Turquoise wrote:
Regardless of the government involved, the worst in human nature is most often exhibited once people acquire power.
The only saving grace to our system is that we're so factionalized via special interests that most of the rich and powerful spend more time fighting each other than they do oppressing us. It's when the rich and powerful actually work together that we get fucked hardest -- like with the bailouts.
So, it's not survival of the fittest -- it's survival of the richest, but that's true of every system mankind has come up with since we left the caves. Before survival of the richest came about, it was survival of the most brutal.
Survival of the fittest only applies to animals below our intellect. With humans, it's never been that way except in the rarest of situations.
Is it really the worst? Is one person clambering for success worse than no one going for it?
I don't believe we could ever truly be oppressed in the America I know today. I think we like to whine bitch and moan like we are being oppressed, but if there was truly any great hardship that was the direct result of government corruption there would be a lot of pissed off people with a lot of guns. Life sucks, but it doesn't suck
that bad in the U.S.
It's got nothing to do with survival of the fittest really. It's just that the most industrious of us gaining power at the limited expense of others is not such a bad thing for society as a whole. It comes down to what you believe is more important, the success of the individual or the success of the whole. Paradoxically you have to give power to the few for the success of the whole is part of my point.
Home wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Zukabazuka wrote:
"The reason America has been so successful in its history, even including its smooth inception and early transitions, is because it relies on the skill and wisdom of the best"
Like getting black people and use them as slavery and pay them shit?
Precisely.
You think that was wise? Bringing a huge chunk of the population to this nation as slaves has caused nothing but conflict, and it will continue to do that for probably another 100 years. It provided cheap labor that fueled almost the entire economy of the South before the civil war, but even that wasn't beneficial in the long run because all those jobs could have gone to American citizens (reducing poverty) which also could have possibly prevented the civil war from happening in the first place. Other countries such as the Netherlands accepted a higher degree of cultural diversity, and became incredibly economically strong. We would be better off today if slavery hadn't happened.
Okay just to deal with it up front, economically the U.S. is better off for slavery. I can't believe you seriously think the South would have had the same economic prosperity without it.
For the country as a whole, it is hard to say if we would have been better with or without it. It's a massive what if that encompasses so many issues you could answer it either way. What I do know however is that certain groups of people will always get the short end of the stick, but if that is the expense of national success...the greatest good for the greatest number of people right?
Dilbert_X wrote:
Yeah, I really admire the US.
You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, you
have to recognize our significance on the global stage. I also think it would be smart to attempt to understand what put us there, but that's your choice.
Braddock wrote:
I'm sorry Flaming Maniac but your OP is full of shit. It makes you sound like someone who's entire life experience and world view comes from a book. How exactly does socialism "done right" rely on smothering the best? I live in a socialist country and I can tell you there are no wage caps here, there are no ceilings on success, there are no limits to what I can achieve should I set my mind to it, there are no programs of talent or intelligence 'equalisation'. I myself am studying for a PHD thanks to a research program funded by... yes, you guessed it... the Government; how dare they stifle my talent by paying me for my attempts to advance our base of knowledge in the field of technology. The only major difference between my socialist country and your capitalist country is that we pay more taxes here and attempt to foster a society where we all look out for each other a little... the idea being that you yourself might need a hand if you're down on your luck some day.
What book would that be? I would be interested to read a book about me.
You don't live in a socialist country where the government owns the means of production. Your governement, as with most in the world and particularly in Europe, have certain socialist-esque policies to be sure. You really, really aren't socialist though. Certainly enough so that you can't talk about your country in a discussion of the theoretical ideal. :/
Braddock wrote:
Your views on Communism are also quite frankly ridiculous being that Communism has never actually been "done right" on this planet. Also, one could argue that cut-throat capitalism also reduces humans to robots in the sense that one becomes a slave to the almighty dollar. You can labour under the idea that invading countries and killing people in order to look out for one's own interests is okay... but you'd be fooling yourself to a certain extent. Relativism seems to be the new "truth" these days but at the end of the day one must ask themselves how they would feel if they were on the receiving end before deciding if their actions are right or wrong.
I know it hasn't, I thought I made that pretty clear in the OP. Communism
in theory, "where religion is nonexistent, outside influences are nil, and the last ruler has stamped out domestic opposition for at least two generations," has yet to see the light of day. That doesn't mean we can't look at the theory to bring other, more interesting theories into sharp relief.
The idea expressed in the last sentence is essentially what I am refuting. The golden rule seems nice, but when you get right down to it you
need some people to be the brilliant assholes in order for a culture as a whole to move forward.
Braddock wrote:
You talk about people viewing the world in black and white and yet seemingly put forward the American world view as being absolutely right. The main reason capitalism held sway in the United States is that in an area so vast it was the only economic model that would work and sustain itself. Communism would never have worked, just look at the failures of the equally vast USSR. So congratulations, you have a society based on mankind's most base and primitive instincts... well done.
I am presenting an idea in hopes someone can prove me wrong, at least in some aspect. If I didn't either a) find the discussion fun or b) think talking through it with people would refine my ideas then why would I post in the first place?
Do what you know. I'm not convinced that a society that is not at least loosely based on our instincts could survive.
Braddock wrote:
Your OP completely neglects what I regard to be the most important aspect of maintaining a successful, functional society in this world... moderation.
There must be moderation in the implementation. There is not a pure government on the face of the planet though, so I don't think we need to worry so much about that. You have to figure out the essentials to a successful society to know what to use in moderation.
Varegg wrote:
So define socialism then FM seeing as you know better what kind of governments we have in Europe :P
And is it really only one way to execute socialistic policy for it to be called socialism ?
Edit: Also you are infact the one painting the world black or white when you disregard the fact that there is variations between US capitalism and communism, you only bring up the "perfect" sense of those two.
Ummm...yeah, you have to have a government with socialist policy to call it socialism. Which is why I wouldn't define most European governments as socialist. Most more so than the U.S. to be sure, but still.
I know there are variations in the U.S. as well, which is why I never said we have a pure form of anything mentioned. Still, I believe our success can be attributed to about half luck and half basic principles derived from the general theory.
Uzique wrote:
I didn't respond to that thread because my original posts were deleted and an AWM was issued due to off topic posting; I mean come on, are you fucking kidding me? As if I would turn down the opportunity to rip you a new asshole over the topic of Shakespeare- I see nothing out of you that qualifies as anything more than dilettanteism. You had a superficial understanding of Shakespeare and now expect a careful point-by-point analysis of your half-arsed 'political' ramblings? If your 'essay' even had a point or focus then perhaps I could find something to argue with; a few poorly construed points about socialism, America and communism don't really leave me with much to say in regards of actual serious critique. I apologise. Perhaps if you understood socialism and communism then I could more properly engage with you, for now this will remain under my original classification of 'arse-talk preceding a hand-on-chest God Bless America oath'.
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
People trying to "win" in any manner they can, regardless of where the debate is. People should be in dissension to further understanding, not for some archaic need for dominance.
I'm going to assume you know that I can see deleted posts and issued AWMs, and that you're not stupid enough to lie to me. That said you are confusing that thread with
this one.
You hide your lack of wit and lack of original ideas behind a wall of words. If I have severely misjudged you, I apologize. Otherwise I leave you with a quote I'm sure you're familiar with.
"Think like a wise man but communicate in the language of the people." - William Butler Yeats
