(February 13, 2009 at 2:33 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I'm open to all new ideas, and I said a while back (not sure if it is in this thread) that I'm quite new to the political game. I'm not heavily into any particular political party, so please do try to convert me, especially since I'm encouraging it!

I am well aware that you gave the example of Cuba, but as far as I can remember, you did not rebut a point made by someone about the number of lower-class Cubans who build rafts to travel to America. If Cuba has revolutionised the working class as you claim it has, why are there so many reports of Cubans trying to enter the US?

Adrian, trust me I'm not cut out to be the converting type! I say capitalism needs to be replaced with a better system i.e. a system that provides " to each according to needs, from each acording to means ". That system is socialism. We might never get there, but if we don't, then the world will not be a very nice place in the dying days of capitalism and its aftermath.
I did respond to the question of those Cubans that left their homeland for America. Cuba does not stop people from leaving, it's their choice. The ones that go are counter-revolutionaries who go to seek the " American dream ". I think they are foolhardy, but it's their decision.

"to each according to need, from each according to means"

Ok, but how do we distinguish who contributes what? It is given that poor people need more, but where does the input come from? Doesn't this system depend on people who work their asses off contributing their earnings towards people who don't work as hard as them? Sorry if I'm confusing this, but how would you put this system into practice?

Middle leaning Left sums me up I'd say...!

(December 23, 2008 at 8:14 pm)bozo Wrote: I am interested to learn where you all stand on the political spectrum.

Interesting thread. The mistake I think everyone is making here is assuming the political spectrum is just that: a left-to-right continuum.

It's not.

I'm a libertarian. If you care to look at the "world's smallest political quiz", many of you will get a better picture of where you sit on this (admittedly arbitrary) scheme.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

Just FYI: I score like this:

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%.

Basically, keep the government (and religion!) out of my wallet, my gun cabinet, my bedroom, my bookcase and my mind and they and I will get along just fine.

-- Jon

---

(February 14, 2009 at 2:36 pm)bozo Wrote: Adrian, trust me I'm not cut out to be the converting type! I say capitalism needs to be replaced with a better system i.e. a system that provides " to each according to needs, from each acording to means ". That system is socialism.

I personally find this to be one of the worst systems possible. In a system like this, what incentive is there for anyone to work hard and excel?

It gives the lazy, the deceitful, and the stupid a mortgage on everyone else's work.

Have you ever read "Atlas Shrugged", Bozo? The characterisation is pretty flat, but the philosophy running through the novel is sound.

-- Jon

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%.

I got this too

(February 16, 2009 at 11:25 am)Tiberius Wrote: Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%.

I got this too

Now tell me something I couldn't have guessed

Many people who think of themselves as liberals with some uncomfortable conservative values actually find they're closet libertarians. In fact when you get talking with liberals they often have to concede many of their left-wing collectivist ideas are actually bullshit and can't work. Economies are complex adaptive systems and cannot be controlled from the top down. A lot of liberals talk about how the "free market" has failed. We've never really had it. What we've had are just different flavours and degrees of planned economies (which can never work).

On the other side of things, many so-called Christian libertarians are actually idiots and hypocrites because they see their freedom from control going beyond government... but no further than the Bible, because that's "God's word".

Atheist libertarians are the sanest people in the world (and I'll stalk and kill anyone who disagrees with me, lol).

-- Jon

(February 15, 2009 at 2:33 pm)Tiberius Wrote: "to each according to need, from each according to means"

Ok, but how do we distinguish who contributes what? It is given that poor people need more, but where does the input come from? Doesn't this system depend on people who work their asses off contributing their earnings towards people who don't work as hard as them? Sorry if I'm confusing this, but how would you put this system into practice?

I have lived some years in a former communist country so I am familiar with those naively/stupid slogans.
Actually the former communist countries where led by communist toalitatian parties but they called them selves as socialist regimes.
The basic principle of a socialist sytem was said to be;"from each according to his means ,to each according to his contribution".
Their official purpose for the future was to build a real communist system where society will get from each according to his means and retribute him according to his needs.

I have read that in time of Stalin they had decided to begin with a little taste of this communism and distributed for free matches to lit fire.
The experience was short timed and stupid because the russians stored as much matches as they could in order to heat their homes.
Also in the time of Khrushchev the russians nurtured the idea that in a time of one decade they will begin with the communist system.
All those dreams have not proved themselves as viable and the whole communist system (except Cuba and North-Koreea)has collapsed.
China is still officially a communist country but in fact a a system where state-capitalism is mixed with private capitalism and where liberty is far fom being granted to the people.
Now,capitalism is far from being perfect and that's why people come back with dreams of socialism.We see that in Venezuela ,Bolivia and other south-american countries but they are moving towards this classical trap of dictatorship which has proved itself, at the end of millions of victimes of dictatorship, as a failure.
Modern history has proven that communism and democracy are two irreductible systems which cannot be implemented in one and the same country.
May be some day will come a new Karl Marx one who will better understand how society really works and will led to a new more succesfull method than capitalism or communism.

(February 15, 2009 at 2:33 pm)Tiberius Wrote: "to each according to need, from each according to means"

Ok, but how do we distinguish who contributes what? It is given that poor people need more, but where does the input come from? Doesn't this system depend on people who work their asses off contributing their earnings towards people who don't work as hard as them? Sorry if I'm confusing this, but how would you put this system into practice?

Adrian, you ask the question about input with experience only of capitalist society. It would be different in a socialist society. Can I invite you to read " The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists " by Robert Tressell? You should be able to get it from your library or on ebay for a modest price. It is far more eloquent than I could ever be on the evils of capitalism and a vision for a socialist future ( it's also highly critical of religion too! ). It is THE socialist classic and an easy, entertaining read as well. It will explin why I am like I am, which puzzles you a bit, I know.
It's also far easier than Marx!

---

(February 16, 2009 at 9:09 am)jonmcculloch Wrote:

(December 23, 2008 at 8:14 pm)bozo Wrote: I am interested to learn where you all stand on the political spectrum.

Interesting thread. The mistake I think everyone is making here is assuming the political spectrum is just that: a left-to-right continuum.

It's not.

I'm a libertarian. If you care to look at the "world's smallest political quiz", many of you will get a better picture of where you sit on this (admittedly arbitrary) scheme.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

Just FYI: I score like this:

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%.

Basically, keep the government (and religion!) out of my wallet, my gun cabinet, my bedroom, my bookcase and my mind and they and I will get along just fine.

-- Jon

---

(February 14, 2009 at 2:36 pm)bozo Wrote: Adrian, trust me I'm not cut out to be the converting type! I say capitalism needs to be replaced with a better system i.e. a system that provides " to each according to needs, from each acording to means ". That system is socialism.

I personally find this to be one of the worst systems possible. In a system like this, what incentive is there for anyone to work hard and excel?

It gives the lazy, the deceitful, and the stupid a mortgage on everyone else's work.

Have you ever read "Atlas Shrugged", Bozo? The characterisation is pretty flat, but the philosophy running through the novel is sound.

-- Jon

Hmmm. I have debated with Adrian about where he stands on the left-right spectrum.....from how you see things I would say you are way to the right of him. You are well into the capitalist ethos from how you describe what concerns you....YOU.
I haven't read " Atlas Shrugged " but I'll read it if you read " The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists " and then we can debate. Deal?

(February 16, 2009 at 1:01 pm)bozo Wrote: from how you see things I would say you are way to the right of him. You are well into the capitalist ethos from how you describe what concerns you....YOU.

I wouldn't put myself on the left/right line at all. I think that's too, well 2 dimensional.

Quote:I haven't read " Atlas Shrugged " but I'll read it if you read " The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists " and then we can debate. Deal?

Definitely, my man. I love books and I'll read anything of quality. Moreover, I'm willing to be shown the error of my ways. I used to be very pro-death penalty, but someone showed me a very convincing argument to turn my opinion around 180 degrees.

-- Jon

(February 16, 2009 at 12:43 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote:

(February 15, 2009 at 2:33 pm)Tiberius Wrote: "to each according to need, from each according to means"

Ok, but how do we distinguish who contributes what? It is given that poor people need more, but where does the input come from? Doesn't this system depend on people who work their asses off contributing their earnings towards people who don't work as hard as them? Sorry if I'm confusing this, but how would you put this system into practice?

I have lived some years in a former communist country so I am familiar with those naively/stupid slogans.
Actually the former communist countries where led by communist toalitatian parties but they called them selves as socialist regimes.
The basic principle of a socialist sytem was said to be;"from each according to his means ,to each according to his contribution".
Their official purpose for the future was to build a real communist system where society will get from each according to his means and retribute him according to his needs.

I have read that in time of Stalin they had decided to begin with a little taste of this communism and distributed for free matches to lit fire.
The experience was short timed and stupid because the russians stored as much matches as they could in order to heat their homes.
Also in the time of Khrushchev the russians nurtured the idea that in a time of one decade they will begin with the communist system.
All those dreams have not proved themselves as viable and the whole communist system (except Cuba and North-Koreea)has collapsed.
China is still officially a communist country but in fact a a system where state-capitalism is mixed with private capitalism and where liberty is far fom being granted to the people.
Now,capitalism is far from being perfect and that's why people come back with dreams of socialism.We see that in Venezuela ,Bolivia and other south-american countries but they are moving towards this classical trap of dictatorship which has proved itself, at the end of millions of victimes of dictatorship, as a failure.
Modern history has proven that communism and democracy are two irreductible systems which cannot be implemented in one and the same country.
May be some day will come a new Karl Marx one who will better understand how society really works and will led to a new more succesfull method than capitalism or communism.

Where do you live?
At least you concede that capitalism isn't perfect.....quite an understatement I'd say. You don't criticise people for seeking something better do you?
You assume that what is happening in south america will fail....why do you not rejoice that countries are seeking to build the socialist alternative to capitalism?
I hope your last point is realised. I hope something better replaces capitalism eventually. I know of no other viable system than socialism at this moment in time.

Oh and, by the way, I was not won over by your explanation of the " failure " of black politicians in the earlier thread of yours.