Socialism: the problem and prescription's of Marx

[ICantSpellDawg]

I am not a socialist, but I've always accepted the struggle of the working classes against their elite masters. I've accepted the general dynamic detailed in the manifesto, but I don't believe that it fairly identifies most of the struggle or the mechanisms or life. I do believe that most laws, many customs need to be smashed and that lower classes need to find a better balance between self driven and subservient life. Also importantly I recognize that hard work and intellect will naturally result in more lifestyle priveleges for those who have it, no matter the dogmatic resolution of socialists.

I guess that part of my issue with Socialism is in its aim and solution for the correctly generally diagnosed problem. The ideology actually tends to focus on material wealth and downplay individual and ethical freedoms. The solution effectively turns the problem upside down. Where the elite and talented were the masters, now they are the slaves, encumbered by the infantile and illogical abuses of the masses. Problem solved with another just beginning.

My alternative has always been to harness the greed, excess, talent and skill without encumbering it. To increase the ranks of the elite until we are all capable of self direction and emancipation. By increasing access to top tier education online - allowing a janitor to invest intelligently in the market or for a grocery bagger to successfully build a yoga training business, by lowering the tax burden of small businesses at the expense of the undue privilege known by the monopolistic players; To even the tax playing field. By obliterating racial or gender obstructions to talent without creating a house of cards.

Where do we all stand on the issue of Socialism these days?

EDIT : I'm sorry for the grammatical and usage errors. If I wake up and post something, it has to be crap or I don't have time.

[rvg]

Capitalism -- bad.
Socialism -- worse.

[Greyblades]

Capitalism without socialism is cruel and unfair, socialism without capitalism is dogmatic and untennable. Both are exploitable, and in thier extremes result in suffering, but together they cancel out eachothers flaws, to an extent.

[Fragony]

Capitalism without socialism is cruel and unfair, socialism without capitalism is dogmatic and untennable. Both are exploitable, and in thier extremes result in suffering, but together they cancel out eachothers flaws, to an extent.

Yeah, there just isn't any perfection to be had. While generally leaning to the right I wouldn't call myself rightwing, the left has some excellent arguments as well. Pragmatism should rule

[Lemur]

Honestly, I always get a little guarded when people use the word "socialism." It can mean so many (sometimes contradictory) things, job one is to find out what someone means when they say it.

[InsaneApache]

I always thought that Groucho made more sense TBH.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Socialism means the state owns the means of production.

Capitalism means that an increasingly small number of 'bourgeoisie' own the means of production.

Both systems mean that Joe Blogg is forced to sell his labour for a wage and generally has little prospect of improving his lot in life. For all the talk of capitalism promoting invention and initiative, it in fact stifles these things - because the vast majority of people have little incentive to show these qualities so long as their wage will remain the same. They have no stake in their labour.

What is the solution? I would say a ban on all wage labour in the same way we ban slavery. Because if you enter into a contract where you are effectively granting another person the right to the fruit of your labour, you are selling away your freedom in much the same way as you would were you to become a slave, or abolish democracy. That is what wage labour is - making significant profit off of another's labour, and then giving only a portion of it back to him. That is theft.

We should force companies to redistribute their shares between their employees. This would also have the effect of gradually abolishing the division of labour, as individuals would have less incentive to develop large businesses. And by abolishing the division of labour, you would no longer reduce people to a part of an assembly line - allowing them to actually take pride in their work and have the ability to use their potential.

It would be a world without monolithic corporations or a monolithic state. It would be a world of small-business, of individual enterprise, where every worker is his own boss. This is what capitalists (especially in America it seems) idealise, and yet they support the very system that has for centuries been destroying such a world!

It might seem that this trend has been reversed, but it has not. The Welfare State, New Dealism etc in the USA might have for a time curbed the excesses of the capitalist system, but ultimately it has always been going in the same direction. The vast majority of the population are entirely at the whims of an increasingly tiny elite that controls the means of production and thus all employment. The social breakdown that is resulting from this fact is devastating. Consider the decline of regular, stable career jobs and the instability that that creates. Look at the rise of phenomena such as irregular employment, underemployment and the like. People are reduced to a life of endless adolescence, unable to be independent, to marry, to form the basic family unit that society is built upon. Meanwhile, those who do get the traditional, stable jobs are increasingly abused as the ever increasingly competitive employment system means they must subvert their entire lives to their work life to keep their jobs. What was once 9-5 is now 8-6, the increasingly international nature of business means that extended periods of travel is an expectation, rather than exception. Consider the impact on family life, on community life that that has. As I always say on this issue - look to Japan, that bastion of artificially, politically-imposed turbo-capitalism, to see where we will be in ten years time. We don't need to speculate about what will happen, because it is happening there already!

Another, more unique, development in these present evil times, has been the loss of stability that even class once provided. The vast majority of today's middle-class are not bourgeoisie, but, in fact, just wealth proletarians. Much like the shelf-stacker or the waitress, even the supervisor and the manager is a wage-labourer with no control over his destiny, and can find themselves reduced to destitution as soon as they are no longer needed by their bosses. And indeed, the tendency of capitalism to increasingly reduce the need for the labourer for the purpose of improving profit means that this is happening more and more. Whereas education once maintained the class system, its more equal distribution nowadays means that the sons and daughters of todays 'salariat' (the wage-labour 'middle-classes') are no longer guaranteed the life of their parents, but are instead reduced to the condition of the working-classes. The development of this phenomena within this current generation is going to have a major impact in shaking people out of their complacency. "It's one thing for some white trash on a council estate to live in poverty, quite another for my university-educated child!".

Anyway, for all the above reasons, capitalism should be recognised as fundamentally anti-social, immoral, and detrimental to human life. Anybody who respects the development of Western philosophical/political thought, of those that laid down the principles of modern democracy, ought to abhor it.

I honestly believe that the opening up of the Second and Third World markets has given capitalism something of an artificial extension onto the end of its life, and that when these are saturated, it will come crashing down in spectacular fashion. The very nature of the system means that it must grow to exist, but that can't be sustained forever. And eventually, things will get bad enough that people won't accept it anymore. Material gains will not always placate people in the face of its social devastation.

[Ronin]

Marx forgot the very "small" detail that humans don´t really want to be equal.
most people do not want their neighbor to die of starvation, but they do want to be better off than their neighbor.

given this, it's no coincidence every attempt to implement this model has failed to achieve it's goal, and either was replaced or devolved into a dictatorship (not for the same reason, but related).
this is not caused by errors in the application of the model, the model itself is flawed from conception.

now if we are talking about democratic socialism, that´s another thing, and one I don´t have a problem with.

[Beskar]

Socialism means the state owns the means of production.

Actually, you are misrepresenting it a little there. Ideally, it is 'Social Ownership', such as working collectives, common-ownership, cooperatives and it can include state ownership. Typically, state ownership by a democratic government.

There is also a difference in terminology when applied in the real world too. Socialism is seen as providing minimum wage, higher taxes for higher earners. All in all, trying to rein in the excess of making sure the poor are not completely left out to rot and the rich doesn't simply squander all the money.

So it does come down to what Lemur says. What do you mean by "Socialism" ? Could also even argue with "What do you mean by Capitalism?" I guess the best one-line definitions would be as follows:

Capitalism - Private Ownership of the Means of Production with the goal of producing as much profit as possible.
Socialism - Social Ownership of the Means of Production with the goal of satisfying economic demands and human needs.

[Brenus]

You basically right.

Capitalism believe in inequality as you do not born equal by nature as some are small, some are fat, some are and you can details all our differences. Capitalism believes that human have different values (in tem of money), and the “elite” (self-definition) should earn more because they got there first, and they got the ideas etc… The idea is that the Riches create jobs in allowing workers to have a salary. Capitalism believes that if the poor are poor it is their fault (or destiny).
Capitalism doesn’t like taxes as them deprive the Riches from what they earn by the work or ideas. Capitalism believes in Charity.

Socialism (in a very flexible definition) believes in equality and that all men born equal by law. Socialism thinks an enterprise as a community where ah of the individual work and have a decent living for it. Socialism believe that the Riches are rich because the labour of the workers producing the goods. Socialism believes that there are poor because there are Riches, and extreme poverty exist only because extreme greed.
Socialism aims to rebalance the natural inequality in redistributing the wealth.
Socialism believes in Justice

“Marx forgot the very "small" detail that humans don´t really want to be equal.”
Can’t remember this detail. In fact, I don’t remember where Marx did write about humans in such terms. I give you I didn’t read all Marx. Marx analysed a system and describe how it works. Equality is a political value.

[Lemur]

Since historical economic theory has never been my thing, I haven't read Marx. However, I do recall a historian saying that his analysis of capitalism was pretty good, and that very little of his writing had to do with communism. But like I said, I ain't read it myself.

Wealth of Nations, on the other hand, is surprisingly readable, and isn't nearly as radical or one-note monomaniacal as Adam Smith's latter-day idolatrists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand) would have you believe.

[Fragony]

Since historical economic theory has never been my thing, I haven't read Marx. However, I do recall a historian saying that his analysis of capitalism was pretty good, and that very little of his writing had to do with communism. But like I said, I ain't read it myself.

Wealth of Nations, on the other hand, is surprisingly readable, and isn't nearly as radical or one-note monomaniacal as Adam Smith's latter-day idolatrists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand) would have you believe.

For historical theory it doesn't have to do with communism, a marxist theory assumes a logical sequence of developments

[gaelic cowboy]

Socialism means the state owns the means of production.

Capitalism means that an increasingly small number of 'bourgeoisie' own the means of production........

Both systems mean that Joe Blogg is forced to sell his labour for a wage and generally has little prospect of improving his lot in life. For all the talk of capitalism promoting invention and initiative, it in fact stifles these things - because the vast majority of people have little incentive to show these qualities so long as their wage will remain the same. They have no stake in their labour.

What is the solution? I would say a ban on all wage labour in the same way we ban slavery. Because if you enter into a contract where you are effectively granting another person the right to the fruit of your labour, you are selling away your freedom in much the same way as you would were you to become a slave, or abolish democracy. That is what wage labour is - making significant profit off of another's labour, and then giving only a portion of it back to him. That is theft.

We should force companies to redistribute their shares between their employees. This would also have the effect of gradually abolishing the division of labour, as individuals would have less incentive to develop large businesses. And by abolishing the division of labour, you would no longer reduce people to a part of an assembly line - allowing them to actually take pride in their work and have the ability to use their potential.

It would be a world without monolithic corporations or a monolithic state. It would be a world of small-business, of individual enterprise, where every worker is his own boss. This is what capitalists (especially in America it seems) idealise, and yet they support the very system that has for centuries been destroying such a world!

It might seem that this trend has been reversed, but it has not. The Welfare State, New Dealism etc in the USA might have for a time curbed the excesses of the capitalist system, but ultimately it has always been going in the same direction. The vast majority of the population are entirely at the whims of an increasingly tiny elite that controls the means of production and thus all employment. The social breakdown that is resulting from this fact is devastating. Consider the decline of regular, stable career jobs and the instability that that creates. Look at the rise of phenomena such as irregular employment, underemployment and the like. People are reduced to a life of endless adolescence, unable to be independent, to marry, to form the basic family unit that society is built upon. Meanwhile, those who do get the traditional, stable jobs are increasingly abused as the ever increasingly competitive employment system means they must subvert their entire lives to their work life to keep their jobs. What was once 9-5 is now 8-6, the increasingly international nature of business means that extended periods of travel is an expectation, rather than exception. Consider the impact on family life, on community life that that has. As I always say on this issue - look to Japan, that bastion of artificially, politically-imposed turbo-capitalism, to see where we will be in ten years time. We don't need to speculate about what will happen, because it is happening there already!

Another, more unique, development in these present evil times, has been the loss of stability that even class once provided. The vast majority of today's middle-class are not bourgeoisie, but, in fact, just wealth proletarians. Much like the shelf-stacker or the waitress, even the supervisor and the manager is a wage-labourer with no control over his destiny, and can find themselves reduced to destitution as soon as they are no longer needed by their bosses. And indeed, the tendency of capitalism to increasingly reduce the need for the labourer for the purpose of improving profit means that this is happening more and more. Whereas education once maintained the class system, its more equal distribution nowadays means that the sons and daughters of todays 'salariat' (the wage-labour 'middle-classes') are no longer guaranteed the life of their parents, but are instead reduced to the condition of the working-classes. The development of this phenomena within this current generation is going to have a major impact in shaking people out of their complacency. "It's one thing for some white trash on a council estate to live in poverty, quite another for my university-educated child!".

Anyway, for all the above reasons, capitalism should be recognised as fundamentally anti-social, immoral, and detrimental to human life. Anybody who respects the development of Western philosophical/political thought, of those that laid down the principles of modern democracy, ought to abhor it.

I honestly believe that the opening up of the Second and Third World markets has given capitalism something of an artificial extension onto the end of its life, and that when these are saturated, it will come crashing down in spectacular fashion. The very nature of the system means that it must grow to exist, but that can't be sustained forever. And eventually, things will get bad enough that people won't accept it anymore. Material gains will not always placate people in the face of its social devastation.


A bit too much for me too dissect here but I think your on to something.




If I may be so bold I think you omitted the fact that the one crowd who are not capitalists is the bosses themselves.

We see everyday there interference in politics and even there sacred MARKET.

Also they engage in monopolies and almost never price there products properly to really take account of there impact.

The very financial system itself which benefits from much of our common goods also seeks to dismantle them for our own use.

I could go on but you get the idea

[Rhyfelwyr]

A bit too much for me too dissect here but I think your on to something.

You know considering our different backgrounds it is scary how much we agree with each other!


If I may be so bold I think you omitted the fact that the one crowd who are not capitalists is the bosses themselves.

We see everyday there interference in politics and even there sacred MARKET.

Also they engage in monopolies and almost never price there products properly to really take account of there impact.

The very financial system itself which benefits from much of our common goods also seeks to dismantle them for our own use.

By bosses do you mean the top dogs (actual owners and their surrounding cabal), or more the lower-level bosses?

Certainly, I've heard a couple of different takes on the lower and mid-level bosses, the managerial class. Marx saw them as fairly insignificant, just an auxiliary to the bourgeoisie that existed for practical reasons. Others, like James Burnham, argue that managers have become a class unto themselves. I really must buy the Managerial Revolution to get more insight on that.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Elites own the earth and everything on it. We are merely insects who do their bidding, so they feed us the scraps to keep us working. We are less necessary as technology advances, so they feed us less scraps. As people become unneccesary, they'll stop feeding us at all. Never think for a second that you work for social good in this system, you work for the Lords and Ladys pleasure, as people have always done. The old relationship benefited the insects, but that was an historical blip in the timeline. They've figured out a way to forever eliminate armed resistance, collective rights and individual advancement. The security state doesn't exist for us, it exists for them against us. Terrorism isn't the threat that a free people should fear, but the solution to terrorism.

Nullify, repeal and subvert these laws. Don't buy the line that any developments are for you, your family, region or nation. Developments serve the elite that they can be unshackled from the burden of the lesser men. They actually seem to be close to that realization. I've learned to radically oppose reductions of individual rights and values. I increasingly believe in a more realistic version of this narrative. I don't take armed hedging lightly and I don't think it is a joke. I think that most people are losing relevance and it is reaching a fever pitch.

Maybe this can be the plot to 100k books written since forever. The more I think about it, the more realistic it seems.

[gaelic cowboy]

You know considering our different backgrounds it is scary how much we agree with each other!



By bosses do you mean the top dogs (actual owners and their surrounding cabal), or more the lower-level bosses?

Certainly, I've heard a couple of different takes on the lower and mid-level bosses, the managerial class. Marx saw them as fairly insignificant, just an auxiliary to the bourgeoisie that existed for practical reasons. Others, like James Burnham, argue that managers have become a class unto themselves. I really must buy the Managerial Revolution to get more insight on that.

Oh I am on about the masters of the universe of course the bucks who really run an own things.


You know I read once in the shrumpeter coloum I think in the economist that suposedly we cannot properly explain why we actually have companies.

Most suscribe to the idea that it is a modern version of industrial/economic feudalism, I give my service and in return am protected from full market forces by my leige lord ( CEO/Manager )

Otherwise I might have to be self employed which is apparently what there fancy economic models tell them we should be doing.

[Beskar]

So, ignore all the -isms. Those are problems that require specific fixes, not recommendations from a 19th Century philosopher. Reigning in the excesses of the Rich and Powerful in the 21st Century will require new thinking.

Being honest, the conditions required as demonstrated by History is for things to get so bad, it ends up embroiled in a bloody revolution/war, then there is a high-chance any spirit for goodwill and change will end up corrupted and perverted by ambitious power hungry individuals. Many people are simply 'content' in the apathetic sense until something knocks the tea cup over. Any major structural reform will hit massive opposition from the status quo or those landed with special interests. Even talk about very minor arrangements such as the Robinhood Tax then you have people screaming till blue in the face about how it might hurt our status with the 'economical elite'.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You know I read once in the shrumpeter coloum I think in the economist that suposedly we cannot properly explain why we actually have companies.

Most suscribe to the idea that it is a modern version of industrial/economic feudalism, I give my service and in return am protected from full market forces by my leige lord ( CEO/Manager )

Otherwise I might have to be self employed which is apparently what there fancy economic models tell them we should be doing.

Well, from a historical perspective, companies have come about through various processes - monopolization, the division of labour, the fact that only a select few had the wealth required to set up industries to begin with.

They may well be in some sense a form of modern feudalism, but I don't think that is why they continue to exist. I think they continue to exist simply because they have able to propagate their existence - they don't actually offer anything to society or the world of employment. Indeed, as I said earlier, I think they are very destructive in that regard.

Now, we just need to figure out how to get rid of them, even when so much of our economic organisation is based around them.


There's something pretty innate about the idea of creating a social hierarchy. I also don't think there's anything inherently bad about that, as long as all parts of the whole respect the needs of the others. I don't think its a stretch to say that a medieval Manor Lord probably cared more about the peasants tending the fields than a modern CEO of a blue chip company cares about his entry-level workers, though.

Yes and no. It depends on how interdependent they are on each other. Just look at how Highland Clearances, when hordes of peasants were chucked off their land and replaced with sheep.


So, ignore all the -isms. Those are problems that require specific fixes, not recommendations from a 19th Century philosopher. Reigning in the excesses of the Rich and Powerful in the 21st Century will require new thinking.

Isms are what give perspective to our decision making process. The economy and how it relates to politics and society is a very complicated business - to treat issues in isolation without a larger framework would cause rather chaotic and disjointed policy making. The old "down with isms" approach always gets some popular support because people are fed up with the stalemate and stagnation of opposing ideologies.

Which is fair enough, but the solution isn't to abandon political or economic theory altogether. Instead, we should challenge it, and why we support it. Do we believe something because our human nature means we want to understand the bigger picture, even if it means being careless and smoothing over any and all cracks? Are we doing it out of partisan commitment?

In such instances, the ideology will be corrupted - but that doesn't mean that ideology (or rather, having a wider take on things) is inherently bad for decision making. IMO, it is essential to it.

[PanzerJaeger]

I think they continue to exist simply because they have able to propagate their existence - they don't actually offer anything to society or the world of employment. Indeed, as I said earlier, I think they are very destructive in that regard.

Now, we just need to figure out how to get rid of them, even when so much of our economic organisation is based around them.

Companies exist because organizational hierarchy is essential to productivity.

[HopAlongBunny]

Marx's concern with alienation.

Under capitalist production the worker must alienate her labour for an abstract wage; the real product of human labour is traded for an abstraction and the person is removed from the most basic and human of endeavours-producing his/her existence.

Socialism intervenes to quibble about the surplus, but leaves the means/relations of production intact. A socialist PoV acknowledges the context where production takes place and appropriates a portion of the surplus to reflect costs which corporate accounting ignores. Pollution is a social cost, poverty, health, safety and regulation. Capitalism is a mode of production; Socialism a debate on the surplus. Neither goes to the heart of solving alienation. Socialism account the costs the capitalist enterprise ignores; costs the corporation inflicts on society, therefore the capitalist enterprise must surrender compensation.

Alienation is preserved.

[Empire*Of*Media]

Capitalism without socialism is cruel and unfair, socialism without capitalism is dogmatic and untennable. Both are exploitable, and in thier extremes result in suffering, but together they cancel out eachothers flaws, to an extent.

Capitalism with Socialism ?!!! hahaha !! how that can match ?!! you know, i dont like A COMMUNIST Socialism, but Capitalism means, and its only, to higher your wealth and take it from poor public whatever it costs for the Rich and Elite people!! i mean by reality, not what they tell you how are they!!!!


and, TRUE & REAL PURE socialism is best, great and for the people, but i havnt saw any government or party claiming Socialist, have taken its TRUE & PURE way!! only what can benefit for them and else is not important. like communists and Social democrats.!!

[gaelic cowboy]

Companies exist because organizational hierarchy is essential to productivity.

Theory of the firm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm)

This is the best explanation for why companies exist and it's essentially about transaction costs.

Except modern economics views the world through perfection and so it has a hard time reconciling companies with it's theories.

[Greyblades]

Capitalism with Socialism ?!!! hahaha !! how that can match ?!! you know, i dont like A COMMUNIST Socialism, but Capitalism means, and its only, to higher your wealth and take it from poor public whatever it costs for the Rich and Elite people!! i mean by reality, not what they tell you how are they!!!!


and, TRUE & REAL PURE socialism is best, great and for the people, but i havnt saw any government or party claiming Socialist, have taken its TRUE & PURE way!! only what can benefit for them and else is not important. like communists and Social democrats.!!

...:sigh: can we just skip the long spiral of self delusion and constant rage inducing obliviousness and go straight to the part where you either: stop being stupid, or lose interest in this forum and go bother someone else.

[gaelic cowboy]

...:sigh: can we just skip the long spiral of self delusion and constant rage inducing obliviousness and go straight to the part where you either: stop being stupid, or lose interest in this forum and go bother someone else.

I just ignore it to be honest

[Empire*Of*Media]

...:sigh: can we just skip the long spiral of self delusion and constant rage inducing obliviousness and go straight to the part where you either: stop being stupid, or lose interest in this forum and go bother someone else.

what have i said ?!! you stupid or me ?!! why instead of discuss you only know how to offense what ideas you dont like ?!!!!

[LittleGrizzly]

Empire some of the guys here are quite knowledgeable so of course feel free to put your own views or take on the situation but also try and listen to what other people are saying and try to keep an open mind on matters. Maybe sometimes accept that your views on some issues are not fully developed yet and take on board what other people say and respond to it...

No offence but some of your posts can come across a little bit like ranting as well.

EDIT: Sorry for the off topic post was enjoying the conversation although I am not sure I have a particularly intelligent contribution to make at this point.

[Empire*Of*Media]

Empire some of the guys here are quite knowledgeable so of course feel free to put your own views or take on the situation but also try and listen to what other people are saying and try to keep an open mind on matters. Maybe sometimes accept that your views on some issues are not fully developed yet and take on board what other people say and respond to it...

No offence but some of your posts can come across a little bit like ranting as well.

EDIT: Sorry for the off topic post was enjoying the conversation although I am not sure I have a particularly intelligent contribution to make at this point.

your right brother! but i have never had started an offensive post, i Alwayse said somethings, that i know with my bad English, it will cause some confusions, for things i know and they dont and do not want to.
but this can not be a good reason to attack and insult!! even despite their insult i Alwayse encourage them to discuss, but they even dont want to discuss, they think i must say things what THEY think its right and good!! i can not be like them!! at all in here some are agree with me and even in here there are some that dont agree but do not offence or insult!!
im surprised how they dictate what is to be said and they still claim they are wise and reasonable !!!

[ICantSpellDawg]

I like the idea that you must invest only in a company that you work for or do business with. At first this seems unworkable, but it has an allure. Something is horribly broken with publicly traded companies. The current trend is a nihilistic, zero sum game where people will work 24/7 for decreasing pay. Capitalism doesn't work with the number of privileges to large corporations built into the system and Socialism rewards those who fail to engage in productivity. The western middle classes and the global working poor are being consumed by this broken system. Something must be done.

[Husar]

...:sigh: can we just skip the long spiral of self delusion and constant rage inducing obliviousness and go straight to the part where you either: stop being stupid, or lose interest in this forum and go bother someone else.
So much about showing how social cooperation works and demonstrating why our rich only care about their own concerns.
You don't even have the patience to discuss with someone you perceive to be below your level, mark him as not worthy, insult him as stupid and then tell him to leave. And then you expect me to believe anything you say about the selfish evils of capitalism and the benefits of socialism?


I just ignore it to be honest
Another way to improve the world, just fantasize with your elitist friends about what works best and ignore the 95% of the population who have no idea what you're talking about. That's surely going to work.

:stare:

[Greyblades]

So much about showing how social cooperation works and demonstrating why our rich only care about their own concerns.
I'm upset that you think I still think that way. I went pro-moderation afew days ago, if you remember, socialism is needed to keep the capitalists from running roughshod over the little man, and capitalism is needed to get things done, niether is superior as one cant/shouldnt work without the other. I find socialism better intentioned but that doesnt blind me to its flaws (anymore at any rate).

You don't even have the patience to discuss with someone you perceive to be below your level, mark him as not worthy, insult him as stupid and then tell him to leave
If I didnt have the patience to discuss with him I'd put him on ignore.
I find him obnoxious, his english is confusing, simply; I dont know what he's saying half the time and the other half seems to be either self satisfied reaffirmations of his political agenda or non sequiturs. Frankly I dont know if he's a troll in the vein of total relism or simply churlish in the vein of avg. If the former: he most certainly is "not worthy" and should leave.

If the latter he should try to improve his english and lighten up on the attitude.(didnt work with avg but I'm an optimist) I'm hoping for the latter, I'm willing to put up with a lot if the end result is another decent poster, but I have no patience or sympathy should he prove to be another Troll.

Could I have said it better? Alot better? Yup. Half the story of my life is cringing at the other half.

. And then you expect me to believe anything you say about the selfish evils of capitalism and the benefits of socialism?
You're German arent you? Why do you need me to explain the benefits of socialism? Your NHS is older than mine by half a century!

Another way to improve the world, just fantasize with your elitist friends about what works best and ignore the 95% of the population who have no idea what you're talking about. That's surely going to work.:inquisitive:...You mean... that's not what we all came here for?

[Husar]

I'm upset that you think I still think that way. I went pro-moderation afew days ago, if you remember, socialism is needed to keep the capitalists from running roughshod over the little man, and capitalism is needed to get things done, niether is superior as one cant/shouldnt work without the other. I find socialism better intentioned but that doesnt blind me to its flaws (anymore at any rate).

If I didnt have the patience to discuss with him I'd put him on ignore.
I find him obnoxious, his english is confusing, simply; I dont know what he's saying half the time and the other half seems to be either self satisfied reaffirmations of his political agenda or non sequiturs. Frankly I dont know if he's a troll in the vein of total relism or simply churlish in the vein of avg. If the former: he most certainly is "not worthy" and should leave.

If the latter he should try to improve his english and lighten up on the attitude.(didnt work with avg but I'm an optimist) I'm hoping for the latter, I'm willing to put up with a lot if the end result is another decent poster, but I have no patience or sympathy should he prove to be another Troll.

Could I have said it better? Alot better? Yup. Half the story of my life is cringing at the other half.
You should have said it better! In fact I thought about reporting you for a personal attack but I preferred to discuss the matter openly.
My point is not about what you believe and what not, that's irrelevant.
My point is that you and I and others say socialism is needed because otherwise we end up with an underclass etc.
Then a guy from a poor, oppressed country comes along and discusses with us and the "compassionate" people tell him to bugger off because he does not suite their sensibilities in terms of language. So much about showing that compassion...
You made it even worse by insulting him, the whole suspicion of being a troll is rubbish, I've trolled numerous times here and people responded seriously to it, most people couldn't smell a troll when he's breathing down their neck. And then label some poor guy a troll because his english isn't up to their standard. Yeah well, if education were as good everywhere as it is in the west, then a lot of problems wouldn't exist in the first place.
And instead of offering help your solution is to tell him to bugger off. I find that lazy and selfish because you expect someone from a less developed part of the world to fit western standards or go away. It's not helping anyone. Also for a society that claims to be oh so open it's an incredibly closed attitude.

It's also sad that every second thing on the internet is considered a fraud or a troll or not honest in some way, says something about how fake people really are...
I know, I just said I trolled sometimes....:sweatdrop: Maybe I played devil's advocate sometimes would be more appropriate.


You're German arent you? Why do you need me to explain the benefits of socialism? Your NHS is older than mine by half a century!
:inquisitive:...You mean... that's not what we all came here for?
I know that my country is superior, don't worry, I was just saying your argument is not working well if your behaviour contradicts your words.

[rvg]

Western socialism is basically a pay-more-to-get-more kind of system. I just came back from a quick foray into Canada (literally, walked into my house an hour ago after spending a night in Niagara Falls). Anyway, first thing that struck me in Canada: roads. They're quite awesome, excellent condition, high quality paving, you can tell that roads are well maintained. For the record, roads in Michigan are utter shit.
Anyway, my awe at the Canadian roads was dispelled by two things:
1. Low speed limits coupled with cops mercilessly enforcing those speed limits. I of course stayed out of trouble and moved with packs of Canadian cars, but still, roadsides were littered with flashing sirens and stopped drivers with long faces (most of them Americans). Oh, and every 10 miles or so there as a threatening sign: "50 km over the speed limit is a $10000 fine." Didn't like that, not one bit.
2. On my trip back I stopped to fill up my gas tank, pulled up to the gas station and looked at the price $2.12! Wow GREAT! I thought until it hit me a second later....that's $2.12 per LITER, not Gallon. 2 bucks for a frikken liter? That's crazy, man, just totally insane.

About 5 miles into Michigan the road got so bumpy that my daughter who was sleeping in the back seat woke up: "Daddy, this is Michigan, right?" Yeah, it's Michigan alright.

/rant off

[The Stranger]

Western socialism is basically a pay-more-to-get-more kind of system. I just came back from a quick foray into Canada (literally, walked into my house an hour ago after spending a night in Niagara Falls). Anyway, first thing that struck me in Canada: roads. They're quite awesome, excellent condition, high quality paving, you can tell that roads are well maintained. For the record, roads in Michigan are utter shit.
Anyway, my awe at the Canadian roads was dispelled by two things:
1. Low speed limits coupled with cops mercilessly enforcing those speed limits. I of course stayed out of trouble and moved with packs of Canadian cars, but still, roadsides were littered with flashing sirens and stopped drivers with long faces (most of them Americans). Oh, and every 10 miles or so there as a threatening sign: "50 km over the speed limit is a $10000 fine." Didn't like that, not one bit.
2. On my trip back I stopped to fill up my gas tank, pulled up to the gas station and looked at the price $2.12! Wow GREAT! I thought until it hit me a second later....that's $2.12 per LITER, not Gallon. 2 bucks for a frikken liter? That's crazy, man, just totally insane.

About 5 miles into Michigan the road got so bumpy that my daughter who was sleeping in the back seat woke up: "Daddy, this is Michigan, right?" Yeah, it's Michigan alright.

/rant off

sounds like belgian roads to me.

[gaelic cowboy]

Another way to improve the world, just fantasize with your elitist friends about what works best and ignore the 95% of the population who have no idea what you're talking about. That's surely going to work.

:stare:


Look the fella talks about zionist plots an the New World Order etc on another thread.

Basically I aint gonna be the one to feed the proverbial.

[rvg]

Look the fella talks about zionist plots an the New World Order etc on another thread.

Basically I aint gonna be the one to feed the feeding the proverbial.

You're right, the level of nonsense is off the charts.

[gaelic cowboy]

the biochip NWO smartcard plot is my fav on page 5 of the Syria thread

[LittleGrizzly]

In fairness one of my friends got a little bit into his conspiracies and mocking combined with serious talking seemed to mostly snap him out of it...

[Husar]

Look the fella talks about zionist plots an the New World Order etc on another thread.

Basically I aint gonna be the one to feed the proverbial.

That's another thread as you say yourself. I said in other threads that the zionist thing is pretty crazy and that people ignore him because of it.
What I don't like to see is people insulting him and then everybody piles up to make him leave. If you think his point is crazy, just say it.
Labelling people as outcasts doesn't help a lot. We've had others who posted pretty crazy ideas for most of the other posters but fit in relatively well now.

LittleGrizzly has a relatively healthy attitude to the topic IMO. Don't hesitate to call an idea crazy but just the mocking part doesn't do it.
You can't just turn someone into a mocking pinata because you think his ideas are crazy and he hasn't been taught oxford english.

[LittleGrizzly]

What I don't like to see is people insulting him and then everybody piles up to make him leave. If you think his point is crazy, just say it.
Labelling people as outcasts doesn't help a lot. We've had others who posted pretty crazy ideas for most of the other posters but fit in relatively well now.
........................................................................

Exactly!

Engage and debate, his ideas are out there but I think some of the interesting characters on here can be people with pretty far out ideas. If someone proves themselves to be a zealot on every topic who will not listen to reason then by all means ignore them but as an example on the Scottish independance topic he wrote a post that was pretty out there and Rhyfelwyr corrected him on some mistakes he has made an in adult manner and if required will provide supporting evidence...

Empire has not come back and called him a liar, he has not ignored him and just rewrote what he previously wrote, maybe he has learned some new information and advanced his knowledge and understanding...

I came to the .org backroom as a stupid angry teenager with terrible English who to an extent thought he had the answers to everything. That may be overstating it (back me up here ~;)) but it is certainly true to an extent. Were it not for people showing me the error of my ways and leading by their own example I probably would not have changed much as it is I think I have changed a lot for the better...

If nothing else interacting on these boards will help him develop his English.

Right now sorry for talking about you as if you are not here Empire, I enjoy having a variety of different viewpoints and I hope you stick around to give us yours I have no problem with you struggling with English as your probably speak and write your native language better than the majority of us (a fair few of us don't even speak a second language myself included) just try to keep an open mind and remember no matter how much you now about a variety of subjects there is always someone out there who knows more than you (or me) and these are people we should listen to (even if the conclusion they take from these facts are the wrong ones)

One little piece of advice though don't play around with the font sizes and colours on your writing too much as it is almost the equivalent of writing in all caps it looks more noticeable but the content of your post is taken less seriously, use it very sparingly for full effect.

[HopAlongBunny]

:inquisitive:...You mean... that's not what we all came here for?

:laugh4:

I'm with LittleGrizzly on this. Much of the reason I like this place is that it provides a place to discuss, and be educated about stuff, most people could either careless about or cannot approach w/o completely going off the rails.
Here, you can be completely wrong and still get a coherent and often helpful reply.

[Greyblades]

You should have said it better! In fact I thought about reporting you for a personal attack but I preferred to discuss the matter openly.
My point is not about what you believe and what not, that's irrelevant.
My point is that you and I and others say socialism is needed because otherwise we end up with an underclass etc.
Then a guy from a poor, oppressed country comes along and discusses with us and the "compassionate" people tell him to bugger off because he does not suite their sensibilities in terms of language. So much about showing that compassion...You made it even worse by insulting him, the whole suspicion of being a troll is rubbish, I've trolled numerous times here and people responded seriously to it, most people couldn't smell a troll when he's breathing down their neck. And then label some poor guy a troll because his english isn't up to their standard. Yeah well, if education were as good everywhere as it is in the west, then a lot of problems wouldn't exist in the first place.

...my sensibilities in terms of language amplify my feeling of disdane against him, they are in no way the lynchpin. What I can't read I can only judge on presentation, multiple exclamation points and an over use of the caps lock does not leave a good impression. From the parts I can read of his posts, I find him supremely ignorant and occasionally offensive, the combination of this and his presentation I assume poe's law.

Make no mistake this is not a spontanious thing, I am reacting to about a month of his posting, not just that one post.

I prefer socialistic government, that does not require me to suffer fools gladly. Our knowledge of his circumstances are reliant on his word, for all we know he's a 12 yr old american looking for laughs or he might be actually be a kurdish man under the foot of tyrrany, or anything between, either way he's acting like a jackass here and I've noticed a trend on this forum that after a long period of obtusiveness most who act as he does either end up improving or they leave, I wish he would make that decision quickly and save us some grief.



And instead of offering help your solution is to tell him to bugger off. I find that lazy and selfish because you expect someone from a less developed part of the world to fit western standards or go away. It's not helping anyone. Also for a society that claims to be oh so open it's an incredibly closed attitude.

I know that my country is superior, don't worry, I was just saying your argument is not working well if your behaviour contradicts your words.
Why? I was unaware that my posts on socialism contained a tangent on forum etiquette, that to talk about socialism I was supposed to extend compassion at all times to some random man on the internet who says he's kurdish, even when he is being a fool. His nationality does not influence my opinion of the quality of a person and right now he's making a mockery out of himself, I'd advise he do something about it.

[gaelic cowboy]

That's another thread as you say yourself. I said in other threads that the zionist thing is pretty crazy and that people ignore him because of it.
What I don't like to see is people insulting him and then everybody piles up to make him leave. If you think his point is crazy, just say it.
Labelling people as outcasts doesn't help a lot. We've had others who posted pretty crazy ideas for most of the other posters but fit in relatively well now.

LittleGrizzly has a relatively healthy attitude to the topic IMO. Don't hesitate to call an idea crazy but just the mocking part doesn't do it.
You can't just turn someone into a mocking pinata because you think his ideas are crazy and he hasn't been taught oxford english.

I already said i just ignore him am I not allowed to ignore a comment

Basically why do i have to react to anything anyone says I thought I was giving good advice to Greyblades.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Actually, you are misrepresenting it a little there. Ideally, it is 'Social Ownership', such as working collectives, common-ownership, cooperatives and it can include state ownership. Typically, state ownership by a democratic government.

There is also a difference in terminology when applied in the real world too. Socialism is seen as providing minimum wage, higher taxes for higher earners. All in all, trying to rein in the excess of making sure the poor are not completely left out to rot and the rich doesn't simply squander all the money.

So it does come down to what Lemur says. What do you mean by "Socialism" ? Could also even argue with "What do you mean by Capitalism?" I guess the best one-line definitions would be as follows:

Capitalism - Private Ownership of the Means of Production with the goal of producing as much profit as possible.
Socialism - Social Ownership of the Means of Production with the goal of satisfying economic demands and human needs.

Sorry for missing this post before. Of course, the term 'socialism' is used in different ways - but generally speaking, when discussing 'socialism' as an economic model, it has the meaning that you gave it in your last line - social ownership of the means of production. When discussing it in this sense, it is something else entirely from the particular policies of socialist parties. Concepts like the minimum wage and welfare are not in accordance with the socialist model. I guess socialists might argue that they are temporary relief measures. Which is fair enough.

Anyway, I maintain that I have not misrepresented anything, and we seem to agree that the sense in which I discussed socialism was appropriate. But now, I will accuse you of misrepresenting things! Because contrary to your notions of social ownership distinct from the state, such ideas have been very much on the fringe of socialism. State ownership is the norm in socialist theory - not because it happens to be one of many options, but because the acquisition of the means of production by an institution invested with all the powers of government is deemed necessary for their redistribution. It is for this reason that ownership by the state in particular is regarded as a necessary consequence of socialist theory.


Companies exist because organizational hierarchy is essential to productivity.

Yes but the need for that hierarchy is created by the fact that they reduce the vast majority of employees to a form of labour that is so isolated from the production process. So it actually cripples any organizational capacity that these employees could have. When this happens, naturally they need managers to coordinate the production process.

The problems of such a system are manifold - there is a disconnect between the labourer and the organization of labour, the suppression of everything a worker could contribute to the running of the business by reducing him to petty and repetitive tasks, the creation of a managerial class that benefits more from promoting its own significance (red tape etc) rather than the actual profit of the business, the low morale of the worker who has no stake in the business, the hostility that naturally breeds between worker and manager etc.

[InsaneApache]

I blame the parents you know.

[Sarmatian]

https://img153.imageshack.us/img153/3324/image14w.png (https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/153/image14w.png/)

[HoreTore]

Because contrary to your notions of social ownership distinct from the state, such ideas have been very much on the fringe of socialism. State ownership is the norm in socialist theory - not because it happens to be one of many options, but because the acquisition of the means of production by an institution invested with all the powers of government is deemed necessary for their redistribution. It is for this reason that ownership by the state in particular is regarded as a necessary consequence of socialist theory.

That's highly Leninist of you, Rhy.

Just because everyone who supported other forms have been shot does not mean they never existed or had an influence on socialist theory.

CNT-FAI, for example, never called for government ownership, at least not in our traditional understanding of the term "government". And they had 500.000 members before Stalin shot 'em, hardly "a fringe".

[Idaho]

Marxist analysis has become particularly significant recently. The great contradiction in capitalism, as Marx saw it, was the need for the capitalist class to reduce costs and maximise profits, while at the same time relying on the same working class they impoverish to spend money and increase their wealth.

These working class run out of money and capitalism stalls. Marx stated that capitalism was endlessly creative in maintaining itself. In the context of the last few years we can see that the latest creativity came in the form of cheap high risk credit. Sub prime mortgages anyone?

So the poor have been squeezed dry and governments are bankrupt. All the while the world's largest companies are sitting on record cash reserves while simultaneously cutting costs... Spot on so far Karl.

[Husar]

Basically why do i have to react to anything anyone says I thought I was giving good advice to Greyblades.

You don't and I read that differently, my apologies if I misunderstood. :bow:


...my sensibilities in terms of language amplify my feeling of disdane against him, they are in no way the lynchpin. What I can't read I can only judge on presentation, multiple exclamation points and an over use of the caps lock does not leave a good impression. From the parts I can read of his posts, I find him supremely ignorant and occasionally offensive, the combination of this and his presentation I assume poe's law.
I don't know poe's law but your own impatience with others and their faults is no reason to insult them.


Make no mistake this is not a spontanious thing, I am reacting to about a month of his posting, not just that one post.
In that case you should have seen that he tried to improve his style already after we made him aware of how bad it looks. It was a small step but you don't conquer Russia in a day or how they say.


I prefer socialistic government, that does not require me to suffer fools gladly. Our knowledge of his circumstances are reliant on his word, for all we know he's a 12 yr old american looking for laughs or he might be actually be a kurdish man under the foot of tyrrany, or anything between, either way he's acting like a jackass here and I've noticed a trend on this forum that after a long period of obtusiveness most who act as he does either end up improving or they leave, I wish he would make that decision quickly and save us some grief.
Again, you're just impatient, make assumptions and you insulted him, that's what jackasses do. If you have such a problem with his posts you can put him on ignore and if they're actually offensive you can report them. You explain this as though he forced you to insult him.


Why? I was unaware that my posts on socialism contained a tangent on forum etiquette, that to talk about socialism I was supposed to extend compassion at all times to some random man on the internet who says he's kurdish, even when he is being a fool. His nationality does not influence my opinion of the quality of a person and[...]
Well, now you're aware that I judge your words by your personal attitude. So if you talk about fairness and equality and then jump on someone who may not have had the fortunate upbringing we had, your points about fairness and equality are harder to take as sincere.
How can you judge whether he is a fool or not when you say you can hardly understand what he is trying to say? Maybe it's just a language problem. I only brought up nationality because I would think English and how not to believe propaganda are probably not the prime educational goals in Iran and I would never deny that my education and my surroundings had a strong influence on my world view, do you? His education and surroundings are very different from ours so it doesn't surprise me that he has very different views. I'm more surprised that you find it so shocking...


[...]right now he's making a mockery out of himself, I'd advise he do something about it.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this part but you still can't expect someone to change completely within a day or a month.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The problem is that global workers, from the U.S. to Myanmar, are becoming obsolete after entering the global economy at an unprecedented rate due to an expansion of access to the internet. As jobs in need of human effort go away at an exponential rate and are replaced by new jobs at an arithmetic rate and the amount of people entering the market surges - this will have a catastrophic effect on wages in the developed world and will offer benefits abroad only for a short period of time.

The affluent have figured out a way to generate their own consumption demand not by creating demand in lower classes through the capitalist economy, as had been the means to feed slaves, serfs and commoners for centuries, but by consuming more on their own and producing to that demand using artificial labor. This shift has not created new jobs as the industrial revolution did. As resources become less numerous and the affluent become wealthier, this inertia will continue to build in this direction. It is imperative that lower classes have the means to violently destabilize the security of the affluent. They are losing economic power and must create a counterbalance to this in order to prevent abuse through force and free advanced education. This is literally the only way to avoid the annihilation of the underclasses.

Technology now allows massive population control and destruction. The only reason that civil disobedience or union strikes have worked is because they had traditionally put the economy into a standstill and harmed the affluent as a result. If the lower classes are no longer capable of affecting the economy, they will have no jobs to strike from and their disobedience will not disrupt status quo as they can be dealt with without destabilizing the lives of the people who matter. We are reaching a tipping point in the power of people through words. I'm not encouraging violence, but I am encouraging the lower classes access to an insidious destructive means in order to ensure that this natural and growing temptation for the upper classes is avoided. A cultural "nuclear deterrent". People must be trained and capable of destabilizing those who would destroy or indenture them. If people fail to deter this destructive evolution, there will be no use for them as slaves as there was hundreds of years ago, as technology will do what humans are incapable of doing. When people cannot even be used as slaves, their lives will be viewed as truly meaningless.

Additionally to the need for force resistance, a new use for human beings that are incapable of working at the speed of machines must be developed, as it was in the industrial age. This will not happen on its own unless people realize what the alternative is.

This is not an argument for socialism or for violence, but it is an argument for radical republicanism and civilian access to more serious firepower and education than we currently have access to. The powerful have always desired the destruction of resource competing masses, but have suffered them as they were needed them for their own prosperity. Woe to us when they don't need us anymore.

[Greyblades]

I don't know poe's law but your own impatience with others and their faults is no reason to insult them.Poe's law: without clear indication of parody the most extreme of parody can be nigh indistinguishable from reality. Basically, I was inclined to think he's a troll, as I assume that someone cant be as ignorant or offensive without being intentionally so.



In that case you should have seen that he tried to improve his style already after we made him aware of how bad it looks. It was a small step but you don't conquer Russia in a day or how they say.Actually, I saw no attempts to improve his style until after the offending post. You dont conquer russia at all if you dont take the first step.


Again, you're just impatient, make assumptions and you insulted him, that's what jackasses do. If you have such a problem with his posts you can put him on ignore and if they're actually offensive you can report them. You explain this as though he forced you to insult him.A jackass would not even entertain the idea that he was a sincere, and a jackass would have continued the insults after being chastised for it.

I generally dont ignore anyone as a rule, if they are truely worth ignoring they will be banned in time, if they arent that generally means they are here to discuss things and while the majority of thier posts may be inane or pointless there is the chance that they will say something worthy of note (still waiting on AVG, but ICSD and Fragony have born some fruit) and it is to my detriment alone if I do not see it due to an ignore.
Emperor appeared to be on the way to a ban and I had spent about a month avoiding dealing with him until he directly addressed me, and I said what I did: Shape up or leave and spare us the drama of making the choice all the others make. Time will tell if he takes it to heart but it needed to be said, I only apologise for my lack of tact in saying it.


Well, now you're aware that I judge your words by your personal attitude. So if you talk about fairness and equality and then jump on someone who may not have had the fortunate upbringing we had, your points about fairness and equality are harder to take as sincere.If I was unfair I would have jumped on him for his upbringing, his heritage or some other factor outside of his control. But instead I attacked his behaviour on the forum which has been disgraceful. Equality? I gave him the same consideration I give everone else when he first appeared, he acted a fool, so I treated him like everyone else who acts a fool out of the gate.


How can you judge whether he is a fool or not when you say you can hardly understand what he is trying to say? Maybe it's just a language problem.If it is, it's a pretty bad language problem, he was going on about the freemason conspiracies two week ago.
I'm starting to think most of the stuff I thought I couldnt understand was more due to not believeing what I was reading was real than a language barrier.


I don't think anyone disagrees with this part but you still can't expect someone to change completely within a day or a month.Again, I didnt expect much but I got nothing. Still waiting to see if his recent efforts stick.

[Husar]

If I was unfair I would have jumped on him for his upbringing, his heritage or some other factor outside of his control. But instead I attacked his behaviour on the forum which has been disgraceful. Equality? I gave him the same consideration I give everone else when he first appeared, he acted a fool, so I treated him like everyone else who acts a fool out of the gate.
So you also make fun of people whose education was worse because their parents couldn't afford to send them to a private school?
And you insult disabled people for not being like everyone else? IMO not everyone is equal and as such not everyone can be held to the same standard. Treating people equally can also mean that one expects people to make the best out of the options they were given in life, not that everyone is held to exactly the same standard. Can't be applied everywhere but life is complex.


If it is, it's a pretty bad language problem, he was going on about the freemason conspiracies two week ago.
I'm starting to think most of the stuff I thought I couldnt understand was more due to not believeing what I was reading was real than a language barrier.
You don't have an open mind. Don't let your disbelief colour your opinion and retard your reading skills. His opinion does not affect you, there is no reason to get worked up or angry.


Again, I didnt expect much but I got nothing. Still waiting to see if his recent efforts stick.
So far it seems like your effort to keep the Backroom a bland and boring place is showing results. :whip:


Emperor appeared to be on the way to a ban and I had spent about a month avoiding dealing with him until he directly addressed me, and I said what I did: Shape up or leave and spare us the drama of making the choice all the others make. Time will tell if he takes it to heart but it needed to be said, I only apologise for my lack of tact in saying it.
Who says what needs to be said and what does not? I disagree that this needed to be said. Just because someone does not share your world view you do not get the right to silence them. Freedom of speech.

[Greyblades]

So you also make fun of people whose education was worse because their parents couldn't afford to send them to a private school?Where did you get that from? I chastised him for what he says, I have said nothing about his circumstances let alone "made fun" of them.

And you insult disabled people for not being like everyone else? I have not done anything that would indicate such and I find you implying such insuling.
Again: If I was unfair I would have jumped on him for his upbringing, his heritage or some other factor outside of his control. But instead I attacked his behaviour on the forum which has been disgraceful.
I dont attack people for what they cant be held responsible for, but dont tell me that his behavior is out of his own control.


You don't have an open mind. Don't let your disbelief colour your opinion and retard your reading skills. His opinion does not affect you, there is no reason to get worked up or angry.Accusations of a closed mind, of harrassing the disabled and the uneducated? I actually think it is actually you who is worked up and angry here.



So far it seems like your effort to keep the Backroom a bland and boring place is showing results. :whip:If you say so. Call me crazy but I dont consider Ban-bait interesting.



Who says what needs to be said and what does not? I disagree that this needed to be said. Just because someone does not share your world view you do not get the right to silence them. Freedom of speech....Where are you getting this from? I told him to improve or leave, I have made no effort to enforce it and I hope that he will improve, but if someone didnt say it, he was not going to change, had that happened he would have been silenced anyway by the moderators, probably after the usual internet drama that could have incited other people into leaving in disgust.

[HoreTore]

Thinking that freemasons/zionists/whatever might be controlling the world behind the scenes is proof of a closed mind, not an open one.

A mind completely closed to reason and logic. Because it simply doesn't get any more retarded than thinking a shadowy clique of evil men run everything. Quickly disregarding such nonsense is proof of a mind open to real reasons for why the world is as it is.


Having said that, I am still unsure on whether I want to talk some sense in the the NWO-believers or not. I mean, they're simply hilarious. Why would I want to lose an excellent source of fun?

[Husar]

Where did you get that from? I chastised him for what he says, I have said nothing about his circumstances let alone "made fun" of them.
I have not done anything that would indicate such and I find you implying such insuling.
Again: If I was unfair I would have jumped on him for his upbringing, his heritage or some other factor outside of his control. But instead I attacked his behaviour on the forum which has been disgraceful.
I dont attack people for what they cant be held responsible for, but dont tell me that his behavior is out of his own control.
The opinion of a person is not entirely in their control, no. It is to an extent but if you told me to seriously believe in Jedi and the force today I couldn't just do it, could you? Could you arrange it within a month? Do you think being born in the western world, being taught by parents and teachers who held certain beliefs etc. had no impact on your opinions at all and you formed them all completely independently? If you ever changed your opinion on something fundamental, how long did it take? How often did you discuss someone and they immediately accepted all your points after they held the opposite opinion before?


Accusations of a closed mind, of harrassing the disabled and the uneducated? I actually think it is actually you who is worked up and angry here.
Nah, no such accusations, I'm calm. I was just wondering why seemingly insult someone so harshly for having a weird opinion which may not entirely be his own fault but not others for things that may not be in their control.


...Where are you getting this from? I told him to improve or leave, I have made no effort to enforce it and I hope that he will improve, but if someone didnt say it, he was not going to change, had that happened he would have been silenced anyway by the moderators, probably after the usual internet drama that could have incited other people into leaving in disgust.
The way you phrased it it sounded a lot more aggressive and more like you just told him that he's dumb and you want him to leave.
Maybe work on your delivery then. :shrug:


Thinking that freemasons/zionists/whatever might be controlling the world behind the scenes is proof of a closed mind, not an open one.

A mind completely closed to reason and logic. Because it simply doesn't get any more retarded than thinking a shadowy clique of evil men run everything. Quickly disregarding such nonsense is proof of a mind open to real reasons for why the world is as it is.


Having said that, I am still unsure on whether I want to talk some sense in the the NWO-believers or not. I mean, they're simply hilarious. Why would I want to lose an excellent source of fun?
Do you approach your children in class in the same way if they hold some weird belief that e.g. their parents taught them?
Or are all your children perfect in Norway? You're usually the guy who says most of our behavior and beliefs are a result of our circumstances and we don't even know Medya's circumstances, upbringing and education so I would expect there is a reason he believes that and he can be talked out of it. You're absolutely right about the closed mind and if he just leaves because we don't accept his "message" then yes, he has a closed mind and wants to keep it that way.

We've been discussing gun control with certain members here for years now but I haven't seen anyone tell the other side to stop being stupid or leave. It's a different issue but it's not like there has been a huge change of opinions going on either.

[Greyblades]

The opinion of a person is not entirely in their control, no. It is to an extent but if you told me to seriously believe in Jedi and the force today I couldn't just do it, could you? Could you arrange it within a month? Do you think being born in the western world, being taught by parents and teachers who held certain beliefs etc. had no impact on your opinions at all and you formed them all completely independently? If you ever changed your opinion on something fundamental, how long did it take? How often did you discuss someone and they immediately accepted all your points after they held the opposite opinion before?A long time, I still needed alot of pushing and it seemed Emperor wasnt getting one.



Nah, no such accusations, I'm calm. I was just wondering why seemingly insult someone so harshly for having a weird opinion which may not entirely be his own fault but not others for things that may not be in their control.Because I was half under the impression of a troll, and my patience was stretched thin what with the seemingly simultanious return of totalrelism and AVG around the same time he showed up. I am sorry about the insinuations about stupidity but the kid (I think?) needed a push in the right direction.

[HoreTore]

Do you approach your children in class in the same way if they hold some weird belief that e.g. their parents taught them?
Or are all your children perfect in Norway? You're usually the guy who says most of our behavior and beliefs are a result of our circumstances and we don't even know Medya's circumstances, upbringing and education so I would expect there is a reason he believes that and he can be talked out of it. You're absolutely right about the closed mind and if he just leaves because we don't accept his "message" then yes, he has a closed mind and wants to keep it that way.

We've been discussing gun control with certain members here for years now but I haven't seen anyone tell the other side to stop being stupid or leave. It's a different issue but it's not like there has been a huge change of opinions going on either.

Writing about how zionists control the world is a sure way of getting a zero, yes.



But no, I do approach children and adults differently. And the children in my class address me differently as well, and because of that your point is moot.

[The Lurker Below]

I wonder about Fragony's bicycles. I can't imagine they receive the same care and maintenance that bicycles in places where private property is respected receive. It seems there would be less incentive to acquire a quality bike. On the surface it sounds great they we're all out here sharing our rides together. But in retrospect we're tooling around on low quality, maintenance lacking hunks of junk. Super, let's transfer that program to all aspects of our lives.

Perhaps the most capitalistic thing we have is insurance. We bet against ourselves, as some random guy with money bets in our favor, with odds HIGHLY on his side. How many people here with responsibilities are ready and willing to give up their insurance? Does insurance not exist in socialist communities? Er, is there a successful socialist community in the world today?

[Papewaio]

Pretty much the top ten countries are in the majority socialist democracies with universal health care.

The reason New Zealand has so many high risk adventure sports is that it has universal health care and accident insurance for everyone. Doesn't mean they don't look after themselves or get additional insurance. It just means tourists can enjoy adventurous attractions and locals of all monetary incomes can enjoy rigorous sports and occupations without penalty.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sorry to be off topic, but who is AVG?

[Brenus]

"Er, is there a successful socialist community in the world today?" : Er, is there a successful capitalist community in the world today?. There, fixed for you.

[Greyblades]

Sorry to be off topic, but who is AVG?

A misspelling of RVG.

[HoreTore]

A misspelling of RVG.

RVP?

What's Van Persie doing here?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Companies exist because organizational hierarchy is essential to productivity.

Nope: that is merely a side effect, and it does not apply to the vast majority of companies the world over (the S in SME). Companies exist because people figured out a safe mechanism to pool resources that doesn't involve babies, to deal with loans, assets and collateral. That's how they were invented, that's how they basically still operate to this day, and that is why the particular financial structure underpinning the company matters a great deal. So much so that we tend to require this to be part of their name (LLC, Inc.).

Hierarchy and its effects on productivity are... well things that management might like to tell itself, but not necessarily part of the deal at all.

For example many of the first companies in early modern history were just a bunch of merchants stumping up cash, outfitting a few ships and hiring a captain and crew to do the real work for them. The financial sector hasn't really evolved from that model since (stock market speculation is so 17th century, as is insurance against stock market speculation). Similarly, your typical SME outfit is not nearly as fixated on hierarchy as your average large enterprise (clue: titles), but despite that dominates enterprise in economic output.