Your welcome, and thanks for the clarification. That was pretty helpful. Oh wait, I think I am taking myself too seriously. Hold on a sec....okay, there, I farted. I think I should be good for an hour or so. Hmm...maybe I will watch CNN.
<B>major -- i think you make the assertion that as long as we have the right to vote, we're not communist...or something along those lines, right?? if you didn't say that I don't want to disagree with you... if you did say that, i strongly disagree. capitalism is what is lost with the emergence of communism...not necessarily democracy...not at first, anyway.</B> No, I didn't mean that at all. However, I do believe the right to vote and determine the people in power is a key aspect that differentiates Communism and Democracy. Communism vs. Capitalism is the more direct connection, but I don't think the communist economic structure works without a Communist government structure. Sure, you may have socialist elements such as a basic welfare system, but there's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. As long as we have the right to vote, I don't believe we are in danger of turning into a Communist society <I>unless</I> the mass majority of people are impoverished or whatnot in such numbers that the mass majority vote to move to communism. And if that is the case, then I would argue that our capitalist society has failed anyway.
If one posts ideas, one subjects them to criticism. It's usually a poor idea to profess opinions that can be easily deconstructed and dismissed. I fail to see how the fact that this is a Hangout Forum at a basketball website somehow legitimates lazy argumentation. People too often use rhetoric that they can't support. I'm not going to lower my own standards, certainly. To be perfectly honest, I understand you less than most people on this board. At times, you're sophisticated, intelligent, and open-minded. At others, you seem like a knee-jerk conservative that accepts conservative rhetoric without looking at it critically. I don't understand when you do one, and when the other.
Oh, really! Are you saying that we don't have government corruption? Your outlook is naive. People that get elected do <b>their</b> bidding, then if we don't like it they get voted out unless they can raise enough money to confuse their electorate and obfuscate their record. <b>haven</b>: I posted this because I thought it would be an interesting launch-off for a discussion of these matters. You and Major seem to know better and just dismiss it. The piece is not an "article" neither finished or polished I would say. For all I know it may be excertped and the part left out may answer many more of these criticisms that you all have leveled. Someone who doesn't agree with your conclusion is somehow reduced to idiocy. Is that what they're teaching you? IN essence you have insulted MadMax, Colby and me by linking us with Tim McVay. How kind and broad-minded of you!
How boring. There are people I argue with on this forum without being derogatory at all. After all, I don't believe that absolute truth is accessible to the human mind. So for me, it's all about superiority of interpretation based on known data. If the logic of one's interpretation is valid and the facts the other person operates by I'm willing to stipulate... well, there's not much else I can say. Just a matter of interest. But when someone's claim fails to meet the burden of internal logic... yeah, then I ridicule it, sometimes.
Well, my outlook may be naive. I don't pretend to know the extent of corruption in goverment, as you seem to do. But the system would only bog down into communism if more than the majority of the goverment officials were corrupt, were all working together to bring about communism, and were doing so against the wishes of their consituency. I don't believe that is happening, and if that makes me naieve, then I guess that's what I am. Do you seriously believe there is enough corruption in goverment as to competely negate any checks and balances we have in place to remove officials who aren't making decisions based on their constiuency's will? That is a hell of a lot of corruption.
<b>haven</b>: Does someone's claim fail to meet the burden of internal logic when you say so? You make very broad and dismissive assertions which prove absolutely nothing except in your own mind. I bet you got an "A." "How boring?" Are you a snot or what?!!!! "So for me it's all about superiority..." Yeah, I can see where that came from!! <b>RavenLunatic</b>: I make no special claims to know the extent of corruption in government. I do know that it is there and the form it takes is a sneaky one which takes a long time to recognize, an even longer time to root out. Mostly we have a system that is corrupt with careerism and the power of money. Nor am I saying that our government is ripe with communists. However, there is no doubt that we are moving away form the ideals upon which this nation were founded and have served her so well for so long. That is a looming tragedy unless the course is reversed. Try Beano.
You never even attempted to address my claims. The internal logic of the argument was faulty because it didn't exist. It simply stated certain aspects of the communist manifesto, then listed some incidences that one might interpret as being in-line with such aspects. There isn't an argument there. If there were, then it would attempt to show how US law is gravitating towards the political/economic system we call socialism. It let the paranoia of the reader do the work for it. That's not an argument, but empty rhetoric. I pointed out the obvious misinterpretations of such a post. And how the history of social welfare reforms could be interpreted. But you weren't interested in that. Btw, leaving out essential elements of a quotation in order to make your point is despicable. That last quote you used with me... has put you on my ignore list (currently all of 3 people, who I consider utterly without merit on this bbs). Absolutely pathetic.
Ooh, I'm being punished by the high and mighty. Somebody tell him hello for me please! <b>haven's claims</b>: #1 "Marxism's appeal was always in its attempt to address the problems of pure capitalism. The reason Marx's predictions of utter social revolution never came to pass is that capitalist countries adjusted. There were genuine problems, and they were fixed in a moderate, less radical fashion." #2 "I'd say the author is paranoid. The laws the author seems to object to so strongly are the very same ones that largely have prevented communism from becoming more of a reality. After all, there is a scale with pure marxism on one end, and pure capitalism on the other. Go to far either way, and you're going to have a miserable society. Following the industrial revolution, serious reforms were necessary to prevent misery from becoming so widespread as to incite a true revolution." These reforms have been implemented. People who favor pure Marxism or pure captialism are extremists... and quite frankly, terrify me. #3 "So for me, it's all about superiority of interpretation based on known data. If the logic of one's interpretation is valid and the facts the other person operates by I'm willing to stipulate... well, there's not much else I can say. Just a matter of interest." <b> That's your "proof." Pretty piss-poor and pathetic. Seems to me like nothing more than an assemblage of opinions. So now your opinion is proof enough...uh-huh
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ****ing Commies and their damn civil liberties. That was one of the silliest things I've ever read. I could make an argument that 2+2 = 5, by showing the similarities between the number 4 and the number 5 . . . doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
I didn't even finish to 3/4 way down the first page of this thread, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but... Communism is a political system. Socialism is an economic system. Democracy is a political system. Capitalism is an economic system. You guys need to get those basic distinctions straight before you can even discuss the issue. Haven (our distinguished superior braniac scholar of political science with an extra emphasis on economic implications) will back me up on those basic distinctions. (Why didn't you mention that earlier, haven?) To elaborate: Communism - (centralized) rule by community directive. Socialism - governmental (centralized) control of the economy. Democracy - (decentralized) rule by the people. Capitalism - market (decentralized) control of the economy. Considering these definitions/distinctions, and analyzing the world's nation-state's individual political and economic orientations, one can only come to the conclusion that every nation state exhibits properties of all 4 classifications. It is only a matter of how far everyone leans in a particular direction... Haven should also back me up on that. The US is a nominal/traditional democratic capitalist state; we emphasize the power of the vote, and we generally let the market correct itself. But we have definite communist/socialist tendencies: the tripartite govt makes the rules (with the executive having precedence during "wartime"), and the Fed (a central banking organization, even if it is not actually a govt entity - it is not) corrects the market by altering interest rates and adjusting the money supply... Like ALL states (except for pure dictatorships), we are really a communistic democracy that uses socialistic capitalism (wierd as it may sound). We just lean towards the democracy/capitalist side more heavily than many other nation-states do. Now, that is not a judgement. Personally, I like leaning towards democracy/capitalism. But I am realistic enough not to become a Libertarian... Some degree of communistic political process and socialistic economic process is needed for any large industrial/post-industrial nation-state to function. But if you go to far in that direction, then I will start calling you a Communist... People have a right to elect their representatives, and the markets tend to correct themselves.
The original post is wierd,rather unsophisticated far right propaganda. Karl Marx, though his ideas had highly political implications, was originally an intellectual, a philosopher. Sociology considers him one of the first sociologists. He had many observations about industrial capitalism, which was a fairly new development. Some of his predictons proved to be correct others not. I suppose we could get his predictions that did not prove correct and therefore "prove" that the US is not becoming a communist nation. I like the logic. Marx advocated public education; every country in the world except such religious states as Taliban controlled Afghanistan had public education. Therefore, Taliban Afghanistan was one of the only non communist countries in the world. Unfortunately, we just toppled its government. I guess that is just what you'd expect from a communist leaning country like ours. Gives you something to think about.
treeman: Honest to God, GREAT POST! What has been bugging me for a while now is our propensity to refer to ourselves in capatilist terms as if money should be the defining characteristic of our society. I am becoming increasingly concerned by our overt dependence on business models in government. There is this almost rabid need to make everything efficient and stremlined. There has to be "accountibility" for everything we do. You know, there used to actually be people who were poets and gentlemen farmers for a living. In fact, Benjamin Franklin was a gentleman farmer/inventor/writer/weather man. We have become so obsessed with making a strong economy, that many of the most peacful and wonderful pursuits upon which our country was built have been put out to pasture in favor of more economically sound business models. Doesn't anyone else worry that there are almost no more mom and pop establishments because the Wal Mart's of the world have crushed them? Isn't the absence of the American family farm sad? Does anyone think that we may be losing our cultural backbone now that artists and musicians and writers are forced to show that their work will turn a profit before they are allowed to make art? I put my faith in democracy every time, but I worry about our trending towards the capitilistic idea. The whole "greed is good" thing is just wierd.
<b>treeman</b>: That was a very elucidating contribution. Thanks. I'll have to chew that one over for awhile. <b>Jeff</b>: "Doesn't anyone else worry that there are almost no more mom and pop establishments because the Wal Mart's of the world have crushed them? Isn't the absence of the American family farm sad? <b>giddyup</b>: Yes, these are both sad developments. <b>Jeff</b>: "Does anyone think that we may be losing our cultural backbone now that artists and musicians and writers are forced to show that their work will turn a profit before they are allowed to make art?" <b>giddyup</b>: This one is not so sad. I'm not sure how the scenario above actually works: how do they demonstrate that their work will show a profit? I think the art world is better off with fewer self-important, self-absorbed artists. Popular culture is costing us our cultural backbone because it is as consumable as fast food. People now "make art" to "make money" not just for the pleasure or satisfaction of artistic expression.
I agree that people make art to make money but that is a by-product of capitalism and the lack of funds available elsewhere. You realize that Motzart, Beethoven, Michelangelo, etc. etc. were all patrons of their respective governments. They did not make art unless they were funded. What bothers me is that many artists who are truly artistic (classical music, art of varying kinds) cannot survive through capitalism. Billy Joel released an instrumental classical album that sold like 150,000 copies and immediately became the biggest selling classical album of all time. The next closest sold 35,000 or somewhere in that range. As a result, without the subsidy that government provides (and generous donors and underwriters who are becoming more and more scarce), many of these art forms will slowly die on the vine. IMO, there are certain parts of our society that are worthy of retention and if it means that the government supports them to do so, so be it.
<b<>Jeff</b>: What I was trying to get at is this: no one is owed the living of their choosing. They have to earn and deserve it. Just because someone wants to make art to make money does not mean that they are owed subsidy. It may be more of a lack of talent than a lack of funds. If they can find a patron, fine, but I don't like the idea of much more than minimum tax dollars doing the job. To whom that limited money goes is a defining problem. You say that those classical artists did not make art unless they were funded: you are talking about the end of their careers, right? Somehow I don't think they "came out of art school" being so demanding! Things are kind of different today. Those artists you mentioned.... were the patronized by personal (kingly) fortunes or tax dollars? The problem today is that there are so many wannabes who do not deserve subsidy that it is not possible to subsidize them all. In the end, sn't the problem that pop culture is overwhelming the classics, distracting the public, and undermining our tastes?
I guess the problem for me is that how do you protect art while encouraging commerce. Your argument essentially states that, "Well, Brittany Spears can make money so her "art" deserves to survive while a great composer can't make enough to survive so his "art" doesn't." I'm not really concerned with artistic production meant for commerce. Any form of pop music or art fits that categorization and should be forced to stand on its ability to appeal to an audience. Pop is short for "popular" after all. However, are we better off if pop music and art is ALL that survives. Motzart was funded by the king as were most of the other artisans of the time. The government at the time believed that, in some instances, production and profit wasn't as important as allowing culture to survive. Most of them didn't go to art school. They were craftsmen and artisans just as silversmiths or farmers were. Art was their trade. The problem with your scenario is that you suggest that people who aren't popular aren't talented. I know you are smarter than that. Using your analogy, I could argue that the Backstreet Boys not only are more talented than Miles Davis but, because of their ability to earn an audience, they are more deserving of artistic survival as well. I'm not talking about simply handing money to people who would simply starve to death without it. I am talking about extending a hand to artistic endeavors that have cultural merit. There has been so much talk on this board about preserving "American culture" yet the most basic element of a culture is the art it produces and no one wants to protect it.
yeah..but didn't mozart die a pauper?? buried in a pauper's grave?? was that true of Beethoven and others???
Yes, Motzart did but he was also a drunk who had many problems. Some died poor while others retired comfortably. That really isn't the point. It isn't the artist that is nearly as important as the ART. Shakespeare was funded for the most part by the royal family. Prior to that, he was a servant. He retired quite comfortably. My main point is that capitalism doesn't work for everything. It isn't the be-all, end-all fixit for everything that happens in the world. There are even times when it screws things up. I'm not suggesting we ditch it in favor of socialism, just that we realize that there are times when we should be open minded enough to see the shortcomings of our own systems.
