ;) I should reply that quite a lot of people are unable
> to take advantage, simple because in practice they don't get the
> opportunity.
Note how I phrased it. They have the opportunity, but they're unable to take
advantage of it. Nothing *external* is stopping someone with an IQ of 80
from winning a Nobel prize. Nothing *external* is stopping someone with no
arms from being a carpenter.
> responsibility as a society to act as an extended family and take care
> of them. You might call that leeching, I don't.
It depends, really. I have no problem with supporting the relatively small
number of people who are really physically incapable of being gainfully
employed.
I haven't any problem with public schooling. I have a problem with
*removing* opportunities from those who *can* take advantage of them
*because* there are people who *cannot*, you see. Which is what this thread
started as a discussion of.
>> Everyone should be allowed to buy a house. That doesn't mean we take
>> houses from people who own two and give them to people who are too
>> poor to buy their own, you see.
>
> I am not aware that anybody suggested that.
No. It was an example of extremism in the other direction.
I think a middle ground is reasonable, in this and most things. The problem
with stereotypes of Americans is that you only hear, for the most part, the
extreme ends of the spectrum, because of the economics and politics of
getting people fired up. If you're already happy with the middle-ground we
have, you don't get on the radio and try to work people up to support it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 11:16, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> I know that almost everybody wants themselves and their loved ones to
>>> live longer. That does not imply that all these people also think
>>> everybody should pass that time wearing digital watches.
>>
>> The two go together.
>
> That is what you think ;)
Of course I'm talking figuratively. You don't get more food and longer
lifespans without things like artificial fertilizer, genetically engineered
crops, and MRI machines.
And I'm not sure that everyone wants themselves and their loved ones to live
longer. Certainly many religions preach that it's a good thing to be dead,
and religions that utterly reject material wealth (like extreme monks of
various religions) also tend to be stereotyped as not dying.
Of course, in practice, folks generally are uncomfortable with death,
regardless of what they claim to believe religiously.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
