Citizens Vs. Government

[VIV3LAR3VOLUTION]

I think one of the reason its so hard for the "little guy" to get anywhere with political issues is that the government is organized.

We have real time communication!

Lets (citizens) get organized and do something about the issues that are important.

Give me your feedbacks im new at activism.

[Pliny]

Give me your feedbacks im new at activism.

Did you just finish reading the works of Marx or something?

[Pliny]

Where are you?

[Oleg Bach]

Where are you?

Government is to govern - to take care of people - not to be an advesary. If they are advesarial then they are a dictatorship.

[Pliny]

Government is to govern - to take care of people - not to be an advesary. If they are advesarial then they are a dictatorship.

I don't think it is their role to "take care of people" either, that is the road to becoming adversarial and a dictatorship.

[VIV3LAR3VOLUTION]

Did you just finish reading the works of Marx or something?

No, but I'm definitely against capitalism.

Where are you?

Surrey, BC

[gc1765]

No, but I'm definitely against capitalism.

Why? Got a better system?

[VIV3LAR3VOLUTION]

Why? Got a better system?

Democratic socialism

[noahbody]

No, but I'm definitely against capitalism.

When you become seriously ill, be sure to ask your doctor to give a perscripiton that wasn't developed in the capitalist world.

[gc1765]

Democratic socialism

Can you expand on that? The word "socialism" often has different meanings...

[VIV3LAR3VOLUTION]

Can you expand on that? The word "socialism" often has different meanings...

Well I dont mean Communism if thats what your asking.

In a nutshell Capitalism is the pursuit of private interest as opposed to the public interest.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia;

Capitalism refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly privately[1][2] owned and operated, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money (see finance and credit).

There are many "types" of scocialism nowadays but my views are like the New Socialist Group,

....committed to the self-emancipation of the working class, internationalism and opposition to imperialism and all forms of oppression. We reject bureaucratic and authoritarian visions of socialism and look instead to the radical tradition of socialism from below which believes that liberation can be achieved only through the activity and mobilization of the exploited and oppressed themselves. Our goal is workers’ power, a socialist democracy that is far more democratic than any capitalist society, and that has nothing in common with Stalinism.

The N.S.G. supports the struggles of all the oppressed and exploited, including the self-organized and autonomous movements of women, people of colour, lesbians and gay men, bisexuals, transexuals, intersexed and transgender people, young people and people living with disabilities. These struggles are necessary to bring about unity and equality amongst the working class and the oppressed and are central to the fight for a socialist society. The N.S.G. supports ecological struggles and works to develop an ecological socialism from below.

In the Canadian state, the N.S.G. supports the right to self-determination for the First Nations and the people of Quebec up to and including the right to choose independence. Around the world, the N.S.G. supports struggles against national oppression and imperialism.

That sums it up.

[VIV3LAR3VOLUTION]

When you become seriously ill, be sure to ask your doctor to give a perscripiton that wasn't developed in the capitalist world.

If your happy with capitalism, you must be wealthy or a politician.

You don't think there are socialists country that have descent health care?

When I say socialist i don't mean communist.

We dont have to change everything to become a socialist nation.

[August1991]

In a nutshell Capitalism is the pursuit of private interest as opposed to the public interest.

Adam Smith would disagree. He argued that markets lead private interest to promote the public interest.

As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

If you or anyone else wants to speak intelligently about this issue of private greed and public good, I suggest first that you understand clearly the words of Adam Smith.

----

Now then, while I have Smith in mind, let me quote my favourite phrase of his. While his words were written centuries ago, he states well the situation of any human being - whether in the 18th century or in ours:

In civilized society he stands at all times in need of the co-operation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons.

[VIV3LAR3VOLUTION]

Adam Smith would disagree. He argued that markets lead private interest to promote the public interest.

If you or anyone else wants to speak intelligently about this issue of private greed and public good, I suggest first that you understand clearly the words of Adam Smith.

----

Now then, while I have Smith in mind, let me quote my favorite phrase of his. While his words were written centuries ago, he states well the situation of any human being - whether in the 18th century or in ours:

It may have been the case 250yrs ago in Scotland but i see it differently, especially the last 10 or so yrs.

Can anybody seriously tell me they are genuinely happy.

Stress levels are unbelievably high

new diseases, neurodisoders

suicides, shitty schools

kids killing, abuse and on and on

Everything is off the scale! Ill die trying

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/affectation

sums it up for me.....

[charter.rights]

If your happy with capitalism, you must be wealthy or a politician.

You don't think there are socialists country that have descent health care?

When I say socialist i don't mean communist.

We dont have to change everything to become a socialist nation.

Capitalism in itself isn't bad. But we have been overwhelmed in the west by Corporatism and that has pitted big business aginat governemnt even to the degree that corporation usurp the power of the citizen to hold the government accountable. The bottom line of capitalism is the co-operation of the workforce to produce good products and serices and the flow of cash. The bottom line of the corporations is profit at any cost, return to investment and the greatest amount of credit. Corporations don't care about workers, or even the administration of the business as long as it is producing returns on investment and it can be leveraged for more credit.

[noahbody]

If your happy with capitalism, you must be wealthy or a politician.

No. I did get sick of eating peanut butter an honey sandwiches every day as a kid though.

You don't think there are socialists country that have descent health care?

I'm talking about the drugs. If you think medicene would be where it is without capitalism, you're dreaming.

We dont have to change everything to become a socialist nation.

Canada is a blend of capitalism and socialism. Do you have any specific criticisms with Canada you'd like to discuss?

[Pliny]

It may have been the case 250yrs ago in Scotland but i see it differently, especially the last 10 or so yrs.

Can anybody seriously tell me they are genuinely happy.

Stress levels are unbelievably high

new diseases, neurodisoders

suicides, shitty schools

kids killing, abuse and on and on

Everything is off the scale! Ill die trying

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/affectation

sums it up for me.....

What you see today is socialism - not capitalism. Democratic socialism is in Europe and North America, but Europe is far more entrenched. Everyone in Europe is happy I'm sure you noticed and that is where we are headed.

You haven't separated what Capitalism is from what government is. Capitalism is not a form of government.

Ask yourself why we have shitty schools. Ask why no one is genuinely happy and stress levels are high, or why society continues to slide into an abyss of violence, with suicides, neuro-disorders, etc. Haven't you noticed the government has programs for all of this? They are right on top of it. All they require are the resources and the political will to do something about all these problems. What do we, as a society do in the meantime?

You yourself complain that no matter who is in office nothing changes. Well, there are things that change. Government gets bigger and society less responsible. It is creeping socialism not creeping Capitalism.

I don't know where you got the idea that Capitalism was a growing problem. It has been regulated, controlled, licensed, oppressed, taxed, distorted and generally abused until it is almost unrecognizable. As a matter of fact, I believe it is unrecognizable.

It is not what socialists would have you believe it is. It is social intercourse for the mutual benefit of participants. If it weren't mutually beneficial no one would engage in it. It is competitive, it can be aggressive, and it must therefore be vibrant, active and full of ingenuity and entrepreneurial innovation. But no one is holding a gun to someone's head to trade with them. The only one that has the authority to use force is government.

You may be confusing "corporatism" with capitalism. Big corporations today are in league with government. If you want to know why the internal combustion engine has changed very little in the last century ask yourself where the entrepreneurial innovation is, or the inventions of ingenuity. Governments are partners with corporations. I do not think they would cut off the source of a major portion of their revenues by allowing any big corporation to go the way of the buggy whip because some one devised a free energy source. I'm not suggesting there is one but if there were one it would not be a welcome innovation by governments dependent upon tax revenues from oil companies. Do you think they have an interest in protectionist policies for corporations? It is a rather fascistic alliance and Fascism is another form of your favourite type of government - socialism. It is just a different flavour.

All forms of totalitarianism, be they on the left or the right side of the political spectrum, are socialist. I think that can obviously be seen. Totalitarianism is complete State control of the economy basically. How far are we away from that? The government of Canada, both provincial and federal, like to lay claim to the responsibility for a healthy economy. They like to say, our policies have brought us to prosperity so don't vote for the opposition. And when the economy eventually drops or corruption destroys their credibility, we vote for the opposition who blames the policies of the previous government but there is no real motivation or desire for change. Change means either an increase in the responsibilities of government or a decrease and I haven't seen a trend toward a decrease since Canada's inception. There have been some successful attempts in the States where the people actually have more influence but they too trend toward bigger government.

Find me the increasing influence of capitalism? Profit and greed are not the motivation for Capitalism as is often expressed by socialists, although "Capitalists" of today have even come to believe this themselves and work entirely from the point of view of their profit and loss statement. They have been taught this in business schools and accountants are especially keen to ingrain that in their thinking.

If you want to understand politics you must understand some fundamental principles of economics - not accounting or math - economic theory.

Edited February 4, 2008 by Pliny

[gc1765]

Well I dont mean Communism if thats what your asking.

In a nutshell Capitalism is the pursuit of private interest as opposed to the public interest.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia;

Capitalism refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly privately[1][2] owned and operated, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money (see finance and credit).

There are many "types" of scocialism nowadays but my views are like the New Socialist Group...

I think your heart is in the right place, but your thoughts are a bit misguided. I strongly recommend that you read the book "The End of Poverty" by Jeffrey Sachs. I think you would enjoy it. Let me know what you think of it.

[White Doors]

I'm very happy thank you very much.

[segnosaur]

There are many "types" of scocialism nowadays but my views are like the New Socialist Group,

....committed to the self-emancipation of the working class, internationalism and opposition to imperialism and all forms of oppression.

One major problem with that claim...

Any such 'socialist' group (which, I assume provides at least some restrictions on private ownership/private economic activity) is itself oppressive. After all, if I'm truly 'free', then I should have the ability to spend my money and/or accumulate wealth as I see fit (outside of outright theft). Government attempts to restrict the way I use my money is a form of oppression, regardless of how noble your goals are, and regardless of whether a majority supports your 'democratic'.

If you truly are against 'oppression', then perhaps you should look at joining the Libertarians.

We reject bureaucratic and authoritarian visions of socialism and look instead to the radical tradition of socialism from below which believes that liberation can be achieved only through the activity and mobilization of the exploited and oppressed themselves.

Ok, here's the problem with that statement....

If you are truly against 'capitalism', then you want to see more government ownership and/or government controls. This, by its very nature, is going to lead to more bureaucracy.

The N.S.G. supports the struggles of all the oppressed and exploited, including the self-organized and autonomous movements of women, people of colour, lesbians and gay men, bisexuals, transexuals, intersexed and transgender people, young people and people living with disabilities.

If you want to fight against racism, sexism, or any other discrimination, then you are more than welcome to do so. (Hey, I think racism is a sign of ignorance too.). But keep in mind that such discrimination is not something related directly to capitalism. Its a problem with society. If anything, it runs counter to capitalism (since by disenfranchising certain segments of the population you reduce the ability to build wealth through their contributions.)

Plus, discrimination is also quite possible under a 'socialist' system. Consider the issue of gay marriage... True, most states in the U.S. (one of the most 'captialist' countries) do not allow same-sex marriage... but then, many countries in Europe who are much more socialist than the U.S. also do not allow same-sex marriage.

The N.S.G. supports ecological struggles and works to develop an ecological socialism from below.

You know, I wonder what would happen if the members of the NSG had a choice between making a choice which protected the environment, and one which actually benefited the workers. After all, those are sometimes mutually exclusive.

In the Canadian state, the N.S.G. supports the right to self-determination for the First Nations and the people of Quebec up to and including the right to choose independence.

Again, those are not issues that directly relate to capitalism and/or socialism. I'm sure you will probably find many libertarian types who also support the right to choose independence and/or self-determination for first nations.

[segnosaur]

If your happy with capitalism, you must be wealthy or a politician.

Why exactly are you making that assumption?

I'm solidly middle class... I am nowhere near being wealthy (at least by Canadian standards...) Yet I believe that my life is better off due to capitalism than it would be under economic systems. I have more economic freedom, and can purchase luxury items that would be denied to me otherwise.

When you become seriously ill, be sure to ask your doctor to give a perscripiton that wasn't developed in the capitalist world.

You don't think there are socialists country that have descent health care?

Keep in mind that the original person wasn't talking about health care systems, but health care research and development. There is a widespread belief among many that many advances in medical technology (including drugs) come about because companies see the possibility of financial rewards for developing certain cures and invest in research accordingly. Countries with more 'socialized' systems then are able to use the medicines (or other techniques) developed by the capitalist companies and sell/distribute them to their own people with whatever 'socialist' methodologies exist.

There may be socialist countries with descent health care, but part of their 'success' is the fact that they're parasitically benefiting over medical advances made possible by the demands placed on it by private enterprise and private health care.

When I say socialist i don't mean communist.

In that case, what exactly do you define to be the difference between socialist and communist? After all, the main difference (at least economically) between a 'social democrat' and a 'communist' is the amount of free enterprise they allow... if you're not necessarily a communist, then you must assume that some capitalism is OK (which conflicts with another assertion you made about how you were against capitalism.)

[VIV3LAR3VOLUTION]

my concern is that the problem is world wide.

canada is one of the best country to live in,

but the 3rd world countries are still starving.

the more i look into it, the more uptight i become.

[White Doors]

my concern is that the problem is world wide.

canada is one of the best country to live in,

but the 3rd world countries are still starving.

the more i look into it, the more uptight i become.

Most of the 3rd world countries are either socialist or are recovering socialists..

OOps!

[segnosaur]

Amazing... just totally amazing...

I took several posts made by Viv3lar3volution and totally destroyed his arguments. I pointed out the flaws in all of his pro-socialist arguments, and left him with nothing to stand on. I also challenged him to answer to several flaws in his argument.

So what his his response? Some vague, pointless post that addresses none of the points I raised, and resorts to emotional arguments ("people are starving") rather than dealing with logic or facts.

How do you respond to my assertion that your 'democratic socialist' system is also oppressive, just in different ways?

How do you respond to the point that being both pro-worker and pro-environment will lead to conflicts in which either the worker or environment will suffer?

How do you respond to the point that many of the supposed 'goals' of your socialist movement have nothing to do with anti-capitalism, and that things such as discrimination can and do exist in socialist countries?

I think its very revealing that when presented with these issues, your actions involve ignoring them. Perhaps you should actually put some thought into your political philosophy. If you can't defend your arguments, perhaps you should reconsider your attachment to 'socialism'.

my concern is that the problem is world wide.

Yes, and the world consists of a mix of free-market, government regulation, and socialism.

canada is one of the best country to live in,

but the 3rd world countries are still starving.

Yes, and as whitedoors pointed out, many of those 'starving 3rd world countries' are not necessarily capitalistic... some may be socialist (or former socialist), while in other cases the 'starving countries' are dictatorships which do not fit into either the socialist or capitalist mold. In many cases, there is plenty of food available, but it is not being distributed properly. (Ironically, in such cases like that, a military solution would probably do the most good in getting people fed, but that would violate your socialist beliefs against 'imperialism'.)

Of course, I could also point out that there is much research by private companies on ways to improve crop yields. Such biotechnology can help to greatly improve the world's food supply, by increasing growth rates, making plants resistant to disease, or allowing them to be grown in more varied environments. While those companies may doing such research for financial gain rather than to be ultratruistic, the end result is the same... private companies are finding ways to provide more food for the world.

the more i look into it, the more uptight i become.

Well, as I pointed out before, perhaps the problem is that you're looking at things emotionally and as a result you are taking the easy knee-jerk reaction and assuming socialism is the answer. And why not? It seems on the surface to be viable, but that's just the surface appearance. When you actually examine such 'socialism' logically you begin to see the multitude of flaws that actually exist.

Yes, there are problems in the world, but assuming a flawed premise such as socialism is not the answer. We need to actually examine what the actual real underlying problems are, and take the appropriate action.

[Pliny]

my concern is that the problem is world wide.

canada is one of the best country to live in,

but the 3rd world countries are still starving.

the more i look into it, the more uptight i become.

They are still starving because they have not evolved to the understanding that people should be secure in their person and property. Socialism does not allow that. In social democracies governments take as much as the citizenry will tolerate. It eventually becomes too much and turns to a dictatorial or rightest leaning in an effort to return some of the sanctity of the person and property back to himself against those who have determined by the force of law their right to help themselves to other people's property.

In a socialist country, without security of person and property, there is no incentive to produce or invest because your production and your investment are at risk. Who is going to work and have all the production of his efforts taken from him for the good of the whole? "Let someone else do all the work", becomes the mindset of the country and it remains in poverty.

It is all well and good to say we are going to help the poor but to devastate the producers to provide privilege to the poor is rather insane in my view. The poor have to be identified first. There are some that are poor because of a lack of education, there are some who have been devastated by circumstance, there are those that are quite happy to remain at the level of responsibility they enjoy which is no responsibility.

In a socialist country even the means of production is not safe. A persons tools could be confiscated.

The one thing a socialist country needs is enforcement. Enforcement of ensuring everyone pays according to their ability and everyone receives according to their need. This requires a large portion of the populace to enforce the concept and is economically devastating. The enforcement body, the State, becomes too much to support by a citizenry who does not feel secure enough to produce anything anyway.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Pliny