the "let's use socialism to bail out captialism thread

[siasl]

Wow, great post siasl. I only quoted the last part of it. I find very little of it that I disagree with. I think where you and I differ is not that these things are happening, but whether it is fair that these things are happening. It sounds like you think corporate greed is not fair when it can sometimes be at the expense of other people. But I see it in a different light, and maybe it is just because I am a highly competitive person. I think that last part of your quote I highlighted in bold sums it up for me. Our market and economic system is definitely "something that must be outwitted to succeed", and I very much enjoy outwitting it. I wouldn't enjoy it nearly as much if it didn't net me some sort of gain though, which is why I don't like socialism, or anything close to it.

I'd agree with you that capitalism isn't perfect, but to me, it gives everyone the most equal opportunity to do whatever they want with their lives, whether it be make millions or make pennies, and that's why I enjoy it. Sure, we're going to have some upsets in the economy during times where corporations or consumers make bad choices, but I think it is worth it in the end. It's how America became such a great nation in just 300 years.

fair enough spike....like i've said, i've little arguement with the opprotunities that captialism provides to the little and the big....

my only point, and something we should all be paying attention to going forward, imo, is that corportatism is a relatively recent development....it's roots can certainly be tracked back 100 years or more, to the rise of the monopolies that the captains of industry sought to tatoo onto the skin of the american economy, but it is only in the last 50 years or so, with the expansion of the corporation into its current multi-national forms, that the leverage of corporatism has matured

and with continuing evolution of the global economy, this leverage continues to become more intricately dependant on far more influences that any one political body....the G20 meeting yesterday is only a reflection of this...a reflection that must, eventually, i feel, require that political bodies interested in the freedom and opprotunity of the big and the little, become more focused on balancing that egalitarian equation.

in that sense, i believe that multi-national corporatism is changing the playing field

 

[SgtSpike]

fair enough spike....like i've said, i've little arguement with the opprotunities that captialism provides to the little and the big....

my only point, and something we should all be paying attention to going forward, imo, is that corportatism is a relatively recent development....it's roots can certainly be tracked back 100 years or more, to the rise of the monopolies that the captains of industry sought to tatoo onto the skin of the american economy, but it is only in the last 50 years or so, with the expansion of the corporation into its current multi-national forms, that the leverage of corporatism has matured

and with continuing evolution of the global economy, this leverage continues to become more intricately dependant on far more influences that any one political body....the G20 meeting yesterday is only a reflection of this...a reflection that must, eventually, i feel, require that political bodies interested in the freedom and opprotunity of the big and the little, become more focused on balancing that egalitarian equation.

in that sense, i believe that multi-national corporatism is changing the playing field

So you are saying you are afraid corporations are becoming too powerful and too much in control of politics around the world? I think that's what you're saying, but tell me if I'm wrong...

 

[siasl]

So you are saying you are afraid corporations are becoming too powerful and too much in control of politics around the world? I think that's what you're saying, but tell me if I'm wrong...

'tis a danger, agreed
my specific pov is that the global economy is just that....an ECONOMIC system with undeniable influence over the various political systems....as it should.

which only means to me that at some point, those political systems -reflections of the organization and goals of their respective societies, are going to have to start representing the qualites of those societies that are not economicallly motivated.....

and, in our case, it's balancing the egalitarian equation....simply because that's what in the best interests of the constitution.

 

[SgtSpike]

'tis a danger, agreed
my specific pov is that the global economy is just that....an ECONOMIC system with undeniable influence over the various political systems....as it should.

which only means to me that at some point, those political systems -reflections of the organization and goals of their respective societies, are going to have to start representing the qualites of those societies that are not economicallly motivated.....

and, in our case, it's balancing the egalitarian equation....simply because that's what in the best interests of the constitution.

What does "balancing the egalitarian equation" mean? And that's one part I'd have to disagree about our founding fathers... they never meant for this to be an egalitarian society. They meant for it to be a society where everyone has an equal chance at success, but not a society where everyone is mediocrely "successful" to the same extent (in which case no one would ever really be successful).

 

[siasl]

What does "balancing the egalitarian equation" mean? And that's one part I'd have to disagree about our founding fathers... they never meant for this to be an egalitarian society. They meant for it to be a society where everyone has an equal chance at success, but not a society where everyone is mediocrely "successful" to the same extent (in which case no one would ever really be successful).

from another post, spike

{egalitarianism} is apolitical doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalit...h provide economic rights....and opprotunity.

 

[SgtSpike]

from another post, spike


all these rights do is provide opprotunity, spike....they don't guarantee success, nor limit it.
but like most rights, they aren't free....

imo, america is about an egalitarian society
many of our most important homefront questions....illegal immigration, minimum wage, taxation, poverty, education....yada, yada, yada....are about balancing the egalitarian equation, imo

liberals believe this can be done through government policy....the constant attempt to guarantee success by enforcing equal opprotunity.

but you can't buck human nature.....you can hand some people a silver spoon, and they'll just turn around and sell it for a week's worth of happy meals....it's not the gub'ments job to keep handing out the silver spoon, regardess of noble intent or soundness of reasoning.

you also can't deny that opprotunity changes human nature......obama is a good example of this....both because he's black, and because he campaigned on a platform of working together to create change....regardless of how you feel about his individual policy proposals, what he promised the american people was an opprotunity.....a big, broad, philosophical opprotunity.

the whole "socialism" thing...redistributing the weatlh, as its come to be known, is a harsh remiinder that the rights of an egalitarian society are not free.

and the stereotype of the conservative mindset....the almost single minded focus on success derived by the fruits of economic opprotunity, can be argued as having substituted the accumulation of wealth as the yardstick by which we measure whether the egalitarian equation is balanced or not.

mulder, for example, will bring in reams of data showing how much "stuff" the poor in america have, to deomonstrate how well off they are.....the arguement being that is the accumulation of wealth that has trickled down to the poor, in terms of jobs, access to affordable consumer goods, and increasing economic opptrotunity.....

that they are poor is not a reflection on opprotunity in america, but of education, work ethic, and willingness to accept the challenge of success.....

and there is a some undeniable truth in that.....but it is a static answer, assuming that a/ the accumulation of wealth can be used to measure the equality of rights in america, and b/ that human nature is not subject to the changes provided by opprotunity.

we are a dynamic society, and, for some reason it seems, that is too easily forgotten by the right (imo)...as i suggested earlier, the civil rights movement was a demand for opprotunity, and a part of the increase in the material wealth of the poor is not because it's trickled down from the wealthy....it's because the egalitarian equation was reconfigured to reflect more balance.....for a time, affirmative action was a worthwhile "constant" in the equation....now, imo, it throws the equation out of balance again, distracting society from the continuing process of egalitarianism....we as a people need to move on to education, work ethic, and the willingness to accept the challenge of success.....

which is just another broad, complex social problem facing this country -it's part human nature, tho, and will continue to evolve so long as we continue to think of ourselves as an egalitarian society, providing equal social, civil, and political rights to everyone....because it's these, ultimately, which provide economic rights....and opprotunity.

Ok, first, let me say that you're not using egalitarian in the right sense of the word. My anthropology professor loves that word, and uses it constantly in reference to "bands" of people, because they share everything. No one is put above another in power, in leadership, or in wealth. When they hunt or forage for food, and someone comes back with some, it is not their food - it is shared equally among the members. I can guarantee that my professor would NEVER use that word to describe America, or any industrialized institution.

Furthermore, let's look at the definition from webster, particularly the second definition mentioned here.

Main Entry: egal·i·tar·i·an·ism Pronunciation: \-ē-ə-ˌni-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1905 1 : a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges 2 : a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people

I believe this more defines socialism and "band" societies as I described above than it described America.

Anyway, word definitions aside, I still understand what you are getting at, and once again, I mostly agree. You should write a book by the way. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this though:

and b/ that human nature is not subject to the changes provided by opprotunity.

What do you mean by "opportunity", and human nature being affected by it? As far as I knew, human nature is still the same as it was 4000 years ago, which is generally selfish. People live for themselves for the most part, and I don't see that changing due to any sort of opportunity.

 

[siasl]

Anyway, word definitions aside, I still understand what you are getting at, and once again, I mostly agree.

that's all the matters....call it anything you like....:thumbup

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this though:

What do you mean by "opportunity", and human nature being affected by it? As far as I knew, human nature is still the same as it was 4000 years ago, which is generally selfish. People live for themselves for the most part, and I don't see that changing due to any sort of opportunity.

understood....human nature only changes one person at a time.....and it changes because of selfishness....
the civil rights movement wasn't some noble gesture to give the poor downtrodden black folks some respect....

it was black people standing up for what was theirs....and part of what was theirs was opprotunity.
which is exactly why, imo, affirmative action was NECESSARY.....for a while....it required they be given equal opprotunity, until those with more power could understand their own selfish motive for hiring the best/most qualified, etc, etc.......regardless of skin color.

once selfishness kicked in at THAT end, affirmative action was excess baggage, and started to undo what had been started.

at least, if you look at it from an ideal standpoint.

selfishness has been given a bad rap, imo, as a quality of human nature....it ain't a bad thng....just something, like anything else, that can be abusive.....once you stop fighting it, and accept it for exactly what it is -a survival mechanism- you can stop making it an economic ally or a political adversary

because we all have it, and understanding the implications of that changes the playing field....selfishly, in it's in our best interests if everybody has opprotunity.....where it doesn't exist, it leads to frustration, intolerance, hatred, and bloodshed.

you can't logically make the arguement about it "being YOUR responsibility" stick until that person's been given the opprotunity to be selfish.
i think fiscal conservatives who are social liberals understand this better than anybody.