Comrades, Pick me Apart

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ok, ok... I'll stop.

Continue on with the rest of Uber's long and insightful post please .

[Velociryx]

Thank you again...yes, he raised the point, but in his own explanation, I think he made it pretty clear what he meant by the use of the word. Whether "his use" is proper or improper....somehow I don't think that's the kind of "picking apart" he meant. Could be wrong, but I'd not bet the ranch on it.

-=Vel=-

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ok, ok... I'll stop.

Continue on with the rest of Uber's long and insightful post please .

Ummmm, I didn't read, just the part about religion.

Somebody else must bring up another point.

ACK!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
NOT ANYMORE! In this day and age, not theist is divided into agnostic or atheist.

Btw, Tuberki's point is good. What about Wiccans and Druids? Atheists?

So not theists are divided into agnostics or not theists? That's brilliant.

Tell me, what is the metaphysical belief difference between your "agnostic" and an athiest who does not believe in God? (Hint: There is none). Is there going to be any fundamental worldview difference between them? No. It is pointless to separate them, no such delineation is warranted.

Why is it? Usage determines defintion. If the majority of the people believed Hindu means Satanism, then that is what it is. The minority Hindus may not like it, but if the majority decides that's the true meaning... well, little they can do about it.

Guess what? The majority doesn't determine the true meaning of a term through common usage in cases like this. It is self-evident that ascribing the tenets of one religion to another is an ERROR, whether it's widely used or not. Frankly, I'm not even convinced the majority DO use it your way. Regardless, ignorance of the majority is still ignorance.

Ascribing the "believes god does not exist" belief to all Athiests is no different than ascribing, say, the "prays to the Virgin Mary" tenet to all Christian beliefs, not just Catholics. Or, more broadly, like assuming all theists are Christians.

Athiesm encompasses a broad spectrum of beliefs. Namely, anything that isn't theist. You can try to lawyer out of the word all you want, but there's nothing in between a theist and a not theist!

Yeah, and sorry Uber. I'm done with it, too.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Thank you again...yes, he raised the point, but in his own explanation, I think he made it pretty clear what he meant by the use of the word. Whether "his use" is proper or improper....somehow I don't think that's the kind of "picking apart" he meant. Could be wrong, but I'd not bet the ranch on it.

-=Vel=-

The problem came when he mischaracterized the beliefs of atheists, however, which, being one, I was bound to object to.







(Okay, that's it)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ok, since I feel guilty .

I believe in a classless society.

Do you truely believe a classless society can exist. Even in a truely equal society, I STILL think classes will exist. Even though they make the same money, the doctor or the lawyer will be a higher 'class' of respect than a farmer, say. Class may evolve into a 'better' version of class (depending on your definition of class), but it'll never go away, I think.

Flipping the pyramid.

So what you are saying is that capitalism will fail because too many people will become rich? I totally disagree. If more people become rich, the system works. Maybe you'll say who will do the menial labor, well technology is advancing all the time and people like Kidicious on this forum say that will destroy jobs for lower income. However, if you combine this tech with people getting richer, wouldn't it work better for everyone in the end?

[Tuberski]

Of course there will always be some sort of class, if nothing else those of us that are good looking will lord it over those of you who are not......



ACK!

[Boris Godunov]

Speak for yourself...ugly.

[Inverse Icarus]

Do you truely believe a classless society can exist. Even in a truely equal society, I STILL think classes will exist. Even though they make the same money, the doctor or the lawyer will be a higher 'class' of respect than a farmer, say. Class may evolve into a 'better' version of class (depending on your definition of class), but it'll never go away, I think.

i contend that it is possible to eliminate "class", as it stands today. as for what you say, perhaps a doctor would have more respect in a society, than say a farmer, but what would that end up doing for him in the long run? if they are equal on every other level, do you really think social inequalities would rise up and become that big a deal?

and, in my opinion, anyone who is doing their part for society deserves the same respect. i acknowledge the fact that doctors have to work harder to get there, and deal with more complex suitations, and perhaps that may get them more "respect" amoungst peers. i don't see it causing that big a deal though.

So what you are saying is that capitalism will fail because too many people will become rich? I totally disagree. If more people become rich, the system works. Maybe you'll say who will do the menial labor, well technology is advancing all the time and people like Kidicious on this forum say that will destroy jobs for lower income. However, if you combine this tech with people getting richer, wouldn't it work better for everyone in the end?

first off, i would contend that some of that technology would eventually evolve into a person, and should be granted the rights as such. but aside from that, i'll address your initial point. the way i see it, the rich prey off the poor. it's not like everyone is getting richer slowly, the rich are staying rich off the poor. both classes are growing, and at this point in time the lower class happens to be growing faster than the upper class. will this continue for all time? if so, capitialism will work indefinately. if the upper class starts to overtake the lower classes, however, we'll begin to see some problems.

of course, one could say that the rich would then get poor again, and the cycle would restart. i don't know if the blue bloods would let that happen if they saw that comming.

[Sava]

Uber...

Your Religion views sound identical to mine, although I was raised Serbian (or Eastern) Orthodox. I don't quite have hatred for that institution... in fact, if one were to follow Christianity, I would suggest the Orthodox church to be the truest form of it. Catholicism is messed up... don't even get me started. Protestantism in general is... well... messed up as well. Basically, each denomination is just some other guy's interpretation of the Bible... and even if you assume it's legitimate, such teachings and interpretations are unsubstantiated and detrimental to faith in general. But hey, this is America, and people can believe whatever they want, no matter how stupid... just keep it out of government, and I won't have a problem with it.

Political System: I think America should be more Democratic (not the party )... I'm not in favor of a total direct democracy because it would be terribly difficult to run. I think it would be best to institute reforms with the current system, rather than to scrap it and try again.

Economics: Despite it's flaws, capitalism is good. But as with anything in life, it requires rules and regulations, and shouldn't be the be-all, end-all of how we do things. I think there should be a free market in consumer goods (with a set of general ground rules against abuses). Health Care, Education, Transportation, Telecommunications, and Energy production should be planned, under public control, and done at the highest possible efficiency (that means no profits for corporate fat cats ). But such a system should be designed and tested before set into play. And nothing should be set in stone. If something doesn't work, or falls victim to corruption, it should be dealt with. If the private sector can successfully offer services more efficiently than a publically controlled entity, then it should be allowed to offer such services. Ideally, I'd like to see competition between the public and private sectors. I think that's the best way to avoid corruption in either case.

[Tuberski]

All you communists should take note, the Mormon religion follows a lot of the tenets of communism.

ACK!

[Sava]

All you communists should take note, the Mormon religion follows a lot of the tenets of communism.

:::SHIVER:::

run away

[Odin]

This thread has been to death. Can we please get back on topic.

Uber, you seem to contradict yourself when you say you are a socialist and then say communism has failled. It has failed so far, but you are wrong, I believe, on that it will never work. Once people get enlightened and get out of the hole of Materialism dug by capitalism we are on are way to utopia. Humans are not naturally greedy, it is a result of psycological reinforcement in childhood (corporations get kids' parents to pay big $$$ to keep the kids "cool" via advertising) ( Ming).

[Sava]

Odin: Communism, even as described by Marx, is a one party system. There's no Democratic system detailed. Social Democracy is a much better model... and much more realistic.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Sava
:::SHIVER:::

run away

It's true. Why do you think they keep food stores and everytime you turn around they are asking for money for various programs.

They have many church owned farms. One article I read in TIME several years ago, says that they have the second largest beef holdings in the entire country.

ACK!

[Sava]

They have many church owned farms. One article I read in TIME several years ago, says that they have the second largest beef holdings in the entire country.

It's like a nightmarish form of theocracy rather than communism.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Odin
This thread has been to death. Can we please get back on topic.

Uber, you seem to contradict yourself when you say you are a socialist and then say communism has failled. It has failed so far, but you are wrong, I believe, on that it will never work. Once people get enlightened and get out of the hole of Materialism dug by capitalism we are on are way to utopia. Humans are not naturally greedy, it is a result of psycological reinforcement in childhood (corporations get kids' parents to pay big $$$ to keep the kids "cool" via advertising) ( Ming).

Funny thing is, while you may be right, people don't want to, and probably never will become enlightened.

ACK!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Sava
It's like a nightmarish form of theocracy rather than communism.

I took many classes that pertained to the Mormon church, they don't come out and say anything directly about communism, but they describe things in ways that are similar to what you guys have preached here.

ACK!

[Odin]

Sava, my view is that communism can be implemented democratically by teaching people the reality of the communist movement so people accept communism instead of automatically saying the typical "you traitorous Stalin-lover" crap we are made out to br by capitalist propaganda. One they realize they had been had by the capitalists we will start to get ground, it will take a while, prehaps longer than a century or two , but in time we we become the majority and we can enact things democratically. Most people will come to hate capitalism and most democracies will be dominated by Commies, greens, and social dems. Basically a one-party system that is kept that way because people don't want anything else. I am a Communist but I disagree with Marx and Lenin on a lot of things. My goal is to inform people before it gets so bad that blood will be shed in Class Warfare of it's truest, most literal sense.

[Sava]

Sava, my view is that communism can be implemented democratically by teaching people the reality of the communist movement so people accept communism instead of automatically saying the typical "you traitorous Stalin-lover" crap we are made out to br by capitalist propaganda. One they realize they had been had by the capitalists we will start to get ground, it will take a while, prehaps longer than a century or two , but in time we we become the majority and we can enact things democratically. Most people will come to hate capitalism and most democracies will be dominated by Commies, greens, and social dems. Basically a one-party system that is kept that way because people don't want anything else. I am a Communist but I disagree with Marx and Lenin on a lot of things. My goal is to inform people before it gets so bad that blood will be shed in Class Warfare of it's truest, most literal sense.

Communism is a fools' errand... a system is needed to control society... or else there is anarchy. And true Communism has more to do with changing humanity's values rather than instituting a system. I'm sorry, but you aren't going to change people or make them be nice to each other. The best you can hope is provide equal opprotunities for those willing to work, take care of those who can't, and provide successful safety nets for those whole fall victim to tough times.

And frankly, the term has been demonized so much that it's utterly useless to try and convince people otherwise.

[Ming]

Last warning folks...
And Tuberski you are one spam post away from a restriction...

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ming
Last warning folks...
And Tuberski you are one spam post away from a restriction...

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was spamming, I apologize.

ACK!

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Uber KruX
Flipping the pyramid.

We’ve all heard about pyramid schemes, we’ve all probably seen one or two; we know how they work. Capitalism is nothing more than a state sanctioned pyramid scheme, the smaller, rich upper class sits atop the work of the lower, massive working classes, a few profiting off the work of many. As stated above, however, America is producing more and more upper-middle-class citizens, who will eventually make the leap from middle to upper class. This is how the system in America works: A family emigrates from their native land, be it in Europe, Africa, Asia, or South America. The initial immigrants are usually uneducated, and they become manual laborers. They have joined the lower working class. They work very hard, and provide their children with the chances that they didn’t have. This first step may last between one and three generations, each generation being born into a wealthier family, moving slowly up the pyramid. Eventually, one of the children has the opportunity to go to college, or to master a trade, to essentially hit it big, to have made it to the top of the middle class. This child, or perhaps his child, will then have the opportunity to make the leap into the upper class. Now, you’re probably looking at this and nodding along, this is the glory of capitalism, a family coming here with nothing and eventually working their way to the elite, this is the American dream. This is the demise of capitalism. In short, too many people are going to college, too many people are reaching the top of the pyramid, too many people are reaching the economically elite, too many people are attempting to profit off the backs of the working class. We have become dependent on a steady flow of immigrants to profit off of, our nation is simply growing too “top heavy”, the pyramid is flipping, and eventually it will fall upon itself.

As Imran has stated I disagree. Can you explain why you think this will happen?

[Kidicious]

I also disagree that selfishness is innate. Some people do tend to be selfish, but even they can suprise you in the right environment. Take away the need to compete for scarce resources and man will be a whole different animal.

That being said, people do need a kick in the ass sometimes.

[Kramerman]

Do you truely believe a classless society can exist. Even in a truely equal society, I STILL think classes will exist. Even though they make the same money, the doctor or the lawyer will be a higher 'class' of respect than a farmer, say. Class may evolve into a 'better' version of class (depending on your definition of class), but it'll never go away, I think.

I agree with Imran on this point. In sociology, its a known point that different occupations almost universally carry varying degrees of prestige. Doctors (or healers) are seen throught many cultures as more prestigious than artists. And where there is prestigem, there is influence, adn where there is influence, there is power... *and* where there is power there are different classes

[Kramerman]

This is the demise of capitalism. In short, too many people are going to college, too many people are reaching the top of the pyramid, too many people are reaching the economically elite, too many people are attempting to profit off the backs of the working class. We have become dependent on a steady flow of immigrants to profit off of, our nation is simply growing too “top heavy”, the pyramid is flipping, and eventually it will fall upon itself. '

not necessarily, as more people go to college, it is just more competetive, and more education is required for new jobs. You will always have people wh drop out of high school, let alone not go to college. a number of those will go to technical schools and stuff... its always been like this. Its has changed a lot since the US switched toward a service based industries in the 70s from manufacturing based, it is just becoming more competetive, which is good. The best and brightest will fill the top spots, most of the time, which is how it should be

EDIT: as a side note, i used to have a similar theory to yours, but just very briefly

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Kramerman


I agree with Imran on this point. In sociology, its a known point that different occupations almost universally carry varying degrees of prestige. Doctors (or healers) are seen throught many cultures as more prestigious than artists. And where there is prestigem, there is influence, adn where there is influence, there is power... *and* where there is power there are different classes

Prestige doesn't amount to power unless the law allows it to.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Odin
This thread has been to death. Can we please get back on topic.

Uber, you seem to contradict yourself when you say you are a socialist and then say communism has failled. It has failed so far, but you are wrong, I believe, on that it will never work. Once people get enlightened and get out of the hole of Materialism dug by capitalism we are on are way to utopia. Humans are not naturally greedy, it is a result of psycological reinforcement in childhood (corporations get kids' parents to pay big $$$ to keep the kids "cool" via advertising) ( Ming).

i'm saying that past instances have failed, and rather than give up we should learn from them. i don't know how i gave the message of me thinking communism will always fail.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Prestige doesn't amount to power unless the law allows it to.

yes it does, just it wont be as major if the law doesnt allow it. prestige allows you to influence others, and this is power.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The core of the argument isn't about "agnostic," it's about the misrepresentation of Atheists as believing there is no god, when the majority of athiests merely just do not believe God exists.

Let's put it this way. The majority of people who call themselves atheists state there is no God. Those who state that there is no way of knowing do not call themselves atheists but rather agnostics.