Just like Communism, is Socialism dying, leading to a collapse. [Archive]

kiwitt

11-30-2005, 01:53

Papewaio

11-30-2005, 02:09

Crazed Rabbit

11-30-2005, 02:22

Can't say I'd be surprised at all. The gov'ts give out huge entitlements that encourage sloth and laziness, while the gov't and people are in constant retreat on cultural grounds.

Crazed Rabbit

JAG

11-30-2005, 02:36

No.

kiwitt

11-30-2005, 02:41

From another site commenting on the article

"Here's a tip: it's probably better to be unemployed in France then to be employed at Walmart in the US."

LeftEyeNine

11-30-2005, 03:20

The problem isn't that Socialism is unworkable, in my opinion, so much as it is simply impractical.

Now that's what I say about Communism and Anarchy as well. They sound good but humankind does not handle it - which means they gotta die.

Byzantine Prince

11-30-2005, 03:25

They sound good but humankind does not handle it - which means they gotta die.
They don't sound good to me. I don't want everyone to be equal, that would mean I have to work harder. Heh.

Soulforged

11-30-2005, 04:39

The socialism that we're seeing to day is an stagnangt beast that functions as a filter, it's not a real model. For instance it will day, but I hope capitalism falls with that kind system.

Xiahou

11-30-2005, 04:44

Soulforged

11-30-2005, 04:54

Socialism can't work without a strong government. A strong government puts men in positions of great power. Men with power want more power. And thus your Socialist system becomes an ironic capitalist industry, and your tax dollars are the reward, and unlike a good self-determining society, everyone but the people responsible is blamed, and it gets worse and worse, until you've got France. Or Soviet Russia. Or some equally unhappy result.Ok GC but is capitalism different? No. The problem is when you add a theory to reality. I'll not go on to this tired discussion again. You may want to know that anarchism is the result of years of socialism development really. There are functions of socialism that can work without even central goverment at all. However socialism functions today to deminish the wrongs caused by capitalist mechanics, and to keep people in their place, also to make them think that there is no possible way out and that they must accept the things as they're and sell their work energy to the capitalist. In fact socialism has been helping capitalism since the first part of the previous century. Now I don't know what problems are caused in France because of evil socialism, but please do tell me I want to know (no condesendence ~D )

Socialism is to Capitalism as the biosphere is to nature. Nice try, but it just won't last.Nice analogy. But when the analgesic is out, you better be careful with the headache seriously.~:handball:

JimBob

11-30-2005, 05:28

Now that's what I say about [...] Anarchy as well.
*Smacks, mutters about Catalonia*
humans are perfectly willing to work together for their common good. we just teach ourselves that we don't

but back on topic:
GC is right, Capitalism feeds itself: goods and services are produced, money is made, the money is divided between the managment and the labor, the managment gets so much that they can't use it for goods and services for themselves, managment invests said money into itself, the cycle starts again

socialism has to get fed by someone else.

Soulforged

11-30-2005, 07:03

Once again, Capitalism is self-propelling. Socialism is not. Capitalism can work by itself--it has it's roots in the barter economies that all the ancient civilizations out there based their economies on. It's tried and true. Socialism, while a very good idea (who wouldn't pay half their money in taxes in order to get free healthcare for all, and other utopian stuff?), just does not work. And there is no successful example of it working.
I agree with you but you don't understand me. Capitalism doesn't needs of socialism to "activate" itself or to mantain it's essence, but it needs socialism to keep social movements (specially revolutionary and reactionary ones) "in line", so when you've a problem with capitalistic mechanics (wich are a lot of course) you use socialism as a political weapon. For example you increase "free" healthcare, so that movement over the corner stops moaning over low levels of health in the slums, you increse pensions to the elders to do practically anything (from calming the olds to improving your public image). Socialism doesn't work because it's functioning again, as an "analgesic" or a political weapon, it's not a true model, the economical model is simply capitalism, but you throw in some socialist ideas to mantain order, stability and coherence.
Edit to add:
humans are perfectly willing to work together for their common good. we just teach ourselves that we don'tThat's fair JimBob. I'm with you. ~:cheers:

Aurelian

11-30-2005, 07:46

It's not that Socialism is unworkable... it's just that it's under attack due to deliberate decisions that have been made about trade and finance. The removal of restrictions on the movement of capital have undermined the state's ability to maintain reasonable social standards for its population. With capital now free to roam the globe in search of tax havens and slave labor, capital can renegotiate the social contract in the home country and argue that "competition" is forcing the removal of protections and standards for workers. Of course, that argument is true. Once everybody else is engaged in a race to the bottom, and you've committed yourself to open trade and open capital mobility, your companies will have to follow the trends towards tax avoidance and slave labor usage just to remain as viable competitors.

The solution is simple, but will not be accepted by the financial sectors who gain tremendously under the current system. Restrictions on the movement of capital need to be reinstituted so that we can recreate the conditions that existed from the end of WWII until the mid-1970's. That was a period of limited capital mobility and high taxes which also saw historically high growth rates and full employment policies. The reining in of capital allowed for the development of the social safety nets that are now under attack. Unfortunately, we'll probably have to have a financial meltdown on the scale of the Great Depression to put together the political will to fix the current system.

Aurelian

11-30-2005, 08:03

I agree with you but you don't understand me. Capitalism doesn't needs of socialism to "activate" itself or to mantain it's essence, but it needs socialism to keep social movements (specially revolutionary and reactionary ones) "in line", so when you've a problem with capitalistic mechanics (wich are a lot of course) you use socialism as a political weapon.

I agree. The kinds of reforms that FDR put into place during the Great Depression were expressly to save capitalism. It's the mixed "socialist" economic policies of the New Deal and modern Europe that enabled capitalism to maintain itself. Unbridled capitalism doesn't have a very good track record. It leads to irrational booms and busts, and a naturally widening unequal distribution of wealth that guarantees social problems and market demand problems. Nineteenth century capitalist excesses lead to open class warfare culminating in communism and fascism. Not a happy result. The mixed "socialist" model that eventually developed struck a balance between the interests of the various social classes, and by reining in capitalist excesses created a more stable economic order. The dismantling of that order in favor of a neo-liberal capitalist system that transfers all possible risks and costs to workers and their families can only have a negative impact on society.

Meneldil

11-30-2005, 09:05

From another site commenting on the article

"Here's a tip: it's probably better to be unemployed in France then to be employed at Walmart in the US."

That sums up the problem doesnt it? It's more attractive to sit around and live off of the backs of those who work than to actually be productive and get a job in welfare states. That's why they fail.

What a silly reasoning. The fact that working for Wall Mart and K Mart is similar to slavery hasn't anything to do with socialism. Wal Mart employees work just as much (if no more) than other people living in the Western World, yet they are rewarded with no social protection and crappy wages.

"That sums up the problem with capitalism doesn't it ? Someone willing to work will be used as a slave by huge companies that don't give a crap about the workers and the people in general." ~:rolleyes:

Franconicus

11-30-2005, 09:41

What is the situation in Eurpe today?
There is no Socialism and all countries are moving from social market to free market economy. That also means that former socialist parties are getting more conservative (like German SPD) and that the gap between rich and poor is getting bigger.

The problem in France is that you have a minority that is not part of the society and has no share of the common wealth. Or at least that is their feeling.

But Eurpeans are not like Americans. On the long run they will not accept that big difference in society. Extreme left wing parties are getting stronger than they ever were.

So the question is not will socialism disappear like communism. The question is can the European nations find a way to keep society together or will society fall apart. The second option will lead to a giant change of the political system - peaceful or by riots. So in the end there might be a new communist dawn.

LeftEyeNine

11-30-2005, 12:06

Smacks, mutters about Catalonia*
humans are perfectly willing to work together for their common good. we just teach ourselves that we don't

I'd like to see in poor districts where governments does not give a f*** then, if gov does not pay any attention on you, why don't they work out their own way for their own good? Human nature prevents anarchy from macro-applications. That's a dream (not mine)..

Ironside

11-30-2005, 12:20

GC, I'm still curious how exactly a very free market would prevent the current outsourcing to low-cost countries (that is until the market is eqalized, at a lower level than the current)? And exactly how would you prevent oligopolies and monopolies?

And are you sure that you can start a union and still be employed at Wal-Mart?

doc_bean

11-30-2005, 13:35

It is not welfare that is collapsing it is the ratio of working youths to the (most self absorbed generation to have walked the planet) geriatrics is so unfavourable.

Not enough work is being done to allow a surplus for a welfare lifestyle. And the fault of that can be squarly aimed at those who are starting to go into retirement the me generation. :hide: Hi Mum ~;)

Yep, people are protesting in Belgium right now because they want to be able to retire at 55. ~:eek:
There was even a nationwide strike against the 'generation pact' that would make this impossible (or less likely anyway).

And are you sure that you can start a union and still be employed at Wal-Mart?

You can't at MickeyD's iirc. Which imho is in itself a violation of capitalism, unions should be a valid tool of the employed. When they start going nationwide and across sectors you get ptoblems though...

As for Europe: the 'poor' eastern parts will save us, pretty much all talent and most companies will move to there because the taxes are so much lower, thios will force the western part to adapt or crumble. I'm not sure which of the two will happen though :hide:

Kagemusha

11-30-2005, 14:00

Meneldil

11-30-2005, 14:45

They don't have to work for Wal Mart. Lord knows there are a hell of alot more markets around here than Wal Mart.

Perhaps it might also have something to do with Wal Mart's employees never having bothered to form a Union? (that I know of)

Huh, when there's none hiring around you but WalMart, then you have to go for WalMart, since being jobless in US = social and economical death.

And, I think it was well known that WalMart fired loads and loads of workers just because they thought about forming an Union.

Once again, Capitalism is self-propelling. Socialism is not. Capitalism can work by itself--it has it's roots in the barter economies that all the ancient civilizations out there based their economies on. It's tried and true. Socialism, while a very good idea (who wouldn't pay half their money in taxes in order to get free healthcare for all, and other utopian stuff?), just does not work. And there is no successful example of it working.

Thing is, socialism worked for 30 years (roughly from 1945 to 1970), while economical liberalism never ever worked. We tried it at the end of the 19th, then we had the 20's/30's crisis, and we are heading directly toward the same kind of huge crap that plagued the early 20th.
Just as in the 20's, there's a rise a political extremism, religiousness, nationalism, racism that is (IMO) mostly due to the rise of boundless liberalism

Adrian II

11-30-2005, 15:02

Actually, Socialism and a Welfare state are very workable ideas. The problem is that is ungodly difficult to implement, given that you need a strong government to guide it. Considering that a strong government is also freer to skim off the top, it's a catch-22. The problem isn't that Socialism is unworkable, in my opinion, so much as it is simply impractical.The state apparatus continues to grow in every modern country. This is due firstly to the growing complexity and interdependence both within each society and between different societies. And secondly to the law of bureaucracy that says all bureaucracies will feed on society if left unchecked.

This phenomenon has nothing to do with socialism.

Margaret Thatcher tried -- and God knows she tried -- to cut back state influence and bureaucracy over nearly twenty years of majority government, and the end result was that the size of the British state apparatus grew with over ten percent and British society was more regulated than ever before. The same thing can be observed in the United States where the federal government grew even during the Reagan years, notwithstanding the Gipper's motto that government is peoples' worst enemy.

The explanation for that is to be found in the free market policies that these two leaders implemented. Free markets are not free at all, they have to construed and regulated in order to work. The more services a state turns over to the market, the more regulation is necessary, the more arbitration will be required, the more damage will have to be controlled and paid for by the state through taxes (think: savings & loan scandal in the United States).

And narrowing 'Socialism' down to certain problems in France as one poster did can hardly be taken seriously.

Adrian II

11-30-2005, 15:10

Just as in the 20's, there's a rise a political extremism, religiousness, nationalism, racism that is (IMO) mostly due to the rise of boundless liberalismQuite. :bow:

I take it that you too are a Karl Polanyi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Polanyi) fan?

BDC

11-30-2005, 16:32

Inept, corrupt politicians will be the death of parts of Europe, not socialism. Just look at the average French politician; racist, corrupt, inept.

Ser Clegane

11-30-2005, 17:25

Oh please, the only people who work at Wal Mart that couldn't get a job somewhere else are Illegal Immigrants.

A company like Wal-Mart is employing illegal immigrants?

Meneldil

11-30-2005, 17:33

Oh please, the only people who work at Wal Mart that couldn't get a job somewhere else are Illegal Immigrants, and quite frankly they can reep what they sowed by breaking the law in the first place.

Even if this was true (which I doubt, given the few WalMarts I 'visited'), WalMart isn't the only company that hires workers for low wage (especially if they live in Vietnam, Cambodia, China), and don't give a crap about them. We also have
McDonalds
Coca Cola
General Motors
Nike
Adidas
And the list goes on...

LeftEyeNine

11-30-2005, 18:38

The best way to maximize your profit is minimizing your costs. So they start with workforce.. All hail to Capitalism !

Meneldil

11-30-2005, 20:49

McDonalds? lol. Man, maybe you should stick to your own country. You don't know what you're talking about. The Fast Food industry is a great gig for entry level applicants.

I guess you never worked for McDonalds ~:rolleyes: I had 3 jobs so far (I'm only 19, so I try to get some low paid job in the summer between 2 years of studies), and working for McDo was *by far* the worse of them. I might have been lucky with the other two (a french supermarket and a small company), but I swear I'll never work for McDo anymore (note that I'll never eat there too, after seeing how they prepare their 'food').

I take it that you too are a Karl Polanyi fan?

Not really :-P My knowledge about economy is seriously limited. (I more or less read Marx, Ricardo, Smith and a few modern french authors not even worth mentioning, but that's about it).
Yet, I think one doesn't have to be a genius to find out that modern issues such as political and religious extremism, nationalism, racism are somehow linked with the social/economics situation

Adrian II

11-30-2005, 20:59

(I more or less read Marx, Ricardo, Smith and a few modern french authors not even worth mentioning, but that's about it)Daniel Cohen?

Meneldil

11-30-2005, 21:18

I said people not even worth mentioning ~;)
I never read Daniel Cohen's work, but I think he's a fairly important economist.

I mostly read what I call the basic leftist cheap Bible : books explaining why globalisation is evil, the benefits of social-democracy, why NGO are corrupted, etc. I can't name the authors, because these books bored me.

Aurelian

11-30-2005, 22:35

On the Wal-Mart comments above:

Yes, Wal-Mart does employ illegal immigrants. They're not supposed to, of course, but they have a track record of getting themselves into trouble that way. Do a Google Search for "wal mart illegal immigrants" and you'll see a bunch of stories on the subject.

Wal-Mart is also famous for doing anything and everything they can to resist unionization. They routinely fire workers if it looks like they might be thinking about unionization. They've been known to close stores rather than have to unionize.

As for only illegals having to work at Wal-Mart, that's just not true. Wal-Mart has a strong presence in rural areas around the US, and when they move into town they usually drive out of business the pre-existing retail establishments by temporarily cutting prices (dumping). Then they raise them when they don't have any more local competition. There aren't that many jobs in a lot of rural parts of the US to begin with, and with factories moving and closing down, a lot of people end up having to work for the local Wal-Mart.

A.Saturnus

11-30-2005, 23:13

This articles seems to indicate that there may be some a parallels.

"Perhaps what we are witnessing in Europe, but what the politicians and the media dare not say aloud, is the implosion of the (welfare) state. The Soviet Union suddenly collapsed in 1989, when owing to the inability of communism to create wealth, the state went bankrupt, was unable to maintain its army and hold its empire together. In France, the same thing might be happening. The socialist welfare state is no longer able to maintain law and order and is abandoning entire neighbourhoods to anarchy."

LINK (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/490)

I´d say the implosion of the European welfare state is still beter than an American flood. At least, we have it warm!

No that´s not an attempt to turn this into an America-bashing thread (honestly). What I want to say is that even the eruption of violence is not yet proof that a society is failing. It only indicates problems.

Papewaio

12-01-2005, 00:15

Once again, Capitalism is self-propelling. Socialism is not. Capitalism can work by itself--it has it's roots in the barter economies that all the ancient civilizations out there based their economies on. It's tried and true. Socialism, while a very good idea (who wouldn't pay half their money in taxes in order to get free healthcare for all, and other utopian stuff?), just does not work. And there is no successful example of it working.

~:handball:

Well if your definition of Socialism is free health care for all: Australia Check
Free Education right up to and including uni: Australia Check.
Half of your money in Taxes: Well my overtime is taxed at just under 50%

And Australias economy is doing pretty well on a world scale. So ergo Socialism works. ~:eek:

The problem with Socialism is that it relies on a surplus. This surplus requires either investments, real estate, or plain raw people power... a work force.

It can work, it just requires people to pull their fingers out. Also welfare should not be a lifestyle choice anymore then hospitals should be used as free accommodation.

kiwitt

12-01-2005, 00:16

The best way to maximize your profit is minimizing your costs. So they start with workforce.. All hail to Capitalism !

Who said the best way to make a profit is to cut costs. I actually thought the equation is this.

SALES - COSTS = PROFIT

therefore, increasing sales will also increase profit. As it is that accountants and analysts are now running a lot of companies, they can only analyse costs as they do not understand sales.

A good company has a balanced view of Sales (Marketing, Products, Advertising) and Costs (Raw Materials, Personnel (I hate the term Human Resources) Transport).

Some of the most successful companies (Microsoft, etc. ) are those who sell the most.

OOPS ... I have just hijacked my own thread

Soulforged

12-01-2005, 00:17

That's the problem. You still view capitalism as a movement that requires nudges here and there. It doesn't. Its nudges like that which have led to many of the thing capitalism has been villified for. The conditions in early industrial-era factories, being one, and the constant outsourcing of our business being another. Both the result of the government intervening, albiet in different ways.And that's exactly why capitalism needs socialism. Society wont accept the social differences provoqued by capitalism, it needs a pillow.

It's not as easy as "throwing in" some "socialistic ideas to maintain order, stability, and coherence." That's taking away self determination. That's throwing responsibility to the wind. That ruins the whole idea--heck, that's what we have now!Of course it's taking away self determination, that's the problem.

A half-truth. That class warfare was facilitated by the 19th century governments, which did not allow the workers to hold strikes or form unions, which are the great equalizer of capitalism.Class warfare has always existed, in various forms, measuring wich is stronger and wich was weaker, is a trivial and pointless research.

I'd like to see in poor districts where governments does not give a f*** then, if gov does not pay any attention on you, why don't they work out their own way for their own good? Human nature prevents anarchy from macro-applications. That's a dream (not mine)..That's the problem seeing all macro. Why do we've to force some kind of nation. If we as people feel so united then there's no need to form an state, give it powers, and force military action upon a minority that doesn't want to form part of the whole "nation". The Vasque republic is a fine example.

McDonalds? lol. Man, maybe you should stick to your own country. You don't know what you're talking about. The Fast Food industry is a great gig for entry level applicants.It's the same here.~:joker: ~:mecry:

bmolsson

12-01-2005, 02:11

Is communism dead ?? China is today the worlds 2nd largest economy. Doesn't seem very dead to me ?? ~;)

Crazed Rabbit

12-01-2005, 02:22

Only because their economy is becoming increasingly less communistic, and they're the world's source for cheap labor.

Alos, I'm not sure they are currently the second largest.

Crazed Rabbit

solypsist

12-01-2005, 02:41

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

Soulforged

12-01-2005, 02:41

Is communism dead ?? China is today the worlds 2nd largest economy. Doesn't seem very dead to me ?? ~;)
That's because they never were communist. They will be the first in that case~;) .

LeftEyeNine

12-01-2005, 13:06

kiwitt

It's the best way to maximize profits. I did not tell you what profit equals to. This is a business life fundamental: The best way to maximize your profit is minimizing your costs.

Every additional sale may equal to additional production. And additional product's marginal profit does diminish after a certain point - that is many sales do not always mean many profit.

Idaho

12-02-2005, 11:00

*sighs*

I hate how the argument against capitalism is always that whole "The rich will exploit the poor!" schtick. The bottom line for me is that if the oppressed worker is not willing to fight for better conditions, he deserves to subjegated. That's not a popular line of thinking, but that's the way I see it.

Very Hobbesian. Consent under duress remains consent.

An excellent standard of debate on this one. For me Adrian's points about the size of the state are the most telling. The modern state, whatever it's ideological claims, gets larger and larger. The intricacies of modern inter and intra state relationships means that intervention is inevitable.

We are seeing what is apparently anti-statist thought growing on both sides of the pond. I am highly suspicious however. I think what we are seeing is not some ideological struggle but merely a material one. While capitalists see profits grow they don't care about the political claims of governments. However when those profits start to slow they make a lot of noise about big government and stifling regulation - and get rewarded by a new government which grows just the same and regulates just the same but dishes out the big contracts and shelves a few policies that big business doesn't like.

LeftEyeNine

12-02-2005, 11:14

Just to remind, I did not blame anything over Capitalism.

In fact, the HUGE difference between the practicality of Capitalism and Communism is that Capitalism fits into human nature and his social nature : It can handle all affairs, mind games, foreplays of human beings while taking advantage of their genetical and environmental background. That's nearly the way all humans live. However this is more of an economical structure - so that including money - so that is exposed and is contributing to corruption (that is inevitable where human beings exist).

bmolsson

12-02-2005, 12:02

*sighs*

I hate how the argument against capitalism is always that whole "The rich will exploit the poor!" schtick.

Communism is pretty good in exploiting the poor, just look at China.... :bow:

Idaho

12-02-2005, 13:23

I think that ultra freemarketeer ideology makes interesting reading. But in reality it's an economic wet dream. Business is not a gentleman's sport - it's ruthless and will exploit every advantage, legal, illegal, immoral etc, so needs control.

doc_bean

12-03-2005, 00:09

In situations where the government didn't intervene (say because it was too weak at the time, or simply because there was no government) people got together and formed a 'class' of rich people, creating an aristocraty, or one very rich and powerful guy paid a lot of people off and got to be king, or people formed guilds so they could teach the trade to their children (and only their children) creating a whole class of uneducated people.

Capitalism needs limits, just like any other system it can get out of hand.

Soulforged

12-03-2005, 01:19

In fact, the HUGE difference between the practicality of Capitalism and Communism is that Capitalism fits into human nature and his social nature : It can handle all affairs, mind games, foreplays of human beings while taking advantage of their genetical and environmental background. That's nearly the way all humans live. However this is more of an economical structure - so that including money - so that is exposed and is contributing to corruption (that is inevitable where human beings exist).
Only if you see humans as a bunch of egocentric bastards, menions of God and money. Capitalism doesn't appeal to the social nature of the human, it separetes by capitalizing, neoliberalism will take this to the other extreme. Contrary to what GC might believe "letting it flow" will lead to an unbearable extreme of desocialization, as much as despotism leads to uber-socialization.

Edit: spelling

Redleg

12-03-2005, 01:33

Only if you see humans as a bunch of egocentric bastards, menions of God and money. Capitalism doesn't appeal to the social nature of the human, it separetes by capitalizing, neoliberalism will take this to the other extreme. Contrary to what GC might believe "letting it flow" will lead to an unbearable extreme of desocialization, as much as despotism leads to uber-socialization.

Edit: spelling

Your going to have to clarify what you actually meant with the bolded statement.

Despots are those who gather the power of government onto themselves - sometimes for the good of the people - but always for the self-serving of the despot. How this equates to leading to uber-socialization does not make sense.

LeftEyeNine

12-03-2005, 01:48

Soulforged, take a closer look at the bold quotes :

In fact, the HUGE difference between the practicality of Capitalism and Communism is that Capitalism fits into human nature and his social nature : It can handle all affairs, mind games, foreplays of human beings while taking advantage of their genetical and environmental background. That's nearly the way all humans live. However this is more of an economical structure - so that including money - so that is exposed and is contributing to corruption (that is inevitable where human beings exist).

You know genetical heritage (like creativity, being easygoing, capability of making instant-accurate decisions and etc.) or the environmental backgrounds (like where they grew up, what was their first job, which university they graduated from etc.) adds up to diversification of human characteristics substantially. And capitalism evaluates "being different".

Well if you can see all humans through pink glasses only, I can understand how cute and cuddly anarchism or communism sound to you. No need to discuss any further then. ~:)

P.S. I'm not a capitalism fighter. That's the REAL thing happening around only - not an over-failed utopia.

Soulforged

12-03-2005, 01:55

Your going to have to clarify what you actually meant with the bolded statement. My pleasure Red ~D . Neoliberalism is an extremist theory, just as communism. Neoliberalism takes subjective law (prerrogative of the individual to demand others to do something) to an extreme putting it almost as a replace for objective law (just social order). That's why letting it flow without state control will reduce order and justice, less objective law, more subjective law. With theories such as the communist, in it's first stage (socialism), objective law is the absolute one, justice is also left apart because the system ignores individual rights. Also it has been said many times that "free market" is not at all free, and it's only a benefit if you take all from the utilitarian point of view.

Despots are those who gather the power of government onto themselves - sometimes for the good of the people - but always for the self-serving of the despot. How this equates to leading to uber-socialization does not make sense.Uber-socialization is when the person looses all individuality becoming another number in society. Despotism can achieve that, as well as a high bureaucracy. A society that respects itself should respect individual rights as if every individual is at the same time the representation of all the others, this includes that the others also respect each other.

Redleg

12-03-2005, 02:03

My pleasure Red ~D . Neoliberalism is an extremist theory, just as communism. Neoliberalism takes subjective law (prerrogative of the individual to demand others to do something) to an extreme putting it almost as a replace for objective law (just social order). That's why letting it flow without state control will reduce order and justice, less objective law, more subjective law. With theories such as the communist, in it's first stage (socialism), objective law is the absolute one, justice is also left apart because the system ignores individual rights. Also it has been said many times that "free market" is not at all free, and it's only a benefit if you take all from the utilitarian point of view.

Well and fine - I don't buy into this arguement - but I understand where you are coming from.

Uber-socialization is when the person looses all individuality becoming another number in society. Despotism can achieve that, as well as a high bureaucracy. A society that respects itself should respect individual rights as if every individual is at the same time the representation of all the others, this includes that the others also respect each other.

Uber-socialization then runs counter to Despotism. Despotism is not about the society but about the individual who controls all.

Soulforged

12-03-2005, 05:45

Uber-socialization then runs counter to Despotism. Despotism is not about the society but about the individual who controls all.Not at all. One could say that there's society or there's nothing. But for didactical means I used that expression, meaning that all individualities mix in one body resting importance to each of them. Wheter that body is actually a single person or an ideal being is indiferent.

Edit: Spelling

Redleg

12-03-2005, 06:03

Not at all. One could say that there's society or there's nothing. But for didactical means I used that expression, meaning that all individualities mix in one body resting importance to each of them. Wheter that body is actually a single person or an ideal being is indiferent.

Edit: Spelling

I see you have bought into the arguement of the Despotism of the masses - Edit: Which has lead to actual Despotism by an individual.

Devastatin Dave

12-03-2005, 06:03

I still cannot fathom how socialism, in any form, could continue without some form of brutal inforcement. Humans, by nature, desire for things they don't have and will try to achieve it in almost any concievable fashion.

Byzantine Prince

12-03-2005, 06:09

Devastatin Dave

12-03-2005, 09:48

It's just an extension of the long hand of power Dave. No different then other laws not directly connected to economics. If we humans are left to our own devices and have ultimate freedom to gain as much power as possible we can only do so by overstepping over our fellow humans. Socialism tries to correct this to some extent through economic means.
But by default, someone still has to be in charge and somebody still has to be in power to maintain and enforce the lifestyle of its citizens. Absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely as they say. My point is that by the nature of man, there can never be this type of utopian society where everyone is equally financially equal AND socially equal. It’s just not possible. That is why socialism, like communism, is a failed theory for society guidelines...

doc_bean

12-03-2005, 14:52

In that situation it is the fault of peasants, for not changing their situation. The lower classes always outnumber the upper classes.

..and that's why they've been oppressed time and time agains thorughout history. ~:confused:

The rich can afford better weapons, can get soldiers with better training, and can buy mercenaries.

Getting better at the expense of your fellow man is very human, that's why communism doesn't work of course, it completely ignores this. But unlimited freedom (like you seem to suggest as True Capitalism) doesn't work either. Capitalism only benefits society if there is a free, competitive market that isn't dominate by one or a few players. It's simple economic theory. Any other situation disturbes the balance between the players and allows one (or a few) players to gain more than the others, an advantage which can again be used to gain an even bigger advantage, etc.

Capitalism is inherently unstable in the medium-run (in the long run, others will gain the advantage or a revolution will happen).

I still cannot fathom how socialism, in any form, could continue without some form of brutal inforcement. Humans, by nature, desire for things they don't have and will try to achieve it in almost any concievable fashion.

Socialism isn't about stopping people form achieving their goals (allthough it can be an obstavle for some) it's about a *limited* redistribution of the wealth as a way to combat poverty, deaths by deseases that can be cured, etc. It's mostly about helping people get out of poverty.

Byzantine Prince

12-03-2005, 15:30

But by default, someone still has to be in charge and somebody still has to be in power to maintain and enforce the lifestyle of its citizens. Absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely as they say. My point is that by the nature of man, there can never be this type of utopian society where everyone is equally financially equal AND socially equal. It’s just not possible. That is why socialism, like communism, is a failed theory for society guidelines...
Even the US has some socialism within it. Without it it would be a horrible place. I mean that. Poverty would be much worse, and people would be dying all around you. Communism is only worse in that EVERYONE becomes victim to poverty. Even the party leaders were not as well off as you might think. They would only pass as middle upper class.

But socialism is not about financial equality necessarily.

Soulforged

12-03-2005, 19:32

I see you have bought into the arguement of the Despotism of the masses - Edit: Which has lead to actual Despotism by an individual.
Despotism of the masses is an authoritarian form of "democracy" in wich the majority opresses the minority, feared by Aristotele.

But by default, someone still has to be in charge and somebody still has to be in power to maintain and enforce the lifestyle of its citizens. Absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely as they say. My point is that by the nature of man, there can never be this type of utopian society where everyone is equally financially equal AND socially equal. It’s just not possible. That is why socialism, like communism, is a failed theory for society guidelines...That's false. Not always a single person or a single corporation has to be in power, or even a group of them. Power could be handled horizontaly rather than vertically. The second part is false too. The problem is that today's society values some kind of works and possitions over others, to the point of leaving true work, true production, to the lower classes and rewarding it with the less possible. The state separetes people by assigning possitions and roles, by cohercion to keep it like that, and by laws to keep a rational fiction of an opressive status quo, the best way to achieve equality is to get rid of the state.

Absolutely correct, Dave. That is why Capitalism is superior to Socialism. Capitalism propels itself, because humans have always and will always understand and faciliate the idea of "I give you this, you give me that." and even "I give you this to do that, and you give me more of this back."Huh? And how do you think that socialism works in the contracts?~:confused:

Socialism, on the other hand, requires a strong government to enforce the ideals. Communism is even worse. Strong Governments inherantly fall prey to corruption. Corruption skims off the resources necesarry to keep the system running. Eventually, the resources run out and the government falls. Incorrect. By your statement above, capitalism needs an strong government to ensure the Rule of the Law and the execution of contracts. Communism needs it too in it's first stage. Everything skims out the resources, the real deal is to destribute those resources equaly between equal humans, don't look at the genes, look at the social value of the word human. Great multinationals don't only skims out resources, but they also manage the force of work like they please, you've to understand that with capitalism there was a separation of two worlds that were united in past times, the politic one and the economic one, so no people understand that the power in a society is only exercised by formal means and that's false, in reality a Great Multinational can have and actually many have as much power as an state, the same as other criminal organizations.

Edit: Spelling.

Soulforged

12-03-2005, 19:53

Nay. In a society without a strong government to fall back on, your reputation would be very important. A business that becomes notorious for failing to meet it's end of the bargain will quickly become a non-entity.
Not at all. In fact what you're proposing is to give political power directly to the economic forces and bring us back to feudal age. It's like a kind of mafia... ::scared: :eeeek:

Alexander the Pretty Good

12-03-2005, 20:09

Good job backing up your preposterous claims, Soul. ~:rolleyes:

Soulforged

12-03-2005, 22:39

Good job backing up your preposterous claims, Soul. ~:rolleyes:
I couldn't care less ...~:rolleyes:
By the way good job refuting it...:hide:

The Fuedal Age was not due to economy, but due to Religion being Mixed with economy AND Government to form something quite attrocious.I mean it in the sense of economical and political cohercion being mixed in just one figure: the capitalist.

If people are dumb enough to buy the "God put me in charge, therefore you all have to slave away for me." schtick, perhaps they--yet again--deserve to be subjegated.You appear to have a notorious hate towards the defensless and alianated subjects of the lower level don't you?~:joker:

Alexander the Pretty Good

12-03-2005, 23:21

Hey Soulforged - following your political beliefs will put the world back into the Stone Age!

There. That's my rebuttal, pretty much with the same veracity your statement had.

~:rolleyes:

Man, I love that smilie.

Byzantine Prince

12-03-2005, 23:49

I can just imagine this conversation taking place in real life with you guys rolling your eyes at eachother repeatedly. Hillarious.

A.Saturnus

12-04-2005, 00:09

~:joker: The Fuedal Age was not due to economy, but due to Religion being Mixed with economy AND Government to form something quite attrocious.

If people are dumb enough to buy the "God put me in charge, therefore you all have to slave away for me." schtick, perhaps they--yet again--deserve to be subjegated.

And if you´re not bullet-proof perhaps you derserve to be shot?
GC, what you´re defending is practically anarchy. If there are no governmental structures that are independent of economy, then the powerful will create their own governmental structures.
Capitalism propells itself, as is shown by the fact that it exists since about 3 billion years. It´s in essence survival of the fittest. It would be a mistake to think however that natural selection tends to be humane.

Reverend Joe

12-04-2005, 00:11

I coudl argue ny point, but you people wouldn't budge, so what's the use? If you flog a dead horse for too long, eventually, it will burst and blow maggots and rotten meat all over your arm. So go ahead and wreck the world with Capitalism. I don't care anymore.

LeftEyeNine

12-04-2005, 00:33

there are no governmental structures that are independent of economy, then the powerful will create their own governmental structures.
Capitalism propells itself, as is shown by the fact that it exists since about 3 billion years. It´s in essence survival of the fittest. It would be a mistake to think however that natural selection tends to be humane.

My thoughts but far better and intellectual words into expression.. A.Saturnus :bow:

Byzantine Prince

12-04-2005, 00:39

And if you´re not bullet-proof perhaps you derserve to be shot?
GC, what you´re defending is practically anarchy. If there are no governmental structures that are independent of economy, then the powerful will create their own governmental structures.
Capitalism propells itself, as is shown by the fact that it exists since about 3 billion years. It´s in essence survival of the fittest. It would be a mistake to think however that natural selection tends to be humane.
What? Capitalism is not the same as survival of the fittest, nor has it existed for billions of years(nice blunder).

The difference in essence between capitalism and survival of the fittest is that capitalism is the limitless thirst for more money while survival is bound to surviving, not destroying everyone just for more money or power.

AntiochusIII

12-04-2005, 01:08

I am not defending anarchy per se, I am defending a cycle. Without a government, some people would inevitable find a way into power. They might be good people, in which case the people would not care. The might be bad people, in which case the people either rebel, or remain subjegated. I have no sympathy for those who choose the latter.Propaganda. Fear. Pressing attacks again the wretched parts of our nature. Subjugation. Societal "norms." There are a million ways to force people to be subjugated. You are too cruel, good sir, to have no such sympathy for them. After all, before the women's rights movement and others of its own nature the West oppressed half of its own population...and more--most of the population, in fact. Do you have any sympathy for them?

I suppose what you're defending is not exactly Anarchy in a political term, but similar in practice, nonetheless. The rich does oppress the poor; it is not a "find the scapegoat" cry. You seem to be disdaining them because they cry and do nothing. But can they do anything?

The key is self-determination. I have nothing against governments. Just bad governments. If people are not willing to dispose of bad governments promptly, they do not deserve liberty, freedom, or economic independance.Governments are, unfortunately, inherently "bad" if "bad" means an obstruction to liberty, freedom, or economic independence. And, as always, power corrupts. Governments are thus, when controlled, even in part, by human nature (and that seems to always be the case), becomes corrupted. Self-determination that you claim is just the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" as a political theory. A pretty cold one at that. Of course, Socialism intends to keep the "survival of the fittest" in check, the New Deal was motivated to prevent society from falling apart, and, perhaps, protect as much Capitalism as it is plausible; giving the weak a chance to live on in the process. Communism intends to equalize all: a failed idea, I say.

AntiochusIII

12-04-2005, 01:35

To be under laws other than that established by nature or that of your own (more like "limits") is inherently oppressive. Simple examples like school rules are inherently oppressive; national/state/community laws are inherently oppressive; one might go so far as to argue that society is inherently oppressive, as we have to sacrifice certain freedoms in order to be able to form societies. After all, these "do not allow you to..." and thus, prevent you from doing what you may want. Of course, many are of good intentions (and "good" results, perhaps--such as many laws). How "oppressive" that is varies. Perhaps the Anarchists are just interested in removing themselves for society to escape any touches at all with "oppression," but they are always a bunch of impractical idealists and often extreme individualists, anyway.

Which government, in your opinion, is selfless as you claim? Most "working" systems are created with its own survival in mind, by the way. Communism was more of an ideology than a system, anyway. When the Russians tried to implement it as a system it failed horribly. Capitalism carries few ideals, all of which could be condensed to "as much freedom as possible." Socialism I don't know much detail about, but one could argue the United States is saved by it from boundless Capitalism and violent counter-force by the oppressed, "revolutions."

Those who are subjugated deserves compassion, even if based simply on their subjugation. We might as well have compassion for ourselves. Humans are easily chained (must...resist...going...on...about...religion...) and blinded. All humans.

Soulforged

12-04-2005, 02:07

Hey Soulforged - following your political beliefs will put the world back into the Stone Age!

There. That's my rebuttal, pretty much with the same veracity your statement had.
I'll show you who said that too:
"Following this doctrine will lead us to the Feudal Age" -Manzzini (a theorist of facism, possibly the most important). To what Bakunin replied this: "Poor man he doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't know that there's years of evolution between those ages and the one we're living in."
That's not a rebuttal at all. LOL- You're amazing you think that a personal attack, plus an unsupported statement make a rebuttal, WOW that's science.

Soulforged

12-04-2005, 02:16

Rules are not inherantly bad. Like I said, i'm not defending anarchy. Rules are necesarry. "The People" are not inhernatly good. They have bad elements. There is no abritrary way to distinguish good or bad rules, other than that the people and the government should agree on the definiton.Anarchy has rules they're called "common sense". What it doesn't have is opressive rules created by the state, if that's what you want.

AntiochusIII

12-04-2005, 02:36

Anarchy has rules they're called "common sense". What it doesn't have is opressive rules created by the state, if that's what you want.Ah...your trust in common sense is very naive, shall I say. Common sense is a concept in which humans justify their own beliefs as ultimate. Common sense...

It was common sense that the Lords rule over the serfs in the Feudal Age and (uncle) God wants YOU to burn the Heretics to open the gates to heaven. Democracy...radical beliefs by extremists way out of common sense...

Rules are not inherantly bad. Like I said, i'm not defending anarchy. Rules are necesarry. "The People" are not inhernatly good. They have bad elements. There is no abritrary way to distinguish good or bad rules, other than that the people and the government should agree on the definiton.Rules are necessary, you said it yourself, therefore the position that Capitalism, which supposedly must never restrict businesses in any way, is superior thus is false. Rules are necessary: Socialism is about providing rules to try its best to keep equality on a satisfying level (and hopefully out of poverty for all.) Its implementation in Capitalism-dominated US prevents many people from suffering poverty and utter subjugation to business powers. The free market can fall and fall hard, so an alternative provision of life necessities must be there.

Still, rules are inherently oppressive, whether it is bad or not depends on your opinions and the practical implementation and intentions. Is abortion rules oppressive by definition? Hell yes. Is it bad? Differing opinions... (and no, I don't want to start an abortion debate here.)

bmolsson

12-04-2005, 07:32

Capitalism requires a strong moral, in modern times backed up by a legal system. In a capitalistic system the engine is the corporate sector, while the road is the legal sector. They work strongly hand in hand. A living example of this is to do business in a corrupt third world country. The largest problem is legal certainty.
Also important to mention that capitalism itself can actually not be seen as a political system. It's rather a "natural" force based upon expectations, needs and perception.
The concept of anarchy works differently depending on the size of the community. Common sense works just fine in a society where everyone knows each other and there are a natural bond between the members. Normally this works in a family even if it's large. But in a society where you don't know all the members, the common sense doesn't cover what is needed to keep it going..... Human nature....

doc_bean

12-04-2005, 13:43

In an economy without rules, Bill Gates could have ruled the world by now.

He could easily buy up a lot of important, profitable companies.
He could end production in a compay overnight, giving people the choice to either live by his rules or be unemployed. There's really no shortage of workers in the modern world.
He could have bought a few nukes (after all, arms trade is just business).

And people would protest ? He could keep the masses poor and pay his own personal army a good salary, if they would turn against him they'd end up poor too. His army would also be better equiped, since he could have bought out arms companies and stopped sales to the public. frankly, he could make the population to hungry to put up a decent fight.

And you believe people would naturally rebel against a corrupt government ? Nice one. What about the Florida elections ? It doesn't matter who really won, the public should have demanded a fair counting to determine the winner. Bush claimed victory and pretty much noone cared.
This isn't about bashing the US, things like this happen everywhere, the people you want for your perfect liberal (libertarian) society don't exist. It's an ideal, like Marx' communism, but it will never, ever work as you intedn it too :bow:

A.Saturnus

12-04-2005, 19:32

Yes, it is a cruel system, but it would be the best. Where do you think ours are going? Overpopulation, drying up of resources, ect. ect. ect. A population that has to actively look out for itself is a healthy population.

As for governments being inherantly bad, I disagree. Anarchy is a mass of people without direction. Without leadership. In order for communities to form, and for a society to form and have national goals, you need leaders. Thus governments. A good government is selfless, and does everything it can to do right by its people and the goals set forth for it's nation. Such governments are few and far between, but there are historical examples. Bad governments think only of themselves, and use the people and the nation for their own goals. They deserve to be deposed, and people who suffer them without resistence deserve subjegation.

I´d say we agree mostly on the descriptive level but disagree on the normative. I believe the system you propose would "function" it would just not be worth living in (at least for me). The existence of the weak lays a moral obligation on the strong, and not an invitation to abuse their weakness.
About the problems you name, the European system of restraint capitalism isn´t the top user of resources. And for overpopulation, it seems our way is the solution to that.

Soulforged

12-04-2005, 20:17

Ah...your trust in common sense is very naive, shall I say. Common sense is a concept in which humans justify their own beliefs as ultimate. Common sense...Not at all. What Bakunin defines as common sense is the result of experience plus positive science explained to all. The explanation is to long to make a syntesis here...But the idea is this "if you walk through fire you will burn".

It was common sense that the Lords rule over the serfs in the Feudal Age and (uncle) God wants YOU to burn the Heretics to open the gates to heaven. Democracy...radical beliefs by extremists way out of common sense...That was not common sense, it was the result of a proto political and religious doctrine, wich is counter-common sense. By common sense it should be, all man are equal and free, without equality and freedom, there's no society at all.

AntiochusIII

12-04-2005, 23:21

Not at all. What Bakunin defines as common sense is the result of experience plus positive science explained to all. The explanation is to long to make a syntesis here...But the idea is this "if you walk through fire you will burn".Considering the scope of the human mind and what it's capable of, physical restraint ("if you walk through fire you will burn") is not enough to create universal common sense. Not in the real world. One can think differently even though he is burned by fire like the other guy. Even physical conditions (environments, after all, make us what we are) change overtime and in different places, such as the form a society takes. Common sense is very, very weak as a bond for society. It is ever-changing on an individual level. At least with the principle of the Rule of Law all people are put equal before the law.

That was not common sense, it was the result of a proto political and religious doctrine, wich is counter-common sense. By common sense it should be, all man are equal and free, without equality and freedom, there's no society at all.Without equality and freedom, there can be society. Most societies are not equal and free; one might argue all societies are. It's just a society not worth living in, according to our values. Using the fire example again, in a Feudal society if you badmouth the Church you will burn. ~;) And the world is flat.

You are mixing two different arguments. Rules are necesarry for society, not for economy. An economy will govern itself without "rules" per se. A society won't. Some things, namely a way for people to get redress for grievences, is necesarry.Is it possible to seperate society from economy, considering how economy makes up a very large part of society?

An economic force is a very, very powerful factor in society. A monopolistic economy, thus, would push for the government and society that benefit it best.

Thus a society with rule cannot coexist with an economy with no regulations, which is what Capitalism is about; at least, they cannot coexist with harmony.

Papewaio

12-05-2005, 02:48

Economic systems are not zero sum games.

If the synthesis of socialism and capitalism results in a larger wealth surplus then it can be a viable system. If it creates more wealth then unfettered capitalism then the synthesis could supplant it. The reverse is also true.

The problem with a lot of versions of socialism is the need for a large surplus as no long term payback is required... people end up on social welfare for life or even multiple generations... this is not a positive form of socialism.

Socialism that provides education and health benefits can make a more productive society. Ones that also treat welfare in the same manner as health... short term, intense fix the problem rather then a lifestyle choice... would be far better IMDHO. Socialism that is used to give people the tools to survive rather then becoming a teat to survive on is a superior model.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for life.

Side point: Teach a man and you teach an individual, teach a woman and you teach a generation... societies that are against female education are some of the poorest on earth.

LeftEyeNine

12-05-2005, 03:01

Side point: Teach a man and you teach an individual, teach a woman and you teach a generation... societies that are against female education are some of the poorest on earth.

One of the best quotes ever being able to push the right button for another bulb in my mind.

Thanks for your enlightening expression helping me to clarify, rationalize and improve my mentality :bow:

bmolsson

12-05-2005, 03:48

Socialism that provides education and health benefits can make a more productive society. Ones that also treat welfare in the same manner as health... short term, intense fix the problem rather then a lifestyle choice... would be far better IMDHO. Socialism that is used to give people the tools to survive rather then becoming a teat to survive on is a superior model.

And you don't get this in a capitalistic society ? Wouldn't explain the large amount of Nobel prize winner coming from western capitalistic countries....

Competition in providing education and health benefits will give the consumer better products, regardless who offers or pay for them. In a monopilistic socialistic system the performance and quality of the services stagnate and the consumer can do nothing about it. This is why socialism have trouble to survive as a lone system.

Papewaio

12-05-2005, 04:04

Where are most of the Nobel Prize winners comming from?

More socialist Europe or USA?

Soulforged

12-05-2005, 04:15

Considering the scope of the human mind and what it's capable of, physical restraint ("if you walk through fire you will burn") is not enough to create universal common sense. Not in the real world. One can think differently even though he is burned by fire like the other guy. Even physical conditions (environments, after all, make us what we are) change overtime and in different places, such as the form a society takes. Common sense is very, very weak as a bond for society. It is ever-changing on an individual level. At least with the principle of the Rule of Law all people are put equal before the law.There's some essence in the common sense that never changes, that's where Bakunin wants to go. He doesn't want to attach people to fictions and force them to unity through an state and it's opresive laws. The "equality" generated between people under the rule of the law is formal and relative. The real background, mostly in capitalist society shows another picture. It doesn't matter how much idealism and norms you put to cover that background it doesn't work if it's not by opression. However liberating us from those fictions and accepting reality will adapt, not only our views, but also the society itself.

Without equality and freedom, there can be society. Most societies are not equal and free; one might argue all societies are. It's just a society not worth living in, according to our values. Using the fire example again, in a Feudal society if you badmouth the Church you will burn. ~;) And the world is flat.Not in the concept of anarchism, that I consider to be accurate, at least phylosophycally speaking. The rule of materialism is that the man is only man if he's equal and free, the man cannot be equal and free to the nothing, he must have another man wich is also equal and equally free to call himself an human, a man. Society is only the result of the relationships between those two or more man, it doesn't exist beyond or before that, man is part and is a creation of society, and society has it's origins in those relations. For instance society is no more and no less than a related group of humans.

Papewaio

12-05-2005, 04:24

You won't find anything worthy in equality in acquiring material goods. :bow:

Soulforged

12-05-2005, 05:00

You won't find anything worthy in equality in acquiring material goods. :bow:
Is not just about material goods, though they actually mean a great part of your life, and don't deny it. It's equality in all forms, of course don't come with the genes, because we're talking about the man here, not the animal. Aristotele also said sometime ago (I think): "For one to think and to feel free, to make ourselves humans, one must be free of the worries of material life." Of course freedom is justice, freedom is worthy.

Edit: Spelling...

Papewaio

12-05-2005, 05:41

Well to be free from the worries of material life... I would define those as the needs... I don't think we should worry about the wants nor should society set out to try and provide for something that is close to infinite in a human... the desire for more.

But as you have mentioned man is not just his genes, but also his memes. And just like his genes his memes are not all equal. :bow:

A.Saturnus

12-05-2005, 22:50

Where are most of the Nobel Prize winners comming from?

Oslo!

Soulforged

12-06-2005, 05:56

Well to be free from the worries of material life... I would define those as the needs... I don't think we should worry about the wants nor should society set out to try and provide for something that is close to infinite in a human... the desire for more.The infinite human desire for more is not a prooved rule as far as I know...But then again it doesn't matter...Define "needs", because I've various needs outside of the natural cycle you know, one of them could be writing in this forum from time to time. No, Aristotele was refering to all material life, to know how your body and the enviorament functions and interact, to fullfil your biological needs, to have an occupation, a place in society, to be equal and free, to have the same material possibilities than your fellow man, that's to have your material life fullfilled, and I think you'll agree with me...Until then we're what we're...

But as you have mentioned man is not just his genes, but also his memes. And just like his genes his memes are not all equal.You never get tired do you?~:joker: