Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Indoctrination


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Indoctrination Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 8:52:34 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Matter of kinds and degrees. Even Hyack championed medical care and a living wage for the poor. Something intolerable during the market mania of 1920s and the current AynRandianism. Ya got your socially responsible Captitalism and then ya got your libertarian Capitalism.


It's not aquestion of degree as to wheter the system is capitalist or not, it is a question of who owns the means of production and that has always been in the hands of private capitalism in the US.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 381
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 10:05:06 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Matter of kinds and degrees. Even Hyack championed medical care and a living wage for the poor. Something intolerable during the market mania of 1920s and the current AynRandianism. Ya got your socially responsible Captitalism and then ya got your libertarian Capitalism.


It's not aquestion of degree as to wheter the system is capitalist or not, it is a question of who owns the means of production and that has always been in the hands of private capitalism in the US.

Oh please. A textbook definition. There is regulated, social capitalism and there is the cruelty of laissez-faire capitalism.

You might also have a look at the Tennessee Valley Authority which owns and controls a significant amount of electric power production, established by FDR in 1935. As far as I know the Hoover Dam is also a state owned electric power production facility. So, are you tied to an all-or-nothing-at-all textbook definition?

Additionally, one might argue that corporate income taxes and property taxes give governments ownership stakes in production facilities.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 382
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 10:26:22 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline 		Oh, please ...

But I will say, if people would just use the more appropriate term of "a market economy," then we could dispense with a plethora of mistaken notions about such a system.

In any case, you are clearly out of the loop if you think that the modern day version of collecting tolls (taxes) equates to the sense of 'ownership' as was held 300 years ago. We dispensed with royalty, the lawyers got involved, etc. so 'private ownership' actually means private ownership.

True enough, China's state-owned factories and banks are pursuing capitalism (and incremental privatization) at a measured pace, but it is refreshing that, to some extent, they are not stupid enough to be sticklers about details in terminology.

I have no use for the term 'capitalism,' but if it floats your boat, however misunderstood, it only furthers my rationale in wanting to dispense with the term.



< Message edited by Edwynn -- 12/1/2012 10:30:17 AM >

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 383
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 10:41:45 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline 		Edwynn, Vincent,

There can indeed be 'degrees of capitalism' (from the Hayek kind right down to the social democratic kind), though those on the full-blooded neo-liberal right, as well as Marxists and some anarchists on the left, are less inclined to go with the idea. That, to my mind, is a shame because it can render discussions about political ideology (not to mention economics) really too crude to be worthwhile.

< Message edited by PeonForHer -- 12/1/2012 10:43:17 AM >

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 384
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 11:00:58 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

In any case, you are clearly out of the loop if you think that the modern day version of collecting tolls (taxes) equates to the sense of 'ownership' as was held 300 years ago. We dispensed with royalty, the lawyers got involved, etc. so 'private ownership' actually means private ownership.

Edwynn, consider if proprietership and corporate ownership are not two different things. If you own say 100 shares in General Electric Corporation are you really an owner of a company, or are you delusional, if the value of your ownership fluctuates daily at the whims of digitized gambling (i.e. stock market prediction of future corporate success and general economic growth) and not on the aggregate value of GE's assets and sales minus liabilities? And what part of foreign holdings do you realize if GE does not repatriate profits for reluctance to give the government its share? The government at least has a fixed rate of interest in the profits whereas you are holding 100 pieces of digitized casino chips.



< Message edited by vincentML -- 12/1/2012 11:10:24 AM >

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 385
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 11:05:51 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Edwynn, Vincent,

There can indeed be 'degrees of capitalism' (from the Hayek kind right down to the social democratic kind), though those on the full-blooded neo-liberal right, as well as Marxists and some anarchists on the left, are less inclined to go with the idea. That, to my mind, is a shame because it can render discussions about political ideology (not to mention economics) really too crude to be worthwhile.

Peon, agreed. It is not desireable nor practical to seperate political ideology from economics. The term 'market economics' eliminates maxism from the discussion. That may be realistic in this era. But there are varieties of political approaches to market economics, so I don't see what is accomplished. However, I've no objection to the term.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 386
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 11:56:00 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Oh please. A textbook definition. There is regulated, social capitalism and there is the cruelty of laissez-faire capitalism.

You might also have a look at the Tennessee Valley Authority which owns and controls a significant amount of electric power production, established by FDR in 1935. As far as I know the Hoover Dam is also a state owned electric power production facility. So, are you tied to an all-or-nothing-at-all textbook definition?

Additionally, one might argue that corporate income taxes and property taxes give governments ownership stakes in production facilities.


What other definition do you want? If everyone makes up their own subjective definition, words become meaningless as do any debate.

The question is who controls capital and who profits from it and who gets exploited. I think Woody Guthrie put his finger on who was getting exploited and in whose favour the state skewed the economy in. 

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 387
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 1:37:58 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I'm unaware of a word that can be validly used to conflate the capacity to find one's own ass with assertions about supernatural beings.


I'm going to assume that you're purposefully trying to avoid engaging in any meaningful conversation, which is a game I'm entirely disinterested in pursuing further. The alternative would be to make the unflattering assumption that you're actually this dense, which doesn't seem to be corroborated in topics you're less invested in. Feel free to make an effort, should you care to reattempt an exchange about this.

quote:

How about everywhere else?


For myself, I've mostly been around Atheists, Agnostics and Apatheists, but obviously also others, including Buddhists, Hindi, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Åsatruar, Satanists and Neopagans, at the very least. It's fair to say some have tried to influence me, most notably the Atheists and the Christians, and I've also debated with some smart and well studied people in several religions and non-religious denominations. My enduring impression has been that, where I live, the average atheist is less reflected, more zealous, less tolerant and more prejudiced, this being an impression acquired as an atheist myself at the time. And that the average "religious" person in Norway isn't particularly religious, if at all.

I hope I interpreted your question correctly.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 388
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 1:44:23 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

We are in agreement then. Faith based axioms are unacceptable when they are used as the basis for 'logical' social actions, such as attacking the American Embassy in Cairo over a video, the assassination of Theo Van Gogh, or the fatwa on Salman Rushdie.


Uhm, no. The fatwas issued by BHO and effectuated by drones are an example of incompatibilities, comparable to what underlies what you mention above. It isn't the question of faith which determines whether the axioms are compatible, as should be demonstrated by the drone example.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 389
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 1:47:18 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I certainly hope you don't think that you're talking about my position. Personally I'm unaware of any atheist for which that would be a valid description.


I wasn't talking about your position.

I was talking about the position set forth on the site K quoted.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 390
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 3:25:36 PM   
slaveIMGI


Posts: 6
Status: offline 		nm

< Message edited by slaveIMGI -- 12/1/2012 3:26:06 PM >

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 391
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 3:37:11 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
I wasn't talking about your position.

I was talking about the position set forth on the site K quoted.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


Cool, sorry I misunderstood, I've got him blocked.

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 392
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 3:46:28 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

I wasn't talking about your position.

I was talking about the position set forth on the site K quoted.


Cool, sorry I misunderstood, I've got him blocked.


Another clue you misunderstood was that he was replying to Vincent, not you, and quoting Vincent, not you.

K.


< Message edited by Kirata -- 12/1/2012 4:31:13 PM >

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 393
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 3:47:48 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

That, to my mind, is a shame because it can render discussions about political ideology (not to mention economics) really too crude to be worthwhile.



If I understood myself correctly, I think that was my point.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 394
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 3:55:27 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Oh please. A textbook definition. There is regulated, social capitalism and there is the cruelty of laissez-faire capitalism.

You might also have a look at the Tennessee Valley Authority which owns and controls a significant amount of electric power production, established by FDR in 1935. As far as I know the Hoover Dam is also a state owned electric power production facility. So, are you tied to an all-or-nothing-at-all textbook definition?

Additionally, one might argue that corporate income taxes and property taxes give governments ownership stakes in production facilities.


What other definition do you want? If everyone makes up their own subjective definition, words become meaningless as do any debate.

The question is who controls capital and who profits from it and who gets exploited. I think Woody Guthrie put his finger on who was getting exploited and in whose favour the state skewed the economy in. 


I think I see where you're coming from, MC. You're right that definitions can get so watered-down that they end up useless. Sometimes it helps to focus on the nuances, other times it helps to do exactly the opposite. The end point is always, of course, to avoid any discussion ending up in BS.

For me, though, and on this board particularly, I find myself qualifying terms like 'capitalism' quite frequently because there's a predominance of American political culture. For example, I asked, once, 'What do you understand by the term "social democracy"' - and the most common response was 'Eh? What's that?' (or similar). It's come to appear to me that amongst righties in the USA, especially, there's only capitalism, in the neo-liberal sense - and everything else is socialism/communism. And that 'socialism/communism' is how I've frequently seen it expressed. There's no difference between the two terms. You talk about state ownership, or control, in *any way at all* (beyond control of armed forces and the police, natch), and someone will raise the spectre of Bolshevism or even of Stalin, instantly. It really has been that crude, here.

I should say: I've taught politics, here in Britain. I've had American students - a few, even, with good first degrees in the social sciences. They've uniformly had trouble with what most Europeans would think of as absolute basics - like, for instance, what 'conservative' means in the sense of the UK Conservative Party; what 'liberal' means . . . and so on. It's odd.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 395
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 3:58:12 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

If I understood myself correctly, I think that was my point.


I sympathise. I get that problem pretty often myself.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 396
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 4:19:32 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
I'm unaware of a word that can be validly used to conflate the capacity to find one's own ass with assertions about supernatural beings.

I'm going to assume that you're purposefully trying to avoid engaging in any meaningful conversation, which is a game I'm entirely disinterested in pursuing further. The alternative would be to make the unflattering assumption that you're actually this dense, which doesn't seem to be corroborated in topics you're less invested in. Feel free to make an effort, should you care to reattempt an exchange about this.

You should perhaps contemplate the possibility that your having an emotional reaction because you don't want to hear what I'm saying. You're talking about axioms (self evident truths) it doesn't get much more self evident than being able to find your own ass. You shouldn't even have to use both hands.

There's no good reason to reject all the evidence we do have about reality and buy into the conspiracy theory of solipsism, no evidence for solipsism whatsoever. If you want to call that an axiom, fine whatever floats your boat but that word doesn't validate claiming any old thing as a self evident truth. Unsubstantiated supernatural speculations aren't even in the same ballpark.


(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 397
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 4:49:31 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

We are in agreement then. Faith based axioms are unacceptable when they are used as the basis for 'logical' social actions, such as attacking the American Embassy in Cairo over a video, the assassination of Theo Van Gogh, or the fatwa on Salman Rushdie.


Uhm, no. The fatwas issued by BHO and effectuated by drones are an example of incompatibilities, comparable to what underlies what you mention above. It isn't the question of faith which determines whether the axioms are compatible, as should be demonstrated by the drone example.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


You can draw that conclusion if you have solid knowledge and wisdom of the premises, tactics, and goals that are guiding Obama's use of drones. I doubt you have more than your own ideological predilictions. Not championing what Obama is doing; only questioning the basis (or absence thereof) of your insight.

< Message edited by vincentML -- 12/1/2012 5:38:05 PM >

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 398
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 5:14:25 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

I should say: I've taught politics, here in Britain. I've had American students - a few, even, with good first degrees in the social sciences. They've uniformly had trouble with what most Europeans would think of as absolute basics - like, for instance, what 'conservative' means in the sense of the UK Conservative Party; what 'liberal' means . . . and so on. It's odd.

Not odd at all, Peon, if you consider that the European Revolutions of 1848 were pretty well contained to some minor anarchists and marxist activities in the States and eventually displaced by Organized Labor; and 1848 has always been a footnote in our history studies . . . as awful that may be and for whatever reasons or forces at play. Our curriculum on Labor was pretty meager. One had to go to alternate sources to gain better understanding. Perhaps a consequence of who publishes the textbooks.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 399
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 5:23:11 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
The position that hope or faith that something is true can be taken as evidence that it is true really has the potential to throw ones worldview out of kilter.

Worse than that.

Being that you've described political ideology so perfectly, though I'm sure you're not a party to any of that at all, I think that we have a monumental amount of evidence before us now that either religious or secular fanaticism of any sort can, and in fact has, thrown the world out of kilter.

Certainly there are really bad to downright awful reasons that plenty of people take the political positions they do. *Sigh*

Though I haven't run into the response "I have faith" when asking for evidence that supports their political position. People get that they should at least pretend to have valid reasons for the political positions they're taking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
The actual world, that is, not just the "world view."

Some pay more attention than others.

That's my point, our world views directly effect our actions. People who think god hates sex for example end up with really weird ideas and priorities about how this country should be run to the detriment of our particular community.

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 400
Page:   <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Indoctrination Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125