I'd never shed a tear for anyone I hate as much as I hate him and what he stands for.
Can rational self interest and socialism be reconciled?
- Thread starter Lark
- Start date
I'd never shed a tear for anyone I hate as much as I hate him and what he stands for.
What does he stand for?
he seems to stand for pulling the US troops back to the US and staying out of conflict
Do you support the constant conflict in the middle east?
[video=youtube;yDSX3XvqkjE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDSX3XvqkjE[/video]
I do think that the analogy with religious zealotry is a good one, Muir and others like him are not interested in open minds or discussion what they are looking for is converts to their private creedos and worldviews.
Does anyone on this board remember being asked to pick a place of birth, parents, genetics, or any other factors that determine what a person feels, thinks, and does? If the answer is no, then how can anyone claim to give justification to any system that goes against basic equal opportunity for all? If everyone is given a chance at equal opportunity and liberty then the amount of human suffering naturally goes down. The system we have in the West is not a system of equal opportunity, nor is any other system the world has given us to date. It is a system molded by the 1% to protect their interests. Is it any wonder people put in horrible situations end up desperate and perform atrocities? I am highly emphatic. When I see someone like Hitler or Bin Laden I do not see a person I despise, I see a person that the system has created. That of course doesn't give their actions any excuses, but it does makes you look at the real issue behind everything. Hating someone, seeking revenge, gets you nowhere. It leaves you blind to the perspectives of others. Thereafter resulting in trying to deal with the superficial reasons behind their actions. By continuing to sit in your own world oblivious to what is happening, you are in essence enabling this all to continue...
I have realized that perhaps the only reasonable way to expect change is to dramatically alter the system and environment of everyone. Happy and successful individuals are much easier to find in happy, caring, and understanding environments. The second hope is to change the mentality of others and what they value/need. The latter option seems nearly impossible because of the nature of humans. I would like to believe that letting the wealthy control the distribution of their money brings more prosperity then a more socialist ideology, but that doesn't seem to be the case. You personally might give your wealth back but that does not mean the majority will. When you have been raised your entire life to value position, money, and more materialistic ends you are simply less likely to give back. It really connects to this one passage from a very interesting Japanese novel I read. The conversation between a general and the stories main antagonist goes like this(after some introduction):
'Asking us to respect our enemy as we were being eyed by gun-toting guards was simply preposterous. I couldn't help but grab my stomach and laugh. Then how do we explain the brutal acts performed by some British soldiers in the last war in the Middle East? Hypocrites honestly believe that the good deeds of the few can really save the world over time. If you want to put up the smoke and mirrors on someone like that, just draw up an analogy on a grander scale. Mention human nature. Talk about a whole nation. Discuss the inherent implications of society, currency, or property. Simply start a conversation with something akin to a didactic novelist's opening and you're guaranteed a hit or two.'
General: "That's exactly right, child. Where are we right now?"
Antagonist: "A dump", I answered.
General: "That's right, a dump. Right now, unprecedented terrorism threatens the world. People continue to die every second in Africa. But that has nothing to do with us, for we do not live in the world. We live in the individual."
People generally do not care about others if they are not taught to value that as children. Capitalistic values do not promote empathy or caring about others. It only promotes individuality/selfishness and separation. Be it different political groups. Separate religions. Nationalism. Race. All ways to separate one another and put everyone in a simplified box to validate our own insecurities and fears. Instead of trying to understand each other, we continue to argue about the superficial issues, while real people are being killed every second of every day. It seems like most of us really do live in our own world.
So yes, mitigate the effects of the existential lottery, (place of origin, race, social status, sex, environment, etc), and give everyone an equal opportunity, (through whatever means necessary), and perhaps one day humans will reach a point where self interest is equal to the interests of others(in the vast majority). I am honestly not sure if this can every be achieved, but it is nice to dream...
I have realized that perhaps the only reasonable way to expect change is to dramatically alter the system and environment of everyone. Happy and successful individuals are much easier to find in happy, caring, and understanding environments. The second hope is to change the mentality of others and what they value/need. The latter option seems nearly impossible because of the nature of humans. I would like to believe that letting the wealthy control the distribution of their money brings more prosperity then a more socialist ideology, but that doesn't seem to be the case. You personally might give your wealth back but that does not mean the majority will. When you have been raised your entire life to value position, money, and more materialistic ends you are simply less likely to give back. It really connects to this one passage from a very interesting Japanese novel I read. The conversation between a general and the stories main antagonist goes like this(after some introduction):
'Asking us to respect our enemy as we were being eyed by gun-toting guards was simply preposterous. I couldn't help but grab my stomach and laugh. Then how do we explain the brutal acts performed by some British soldiers in the last war in the Middle East? Hypocrites honestly believe that the good deeds of the few can really save the world over time. If you want to put up the smoke and mirrors on someone like that, just draw up an analogy on a grander scale. Mention human nature. Talk about a whole nation. Discuss the inherent implications of society, currency, or property. Simply start a conversation with something akin to a didactic novelist's opening and you're guaranteed a hit or two.'
General: "That's exactly right, child. Where are we right now?"
Antagonist: "A dump", I answered.
General: "That's right, a dump. Right now, unprecedented terrorism threatens the world. People continue to die every second in Africa. But that has nothing to do with us, for we do not live in the world. We live in the individual."
People generally do not care about others if they are not taught to value that as children. Capitalistic values do not promote empathy or caring about others. It only promotes individuality/selfishness and separation. Be it different political groups. Separate religions. Nationalism. Race. All ways to separate one another and put everyone in a simplified box to validate our own insecurities and fears. Instead of trying to understand each other, we continue to argue about the superficial issues, while real people are being killed every second of every day. It seems like most of us really do live in our own world.
So yes, mitigate the effects of the existential lottery, (place of origin, race, social status, sex, environment, etc), and give everyone an equal opportunity, (through whatever means necessary), and perhaps one day humans will reach a point where self interest is equal to the interests of others(in the vast majority). I am honestly not sure if this can every be achieved, but it is nice to dream...
Last edited:
Well...lets see how open minded you are...mr i hate ron paul and everything he stand for!
lol
What is most fascinating about you lark is that you appear to be actually completely unconscious of your own irony
All you do is troll me but dodge the issues. Are you afraid of something?
Last edited:
There's a difference between applied and theoretical socialism. I have a close relative who teaches political philosophy, along with Marxist theory, and she said that a 100th times during her classes.
Sweden, a country based on socialism, they do pretty well, and it's a pretty wealthy, advanced country too. Cubans are pretty much cheerful and do well generally, it's true that the government it's oppresive (met a lot of Catro lovers though), but their whole mindset is different when it comes to "self interest" or whatever that means in the first place, it's a pretty much known fact here where i live that cuban doctors are one of the best around, also the education is good for the most.
Also, Ayn Rand was an amateur whose ideas are directed to wealthy accomodated people to justificate their greed and insecure napoleon-complex kids. Rational egoism? Give me a fucking break.
Sweden, a country based on socialism, they do pretty well, and it's a pretty wealthy, advanced country too. Cubans are pretty much cheerful and do well generally, it's true that the government it's oppresive (met a lot of Catro lovers though), but their whole mindset is different when it comes to "self interest" or whatever that means in the first place, it's a pretty much known fact here where i live that cuban doctors are one of the best around, also the education is good for the most.
Also, Ayn Rand was an amateur whose ideas are directed to wealthy accomodated people to justificate their greed and insecure napoleon-complex kids. Rational egoism? Give me a fucking break.
Why do you blame Operation Condor on corporations? US involvment was derived of communist hate which took root during the cold war because of fear and hate of Russia. Hate of certain groups is common when people need someone to blame. When Germany was suffering after WWI they blamed teh Jews because the Jews were well off and the germans persecuted them. After Pearl Harbor the US blamed adn distrusted all Japanese even in the US.
Now people blame corporations and the economic strife has raised it to a new level.
It is odd to blame corporations when they resemble the democratic/republic type of government so well. I share ownership of corporations just as most middle class people do through 401k and stocks.
I don't blame 'corporations'...corporations are just a legal entity
Its the people who use those legal entities as vehicles to rape and pillage that i blame
And i blame them for operation condor because they were behind it. It was about that section of society suppressing any form of resistance from the public to their total dominance
The neoliberal policies of these people has sucked the wealth upwards away from millions of people around the world threatening the ability of those people to feed themselves and their families.
This is a game of eugenics. The people who have stolen the money are saying through their polices that large swathes of humanity should be economically strangled to death.
But if we are going to eradicate a section of society wouldn't we be better off eradicating the most psychopathic? because that would mean the tables would have to be turned and the people doing the killing would need to be killed
For many of the worlds poor this is not some theoretical debate about who should get to live or die it is simply a real daily struggle of life or death for them and their families. This is why groups around the world are resisiting for example the zapatistas. Here is their spokesman Marco explaining to the western media that there is a war being waged agains the worlds poor right now:
[video=youtube;O3pHmHbqqTk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3pHmHbqqTk[/video]
In order to push their fascistic economics onto other countries the globalist clique in the US supported death squads such as those in operation condor and also those of pinochet in chile (so they could push their 'chicago boys' economics onto chile, which then trashed the economy)
The CIA provided these death squads with terror manuals called: ''A Handbook for psychological warfare'' which explains how to commit atrocities in order to spread terror including eating the body part of enemies, rape and mass murders. These are the same handbooks the CIA have provided to the free syrian rebels including ISIS
The fear belonged to the fascistic elements or what are called nowadays in the US the ''1%''. The 1% were afraid that the world was changing and that peoples movements were rising that wanted to see the resources of countries used to benefit its people not a handful of families at the top of society.
These powerful fascistic families hyped up a 'red scare' among the US population in order to get the support of the US public as they set about butchering any people around the world who demanded a fairer deal
The hate of russia came because the bankers attempt to carve open russia in order to exploit her markets had failed. They sent trotsky (real name Bronstein) and Lenin with a lot of money and some exiled (and trained) revolutionaries (predominantly jewish) back to russia to kill the tzar and to take over russia so that it could be opened upto western exploitation. However Stalin took power and blocked this move and instead an 'iron curtain' descended across Europe as Russia protected itself from the bankers
The most hateful people are the corporate cabal who pedal endless hate against the muslims, the russians, the iranians, the chinese, the koreans etc etc in their corporate media
They desperately want to blame external threats to distract the US public from how they are destroying the US economy from within
No that's not why the germans blamed the jews. The Germans had taken in large numbers of jews from russia where they had been fighting with the tzar. The jews settled and prospered in germany. However during world war 1 the germans were winning the war and had the allies pushed back to paris and the british were considering suing for peace with germany but the Rothschild banking family as heads of the zionist federation made a secret deal with the british government called the 'balfour declaration'.
This deal involved the zionists using their wealth and political and media influence in the US to bring the US into war on the side of britain in return for britain giving them the land of palestine which was under the control of the british empire at the time. The deal went ahead, the US entered the war and the germans were humiliated.
The Germans then found out about the secret agreement made by the zionists after world war I at the treaty of sevres. The germans then felt that they had been stabbbed in the back by the jews (by the zionists really) which they had given shelter to. More went on for example the undermining of german society through cultural marxism but the balfour declaration was a major factor...
Palestine was not for the Brits to give away because it was already populated by the palestineans who are still being ethnically cleansed from their lands by the zionists even today with the recent bombings of gaza killing many children as an example of this
If you read into the details around pearl harbour the background is that the US imposed sanctions on Japan which they knew would anger Japan; they then left their fleet out in pearl harbour where they knew it was exposed...like dangling a carrot in front of a donkey
The commander in charge of the fleet had refused to put the fleet there so he was dismissed and another commander put in who obeyed high command. Spies also warned the US fleet of approaching japanese military actions but all these warnings were ignored.
The truth is the US needed Pearl Harbour to justify the war to the US public
The corporate entity is a terrible invention and its legal personhood was a disaster but its the people behind the corporations that are the ones to blame
There are inherent problems with corporations for example they have no mechanism designed into them to recognise externalities such as human suffering or environmental damage; they exist only to bring profit to their shareholders and as such are psychopathic entities
The corporations have consolidated though so that they are owned by a fewer and fewer number of hands. These people are networked together under umbrella groups such as the council on foreign relations (CFR) which have a vision for a centralised totalitarian government that will rule us all tyrannically (think Big Brother from orwells 1984). They want this fascistic government to be expressed not just on the national level but also on a global scale (the New World Order)
Last edited:
When you post rhetorical questions and there is no response there is always the risk of you believing that the person whose post you have quoted or others are validating your point with their silence.
This is not the case.
I just want to you know for absolute certain that this is the case, that you are being ignored, that your communication fail remains a communication fail and that none of your points are persuasive when you cant get anyone to give you the time of day.
I'll start by apologizing if anything I say is redundant, but my reply is in regards to the original post.
I absolutely think they can be reconciled, and in fact, for them to be reconciled is exactly where things have to go if we're to progress as a species!
Also, I think the classification of socialism you've outlined in the original post is ever so slightly more characteristic of communism rather than socialism. The self-denial, mandated altruism, etc. ( I think its kind of naive to force these values where they are not present in individuals, hence the disaster that is communism!)
I love those values when people exhibit them honestly, thought it is kind of a folly to mandate them, my last partner really helped stoke this very strong interest in me. As such, I've only come to think this way much later in my life, (let alone take an interest). But its been revelatory for me. The idea of mixing the notion of a healthy, quality, and regulated market which provides a healthy expression for peoples kind of intrinsic self interest, in an effective and overarching political strata of strictly public interest.
IT CAN BE DONE! lol
I admit thinking this way has been very beyond most people I've talked about it with, and only the most deeply matured people I know even have a tangible interest. Kind of a shame really! : ( Thanks though for posing such a wonderful question! It's really satisfying to read such a wonderful question being asked.
I absolutely think they can be reconciled, and in fact, for them to be reconciled is exactly where things have to go if we're to progress as a species!
Also, I think the classification of socialism you've outlined in the original post is ever so slightly more characteristic of communism rather than socialism. The self-denial, mandated altruism, etc. ( I think its kind of naive to force these values where they are not present in individuals, hence the disaster that is communism!)
I love those values when people exhibit them honestly, thought it is kind of a folly to mandate them, my last partner really helped stoke this very strong interest in me. As such, I've only come to think this way much later in my life, (let alone take an interest). But its been revelatory for me. The idea of mixing the notion of a healthy, quality, and regulated market which provides a healthy expression for peoples kind of intrinsic self interest, in an effective and overarching political strata of strictly public interest.
IT CAN BE DONE! lol
I admit thinking this way has been very beyond most people I've talked about it with, and only the most deeply matured people I know even have a tangible interest. Kind of a shame really! : ( Thanks though for posing such a wonderful question! It's really satisfying to read such a wonderful question being asked.
Can you please elaborate on how this would work in real world terms?
I'd also say that when some people seem to be talking about something that might seem good, sometimes they are actually masking their true intentions and in reality they are a nothing more than a cynical apologist for fascism
The only way to know if someone is this is to listen to them over a period of time; they always shows their true colours at some point (i know i've seen it countless times over the years)
I'm just saying this because different people mean different things when they talk about 'socialism'. For example do you know what system the OP would like to see created? Why don't you ask him for clarification?
Last edited:
Cynical apologist for fascism? Thats comes off as quite a leap! Are you suggesting that I should have assumed Lark is one, and grilled him based on that assumption? That doesn't come off as reasonable in the slightest, especially since that would be assumption for which I have no evidence! Nor any justifiable reason to presume. Thats a bizarre, and seems to me to be a rather paranoid way to go about communicating, in my opinion. Lark asked a number of clear questions, and I provided as clear a response as seemed fit at the time.
Fascism to me is not a laudable political worldview, at all. That really goes without saying, especially until someone argues for it directly. It would be wildly silly for me to presume it given that I haven't been presented an argument for it. I don't know if Lark secretely believes in fascism, and it doesn't even come into my mind as something for which to worry about! If anyone believes that, I can't do anything about it until they argue their case. When, and if anyone does i'll argue those points. When, and if they are made. Seems reasonable to me.
Regarding how would it work in real world terms? The same way any government works. By the consent of the governed, and through a set of legislations around a constitution designed to enact the vision.
Fascism to me is not a laudable political worldview, at all. That really goes without saying, especially until someone argues for it directly. It would be wildly silly for me to presume it given that I haven't been presented an argument for it. I don't know if Lark secretely believes in fascism, and it doesn't even come into my mind as something for which to worry about! If anyone believes that, I can't do anything about it until they argue their case. When, and if anyone does i'll argue those points. When, and if they are made. Seems reasonable to me.
Regarding how would it work in real world terms? The same way any government works. By the consent of the governed, and through a set of legislations around a constitution designed to enact the vision.
I'm not saying anything about Lark...you can make you're own mind up regarding him
What i'm saying is that if you study history one of the most FOUNDATIONAL things you do is always try to understand where something is coming from
For example if you are reading an account of a battle you need to know what the loyalties of the writer were as then you will be able to assess their BIAS and then assess their account accordingly
This also applies to political discussions online particularly because of the various useages of the word 'socialism'
So before you go lauding someone for saying that socialism can make perfect bed fellows with self interest i am saying you might want to look into that persons BIAS
For example Pol Pot murdered over a million people in the killing fields and he might have called himself a 'socialist'. So was he coming from the heart?
On the other hand there are genuine socialists who want to see a peaceful change in society to one where the resources are shared more equally
Regarding this particular discussion however it could be seen within a wider context and that is why i mentioned about the need to view things over a period of time to learn what kind of 'socialist' a person is
So for example there are some powerful banking families who have basically wrecked the economy causing misery to millions of people and those families are also implicated in wars and murders and acts of the most horrific nature. Those families call themselves 'socialists'...but what does that word mean to them?
For me the word means a system where the workers (you and me) own and control the means of production and make decisions democratically through workers councils
But to those banking families 'socialism' means a planned economy that they will control from the centre, like a spider in the middle of a web. History shows us that such centrally controlled systems are always accompanied with a police state that is used to spy on the public to make sure that they are behaving themselves the way the central controllers want them to (and have dictated to them to behave those ways and think those ways)
There are some people out there online who act as apologists for these banking 'socialists' who want to build a totalitarian system that sits on our backs
These people would make apologies for the self interest of the bankers as they suck us dry like parasites
I'm sure you would agree that this is not a good deal for us!
But evil masterminds always have their sycophantic henchmen who do their dirty work for them
I'm not saying this about Lark but just as an observation that i have seen in the world; concerning Lark you would have to observe him over time to learn if he is coming from the heart or if he is a sycophantic fascistic henchman of the globalist murderers, rapists and theives
Last edited:
Just ignore that guy and his name calling, he's pretty desperate for attention. I think is espousing of weird thinking is all part of it too.
Muir you are really patronizing.
The idea that the richest 1% (banking elite as you put it) are socialists is extremely funny. I can't even...
The people who nearly wrecked the economy (like in 2008) were enormous fans of de-regulated free markets. Alan Greenspan testified before congress and very reluctantly admitted to being a free-market ideologue. He's a famous fan of Ayn Rand.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business-july-dec08-crisishearing_10-23/
Here's the proof as a reference.
You seem to fashion yourself as a defender of the poor and the down-trodden, I have to wonder why than would you have any appreciation for Ron Paul? I can't help but wonder if it is either supreme confusion and delusion, or supreme disingenuousness?
The idea that the richest 1% (banking elite as you put it) are socialists is extremely funny. I can't even...
The people who nearly wrecked the economy (like in 2008) were enormous fans of de-regulated free markets. Alan Greenspan testified before congress and very reluctantly admitted to being a free-market ideologue. He's a famous fan of Ayn Rand.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business-july-dec08-crisishearing_10-23/
Here's the proof as a reference.
You seem to fashion yourself as a defender of the poor and the down-trodden, I have to wonder why than would you have any appreciation for Ron Paul? I can't help but wonder if it is either supreme confusion and delusion, or supreme disingenuousness?
I think it depends on whether you have a scarcity or abundance mentality in the first place.
Most attempts at political/ideological Socialism on the national scale come about through conflict or war which induces the scarcity mindset.
Lots of socialistic enterprises work on the small scale because co-operation has to be willing to work.
Most people co-operate with others. It feels good to work together and get something done that benefits all involved.
Political Socialism produces a war mindset in the leadership who are meant to protect the revolution. They go nuts first, ironically and tragically.
To make it work on a national scale that willing has to extend to millions of total strangers and that is a big ask of anyone. It's a lifetimes work without the pressures that a revolution and all that social upheaval bring. I'd say near impossible with that happening. Revolutionary Socialism/Communism is a scam.
Greenspan is just a bag man for the central bankers
The people behind the federal reserve have been the driving force behind capitalism for hundreds of years but they have also done business with the communists
What they are really about is centralised power. They don't care what -ism they use as long as they are controlling things
Concerning greenspan its true that he was associated with ayn rand but if you look at his behaviour it is not libertarian it is about centralised power...he was head of the central bank for crying out loud! Thats the most un-libertarian job you could have in the US!!!
If he was for free market capitalism then he'd be against central banks not working as their chairman!
It doesn't matter what greenspan said publically his views were his actions in actuality were to follow the instructions of the banking cartel who have set about sabotaging the US economy on the path to their New World Order
Powerful people lie...a lot so judge a tree by its fruit
Here's greenspan admiting that the fed is above the law from 7:45 onwards
[video=youtube;ol3mEe8TH7w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol3mEe8TH7w[/video]
Last edited:
I'm going to throw this out there for anyone curious as to what the average American spends on social what nots.
I live in a town where cost of living is spot on average. I make what is considered average income for a single.
I figured out that after tax deductions and exemptions, I pay a total of 3% for Federal (whatever they do with it), 3% public roads and police services (state stuff), 3% for public schools and health care (Medicare)
Then 5% for gov. ran retirement savings.
I considered my property taxes too when determining what I really pay for schools, which I keep separate from state stuff in my mind. Sorry if this confuses anyone. I don't seem to organize my thoughts like everyone else. I also round off to nearest ones place. I think this helps determine what people really pay better than the gov. ran websites will tell you. Or I am bias, and just like my way of organizing my thoughts better.
I'm fine with what I pay.
I live in a town where cost of living is spot on average. I make what is considered average income for a single.
I figured out that after tax deductions and exemptions, I pay a total of 3% for Federal (whatever they do with it), 3% public roads and police services (state stuff), 3% for public schools and health care (Medicare)
Then 5% for gov. ran retirement savings.
I considered my property taxes too when determining what I really pay for schools, which I keep separate from state stuff in my mind. Sorry if this confuses anyone. I don't seem to organize my thoughts like everyone else. I also round off to nearest ones place. I think this helps determine what people really pay better than the gov. ran websites will tell you. Or I am bias, and just like my way of organizing my thoughts better.
I'm fine with what I pay.
What if you found out you paid in different ways for example inflation, lost pensions, loss of public services, degenerating infrastructure, environmental damage and the indebtedness of the next generation?