Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only thing I know about PragerU is that they advertise like crazy and their ads are their full videos, often 5-10 minutes. Super annoying.
The content from the very short time I watched seemed to be good quality, but it did feel like right wing propaganda. I remember one video in the first 20 seconds had attacked higher education calling public universities a danger to the Western World. Obviously nonsense, but I remember that nonsense, so it must be somewhat effective.
We agree that the so called socialists are wrong in going back to giving more power to the state. However, you are wrong if you think the solution is going back even further to a lassaiz-fair system that only exist in the mind of few deluded people.
What I'm actually saying is, the world is the way it is because the world is the way it is. That isn't to say it can't change, but it will always change in exactly the same ways, for exactly the same reasons. Your opinion simply doesn't matter, unless of course your opinion aligns with the way things are, or the way they will be.
My friend, who imagines himself some kind of revolutionary, I tell him constantly, "The money always gets what the money wants. And the money has always gotten what the money wants. There are no exceptions."
If you think "welfare" or "civil-rights" was the triumph of the people over the money, you don't know what Keynesian-Economics is, and you do not understand what capitalism is, why it exists, and its globalist-nature. Those who hate globalism but love capitalism, are morons.
Basically, as Hegel said, "The rational alone is real."
Which is similar to a concept called "Determinism"(especially of the scientific kind).
Determinism basically says that "Everything happens for a reason", or really, "Everything acts/reacts in predictable ways". You are made up for atoms, and atoms obey the laws of physics. Thus molecular interactions in your brain are automatic, and free-will is mostly an illusion.
What is going to happen, will happen, and nothing can change it.
I am a bit of a radical, and I find the modern world to be immoral, decadent, degenerate, selfish, materialistic, meaningless, and stupid. I think society itself is a cancer. But my friend reminds me, even if you could destroy everything and completely start over, you would inevitably end up right back where we are.
People who think they can fix the world, don't understand the world. And that is why idealism annoys me to no end.
You're missing to important factors. Context and external affects.
For context, an agreement between two people is not always equal. If someone is starving and I am the only one with food and I sell it to him for such a high price that he goes into debt to me, then yes we both agree on the terms but I am exploiting that person's situation. Being as situations are based on social stratification in capitalist environment by how much capital one has legal claim to, this situation is common place, but to different degrees.
Number 2, you ignore externalities, if I make a deal with one person to buy/sell a good/service, it will often times have an affect on people around me who did not voluntarily agree to that deal. Being as humans live amongst each other, the actions of one have ripple affects, and without putting that into consideration, capitalist are just promoting the marginalization of other people's freedom for the sake of capital exchange.
You're chasing a pipe dream. Neither capitalism nor communism can eliminate what you are talking about. Neither laborers nor owners can control externalities as you mention. The individiual worker has no more control in a co-op then in a business. At least the worker has options in a capitalist society.
Agreements are not always equal, even in a communist coop, a manager and a line worker wont receive equal payments for equal work. 2 workers will never produce equal work either. In capitalism the worker does have control over their own labor. I would argue the problem is people are not educated to understand their labor has value, and that doesnt change in a communist society.
Externalities is exactly why both anarchist and communist socities cant survive. The Zapatistas can only survive because they have external economies to leach onto. Without the capitalist state of Mexico, the Zapatistas wouldnt survive. Ironically, that state will also eventually be the demise of the Zapatistas.
Self sufficiency is the point of anarcho syndicalism. People produce what they get, and all production centers produce in excess what the community needs based off of demand.
Please .... let’s cease with the political science mumbo jumbo .... “self sufficiency†in the context of this conversation, pertaining to the individual, means he/she is able and willing to get off their lazy azzes, work, and support themselves AND the offspring they bring into this world. This used to be regarded as an individual’s obligation of “personal responsibilityâ€.
Nowadays, after decades of socialist policies have enabled large segments of the population to do nothing except expect the the fruits of labor be handed to them without the burden of that undesirable “labor†part, personal responsibility, personal pride, and personal honor have been replaced with the entitlement mentality, that believes “I exist, therefore I deserve .... (fill in the blank)â€.
You're chasing a pipe dream. Neither capitalism nor communism can eliminate what you are talking about. Neither laborers nor owners can control externalities as you mention. The individiual worker has no more control in a co-op then in a business. At least the worker has options in a capitalist society.
Agreements are not always equal, even in a communist coop, a manager and a line worker wont receive equal payments for equal work. 2 workers will never produce equal work either. In capitalism the worker does have control over their own labor. I would argue the problem is people are not educated to understand their labor has value, and that doesnt change in a communist society.
Externalities is exactly why both anarchist and communist socities cant survive. The Zapatistas can only survive because they have external economies to leach onto. Without the capitalist state of Mexico, the Zapatistas wouldnt survive. Ironically, that state will also eventually be the demise of the Zapatistas.
1. I would strongly disagree, having a democratic say in production isn’t just about how much of a voice one person has, but more importantly how decisions are made; if we use democratic means then mutual agreement is the basis of production rather than singular control. Plus without a profit motive, the need for this ‘efficiency’ everyone talks about will subside
2. People who produce more will get more, but positions themselves don’t garner higher compensation. Capitalist cooperatives (which the majority currently are) do pay higher based on positions but workers still have a say in how salaries are distributed. Ideally, being as there would be no wage system, the direct production of someone beyond the agreed upon quota will go to said person equalizing the differences based on personal abilities. And yes exploitations May happen here and there, but they won’t be part of the system, nor would it be required for the system to grow like in capitalism
3. The Mexican government does nothing for the Zapatistas, in fact at best they destroy their crop fields and keep them down. Despite this the Zapatistas are improving every day better their society. If there were more socialist community run societies, the Zapatistas would have more people to trade with, and they’d be richer.
What I'm actually saying is, the world is the way it is because the world is the way it is. That isn't to say it can't change, but it will always change in exactly the same ways, for exactly the same reasons. Your opinion simply doesn't matter, unless of course your opinion aligns with the way things are, or the way they will be.
My friend, who imagines himself some kind of revolutionary, I tell him constantly, "The money always gets what the money wants. And the money has always gotten what the money wants. There are no exceptions."
If you think "welfare" or "civil-rights" was the triumph of the people over the money, you don't know what Keynesian-Economics is, and you do not understand what capitalism is, why it exists, and its globalist-nature. Those who hate globalism but love capitalism, are morons.
Basically, as Hegel said, "The rational alone is real."
Which is similar to a concept called "Determinism"(especially of the scientific kind).
Determinism basically says that "Everything happens for a reason", or really, "Everything acts/reacts in predictable ways". You are made up for atoms, and atoms obey the laws of physics. Thus molecular interactions in your brain are automatic, and free-will is mostly an illusion.
What is going to happen, will happen, and nothing can change it.
I am a bit of a radical, and I find the modern world to be immoral, decadent, degenerate, selfish, materialistic, meaningless, and stupid. I think society itself is a cancer. But my friend reminds me, even if you could destroy everything and completely start over, you would inevitably end up right back where we are.
People who think they can fix the world, don't understand the world. And that is why idealism annoys me to no end.
BINGO!
And, we've done it to ourselves; we deserve everything that flows from it. Money, sex and power seem to be the driving force for most people. What's enough? We "say" we want a better life, but we behave as if we don't.
What I'm actually saying is, the world is the way it is because the world is the way it is. That isn't to say it can't change, but it will always change in exactly the same ways, for exactly the same reasons. Your opinion simply doesn't matter, unless of course your opinion aligns with the way things are, or the way they will be.
My friend, who imagines himself some kind of revolutionary, I tell him constantly, "The money always gets what the money wants. And the money has always gotten what the money wants. There are no exceptions."
If you think "welfare" or "civil-rights" was the triumph of the people over the money, you don't know what Keynesian-Economics is, and you do not understand what capitalism is, why it exists, and its globalist-nature. Those who hate globalism but love capitalism, are morons.
No, that’s not at all accurate .... you have confused free market capitalism with the Globalist distortion of “crony capitalismâ€. Free market capitalism does not exist in an environment where the “capital†is controlled by a small private group of Globalist parasites who determine the winners and losers by controlling the flow, availability and cost of capital. In that regard, crony capitalism is just another veiled version of communism, because the cronies direct and controll economic activity from their centralized controll centers.
Quote:
I am a bit of a radical, and I find the modern world to be immoral, decadent, degenerate, selfish, materialistic, meaningless, and stupid. I think society itself is a cancer. But my friend reminds me, even if you could destroy everything and completely start over, you would inevitably end up right back where we are.
People who think they can fix the world, don't understand the world. And that is why idealism annoys me to no end.
This seems to be a very strong leaning toward nihilism. At the same time, it fits quite well with the Globalist-Elitist view of most of humanity being “useless eatersâ€, and a cancer that must be managed, through population control/reduction.
As for idealism ... there are as many versions and definitions of what constitutes “ideal†as there are people envioning it. Yet what is missing is the understanding that life is not about achieving the ideal, but in choosing to experience your version of it, while understanding that both beauty and ugliness are there so that you can choose.
One thing is for sure, no matter what your view happens to be, you will find supporting evidence. You can walk through the desert, and see nothing but lifelessness and desolation, and you would be right. Or, you could seek and find a cactus that has a magnificently colorful and beautiful flower blooming from its center, miraculously emerging from that desolation ... and you’d also be right.
And, we've done it to ourselves; we deserve everything that flows from it. Money, sex and power seem to be the driving force for most people. What's enough? We "say" we want a better life, but we behave as if we don't.
That’s like saying water is bad because you can drown in it, or it can come in as a hurricane and destroy. You also cannot survive for more than three days without it.
By the same measure, there is nothing wrong or bad about money, sex, and power .... in fact, all three are as much a part of life as is breathing air, with sex being the most beneficial to the continuation of life, while also being the primary motive for most who seek money and power.
It’s all about how it is used .... money and power can be used for good, or bad, just as sex can be either the expression of love, or a tactic of manipulation.
1. I would strongly disagree, having a democratic say in production isn’t just about how much of a voice one person has, but more importantly how decisions are made; if we use democratic means then mutual agreement is the basis of production rather than singular control. Plus without a profit motive, the need for this ‘efficiency’ everyone talks about will subside
2. People who produce more will get more, but positions themselves don’t garner higher compensation. Capitalist cooperatives (which the majority currently are) do pay higher based on positions but workers still have a say in how salaries are distributed. Ideally, being as there would be no wage system, the direct production of someone beyond the agreed upon quota will go to said person equalizing the differences based on personal abilities. And yes exploitations May happen here and there, but they won’t be part of the system, nor would it be required for the system to grow like in capitalism
3. The Mexican government does nothing for the Zapatistas, in fact at best they destroy their crop fields and keep them down. Despite this the Zapatistas are improving every day better their society. If there were more socialist community run societies, the Zapatistas would have more people to trade with, and they’d be richer.
1. Pure democracy is simply mob rule, and it never ends well for whoever is in the minority. Mutual agreement is also the basis for capitalism, so I don't understand why you would use that as an example. Reality is, in either scenario, there will be people who are forced to do something they may not like. Capitalism does offer the best options and opportunities for the vast majority of people. Communism attempts to put everyone on equal footing and we see how well that turns out.
2. More of what exactly? What is compensation is your system? My wifes parents were compensated with tickets for food, and tickets for heating fuel since currency was not allowed when they grew up in China. They received nothing else. There was no way for them to own a car, heck even bicycles were not allowed for some time. You try to make this distinction between personal and private property, but others may not have the same perspective. They didn't even have personal bathrooms, the barracks they lived in had shared showers and bathrooms. It wasn't some utopia, it was a ****hole, and thats why its not going to come back in China. They had no heat, so they would have block beds with coals inside to keep them warm.
3. The Mexican government offers them a society to join in, the Zapatistas have no right to self rule. Even then, the Mexican government provides all infrastructure (roads, electricity, cell phone towers, internet, fuel, etc.) for the region. There are towns and cities for them to move to. If they really feel oppressed, then move to other regions of Mexico. Mexico isn't the terrible place many people make it out to be. Some people are truly oppressed, but some create their own oppression by trying to force society to morph to what they want, and its not a realistic way to a good life.
1. Pure democracy is simply mob rule, and it never ends well for whoever is in the minority. Mutual agreement is also the basis for capitalism, so I don't understand why you would use that as an example. Reality is, in either scenario, there will be people who are forced to do something they may not like. Capitalism does offer the best options and opportunities for the vast majority of people. Communism attempts to put everyone on equal footing and we see how well that turns out.
2. More of what exactly? What is compensation is your system? My wifes parents were compensated with tickets for food, and tickets for heating fuel since currency was not allowed when they grew up in China. They received nothing else. There was no way for them to own a car, heck even bicycles were not allowed for some time. You try to make this distinction between personal and private property, but others may not have the same perspective. They didn't even have personal bathrooms, the barracks they lived in had shared showers and bathrooms. It wasn't some utopia, it was a ****hole, and thats why its not going to come back in China. They had no heat, so they would have block beds with coals inside to keep them warm.
3. The Mexican government offers them a society to join in, the Zapatistas have no right to self rule. Even then, the Mexican government provides all infrastructure (roads, electricity, cell phone towers, internet, fuel, etc.) for the region. There are towns and cities for them to move to. If they really feel oppressed, then move to other regions of Mexico. Mexico isn't the terrible place many people make it out to be. Some people are truly oppressed, but some create their own oppression by trying to force society to morph to what they want, and its not a realistic way to a good life.
1. Direct democracy limited to each separate economic institution is different from political direct democracy. And even in the latter form the important factor is allowing a say in the policy making, not just the leadership. To some extent Switzerland practices this. Either way in economic institutions the decisions on production methods don't affect the personal freedom of each worker, just the usage of the output. And when multiple people are involved in the production of one thing, it should be based on mutual agreement. Syndicates (guilds) are different and are represented by each separate workers union (production center) as they set wider rules and regulations for production. Of course these syndicates are voluntary, but not being a part of one means a union loses out on potential benefits along the lines of supply chains and shared technology.
Mutual agreement as far as capitalism is concerned is exploitative in nature as only one member of the agreement has ownership of the means of production and the majority of capital to begin with is privately controlled by corporate powers leaving little choice for the worker.
2. These are all state problems you bring up as far as China is concerned. Having a centralized currency system (tickets for example) is prone to abuse and also forms a wage system similar to capitalism (obviously china wasn't capitalist as the time, but I digress). Similarly people can own everything they have the personal ability to use. A car, a bike, a house, and there is no central power limiting these creations or exchange of capital, rather the nature of ownership would not be state authorized around a few people holding more capital than that which they operate under. Individualism is great as long as its put in the context of the wider community (people who use the same thing must agree on its usage). Conversely people can produce for themselves and work alone if they so desire.
3. The Zapatistas don't live in the major cities of Chiapas, they live in the mountainous areas away from government infrastructure where they build their own electric systems and agricultural functions. They are improving each day building hospitals and schools, but they would be in far less poverty if they weren't sanctioned by the government or terrorized by Mexican military forces.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
