Don'tcha love their 'logic'?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"There are stupid people everywhere. Why do you bother talking to them?"

Hello,

This is why I am reticent to try to understand anything by discussing it with people here.

It usually comes down to this.

---

And that is why I *DO* discuss things with people here. It's a microcosm, a tiny sliver of the real world, but here, at least, I can interact and hopefully open ONE person's mind just the tiniest crack. It's why the very best of teachers become teachers (a job I could never do) - not to change everybody, but to reach, hopefully, ONE person who will then go on to reach and teach others.

And it's worked the other way, too; I've learned enormous amounts by being here. It's forced me to face assumptions and biases I hold myself; it's forced me to try to keep up and get and remain informed. And, most importantly, it's just plain fun, fun, fun. It's cathartic, in a way - it's a pressure release valve. Yes, sometimes we get carried away with the snark and vitriol, but most of us seem to come back to reality most of the time. And don't think that YOU haven't made US think; while we may have stark disagreements on some things, you've given me new insights and viewpoints to consider, even if I'm considering them in a stance of opposition. How's that a bad thing?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

---

---

Hello Mike,

It is less fun when you have a long discussion with someone, trying to absorb a foreign concept, and they come back with, "Hey, I consulted an expert friend of mine, and his expert opinion is that you're an idiot and I shouldn't talk to you."

The alternative statement is often, "Hey, I'm an expert in this field, and my expert opinion is that you're an idiot and not worth talking to."

It discourages further discourse, yannow?

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Tony, despite the fact that we went through an intensely detailed discussion of what capitalism is and is not, you boomeranged right back to the most ignorant of assumptions.

I knew I shouldn't have put that in, but yanno what? That's exactly what he said, I didn't make it up. It's one thing to be ignorant, it's another thing to be incapable of learning. I just wanted to toss in an outsider's view of this discussion to let you know how your (plural) assumptions would be considered by a neutral third party... how your (plural) views would be considered by an expert. So, I will remove the comment, but I wanted you to know... I'm not making these definitions up.

AND BTW- it doesn't "boil down" to that comment. There is a whole discussion above it which you have ignored. The fact that you DO ignore everything else is what narrows the conversation.

---------
Done

---

Hello Signy,

In case my comment got lost,

You have stated quite explicitly that in socialism, I can not own a house.

Is this not correct?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Exactly, Anthony

Half the time in what I read here, in the RWE section, the posters remind me of snarling dogs, posing and trying to intimidate each other into backing down. Most of the rest strikes me as misdirection and logic games trying to shore up weak arguments (and of course, since I don't provide links to examples and dated specific citations that statement will be ridiculed and/or ignored, LOUDLY).

And it just keeps on with the SAME names being called, the SAME arguments being re-hashed, the SAME positions being defended and attacked.... Some folks seem to enjoy it. Don't much see the point myself.

But every once in a while, I'll come across something new, like a court case I knew nothing about, or someone relating a personal story that actually makes sense and emphasizes the point they are trying to make. That's why I come back here (RWE) once a week or so.







MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

You have stated quite explicitly that in socialism, I can not own a house.

---

WHAAAAT???????? I said that EXPLICITLY???

WTF are you talking about????? Please quote me, because that is absolutely NOT TRUE. Houses are not "means of production" so I don't know WHAT you're thinking!

----------

Tony, I apologize for putting in that remark.

I know... it's really hard to absorb someone else's viewpoint, especially if it start with an entirely different framework of assumptions. That is why I try to get to definitions, and why I question them so aggressively: where they break down, when they shade from one thing to another, under what circumstances they no longer hold, how they would behave in a different context.

One of the problems I'm having... and I don't have access to economists very often so this is not a solution for me... is that I see systems which do not seem to have any names attached. For example, the concept of "mixed economy" is terribly misleading when applied to the EU. In our current loosey-goosey mental framework, people call the EU socialist, and call socialism "communism". In reality, "socialism" has nothing to say about either wealth distribution or ownership of personal goods, but much to say about production. I DON'T have a word for what they do in the EU. And when words are missing, thoughts are muddled and important concepts are conflated. So lets' make up a word for the EU approach - let's call it capito-distributivism (or something like) because it is a system of capitalist (and some socialist) production which uses aggressive wealth redistribution to save capitalism from collapsing on itself (as it inevitably does, being an unstable system).

Using the same sloppy models, in today's thinking any activity which benefits a person in a milieu of private ownership (even if that ownership is of personal goods) is called "capitalism"

No wonder peeps think that capitalism began when someone first traded a skin for a basket! No wonder "capitalism" is touted as the font of all wealth! Capitalists have definitionally appropriated all the positive aspects of human economy- production, trade, saving, innovation, division of labor, increase in living standards-
as their own, despite the FACT (yes, its a FACT) that these activities existed well before capitalism.

That all-encompassing, all-consuming definition of capitalism doesn't leave much left over, does it? So logically, it follows from that whatever is outside of the realm of capitalism MUST be detrimental. Because, hell, once you've eliminated "capitalism" you've eliminated the whole concept of working for gain, you've eliminated private property, you've eliminated innovation, or in some way violated some precept of "human nature". Right??? So then you're in terra incognito, conceptually: a mental space which doesn't look terribly practical or rewarding.

The only problem is... its not true. Production, innovation, saving, advances in technology, trade, working for benefit, privately-owned goods- will continue under other economic systems- just as they existed before capitalism. And possibly, these processes will be even more robust. Because purpose of alternate systems- like socialism and economic democracy- is not to make people equally poor but to make everyone RICH. To reward people so they keep more of their production in their own hands... more authority, more reward, more responsibility.

------------
Done

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"Your idea of freedom is completely conflated with business' freedom. You look at their freedom, and imagine that it is your own. I think it comes from your family history of having owned land in Cuba - a VERY RARE occurrence BTW- which made your family small capitalists* (*They owned means of production). That, combined with hard work, provided a reward."

Hello,

This is the place where you specifically stated that owning a house was 'small capitalist.' Presumably because they kept dozens of fruit trees and a chicken coup in the back yard?

Of course, you also said it was 'very rare' to own a house in Cuba at the time, which is untrue, but I forgive this sin because there's no reason for you to know any better.

--Anthony

P.S. Getting definitions is what our whole conversation has been about. I am trying to extract, one example at a time, exactly what socialism is. And some of the answers (like the one quoted above) give me pause.



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

There is a difference between owning land- sufficient land to produce enough to sell or trade- and owning a "house". As far as land ownership in Cuba prior to the revolution

Quote:

---

The comparisons between 1946 and 1959 show two irrefutable facts about pre-1959 Cuban agriculture. First, both latifundia and minifundia, so damaging for agricultural development, coexisted side by side. Second, agricultural land ownership had become even more concentrated in the period that preceded the revolution. While in 1946 about 8% of the farms were 100 hectares (about 250 acres) or more in size, by early 1959 the same percentage of farms had 402.7 or more hectares (about 600 acres). The existence of latifundia was a clear violation of the 1940 Cuban Constitution...Sugarcane farms dominated in terms of total income, share of income from main crop, total number of farms, and share of total farms [Article 90]

---

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE479

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hello,

I'm not sure what impressions you have of my family's land, but it was a house with a big yard. Several dozen fruit trees. A chicken coup. A big dog, too, before it was killed.

The small scale agriculture was essential to surviving the lean times when the sugarcane factory was off-season. Sometimes the fruit was traded for other things needed.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME