welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The rich get richer... Why?
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17282
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Him wrote:
Dro wrote:
Him wrote:
It's because the prime goal for making money is making more money. Deconnected from the actual needs of people. And when money is actually psent it's usally spent on worthless luxury acessories (when it's not spent to make more money). Go capitalism.


It may be, though, that you need a pool of "unneeded" money around for innovation. 95% of things fail, so only a rich person can take on that risk and not feel failure would make them homeless. Of course, it would be possible for a communal society to pool micro-unneeded funds for similar efforts.
Well,yes, taht is my suggestion. Getting there is, however, alittle tricky, but hey, capitalism isn't the end of the road.


that is apparently what president clinton is promoting (at least, from what i saw of him on "the daily show") - even if you can only give a little bit of money, if enough people give that little bit, you have enough to get something done.

and e-boy - what do you mean by "system"? isn't a government a system? i live in a state that allows voter-generated ballot propositions - so anyone can come up with something, and if they can get enough signatures to get it on the ballot, it will be voted on, and if it gets enough votes, it becomes law. true, there are larger entities that can co-opt the process - but the route still exists for the individual. i myself am on the board of directors for my homeowners' association - all volunteers, all doing the best we can for the community. granted, only a small community - but do you really believe that everyone in larger groupings (like the town i live in, or the county, or the state) is working in government only for their own interests? some, yes - but all? and if so, how does having the government (made, as it is, of people) in control better things?

and how about all the money charities raise? how about charity work in general?

and what _about_ social movements? marx and engles may not have wanted all those deaths - but you can't deny that their thoughts had (and still have) a huge impact on the world. as have the thoughts of any number of other people. many, many movements which resulted in much change started with just one or two people.

i guess i'm not clear where you are coming from, here.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Usagi Miyamoto



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2225
Location: wish you were here

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

she
_________________
The reward for a good life is a good life.


Last edited by Usagi Miyamoto on Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:04 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10568
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Usagi Miyamoto wrote:
Was there some original article or essay that prompted this topic, which citation I missed? The commentary is seeming pretty elliptical, here.


*hint* who started this thread again? Just ribbin' ya eboy
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Him



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 4191
Location: On edge

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

E-boy wrote:
Him, your thoughtfulness and wishes for a "Better way" are commendable. Just keep in mind that any solution you come up with has to take "HUMAN NATURE" into account.

Contrary to popular belief humans, while quite behaviorally flexible, ARE NOT infinitely plastic. In short, any system that's going to have a chance of working can't depend on "community spirit" alone or in allowing the needs of the many to subsume individual needs.

That's the rub, you see. Idealism is wonderful, but not terribly realistic. That's not to say that current government and the systems in place couldn't be improved upon. I'm merely making the point that uninformed idealism kills lots of people. I'm pretty sure Marx wouldn't have wanted 125 million people killed over his ideas.
Of course not. We depend on interdependency. The formation of groups and collectives ultimatly stem out of our egoism, not some altruism. Still, the liberal's got the "human nature" fundamentally wrong, because, guess what the so called juman nature is influenced by your surrounding society. It is the soceity of commodity fetischims, exploitation etc, that creates the corresponding trends in human behaviour. The only basic human nature is that of community, but in the liberal state-market oligopol an illusion is created to make it looked like man has transgressed from his group think into a state where you can be free and do whatever you want, if you just try hard enough. That is an idealism and an idealism that only benefits those already benefiting.

125 billion? where? And what do you count as "his ideas"? Those that only include orthodox marxism or do you include leninism (which in my opinion differs rather radically from marx view on many points), social democracy (which has clearly left marxism long ago in favour of keynsianism), stalinism (which is an russonationalist idealism) or maybe even júche (official doctrine of North Korea, a mixture of leninism, neo-confusianism and ultra-nationalism)?

_________________
A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

People don't want to be equal.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
E-boy



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1552
Location: Virginia (Much barfiness)

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

that was millions not billions and it was the number of people killed in russia alone during the purges. Granted Marx idealistic ideas and the practices Stalin implemented are pretty far apart, but Stalin was able to use those ideas and his own ruthless paranoia to great effect.

I don't propose that liberals have "human nature" right either. In point of fact I think most current popcultural ideas of "Human nature" are extremely dated and mis-informed. I say this because too much is based on "assumptions" and not evidence. For the record, while humans are certainly the quintessentially social animals on planet earth, our nature includes quite a bit of individual selfishness as well, which is where ideas like communism (which looks great on paper) fall flat in practice. For starters, even hunter gatherers weren't that altruistic (Miss Mead and many other anthropologists made some big gaffs. The "Noble Savage" is a myth long past it's prime. For finishers even assuming THEY (early hunter gatherers) were that altruistic, you'd still have to look at the environment they lived in and take that into account. What works in a non-agrarian hunter gathering society won't necessarily work in a sedentary agrarian society. The modern human environment is arbitrary and artificial. Individual humans come up against difficulties posed by inappropriate instinctive responses and tendencies daily.

Any system of governance has to be able to provide services, protection, ect. and not be dependent on all individuals always behaving altruisitically. That's simply not realistic and any system that depends on it to function will soon see that what I'm stating isn't an opinion, but a messy reality. It's why things like "checks and balances" were designed into the american system. Needless to say, our machine needs a little tweaking over here, but the healthy cynicism of our forefathers is once again showing it's wisdom in the abuses occuring in our system now.

Cooperation in our species (the kind we're naturally good at, mind you) isn't a utopian dream (thank god for that in some ways at least). It's a cut throat business about keeping track of who's on who's side, who's cheating you or trying to, and how to get the long end of the stick. When it works amity is achieved. The more people involved the more difficult it is to maintain.

There simply aren't any magic answers in this department. Human beings are quite literally not wired to cope with the level of social interaction and crowding that occurs in the world today. Culture and government are the artificial constructs we've developed to get around this limitation, and I very much doubt that there is a perfect system. I'm fond of the one I live in, inspite of it's flaws.
_________________
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group