Designer capitalism

[Hermit]

Seth and sandinista seem much more willing to bash us centrists than each other, for some reason...

That's easy to explain. Seth regards the likes of Obama as communists and sandinista regards anyone who is not a communist as the running dogs of capitalist pigs. There is no middle ground for either of them.

[Seabass]

I'm not sure about the "social welfare" thing. When the US, for most of its history, had the highest standard of living in the world (until just a few years ago, this was still true - although it is generally no longer considered to have the highest standard of living, it's still high up there). Since the US has always been considered the leading "capitalist" country, one would think - if what you say is true - that the welfare of Americans would have traditionally been worse than that of the rest of the world, particularly the non-capitalist world. Clearly, that is not the case. It just isn't. In fact, although correlation does not equal causation (necessarily), there is a correlation between the ranking of the US as a "free market economy" dropping and the standard of living in the country also dropping. One might legitimately wonder if there is a connection.

This.

It's not enough for the left to devour and destroy everything in its path; they blame capitalism while doing it.

They've got big fucking gonads, you have to give 'em that.

[FBM]

I think it's really just humans devouring and destroying. Capitalist, communist, socialist, or whatever is an afterthought. Maybe just slightly different methods of achieving the same conquest of the planet's resources.

[PsychoSerenity]

I think it's really just humans devouring and destroying. Capitalist, communist, socialist, or whatever is an afterthought. Maybe just slightly different methods of achieving the same conquest of the planet's resources.

Good point, although I prefer the socialist fair sharing method, it doesn't have anything inherently built in for sustainability - which is one of the good things about the Venus Project/Zeitgeist Movement.

[Seth]

would you like me to call homeland security since you are frightened to do so

but first, let me call some friends on the force.

Nah, just PM me your info. I'll call them.

[Seth]

I think it's really just humans devouring and destroying. Capitalist, communist, socialist, or whatever is an afterthought. Maybe just slightly different methods of achieving the same conquest of the planet's resources.

Good point, although I prefer the socialist fair sharing method, it doesn't have anything inherently built in for sustainability - which is one of the good things about the Venus Project/Zeitgeist Movement.

"Socialist fair sharing" is Newspeak for "you work hard and then I'll take the fruits of your labor for my own, because I don't want to work hard, and you have too much anyway."

It's the equivalent of two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

[FBM]

In every socialist state I've heard of, there are those who are more equal than others and who take much more than their share. Socialism seems best suited to small tribes and villages. I don't see how it'll ever work once the workers and leaders become strangers. Strangers are less equal, and thus, expendable in the face of self-interest. I read a neuroscience report once in which this phenomenon was referred to as "self-valence". It's hard-wired in the brain.

[Coito ergo sum]

In every socialist state I've heard of, there are those who are more equal than others and who take much more than their share. Socialism seems best suited to small tribes and villages. I don't see how it'll ever work once the workers and leaders become strangers. Strangers are less equal, and thus, expendable in the face of self-interest. I read a neuroscience report once in which this phenomenon was referred to as "self-valence". It's hard-wired in the brain.

In other words, Orwell was right on target when he wrote "Animal Farm." g

[FBM]

Yeah, that was the allusion. But it's also an indictment of any democratic system that claims its citizens are somehow "equal", however you define the term.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, that was the allusion. But it's also an indictment of any democratic system that claims its citizens are somehow "equal", however you define the term.

Illustrating the wisdom of Jefferson's words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." and echoed by John Adams in the Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: "All men are born free and equal..."

We're all born naked and penniless. We don't stay that way, however.

Back then the "men" part meant literally "males," because women were "self-evidently" not equal back in those days, and for many, if not most, people in the 18th century, black men were not "men." But, the point I'm illustrating is the "at birth" part. Being born equal doesn't mean you stay that way, whether through the largesse of parents, luck of the draw, intelligence, education, or determination.

[FBM]

Somehow I do think that the Kennedys and the Bushes are more equal from the moment they spew out of momma. It's a sure thing that none of them are going to have to pay for their college by slinging burgers or swinging hammers, eh?

And at election time, they've got all the votes pappa can buy, no?

[Coito ergo sum]

Somehow I do think that the Kennedys and the Bushes are more equal from the moment they spew out of momma. It's a sure thing that none of them are going to have to pay for their college by slinging burgers or swinging hammers, eh?

That all depends - in general, you are right that babies born to wealthy parents end up, generally, getting a leg up more often than not.

However, what's the solution? Prohibit parents from doing their best to care for their children? Require me to only care for my child according to the lowest common denominator? If I'm successful, am I to be forbidden to send my child to school, unless and until every other child of every other parent also receives the same?

[FBM]

Set them all on fire?

Nah, that might be wrong.

[.Morticia.]

In every socialist state I've heard of, there are those who are more equal than others and who take much more than their share. Socialism seems best suited to small tribes and villages. I don't see how it'll ever work once the workers and leaders become strangers. Strangers are less equal, and thus, expendable in the face of self-interest. I read a neuroscience report once in which this phenomenon was referred to as "self-valence". It's hard-wired in the brain.

In other words, Orwell was right on target when he wrote "Animal Farm." g

I thought that book was more about how personality, in this case psychopathic personality, is more important in choosing who your comrades are than choosing on ideological purity.

[Coito ergo sum]

In every socialist state I've heard of, there are those who are more equal than others and who take much more than their share. Socialism seems best suited to small tribes and villages. I don't see how it'll ever work once the workers and leaders become strangers. Strangers are less equal, and thus, expendable in the face of self-interest. I read a neuroscience report once in which this phenomenon was referred to as "self-valence". It's hard-wired in the brain.

In other words, Orwell was right on target when he wrote "Animal Farm." g

I thought that book was more about how personality, in this case psychopathic personality, is more important in choosing who your comrades are than choosing on ideological purity.

That must be why it was on the list of "Forbidden Books" in the eastern bloc nations and the Soviet Union until 1989.

But, I never heard of your interpretation of the book. I don't personally see the book as having anything to do with how personality is more important in choosing who your comrades are than choosing on ideological purity. I'm not even sure what, exactly, you mean by that.

It seems to me to be a critique of the Russian revolution and a retelling of the events during the development of Soviet Communism for it's first 30 years, and the rise of Stalin. The Farmer is the Czar, who is overthrown by the animals, and then there is a consolidation of power. The pigs (communists) establish themselves as the ruling class. Snowball and Napoleon represent Stalin and Trotsky. The book itself is an indictment of the hypocrisy beneath the tyranny and despotism of Communism, as exemplified by the eroding away of the "Seven Commandments" through logical machinations of Squealor.

It also seems to illustrate the natural tendency of humanity stratify itself into classes. And, it also shows that while classes may appear unified when they have a common enemy, when that enemy is removed (farmer/Czar) the power vacuum that remains is inevitably filled by a replacement oppressor.

Also the way the story is told, from the perspective of the oppressed animals, it shows that oppression comes not only from the nefarious acts of the oppressORS but also from the naivete' and ignorance of the oppressed ones. That is, it's Orwell's implicit call for an educated proletariat, so that we can identify the oppressors when they appear, whether people or animals.