Fuzzball wrote on Feb 17^th, 2019 at 2:51pm:


Is he related to Groucho?

Harpo did it, but he won't give a verbal confession... bastard won't talk...

marxs philosophy has a lot of appeal
"from each according to his abilities , to each according to his needs".

the problem is that it has been tried again and again and again and it simply does not work.
(venezuela with 3 million people fleeing starvation is the latest example).


capitalism says "you must provide a service or goods that other people want or you may starve".
that sounds pretty bleak.
certainly marx sounds more pleasant.
capitalism forces you to put others first.
socialism encourages you to think of yourself.
capitalism forces you to be a contributor
socialism says that its ok to be a taker.

think of your personal relationships with your family, your children, your neighbours.

which works better?

how much can i take from my parents
how much can i get from my neighbours

or how much can i give to my parents, to my children, to my community. how best can i "serve" them.

capitalism and the market are simply awesome.

you now have running water, hot and cold, a reliable car, food of every variety, the best of medicines, a smartphone that is smarter then all the computers that launched appollo 11.
you have so much to be grateful to market capitalism for.

if you cant see that, you are screwed. you have decided to try to take instead of to give.
you are stifled, constipated, mean, envious and stuck.
you are spinning your wheels.
until you understand that you must give first before you can recieve , there is no hope for you.

you would be better off in venezeula where everyone is miserable and thinking only about their sad little story because thats what you vibe with. thats your emotional set point and we always want to go back to our emotional set point

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2019 at 8:10am:



nope.

in capitalism, you offer value TO ANOTHER before you recieve.

in socialism, you expect to be able to take from others just because you have a pulse

aquascoot wrote on Feb 18^th, 2019 at 8:48am:


Both 'systems' fall down over the innate greed and selfishness of those who end up at 'the top' in the system.

Neither is viable in isolation, and both need proper regulation by a balanced and fair-minded government which works for all.

Utopian perhaps - but that is the theory - and it is no more 'utopian' than the myths of capitalism rampant and socialism rampant.  All viable governments are a mix, without one or the other being dominant, that mix, of course, is up to the democratic process of each individual nation (and therein may lie another problem).

Point is, this mixed system will always be fluid - and fluidity rather than rigidity is its strength*... I'll go out on a limb here and say that EVERY rigid system of governance becomes calcified and despotic.....

If you doubt me look at both LNP and Labor - calcified and determined to push their personal ideology down the throats of everyone else (sic)  - don't bother too much with the minors...  massive change is required in our system of government and of governance.

*that is not intended as a gender-based description, and is in no way intended to give aid and comfort to 'feminists' and their running dogs, who obviously would love to draw inference from it about the rigidity of the mighty penis ..... it is purely a description of functioning of a governance system

BOTR!

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2019 at 8:10am:


Indeed.

The Reboot wrote on Feb 18^th, 2019 at 12:54pm:


It pisses off the Corbynistas.