Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ed boy]

If one accepts the worth of the financial system and all the principles behind it, then work pertaining strictly to the operation of that financial system does have worth.  However I do not accept the worth of that financial system or the principles on which it operates, therefore any work which pertains to nothing but the operation of that financial system is inherently worthless.  It's a giant number game which serves no purpose but as an excuse for social control.

"financial system" is a very broad term indeed, so I won't attempt to explain all of it, only the basics. I would ask you to clarify what you mean by it, so I can try to explain it to you, though.

Nowadays, things have prices. By giving up money, you can recieve goods and services, and you can use these goods and services to benefit yourself.

Now, let us imagine that you have an epiphany, and you realise that you would be able to help people move house in exchange for money. Unfortunately, in order to do this, you need a van to put the stuff in while it is being moved. You do not currently have a van, nor can you afford one. Normally, you would be stuck, and unable to offer the service of helping people move house. However, you can go to a bank and get a loan. They will give you money now, and you can use that money to buy a van. With the van, you can earn money from helping people move house. You can then use this money to repay the bank. By doing this, both you and the bank are better off - You are making money by helping people move house, and the bank is getting a bit extra over what it gave you. The bank needs to charge you more - if you have its money, it can't spend it on things, some people who have loans cannot pay them back so the bank needs to avoid losses on these people, and it needs to make sure it's not worse off through inflation and other investments it could invest in instead.

You spend some time helping people move house, and one of your mates decided to get a van of his own. He helps a few people move, but then there is a horiffic accident, and his van is stolen - he still has to pay back the money he borrowed, but now his livelihood is gone. You start to worry that something similar might happen to you. All it would take is one unfortunate moment, and then you would be just like your mate. In this case, you would get insurance. Although chances are you will give more the the insurance company that you will claim, it offers you the peace of mind that you will still be able to continue your work even if luck turns against you.

[Eagle_eye]

The thing i get the most irritated over when I wander into these topics is that most people thinks that Liberal Democrats are Left].
they are NOT LEFT they are CENTER RIGHT

uhh... no. They're center left. They may not go out and say they're socialist, but they do in general support greater social saftey nets and economic regulation, both hallmarks of socialism. Center right holds the moderate republicans, and the far right is the tea party and the more extreme libertarians.

[Phmcw]

also Stalinism is not Communism

It's a type of Communism, don't give us that "no true Scottsman" bullcrap.

Just a clarification on classification.

Yes, just like national socialism is a kind of socialism, and a kind of right wing ideological policie (stance on nationalism and immigration).
Catholic and protestant are all Christian, and Muslim and Christian are theist. Ben laden is theist too. And Muslim. And the Lord's liberation army is Christian.

All this is semantically true, yet mean little. I don't think mother Teresa would hang on with the lord's Liberation army. Or Ben laden.

The thing i get the most irritated over when I wander into these topics is that most people thinks that Liberal Democrats are Left].
they are NOT LEFT they are CENTER RIGHT

uhh... no. They're center left. They may not go out and say they're socialist, but they do in general support greater social saftey nets and economic regulation, both hallmarks of socialism. Center right holds the moderate republicans, and the far right is the tea party and the more extreme libertarians.

No, definitively center right. Way to mild in their demand to be center left. They just want BASIC health-care and social safety.
At least if we're speaking of Obama.
The moderate republican are hard right, tea party and extreme Liberatrian are extreme right.

[Leafsnail]

The "centre" is just whatever position happens to be between the most popular ones in your country.

So the Democrats are centre left in America, even though by European standard's they'd be centre right.  Same goes for, say, the Conservative party in Britain.

[Shades]

To be honest with the (main three) parties in my country (UK) I can't really see much difference anymore, which probably makes them all centre (or marginally centre right / centre left)

[Il Palazzo]

To be honest with the (main three) parties in my country (UK) I can't really see much difference anymore, which probably makes them all centre (or marginally centre right / centre left)

It's happening everywhere. Surely a part of some global conspiracy brainwashing the people to think the same and vote the same. You know it's true.

[Comrade_Fregge]

also Stalinism is not Communism

It's a type of Communism, don't give us that "no true Scottsman" bullcrap.

Of course its not true communism. Communism teaches us to accept everyone, yet the Stalinists comitted genocides and ethnical cleansings. Besides, instead of crushing the capitalism, they put more work into crushing other communists. Old Lenin warned them not to trust Stalin, yet they wouldnt listen.

[Aqizzar]

Of course its not true communism. Communism teaches us to accept everyone...

I'm gonna stop you right there, and ask you to really think about the tone you just put that sentiment in.  Think about the perspective you hold this idea with, and consider whether you're approaching this from the wrong angle.

And it's not true anyway.  Communism teaches us to reject the bourgeoisie, now doesn't it?

[Solifuge]

Never been big on Socialism/Communism debates, because McCarthy's ghost follows me most places I go. Nevertheless, I share this academical tidbit:

After lecture a week or so back, I was chatting with my Anthropology prof about Egalitarianism and Communism. Egalitarianism, if you don't know it, is a form of social governance where people share resources like food and goods, as well as labor with each other. It's basically what first let human cultures support specialists, like farmers or weavers. It works in small societies, particularly with tribal and kin-based societies, because everyone is held personally accountable for everything they contribute, and the community can asses that member's worth to the society as a whole.

You run into problems applying Egalitarianism to a large group, because people can hide that they contribute little to nothing to their kin, and take advantage of the system. This is why codified laws and different forms of governance came into being as populations grew larger and larger. Marx was fascinated with Egalitarianism, and thinking about why this fundamental and simple form of governance didn't work at large... and his Communism was in many ways an attempt to bring Egalitarianism to State-Level societies.

It's never been properly executed, because every "Communist" country has gotten stuck in the transitional phase, which is little more than a Dictatorship... and it would take a strongly idealistic Dictator to relinquish that sort of power. We can't really say that Communism, or any form of State-Level Egalitarianism absolutely couldn't work based on the precedent of "it not working before," because frankly, there has never been a "Communist" government. On the same coin, no more do we have any evidence that it would work.

I'd like to see the experiment attempted again by a strongly idealistic leader at some point, in a smaller state-level society... if just for intellectual curiosity, and a chance to observe the unique problems such a nation would face, and how they would be confronted.

[Sheb]

Or because you can always do with another genocide.

[jaked122]

the last steps of communism involve dissolving the state once everybody is used to it, hence creating an anarchy where everybody follows moral guidelines on their own, something that would be wonderful, however this simply won't work. I personally think that communism is not so much morally unacceptable, so much as completely impossible to guide properly. the dictators of communism won't relinquish power, or try to and then come running back to office when they realize that it isn't working out.

[Zrk2]

Based on past experience (Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea) we can deduce that communism will fail the vast majority of times it is tried. There has never even been a reasonably successful communist state and so one can deduce that, given the large number of test samples, that communism will never prove effective on a nation wide scale.

[Leafsnail]

Based on past experience (Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea) we can deduce that communism will fail the vast majority of times it is tried. There has never even been a reasonably successful communist state and so one can deduce that, given the large number of test samples, that communism will never prove effective on a nation wide scale.

Cuba?

[Realmfighter]

That place is amazing, with the portrait drawer so amazing that they draw you before you even notice them, knowing that you will be shocked into amazement and but it from them.

Its a tourist country, is what I'm saying.

[ChairmanPoo]

Cuba is pretty battered up nowadays. Not nearly as bad (by far!) as some people would make you believe, but still, twenty years without soviet support have taken a toll