|
That sounds more like amber.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: "Thank [mastadon] the Christmas TV add season is over!"
Just to be replaced by the one for Valentine's day (Feb. 14th)
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: "Thank [mastadon] the Christmas TV add season is over!"
That reminds me of another great commonality that spans all manner of mankind.
Confirmed by the other reasonably certain idea that "in the past, both you and I used to be younger."
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget Festivus from Seinfeld.
A TV show (out of New York City of course) used "Airing of Grievances" as one of their segment headings over the holidays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would post a reply except for that llamas are cute.
modified 25-Dec-19 11:46am.
|
|
|
|
|
Did you mean Alpaca? Alpaca are cuter than Llama! 
(Even though Llama have 2 Ls, which is always good)
|
|
|
|
|
Socialism have a lot to say about economy of course...
I wasn't aware that people talking about socialism that much... Probably not those were part of the failing attempt of materializing the ideas in a vacuum...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
I would say socialism give you some suggestion what to do with some of the money.
Capitalism will tell you how to best get money.
Those are, in fact, complimentary!
I just saw a youtube post (or something) about those 2 together and I was reminded that I have the feeling the debate has been obscured by propaganda...
|
|
|
|
|
Socialism is all about how you deal with people, and capitalism is all about how you deal with money.
I don't give a toss about money, and I'm not that keen on spending too much of my own time on people, so I'm in favour of neither.
Politically, my only preference is along the lines of "Don't f***ing lie to me, you c***s!" -- as long as a politician is a reasonably decent, truthful person, I'll give him the trust he deserves, no matter his political persuasion.
... And the same goes for the lying f***ers who seem to have taken over most of the world's governments, over the last few years. They get absolutely the trust they deserve.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The difference is not between socialism and capitalism; even the most capitalistic society has some socialist elements. The difference is between collectivism and individualism.
Not-so-benign examples of collectivist societies are communist (== international socialism), Nazi (== national socialism). More benign examples are nuclear families, communes (== the kibbutz) , etc.
A capitalistic society is an example of an individualist society.
IMO, collectivist societies are ideal for social insects, not so good for human beings. Most human beings are happier in a society that gives them room to be themselves.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, I feel that it comes down to scale. You can't run a small community (a family or commune) with capitalism. Nor can you run a large community (city, state, country) with communism.
|
|
|
|
|
I would say the reason they're pitted against each other boils down to different views on property rights.
Socialists are more likely to take Proudhon's views on property. Property is Liberty/Property is Theft, which leads to the notion of Personal Property vs. Private property. The latter, which socialists look to abolish.
Without private property, capitalism cannot operate, simply because there's no way to accumulate capital under such a model.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
 This^. Strictly speaking, socialism means common ownership of the means of production (capital). But to many people it now means a welfare state. The word "liberal" has also lost its original meaning and must now be prefaced by "classical" to recover it.
|
|
|
|
|
I was an anarchist for 26 years. Technically I still am although I'm post-anarchist these days, due to my foray into post structural philosophy plus a powerful essay written by Russell Means against marxism and other eurocentric ideologies (like anarchism) in north america.
I'm married to a card carrying commie but am not commie myself. However, I know what socialism means, I'd hope. 
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been an ancap for over 40 years, since reading (and meeting) Murray Rothbard, but am not "religious" about it. Russell Means' autobiography is a good read. Quite an interesting guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies, but I've never understood how ancaps can square the circle of private property + social anarchism (which is one of the reasons why I'm an individualist (post)-anarchist as opposed to social anarchist)
I mean, I understand individualist capitalist anarchists, but ancaps are looking to build a social system out of it, and I just can't see how you have private property rights without a 3rd party authoritative institution to enforce them and resolve disputes - a state in all but name.
Just my $0.02. Not saying it's bunk. Saying I don't understand it.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
If I understand your point correctly, that's one reason why I'm not religious about it.
David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom and Morris & Linda Tannehill's The Market for Liberty are good descriptions of how it might work.
|
|
|
|
|
I can respect that. I have a few beliefs like that around scripture which is why I'm not religious about it, despite being endlessly fascinated with it. I love information transfer via mythos because of allegory which engages higher level pattern matching. =D, and Torah is as intricate and interlocking as anything I've ever encountered despite what people say (usually atheists about the OT). It doesn't have to be entirely coherent to me to be valuable, and I'm sure there are people out there who can make sense of the bits I cannot. I don't consider myself the smartest person in any given room. I know better. Heh.
Anyway, totally off topic, rambling but there it is.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
mmmmm.. interesting...
But.. it's communism that abolish private property, socialism, afaik is not against private property. The nuance seems lost on people...
Or, if I am mistaken too, I need to know the name of the philosophy that suggest to use some tax money for the common good...
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: But.. it's communism that abolish private property, socialism, afaik is not against private property.
I think you're thinking of Democratic socialism, which is more an effort to reform capitalism than it is socialism. It was created by socialists as a third way compromise which is why the naming confusion.
As I understand it socialism does seek to abolish private property. The differences between socialism and ccommunism is that communism is a subclass of socialism with the presence of a total welfare state. Edit: COMMUNISM not capitalism.
Lenin argued that the end result of socialism was always communism. I understand where he was coming from but I don't think I agree.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
well.. the problem here is, I believe, that many people, me amongst them, would claim to be socialist while also supporting private property right.
So, if we are not socialist, what are we?
To detail the kind of thought those people share (only in vague and general term, it's not a philosophical argument here, just trying to get better naming):
belief in private property, belief in the rule of law, (fuzzy) belief that the state should protect the weak from the strong, belief that taxation is acceptable (nay necessary), belief that taxation is not just for police force and military but also for public service, belief that the list of public service should be stretched as much as affordable including (but not necessarily limited to), roads - public health - education - welfare
so what are those named?
|
|
|
|
|
either liberal or democratic socialist.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Under capitalism the rich get powerful. Under socialism the powerful get rich and everybody else gets poorer.
I, for one, like Roman Numerals.
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion it is because most people have only vague ideas, at best, of what those terms actually mean. Currently, those whining against what they see as a socialist movement obviously don't know because what they whine about is NOT socialism. They then turn around and advocate socialist policies. I find it very amusing to see people advocate what they are whining about.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
