To the REAL OI'ers. A Real Question! [Archive]

R_P_A_S

28th October 2008, 09:54

Honestly. We can sit here for days, weeks and sadly as history has shown YEARS argue about Socialism vs Capitalism. But that's not my game.

OK. so lets cut to the chase.

I understand most of you are not owners of "the means of production" shit, maybe a couple of you are?

Is safe to say that the majority of you are some what on the Liberal side of things, Reformist? and yes we do have our right wing section. That's either well read and just not into the left wing's ideology or ignorant folks who just don't give a shit about reading and learning.

We might even have some real young people who have yet to live, and experience life and are solely reactionary and emotional.
FINE! I think that covers most of it.

OK! Now let me ask you this... Those of you who oppose fairness and a representative democracy.

Are we, The majority supposed to just keep on living by the pay check?
Until we "get to make it."? IF WE get to make it. I mean it's obvious not everyone can make it. Other wise the system wouldn't work.

Is my Father supposed to live in fear that if he gets an other heart attack his insurance might drop him?

I owe so much money for college, I can't get a job that pays enough to payback for my loans, This internet Im writing to you on, It's stolen signal...

So what If "I'm free to make choices in America".. What's freedom if even the most basic choices cost so much money? and I don't have money? My choice for the most essential needs for life and to develop and be a productive member of society.

And then, next year. I get to become an American Citizen... and I know first hand... that there's no official party that can challenge the status quo...

I know that the people don't directly choose the president. AND a candidate has to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to run for office.This is the democracy I have to look forward to? I've been a "Resident Alien" for 12 years... I've had every right and responsibility that every American has. I just don't get to vote. that's it.

But after what I told you... What the hell do I have to look forward to?

Are you guys sure this system works for me? For you? For us?

DreamWeaver

28th October 2008, 14:05

You do not live in freedom. The only choice you have is to live or to die. Everything costs money and power is in hands of the few. For every celeb out there that is filthy rich there are thousands with nothing to eat. We can only strive to creat a more balanced world, but the ones that do have wealth will not give it up easily. Wake up, and open the eyes of others. Together we can try to make this world a better place, start today.

pusher robot

28th October 2008, 15:50

Are you guys sure this system works for me? For you? For us?

Well, no. What we have is not perfect. Perfection is impossible.

But it works better than the alternatives, as best as we know.

Algernon

28th October 2008, 15:59

You do not live in freedom. The only choice you have is to live or to die.

I suppose communism offers something in between? Zombies, perhaps? :lol:

R_P_A_S

28th October 2008, 16:16

Well, no. What we have is not perfect. Perfection is impossible.

But it works better than the alternatives, as best as we know.

I understand is not perfect and there's nothing that can be perfect.

But at least more fair. for the majority of us who don't have the resources and opportunities to make money, so that we can have more choices and freedoms. Not all of us can fit through that tiny little door with the "financial freedom" sign on it.

Not to mention the fact that there's not a single official major political party that challenges the status quo?

There's not ONE single national broadcast television show or segment that expresses the views and concerns of the working class population.

And the people who are on TV representing the "left-wing" have freaking comedy shows! (Stewart, Maher)

And what alternatives have we tried? I'm speaking about Industrialized America! in the U.S.A. We haven't tried any other alternatives besides this new age capitalism alá socialism...

"Let's privatize the gains! and socialize the losses!"

534634634265

28th October 2008, 17:13

RPAS,
what you're experiencing is shock. your body is reacting with disbelief, because everything you've been told so far is being revealed as fallacy. think about how this. you are unable to make any real choices because you are forcibly denied them. thats trauma. welcome to the world of the societal PTSD victim.

our whole lives we're trained to believe that capitalism works, and that the only ones who it fails are somehow unworthy. people who don't or can't make it are "lazy" or "uneducated" or "unmotivated".
Is this really the case? you see this in families where everyone works, but no one "makes it". you see this in elderly, unable to work and denied a standard of life that all deserve.
this disparity between the american dream and the real world is like being on acid all the time; nothing makes sense. we all get told that the system is fair and that everyone has a voice. BULLSHIT, we all know this isn't fair, fairness is what the disenfranchised ask for because they can't envision true freedom.

how can the power structure allow the voice of the unhappy to be spread without others realising the source of their discontent as well? what would happen if it came to light that capitalism rests on the content, not the truly happy? content with your lot in life, content with your shitty pay at your slave-like job, content with your "fast food" because it lets you get back to work quicker. there will be no party of true opposition, because it would have to exist inside the same poisonous power structure. just look at what your saying here. your asking for more fairness? more equality? why not total fairness, total equality? asking for the system to be more fair is like asking the master for more porridge. your still a fucking slave.

our choices, as i see it, come down to either accepting that this is the system in power(thus tacitly enabling it) or deciding to fight, to resist.

pusher robot

28th October 2008, 17:51

I understand is not perfect and there's nothing that can be perfect.

But at least more fair. for the majority of us who don't have the resources and opportunities to make money, so that we can have more choices and freedoms. Not all of us can fit through that tiny little door with the "financial freedom" sign on it.

That would require people to agree on what the meaning of "fair" is, and also supposes that there is a practical, workable way to accomplish this.

Not to mention the fact that there's not a single official major political party that challenges the status quo?

Like it or not, that's life in a representative democracy when the majority prefers the status quo.

There's not ONE single national broadcast television show or segment that expresses the views and concerns of the working class population.

Perhaps your opinion of what the views and concerns of the working class population does are not match the actual opinion of the other members of that population. Just a possibility.

And the people who are on TV representing the "left-wing" have freaking comedy shows! (Stewart, Maher)

That's because, like yourself, they have nothing constructive to contribute. Their role is confined to criticism, which lends itself well to the comic forms of satire and mockery.

And what alternatives have we tried? I'm speaking about Industrialized America! in the U.S.A. We haven't tried any other alternatives besides this new age capitalism alá socialism...

Leaving aside the theoretical problems and practical ambiguity, alternatives have been tried elsewhere and, when attempted on a large scale, have never worked very well.

[quote]"Let's privatize the gains! and socialize the losses!"
Is the opposite any better?

danyboy27

28th October 2008, 19:10

maybe its beccause i am in canada and in the most socialized province but i dont have that feeling.

I experienced what you describe when i was on welfare during a month, but fortunatly i just moved on and its fine now. When the shit hit the fan there is many way to aprehend it, and self victimization is kinda easy, and its confortable.

dont give up man, fight.

Robert

28th October 2008, 22:00

Those of you who oppose fairnessTalk about unfair.

I can't get a job that pays enough to payback for my loansWhat did you study? Who promised you you'd get a lucrative job in that field? How do you even know you won't get a good job in your field -- or out of it -- and will never pay back your loans?

Are we, the majority supposed to just keep on living by the pay check?Supposed to? There is no cabal of rich bankers in New York with a master plan of what you are supposed to do. Chances are good, if not guaranteed, that as your skills improve and spending discipline strengthens, yes, you'll acquire capital (though it sounds like you're against the filthy notion, so why do you want to?) First you need a marketable skill, which isn't coterminous with a college degree. If college is making you this insecure already, change majors, or drop out and go to trade school.

I get to become an American Citizen... and I know first hand... that there's no official party that can challenge the status quo
You "get to"? Do you really see U.S. citizenship as a privilege, or as an honor? You sound like you despise the place. You know you have to take an oath to get naturalized, right? Here's a few excerpts from the oath:

"I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic....

I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law

I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation."

Are you going to solemnly swear to all these things? Or cross your fingers during the oath?

Trystan

28th October 2008, 22:32

But it works better than the alternatives, as best as we know.

Not the most persuasive reason for not looking for new alternatives.

pusher robot

28th October 2008, 22:48

Not the most persuasive reason for not looking for new alternatives.

Why do you think I came here?

jasmine

28th October 2008, 23:13

Why do you think I came here?

No idea and even less interest. Do you have your hands over your eyes? Only trillions of dollars of government help (taxpayers money) have kept this system afloat - it would have gone under in the last few weeks without immediate state intervention.

If the land of the free does emerge from this deep recession intact do you think it will blink before going to war against any power that is challenging its economic hegemony?

Think Vietnam and agent orange, Cambodia and carpet bombing, China and annual growth rates of at least 8% while the good 'ol USA shuts down the car factories (and much else besides) and gives away houses in Detroit.

Bud Struggle

28th October 2008, 23:32

Why do you think I came here?

I'd be interested to hear Brother Pusher. I've told my story about a zillion times--I'd like to here your opinion about Communism in general and this place in particular.

You, in a lot of ways are the most intriguing person on the all of RevLeft. I would never mean to intrude on you personal thoughts--but the gate was left open in the above comment.

Please pay this post no mind if you feel my question is in the slightest bit impertinent.

Thanks.

jasmine

28th October 2008, 23:45

Please pay this post no mind if you feel my question is in the slightest bit impertinent.

He's a nerd trying to feel important. How hard is that to figure out?

Bud Struggle

29th October 2008, 00:22

He's a nerd trying to feel important. How hard is that to figure out?

Really Jasmine, do you have anything better to do than snip at people? We're all trying to have an interesting disccussion here. An interesting exchange of ideas among people of different backgrounds and beliefs. Why belittle everyone that doesn't agree with you? Why just hit people to hurt them? The real beauty of RevLeft is the vast divergence of ideas and philosophies about the structure of human existance in the universe. With every thread you read something that makes you say, "who would have ever though of that way of looking at things!" And yet there it is. Enjoy RevLeft for the wealth of opinions and personalities that it is. It's a gift--and I think of it that way every time I sign on.

And so what if people don't agree with you? You want to argue? Fine, but score your points with good logical discussion and well researched facts--not constant personal invective that only make you look petty and frightened. Whatever cause you have isn't being helped by your behavior on this Forum.

When you ridicule others you yourself are the real object or ridicule. You have interesting ideas, but they are lost in your pettyness.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

29th October 2008, 01:26

OK! Now let me ask you this... Those of you who oppose fairness and a representative democracy.

Are we, The majority supposed to just keep on living by the pay check?
Until we "get to make it."? IF WE get to make it. I mean it's obvious not everyone can make it. Other wise the system wouldn't work.

What the fuck is "making it?" You made it to America, what you do from here is entirely up to you.

Or can you give some authoritative definition on how big your house is before you've "made it," please.

Is my Father supposed to live in fear that if he gets an other heart attack his insurance might drop him?

He's supposed to get up and vote for Obama.

I owe so much money for college, I can't get a job that pays enough to payback for my loans, This internet Im writing to you on, It's stolen signal...

Was making a lot of money the reason you went to college? Why you chose your degree? Or was it because that's what you wanted to do?

I could have saved you your time/money and sent you to learn how to be a plumber. Several people I know never spent a day in college and now make 6 figures a year. Not bad, if you ask me.

So what If "I'm free to make choices in America".. What's freedom if even the most basic choices cost so much money? and I don't have money? My choice for the most essential needs for life and to develop and be a productive member of society.

Basic choices of what? Cable or HD?

And then, next year. I get to become an American Citizen... and I know first hand... that there's no official party that can challenge the status quo...

Congratulations and no, there's not.

I know that the people don't directly choose the president. AND a candidate has to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to run for office.This is the democracy I have to look forward to? I've been a "Resident Alien" for 12 years... I've had every right and responsibility that every American has. I just don't get to vote. that's it.

The big deal wasn't becoming a citizen, it's in leaving Tajikistan.

But after what I told you... What the hell do I have to look forward to?

Are you guys sure this system works for me? For you? For us?

I'm sorry you're not rich and the pamphlet lied to you.

System works great for me though. That whole deal about there being little social unrest, free public education, and ample job opportunities is nice. Compared, of course, to all the shit south of us, as an example.

Actually, I wish there was a little more social unrest. Oh well.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

29th October 2008, 01:30

No idea and even less interest.

Uh, then why'd you reply? Obviously you ahve at keast some interest.

and gives away houses in Detroit.

SHHH!!!.....RPAS might hear you!

Feslin

29th October 2008, 02:03

The majority supposed to just keep on living by the pay check?

If the alternative is stealing from everyone else, sure.

Ken

29th October 2008, 03:09

life isnt hard. you're in the first world, you have no excuse. what do you have to look forward to? LIFE! life is an adventure.

Lynx

29th October 2008, 03:25

Why do you think I came here?
This is a place where you like to hang out?
If you wish to consider alternatives, you read books that consider alternatives. Then, if you wish, you discuss what you read.

R_P_A_S

29th October 2008, 04:16

Hey guys, thanks for taking the time to read over my thread. some offered some good points, others just sounded like some of the stuff on TV. I was just asking questions. I have a right to ask. I'm in no way a whiner or a quitter. this thread shows very little of my true character and determination. Its obvious to not see it in such a short post.

For now I'll answer one question. I don't hate America. This is home. And I don't want to leave. That's not going to fix anything. And is because I love where i grew up and what I've learned here that I ask, and demand more democracy. Not a free ride and no favors.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

29th October 2008, 07:13

life isnt hard. you're in the first world, you have no excuse. what do you have to look forward to? LIFE! life is an adventure.

I think everyone should take a moment and remember this. Especially we in the first-world who never stop *****ing nor respecting the world around us.

Bud Struggle

29th October 2008, 12:18

For now I'll answer one question. I don't hate America. This is home. And I don't want to leave. That's not going to fix anything. And is because I love where i grew up and what I've learned here that I ask, and demand more democracy. Not a free ride and no favors.

The best thing about America is that here you have freedom. The real stuff--to a large extent you have to be a grown up and take care of yourself. You are free to make lots of money--it's difficult but some have, and you are perfectly free to fail--no big mommy government is going to look after you (unless you own an investment bank.)

It's not a perfectly flat playingfield that you are on--it's easier for some people than for others, but if you look three of the people running in the President/vice President race this year came from nowhere background (McCain's daddy was a hot shot Navy guy.) So average people make it to the top with some sruggle.

Believe it or not--it's actually a lot of fun.

Bilan

29th October 2008, 12:22

life isnt hard. you're in the first world, you have no excuse. what do you have to look forward to? LIFE! life is an adventure.

Are you fucking stupid, or do you just not have a life?
For pete's sake, you're such a brat.

Bud Struggle

29th October 2008, 12:36

Are you fucking stupid, or do you just not have a life?
For pete's sake, you're such a brat.

Come on! You have to admit that life in the first world is a piece of cake compaired to life in some sub-Saharan dictatorship or some third world sweat shop.

(Wow! Five green thingies. Cool!)

Bilan

29th October 2008, 12:57

I question whether a piece of cake is a decent indicator for quality of life, or the existence of poverty.
Needless to say, Ken, being a spoilt middle class brat, is about as conscious of the world around him as a rock.
His claim to knowledge is like someone prodding you with a pencil - its so irritating that it begins to hurt.
Ken's post are equivalent to this.

Simply, Ken should go toe-to-toe with a moving train.

Os Cangaceiros

29th October 2008, 14:04

danyboy27

29th October 2008, 14:34

Come on! You have to admit that life in the first world is a piece of cake compaired to life in some sub-Saharan dictatorship or some third world sweat shop.

(Wow! Five green thingies. Cool!)

cant agree more.

pusher robot

29th October 2008, 16:34

This is a place where you like to hang out?
If you wish to consider alternatives, you read books that consider alternatives. Then, if you wish, you discuss what you read.

There seems to be a dearth of literature, however. I understand the principles well enough but not the practice. Can you recommend any books that (1) are written in the last couple of decades and (2) deal with the problem of "how to get there from here?"

TheCultofAbeLincoln

29th October 2008, 19:51

jasmine

29th October 2008, 22:27

Really Jasmine, do you have anything better to do than snip at people? We're all trying to have an interesting disccussion here. An interesting exchange of ideas among people of different backgrounds and beliefs. Why belittle everyone that doesn't agree with you? Why just hit people to hurt them? The real beauty of RevLeft is the vast divergence of ideas and philosophies about the structure of human existance in the universe. With every thread you read something that makes you say, "who would have ever though of that way of looking at things!" And yet there it is. Enjoy RevLeft for the wealth of opinions and personalities that it is. It's a gift--and I think of it that way every time I sign on.

And so what if people don't agree with you? You want to argue? Fine, but score your points with good logical discussion and well researched facts--not constant personal invective that only make you look petty and frightened. Whatever cause you have isn't being helped by your behavior on this Forum.

When you ridicule others you yourself are the real object or ridicule. You have interesting ideas, but they are lost in your pettyness.

Well researched facts one:

The vietnam war - it happened
the dropping of agent orange - it happened
the carpet bombing of cambodia - it happened

This is all petty according to Tomk. The murder of tens of thousands is petty???

The great divergence of ideas - the great divergence of justifications for mass slaughter. When the bombs drop real people are maimed, real people are slaughtered.

This is not about debate and ideas, it's about where you take a stand. Joke around as much as you want with Tomk and Pusher but they are reflections of a real power in the world, a power that will take us all down.

Plagueround

29th October 2008, 22:49

System works great for me though.

That's because you signed up to kill the civilians the system isn't working for.

Bud Struggle

29th October 2008, 23:48

Well researched facts one:

The vietnam war - it happened
the dropping of agent orange - it happened
the carpet bombing of cambodia - it happened Agreed--they happened.

This is all petty according to Tomk. The murder of tens of thousands is petty??? Please find my quote where I say that...I anxiously await your reply.

The great divergence of ideas - the great divergence of justifications for mass slaughter. I'm starting to BELIEVE!

When the bombs drop real people are maimed, real people are slaughtered. I'm getting MOVED here!

This is not about debate and ideas, it's about where you take a stand. YEA Sista! I'm feeling the Spirit!

Joke around as much as you want with Tomk and Pusher but they are reflections of a real power in the world, a power that will take us all down. HALLELULLAH Now I see it! I believe, I believe, I believe!

HALLELULLAH!

Seriously Jasmine, make a real point now and then, don't just go on and on with the shoot from the hip Jesse Jackson crapola. Thanks.

Listen--I have nothing personally against you. Just get a grip. OK?

534634634265

30th October 2008, 04:09

Yeah, after my first semester of college I saw the truth. He doesn't realiza what's happening. He doesn't realize.

Go smoke a joint dude.
OHHHHHHH GOOOOOOOOD!
its the college douchebag hippies! you watch this abe lincoln character, i tell you. he's gonna form a drum circle, and then this place will turn into a hippie jam-fest!!

seriously though, do you see how pretentious that statement i bold'd is? im sure you probably wrote it as a quick reply without a lot of thought, but its quite revealing.

Lynx

30th October 2008, 05:23

There seems to be a dearth of literature, however. I understand the principles well enough but not the practice. Can you recommend any books that (1) are written in the last couple of decades and (2) deal with the problem of "how to get there from here?"
The only book I have read is Towards a New Socialism by Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell. It was written in 1993. A preface to the book is also available, which addresses some questions raised by the book. The 3rd draft of the preface was written in 2004.
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/

Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel have written about Parecon.
And I assume someone has written about energy accounting.

All in all, heterodox economics remain obscure.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

30th October 2008, 08:58

OHHHHHHH GOOOOOOOOD!
its the college douchebag hippies! you watch this abe lincoln character, i tell you. he's gonna form a drum circle, and then this place will turn into a hippie jam-fest!!

seriously though, do you see how pretentious that statement i bold'd is? im sure you probably wrote it as a quick reply without a lot of thought, but its quite revealing.

I was making an allusion to the same episode.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

30th October 2008, 08:59

That's because you signed up to kill the civilians the system isn't working for.

No, I'm going to fight people who don't want to take part in this thing called progress in favor of some stupid belief in a higher power.

Plagueround

30th October 2008, 09:54

No, I'm going to fight people who don't want to take part in this thing called progress in favor of some stupid belief in a higher power.

Congress?

RGacky3

30th October 2008, 19:56

Come on! You have to admit that life in the first world is a piece of cake compaired to life in some sub-Saharan dictatorship or some third world sweat shop.

I can't stand this argument, CAPITALISM IS NOT A NATIONAL SYSTEM, its a global system. Capitalism does'nt function independantly in the United States niether does in in the Sub Saharan desert. That is the flaw of the argument "Well the US is Capitalist and its better than other countries."

Bud Struggle

30th October 2008, 20:05

I can't stand this argument, CAPITALISM IS NOT A NATIONAL SYSTEM, its a global system. Capitalism does'nt function independantly in the United States niether does in in the Sub Saharan desert. That is the flaw of the argument "Well the US is Capitalist and its better than other countries."

Maybe--but that's not what I said. I said life in the FIRST WORLD. That being said--life in the US and the rest of the first world is better than life anywhere else--both for the poor as well as the rich.

Even if you make a little money--it's a party.

RGacky3

30th October 2008, 20:45

My point was that the first and third worlds are inter-connected. The wealth of the first world is very dependant on the third world. So thats not really a defence at all of Capitalism, nor is it a defence of the policies of the first world as opposed to the third world. All it shows is that we are on the top of the Capitalist food chain.

jasmine

30th October 2008, 22:49

HALLELULLAH Now I see it! I believe, I believe, I believe!

You are an utterly vile cynic - is there anything you care about? Mass murder who gives a shit?

Bud Struggle

30th October 2008, 23:12

You are an utterly vile cynic - is there anything you care about? Mass murder who gives a shit?

:wub:

[Edit] Jasmine--PLEASE don't harsh my mellow!:mellow::engles:

Rascolnikova

1st November 2008, 14:56

The best thing about America is that here you have freedom. The real stuff--to a large extent you have to be a grown up and take care of yourself. You are free to make lots of money--it's difficult but some have, and you are perfectly free to fail--no big mommy government is going to look after you (unless you own an investment bank.)

It's not a perfectly flat playingfield that you are on--it's easier for some people than for others, but if you look three of the people running in the President/vice President race this year came from nowhere background (McCain's daddy was a hot shot Navy guy.) So average people make it to the top with some sruggle.

Believe it or not--it's actually a lot of fun.

I don't have a source on this, but I've heard--and I believe--that the most accurate predictor of one's wealth in the US is the wealth of one's parents, independent of education level, inheritance, and a number of other indicators. This, to me, says something about who is more free in this system than everybody else.

I'm curious; what is your take on the theory of the power elite? To me it explains a lot of things very convincingly. Among other things, according to this theory, the fact that our actual presidential candidates have come from relatively diverse backgrounds is largely a matter of masking the actual powerholders.

Bud Struggle

1st November 2008, 16:40

I don't have a source on this, but I've heard--and I believe--that the most accurate predictor of one's wealth in the US is the wealth of one's parents, independent of education level, inheritance, and a number of other indicators. This, to me, says something about who is more free in this system than everybody else. I wouldn't be suprised it were true. You are "used" to living in a certain fashion and that is what you aspire to, and once you reached that level you plateau. To me it says the system for success is open--and you can move ahead as far as you want. Once that desire falls off you become static.

I'm curious; what is your take on the theory of the power elite? To me it explains a lot of things very convincingly. Among other things, according to this theory, the fact that our actual presidential candidates have come from relatively diverse backgrounds is largely a matter of masking the actual powerholders.

I can't say anything for certain--because I just don't know for certain, but there is a good amout of power that centers in certain places. You can make a case that someone life Obama is the product of (of all things) the General Electric Corporation. Through NBC and MS-MBC they seem to be Obama's own private networks. There's LOTS of other things involved in an election but that's a glaring example of how the elite would work.

From what I've seen of politics in my state of Florida--when Jeb Bush was in office, he knew EVERYBODY that was "worth" knowing (it didn't hurt that his brother was President.) But you could see how small the group of people "worth" knowing was.

Know I know a fair amount wealthy people and the ones I know have no power whatsoever--mostly self made people. I mean, they can "help" with a school board election of a state representative race, but they certainly aren't invited to give their opinion on anything more important than that--no matter how much money they have. I always wondered exactly who those people are--the ones that make the decisions.

This post seems like a bunch or random notes because power is unlike money where all you have to do is count the dollars, it's a lot more hidden and hard to quantify. But yea, I believe there's an elite, and there's some big nemes we all know in the group--but I imagine there's lots of people no one has ever heard of too.

Rascolnikova

1st November 2008, 17:04

Bud Struggle

1st November 2008, 18:27

I feel compelled to mention as respectfully as possible that I find your assumption that material accomplishment is largely a matter of custom and drive to be insulting. In my experience, while certainly there are outliers, for the most part it really is near impossible to achieve upwards class mobility. It is much more impossible to achieve it without the sacrifice of things that are arguably much more important and arguably should not ever be sacrificed, particularly in the realm of human relationships.

I don't mean to be insulting, of course...but you make a couple of false assumptions. First of all, that material accomplishment means some sort of happiness. It may, and it's nice--if that's what you want, but if some cultures find that such things to be unemportant--so be it. Certainly the Jews who looked for such thing have one the whole been quite successful in such things--even with the bulk of society until recent times being quite opposed to their success.

I see it as just the opposite--I see kids I went to HS with (Catholic, working class) all doing quite well, My wife is working class Italian from New Haven--got a scholarship to Yale, did well on her own and now bosses me around in my business, I could go on and on. You know--all you guys here are young kind of frustrated--I can understand that, but give yourself a little time and work hard and you can do whatever you want to do. (I know I sound a bit condescending--but you can't have it now--you have to wait 20 years.)

As a person of mixed class background who presently is employed 50+ hours a week on top of part time school, volunteering, and activism, I've crunched the numbers a lot of times. Your description simply doesn't seem plausible to me. My life is not sustainable, and I've been very fortunate in terms of outside support. Someone actually working their way up from the bottom has no chance without extraordinary luck.

Yea it looks tough. But lots of people do it. That's why they keep building new McMansions up on the hill. Give yourself time.

(I'll answer the Elite question later--my little sugar and spice wants to record her quartet--"NOW DADDY!!!!" :rolleyes:

Rascolnikova

4th November 2008, 03:57

I don't mean to be insulting

I appreciate it.

but you make a couple of false assumptions. First of all, that material accomplishment means some sort of happiness. It may, and it's nice--if that's what you want, but if some cultures find that such things to be unemportant--so be it. Certainly the Jews who looked for such thing have one the whole been quite successful in such things--even with the bulk of society until recent times being quite opposed to their success. I don't believe I assume that at all.

It seems entirely likely to me that I am happier with my life--living in a camping trailer with no running water or refrigeration, working my ass off, and watching my friends and family die of cancer and unknown diseases, or kill themselves slowly of depression, or not live at all as they struggle to survive raising children alone--than the average millionaire or billionaire is with theirs. However, the average millionaire or billionaire has much more access to certain freedoms than I do.

I do not think money means happiness; I think it means choices. . . and that without a certain base level of access to those choices, happiness aside, a variety of tragedies will inevitably occur.

I can't deny that certain cultures emphasize stable economic success more than others, and that the historical trends of this can be seen.
However, that you are willing to suggest that the reason some people don't have access to decent educational resources, basic medical care, clean air and water, a non-poisonous food supply, and stable housing for their toddlers is because their culture hasn't taught them to want it enough severely boggles my imagination.

These are issues that I deal with in the day to day. If I am to believe your posts, I honestly don't see how you could have any memory of what it is to be poor--and I find it likely that you've never been up close at all with any culture of generational poverty.

I see it as just the opposite--I see kids I went to HS with (Catholic, working class) all doing quite well, My wife is working class Italian from New Haven--got a scholarship to Yale, did well on her own and now bosses me around in my business, I could go on and on. You know--all you guys here are young kind of frustrated--I can understand that, but give yourself a little time and work hard and you can do whatever you want to do. (I know I sound a bit condescending--but you can't have it now--you have to wait 20 years.)
Certainly it's legitimate for you to draw on your more extensive experience. I recognize the legitimacy of that, and am actually quite grateful you are willing to share; an understanding of how your class views the world is not at all unuseful to the things I wish to accomplish.

I could be entirely wrong, and you could be right--I won't rule it out. When I say I think class mobility is very limited, though, it is not based only on the brief experience of my own youth.

Yea it looks tough. But lots of people do it. That's why they keep building new McMansions up on the hill. Give yourself time.Actually, it is tough (rather than just looking tough). And there's more problems with it than that.

I'm not interested in ever having a McMansion. Ever. Not now, not in twenty years, not yesterday. Materially, I pretty much just want a room to keep my books in where I can stand up, an unlimited supply of hot water, and access to a dance studio and some woods to go running. . . and I specifically plan to keep it that way.

I am interested in enlightened self-determination, deep human connection, and meaningful public discourse. I can't buy that by working for 20 years, and I can't buy it alone; it requires deep cultural change. I have an increasing multitude of reasons to believe that every time someone does work for twenty years and manage to buy a McMansion, it detracts from those goals, destroying some part of what progress has been made.

It's an arbitrarily chosen set of values, but I'm pretty sure Lots of people would be on board with if they thought it was remotely possible.

What do you think?

(I'll answer the Elite question later--my little sugar and spice wants to record her quartet--"NOW DADDY!!!!" :rolleyes:yay parenting. :)

RGacky3

4th November 2008, 20:24

I don't mean to be insulting, of course...but you make a couple of false assumptions. First of all, that material accomplishment means some sort of happiness. It may, and it's nice--if that's what you want, but if some cultures find that such things to be unemportant--so be it. Certainly the Jews who looked for such thing have one the whole been quite successful in such things--even with the bulk of society until recent times being quite opposed to their success.

Thats the silliest argument, I agree money =/= happiness, but that does'nt justify anything, because its still not nice to be poor (a grand understatement), and its a lot harder to pursue happiness when your working all the time to feed yourself and your family. Also that does'nt justify wage slavery and exploitation, its theft. Thats like stealing someones car and saying "having a car won't make you happy."

I can understand that, but give yourself a little time and work hard and you can do whatever you want to do. (I know I sound a bit condescending--but you can't have it now--you have to wait 20 years.)

There goes your youth, slaving away, then your 40 years old you have something, but so what, you lost 20 years, plus getting something for most people will never happen, ever, they'll just keep slaving to stay alive.

And its not condesending just naive, look around you.

Yea it looks tough. But lots of people do it. That's why they keep building new McMansions up on the hill. Give yourself time.

We don't want a society where its possible maybe to become one of the elite, thats not what a just society is. We want a society where everyone has a decent and free life. I don't want to live in a McMansion, ever, I don't want to be rich, thats not the point. The point is there should'nt be an elite, nor should there be an underclass.

Your right money does'nt equal happiness, I know many rich people that are unhappy, and poor people that are happy. But thats niether here nor there.

Bud Struggle

4th November 2008, 21:09

Thats the silliest argument, I agree money =/= happiness, but that does'nt justify anything, because its still not nice to be poor (a grand understatement), and its a lot harder to pursue happiness when your working all the time to feed yourself and your family. Also that does'nt justify wage slavery and exploitation, its theft. Thats like stealing someones car and saying "having a car won't make you happy." That's the thing about America--if people were really interested in making money they would, and plenty of people do. And I'm not saying making tons of money--but a comfortable living is made by almost everyone. (Some don't and I'm not denying that.) People are pretty satisfied here in the USA. Look people are voting for Persident and BY FAR the two major candidates are almost identical in their beliefs--and for that matter they are both almost the same as the present President.

There are opportunities for Socialists, and Leftists of the radical sort to get elected. There's a couple on the ballot here in Florida, but they are out on the fringes with all the other wackos. Really and truly--nobody's interested in doing anything other than the same old same old. There isn't anything more than the same in Obama's idea of Change.

There goes your youth, slaving away, then your 40 years old you have something, but so what, you lost 20 years, plus getting something for most people will never happen, ever, they'll just keep slaving to stay alive. Some do, of course--but most people in America live quite well. We are a overweight country for a reason.

We don't want a society where its possible maybe to become one of the elite, thats not what a just society is. We want a society where everyone has a decent and free life. I don't want to live in a McMansion, ever, I don't want to be rich, thats not the point. The point is there should'nt be an elite, nor should there be an underclass. There's a small elite and a small underclass and the rest of the country is an overweight middle class. Nothing wrong with that. Actually America besides for a few on the top and a few on the bottom is a Worker's Paradise. But you do have to work.

RGacky3

4th November 2008, 22:12

There's a small elite and a small underclass and the rest of the country is an overweight middle class.

Thats not true at all, your right, there is a small elite, there is also a HUGE underclass, people that live paycheck to pay check, a lot of people. There also is a sizable middle class, but there is only a sizable middle class because America is a global super power, which manages to gain a lot of wealth out of other countires. But the underclass in America is very very big.

That's the thing about America--if people were really interested in making money they would, and plenty of people do. And I'm not saying making tons of money--but a comfortable living is made by almost everyone. (Some don't and I'm not denying that.)

Everyones interested in making money, because thats the ticket to freedom in Capitalism. But most don't, most never get that freedom. Remember too, Capitalism is global.

Look people are voting for Persident and BY FAR the two major candidates are almost identical in their beliefs--and for that matter they are both almost the same as the present President.

Thats not an indication of satisfaction, the US is a hack democracy, the people running for election in the USSR also had similar beliefs.

There's a couple on the ballot here in Florida, but they are out on the fringes with all the other wackos. Really and truly--nobody's interested in doing anything other than the same old same old. There isn't anything more than the same in Obama's idea of Change.

Again the reason for that is'nt satisfaction, just look at history, politics in America is closely held.

Robert

4th November 2008, 22:31

Ralph Nader is a prominent, articulate, and well informed candidate for president who is sympathetic to the Left's point of view, on labor issues anyway, and he can articulate his positions without sounding like an angry Don Quixote.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/labor/workers-rights/#17410

How many wage slaves will stand up and vote for him today?

And don't mock him. He's the closest thing to a legitimate ally that you have.

Bud Struggle

4th November 2008, 22:56

Indeed Robert--here were my "Left" choices for President here in Florida:

Gloria La Riva--the Party for Socialism and Liberation. www.votePSL.org (http://www.votePSL.org)

Brian Moore--Socialist Party. www.VoteBrianMoore.com (http://www.VoteBrianMoore.com)

Ralph Nader--Ecology Party. www.VoteNader.org (http://www.VoteNader.org)

Cynthia McKinney--Green Party www.RunCynthiaRun.org (http://www.RunCynthiaRun.org)

That's enough choices--don't you think?

534634634265

4th November 2008, 23:14

That's enough choices--don't you think?
NO.
complete freedom does not come with a limited selection.
secondly, to think that voting for some miniscule third party candidate does anything more than alert the local authorities to your existence as a leftist is foolish.
the system exists the way it does because it presents the illusion of choice. no real threat or change to that system will come from inside of it.

Robert

4th November 2008, 23:21

Well, yeah, but a real revolutionary would burn down the polling place before voting for -- or letting anybody else vote for -- any of those running dogs and roaders. :thumbup1:

on edit: my response was to Tom. Cracked, say it ain't so. And now that I had to edit I think my stupid snarky smilie is in the wrong place, which is also your fault, cracked.

No, it's okay. I withdraw my accusation.

Bud Struggle

4th November 2008, 23:31

Yea Robert, these Commies do lack that certain egalitarian touch when it comes to holding elections. :D

Here's the BEST choice on my ballot!

The Boston Tea Party!

As for the Boston Tea Party, co-founder Thomas Knapp said that several Libertarians who attended the party's 2006 convention were angry that 45 planks of the party's platform had been eliminated. They then formed their own party, which has a one-sentence platform to reduce ``the size, scope and power of government at all levels.''
Knapp said members were inspired by the Boston Tea Party because ``we kind of look to that grass-roots citizen activism.''

From the Miami Herald

Robert

5th November 2008, 01:14

Yea Robert, these Commies do lack that certain egalitarian touch

Well, Tom, the People don't know what's good for them, see? They've been so brainwashed by Coca Cola that they need to be educated. If that doesn't work, well then ... ahem ... we'll just have to re-educate them.

Then they'll all be drinking Labor Juice ("The Pause that Liberates") instead of Coke. And they'll like it.

Labor Shall Rule

5th November 2008, 01:31

Tom, I'd like the exact name of your business, it's address, the city that it's in, and a website if you have that, because I highly doubt you have the financial physique to operate and manage a firm of your own.

Capitalism can't operate with "small government" - the bail-out proved that it needs the state to keep it's head above deep water. It's a myth.

Bud Struggle

5th November 2008, 01:37

Capitalism can't operate with "small government" - the bail-out proved that it needs the state to keep it's head above deep water. It's a myth.

Oh, I agree. The Boston Tea Party was just a wacky guy that somehow got on the ballot. Certainly nobody I thought was serious. I posted the blurb because I thiought he was kind of funny.

Bud Struggle

5th November 2008, 01:41

double post.

Rascolnikova

5th November 2008, 03:47

that you are willing to suggest that the reason some people don't have access to decent educational resources, basic medical care, clean air and water, a non-poisonous food supply, and stable housing for their toddlers is because their culture hasn't taught them to want it enough severely boggles my imagination.

I would like to see your answer to this--please?

Rascolnikova

5th November 2008, 09:05

Well, Tom, the People don't know what's good for them, see? They've been so brainwashed by Coca Cola that they need to be educated. If that doesn't work, well then ... ahem ... we'll just have to re-educate them.

Then they'll all be drinking Labor Juice ("The Pause that Liberates") instead of Coke. And they'll like it.

I'm aware that there are other theories out there, but so far I've seen nothing that leads me to think I'd advocate for a revolution without wide popular support.

That said, I think there's a lot of leftists who just haven't realized it yet.

The illusion of choice is very persuasive, but it is an illusion. Consider your example of third party candidates. Because we have no run-off voting, and almost exclusively single member electorates--as with the presidency, where one person is elected and chooses their cabinet--it is quite natural that people should group to two parties. With only one slot to fill per body of voting public and no run-off voting, to vote for a third party candidate fills no useful purpose; it merely makes it less likely that someone you find tolerable will win.

Game theory doesn't have a perfect answer for us, but there are much fairer ways of setting up elections than what's done in the US. A two party system forces most voters to, out of rational self-interest, vote for candidates that don't come close to representing their views. The presence of third party candidates on the ballot merely masks that the reason they are "jokes" is not that no significant part of the public supports them, but rather the fact that intelligent voters know splitting off the party line is destructive to their interests.

I think this is a significant part of why most Americans remain so profoundly unengaged; statistically, for the average American, the chances of voting for someone you actually agree with who has any chance of winning--forget whether you came within 1000 votes of influencing that win--are ridiculously slim. The parties manage to engage only those whose views fall somewhere within shouting distance of the party line.

The usual argument against multi-member electorates is that the more involved compromise process--between more parties--bogs down government to the point of stalemate. . . but so far as I know, this has not stopped governments that require coalition building from functioning, and arguably they function quite a lot better than our own.

Just one of many examples of how what looks like choice isn't necessarily.

Bud Struggle

5th November 2008, 11:37

I would like to see your answer to this--please?

You put words in my mouth and then ask me to defend them? :rolleyes::lol:

Rascolnikova

5th November 2008, 15:33

You put words in my mouth and then ask me to defend them? :rolleyes::lol:

I stated my understanding of your position. If I misunderstood your position, please clarify.

Bud Struggle

5th November 2008, 16:28

I stated my understanding of your position. If I misunderstood your position, please clarify.

My position is there are certain subcultures in the American population that highly value academic achievement and material success. The whole joke about the Jewish mother's "my son the doctor," has a good basis in reality.

In my county Asians are 1.6% of the population--yet there children comprise almost 7% of the IB students in my kid's high school. Jews are a little over 2% and their kids comprise 9% of the population. I'm sure there are similar results in other school districts.

Also, in those subcultures there is a definite push for after school enrichment--maybe more than in different subcultures.

I could be wrong--but that's what I noticed from being involved in my kids school board.

I think this is a significant part of why most Americans remain so profoundly unengaged; statistically, for the average American, the chances of voting for someone you actually agree with who has any chance of winning--forget whether you came within 1000 votes of influencing that win--are ridiculously slim. The parties manage to engage only those whose views fall somewhere within shouting distance of the party line.
Maybe. But I think most people don't care. I kind of liked that that Obama got to be President for the race issue--but bottom line his Presidentcy isn't going to affect me in the least. Same with my Senators and Congressmen. Now, I am VERY involved with my state representatives, county commissioners and school board--but I wouldn't even be interested in them if I didn't have business with them. (The really nice thing about the county and state officials--it's more personal. If you support them--they support you. :))

Rascolnikova

6th November 2008, 07:42

My position is there are certain subcultures in the American population that highly value academic achievement and material success. The whole joke about the Jewish mother's "my son the doctor," has a good basis in reality.

In my county Asians are 1.6% of the population--yet there children comprise almost 7% of the IB students in my kid's high school. Jews are a little over 2% and their kids comprise 9% of the population. I'm sure there are similar results in other school districts.

Also, in those subcultures there is a definite push for after school enrichment--maybe more than in different subcultures.

I could be wrong--but that's what I noticed from being involved in my kids school board.

I did say

I can't deny that certain cultures emphasize stable economic success more than others, and that the historical trends of this can be seen.

This explains your stance on moderately rich people; what about poor people? How do you explain them?

It seemed to me that your stance on wealth was "people just have to decide how much they want and work that hard." In what respects does it not describe your stance on wealth in general?

Maybe. But I think most people don't care. I kind of liked that that Obama got to be President for the race issue--but bottom line his Presidentcy isn't going to affect me in the least. Same with my Senators and Congressmen. Now, I am VERY involved with my state representatives, county commissioners and school board--but I wouldn't even be interested in them if I didn't have business with them. (The really nice thing about the county and state officials--it's more personal. If you support them--they support you. :))

hehe. . yes, I suppose I forgot to mention that the other essential part would be a sense that governments and elections are actually going to deal in issues they care about. . .

it's the effort/impact ratio.

Bud Struggle

6th November 2008, 12:47

This explains your stance on moderately rich people; what about poor people? How do you explain them? I never said how much money these families made. And I really don't know. I have stats on racial mix, and I have stats on sub lunch programs (30% in my daughter's school,) but I don't have stats on the two of these together.

It seemed to me that your stance on wealth was "people just have to decide how much they want and work that hard." In what respects does it not describe your stance on wealth in general? There definitely is a component of hard work when one looks at amount of money people earn. Luck doesn't hurt either. Education helps. It's a milieu.

hehe. . yes, I suppose I forgot to mention that the other essential part would be a sense that governments and elections are actually going to deal in issues they care about. . .

it's the effort/impact ratio. Sure. personally, I care about local elections because I want to see the right person get in to help my business. Other people have other concerns--that's what makes it an election. Hopefully, the best person wins.

[Edit] "sub lunch" is subsidized lunch--not a tuna sub lunch. :D

Rascolnikova

7th November 2008, 09:12

So. . I'm sorry, I missed your answer. Why do you think

some people don't have access to decent educational resources, basic medical care, clean air and water, a non-poisonous food supply, and stable housing for their toddlers?

Or do you think everyone has those things?

Bud Struggle

7th November 2008, 11:29

So. . I'm sorry, I missed your answer. Why do you think? Or do you think everyone has those things?

For the most part in the United States everyone CAN have access to those things. It entales some work though. But there's plenty of government programs the help people that are having trouble.

Free education is provided for everybody. My kids go to the same HS as everyone elses. Food in America is if plentiful and inexpensive and the government gives subsidies in the way of food stamps for those that can't afford it. There is also Section 8 housing for those that can't afford housing. The government just pays for it for people.

People can have pretty much of a free ride if they so desire. Hey, it's not all lemos and cavier, but they can live. If people get a job and do a little work things do get exponentially better.

Rascolnikova

7th November 2008, 12:07

For the most part in the United States everyone CAN have access to those things. It entails some work though. But there's plenty of government programs the help people that are having trouble.

People can have pretty much of a free ride if they so desire. Hey, it's not all limos and caviar, but they can live. If people get a job and do a little work things do get exponentially better.

I don't think you are familiar with the level of welfare that's available. In all the cases I'm aware of, it is not enough to live on, even in an incredibly scant way. I know in the area where I live, virtually all of the homeless population that isn't mentally ill is families, often families with one or more working or recently working parent.

It should be quite obvious that access to health care in the US is massively inadequate. I suppose technically, "most"--if we take it to mean more than half--of us have access to some form of coverage, but I find it extremely unlikely that more than half of us have adequate coverage.

A "free" high school diploma doesn't necessarily entail learning how to read, write, and add--and even in the cases where a high school diploma is meaningful, it isn't the level of education that one would need in order to advance in the job market in most fields.

It's true that food is somewhat available in the US, but we still see scenarios where a single mother without a car is feeding her children on ramen and pasta-roni, because that's what food stamps will cover she can't make it to the food bank. . . which may or may not have anything better. I understand this isn't a starvation issue, but isn't it embarrassing as a nation that some of our children are facing malnutrition?

On top of this, regulatory structures for food safety seem to be failing massively. Unable to fund independent studies or withstand the pressure to get products to market, they rely on extremely dubious commercially funded science. . . or, I hate to do this, but it might be more accurate to say "science." Every now and then when the evidence becomes too great to escape, they mention as quietly as possible that something we've been using for ten years wasn't as safe as they said it was.

Furthermore, your suggestion that "if people get a job and do a little work things get exponentially better" is directly contradictory to my experience. Can you give me some sort of support for that?

Bud Struggle

7th November 2008, 12:20

Rascolnikova

7th November 2008, 12:57

I never said the situation is "good." I just said that things are put into place by the government and charities so that people don't starve or go homeless. Schools are provide for all children--it's a crime not to send our kid to school.

But you fail to understand that America is NOT a welfare state. You have to support yourself and earn your way in life--most importantly you have to live by the decisions you make in life. You want to be a single mother with five kids and no education--those are a series of choices you made in life. It's unforunate, but in America we expect that all grown up ACT like grown ups. It's not society's job to take responsibility for grown people that are mentally competent. People have to learn to take care of themselves.

There indeed should be a safety net--so that people don't starve or go homeless, but that's about it. The rest you have to do for yourself.

I believe I've just demonstrated that I'm entirely aware America is not a welfare state.

My friend who was abandoned with two children by the man she married right out of foster care when she was 17 worries constantly about whether she will be able to keep her children off the street. She carries one and a half full time work loads--a full time day job that doesn't pay enough for them to live and night classes--and watches her children take the damage of her poor circumstances, and hates herself for it. I would like to watch you tell her to her face that she needs to learn to ACT like a grown up, but then again maybe not, because honest to God, I might hurt you afterwards.

A safety net that stops people from starving or going homeless--which ours does not--does not give people enough resources that they can be reasonably expected to "take care of themselves" in the job market.

Edit: this doesn't even begin to cover all the grown ups who we don't expect to act like grown ups in the US. . . Paris Hilton being the obvious example, but with a multitude of lessers that would suffice.

Edit: and I find it rich that you speak of "choosing to be an uneducated mother of 5" when you oppose abortion.

Jazzratt

7th November 2008, 14:39

Schools are provide for all children--it's a crime not to send our kid to school.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread. - Anatole France

But you fail to understand that America is NOT a welfare state.

And all the worse for it. Despite being enormous and full of people the average IQ (98) is far lower than places with "welfare state" type education systemes - Sweden, the UK & Norway for example.

You want to be a single mother with five kids and no education--those are a series of choices you made in life.

Don't be thick. No one wants to be a poorly educated mother of 5, no one chooses to attend an underfunded school in some conservative-dominated backwater deliberately, no one chooses to recieve fuck all sex education because the inbred hicks in charge of said backwater believe it's "up to the parents" or worse that "abstinence only" education is the best way forward and absolutely no one chooses to have a failed relationship.

It's unforunate, but in America we expect that all grown up ACT like grown ups.

Yet, in "welfare states" the citizens seem far more capable of acting like grown ups by, for example, commiting violent crime less. Acting like a grown up and living in poverty because your government likes to pour money into war & business are not one in the same.

It's not society's job to take responsibility for grown people that are mentally competent. People have to learn to take care of themselves.

Yes it is. That's the whole point of society, a society built on cutthroats breeds cutthroats and a society built on the intellectual recognition of mutual rellaince breeds empathetic intellectuals. People need to take care of each other.

There indeed should be a safety net--so that people don't starve or go homeless, but that's about it. The rest you have to do for yourself.

Fuck you. Just fuck you. Usually your opinions are worth at least a cursory rebuttal but this is just disgusting.

Rascolnikova

7th November 2008, 15:56

jasmine

7th November 2008, 18:14

Fuck you. Just fuck you. Usually your opinions are worth at least a cursory rebuttal but this is just disgusting.

Well here Jazzratt you and I agree, he's disgusting - really I take no pleasure in this just relief that someone else sees it.

Dean

7th November 2008, 18:49

Bud Struggle

7th November 2008, 19:42

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread. - Anatole France Indeed and in the USA the bottom 40 % of the people pay no income taxes and the top 120 % pay 70% of the incine taxes. So in America at least (and I suspect Britain) the better off pay their fair share.

And all the worse for it. Despite being enormous and full of people the average IQ (98) is far lower than places with "welfare state" type education systemes - Sweden, the UK & Norway for example. Each of these "botique" countries have less people than one American city. Not apples to apples.

Don't be thick. No one wants to be a poorly educated mother of 5, no one chooses to attend an underfunded school in some conservative-dominated backwater deliberately, no one chooses to recieve fuck all sex education because the inbred hicks in charge of said backwater believe it's "up to the parents" or worse that "abstinence only" education is the best way forward and absolutely no one chooses to have a failed relationship. No one wants to be poor,of course, but somewhere alonge the live thaet have to PAY ATTENTION to the direction their life is going in. They have to watch their finances, they have to have some sort of clue about the person they re marrying and/or having babies with, they have to be RESPONSIBLE for the things they do in their life and not expect the government of "society" or mom and dad to come along and bail them out.

Yet, in "welfare states" the citizens seem far more capable of acting like grown ups by, for example, commiting violent crime less. Acting like a grown up and living in poverty because your government likes to pour money into war & business are not one in the same.As I said these countries are charming "botiques"--you certainly can pull that stuff off in Britain. Do it there first and teach Americans a lesson.

Yes it is. That's the whole point of society, a society built on cutthroats breeds cutthroats and a society built on the intellectual recognition of mutual rellaince breeds empathetic intellectuals. People need to take care of each other. Personally, I don't want to rely on ANYONE. As a father, husband and MAN--I take what society gives me and make my own way in life. Yea, there are some givens and some takings away--but in any enviorns I'll provide for my family. It's my JOB.

Fuck you. Just fuck you. Usually your opinions are worth at least a cursory rebuttal but this is just disgusting. I like--no, rather I LOVE doing for myself. I love being a father that provides for his family, I love buying stuff for my kids and providing for their future. I have no interest in living in "happy town" where we are all friends have smiley faces on and all make the same amount of money and everything is provided for.

Parachute me down in any place one this planet not knowing the language or the customs or anything else and I'll do well.

I take responsibility for my life.

Good post Jazzy. :)

[Edit] A little story: my home is on a good piece of land, a non-working farm--all fenced off with barb wire. My neighbor is a really good friend of mine, we hang out together all of the time. He has a good piece of land, too--and he's always welcome on my property and I'm sure I'm always welcome on his property. But we both keep the barbed wire fence up. It's the difference between what is his land and what is my land and that's the way we like it.

RGacky3

7th November 2008, 21:27

Indeed and in the USA the bottom 40 % of the people pay no income taxes and the top 120 % pay 70% of the incine taxes. So in America at least (and I suspect Britain) the better off pay their fair share.

And yet the rich keep getting richer just as fast as the poor get poorer and more get poor, which is very fast.

Each of these "botique" countries have less people than one American city. Not apples to apples.

Thats true, and a valid argument, but they also have much smaller economies. That bieng said the pricinples stay the same, Costa Rica is a very poor country, yet it can afford a decent universal health care system, and avoid the type of poverty its neighbor nations have. Think what the United States with all its wealth could do.

By the way Tomk, its easier to take control of your life when its in your own hands, 95% of the poeple on earth have their life in other peoples hands, i.e. thier employers.

Also I don't think poor people are any less irrisponsible than the rich, only the rich can afford it.

Rascolnikova

8th November 2008, 07:22

Parachute me down in any place one this planet not knowing the language or the customs or anything else and I'll do well.

I wish I could.

If it is not disgusting to pass the judgment that others are the source of their own suffering, and at the same time to mask this with every possible congeniality--every possible meaningless appearance of kindness--I do not know what is.

Bud Struggle

8th November 2008, 14:40

I wish I could.

If it is not disgusting to pass the judgment that others are the source of their own suffering, and at the same time to mask this with every possible congeniality--every possible meaningless appearance of kindness--I do not know what is.

Hey, I don't know why everyone is so suprised--I'm just taking the usual America party line about responsibility--nothing new there. That's what 99% of he America electorate voted for when they voted for Obama and McCain--who are pretty much the same on this issue. (A bit apart, but not much.)

As to judging--I damn well do judge people on the failures and their successes. That's how things work in the real world. You look at what's been done by people and you avoid their mistakes and you emulate what they do right. If sombody's a screw up in life--then they are a screw up--now there are factors that have to be taken into consideration. I have no problem with that--I think there is a definite need for compassion. There are people all over the Third world that have no chance at anything--but here in America no matter what hand you are dealt by fate--you have a shot to do well. Obama, Clarence Thomas, lots of others are proof of that.

But bottom line is that you are punished in life for your mistakes just like you are rewarded for your successes.

If you study hard for a test you get an "A", if you don't you get an "F"--and that's the way I like things. I'm not in favor of EVERYONE getting a big smiley face "C" no matter what they do. :)

Rascolnikova

8th November 2008, 14:54

Hey, I don't know why everyone is so suprised--I'm just taking the usual America party line about responsibility--nothing new there. That's what 99% of he America electorate voted for when they voted for Obama and McCain--who are pretty much the same on this issue. (A bit apart, but not much.)

As to judging--I damn well do judge people on the failures and their successes. That's how things work in the real world. You look at what's been done by people and you avoid their mistakes and you emulate what they do right. If sombody's a screw up in life--then they are a screw up--now there are factors that have to be taken into consideration. I have no problem with that--I think there is a definite need for compassion. There are people all over the Third world that have no chance at anything--but here in America no matter what hand you are dealt by fate--you have a shot to do well. Obama, Clarence Thomas, lots of others are proof of that.

But bottom line is that you are punished in life for your mistakes just like you are rewarded for your successes.

If you study hard for a test you get an "A", if you don't you get an "F"--and that's the way I like things. I'm not in favor of EVERYONE getting a big smiley face "C" no matter what they do. :)

1) We didn't say we were surprised; we said we were disgusted. And we said Fuck you. :)

2) I'm as American as you are; that's the republican party line, and I wouldn't have agreed with it even when I was a democrat.

3) I am in no way advocating that everyone get a big smiley face "C" no matter what they do. I am advocating that everyone get food, housing, health care, and education no matter what they do--because we can, and because maybe then rising to the top will be an indication of something besides luck, and because maybe then there could be more meaningful indicators of where the "top" is than how much more shit you can buy for your children than the Joneses.

4) At the moment the bottom line is, "you make a mistake, we pay for it; we make a mistake, we pay for it; and you are rewarded for our successes." Can't blame us for hating that.

And before you tell us we aren't paying for your mistakes, consider your convenient stance on global warming as compared to . . . I don't know. . . every major research university in the country. But then again, who needs science when you can believe in personal consequences?

Edit: And btw Tom, I don't know what world you think I live in, but it seems pretty real to me, and I get by fine without needing to justify my lifestyle by thinking those less well off than myself are there by their own fault.

Bud Struggle

8th November 2008, 16:00

1) We didn't say we were surprised; we said we were disgusted. And we said Fuck you. :)I understand, that's how my life goes. The same thing happened to me this morning (withou the "Fuck you.") I caught a beautiful 2' catfish and before I dispatched it into the hereafter and filleted it my wife saw it and said: "That big fish. It was so happy living in the lake. And now YOU want to KILL it. :(" I had to let it go--I didn't want to see her unhappy. But, I WANTED that fish. So don't think I don't suffer for my beliefs. :(

Edit: And btw Tom, I don't know what world you think I live in, but it seems pretty real to me, and I get by fine without needing to justify my lifestyle by thinking those less well off than myself are there by their own fault.

Oh fine. I don't justfy my lifestyle either. I do what I do. I live in a real world and do the things I do, try to do them right and things work out the way they are supposed to.

I certainly don't think less of anyone in this world--what people do and how they do it is not my business, but it certainly doesn't hurt to learn from other people's mistakes. If they aren't going to lean from them--than I might as well do so, at least some good will then come from it.

Algernon

8th November 2008, 16:35

Bud Struggle

8th November 2008, 17:01

Catfish eh? What kind of bait do you use?

Nightcrawlers. I used to use stink bate--I would buy chicken livers and then let them rot in th sun a bit and get all "stinkey" but the last time I did that I let them rot on the table on the back porch and my wife went outside and came face to face with a turkey vulture who hissed at her.

I'm not allowed to have stinkbate any longer, after that incident I was barely allowed in the house for a week. :(

Algernon

8th November 2008, 17:13

Nightcrawlers. I used to use stink bate--I would buy chicken livers and then let them rot in th sun a bit and get all "stinkey" but the last time I did that I let them rot on the table on the back porch and my wife went outside and came face to face with a turkey vulture who hissed at her.

I'm not allowed to have stinkbate any longer, after that incident I was barely allowed in the house for a week. :(

:lol::lol::lol:

Yeah I find nightcrawlers are the best. I used to use stink bait as well but I used shrimp. I stunk up my entire garage.

Lynx

8th November 2008, 17:13

Perhaps TomK is a Machiavellian pragmatist (or a crocodile) and would view the struggle and failure of his children with equal impassiveness.

Tom, is your real name Eli Wallach? He's one of my favourite actors. Perhaps you remember him as Tuco in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Right now, you remind me of a role he played in The Misfits and that scene near the end where Marilyn Monroe sees him for what he is. Watch the movie, perhaps you'll see yourself... as Clark Gable.

p.s. for the insatiably curious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Misfits_(film)

p.p.s. what Marilyn said

Bud Struggle

8th November 2008, 19:40

Perhaps TomK is a Machiavellian pragmatist (or a crocodile) and would view the struggle and failure of his children with equal impassiveness. Nope. Believe it or not I'm really quite sweet. We do have a bit of "cult of personality" going on about me just now. But really, I'm nust the nicest guy.

Tom, is your real name Eli Wallach? He's one of my favourite actors. Perhaps you remember him as Tuco in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Right now, you remind me of a role he played in The Misfits and that scene near the end where Marilyn Monroe sees him for what he is. Watch the movie, perhaps you'll see yourself... as Clark Gable.
p.p.s. what Marilyn said

Eli Wallach?!?!?! Give me Jasmine insulting me or Jazzratt expletiveing me! Calling me a short balding guy. Man--that is cruel! :lol::lol::lol:

I saw the first movie and remember it, the second is something of a blurr over time. I'll look it up.

I'm definitely more the Clint Eastwood type, really.

[Edit] Or maybe this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq3vIcW_7MU&feature=related :D :D

Rascolnikova

9th November 2008, 02:53

I understand, that's how my life goes. The same thing happened to me this morning (withou the "Fuck you.") I caught a beautiful 2' catfish and before I dispatched it into the hereafter and filleted it my wife saw it and said: "That big fish. It was so happy living in the lake. And now YOU want to KILL it. :(" I had to let it go--I didn't want to see her unhappy. But, I WANTED that fish. So don't think I don't suffer for my beliefs. :(

Indeed. . . one's fundamental views on divine entitlement and human suffering are quite of equal value with the relationship traumas of catch and release fishing.

And I thought catfish didn't taste good when they were that big anyways?

Oh fine. I don't justfy my lifestyle either. I do what I do. I live in a real world and do the things I do, try to do them right and things work out the way they are supposed to.

I certainly don't think less of anyone in this world--what people do and how they do it is not my business, but it certainly doesn't hurt to learn from other people's mistakes. If they aren't going to lean from them--than I might as well do so, at least some good will then come from it.I would do extremely well under capitalism, were I to choose to accept it; there's no need to pretend I don't know that. There seems to be enough causation in the world that my chances for success are extremely high.

But I've been down and out enough to know that I could never pretend that success was function of my own hard work, no matter how hard I worked for it. My parents, otherwise fucking up royal, gave me confidence, and books, and about three adult years of unreserved financial support. I also had a committed mentor through my early teen years. Those were tools I genuinely needed to turn myself into a functional human being. What if I had been a little less lucky? It would not make me less hardworking, less deserving, or less intelligent--but I find it very likely that I would be a dead weight, or a mental patient, or just dead, if I had not happened upon that unusual luck.

Learning from our own mistakes and from the mistakes of others does not necessitate passing judgment on what factors far beyond their control have or haven't lead them to make those mistakes.

More importantly, it doesn't do anyone any good that you are nice, that you are sweet, or that you don't think less of them if they are starving while you don't think it. To the degree that we are serious about holding a humanitarian ethic in the "real world," there is only one answer to the question of how much we are responsible to alleviate human suffering--and that answer is, as much as we possibly can. To the degree that we do not fulfill this obligation our humanitarianism is shallow pretense.

Edit: and I suppose the logical conclusion of that, worth mentioning, is that to the degree that you consider yourself humanitarian, a lifestyle of wealth does require justification--and to say the poor are undeserving, or there by their own choices, conveniently fills this requirement.

Bud Struggle

9th November 2008, 12:49

To the degree that we are serious about holding a humanitarian ethic in the "real world," there is only one answer to the question of how much we are responsible to alleviate human suffering--and that answer is, as much as we possibly can. To the degree that we do not fulfill this obligation our humanitarianism is shallow pretense. I am VERY serious about a humanitarian ethic--what you don't seem to understand is that I just hold to YOUR idea of a humanitarian ethic. I think it's VERY important for each person to have the liberty to succeed or to fail on their own merits. I consider that freedom and it has to be a two edged sword or it doesn't work, to be the most essential quality of humanity. I was poor and then I decided not to be--it was a act of volition on my part. Some people don't choose that path--and I respect them for that choice. I don't see hand out programs as being in the least bit helpful to people (beyond their basic needs.)

We tried that with the Great Society here in the US and it was a total failure until Clinton closed down the last vestiges if it. People have to work and make their won way in life--without doing that they loose their self respect and without respect for themselves, without consequences for their actions people loose all focus and perspective in their lives.

I am all for helping people, I am for a safety net--but in the end people have to be responsible for themselves--it seems hard, but it's the only way that people can have any quality in their lives. You seem to want to treat people as if they were little lost kittens that need to be taken care of and given a warm bowl of milk and a nice fluffy place to sleep, I'm sure it makes you feel better when you think you are helping people like this--for many liberals it is just a way of massaging you own conscience and making yourself feel better.

Treating people like kittens and puppies is just not fair to them, their self assurance or their self worth. Poor people aren't you pets.

Edit: and I suppose the logical conclusion of that, worth mentioning, is that to the degree that you consider yourself humanitarian, a lifestyle of wealth does require justification--and to say the poor are undeserving, or there by their own choices, conveniently fills this requirement.

A lifestyle of wealth requires work, correct choices and determination, and a little luck. The poor and the rich each have to live their lives and make their own decisions and choices on how they want to proceed in life. I am not so presumptuous to take those choice away from them and substitute my vision of what they should be. That would be taking away their freedom--and forcing them into the gentle slavery of dependence.

Rascolnikova

10th November 2008, 09:00

I wish you would pay a little attention to what I advocate for before attacking or dismissing it. I am not advocating for the great society--and what I am advocating for might best be described as radical democracy, hardly a matter of taking away dignity, choice, and work.

I don't remember where I saw this, but I think it may have been the documentary the corporation. . . it mentioned that Walmart has an emergency fund for it's workers, from which workers are granted special funds in times of extreme need, and workers have the option of contributing to it from every paycheck. Apparently these workers--most of them part time and close to minimum wage--collectively chose to donate much more to this fund than one of the most profitable corporations in the world.

When greater freedom of choice is granted, stronger "safety nets" are a natural result; it is what people generally choose. Certainly it does more justice to my friend's sense of dignity to tell her that, as a society, we have chosen to respect her hard work, and we think she and her children are worth enough that we have chosen to make sure that what she is able to do is enough to provide them with some sort of minimally decent and stable life. . . rather than to tell her that she somehow must not be working hard enough, as it seems you would do.

Human dignity does not have to be won through a crude, constant, and painful struggle for survival, and access to basic material resources independent of work doesn't destroy the meaning or dignity of work.

None of this even begins to theoretically address the fundamental injustices of our economic system.

Poor people aren't you pets.True. They are many things; some of them are my friends, my family, and--if we define "poor people" as people who don't have access to food, housing, health care, and education on a 40 hour work week, me.

If I give them a warm place to sleep and a glass of milk, they don't say "meow"--they say, "thanks, I appreciate that. I'll buy you a drink when I get paid on Friday." Sometimes, often, the situation is a chronic one that there's no way I can fix--and in those cases, there is nothing to do but contribute in whatever small way I can, maybe try to help control the damage, maybe try to make it hurt a little less.

And no, I don't feel even slightly warm and fuzzy about it--I feel pretty normal, or sometimes even terribly shitty, because I think that is, at minimum, what a normal human being ought to do--and so often I am not able to live up to that standard. These people are in no way less than me. In helping them I am not pretending to elevate them, or to save them, or to make their lives better in any substantive or long term way. On an individual level that requires unusual luck, on a wider level, at least deep cultural reform.

Whether it is ignorance, insanity, or stubborn self-deception that leads you to abandon material reality and believe "you just have to want it enough," the stance has monstrous consequences.

I don't mean to duck out and try to cheaply get in the last word, but unless there's something else you particularly want me to respond to, I'm done with this thread.

Bud Struggle

10th November 2008, 13:37

I don't mean to duck out and try to cheaply get in the last word, but unless there's something else you particularly want me to respond to, I'm done with this thread.

Works for me! :)

Anyway, I'm off to see how the Revolution is proceding in Belize for a couple of days.

Digitalism

4th December 2008, 06:23

Some do, of course--but most people in America live quite well. We are a overweight country for a reason.

What reason is that? That doesn't tell me one bit about it other than eating McDonald's morning/noon/ and evening.

Digitalism

4th December 2008, 06:49

Fuck you. Just fuck you. Usually your opinions are worth at least a cursory rebuttal but this is just disgusting.

You have no idea how much I'd love to hug you man. :thumbup:

funkmasterswede

4th December 2008, 06:59

Dejavu

4th December 2008, 17:14

Is safe to say that the majority of you are some what on the Liberal side of things, Reformist? and yes we do have our right wing section. That's either well read and just not into the left wing's ideology or ignorant folks who just don't give a shit about reading and learning.

Not all of us. I am neither 'right' or 'left.' I support a stateless society. Reading and learning doesn't mean you acquire knowledge.

Are we, The majority supposed to just keep on living by the pay check?
Until we "get to make it."? IF WE get to make it. I mean it's obvious not everyone can make it. Other wise the system wouldn't work.

Who cares if its a majority or minority? The logical alternatives to living from paycheck to paycheck is saving and investing which means consuming less now. Its increasingly more difficult to do this as the cost of living goes up and this country has a negative savings rate. Don't expect politicians to fix this as they are complicit in this debt driven system. Another alternative is to become a non producer and other people would be forced to subsidize your living. I don't think this is very fair but its still living check to check except without the added effort of exerting productive labor to contribute.

Is my Father supposed to live in fear that if he gets an other heart attack his insurance might drop him?

I would really encourage him to read his health plan then. I can't think of any reputable insurance company that just dumps you after you've paid in and encountered a heart attack. Tell him to read thoroughly what his health plan entails. :thumbup1:

I owe so much money for college, I can't get a job that pays enough to payback for my loans, This internet Im writing to you on, It's stolen signal...

Well you aren't the only one in debt. It would be nice if people were able to save for things like college but most are victim to this debt driven system. It is definitely messed up but I don't think a good solution is forcing others to pay for you.

So what If "I'm free to make choices in America".. What's freedom if even the most basic choices cost so much money? and I don't have money? My choice for the most essential needs for life and to develop and be a productive member of society.

Well, you won't get absolute freedom anywhere as every nation is controlled by a government. America and other Western nations are relatively more free than others but that does not = totally free of all problems. There are other options too, if you guys feel that the system in the United States is too cumbersome, you might want to consider Canada or something. I know people that moved there and seem happier, some want to come back though.

I know that the people don't directly choose the president. AND a candidate has to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to run for office.This is the democracy I have to look forward to? I've been a "Resident Alien" for 12 years... I've had every right and responsibility that every American has. I just don't get to vote. that's it.

But after what I told you... What the hell do I have to look forward to?

Are you guys sure this system works for me? For you? For us?

Sorry for all you had to put up with and it makes no sense treating you like a second class citizen simply because you happen to be born on a different geographical land mass. The entire 'alien' concept is illogical. I sympathize.

But as you said, voting , or poking holes in a piece of paper won't make a difference. Your vote is statistically insignificant in this mass franchise mobocracy. I would recommend trying to move somewhere else, I might do it :).

Not that anywhere else will be drastically better but there might be some kick backs.