Socialism: Maybe not such a bad idea?

[parmalee]

I find it only tends to be people in lower income brackets who disagree.

Huh? Disagree with what?

You'll note that I remarked upon people disagreeing with one-another, and yet they seem to agree on the wealth=success equation.

So what are you saying here? People in lower income brackets disagree on what? Or with whom? And, incidentally, if the latter, it stands to reason that whomever it is that they disagree with, also disagree with them--no?

So again, what exactly are you saying here?

 

[parmalee]

Correction.

Not producing music Parmalee likes...big difference because people like different things. Sure if Parmalee was the king...but when will we get past this?

That's an astute observation. I say it's shit; therefore, I do not like it. Brilliant. Never thought of that.

So, what exactly are you "correcting" and what exactly are you saying here?

And what does me being king have to do with anything?

 

[parmalee]

No one said having one's needs met isn't enough. You were the one who said:

"Interesting how even the folks who disagree with one-another here all seem to define "success" in monetary terms."

Who here has been speaking of anything but health care, education and housing for all? Where did you see anyone claim otherwise?

Well, what you just quoted is from post #50. If you read the posts immediately prior that one, you'll note that several individuals were equating wealth with success. Simple as that really.

Or maybe I'm just imagining those posts, or perhaps they appear differently on your screen.

 

[phlogistician]

Huh? Disagree with what?

That wealth is a measure of success, obviously. DUH!

 

[wellwisher]

A good way to compare capitalism and socialism is to take each to the logical limit of 100%. If we were all into capitalism, 100%, there would be no taxes. Whatever you earn you keep, since it is all abou the free market. Culture would be based on competion, self initiative and self reliance. If you lack these skills, you might fall by the wayside. Social programs and safety nets would be based on the free market charity. Charity is not done, like taxes, via the threat of prison, but is part of the free choices offered in a free market. When charity starts to look like frills, the free market tends to react in a way based on revenue excesses.

If we became all socialist, 100%, there would be nobody working. Everyone is expecting a hand-out, therefore nobody is generating the resources needed for the hand outs. For example, we all get free health insurance, with nobody to tax to foot the bill, since everyone expects free health care. To make that work, the health care system needs to be enslaved, producing free healthcare for all because they are our slaves. If we all want free food, we enslave the farmers, so a few can shoulder the sacrifice for the majority.

Both options to the extreme have their pitfalls. Capitalism helps its lower tier via charity. While socialism enslaves their upper tier. When both work, side by side, they tend to balance each other out. It provides a semi-open environment for the most productive citizens. Slavery is based on taxation, so others can have a free ride. But since slavery taxation does not have to be 100%, the economy grows.

 

[parmalee]

That wealth is a measure of success, obviously. DUH!

How is that "obvious" from the passage you quoted?

(And incidentally, that guy who never punctuates--at all!--does seem to be speaking on behalf of the "lower class" here, and yet he seems to agree that wealth is a measure of success.)

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

How is that "obvious" from the passage you quoted?

(And incidentally, that guy who never punctuates--at all!--does seem to be speaking on behalf of the "lower class" here, and yet he seems to agree that wealth is a measure of success.)

No its not Parmalee we were discussing how wealth can be an ADVANTAGE! No one indicated at all that wealth leads to happiness. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot be achieved if you are homeless, sick and without an income.

 

[parmalee]

No its not Parmalee we were discussing how wealth can be an ADVANTAGE! No one indicated at all that wealth leads to happiness. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot be achieved if you are homeless, sick and without an income.

I'm not disputing that, I'm simply questioning the way the term "successful" is used--specifically on page 3 if this thread.

Anyhow, it seems that phogistician thinks that "wealth is a measure of success"--unless he is one of those from the "lower income bracket" who "disagree." Apparently, from his perspective, teachers who are laid off because of obscene budget cuts (and making a very low salary from unemployment insurance, or no salary) are "not successful," and consequently, not ambitious or driven. After all, they could be working on Wall Street--fuck that edyumacation shit.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I'm not disputing that, I'm simply questioning the way the term "successful" is used--specifically on page 3 if this thread.

If you think of what is happening to middle and working class people throughout the States I would venture to say that being able to keep a roof over your head, have affordable medical insurance and not be laid off from work could very well be seen as being 'successful'; a kind of 'but for the grace of god...' kind of thing. At the end of the day this isn't about abstractions of what constitutes happiness which would seem like a luxury to contemplate if you are struggling to survive. The notion of introducing social welfare programs into a society where it isn't valued is only being put on the table because financial circumstances have become dire for a lot of people.

Parmalee: Anyhow, it seems that phogistician thinks that "wealth is a measure of success"--unless he is one of those from the "lower income bracket" who "disagree." Apparently, from his perspective, teachers who are laid off because of obscene budget cuts (and making a very low salary from unemployment insurance, or no salary) are "not successful," and consequently, not ambitious or driven. After all, they could be working on Wall Street--fuck that edyumacation shit.

I'm not sure if I agree that its the lower classes as you suggest who disagree with wealth being a measure of success. Its actually what the working class americans have been taught to strive towards, and I don't even think this is peculiar to the US, I would venture to say this would be the dream of the poor worldwide, to have enough money for...well...everything.

But if you look at the US its the middle and working class who are suspicious of social welfare programs that would directly come out of their taxes. Just look at the Tea Party folk.

 

[parmalee]

If you think of what is happening to middle and working class people throughout the States I would venture to say that being able to keep a roof over your head, have affordable medical insurance and not be laid off from work could very well be seen as being 'successful'; a kind of 'but for the grace of god...' kind of thing. At the end of the day this isn't about abstractions of what constitutes happiness which would seem like a luxury to contemplate if you are struggling to survive. The notion of introducing social welfare programs into a society where it isn't valued is only being put on the table because financial circumstances have become dire for a lot of people.

I'm in full agreement with you there: interpretations of what constitutes "basic needs" are slowly being whittled away, especially in the U.S.--apparently even a basic education is no longer considered a necessity. And of course, we long ago did away with things like health care and a roof over one's head being considered necessities.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I'm in full agreement with you there: interpretations of what constitutes "basic needs" are slowly being whittled away, especially in the U.S.--apparently even a basic education is no longer considered a necessity. And of course, we long ago did away with things like health care and a roof over one's head being considered necessities.

Can you re-read my post please? I have edited in a response to your last statement.

 

[parmalee]

I'm not sure if I agree that its the lower classes as you suggest who disagree with wealth being a measure of success.

It was phlog who suggested that, not me.

Its actually what the working class americans have been taught to strive towards, and I don't even think this is peculiar to the US, I would venture to say this would be the dream of the poor worldwide, to have enough money for...well...everything.

A few years ago I was playing a show in Copenhagen, and this prissy young man starts complaining to me about how the U.S. forces shit like McDonald's, WalMart, etc. upon them. Unfortunately, that's only half the story--the fact is, a lot of Europeans, et al, seem to want that stuff in their backyard these days.

It's not peculiar to the U.S., and it didn't necessarily even start here; but it's certainly most prevalent in the U.S.

But if you look at the US its the middle and working class who are suspicious of social welfare programs that would directly come out of their taxes. Just look at the Tea Party folk.

Kinda perplexing, no? I've always wondered how it is that the people who could most benefit from these programs are the ones who seem to most strongly object to them.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Kinda perplexing, no? I've always wondered how it is that the people who could most benefit from these programs are the ones who seem to most strongly object to them.

Its a combination of manipulation and fear. The Tea Party group agenda which is fiscal in focus had the right idea but because of the manipulation of the Koch brothers who began to give them funding their focus has been on government and not corporate america. Their fears come from an uncertain time where they see themselves losing everything and they are lashing out at the government. The disinformation thrown around over obama's health care plan and what constitutes socialized medical care has them thoroughly confused.

Off-topic: Were you playing at their International Jazz festival?

 

[parmalee]

Its a combination of manipulation and fear. The Tea Party group agenda which is fiscal in focus had the right idea but because of the manipulation of the Koch brothers who began to give them funding their focus has been on government and not corporate america. Their fears come from an uncertain time where they see themselves losing everything and they are lashing out at the government. The disinformation thrown around over obama's health care plan and what constitutes socialized medical care has them thoroughly confused.

Still, it's always been perplexing to me--I mean, there's a point at which, uh, common sense (for want of a better term) overrides everything you've been told or conditioned to believe. Seriously, how can anyone honestly believe that, say, teachers or firefighters demanding reasonable pay, benefits, etc. are somehow a "threat" to their own livelihood? How can anyone think that laying off 1400-odd teachers (which is a part of the governor's proposal in the state in which I presently reside) is a good idea?

Off-topic: Were you playing at their International Jazz festival?

Not that time. I've played plenty of jazz festivals in Europe though, where they still seem to have a broad interpretation of what constitutes "jazz," i.e. free jazz is still jazz. As with everything, the U.S. is plagued by conservatism in this regards.

This was some bizarre show in Christiania--can you imagine such a place in the U.S.?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Parmalee

I don't know. I just know its a really bad sign when government employees who perform a public service are the first ones on the chopping block.

LOL! It could be argued that I've spent too much time in Christiania. There is some controversy over the government trying to take it back. They shut down 'pushers row' but I think they may have a difficult time moving those people. Have you seen some of the homes they've built there? Its beautiful and in the center of the city no less. And no you could never have a place like that in the US without the government sending in storm troopers.

 

[parmalee]

LOL! It could be argued that I've spent too much time in Christiania. There is some controversy over the government trying to take it back. They shut down 'pushers row' but I think they may have a difficult time moving those people. Have you seen some of the homes they've built there? Its beautiful and in the center of the city no less. And no you could never have a place like that in the US without the government sending in storm troopers.

One time I played in a massive old church there, with dirt floors and lit only by candlelight--it reminded me of some of the Chamulan churches in southern Mexico.

They've certainly had some problems, but simply that fact that it exists is remarkable. I don't know much about Denmark's or Copenhagen's official stance on squatters' rights and such, but I suspect they are similar to what exists in the Netherlands and Belgium. Again, squatters have had their share of troubles--with the fault resting on either party--but that fact that they've got rights is noteworthy. In the U.S., the closest parallel is homesteading and B.L.M. land. One can inhabit a parcel of B.L.M. land sans "fee" for two months, and then simply move along to a nearby area--I've done this quite a few times with few problems; but again, we're back to the "roof over one's head" matter--makeshift roofs (tent, yurt, vehicular, etc.) are acceptable, but nothing permanent obviously.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Parmalee

Its about the taxes. The people in Christiania don't pay any taxes and they're living on prime real estate. The population has been there for so long its impossible to continue to call them squatters which is the governments point, they have a post office in Christiania, a world class restaurant, bars and clubs etc. Its come a long way from a hippie squatters paradise. I mean I've seen vintage cars being driven in Christiania. So maybe they will come to some compromise on the taxes.

 

[phlogistician]

It was phlog who suggested that, not me.

So you do know what I'm talking about, good.

Simply, wealth is a measure of success. If not, how else do you measure success?

The Andrew Carnegie Dictum:

• To spend the first third of one's life getting all the education one can.
• To spend the next third making all the money one can.
• To spend the last third giving it all away for worthwhile causes.

Acquisition of wealth is step 2, of what sounds like a rather successful life. Sure, you can work in a soup kitchen, or help old ladies across the road, but I think a lot more people have been helped by Carnegie via proxy, than one person could achieve in person.

So if you were trying to play some 'worthy' card, I think I've trumped that.

 

[chimpkin]

Phlogistician said:
Simply, wealth is a measure of success. If not, how else do you measure success?

So, in order for many people to put on what is essentially a status and mating display, many other people have to go dangerously housed if housed at all, be poorly fed, highly stressed, and chronically ill from treatable conditions?

Just checking.

I just want to feel safe, not under threat. I need to just accept being under threat calmly.

I don't give a rat's ass how I'm judged.

 

[iceaura]

Now listen up sweet-pea, one has to take advantage of the advantages that are given to them. If someone is born into a family of means and they don't study while at school, do drugs or loaf around, just don't give a shit or what-have-you they too will not reap the rewards of the advantages they have at their disposal.

Yes, they will. Those are the ones who benefit most - the hard workers of high ability can do pretty well even starting poor, if lucky. It's the layabouts you describe there who really score, in this system.

Presidency of the United States, even.