P R O F E S S
Rant


20.3.97 A dictator in capitalist society. 31.3.97 Thinking for the thousands below. 11.4.97 Free-lunch economics. 14.4.97 Only as good as the two people. 15.4.97 Lords to the left, barons to the right. 17.4.97 Get them while they're hot. 19.4.97 Redistributing currency. 24.4.97 To conserve centralized power. 26.4.97 And marriages. 28.4.97 The fear of rain. 29.4.97 Counter to free speech. 3.5.97 Greed is created by marketing. 5.5.97 And while we're on vacation. 30.5.97 16:57 His own management consulting firm. 30.5.97 17:19 An old man's wisdom. 7.6.97 Under the spell of competition. 13.6.97 If the human race ever regains its memory. 16.6.97 19:55 If all the effects of marketing disappeared. 16.6.97 20:13 Trading the Easter Bunny for Santa Clause. 17.6.97 11:32 The labour theory of value. 17.6.97 22:10 Losing access to the economic ether. 18.6.97 13:57 Do the same stupid work. 18.6.97 15:51 Someone who does nothing at all. 18.6.97 16:11 The most lawyers, petition workers, and think tanks. 18.6.97 16:28 Anything may anger their gods. 19.6.97 20:48 The people who benefit from the trades. 19.6.97 21:10 Philosophers with too much free time. 19.6.97 23:45 The green paper and yellow rock generating plant. 24.6.97 21:25 No important invention of the last 100 years. 24.6.97 22:02 Gold is a pyramid scheme. From: "W. Bagger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,ab.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.society.labor-unions,bc.politics,can.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:12:00 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > Regardless, capital does not descend from heaven: it is > > produced by labor. _Capital_ is an excellent example of > > an object, substance, or arrangement which is treated as if > > value inhered in it, because of its relation to labor. > Yes, as long as we understand that management is a vital > element of the labor which produces capital. Perhaps a king really IS as vital to production in his kingdom as his peasants. But who gets to decide that one person's labor is worth more than another's? THAT is the difference between autocracy and democracy. If the king really did believe he was worth what he got, you'd expect him to put his pay up to a vote. ---------- Producers who can't produce anything useful keep hiring advertisers until they have redefined "useful".
From: "W. Bagger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,can.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.society.labor-unions,ab.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,bc.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,misc.invest.stocks,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:02:38 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > No. Mr. Bill Reid is confused about the difference between command > and trade. It's essentially the difference between free-market and > socialism. In the free market wealth does NOT confer the authority > to command. The rich must trade something of value for the goods/ > services they desire from others. The authority to command is the > authority to take without exchange. Very good. Now who commands who? Employer or employee? What difference do you see between economic autocracy and political autocracy? How about TakingWithoutExchange WITHOUT authority? In other words, theft. No command structure. Sounds like a free market to me. Only by violence and intimidation can property be defined and enforced. Again we come to the question of why people work. To exchange the products of their labor... and only by brainwashing and self-brainwashing can someone be convinced that his own effort is worth less or more than another person's effort. Gold is a pyramid scheme. ----------- Arthur Philip Deodat? You're a no-good dumbo nothing. I thought you should know that before you went.
From: "W. Bagger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,can.politics,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,ab.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,bc.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:25:17 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. ericbl wrote: > At first, socialism was said to offer superior economic performance than > capitalism. We'll, that wasn't true. Virtually no important invention of > the last 100 years came from any socialist country. Countries that have > allowed the market to exist to the greatest extent have prospered to the > greatest extent. Someone who grows up only under "socialist" propaganda will assume that virtually no important invention of the last 100 years came from any capitalist country. "Important" in terms of what? Because marketers tell you they're important? It's quite obvious you are confusing economic equality with political inequality. In a "communist autocracy," the powerful grab wealth. In a "capitalist democracy," the wealthy grab power. ----------- Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard for the rich.
From: xjvanm@usa.net (Van) Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,ab.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.society.labor-unions,bc.politics,can.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:45:27 GMT Organization: WIN jhparker$@mailbag.com (John Parker) banged out: >On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:51:37 -0700, "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com wrote: >>John Parker wrote: >>> >Then what is it exactly that does hold value? Gold? Land? >>> >Green paper? Stocks? Bonds? Options on stocks? Options on >>> >options on stocks? Options on options on options on stocks? >>> >I sell you yellow rocks for green paper. Who wins? Who loses? >>> >It's like trading the Easter Bunny for Santa Clause. >>> So, don't do it, if you don't like it, but it works well for the >>> majority of us. You're very welcome to provide for yourself in >>> whatever way you'd like, as long as you don't interfere with me. >>Now you've got it. So who gets to decide if one person's >>work is worth X amount of yellow rocks and another person's >>work is worth Y amount of green paper? >That's easy, you get as much green paper or yellow rocks as you can >convince somebody else to part with in exchange for your work. ...or you send some green paper or yellow rock to the green paper and yellow rock generating plant known a Wall Street and learn the esoteric art of living well off of the labor of others. Van -- ----------------------------------------------------------- To live is to battle with trolls in the vaults of heart and brain To write: that is to sit in judgement over one's self. -Ibsen http://www.netusa1.net/~jbvm/ Visit the LoC Bookstore *Books for the liberal and proud* http://www.netusa1.net/~jbvm/locbooks/ Pick of the Month: Invisible Republic : Bob Dylan's Basement Tapes by Greil Marcus http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0805033939/leftofcenterbookA/ ------------------------------------------------------------
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,ab.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.society.labor-unions,bc.politics,can.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:10:28 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Parker Whittle wrote: > So? Interference is a necessary social phenomenon. Do you suggest that > all forms of interference are coercive? > By what philosophical or moral truth does anyone has the right to do > whatever they want (regardless of the degree of passion with which they > go about doing it)? And how does a wage relate intrinsically and > exclusively to a job's importance? Murder, assault, rape are all coercive, if you define it as force applied to another person's body. But then, so is physical enforcement of "property" laws. The fact of the matter is, the concept of property was only invented after ancient humans no longer needed everyone to work to survive. So philosophers with too much free time on their hands made up excuses to get more for themselves. ------------ Producers who can't produce anything useful keep hiring advertisers until they have redefined "useful".
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:48:56 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Parker wrote: > I have a right to claim whatever I want, but actually who cares > whether what I do is "vital" or not to anyone? All I care about is > whether or not someone is willing to pay me for what I do, and how > much. > >A man who figures out new ways to run a food stamp scam is no > >more and no less productive than a man who spends all day trading > >in the currency market. > In your opinion perhaps, but it seems that the people who benefit from > the trades seem to think otherwise. If that's all you care about, why are you here? Or are you being paid for doing what you're currently doing? I could pay one band of mercenaries to go kill and pillage the town next door. Who "benefits from these trades"? Why, me, the mercenaries, weapons manufacturers of course (not to mention our families). -------- Property grows out of the barrel of a gun.
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,can.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.society.labor-unions,ab.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,bc.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:28:47 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Parker wrote: > How are you going to prevent people from banding together and building > a privately owned factory, hiring the best workers and competing with > the state run businesses? And how are you going to prevent people from randomly entering this factory, producing something, and then walking out with the product? Violence. What exactly is the difference between a "private" and a "public" factory? Whether the violence is official or not? What is "ownership"? Ownership is who can make decisions regarding the thing being "owned". If decisions come top-down in both cases, there really isn't a difference. A king can order executions. An employer can order layoffs. The end result is the same: nobody is free to do anything they think may anger their gods. ------------ In a world lost in propaganda and censorship, the real truth is spoken only by liars and fools.
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,can.politics,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.invest.stocks,alt.society.labor-unions,ab.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,bc.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,comp.ai.alife,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:11:20 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Parker wrote: > So what are you going to do with those of us who reuse to go along > with your plan? I'm not going to share my savings with you, and I'm > not going to share my ideas with you. You can, of course, confiscate > my property, but you're going to have a lot more trouble with my trade > secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting > sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to > force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it? Nobody forces you to do anything. Nobody forces doctors to treat you or farmers to feed you. Nobody forces grocery store owners to open their doors to you. Nobody is forced to protect objects that you claim are your property. So what happens if someone wants to grow a carrot garden on "your" lawn? Who gets to decide whether to allow that or not? Either everybody, nobody, whoever has the most guns, or whoever can hire the most lawyers, petition workers, and "think" tanks. We all know which choice you'd pick. -------- Property grows out of the barrel of a gun.
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,ab.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.society.labor-unions,bc.politics,can.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:51:37 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Parker wrote: > >Then what is it exactly that does hold value? Gold? Land? > >Green paper? Stocks? Bonds? Options on stocks? Options on > >options on stocks? Options on options on options on stocks? > >I sell you yellow rocks for green paper. Who wins? Who loses? > >It's like trading the Easter Bunny for Santa Clause. > So, don't do it, if you don't like it, but it works well for the > majority of us. You're very welcome to provide for yourself in > whatever way you'd like, as long as you don't interfere with me. Now you've got it. So who gets to decide if one person's work is worth X amount of yellow rocks and another person's work is worth Y amount of green paper? The simple act of making that decision "interferes" with both sides. When the vast majority of jobs are merely for entertainment purposes, does it really matter if a person is a department store clerk, a soda pop mogul, an artist, a scholar, or someone who does nothing at all? The fact is, NOBODY wants to do nothing at all. The difference is how much of society is free to do what they are really passionate about, and how much of society has to exaggerate the importance of their current job, because they have no other way to pay the bills?
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:57:53 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Parker wrote: > >businesses go under as well. For married couples, the goal of > >owning things is just to look better among their peers. For > >single people, the goal is to get things so they can get married > >so they can get things to look better among their peers. Someday, > >we'll look back on all this, and not remember any of it. > I doubt it, since these things have been going on for thousands of > years, but you can look at it now and laugh if that's your pleasure. > I like to think that people's goals are their own business and none of > anybody else's. I doubt that anybody really cares what you think. And you have every right to brainwash yourself or be brainwashed however you want to. The DIFFERENCE is that if your job is part of an industry that relies on marketing / brainwashing to create demand, then you have no right to claim that anything you do is "vital" to society, and you have no right to claim that other people should be forced to do the same stupid work you are doing. A man who figures out new ways to run a food stamp scam is no more and no less productive than a man who spends all day trading in the currency market. ------- The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. -- Anatole France
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,can.politics,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.invest.stocks,alt.society.labor-unions,ab.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,bc.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,comp.ai.alife,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:10:02 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Parker Whittle wrote: > > The only thing that's inevitable is the past. The future is > > what we make of it. Predictions can be right and predictions > > can be wrong. But the PURPOSE of all predictions is to play > > a part in shaping the future. All of history since Darwin has > > been held under the spell of "competition", even by those who > > claim to be religious. But it's COOPERATION that moves society > > forward. If society were based on peer competition, there would > > be no society at all. > Agreed. That's why free markets reward cooperation. And, from the proper > perspective, non-violent competition is a form of cooperation. Even when > we cooperate we don't always get what we want. There's competition for intangible things: honor, pride, praise, fame, that are rather benign as long as participants don't get carried away. But then there's competition for things that could be just as easily shared, or used on a rotating basis. Trade secrets, patents, and copyrights all hold back the spread of knowledge, and are only needed because of the stupid economic system we live under. Even currency itself can be thrown around on a rotating basis. There's no inherent value stored in currency anyway. All it does is give us Pavlov's dogs the incentive to work. In the end, after the currency is put to some good use, it just heads right back into the economic ether. It actually doesn't really matter whether you spend or not. Bankers can keep the economy going just by reinvesting your savings. Even if you burn your cash, it just causes deflation so that what money bankers have is "worth more". The only stupidity that arises is when people start inventing useless, unhappy busywork to do, for fear of losing their access to the economic ether. And then we wonder why nobody has the time or energy to solve real problems. ---------- Immigration (TM) is a boogeyman invented by slave masters to draw attention away from their autocracy. Limited Resources (TM) is a religion invented by financiers who think patent law is more productive than marine farming.
From: gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n) Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,ab.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.society.labor-unions,bc.politics,can.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: 17 Jun 1997 11:32:13 -0400 Organization: }"{ }"{ }"{ }"{ Freedom wrote: | > Face it - the labour theory of value is a joke. | > The only thing your labour is good for is - what the product | > of it can be sold for. "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com: | Then what is it exactly that does hold value? Gold? Land? | Green paper? Stocks? Bonds? Options on stocks? ... etc. ... Far from being a joke, the labor theory of value is taken very seriously in the financial industry. That is, in contemplating the probable future value of products, projects, and investments in them, the cost and outputs of labor are factored in just as if they were as real as capital, environmental costs, and so on. No one doubts that labor produces value which is tangible enough to affect behavior fairly reliably. The labor theory of value disappears only in rightist propaganda, when it is desirable to hide or deprecate the role of ordinary people in creating capitalist wealth. -- }"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf@panix.com }"{ ----------------------------------------------- NOTE: if your ISP permits junkmailing, you will probably not be able to reach me by email.
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,ab.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.society.labor-unions,bc.politics,can.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 20:13:41 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Freedom wrote: > Face it - the labour theory of value is a joke. > The only thing your labour is good for is - what the product > of it can be sold for. Then what is it exactly that does hold value? Gold? Land? Green paper? Stocks? Bonds? Options on stocks? Options on options on stocks? Options on options on options on stocks? I sell you yellow rocks for green paper. Who wins? Who loses? It's like trading the Easter Bunny for Santa Clause. Ultimately, you can't get people to want something unless you brainwash them to want it. But they're not going to be able to pay you anything unless they have something to give. You could own the world's largest gold mine or oil refinery and it ain't gonna be worth squat unless there are people "harvesting" that and others willing to trade something for it. Without people, you got nothing. How rich would you be if everyone gave you their worldly possessions and moved to a different planet? Sure you might survive for a few days before your food spoils and the power plants explode. How useful would your precious 401K plan be then, eh? ---------- The fear of rain was created by umbrella makers.
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 19:55:13 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Randy wrote: > In an ideal world, this would work OK, but the human need to acquire > social status is what makes the capitalist system go round. To quote > US News & World Report pundit John Leo, " envy is what makes our > economic system work." > The consumer/worker/capitalist drone's own greed for symbols of > social status, not owner-class greed, is the motive force here. Of > course, a reasonable desire for a long and healthy productive life, > and a reasonably comfortable life as well, is a major factor, too. All it is, is brainwashing (aka marketing). Imagine if all the effects of marketing disappeared in this country. Mass death? Nope. Mass unemployment? Probably... since the vast majority of jobs are largely unimportant, and can only make themselves seem important with marketing. If people didn't associate healthiness with being skinny, then all the diet foods and exercise businesses go under. If people didn't associate "two month's salary" with engagement or jewelry / makeup with beauty, then all those businesses go under as well. For married couples, the goal of owning things is just to look better among their peers. For single people, the goal is to get things so they can get married so they can get things to look better among their peers. Someday, we'll look back on all this, and not remember any of it. ------------ People flirt for the same reason fishers fish. Not so much to catch fish, but to catch the NEXT fish.
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,can.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.society.labor-unions,ab.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,bc.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 16:26:35 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Derek Lavin wrote: > > : For instance, if people are free to use physical violence, > > : and they have an advantage like size, speed, or the > > : possession of weapons, they are free to pursue the advantage > > : and subjugate or kill their neighbors. Then they are no > > : longer free. > Not at all. True freedom = ability to do what the hell you want. This > encompasses the freedom to commit what we call crimes, and to enslave > other people. > This is why freedom never works; laws are always needed, however > benevolent and few, to ensure a reasonable degree of pseudo-freedom > (IE, a lifestyle as close to freedom as possible) can exist. Or we can just redefine laws so that everything people actually want to do is legal. AND figure out exactly what it is that "criminals" want. Do they rob banks just for the sheer joy of having green paper? The key question is, "If the collective memory of the human race were wiped clean today and at the end of every day, which actions can be truly considered crimes?" The concept of "owning" inanimate things suddenly disappears... and intelligent individuals actually WORK TOGETHER to survive. What happens if the human race ever regains its memory? Would those laws have to change? Well, depends how many lawyers there are. Does a victim become more of a victim when society feels he is somehow inferior, and held up as an object of pity for being a victim? ------------ We see corruption, greed, perversion everywhere, except in those who control major "serious news" organizations. Such is the nature of monarchy.
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,can.politics,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,ab.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,bc.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,comp.ai.alife,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 16:06:19 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Parker Whittle wrote: > > There are many instances of socialism -- of a community or > > group of workers owning and controlling their own businesses > > (their means of production). It is silly to say that > > socialism "can't work" as if it were self-evident. > You're correct. Nothing is inevitable. Neither the success/failure of > capitalism nor the success/failure of collectivism is inevitable. The only thing that's inevitable is the past. The future is what we make of it. Predictions can be right and predictions can be wrong. But the PURPOSE of all predictions is to play a part in shaping the future. All of history since Darwin has been held under the spell of "competition", even by those who claim to be religious. But it's COOPERATION that moves society forward. If society were based on peer competition, there would be no society at all. --------- Every intelligent society eventually runs simulations and experiments to explain its own creation, creating new intelligent societies in the process. God isn't dead. God is just away from his keyboard.
From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,can.politics,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,ab.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,bc.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 17:19:21 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > It's not too much to stretch that into hierarchical power > structures: the biggest, baddest, meanest thug at the top > and the weaker (esp. women/children) at the bottom. Surely > this was pretty much the case with most native American > Indian tribes. There you go assuming that women are weaker and children dumber like the well-trained dog that you are. Female humans are NOT weaker because of genetics but because of culture. It is the quest for beauty that teaches teenage girls to starve themselves as soon as they hit their earlier growth spurt. It is the quest for sex that teaches girls to forgo athletics, in search of bigger breasts. Did you really learn all you ever needed to know in pre-school? As a matter of fact, probably YES. All the rest is just brainwashing. No child believes in a religion or a political theory UNLESS he is taught that religion or political theory. You must UNLEARN what you have learned. An old man's wisdom lies only in the fact that he has realized that brainwashing is unavoidable during communication. --------- If you hit a man over the head with a fish, he'll have a headache for a day. But if you teach a man to hit himself over the head with a fish, he'll have headaches for the rest of his life.
From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,can.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,ab.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,bc.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is... Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 16:57:41 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. > Stig Mathausen smathesn@lis.ab.can wrote: > >The difference is, anyone can dig a ditch - it's physically hard but requires > >little brainpower, and you would have to go to a nursing home to find a good pool > >of people who couldn't do it. Effective management - giving direction to physical > >force and arranging for the use, distribution, etc. of the finished products - > >requires a lot more know-how and responsibility, and is accordingly less common > >than pure physical ability. Wrong. DEMOCRACY WITH DEBATE is effective management. Anything else, and you get low morale, stale ideas, self-censorship, competition, jealousy, fear, hatred, etc etc. The problem with capitalism is that no manager wants to give away his secrets, unless he starts his own management consulting firm. If you want effective mind control, here it is. 3 sets of guidelines that all say basically the same thing: that you are a coward and a fool. Pavlov's Laws of Mutual Brainwashing: Repetition: The fear of rain was created by umbrella makers. Mutation: Loyalty was a "virtue" invented by kings to keep their pawns in line. Skepticism: If we teach gorillas our history, would they fight wars over it? Absorption: Pride is the irrelevant man's excuse for still feeling relevant. Focus: Mold colonies in a petri dish don't notice us watching them do battle. Conquer fear. Question faith. Humor distraction. Thou shalt not make any graven image, or bow down before any creation in heaven or on earth. Newton's Law of General Stupidity: Human behavior can be completely predicted by knowledge of all the chemical and electrical interactions within the brain. Thus there's no such thing as "free will". Heisenburg's Law of Special Stupidity: By trying to study the chemical and electrical interactions within a person's brain, we change those interactions. Thus it is not possible to determine "destiny".
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,can.politics,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,ab.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,bc.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is.. Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 19:29:07 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mary E Knadler wrote: > >If people are no longer fooled by your marketing, the only > >people who have food will be farmers, and the only people > >who have power will be power plant workers. Face it, the > >vast majority of all jobs in this country are all but useless. > >The fear of rain was created by umbrella makers. > Why don't you find some other group to peddle that hogwash! You sound > like an old fashioned failed Marxist that should be put out to pasture. What is it you do that's so valuable to society? Anybody could quit their job today and nobody would even notice unless it was reported in the press. The fact is, food production and distribution are the ONLY vital occupations. The rest of us are on vacation. And while we're on vacation, we make fortune cookies, we fight wars, we count beans, put on suits and yell at each other. That's where all the profit is. That's where all the green paper and yellow rocks are.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,can.politics,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,ab.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,bc.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is.. Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 13:49:31 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Rt.Rev.Dr.Jeff Ganaposki wrote: > >Greed is found especially in bleeding-heart liberals and socialists!! > If the goal of socialists and communists is the "collective ownership" > of private property, then they are really pirates. > And when all private property is gone, so is law. Dictatorship is all > left. Greed is created by marketing. How many people would even care about Crystal Pepsi if it weren't for marketing, if it weren't for salesmen? Of course, under capitalism, the smooth movement of the market is VITAL to everyone's survival. If people are no longer fooled by your marketing, the only people who have food will be farmers, and the only people who have power will be power plant workers. Face it, the vast majority of all jobs in this country are all but useless. "Collective ownership" can either be run by autocracy or democracy. We all know which one it is in this country. ------ The fear of rain was created by umbrella makers.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,can.politics,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,ab.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,bc.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is.. Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 19:43:08 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. viclevis@ican.net wrote: > They created a means to deliver that entertainment, education and > knowledge. Perhaps you believe that other means should also be stolen? > Perhaps stealing books should be legal because they contain > entertainment, education and knowledge? Once it's created, an object is simply there. The only way you can enforce ownership of it is through force. What REALLY is important is the ACT of creating that object in the first place. In other words, the labor involved. Pay them for their labor, not their objects. Then you wouldn't have to worry about wasting tons of money guarding copyrights, patent rights, or intellectual property. The only drawback to this is that we live under capitalism. All the poor lawyers will lose their jobs and wind up on this sorry excuse for welfare. The fact is, copyright and patent laws run counter to free speech. The only way you can rememdy this and still encourage invention at the same time is with socialized support.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,can.politics,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,ab.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,bc.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is.. Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 12:09:11 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. viclevis@ican.net wrote: > > Yes, but who gets to define what is force and what isn't? Is, for example > > cable theft force? > Cable theft is either force, as in someone hooking his house up to the > company's cable network without permission whatsoever, or it is fraud, > where he asks for and obtains an authorized connection, but doesn't > disclose the fact that he uses it in a way not allowed by the connection > contract. Cable "theft" is only theft because the laws say it's theft. How else are you going to reward cable companies for the work they do? They've obviously created something valuable: entertainment, education, knowledge. Under capitalism, we need to protect that creation by wasting resources on hiring security, on encryption, on scrambling, on copyright lawyers. Hey, at least it creates jobs for security guards. How else are we going to support BOTH security guards and cable operators? Communism? NO WAY! That's against my religion. The fear of rain was created by umbrella makers... and perpetuated by idiots.
From: "Victor Levis" viclevis@ican.net Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is.. Date: 26 Apr 1997 03:57:12 GMT Organization: ACC TelEnterprises Ltd. Mike Jones mdjones@imagin.net wrote in article 33613267.407E@imagin.net... > Victor Levis wrote: > > Bill Reid breid@din.com wrote in article breid-2304971804440001@pm6-64.orf.infi.net... > > On socialism: > > > Better-distributed wealth could actually increase freedom for most people, > > > and would allow a far greater number of people to be "himself or > > > herself." And no, capitalism isn't responsible for creating that wealth > > > in the first place, people are; capitalism just ill-distributes it to > > > conserve centralized power ($). > > Agreed that capitalism does not create wealth. People create wealth. A > > system of freedom, or Liberty, is the system that respects people, even if > > they commit the socialist sin of creating wealth for themselves and their > > loved ones. Socialists (the involuntary kind) grab the wealth produced and > > try to 'distribute it better', i.e. to people who did not create it. Many > > of the various brands of socialism disagree only over WHO should receive the > > distributions and how much the redistributors should take as a cut. > > Voluntary socialism is the only variety compatible with freedom. Very few > > voluntary socialists appear to be around, at least on the UseNet. > What CRAP!!! Capitalism allows people the opportunity to produce goods > and services to their own betterment while socialism destroys individual > initiative and rewards sloth. Capitalism is a system where capital is privately owned. > No socialist system of government has ever > succeeded because of the human element to allow others to do for them > that which should be done for one's self. In short- laziness. Socialism is not a system of government, but an economic system where capital is collectively owned. Several different governmental systems can support socialism, while several others (often the same types) can support capitalism. Types of government include dictatorships, oligarchies, unlimited democracies, constitutional democracies, minarchies, anarchy (no government). > Capitalism may not be a perfect system, but it is as perfect as the > creatures which occupy it. Agreed. >Socialism is inherently evil as it allows the > moral decisions for the masses to be made by a few who acquire their > dominance through outright deceit and treachery. This is true of FORCED socialism, not of voluntary socialism where people decide for themselves whether they want to pool resources and share revenue. Examples of voluntary socialism include worker co-ops, kibbutzes, mutual-stock insurance companies, and marriages. > If you want socialism, then may I suggest you relocate to Cuba. I do not want socialism at all! Well, I did get married. ;-) AT any rate, as a libertarian, I oppose IN THE STRONGEST TERMS ***forced*** socialism. And I wish no ill on voluntary socialists, even if I choose not to live on a commune or kibbutz myself. Victor Levis Libertarian: Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
From: "Victor Levis" viclevis@ican.net Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is.. Date: 24 Apr 1997 12:50:02 GMT Organization: ACC TelEnterprises Ltd. Bill Reid breid@din.com wrote in article breid-2304971804440001@pm6-64.orf.infi.net... On socialism: > Better-distributed wealth could actually increase freedom for most people, > and would allow a far greater number of people to be "himself or > herself." And no, capitalism isn't responsible for creating that wealth > in the first place, people are; capitalism just ill-distributes it to > conserve centralized power ($). Agreed that capitalism does not create wealth. People create wealth. A system of freedom, or Liberty, is the system that respects people, even if they commit the socialist sin of creating wealth for themselves and their loved ones. Socialists (the involuntary kind) grab the wealth produced and try to 'distribute it better', i.e. to people who did not create it. Many of the various brands of socialism disagree only over WHO should receive the distributions and how much the redistributors should take as a cut. Voluntary socialism is the only variety compatible with freedom. Very few voluntary socialists appear to be around, at least on the UseNet. Victor Levis Libertarian: Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
From: "W. Wonka" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,sci.econ,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.reform,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is.. Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 14:46:58 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Derek Nalecki wrote: > >This is caused by that other great capitalist fallacy: that > >wealth is "limited". Having to deal with currency day in > The only people who think wealth is limited are leftists. That's why they > talk of redistributing it, rather than creating more, which is a sole > preserve of capitalists and capitalism. Redistributing what? Paper? "Precious" metals? Rather than creating more what? More paper money? Digging up more "precious" metals? Redistributing currency has nothing to do with real wealth. It neither harms or helps society. Real wealth is in production and research. Is the purpose of civilization to support as many people as possible, all the while researching access to new resources, or is the purpose of civilization to force people to manufacture chia pets and nose hair trimmers, or else to make up lies and half-truths in the name of marketing? > >Wealth CAN be created. It is created by manufacturing > It is. By capitalists. Every day. So if you want to define "capitalist" as the person digging up ore, at the assembly line, or at the engineering table, then fine. Capitalists are creating wealth. But if you want to define "capitalist" as the person who does nothing but tell his accountant to push numbers around, then you might as well say the King is responsible for everything his kingdom produces. ---------- So much time and so little to do. Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it.
From: robink@accessweb.com (Robin R. Krasichynski) Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,a Subject: Re: Socialism not understanding what it is.. Date: 17 Apr 1997 12:36:08 GMT Organization: Telus Advanced Communications On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:09:14 -0700 Curt Howland said ... >> But De Beers is still controlling the price and controlling the supply >> of diamonds - so start saving up for two months worth of salary, so >> you can buy a diamond, because diamonds last forever - how else >> could you tell her you would do it all over again, and they are a girl's >> best friend - and so on and so on and so on. >And the fraud is....where? I didn't suggest there was fraud. What I responded to was the idea that the price of diamonds was set through free market mechanisms. You have agreed that the market has been controlled by De Beers, therefore not a free market at all >> Nothing like a good ad campaign is there? Shiny rocks for sale - >> get 'em while there'rer hot! >As far as I can tell, there are no false statements >in their advertising. If someone chooses to spend >that kind of money on a rock, who will stop them? I don't have a problem with them spending their money on the shiny rocks. What I do have a problem with is the position that the costs of the shiny rocks has been set through fair market operation or even free market operation. The price of diamonds has been set artificially high and maintained through the monopolistic corporate practices of De Beers.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.economics Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is.. Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:48:35 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James Doemer wrote: > Without the investors, how would the work be made available? How do you > propose to reward the investors on the risk they've taken? What risk? Oooo, writing out a check is SO dangerous. Risking your life yapping on the phone with a stock broker takes a WHOLE LOTTA courage. Ordering your lords to the left and your barons to the right. You jester down the middle. One person's labor is only worth more than another person's labor if democracy is dead.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is.. Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:00:18 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James Doemer wrote: > I have to agree, I've never heard a capitalist claim that wealth was > limited by any means... Yet, every socialist I've talked to, or read, > has always claimed a limit on wealth.. Interesting.. And yet capitalists fight welfare, fight health care, fight education. Fight a healthy and educated workforce. The very things that produce wealth in the first place. Who buys gold? Who buys stock? Who buys bonds and futures? WORTHLESS! A medium of exchange is only as good as the two people doing the exchanging. Either both agree that one person's labor is worth more than the other's, or you bring in a capitalist to enforce it at the point of a gun.
From: "W. Hearst" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is.. Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:11:56 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > Socialism like the cockroach will be with us in one form or > another as long as there are some people who are willing to > live at the expense of others and free-lunch economics. Stupid, stupid, STOOPID! You hang on to your "no free lunch" faith like a religious nut hanging on to a god or gods. You are blind, BLIND! See here. How many people do we REALLY need to make food for everyone? The more technology we have, the LESS people we need to make food. This concept must be WAY too simple for "complex" minds like yours to handle. But it really comes down to capitalist fear. Not of a free lunch, but fear that they will lose their OWN free lunch. This is caused by that other great capitalist fallacy: that wealth is "limited". Having to deal with currency day in and day out, capitalists are Pavlov'ed into thinking that the limit on circulating currency means a limit on wealth. They never have time to step back and see the bigger picture. Wealth CAN be created. It is created by manufacturing and growing. It is created by teaching and by learning. ------- If you hit a man over the head with a fish, he'll have a headache for a day. But if you teach a man to hit himself over the head with a fish, he'll have headaches for the rest of his life.
From: "D. Gale" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,misc.invest,alt.politics.brithish,misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,sci.econ,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is.. Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 12:23:41 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Parker wrote: > What makes you think you are capable of defining consistency? > Here's some consistency for you, half wit.... > political democracy = one man/one vote! > economic democracy = one share of stock/one vote > Of course the owners have power..the power of their investment. If > you think anybody is going to invest their life savings in a business > and let just anybody run it, you are dumber than a stump. I invest my > money in business that have the kind of management I want, not one > that allows the workers to run it. And thus everyone is equal, but the rich are more equal. And because they are more equal, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Look at your own company. It's probably run like a "communist" autocracy - shared resources and a top-down chain of command. So what happens? EVERYONE is afraid to disagree with his own manager, so they don't even bother bringing up new ideas.... leaving only a handful of people at the top who have to do the thinking for the thousands below. Are THESE the kinds of companies you want to invest in?
From: umharri5@CC.UManitoba.CA Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.brithish,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Socialism, understanding what it is.. Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 20:11:59 -0600 Organization: The University of Manitoba On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, John Parker wrote: > On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 17:48:24 -0800, "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com wrote: > >JMH wrote: > >> Since when did capitalism or capitalist theorist say employee > >> ownership was a violation of its/their principles? Capitalist > >> theory isn't based on a class distinction of this nature so > >> has no problem with emploees being the owners. Employee > >> and capitalist are not mutually exclusive categories under > >> capitalism, but some claim they are under various forms of socialism. > >Under a truly democratic society, the only distinction > >between the employee and the manager would be the next > >election. And the only distinction between an employee > >and UPPER management may just be a few elections away. > >To help protect this system from corruption or fraud, > >true freedom of expression must be implemented. Not > >just for managers, not just for the rich. If a manager > >were truly as smart as he claims, he would be able to > >educate his employees so that they agreed with his > >policies. > Anybody who is so stupid as to believe that management, let alone > upper management, should be elected by the rank and file is far too > stupid to be a manager. I suppose this right-winger also believes that the rank-and-file should not be allowed to vote for political representatives. What an apologist for dictators he is! As for managers being elected, even Aristotle, who defended the existence of slaves, found it difficult to deny that reliance on the collective decision of the majority is, on the whole, better than relying on experts. John, of course, thinks that Aristotle is far inferior to his own right-wing intellect. John, of course, aspires to be a dictator (called a manager) in capitalist society. Fred

|HOME| CJohnYu.96@alum.mit.edu [email/index]

Click Here! |count|
|11/13|