Years ago I read an article by Albert Einstein published in 1949 explaining why he was a socialist.  I read it again a few days ago and was amazed at how little it had dated.  Its not a very long article, though you might need to re-read a passage or 2 since the man was not writing in his first language.  Nevertheless the clarity of thought and sheer logic of his position comes through loud and clear.  Whether you're a socialist or not and especially if you're someone ardently opposed to socialism can you really afford not to challenge your current opinion with the thoughts of one of the most accomplished thinkers the world has ever seen.  I would think that anyone who regards themselves a free thinker would welcome the opportunity. Anyway, here's the link for those who are game enough. 

   

http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism

It was obvious to Einstein, back in the forties, much like George Orwell......modern day prophets.
...................................................................

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones.

The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature.

The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population.

Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

theres an old saying..

A FOOL AND HIS MONEY ARE SOON PARTED..

if all the money on the planet was divided equally today..

it would be just as uneven tomorrow..

I WONDER WHY> ::) ::) ::)


check how many lottery winners have lost or got rid of the lot...in very short time.. 8-)

cods wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 7:05am:

theres an old saying.. A FOOL AND HIS MONEY ARE SOON PARTED.. if all the money on the planet was divided equally today.. it would be just as uneven tomorrow.. I WONDER WHY> ::) ::) ::) check how many lottery winners have lost or got rid of the lot...in very short time.. 8-)

Its like your view of socialism stopped in the 1960 with the cold war propaganda and you never bothered to actually research it yourself to see what it really is. I'm not saying that if you did some of your own research you would like it anymore but at least you would disagree with it for your own informed reasons instead of for misconceived reasons deliberately planted by others intent on deluding you. You really do need to do some reading otherwise you'll just continue looking foolish with comments like the one below. Socialism isn't about sharing $$$ equally.  Don't you feel silly hating an idea that someone in your formative years told you was "Bad" and yet in truth you know absolutely nothing about.  And if so how can you be confident that you are any less brainwashed then some poor North Korean, devoted to her or his Dear Leader.  Read about it and then hate it for what it is and you will be respected for that. 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 7:42am:

cods wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 7:05am: theres an old saying.. A FOOL AND HIS MONEY ARE SOON PARTED.. if all the money on the planet was divided equally today.. it would be just as uneven tomorrow.. I WONDER WHY> ::) ::) ::) check how many lottery winners have lost or got rid of the lot...in very short time.. 8-) Its like your view of socialism stopped in the 1960 with the cold war propaganda and you never bothered to actually research it yourself to see what it really is. I'm not saying that if you did some of your own research you would like it anymore but at least you would disagree with it for your own informed reasons instead of for misconceived reasons deliberately planted by others intent on deluding you. You really do need to do some reading otherwise you'll just continue looking foolish with comments like the one below. Socialism isn't about sharing $$$ equally.  Don't you feel silly hating an idea that someone in your formative years told you was "Bad" and yet in truth you know absolutely nothing about.  And if so how can you be confident that you are any less brainwashed then some poor North Korean, devoted to her or his Dear Leader.  Read about it and then hate it for what it is and you will be respected for that.

lucky for me I dont give a stuff what someone like you thinks.. all very nice being puffed up about what you consider to be socialism.. look in the real world.. and open your eyes.. it is but a dream....

why because you are greedy just like the capitalist you point your ugly finger at.....you want to be paid for every hour you toil.. not only that you want to be paid for the hours you dont toil..you want the govt to give you everything.. for FREE.. Einstein had a dream.. what he dint say was.. who was going to pay for the peasants who couldnt work those that are sick or get damaged

read it properly.. and you will see it is all about ME...as long as I have a job.get paid.do I really care if the other persons work is harder worse dirtier than mine.. of course not.. a miner should be equal with the cupcake maker...

if we all earn the same.. who will do the worst jobs... or wont they exist in your socialist world.. ::) ::)

I suggest you go and count the number of times the word economy is mentioned... as well.

sadly without $$$$$$ your perfect world wont exist for long.

but it is a fact.

Can't agree with Albert.

The inherent dangers of Socialism far outweigh the drawbacks of Capitalism.


Quote:

how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

In short.  It can't.


Quote:

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism

The opposite is true.

Socialism cripples individualism and Capitalism embraces it.

Socialism is basically doomed unless all individuals are selfless which isn't going to happen naturally.

Selflessness in the main from an individual will be limited to their family and friends.


Quote:

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities.

I have to wonder if Albert would write the same words today having witnessed the collapse of most of the socialist dictatorships going around.  :(

cods wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:23am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 7:42am: cods wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 7:05am: theres an old saying.. A FOOL AND HIS MONEY ARE SOON PARTED.. if all the money on the planet was divided equally today.. it would be just as uneven tomorrow.. I WONDER WHY> ::) ::) ::) check how many lottery winners have lost or got rid of the lot...in very short time.. 8-) Its like your view of socialism stopped in the 1960 with the cold war propaganda and you never bothered to actually research it yourself to see what it really is. I'm not saying that if you did some of your own research you would like it anymore but at least you would disagree with it for your own informed reasons instead of for misconceived reasons deliberately planted by others intent on deluding you. You really do need to do some reading otherwise you'll just continue looking foolish with comments like the one below. Socialism isn't about sharing $$$ equally.  Don't you feel silly hating an idea that someone in your formative years told you was "Bad" and yet in truth you know absolutely nothing about.  And if so how can you be confident that you are any less brainwashed then some poor North Korean, devoted to her or his Dear Leader.  Read about it and then hate it for what it is and you will be respected for that.  lucky for me I dont give a stuff what someone like you thinks.. all very nice being puffed up about what you consider to be socialism.. look in the real world.. and open your eyes.. it is but a dream.... why because you are greedy just like the capitalist you point your ugly finger at.....you want to be paid for every hour you toil.. not only that you want to be paid for the hours you dont toil..you want the govt to give you everything.. for FREE.. Einstein had a dream.. what he dint say was.. who was going to pay for the peasants who couldnt work those that are sick or get damaged read it properly.. and you will see it is all about ME...as long as I have a job.get paid.do I really care if the other persons work is harder worse dirtier than mine.. of course not.. a miner should be equal with the cupcake maker... if we all earn the same.. who will do the worst jobs... or wont they exist in your socialist world.. ::) ::) I suggest you go and count the number of times the word economy is mentioned... as well. sadly without $$$$$$ your perfect world wont exist for long. but it is a fact.

Oh dear, you really blurt out all that 60s cold war garbage like it was yesterday and haven't done a thing since then to look into it anymore deeply.  I suppose you don't like to be distracted from your daily readings of your indoctrination pack from the Telegraph.  Lots of colour pics of your Dear Leader in that every day I bet. 

OF all the discredited ideologies, why's it always socialism that attracts the social outcasts?  Why not nazism, or...anything really?  It's hard to find a more bloodthirsty, murderous ideology than socialism.  Maybe the (erroneous) prospect of revenge on the cruel world is precisely what entices these bitter, disaffected losers.

Perhaps Einsteins folly can be explained and forgiven - the worst massacres of socialism came after this was written, and an aspie like him is bound to feel bitter and disaffected. 

Listen to him on matters of physics and the like, but you'd have to be a complete and utter moron to think an aspies commentary on social matters would be of any value.

He describes all of history as a "predatory" phase and says socialism is better because it's goal is to overcome that, yet he does not bother to explain how it actually achieves that. We have enough problems with dole bludgers under our current system. I don't see how giving more to people and demanding less from them is going to improve that situation. If capitalism is predatory, socialism is parasitic. But we cannot all be parasites. He throws around some lofty ideals, but that's about it. I would not expect any great insight into physics from Keynes and I don't understand why people expect any insight from Einstein on economics or other random topics.

The irony is that Einstein would not have been allowed an opinion in many of the socialist led governments of earlier years. Adolf was indeed a socialist (The Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party) and used the german economic crisis after WW1 to further his ambitions which would ultimately lead to Einstein seeking refuge in capitalist America, or alternatively returning to his homeland to be sent to a concentration camp.

Swagman wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:53am:

Can't agree with Albert. The inherent dangers of Socialism far outweigh the drawbacks of Capitalism. Don't agree Quote: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured? In short.  It can't. IMO Einstein is right on the $$$ here.  But I think that recent history has shown that this is just as much a danger with capitalism as it is with socialism.  Obama gets into power and what does he do - Continue the same policies as Bush. Why? Because the people running the show there are the bureaucracy (under the direction of the $$$ elite of course) and a change of government means something at the edges but not a lot with regard to the substance.  And this is the same in the US, Italy japan and in virtually every modern capitalist state in the world.  So whats the solution. I believe it is direct democracy, where we make the decisions (not choose representatives to make them for us) and thereby protect ourselves from capitalist and socialist totalitarian rule [quote]This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism

The opposite is true. Socialism cripples individualism and Capitalism embraces it.

No can't agree.  The opposite is true IMO.

Socialism is basically doomed unless all individuals are selfless which isn't going to happen naturally.

You need to read Albert's article more closely. If you recall he was saying that we are a mixture of both and that nevertheless socialism is the better solution for us.  Of course he could be wrong but you need to say why rather then simply repeating an unsupported assertion that only selfless individuals can make socialism work (which IMO is a common misconception in people of our age group because of cold war propaganda that still remains with us today)

Selflessness in the main from an individual will be limited to their family and friends.

Not sure whether this is true or not but as i say socialism does nto depend on selflessness to make it work,


Quote:

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities.

I have to wonder if Albert would write the same words today having witnessed the collapse of most of the socialist dictatorships going around. 

Of course he would write the same today since he was so spot on then about what would happen to capitalism and our pretend democratic systems run by the elite. If you don't want to re-read the article, read the quote that Pansi has reproduced in this thread. And don't forget that capitalism has collapsed at least twice in the last 80 years and the only reason we still have it today is because the rich pilfered the taxpayers coffers (a socialist solution BTW) and resuscitated it again. And our so called democratic system has been non existent for many years now.  :([/quote]

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:55am:

cods wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:23am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 7:42am: cods wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 7:05am: theres an old saying.. A FOOL AND HIS MONEY ARE SOON PARTED.. if all the money on the planet was divided equally today.. it would be just as uneven tomorrow.. I WONDER WHY> ::) ::) ::) check how many lottery winners have lost or got rid of the lot...in very short time.. 8-) Its like your view of socialism stopped in the 1960 with the cold war propaganda and you never bothered to actually research it yourself to see what it really is. I'm not saying that if you did some of your own research you would like it anymore but at least you would disagree with it for your own informed reasons instead of for misconceived reasons deliberately planted by others intent on deluding you. You really do need to do some reading otherwise you'll just continue looking foolish with comments like the one below. Socialism isn't about sharing $$$ equally.  Don't you feel silly hating an idea that someone in your formative years told you was "Bad" and yet in truth you know absolutely nothing about.  And if so how can you be confident that you are any less brainwashed then some poor North Korean, devoted to her or his Dear Leader.  Read about it and then hate it for what it is and you will be respected for that.  lucky for me I dont give a stuff what someone like you thinks.. all very nice being puffed up about what you consider to be socialism.. look in the real world.. and open your eyes.. it is but a dream.... why because you are greedy just like the capitalist you point your ugly finger at.....you want to be paid for every hour you toil.. not only that you want to be paid for the hours you dont toil..you want the govt to give you everything.. for FREE.. Einstein had a dream.. what he dint say was.. who was going to pay for the peasants who couldnt work those that are sick or get damaged read it properly.. and you will see it is all about ME...as long as I have a job.get paid.do I really care if the other persons work is harder worse dirtier than mine.. of course not.. a miner should be equal with the cupcake maker... if we all earn the same.. who will do the worst jobs... or wont they exist in your socialist world.. ::) ::) I suggest you go and count the number of times the word economy is mentioned... as well. sadly without $$$$$$ your perfect world wont exist for long. but it is a fact. Oh dear, you really blurt out all that 60s cold war garbage like it was yesterday and haven't done a thing since then to look into it anymore deeply.  I suppose you don't like to be distracted from your daily readings of your indoctrination pack from the Telegraph.  Lots of colour pics of your Dear Leader in that every day I bet.

TELL ME WHAT HAS CHANGED... FOR THE BETTERMENT OF MANKIND.. SINCE THE 60s????


JUST ONE THING WILL DO>>.


your judgemental ego wouldnt have thats for sure..

viewpoint wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:23am:

The irony is that Einstein would not have been allowed an opinion in many of the socialist led governments of earlier years. Adolf was indeed a socialist (The Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party) and used the german economic crisis after WW1 to further his ambitions which would ultimately lead to Einstein seeking refuge in capitalist America, or alternatively returning to his homeland to be sent to a concentration camp.

ahhhh and he tried to exterminate the Jews who were considered the worst of capitalists..in the extreme..and NOW LOOK AT GERMANY.. ::) ::).. its basically propping up Europe..how you ask?? oh thats right MONEY... not sharing the work so all can live equal..
in that perfect world.

....

... wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:01am:

OF all the discredited ideologies, why's it always socialism that attracts the social outcasts?  Why not nazism, or...anything really?  It's hard to find a more bloodthirsty, murderous ideology than socialism.  Maybe the (erroneous) prospect of revenge on the cruel world is precisely what entices these bitter, disaffected losers. Perhaps Einsteins folly can be explained and forgiven - the worst massacres of socialism came after this was written, and an aspie like him is bound to feel bitter and disaffected.  Listen to him on matters of physics and the like, but you'd have to be a complete and utter moron to think an aspies commentary on social matters would be of any value.

Your confusing socialism (the economic system) with the totalitarian governments (the political systems) that have at times accompanied it.   It would be like me arguing that capitalism doesn't work because of all the brutal military capitalist totalitarian dictatorships that have existed in the world like Pinochet's Chile, Hitlers Germany(and there's very few more murderous then this guy), Hussain's Iraq, Papa Doc in Haiti and Idi Amin in Uganda and the list goes on.  At the same time quasi socialist states like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland have IMO functioned far better then this country and tend to be as wealthy if not wealthier and do not depend for their wealth on almost exclusively digging things out of the ground.    

...

viewpoint wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:23am:

The irony is that Einstein would not have been allowed an opinion in many of the socialist led governments of earlier years. Adolf was indeed a socialist (The Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party) and used the german economic crisis after WW1 to further his ambitions which would ultimately lead to Einstein seeking refuge in capitalist America, or alternatively returning to his homeland to be sent to a concentration camp.

Yes, yes we don't agree with govts that would not allow you an opinion.  Now lets talk about socialism, the economic system. And I know we can argue about this till the cows come home but Hitler was not a socialist no more then FDR was a socialist .

...   

cods wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:43am:

viewpoint wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 9:23am: The irony is that Einstein would not have been allowed an opinion in many of the socialist led governments of earlier years. Adolf was indeed a socialist (The Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party) and used the german economic crisis after WW1 to further his ambitions which would ultimately lead to Einstein seeking refuge in capitalist America, or alternatively returning to his homeland to be sent to a concentration camp. ahhhh and he tried to exterminate the Jews who were considered the worst of capitalists..in the extreme..and NOW LOOK AT GERMANY.. ::) ::).. its basically propping up Europe..how you ask?? oh thats right MONEY... not sharing the work so all can live equal.. in that perfect world.

OK, now lets see if you can handle a few concepts at the same time.  (1) not all jews were then or are now capitalists; Many were socialists then and are socialists now. Infact Hitler often referred to them as Bolshevik jews.  Hitler's dislike of jews was about race not about capitalism otherwise he would have sent all the german capitalists to the gas chambers as well.  Follow? (just a bit. Do you follow just a little bit).  As for $$$ saving the German/Europen economy.  What you really mean is that Germany and the US are trying to save their bankrupt economies for the sake of the $$$$ elite and printing as much BS $$$ as they can to prop up the collapsing system AND its not working.  As Einstein said. Each time the eco crisiss get worse, get more intense and get more disastrous   

...

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:14am:

He describes all of history as a "predatory" phase and says socialism is better because it's goal is to overcome that, yet he does not bother to explain how it actually achieves that. We have enough problems with dole bludgers under our current system. I don't see how giving more to people and demanding less from them is going to improve that situation. If capitalism is predatory, socialism is parasitic. But we cannot all be parasites. He throws around some lofty ideals, but that's about it. I would not expect any great insight into physics from Keynes and I don't understand why people expect any insight from Einstein on economics or other random topics.

I think you may be incorrect about that.  Albert's article includes the following passage:-

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society." Now you might not find that answer agreeable to you but in light of it I don't think you can rightly say that he does not explain how you counteract the predatory tendency that we see in unrestrained capitalism.   

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 10:29am:

cods wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 9:43am: viewpoint wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 9:23am: The irony is that Einstein would not have been allowed an opinion in many of the socialist led governments of earlier years. Adolf was indeed a socialist (The Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party) and used the german economic crisis after WW1 to further his ambitions which would ultimately lead to Einstein seeking refuge in capitalist America, or alternatively returning to his homeland to be sent to a concentration camp. ahhhh and he tried to exterminate the Jews who were considered the worst of capitalists..in the extreme..and NOW LOOK AT GERMANY.. ::) ::).. its basically propping up Europe..how you ask?? oh thats right MONEY... not sharing the work so all can live equal.. in that perfect world. OK, now lets see if you can handle a few concepts at the same time.  (1) not all jews were then or are now capitalists; Many were socialists then and are socialists now. Infact Hitler often referred to them as Bolshevik jews.  Hitler's dislike of jews was about race not about capitalism otherwise he would have sent all the german capitalists to the gas chambers as well.  Follow? (just a bit. Do you follow just a little bit).  As for $$$ saving the German/Europen economy.  What you really mean is that Germany and the US are trying to save their bankrupt economies for the sake of the $$$$ elite and printing as much BS $$$ as they can to prop up the collapsing system AND its not working.  As Einstein said. Each time the eco crisiss get worse, get more intense and get more disastrous

OF COURSE>. as per usual never see it from someone elses point of view...

last I heard Hitler didnt discriminate with rich or poor jews...

he thought they were all bad..I think you will find he thought the JEWS controlled the BANKS and they did..had nothing to do with race.. he was a jew himself..an Austrian jew..but dont let that stop you..from changing history.


and you think if they dont prop up stupid socialist govts thats a good idea..LOL>> ..

take a good hard look at Greece.. where they had the best of everything and did almost nothing for it.. look at the stink when they were asked to give a bit back because the country couldnt stand the weight of welfare...retire at 55...  ::)..you have got to be kidding..

he wrote this in the late 40s.. even Einstein didnt have a crystal ball..so it was all based on what he had experience of...ah if only the money was in control of the peasants I am sure the outcome would be different.. ;D ;D ;D

yep I am sure it would be...a right mess...everyone eat chocolate...

I think FD's statement that socialism is parasitic, is 100% accurate. Capitalism is entrepreneurial and self-responsibile.

As in USSR, socialism is merely another description of communism, and we all know where that leads.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 10:11am:

... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 9:01am: OF all the discredited ideologies, why's it always socialism that attracts the social outcasts?  Why not nazism, or...anything really?  It's hard to find a more bloodthirsty, murderous ideology than socialism.  Maybe the (erroneous) prospect of revenge on the cruel world is precisely what entices these bitter, disaffected losers. Perhaps Einsteins folly can be explained and forgiven - the worst massacres of socialism came after this was written, and an aspie like him is bound to feel bitter and disaffected.  Listen to him on matters of physics and the like, but you'd have to be a complete and utter moron to think an aspies commentary on social matters would be of any value. Your confusing socialism (the economic system) with the totalitarian governments (the political systems) that have at times accompanied it.   It would be like me arguing that capitalism doesn't work because of all the brutal military capitalist totalitarian dictatorships that have existed in the world like Pinochet's Chile, Hitlers Germany(and there's very few more murderous then this guy), Hussain's Iraq, Papa Doc in Haiti and Idi Amin in Uganda and the list goes on.  At the same time quasi socialist states like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland have IMO functioned far better then this country and tend to be as wealthy if not wealthier and do not depend for their wealth on almost exclusively digging things out of the ground.

Then why do you argue that capitalism doesn't work?

Interestingly, all the murderous regimes you mentioned don't have a combined bodycount of the magnitude of mao or stalins regimes alone.  Why don't they count?  How many more millions need to die before you realise it's been in pursuit of fools gold?

Hey Spartacus, I think you may need to post a fifth time that socialism is an economic idea, not a political one.

You could post it a million times, it still won't make it possible to separate the 2.  It's all power.

... 

... wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 11:18am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 10:11am: ... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 9:01am: OF all the discredited ideologies, why's it always socialism that attracts the social outcasts?  Why not nazism, or...anything really?  It's hard to find a more bloodthirsty, murderous ideology than socialism.  Maybe the (erroneous) prospect of revenge on the cruel world is precisely what entices these bitter, disaffected losers. Perhaps Einsteins folly can be explained and forgiven - the worst massacres of socialism came after this was written, and an aspie like him is bound to feel bitter and disaffected.  Listen to him on matters of physics and the like, but you'd have to be a complete and utter moron to think an aspies commentary on social matters would be of any value. Your confusing socialism (the economic system) with the totalitarian governments (the political systems) that have at times accompanied it.   It would be like me arguing that capitalism doesn't work because of all the brutal military capitalist totalitarian dictatorships that have existed in the world like Pinochet's Chile, Hitlers Germany(and there's very few more murderous then this guy), Hussain's Iraq, Papa Doc in Haiti and Idi Amin in Uganda and the list goes on.  At the same time quasi socialist states like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland have IMO functioned far better then this country and tend to be as wealthy if not wealthier and do not depend for their wealth on almost exclusively digging things out of the ground.     Then why do you argue that capitalism doesn't work? Interestingly, all the murderous regimes you mentioned don't have a combined bodycount of the magnitude of mao or stalins regimes alone.  Why don't they count?  How many more millions need to die before you realise it's been in pursuit of fools gold?

Did you read the article? Because it sounds like you didn't.  Read the article and there you will find why Einstein thinks the system doesn't work and thinks its evil.  I agree with him but what Einstein could not have known in 1949 when he wrote the article was that capitalism was going to collapse in 2008 and the only thing that resuscitated it so that now we have Capitalism mark 3 (Mark 2 was after it was resuscitated after the Great depression) was where community $$$ was used (though without the permission of the community) to bail out the capitalist system (a socialist solution) so they could start all over again. If what happened in Cyprus had happened in a socialist country you would have screamed blue murder.  But it happened in a capitalist country.  The banks sent the island broke and then to fix it the capitalist government stole $$$ in peoples bank accounts and gave them worthless paper in return and the people had absolutely no choice about it.  Thats a system that has collapsed. 

As to your other point. Yes totalitarian systems of government are brutal (both socialist and capitalist) and I do not support them in any shape or form. Indeed I would rather our system of government then a totalitarian socialist government. But that doesn't change the fact that totalitarian governments that also happened to be capitalist have been as brutal if not more so when you consider the Japanese onslaught into asia in the second world war. Hitler's brutal regime during the second world war including the invasion of Russia, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Pappa Doc, Franco and the brutal colonian periods of Britain France Belguim (in the Congo, just horrendous). We could just go on forever and the fact that I have to say that to you is very telling IMO about how one eyed your education on these matters has been.  You should take the trouble to read the Einstein article.  After all these years of filtered information and filtered opinions you really do owe it to yourself to consider the countervailing potins of view otherwise consider what you might believe today if you were born in North Korea.  We know what cods would be saying "Oh yeah but your team killed people too. Its ok for our team to kill people because your team did it first"

viewpoint wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 11:15am:

I think FD's statement that socialism is parasitic, is 100% accurate. Capitalism is entrepreneurial and self-responsibile. As in USSR, socialism is merely another description of communism, and we all know where that leads.

Assertions and no reasoning.  Just the repetitions of an automaton.  You didn't bother reading the article either I bet. Indeed I would hazard a guess that its been decades since you seriously considered any counter the views you formulated when you were in your teens

....

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:04pm:

... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 11:18am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 10:11am: ... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 9:01am: OF all the discredited ideologies, why's it always socialism that attracts the social outcasts?  Why not nazism, or...anything really?  It's hard to find a more bloodthirsty, murderous ideology than socialism.  Maybe the (erroneous) prospect of revenge on the cruel world is precisely what entices these bitter, disaffected losers. Perhaps Einsteins folly can be explained and forgiven - the worst massacres of socialism came after this was written, and an aspie like him is bound to feel bitter and disaffected.  Listen to him on matters of physics and the like, but you'd have to be a complete and utter moron to think an aspies commentary on social matters would be of any value. Your confusing socialism (the economic system) with the totalitarian governments (the political systems) that have at times accompanied it.   It would be like me arguing that capitalism doesn't work because of all the brutal military capitalist totalitarian dictatorships that have existed in the world like Pinochet's Chile, Hitlers Germany(and there's very few more murderous then this guy), Hussain's Iraq, Papa Doc in Haiti and Idi Amin in Uganda and the list goes on.  At the same time quasi socialist states like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland have IMO functioned far better then this country and tend to be as wealthy if not wealthier and do not depend for their wealth on almost exclusively digging things out of the ground.     Then why do you argue that capitalism doesn't work? Interestingly, all the murderous regimes you mentioned don't have a combined bodycount of the magnitude of mao or stalins regimes alone.  Why don't they count?  How many more millions need to die before you realise it's been in pursuit of fools gold? Did you read the article? Because it sounds like you didn't.  Read the article and there you will find why Einstein thinks the system doesn't work and thinks its evil.  I agree with him but what Einstein could not have known in 1949 when he wrote the article was that capitalism was going to collapse in 2008 and the only thing that resuscitated it so that now we have Capitalism mark 3 (Mark 2 was after it was resuscitated after the Great depression) was where community $$$ was used (though without the permission of the community) to bail out the capitalist system (a socialist solution) so they could start all over again. If what happened in Cyprus had happened in a socialist country you would have screamed blue murder.  But it happened in a capitalist country.  The banks sent the island broke and then to fix it the capitalist government stole $$$ in peoples bank accounts and gave them worthless paper in return and the people had absolutely no choice about it.  Thats a system that has collapsed.  As to your other point. Yes totalitarian systems of government are brutal (both socialist and capitalist) and I do not support them in any shape or form. Indeed I would rather our system of government then a totalitarian socialist government. But that doesn't change the fact that totalitarian governments that also happened to be capitalist have been as brutal if not more so when you consider the Japanese onslaught into asia in the second world war. Hitler's brutal regime during the second world war including the invasion of Russia, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Pappa Doc, Franco and the brutal colonian periods of Britain France Belguim (in the Congo, just horrendous). We could just go on forever and the fact that I have to say that to you is very telling IMO about how one eyed your education on these matters has been.  You should take the trouble to read the Einstein article.  After all these years of filtered information and filtered opinions you really do owe it to yourself to consider the countervailing potins of view otherwise consider what you might believe today if you were born in North Korea.  We know what cods would be saying "Oh yeah but your team killed people too. Its ok for our team to kill people because your team did it first"

He thinks it's evil because it enslaves the individual.

I agree.

But could you say that socialism doesn't? 

There's also the little matter of the tens of millions of dead....but I think we both know that'll be dismissed with the ol' "no true scotsman socialist" defence. 

...

cods wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 11:04am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 10:29am: cods wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 9:43am: viewpoint wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 9:23am: The irony is that Einstein would not have been allowed an opinion in many of the socialist led governments of earlier years. Adolf was indeed a socialist (The Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party) and used the german economic crisis after WW1 to further his ambitions which would ultimately lead to Einstein seeking refuge in capitalist America, or alternatively returning to his homeland to be sent to a concentration camp. ahhhh and he tried to exterminate the Jews who were considered the worst of capitalists..in the extreme..and NOW LOOK AT GERMANY.. ::) ::).. its basically propping up Europe..how you ask?? oh thats right MONEY... not sharing the work so all can live equal.. in that perfect world. OK, now lets see if you can handle a few concepts at the same time.  (1) not all jews were then or are now capitalists; Many were socialists then and are socialists now. Infact Hitler often referred to them as Bolshevik jews.  Hitler's dislike of jews was about race not about capitalism otherwise he would have sent all the german capitalists to the gas chambers as well.  Follow? (just a bit. Do you follow just a little bit).  As for $$$ saving the German/Europen economy.  What you really mean is that Germany and the US are trying to save their bankrupt economies for the sake of the $$$$ elite and printing as much BS $$$ as they can to prop up the collapsing system AND its not working.  As Einstein said. Each time the eco crisiss get worse, get more intense and get more disastrous    OF COURSE>. as per usual never see it from someone elses point of view... last I heard Hitler didnt discriminate with rich or poor jews... he thought they were all bad..I think you will find he thought the JEWS controlled the BANKS and they did..had nothing to do with race.. he was a jew himself..an Austrian jew..but dont let that stop you..from changing history. and you think if they dont prop up stupid socialist govts thats a good idea..LOL>> .. take a good hard look at Greece.. where they had the best of everything and did almost nothing for it.. look at the stink when they were asked to give a bit back because the country couldnt stand the weight of welfare...retire at 55...  ::)..you have got to be kidding..

I got to you last because honestly you never make any sense.  You really are all over the place; It's hard to know what ties in and how and half the time you seem to be arguing against yourself.  What's it to do with anything that "Hitler didn't discriminate with rich or poor jews..." and whether he was in fact a jew or not (which is just gullible I have to say). Yes he attacked jews for controlling the banks but he attacked them for many things as well; for the stab in the back, for being sub human, and most importantly in the context of this discussion, for being socialists and Bolsheviks. In fact he would have said anything about jews to win support for his final solution.  As for Greece. Greece counts as one of the monumental failures of capitalism and the international capitalist banking system. And who do you direct your angst towards? The Greek people. And Why? Because according to you "They wouldn't give a bit back" Spoken like a good sheeple. Here we are in the capitalist system with the banks and the government wheeling and dealing to the point where the economy collapses and you want to blame the greek people because they were reluctant to suddenly all be socialists when it suited the bankis and the government.  Socialism for the rich. Oh BTW when did you retire. At 55 was it.  You on a govt pension aren't you? Ahh yes socialism for me but not for all those other selfish b@st@rds that wouldn't lift a finger for the country.      

... wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:19pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:04pm: ... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 11:18am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 10:11am: ... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 9:01am: OF all the discredited ideologies, why's it always socialism that attracts the social outcasts?  Why not nazism, or...anything really?  It's hard to find a more bloodthirsty, murderous ideology than socialism.  Maybe the (erroneous) prospect of revenge on the cruel world is precisely what entices these bitter, disaffected losers. Perhaps Einsteins folly can be explained and forgiven - the worst massacres of socialism came after this was written, and an aspie like him is bound to feel bitter and disaffected.  Listen to him on matters of physics and the like, but you'd have to be a complete and utter moron to think an aspies commentary on social matters would be of any value. Your confusing socialism (the economic system) with the totalitarian governments (the political systems) that have at times accompanied it.   It would be like me arguing that capitalism doesn't work because of all the brutal military capitalist totalitarian dictatorships that have existed in the world like Pinochet's Chile, Hitlers Germany(and there's very few more murderous then this guy), Hussain's Iraq, Papa Doc in Haiti and Idi Amin in Uganda and the list goes on.  At the same time quasi socialist states like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland have IMO functioned far better then this country and tend to be as wealthy if not wealthier and do not depend for their wealth on almost exclusively digging things out of the ground.     Then why do you argue that capitalism doesn't work? Interestingly, all the murderous regimes you mentioned don't have a combined bodycount of the magnitude of mao or stalins regimes alone.  Why don't they count?  How many more millions need to die before you realise it's been in pursuit of fools gold? Did you read the article? Because it sounds like you didn't.  Read the article and there you will find why Einstein thinks the system doesn't work and thinks its evil.  I agree with him but what Einstein could not have known in 1949 when he wrote the article was that capitalism was going to collapse in 2008 and the only thing that resuscitated it so that now we have Capitalism mark 3 (Mark 2 was after it was resuscitated after the Great depression) was where community $$$ was used (though without the permission of the community) to bail out the capitalist system (a socialist solution) so they could start all over again. If what happened in Cyprus had happened in a socialist country you would have screamed blue murder.  But it happened in a capitalist country.  The banks sent the island broke and then to fix it the capitalist government stole $$$ in peoples bank accounts and gave them worthless paper in return and the people had absolutely no choice about it.  Thats a system that has collapsed.  As to your other point. Yes totalitarian systems of government are brutal (both socialist and capitalist) and I do not support them in any shape or form. Indeed I would rather our system of government then a totalitarian socialist government. But that doesn't change the fact that totalitarian governments that also happened to be capitalist have been as brutal if not more so when you consider the Japanese onslaught into asia in the second world war. Hitler's brutal regime during the second world war including the invasion of Russia, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Pappa Doc, Franco and the brutal colonian periods of Britain France Belguim (in the Congo, just horrendous). We could just go on forever and the fact that I have to say that to you is very telling IMO about how one eyed your education on these matters has been.  You should take the trouble to read the Einstein article.  After all these years of filtered information and filtered opinions you really do owe it to yourself to consider the countervailing potins of view otherwise consider what you might believe today if you were born in North Korea.  We know what cods would be saying "Oh yeah but your team killed people too. Its ok for our team to kill people because your team did it first" He thinks it's evil because it enslaves the individual. I agree. But could you say that socialism doesn't?  There's also the little matter of the tens of millions of dead....but I think we both know that'll be dismissed with the ol' "no true scotsman socialist" defence.

Oh dear. Read the article. its not just that. And a matter of fact read what I just wrote and sits before your very eyes.  Where do you see any reference to the "Not true socialist defense" Really you need to worry that you are at a point where it may not be possible for your mind to be penetrated by an alternative view if you think what I wrote in anyway suggested a "Not true socialist defense"

... wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:19pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:04pm: ... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 11:18am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 10:11am: ... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 9:01am: OF all the discredited ideologies, why's it always socialism that attracts the social outcasts?  Why not nazism, or...anything really?  It's hard to find a more bloodthirsty, murderous ideology than socialism.  Maybe the (erroneous) prospect of revenge on the cruel world is precisely what entices these bitter, disaffected losers. Perhaps Einsteins folly can be explained and forgiven - the worst massacres of socialism came after this was written, and an aspie like him is bound to feel bitter and disaffected.  Listen to him on matters of physics and the like, but you'd have to be a complete and utter moron to think an aspies commentary on social matters would be of any value. Your confusing socialism (the economic system) with the totalitarian governments (the political systems) that have at times accompanied it.   It would be like me arguing that capitalism doesn't work because of all the brutal military capitalist totalitarian dictatorships that have existed in the world like Pinochet's Chile, Hitlers Germany(and there's very few more murderous then this guy), Hussain's Iraq, Papa Doc in Haiti and Idi Amin in Uganda and the list goes on.  At the same time quasi socialist states like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland have IMO functioned far better then this country and tend to be as wealthy if not wealthier and do not depend for their wealth on almost exclusively digging things out of the ground.     Then why do you argue that capitalism doesn't work? Interestingly, all the murderous regimes you mentioned don't have a combined bodycount of the magnitude of mao or stalins regimes alone.  Why don't they count?  How many more millions need to die before you realise it's been in pursuit of fools gold? Did you read the article? Because it sounds like you didn't.  Read the article and there you will find why Einstein thinks the system doesn't work and thinks its evil.  I agree with him but what Einstein could not have known in 1949 when he wrote the article was that capitalism was going to collapse in 2008 and the only thing that resuscitated it so that now we have Capitalism mark 3 (Mark 2 was after it was resuscitated after the Great depression) was where community $$$ was used (though without the permission of the community) to bail out the capitalist system (a socialist solution) so they could start all over again. If what happened in Cyprus had happened in a socialist country you would have screamed blue murder.  But it happened in a capitalist country.  The banks sent the island broke and then to fix it the capitalist government stole $$$ in peoples bank accounts and gave them worthless paper in return and the people had absolutely no choice about it.  Thats a system that has collapsed.  As to your other point. Yes totalitarian systems of government are brutal (both socialist and capitalist) and I do not support them in any shape or form. Indeed I would rather our system of government then a totalitarian socialist government. But that doesn't change the fact that totalitarian governments that also happened to be capitalist have been as brutal if not more so when you consider the Japanese onslaught into asia in the second world war. Hitler's brutal regime during the second world war including the invasion of Russia, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Pappa Doc, Franco and the brutal colonian periods of Britain France Belguim (in the Congo, just horrendous). We could just go on forever and the fact that I have to say that to you is very telling IMO about how one eyed your education on these matters has been.  You should take the trouble to read the Einstein article.  After all these years of filtered information and filtered opinions you really do owe it to yourself to consider the countervailing potins of view otherwise consider what you might believe today if you were born in North Korea.  We know what cods would be saying "Oh yeah but your team killed people too. Its ok for our team to kill people because your team did it first" He thinks it's evil because it enslaves the individual. I agree. But could you say that socialism doesn't?  There's also the little matter of the tens of millions of dead....but I think we both know that'll be dismissed with the ol' "no true scotsman socialist" defence.

Oh dear. Read the article. its not just that. And a matter of fact read what I just wrote and sits before your very eyes.  Where do you see any reference to the "Not true socialist defense" Really you need to worry that you are at a point where it may not be possible for your mind to be penetrated by an alternative view if you think what I wrote in anyway suggested a "Not true socialist defense"

I'm fully cognisant of the evils of capitalism.  It's an imperfect system that sometimes bears horrific results, that's not in dispute.

But it doesn't follow that if A= evil, B= good.  History has borne the results of socialist regimes, and little of it is pretty, least of all the death toll.  You can call it an unfortunate coincidence that socialism and death have often gone in hand, but when pondering why "the perfect system" on paper turns to shite in reality,  I think you're overlooking the fact that human nature itself is not perfect.  It's not good, it's not evil, it just is.

The way I see it, is that socialism clashes with human nature head-on, while capitalism rolls with it.  Human nature can be ugly, as the evils of capitalism show.  And while it can't be opposed, it can be tamed somewhat.  Any ideology which relies on an idealistic conception of human nature rather than a realistic conception, will never work.    Nature always wins.

socialism doesnt/cant work because it goes agianst the laws of nature (albert should know this).

there will always be a peck order, always.

there can never be equality in nature.  how can we have survival of the fittest when the fittest are always burdened with carrying those who refuse to get fit.

its unnatural and, unless i'm mistaken we live on planet earth and should recognise that we are still part of nature.

what we can hope for is that the 'fittest', the 'best"  , the "highest achievers' will also be the highest achievers in compassion and will give a hand up to those below them in the peck order.  this is attainable. this will see the human race progress.
socialism is a drive to the bottom.  it will diminish men and lead to a celebration of mediocrity.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:40pm:

Oh dear. Read the article. its not just that. And a matter of fact read what I just wrote and sits before your very eyes.  Where do you see any reference to the "Not true socialist defense" Really you need to worry that you are at a point where it may not be possible for your mind to be penetrated by an alternative view if you think what I wrote in anyway suggested a "Not true socialist defense"

Sorry for the jumping the gun, it's just that I've played this game before and it always plays out that when the issue of the 100 million dead comes up, it's never because of the socialism, it's always [insert contrived excuse here].  ie No true socialist would murder tens of millions of their own people. 

And it's not the article I'm asking these questions of - it's you. 

... wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:56pm:

I'm fully cognisant of the evils of capitalism.  It's an imperfect system that sometimes bears horrific results, that's not in dispute. But it doesn't follow that if A= evil, B= good.  No one said this. Again!! If you read my reply or even read the article you would see that nobody said this. History has borne the results of socialist regimes, and the death toll ain't pretty.  Again!! If you read my reply you would see that the death toll is not pretty for either socialist totalitarians or capitalist totalitarians. Indeed you seem to acknowledge this in your first line but then seem to want to say "No lets put that aside and talk about how brutal socialism has be".  Well, quite frankly if you want to do a numbers count I'm not sure where the worst results would lie and I think they would be very close.  Again!! If you read my reply you will see that I said nothing of the kind.  Your just arguing against yourself.    but when pondering why "the perfect system" on paper turns to shite in reality,  I think you're overlooking the fact that human nature itself is not perfect.  Oh dear. This is tiresome. If you read the article you would see that Albert talks about the nature of man. The way I see it, is that socialism clashes with human nature head-on, while capitalism rolls with it.  Human nature can be ugly, as the evils of capitalism show.  And while it can't be opposed, it can be tamed somewhat.  Any ideology which relies on an idealistic conception of human nature rather than a realistic conception, will never work.    Nature always wins.

Socialism doesn't require an altered nature of man to work.  Don't you worry that you are soo resistant to even spending an hour to expose your mind that might challenge these  nonsensical preconceptions you have.  Read the article. And then maybe read some more 

... wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:56pm:

I'm fully cognisant of the evils of capitalism.  It's an imperfect system that sometimes bears horrific results, that's not in dispute. But it doesn't follow that if A= evil, B= good.  No one said this. Again!! If you read my reply or even read the article you would see that nobody said this. History has borne the results of socialist regimes, and the death toll ain't pretty.  Again!! If you read my reply you would see that the death toll is not pretty for either socialist totalitarians or capitalist totalitarians. Indeed you seem to acknowledge this in your first line but then seem to want to say "No lets put that aside and talk about how brutal socialism has be".  Well, quite frankly if you want to do a numbers count I'm not sure where the worst results would lie and I think they would be very close.  Again!! If you read my reply you will see that I said nothing of the kind.  Your just arguing against yourself.    but when pondering why "the perfect system" on paper turns to shite in reality,  I think you're overlooking the fact that human nature itself is not perfect.  Oh dear. This is tiresome. If you read the article you would see that Albert talks about the nature of man. The way I see it, is that socialism clashes with human nature head-on, while capitalism rolls with it.  Human nature can be ugly, as the evils of capitalism show.  And while it can't be opposed, it can be tamed somewhat.  Any ideology which relies on an idealistic conception of human nature rather than a realistic conception, will never work.    Nature always wins.

Socialism doesn't require an altered nature of man to work.  Don't you worry that you are soo resistant to even spending an hour to expose your mind that might challenge these  nonsensical preconceptions you have.  Read the article. And then maybe read some more 

Quote:

Socialism doesn't require an altered nature of man to work.

Yes it does.

Or if not, why hasn't it worked so far?

I was a good little socialist in uni, so it's not a matter of not having been exposed to an alternate view, it's more a matter of having grown up. 

aquascoot wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:57pm:

socialism doesnt/cant work because it goes agianst the laws of nature (albert should know this). there will always be a peck order, always. there can never be equality in nature.  how can we have survival of the fittest when the fittest are always burdened with carrying those who refuse to get fit. its unnatural and, unless i'm mistaken we live on planet earth and should recognise that we are still part of nature. what we can hope for is that the 'fittest', the 'best"  , the "highest achievers' will also be the highest achievers in compassion and will give a hand up to those below them in the peck order.  this is attainable. this will see the human race progress. socialism is a drive to the bottom.  it will diminish men and lead to a celebration of mediocrity.

If you read the article you would see that Albert deals with your absurd, ill informed, "Goes against the nature of man cr@p".  As for the rest of your post its just assertion with no justifications offered.  Very automaton like. If an when you actually want to debate this offer up some reasons for what you believe and we can take it from there.  Oh and BTW its clear to me from discussion we have had in the past that you consider yourself as one of the more talented and more meritorious in the community. My observations lead me to a very different conclusion

... wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:29pm:

I was a good little socialist in uni, so it's not a matter of not having been exposed to an alternate view, it's more a matter of having grown up.

Did it help you get laid?

... wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:29pm:

I was a good little socialist in uni, so it's not a matter of not having been exposed to an alternate view, it's more a matter of having grown up.

Did it help you get laid?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:08pm:

viewpoint wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 11:15am: I think FD's statement that socialism is parasitic, is 100% accurate. Capitalism is entrepreneurial and self-responsibile. As in USSR, socialism is merely another description of communism, and we all know where that leads. Assertions and no reasoning.  Just the repetitions of an automaton.  You didn't bother reading the article either I bet. Indeed I would hazard a guess that its been decades since you seriously considered any counter the views you formulated when you were in your teens

Mimicking and no reasoning. I seriously doubt you consider anybody else's opinion but your own, and of course whatever socialist propaganda you are indoctrinated with, as a so-called "adult".

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:37pm:

If you read the article you would see that Albert deals with your absurd, ill informed, "Goes against the nature of man cr@p".

So we're treating aspies as experts on social matters now are we?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:37pm:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:57pm: socialism doesnt/cant work because it goes agianst the laws of nature (albert should know this). there will always be a peck order, always. there can never be equality in nature.  how can we have survival of the fittest when the fittest are always burdened with carrying those who refuse to get fit. its unnatural and, unless i'm mistaken we live on planet earth and should recognise that we are still part of nature. what we can hope for is that the 'fittest', the 'best"  , the "highest achievers' will also be the highest achievers in compassion and will give a hand up to those below them in the peck order.  this is attainable. this will see the human race progress. socialism is a drive to the bottom.  it will diminish men and lead to a celebration of mediocrity. If you read the article you would see that Albert deals with your absurd, ill informed, "Goes against the nature of man cr@p".  As for the rest of your post its just assertion with no justifications offered.  Very automaton like. If an when you actually want to debate this offer up some reasons for what you believe and we can take it from there.  Oh and BTW its clear to me from discussion we have had in the past that you consider yourself as one of the more talented and more meritorious in the community. My observations lead me to a very different conclusion

 

;) ;)

automatons  =   citizens of socialist north korea
entrepreneurs  =   citizens of venture capitalist silicon valley.

whose model seems to be progressing the "greatness" of man.
get with the strength spartan,   the spartans certainly believed in a peck order ;)

aquascoot wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:57pm:

socialism doesnt/cant work because it goes agianst the laws of nature (albert should know this). there will always be a peck order, always. there can never be equality in nature.  how can we have survival of the fittest when the fittest are always burdened with carrying those who refuse to get fit. its unnatural and, unless i'm mistaken we live on planet earth and should recognise that we are still part of nature. what we can hope for is that the 'fittest', the 'best"  , the "highest achievers' will also be the highest achievers in compassion and will give a hand up to those below them in the peck order.  this is attainable. this will see the human race progress. socialism is a drive to the bottom.  it will diminish men and lead to a celebration of mediocrity.

The AUDACITY of hope!

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 10:11am:

... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 9:01am: OF all the discredited ideologies, why's it always socialism that attracts the social outcasts?  Why not nazism, or...anything really?  It's hard to find a more bloodthirsty, murderous ideology than socialism.  Maybe the (erroneous) prospect of revenge on the cruel world is precisely what entices these bitter, disaffected losers. Perhaps Einsteins folly can be explained and forgiven - the worst massacres of socialism came after this was written, and an aspie like him is bound to feel bitter and disaffected.  Listen to him on matters of physics and the like, but you'd have to be a complete and utter moron to think an aspies commentary on social matters would be of any value. Your confusing socialism (the economic system) with the totalitarian governments (the political systems) that have at times accompanied it.   It would be like me arguing that capitalism doesn't work because of all the brutal military capitalist totalitarian dictatorships that have existed in the world like Pinochet's Chile, Hitlers Germany(and there's very few more murderous then this guy), Hussain's Iraq, Papa Doc in Haiti and Idi Amin in Uganda and the list goes on.  At the same time quasi socialist states like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland have IMO functioned far better then this country and tend to be as wealthy if not wealthier and do not depend for their wealth on almost exclusively digging things out of the ground.

Good post, and good article.  Thanks for linking to it.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 2:12pm:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:57pm: socialism doesnt/cant work because it goes agianst the laws of nature (albert should know this). there will always be a peck order, always. there can never be equality in nature.  how can we have survival of the fittest when the fittest are always burdened with carrying those who refuse to get fit. its unnatural and, unless i'm mistaken we live on planet earth and should recognise that we are still part of nature. what we can hope for is that the 'fittest', the 'best"  , the "highest achievers' will also be the highest achievers in compassion and will give a hand up to those below them in the peck order.  this is attainable. this will see the human race progress. socialism is a drive to the bottom.  it will diminish men and lead to a celebration of mediocrity. The AUDACITY of hope!

death,  when i introduce a new horse to my herd, it has to fight for its place in the peck order.  dumb horses (such as you death ;)) usually get thoroughly bitten kicked and belted til the herd "puts them in their place".  its all very natural and theres no use fighting it. once everyone accepts where his position is, the herd becomes functional again.

i'd imagine this is why, dumbies would benefit from a stint in the army.  i think someone like your good self and several other would do well to spend 6 months in an infantry unit.  you can tell the sergeant major all about your theories on equality and socialsm ;) ;)

aquascoot wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:58pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:37pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:57pm: socialism doesnt/cant work because it goes agianst the laws of nature (albert should know this). there will always be a peck order, always. there can never be equality in nature.  how can we have survival of the fittest when the fittest are always burdened with carrying those who refuse to get fit. its unnatural and, unless i'm mistaken we live on planet earth and should recognise that we are still part of nature. what we can hope for is that the 'fittest', the 'best"  , the "highest achievers' will also be the highest achievers in compassion and will give a hand up to those below them in the peck order.  this is attainable. this will see the human race progress. socialism is a drive to the bottom.  it will diminish men and lead to a celebration of mediocrity. If you read the article you would see that Albert deals with your absurd, ill informed, "Goes against the nature of man cr@p".  As for the rest of your post its just assertion with no justifications offered.  Very automaton like. If an when you actually want to debate this offer up some reasons for what you believe and we can take it from there.  Oh and BTW its clear to me from discussion we have had in the past that you consider yourself as one of the more talented and more meritorious in the community. My observations lead me to a very different conclusion   ;) ;) automatons  =   citizens of socialist north korea entrepreneurs  =   citizens of venture capitalist silicon valley. whose model seems to be progressing the "greatness" of man. get with the strength spartan,   the spartans certainly believed in a peck order ;)

Oh yes i know you need your pecking order.  After all, there would be no meaning to your life if you didn't feel better then most everyone you come into contact with.  Time you got clipped

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 2:15pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 10:11am: ... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 9:01am: OF all the discredited ideologies, why's it always socialism that attracts the social outcasts?  Why not nazism, or...anything really?  It's hard to find a more bloodthirsty, murderous ideology than socialism.  Maybe the (erroneous) prospect of revenge on the cruel world is precisely what entices these bitter, disaffected losers. Perhaps Einsteins folly can be explained and forgiven - the worst massacres of socialism came after this was written, and an aspie like him is bound to feel bitter and disaffected.  Listen to him on matters of physics and the like, but you'd have to be a complete and utter moron to think an aspies commentary on social matters would be of any value. Your confusing socialism (the economic system) with the totalitarian governments (the political systems) that have at times accompanied it.   It would be like me arguing that capitalism doesn't work because of all the brutal military capitalist totalitarian dictatorships that have existed in the world like Pinochet's Chile, Hitlers Germany(and there's very few more murderous then this guy), Hussain's Iraq, Papa Doc in Haiti and Idi Amin in Uganda and the list goes on.  At the same time quasi socialist states like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland have IMO functioned far better then this country and tend to be as wealthy if not wealthier and do not depend for their wealth on almost exclusively digging things out of the ground.     Good post, and good article.  Thanks for linking to it.

Thanks Greggery. I appreciate you saying. 

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 2:15pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 10:11am: ... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 9:01am: OF all the discredited ideologies, why's it always socialism that attracts the social outcasts?  Why not nazism, or...anything really?  It's hard to find a more bloodthirsty, murderous ideology than socialism.  Maybe the (erroneous) prospect of revenge on the cruel world is precisely what entices these bitter, disaffected losers. Perhaps Einsteins folly can be explained and forgiven - the worst massacres of socialism came after this was written, and an aspie like him is bound to feel bitter and disaffected.  Listen to him on matters of physics and the like, but you'd have to be a complete and utter moron to think an aspies commentary on social matters would be of any value. Your confusing socialism (the economic system) with the totalitarian governments (the political systems) that have at times accompanied it.   It would be like me arguing that capitalism doesn't work because of all the brutal military capitalist totalitarian dictatorships that have existed in the world like Pinochet's Chile, Hitlers Germany(and there's very few more murderous then this guy), Hussain's Iraq, Papa Doc in Haiti and Idi Amin in Uganda and the list goes on.  At the same time quasi socialist states like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland have IMO functioned far better then this country and tend to be as wealthy if not wealthier and do not depend for their wealth on almost exclusively digging things out of the ground.     Good post, and good article.  Thanks for linking to it.

Thanks Greggery. I appreciate you saying. 

... wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:22pm:

Quote: Socialism doesn't require an altered nature of man to work.  Yes it does. Or if not, why hasn't it worked so far?

bump

aquascoot wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 2:16pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:12pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:57pm: socialism doesnt/cant work because it goes agianst the laws of nature (albert should know this). there will always be a peck order, always. there can never be equality in nature.  how can we have survival of the fittest when the fittest are always burdened with carrying those who refuse to get fit. its unnatural and, unless i'm mistaken we live on planet earth and should recognise that we are still part of nature. what we can hope for is that the 'fittest', the 'best"  , the "highest achievers' will also be the highest achievers in compassion and will give a hand up to those below them in the peck order.  this is attainable. this will see the human race progress. socialism is a drive to the bottom.  it will diminish men and lead to a celebration of mediocrity. The AUDACITY of hope! death,  when i introduce a new horse to my herd, it has to fight for its place in the peck order.  dumb horses (such as you death ;)) usually get thoroughly bitten kicked and belted til the herd "puts them in their place".  its all very natural and theres no use fighting it. once everyone accepts where his position is, the herd becomes functional again. i'd imagine this is why, dumbies would benefit from a stint in the army.  i think someone like your good self and several other would do well to spend 6 months in an infantry unit.  you can tell the sergeant major all about your theories on equality and socialsm ;) ;).

Funny I always thought that capitalism gave us all an opportunity to rise above our station. Ah well I guess thats not so. Anyways I sure do hope everyone in this forum understands and accepts where their position is.  As you say "no use fighting it".

.....

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 2:37pm:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:58pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:37pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:57pm: socialism doesnt/cant work because it goes agianst the laws of nature (albert should know this). there will always be a peck order, always. there can never be equality in nature.  how can we have survival of the fittest when the fittest are always burdened with carrying those who refuse to get fit. its unnatural and, unless i'm mistaken we live on planet earth and should recognise that we are still part of nature. what we can hope for is that the 'fittest', the 'best"  , the "highest achievers' will also be the highest achievers in compassion and will give a hand up to those below them in the peck order.  this is attainable. this will see the human race progress. socialism is a drive to the bottom.  it will diminish men and lead to a celebration of mediocrity. If you read the article you would see that Albert deals with your absurd, ill informed, "Goes against the nature of man cr@p".  As for the rest of your post its just assertion with no justifications offered.  Very automaton like. If an when you actually want to debate this offer up some reasons for what you believe and we can take it from there.  Oh and BTW its clear to me from discussion we have had in the past that you consider yourself as one of the more talented and more meritorious in the community. My observations lead me to a very different conclusion   ;) ;) automatons  =   citizens of socialist north korea entrepreneurs  =   citizens of venture capitalist silicon valley. whose model seems to be progressing the "greatness" of man. get with the strength spartan,   the spartans certainly believed in a peck order ;) Oh yes i know you need your pecking order.  After all, there would be no meaning to your life if you didn't feel better then most everyone you come into contact with.  Time you got clipped

This post suggest you've got an idealistic view of man, rather than an realistic one. 

"I don't like the pecking order, therefore there is no pecking order". 

I seem to recall hearing that one of the failings of socialist regimes was that the party officials would still get higher status and it's trappings.  Looks like the pecking order (one of the human universals)  asserted itself despite concerted efforts to fight it.

... wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:22pm: Quote: Socialism doesn't require an altered nature of man to work.  Yes it does. Or if not, why hasn't it worked so far? bump

I really don't want to have to repeat things in the article. Why dont you read it, it wont take you long and then we can continue the discussion with the questions that you have

... wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:22pm: Quote: Socialism doesn't require an altered nature of man to work.  Yes it does. Or if not, why hasn't it worked so far? bump

I really don't want to have to repeat things in the article. Why dont you read it, it wont take you long and then we can continue the discussion with the questions that you have

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 2:51pm:

... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:45pm: ... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:22pm: Quote: Socialism doesn't require an altered nature of man to work.  Yes it does. Or if not, why hasn't it worked so far? bump I really don't want to have to repeat things in the article. Why dont you read it, it wont take you long and then we can continue the discussion with the questions that you have

Done.

Now the question I have is, if it's not an altered nature of man that socialism requires to "work", what is it?

I mean, it'd be a bit of a miracle if Einstein could tell us why socialist regimes failed in a paper written in 1949 - BEFORE they had failed. 

I

blessings ,

No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.

Albert Einstein


http://honesttogodjo.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/albert-einstein-intuition1.jpg

many beings tend to quote earlier works ,

yet in the end of einsteins' search through science

and quantum fact , he realized the universe is conscious

the microcosm and macrocosm are connected

research einstein agrees with max plank

as above so below

and so it is so be at peace

for all are one in love and light

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 2:46pm:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:16pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:12pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:57pm: socialism doesnt/cant work because it goes agianst the laws of nature (albert should know this). there will always be a peck order, always. there can never be equality in nature.  how can we have survival of the fittest when the fittest are always burdened with carrying those who refuse to get fit. its unnatural and, unless i'm mistaken we live on planet earth and should recognise that we are still part of nature. what we can hope for is that the 'fittest', the 'best"  , the "highest achievers' will also be the highest achievers in compassion and will give a hand up to those below them in the peck order.  this is attainable. this will see the human race progress. socialism is a drive to the bottom.  it will diminish men and lead to a celebration of mediocrity. The AUDACITY of hope! death,  when i introduce a new horse to my herd, it has to fight for its place in the peck order.  dumb horses (such as you death ;)) usually get thoroughly bitten kicked and belted til the herd "puts them in their place".  its all very natural and theres no use fighting it. once everyone accepts where his position is, the herd becomes functional again. i'd imagine this is why, dumbies would benefit from a stint in the army.  i think someone like your good self and several other would do well to spend 6 months in an infantry unit.  you can tell the sergeant major all about your theories on equality and socialsm ;) ;).   Funny I always thought that capitalism gave us all an opportunity to rise above our station. Ah well I guess thats not so. Anyways I sure do hope everyone in this forum understands and accepts where their position is.  As you say "no use fighting it".

it does spartan. that is exactly what happens in a  peck order.  one day you go out and the old "high horse" has been challenged and whipped by a lower horse.  its just natural.  look at the military. you get the opportunity to "rise" through the ranks. imagine a navy frigate run along 'socialist" lines.  the thing would be f^^king sunk within 10 minutes  :D

viewpoint wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:23am:

The irony is that Einstein would not have been allowed an opinion in many of the socialist led governments of earlier years. Adolf was indeed a socialist (The Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party) and used the german economic crisis after WW1 to further his ambitions which would ultimately lead to Einstein seeking refuge in capitalist[size=24][/size] America, or alternatively returning to his homeland to be sent to a concentration camp.

How many times do I have to repeat this:HITLER WAS NOT A SOCIALIST HE WAS A FASCIST

He threw socialists like Gregor Strasser out of the Nazi Party. Only the socialists had the guts to vote against the Enabling Act, which gave Adolf dictatorial powers after the Reichstag Fire.

Hitler gained power with the support of the Army and wealthy capitalists.

An elephant can call itself a camel. But that doesn't give it humps.

Please read your history before making such daft claims again.

Well in the article Einstein says man was born to natural law which doesn't change ... and acquired social tendencies from environment, traditions and culture which do change, from others in the "group"

So accordingly, natural law will always dictate the changes in a social society .... permanent social society is not a given, and neither it should be ... but natural law is very permanent, so is free enterprise, however small for an individual to survive. Free enterprise will extend into the future way beyond when modern capitalism and socialism meet their demise ... that is if the elite don't shove us slaves in enclosed domed cities

....

... wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 2:54pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:51pm: ... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:45pm: ... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:22pm: Quote: Socialism doesn't require an altered nature of man to work.  Yes it does. Or if not, why hasn't it worked so far? bump I really don't want to have to repeat things in the article. Why dont you read it, it wont take you long and then we can continue the discussion with the questions that you have Done. Now the question I have is, if it's not an altered nature of man that socialism requires to "work", what is it?

I see it took you all of 2 minutes to read. Well done.  Its the nature that we are.  Much like Einstein described. We have individual tendencies and social tendencies and that's the nature that Einstein understood we had and nevertheless concluded with words to the effect that "I am convinced that socialism is the way to go.  I'm surprised that I should be telling you this given that you read the article.  You must have missed it in all that 2 minutes of consideration that you gave it.  I suspect the North Koreans would behave in the same way if you told them that their Dear Leader is not really a God.  But seriously I'm not interested in debating you for the sake of debating. We've seen already how you answer your own questions because your not really focusing on what is actually being said either in the article or what I post.  I have to go now but I will be back in a few hours and if your serious about discussing this I would very much appreciate it if you did in fact read that article because i think it will save us a lot of time. Regards see you then I hope. 

Many people confuse socialism and communism. Communism failed, and deserved to fail, because of its corruption and insane economic planning.

Socialism lives on because many people recognise there are a ton of things people can only do collectively rather than as individuals.

Socialists like myself also know now only strong government can protect the weak from the powerful and strong.

I don't hate profit, far from it, profit creates jobs.

But it is how the profit is distributed that is the key.

Einstein sailed to the United States ?, the home of free enterprise then wrote about socialism/communism being the ants pants ? shame on Albert

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 4:02pm:

Einstein sailed to the United States ?, the home of free enterprise then wrote about socialism/communism being the ants pants ? shame on Albert

Monetary systems are socialism: thanx for playing!

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 3:58pm:

Many people confuse socialism and communism. Communism failed, and deserved to fail, because of its corruption and insane economic planning. Socialism lives on because many people recognise there are a ton of things people can only do collectively rather than as individuals. Socialists like myself also now only strong government can protect the weak from the powerful and strong. I don't hate profit, far from it, profit creates jobs. But it is how the profit is distributed that is the key.

you do see dont you peter... how we SPEND our share of the profit..[wage] is what its all about...

some people buy grog or gamble or smoke or eat fast food...they spread their money around that way,..

others buy shares or property or pay off their own home..

which btw was anti Labor years ago every home owner was a capitalist... ;) ;)...

socialism is a myth in my opinion.. or a fantasy...its a good way of saying well I have done my bit...like greenies tying themselves to trees.. and now whaling boats.. it all makes sense to them and they cannot understand why the rest of us sit back and shake our heads... ::) ::)why are we not on  the Japanese Embassy doorstep screaming..abuse..... ::)

if you want real socialism you have to take control of everything.. and that wont happen.you cannot expect everyone to spend their money the way you would want them too..humans are not made that way..we change with every generation.unlike our four footed friends.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 4:13pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 4:02pm: Einstein sailed to the United States ?, the home of free enterprise then wrote about socialism/communism being the ants pants ? shame on Albert Monetary systems are socialism: thanx for playing!

are you saying you can live without money if you are a socialist?????.. news to me....I thought it meant we would all be RICH. ;) ;) not just the few.

cods wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 4:46pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 4:13pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 4:02pm: Einstein sailed to the United States ?, the home of free enterprise then wrote about socialism/communism being the ants pants ? shame on Albert Monetary systems are socialism: thanx for playing! are you saying you can live without money if you are a socialist?????.. news to me....I thought it meant we would all be RICH. ;) ;) not just the few.

Wtbuggery? You're a strange breed buddy  :-?

cods wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:58pm: Many people confuse socialism and communism. Communism failed, and deserved to fail, because of its corruption and insane economic planning. Socialism lives on because many people recognise there are a ton of things people can only do collectively rather than as individuals. Socialists like myself also now only strong government can protect the weak from the powerful and strong. I don't hate profit, far from it, profit creates jobs. But it is how the profit is distributed that is the key. you do see dont you peter... how we SPEND our share of the profit..[wage] is what its all about... cods is a fruit loop  some people buy grog or gamble or smoke or eat fast food...they spread their money around that way,.. others buy shares or property or pay off their own home.. which btw was anti Labor years ago every home owner was a capitalist... ;) ;)... socialism is a myth in my opinion.. or a fantasy...its a good way of saying well I have done my bit...like greenies tying themselves to trees.. and now whaling boats.. it all makes sense to them and they cannot understand why the rest of us sit back and shake our heads... ::) ::)why are we not on  the Japanese Embassy doorstep screaming..abuse..... ::) if you want real socialism you have to take control of everything.. and that wont happen.you cannot expect everyone to spend their money the way you would want them too..humans are not made that way..we change with every generation.unlike our four footed friends.

Cods is a fruity loopy  :-?

cods wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:58pm: Many people confuse socialism and communism. Communism failed, and deserved to fail, because of its corruption and insane economic planning. Socialism lives on because many people recognise there are a ton of things people can only do collectively rather than as individuals. Socialists like myself also now only strong government can protect the weak from the powerful and strong. I don't hate profit, far from it, profit creates jobs. But it is how the profit is distributed that is the key. you do see dont you peter... how we SPEND our share of the profit..[wage] is what its all about... cods is a fruit loop  some people buy grog or gamble or smoke or eat fast food...they spread their money around that way,.. others buy shares or property or pay off their own home.. which btw was anti Labor years ago every home owner was a capitalist... ;) ;)... socialism is a myth in my opinion.. or a fantasy...its a good way of saying well I have done my bit...like greenies tying themselves to trees.. and now whaling boats.. it all makes sense to them and they cannot understand why the rest of us sit back and shake our heads... ::) ::)why are we not on  the Japanese Embassy doorstep screaming..abuse..... ::) if you want real socialism you have to take control of everything.. and that wont happen.you cannot expect everyone to spend their money the way you would want them too..humans are not made that way..we change with every generation.unlike our four footed friends.

Cods is a fruity loopy  :-?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 3:48pm:

... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:54pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:51pm: ... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:45pm: ... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:22pm: Quote: Socialism doesn't require an altered nature of man to work.  Yes it does. Or if not, why hasn't it worked so far? bump I really don't want to have to repeat things in the article. Why dont you read it, it wont take you long and then we can continue the discussion with the questions that you have Done. Now the question I have is, if it's not an altered nature of man that socialism requires to "work", what is it? I see it took you all of 2 minutes to read. Well done.  Its the nature that we are.  Much like Einstein described. We have individual tendencies and social tendencies and that's the nature that Einstein understood we had and nevertheless concluded with words to the effect that "I am convinced that socialism is the way to go.  I'm surprised that I should be telling you this given that you read the article.  You must have missed it in all that 2 minutes of consideration that you gave it.  I suspect the North Koreans would behave in the same way if you told them that their Dear Leader is not really a God.  But seriously I'm not interested in debating you for the sake of debating. We've seen already how you answer your own questions because your not really focusing on what is actually being said either in the article or what I post.  I have to go now but I will be back in a few hours and if your serious about discussing this I would very much appreciate it if you did in fact read that article because i think it will save us a lot of time. Regards see you then I hope.

Mate, I read your crappy article hours ago, and didn't think much of it. 


Quote:

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

He thinks that because some qualities can be altered to some extent, that everything can be.  He pins his hopes on everyone, everywhere simultaneously abandoning fundamental and universal human behaviours.

So much for socialism not requiring an "altered nature of man" eh? 



Quote:

Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The need to belong to something bigger is indeed a driving force, but he neglects its counterpart, the need to exclude.  For there to be an ingroup, there must also be an outgroup, or there is no satisfaction.  An organisation is as defined as much by it's members as by who its exclusivity.  Being a member of "society" means nothing if everyone has to be a member. 

It's an understandable oversight for an aspie.  As they are always on the outside looking in, they don't experience the view from the inside looking out.

if thats the case its also clear the

POT IS CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK.....

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 4:02pm:

Einstein sailed to the United States ?, the home of free enterprise then wrote about socialism/communism being the ants pants ? shame on Albert

Why? Wasn't he allowed to be a free thinker.  He went to America and therefore had to .,..what? stop being a free thinker.  Had to say he was a capitalist when he wasn't. You're in Australia. Does that mean you have to like Aussie rules over league. What happened to a free society. Grow up!!!!  In any case the Americans wanted Einstein to come to the US because they wanted him to help build the bomb but most importantly they wanted to make sure the Germans didn't get their hands on him and help them build the bomb.   

...

....

cods wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 5:44pm:

if thats the case its also clear the POT IS CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK.....

Calm down. You're losing it. More then normal I mean. 

.....   

cods wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:58pm: Many people confuse socialism and communism. Communism failed, and deserved to fail, because of its corruption and insane economic planning. Socialism lives on because many people recognise there are a ton of things people can only do collectively rather than as individuals. Socialists like myself also now only strong government can protect the weak from the powerful and strong. I don't hate profit, far from it, profit creates jobs. But it is how the profit is distributed that is the key. you do see dont you peter... how we SPEND our share of the profit..[wage] is what its all about... some people buy grog or gamble or smoke or eat fast food...they spread their money around that way,.. others buy shares or property or pay off their own home.. which btw was anti Labor years ago every home owner was a capitalist... ;) ;)... socialism is a myth in my opinion.. or a fantasy...its a good way of saying well I have done my bit...like greenies tying themselves to trees.. and now whaling boats.. it all makes sense to them and they cannot understand why the rest of us sit back and shake our heads... ::) ::)why are we not on  the Japanese Embassy doorstep screaming..abuse..... ::) if you want real socialism you have to take control of everything.. and that wont happen.you cannot expect everyone to spend their money the way you would want them too..humans are not made that way..we change with every generation.unlike our four footed friends.

You know I started to write you a reply and then I thought.  Nah! You know there are so many misconceptions here. This person has NEVER ONCE in all her years bothered to find out or enquire for even a moment about what she's telling everyone is a myth or fantasy.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  You live in a country where at least that information is available to you. All you have to do is lift a finger to find and study it and you p!ss it a way without a moments thought. I have a lot more respect for the poor citizens of North Korea, whose govt works assiduously to make sure that they only have access to the information the govt wants them to see and understandably many of them turn out to be vegetables.  But you!!! There is no excuse for you. You are lucky to live in a country where revolutionaries, civil libertarians, trade unionists and tree huggers fought and died to make sure that you had the right to your freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to protest and freedom of information and NOT ONCE did you go beyond what you were being told by your Daily Telegraph minders to find out the truth about what they told you to hate so much.  You disgust me!!!! Socialism doesn't care what you SPEND your $$$ on. That"s your business. And despite what you may want, the great traditions of western libertarianism that say you can tie yourself to a tree to make a point and protest will continue unabated under the socialist systems that we want. And if you want to sit back and shake your head in disgust that will and must be protected too.  And you're a fool if you don't feel proud and safe that you live in that kind of country (fought for by your revolutionary, libertarians, trade union and tree hugging ancestors) that, for the moment, affords you those rights.    

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 7:20pm:

You know I started to write you a reply and then I thought.  Nah! You know there are so many misconceptions here. This person has NEVER ONCE in all her years bothered to find out or enquire for even a moment about what she's telling everyone is a myth or fantasy.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  You live in a country where at least that information is available to you. All you have to do is lift a finger to find and study it and you p!ss it a way without a moments thought. I have a lot more respect for the poor citizens of North Korea, whose govt works assiduously to make sure that they only have access to the information the govt wants them to see and understandably many of them turn out to be vegetables.  But you!!! There is no excuse for you. You are lucky to live in a country where revolutionaries, civil libertarians, trade unionists and tree huggers fought and died to make sure that you had the right to your freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to protest and freedom of information and NOT ONCE did you go beyond what you were being told by your Daily Telegraph minders to find out the truth about what they told you to hate so much.  You disgust me!!!! Socialism doesn't care what you SPEND your $$$ on. That"s your business. And despite what you may want, the great traditions of western libertarianism that say you can tie yourself to a tree to make a point and protest will continue unabated under the socialist systems that we want. And if you want to sit back and shake your head in disgust that will and must be protected too.  And you're a fool if you don't feel proud and safe that you live in that kind of country (fought for by your revolutionary, libertarians, trade union and tree hugging ancestors) that, for the moment, affords you those rights.

I like to call it 'wilful and wanton ignorance', Spartacus.

The info/facts are there and available, but some simply refuse to avail themselves of it.

Cods is only one of the practitioners present on the forum, but is certainly one of the
more obvious ones.

And yes, it seems that many who decry socialism are actually thinking of communism, which is not
the same thing at all.

Good article, BTW :-)

...

... wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 5:19pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:48pm: ... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:54pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:51pm: ... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:45pm: ... wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 1:22pm: Quote: Socialism doesn't require an altered nature of man to work.  Yes it does. Or if not, why hasn't it worked so far? bump I really don't want to have to repeat things in the article. Why dont you read it, it wont take you long and then we can continue the discussion with the questions that you have Done. Now the question I have is, if it's not an altered nature of man that socialism requires to "work", what is it? I see it took you all of 2 minutes to read. Well done.  Its the nature that we are.  Much like Einstein described. We have individual tendencies and social tendencies and that's the nature that Einstein understood we had and nevertheless concluded with words to the effect that "I am convinced that socialism is the way to go.  I'm surprised that I should be telling you this given that you read the article.  You must have missed it in all that 2 minutes of consideration that you gave it.  I suspect the North Koreans would behave in the same way if you told them that their Dear Leader is not really a God.  But seriously I'm not interested in debating you for the sake of debating. We've seen already how you answer your own questions because your not really focusing on what is actually being said either in the article or what I post.  I have to go now but I will be back in a few hours and if your serious about discussing this I would very much appreciate it if you did in fact read that article because i think it will save us a lot of time. Regards see you then I hope.  Mate, I read your crappy article hours ago, and didn't think much of it.  [quote] I took out the bit you quoted because I was exceeding my word count. Hope that's OK.

He thinks that because some qualities can be altered to some extent, that everything can be.  He pins his hopes on everyone, everywhere simultaneously abandoning fundamental and universal human behaviours.

So much for socialism not requiring an "altered nature of man" eh? 
Quote:

No! Don't know where you got that bit from where I have highlighted. If you read the passage you quoted more carefully I think you will find that what he is saying is that there are certain biological features about us that are fixed and cant be changed (including our natural urges as human beings) and we also have certain characteristics that we have acquired as a consequence of the cultural/social/environmental conditions we have been raised in AND these last things can be changed.  And so, me speaking now, in India, for example, there is an outcast class of people called the untouchable who most everyone in Indian society shun.  That's a social arrangement that need not exist but does exist in Indian society and if you still ask some people in Indian society today they will have absolutely no doubt that that state of affairs is part of the natural human condition instead of what it really is namely, learnt behaviour.  And Einstein is saying that that kind of social organisation is the very thing that socialism can change.  So its not the nature of man that socialism will change because it cant do that But the sociual structures (including pecking orders for instance) and social arrangements are thyings that socialism will change.  Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The need to belong to something bigger is indeed a driving force, but he neglects its counterpart, the need to exclude.  For there to be an ingroup, there must also be an outgroup, or there is no satisfaction.  An organization is as defined as much by it's members as by who its exclusivity.  Being a member of "society" means nothing if everyone has to be a member.  Not sure about a lot you are saying here.  Are you saying society always needs to have a group within it that is always disadvantaged or persecuted.  If so I dont personally believe that this is part of the natural human condition (indeed I think most people would find the idea abhorrent) Or do you mean that some people might not want to be part of society.  They just want to be loners. As you rightly point out Einstein didn't have anything to say about this because it really had nothing to do with what he was focused on, nameley his reasons for being a socialist.  I personally have no problem with people who want to separate themselves form society and those rights should be respected and most socialist will tell you the same   

It's an understandable oversight for an aspie.  As they are always on the outside looking in, they don't experience the view from the inside looking out.[/quote]

Kat wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 7:34pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 7:20pm: You know I started to write you a reply and then I thought.  Nah! You know there are so many misconceptions here. This person has NEVER ONCE in all her years bothered to find out or enquire for even a moment about what she's telling everyone is a myth or fantasy.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  You live in a country where at least that information is available to you. All you have to do is lift a finger to find and study it and you p!ss it a way without a moments thought. I have a lot more respect for the poor citizens of North Korea, whose govt works assiduously to make sure that they only have access to the information the govt wants them to see and understandably many of them turn out to be vegetables.  But you!!! There is no excuse for you. You are lucky to live in a country where revolutionaries, civil libertarians, trade unionists and tree huggers fought and died to make sure that you had the right to your freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to protest and freedom of information and NOT ONCE did you go beyond what you were being told by your Daily Telegraph minders to find out the truth about what they told you to hate so much.  You disgust me!!!! Socialism doesn't care what you SPEND your $$$ on. That"s your business. And despite what you may want, the great traditions of western libertarianism that say you can tie yourself to a tree to make a point and protest will continue unabated under the socialist systems that we want. And if you want to sit back and shake your head in disgust that will and must be protected too.  And you're a fool if you don't feel proud and safe that you live in that kind of country (fought for by your revolutionary, libertarians, trade union and tree hugging ancestors) that, for the moment, affords you those rights.     I like to call it 'wilful and wanton ignorance', Spartacus. The info/facts are there and available, but some simply refuse to avail themselves of it. Cods is only one of the practitioners present on the forum, but is certainly one of the more obvious ones. And yes, it seems that many who decry socialism are actually thinking of communism, which is not the same thing at all. Good article, BTW :-)

Thanks Kat

Kat wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 7:34pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 7:20pm: You know I started to write you a reply and then I thought.  Nah! You know there are so many misconceptions here. This person has NEVER ONCE in all her years bothered to find out or enquire for even a moment about what she's telling everyone is a myth or fantasy.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  You live in a country where at least that information is available to you. All you have to do is lift a finger to find and study it and you p!ss it a way without a moments thought. I have a lot more respect for the poor citizens of North Korea, whose govt works assiduously to make sure that they only have access to the information the govt wants them to see and understandably many of them turn out to be vegetables.  But you!!! There is no excuse for you. You are lucky to live in a country where revolutionaries, civil libertarians, trade unionists and tree huggers fought and died to make sure that you had the right to your freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to protest and freedom of information and NOT ONCE did you go beyond what you were being told by your Daily Telegraph minders to find out the truth about what they told you to hate so much.  You disgust me!!!! Socialism doesn't care what you SPEND your $$$ on. That"s your business. And despite what you may want, the great traditions of western libertarianism that say you can tie yourself to a tree to make a point and protest will continue unabated under the socialist systems that we want. And if you want to sit back and shake your head in disgust that will and must be protected too.  And you're a fool if you don't feel proud and safe that you live in that kind of country (fought for by your revolutionary, libertarians, trade union and tree hugging ancestors) that, for the moment, affords you those rights.     I like to call it 'wilful and wanton ignorance', Spartacus. The info/facts are there and available, but some simply refuse to avail themselves of it. Cods is only one of the practitioners present on the forum, but is certainly one of the more obvious ones. And yes, it seems that many who decry socialism are actually thinking of communism, which is not the same thing at all. Good article, BTW :-)

Thanks Kat

A free thinking socialist like Albert may have enjoyed life in the Soviet Union and helped out with making their first bomb. The Soviets would have dearly wanted him also ... wonder why he didn't migrate there? A bit too socialist probably and would have had to get in a long queue for blackboard chalk for his next equation

cods wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:58pm: Many people confuse socialism and communism. Communism failed, and deserved to fail, because of its corruption and insane economic planning. Socialism lives on because many people recognise there are a ton of things people can only do collectively rather than as individuals. Socialists like myself also now only strong government can protect the weak from the powerful and strong. I don't hate profit, far from it, profit creates jobs. But it is how the profit is distributed that is the key. you do see dont you peter... how we SPEND our share of the profit..[wage] is what its all about... some people buy grog or gamble or smoke or eat fast food...they spread their money around that way,.. others buy shares or property or pay off their own home.. which btw was anti Labor years ago every home owner was a capitalist... ;) ;)... socialism is a myth in my opinion.. or a fantasy...its a good way of saying well I have done my bit...like greenies tying themselves to trees.. and now whaling boats.. it all makes sense to them and they cannot understand why the rest of us sit back and shake our heads... ::) ::)why are we not on  the Japanese Embassy doorstep screaming..abuse..... ::) if you want real socialism you have to take control of everything.. and that wont happen.you cannot expect everyone to spend their money the way you would want them too..humans are not made that way..we change with every generation.unlike our four footed friends.

When I write of distribution of profits, I mean what % goes to the shareholders and what to the workers.

Socialism is far from a myth, it exists in many parts of the world. There are elements of it in Australian society, for example.

Directed at sparticus

Well I don't think you've yet defined the socialism you lovingly revere ... obviously not a Soviet Union type socialism, not a Mao type nor a Pol Pot type ... so just what then ? the capitalist/communist type in China maybe? or the Oligarchy type we have here in OZ?

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:40pm:

A free thinking socialist like Albert may have enjoyed life in the Soviet Union and helped out with making their first bomb. The Soviets would have dearly wanted him also ... wonder why he didn't migrate there? A bit too socialist probably and would have had to get in a long queue for blackboard chalk for his next equation

Well I expect a few reason including that he was a jew and also that the US offered him a pretty cushy job and probably most importantly he didn't want to live in a totalitarian country (socialist or otherwise). But some how you got this idea that if he went to America he had to stop being him.  Your reasoning doesn't really seem to make much sense to me. 

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:40pm:

A free thinking socialist like Albert may have enjoyed life in the Soviet Union and helped out with making their first bomb. The Soviets would have dearly wanted him also ... wonder why he didn't migrate there? A bit too socialist probably and would have had to get in a long queue for blackboard chalk for his next equation

Well I expect a few reason including that he was a jew and also that the US offered him a pretty cushy job and probably most importantly he didn't want to live in a totalitarian country (socialist or otherwise). But some how you got this idea that if he went to America he had to stop being him.  Your reasoning doesn't really seem to make much sense to me. 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:32pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:40pm: A free thinking socialist like Albert may have enjoyed life in the Soviet Union and helped out with making their first bomb. The Soviets would have dearly wanted him also ... wonder why he didn't migrate there? A bit too socialist probably and would have had to get in a long queue for blackboard chalk for his next equation Well I expect a few reason including that he was a jew and also that the US offered him a pretty cushy job and probably most importantly he didn't want to live in a totalitarian country (socialist or otherwise). But some how you got this idea that if he went to America he had to stop being him.  Your reasoning doesn't really seem to make much sense to me.

Bias appears to be another who confuses socialism with communism.

What is the difference?

google
microsoft
cisco
coca cola
marriot
fed ex
american express
mars
walmart
bmw
mercedes
monsanto
novartis
nike
disney
sony
apple


capitalism built every bit of the modern world you inhabit. it dragged you out of the sqaullor and melancholy world of oliver twist


socialism....a few farm collectives growing spuds and turnips....what a f^^king joke. ;), go get another bowl of porridge, ingratitude to our glorious capitalist entrepreneurs from those who never risked anything, tried anything or built anything in their lives.

green eyes much ;) ;)

"Your reasoning doesn't really seem to make much sense to me." - ImSpartacus2

Perhaps it's my turn now and advise you to grow up ... but what I'd rather do is advise you to read and understand the US constitution. It provides for free speech but not the type of socialism Albert talks about ...His socialism would have been unconstitutional, but then, Albert was probably a United Nations advocate and may have cared little for the US constitution.

"Bias appears to be another who confuses socialism with communism." - Kat

I did ask this question, aimed at spartacus, you can answer it if you like...

"Well I don't think you've yet defined the socialism you lovingly revere ... obviously not a Soviet Union type socialism, not a Mao type nor a Pol Pot type ... so just what then ? the capitalist/communist type in China maybe? or the Oligarchy type we have here in OZ?"

.

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:16pm:

Directed at sparticus Well I don't think you've yet defined the socialism you lovingly revere ... obviously not a Soviet Union type socialism, not a Mao type nor a Pol Pot type ... so just what then ? the capitalist/communist type in China maybe? or the Oligarchy type we have here in OZ?

OK I'll start by posting here a definition of socialism in Wikipedia.  But as you will see it talks about different models of socialism and different degrees of various aspects and I'll talk about that after I post the quote now:-

"Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

A socialist economic system is based on the organizational precept of production for use, meaning the production of goods and services to directly satisfy economic demand and human needs where objects are valued based on their use-value or utility, as opposed to being structured upon the accumulation of capital and production for profit." The yellow highlighting is mine." 

Now as you can see from the quote socialism is just the economic system but that economic system can clearly be a source of exploitation and oppression unless it is coupled with an appropriate political system in place to ensure that it all operates for the benefit of the community. But the current political system in Australia, the Representative Government model doesn't work anymore for the benefit of the Australian community (rather it works for the benefit of an elite and often an internationals elite, including US, Japanese Chinese business interests etc) and indeed this is the same with almost every representative government in most every country in the developed and developing world.  So to protect ourselves to ensure that the economic system is not hijacked again by a ruling elite I believe we need a Direct Democracy where we no longer choose representatives to make decisions for us but we the people make those decisions ourselves.  And I'm sure you will have lots of questions about how the DD will operate given the limited time people will have on their hands etc and I will be happy to go into that later but for the moment what I want to say about the socialist aspect of the model is this. 

The extent of social ownership of the means of production we have will be determined by the people in a direct democracy. In most cases private property and private businesses will still exist but larger businesses especially those that provide essential services and essential infrastructure will be operated to ensure that they deliver the best service for the cheapest price for the benefit of the community.  I think thats enough to go on with for the moment and see if your interested to take it further after that.      

.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:47pm:

google microsoft cisco coca cola marriot fed ex american express mars walmart bmw mercedes monsanto novartis nike disney sony apple capitalism built every bit of the modern world you inhabit. it dragged you out of the sqaullor and melancholy world of oliver twist socialism....a few farm collectives growing spuds and turnips....what a f^^king joke. ;), go get another bowl of porridge, ingratitude to our glorious capitalist entrepreneurs from those who never risked anything, tried anything or built anything in their lives. green eyes much ;) ;)

Well that's cr@p and the companies you mention are some of the worst abusers in human history and certainly do not work for the interests of the community but for themselves which of course is what they are designed to do as capitalist institutions. They work fine for themselves but are destructive to their communities.    

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:56pm:

"Your reasoning doesn't really seem to make much sense to me." - ImSpartacus2 Perhaps it's my turn now and advise you to grow up ... but what I'd rather do is advise you to read and understand the US constitution. It provides for free speech but not the type of socialism Albert talks about ...His socialism would have been unconstitutional, but then, Albert was probably a United Nations advocate and may have cared little for the US constitution.

I have read the US constitution BUT Are we in America here. Are you in America? You know were in Aust right so when the US constitution guarantees free speech it does not do so for Australians.  You understand that don't you.  And when the US supreme court says that the free speech guarantees in the US constitution also apply to companies, they are not also pronouncing that as the law for Aust.  You know that don't you.  You know that Aust is an independent country from the US don't you???

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:56pm:

"Your reasoning doesn't really seem to make much sense to me." - ImSpartacus2 Perhaps it's my turn now and advise you to grow up ... but what I'd rather do is advise you to read and understand the US constitution. It provides for free speech but not the type of socialism Albert talks about ...His socialism would have been unconstitutional, but then, Albert was probably a United Nations advocate and may have cared little for the US constitution.

I have read the US constitution BUT Are we in America here. Are you in America? You know were in Aust right so when the US constitution guarantees free speech it does not do so for Australians.  You understand that don't you.  And when the US supreme court says that the free speech guarantees in the US constitution also apply to companies, they are not also pronouncing that as the law for Aust.  You know that don't you.  You know that Aust is an independent country from the US don't you???

".....You know were in Aust right so when the US constitution guarantees free speech it does not do so for Australians......" - Spartacus


Funny! I thought we were talking about Albert migrating to America and then writing about socialism in a capitalist free enterprise system guaranteed by their constitution ... Nothing about Aust in that, think before you type, it helps

"Why Socialism By Albert Einstein"

Ah yes of course..Utopia.Unfortunately though this planet is filled by humans (imperfect so and so's)...GO FIND ANOTHER

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:40pm:

A free thinking socialist like Albert may have enjoyed life in the Soviet Union and helped out with making their first bomb. The Soviets would have dearly wanted him also ... wonder why he didn't migrate there? A bit too socialist probably and would have had to get in a long queue for blackboard chalk for his next equation

;) ;)

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 10:27pm:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 9:47pm: google microsoft cisco coca cola marriot fed ex american express mars walmart bmw mercedes monsanto novartis nike disney sony apple capitalism built every bit of the modern world you inhabit. it dragged you out of the sqaullor and melancholy world of oliver twist socialism....a few farm collectives growing spuds and turnips....what a f^^king joke. ;), go get another bowl of porridge, ingratitude to our glorious capitalist entrepreneurs from those who never risked anything, tried anything or built anything in their lives. green eyes much ;) ;) Well that's cr@p and the companies you mention are some of the worst abusers in human history and certainly do not work for the interests of the community but for themselves which of course is what they are designed to do as capitalist institutions. They work fine for themselves but are destructive to their communities.

oh spartan, ;), typed on your dell (capitalist) computer using your microsoft (capitalist) software.  you have certainly embraced destruction.

as have most of the leftards with their constant threads calling for the NBN or electric cars or qantas jobs, or more money for some pharmaceutical that hasnt been listed on the pbs.

who do you think provided all this for you....pol pot, fidel castro, kim jon ill.

the best system , by far , is one where

1  the government does no more than set the rules by which the capitalists play.  it provides as few services as possible and outsources everything to the people who know how to RUN things  (the capitalists)

2 the government recognises that SMALL business is more accountable and less able to corrupt government officials so it sets up a RIGOROUS competition policy and prevents the establishment of harmful duopolies (woolworths/coles) and splits up big businesses to make them , effectively small entrepreneurial businesses.


silicon valley is the perfect example of what can be achieved with this vibrant form of small business venture capitalism.

remember BIG BUSINESS is no longer interested in competing and living by the principles of lean mean hungry capitalism. its boards are full of managerial bureaucrats who could easily be likened to career public servants.  so we tear down big monopolies and we nurture competition in our young vibrant business sector and the socialists who want to sit on the sidelines and sook can f^^King join in or miss out.

this is progress ;) ;)

"....So to protect ourselves to ensure that the economic system is not hijacked again by a ruling elite I believe we need a Direct Democracy where we no longer choose representatives to make decisions for us but we the people make those decisions ourselves....." - Spartacus


Crikey! sounds like a French revolution is required  :-/  then again I think it would require Oz to become independent and the adoption of a US Founding Fathers original intent of their constitution, keeping in mind that while they did elect representatives, they combined the wishes of minorities with majorities when policy/law making, unlike mob rule Democracies elsewhere including our own. I wouldn't complain about independence from foreign elite

As for your Direct Democracy idea, well the Liberal and Labor parties would argue that they carry out your socialist needs and wants anyway, that's what you elect them for, so why would you want to abandon them? Watch out they don't put you through a "Pauline Hanson" type court case for bucking the system

No, socialism in Democracies eventually runs out of money as is happening now in Aust, we have a trillion dollar debt and borrowing more all the time. Have we got a Stop Borrowing party yet? we've got everything else imaginable

.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 6:45am:

capitalism built every bit of the modern world you inhabit.

What an absurd thing to say.  You've been peddling your unconscionable BS propaganda for so long you can't even see how transparently false it is.  Keep reading for a glimpse of just how ridiculous you are.


aquascoot wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 6:45am:

oh spartan, ;), typed on your dell (capitalist) computer using your microsoft (capitalist) software.  you have certainly embraced destruction.

And I'm communicating with you right now over THE INTERNET. Invented by Govt employees and commissioned planned and paid for by a govt Agency, in turn paid for by the taxpayer.  What was it you said again "capitalism built every bit of the modern world you inhabit. At least 2 of the companies you listed earlier in this thread would not survive today if it were not for the ground breaking work of the Govt enterprise that spawned them. And this is what capitalism does. It steals the credit and takes the profits for the hard work and dedication of others. So much for capitalism rewarding merit.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg.  Capitalism is constantly pilfering the inventions and innovations of the people's govt enterprises and gobbling up the credit and profits for itself. GPS (Govt invention), Google Maps (Govt), WiFi (CSIRO. Just 1 in a long list of interventions and innovations re-badged by business as though it was theirs), onscreen windowing with a mouse, otherwise known to you as Windows and Unix, the cloud and Siri. To name just a very few.


aquascoot wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 6:45am:

the best system , by far , is one where 1  the government does no more than set the rules by which the capitalists play.  it provides as few services as possible and outsources everything to the people who know how to RUN things  (the capitalists)

Yes we have all seen what capitalism does when its allowed its head and unregulated, from horrendous working conditions to exploitation of children (I see Nike is one of the companies you most admire - If you really employ people I feel very sorry for them) to plunging the world in economic disaster, to fracking that pollutes the water supply and nuclear contamination that threatens the health of masses of people and renders whole tracts of living, farming and fishing space unusable for decades.  The Gulf of Mexico is a dead zone now thanks to capitalism gone mad 

As for private enterprise knowing how to RUN THINGS better. Well that's just a monumental lie perpetrated by capitalist propaganda to steal govt assets and business. If privatization has proved anything its that private enterprise delivers a more expensive lower quality product. Park your car at any privatized airport and see how capitalism gouges. Selling Telstra was supposed to deliver cheaper telephone costs - what a joke. Its all a lie. And the government enterprises I could list for pages that out class private enterprise at every turn from putting the first men in space and on the moon to building roads, railways, and that remarkable snowy mountains scheme and running schools and hospitals.  You just have to watch a few minutes of the ABC compared to those crappy commercial TV channels (and OMG the absolute con that pay TV is with those endless re-runs and commercials) to realise that govt enterprises are better quality and far more innovative. 


aquascoot wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 6:45am:

2 the government recognises that SMALL business is more accountable and less able to corrupt government officials so it sets up a RIGOROUS competition policy and prevents the establishment of harmful duopolies (woolworths/coles) and splits up big businesses to make them , effectively small entrepreneurial businesses.

This is absolute tripe.  You have been peddling this cr@p ever since the 90s when Regan in the US and Howard in Australia realised that they could sell their big business friendly policies more effectively if they marketed them as polices for small business (as if they are the little guy).  Because small business is painted in this light and less visible then big business their abuses of consumers, their employees and tax and labour law tends to be the worst.  Just go down any street lined with coffee shops and retail stores on any business day and see how many workers are being paid under the table and under the the minimum wage.


aquascoot wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 6:45am:

remember BIG BUSINESS is no longer interested in competing and living by the principles of lean mean hungry capitalism.

Agreed. 


aquascoot wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 6:45am:

so we tear down big monopolies (No we don't, we just pretend to) and we nurture competition in our young vibrant business sector Who, as evidenced in this forum, are constantly calling for wages, conditions and social services to be cut and then expect us to support them. Be smart. Contain your greed, give the other bloke a go and we will be able to work together. Otherwise you only have yourself to blame

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 11:01am:

"....So to protect ourselves to ensure that the economic system is not hijacked again by a ruling elite I believe we need a Direct Democracy where we no longer choose representatives to make decisions for us but we the people make those decisions ourselves....." - Spartacus Crikey! sounds like a French revolution is required  :-/  then again I think it would require Oz to become independent and the adoption of a US Founding Fathers original intent of their constitution, keeping in mind that while they did elect representatives, they combined the wishes of minorities with majorities when policy/law making, unlike mob rule Democracies elsewhere including our own. I wouldn't complain about independence from foreign elite As for your Direct Democracy idea, well the Liberal and Labor parties would argue that they carry out your socialist needs and wants anyway, that's what you elect them for, so why would you want to abandon them? Watch out they don't put you through a "Pauline Hanson" type court case for bucking the system No, socialism in Democracies eventually runs out of money as is happening now in Aust, we have a trillion dollar debt and borrowing more all the time. Have we got a Stop Borrowing party yet? we've got everything else imaginable

What did you think, this was going to be easy. Did you think that those in power (and I don't mean Labor and Liberal but the $$$ elite who pull their strings) were just going to hand it to you on a platter. When the American's wanted to get rid of their English king they knew exactly that. That they would have to have a French style revolution. Yes, and like the Americans we would need to develop a constitution that would return genuine power to the people (a direct democracy) and the wealth that we generate in this country for the benefit of the people (a socialist system) where capital, the financial sector, is owned and controlled by us for our benefit and not by America, Europe or China for the benefit and enrichment of foreign interests.  As for your view that labor and Lib are socialist, there could be nothing further from the truth IMO.  I do think you have the wrong conception about socialism  (for instance I notice in some posts of yours on other threads you were concerned that Aust post would be sold off. Well if anything is socialist is that.  If you want to keep Aust Post in the communities hands I would say that you are not as opposed to socialism as you may believe. Also as to the issue of national debt can I say this.  Have a look at Switzerland which has the closest thing to a direct democracy in the modern world (though by no means adequate) and they have never been known to vote themselves tax cuts. Even though they could. On the whole I believe that the people would be much more fiscally responsible (and much more responsive to the interests of the whole community) then representative governments who are always trying to buy support from special interest groups. 

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 11:01am:

"....So to protect ourselves to ensure that the economic system is not hijacked again by a ruling elite I believe we need a Direct Democracy where we no longer choose representatives to make decisions for us but we the people make those decisions ourselves....." - Spartacus Crikey! sounds like a French revolution is required  :-/  then again I think it would require Oz to become independent and the adoption of a US Founding Fathers original intent of their constitution, keeping in mind that while they did elect representatives, they combined the wishes of minorities with majorities when policy/law making, unlike mob rule Democracies elsewhere including our own. I wouldn't complain about independence from foreign elite As for your Direct Democracy idea, well the Liberal and Labor parties would argue that they carry out your socialist needs and wants anyway, that's what you elect them for, so why would you want to abandon them? Watch out they don't put you through a "Pauline Hanson" type court case for bucking the system No, socialism in Democracies eventually runs out of money as is happening now in Aust, we have a trillion dollar debt and borrowing more all the time. Have we got a Stop Borrowing party yet? we've got everything else imaginable

What did you think, this was going to be easy. Did you think that those in power (and I don't mean Labor and Liberal but the $$$ elite who pull their strings) were just going to hand it to you on a platter. When the American's wanted to get rid of their English king they knew exactly that. That they would have to have a French style revolution. Yes, and like the Americans we would need to develop a constitution that would return genuine power to the people (a direct democracy) and the wealth that we generate in this country for the benefit of the people (a socialist system) where capital, the financial sector, is owned and controlled by us for our benefit and not by America, Europe or China for the benefit and enrichment of foreign interests.  As for your view that labor and Lib are socialist, there could be nothing further from the truth IMO.  I do think you have the wrong conception about socialism  (for instance I notice in some posts of yours on other threads you were concerned that Aust post would be sold off. Well if anything is socialist is that.  If you want to keep Aust Post in the communities hands I would say that you are not as opposed to socialism as you may believe. Also as to the issue of national debt can I say this.  Have a look at Switzerland which has the closest thing to a direct democracy in the modern world (though by no means adequate) and they have never been known to vote themselves tax cuts. Even though they could. On the whole I believe that the people would be much more fiscally responsible (and much more responsible to the interests of the whole community) then representative governments who are always trying to buy support from special interest groups.