Can we Create an America that can Lead the World

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Willem

But we also have a much higher standard of living than our parents did as well. It balances out.

Now that depends on what you consider a higher standard of living.

We have more gadgets, but does more "stuff" automatically mean a better QOL?

[Velociryx]

*Excellent* Willem! Kindred spirits, then!

[Velociryx]

And Garth - I would say that the gadgets by themselves certainly do NOT automatically mean a higher standard of living, but gadgets fascinate the denizens of the modern world, and they almost invariably spend more than is healthy on them. Whether this is driven by a percieved "need" or not though, I am uncertain.

As for myself, my home is mostly old school, with some high tech.

I read by the light of an oil lamp, for example, but can't live without my cable modem!

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Garth Vader


Now that depends on what you consider a higher standard of living.

We have more gadgets, but does more "stuff" automatically mean a better QOL?

For many people yes. But we're also living longer and healthier, we have many more avenues for communication, and we tend to be better educated as well as entertained. Plus our cars are safer and less polluting, air travel is cheaper than it ever has been, and we have much more of a healthy variety in the grocery stores.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Willem


That's crap! The middle class is the majority in our societies.

Not so - most people are working class. They think they are middle class but if they work for wages or salary and don't own the means of production they are working class.

Sorry to break this to you (not).

[Willem]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Not so - most people are working class. They think they are middle class but if they work for wages or salary and don't own the means of production they are working class.

Sorry to break this to you (not).

Well if you want to quibble about semantics, then virtually everyone is working class, including Bill Gates. He still puts in his time at the office like everyone else. You'll have to come up with a better counter than that I'm afraid.

[Az]

no he isn't. He ownes the company for which he works.


AH: this however brings up an interesting question. are workers that own a part of their employer through pension funds or stocks considered middle class?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Azazel
no he isn't. He ownes the company for which he works.

OK, poor example. But any CEO that's on a payroll would still be working class by his definition, if he pulls in a salary of $1 million a year. A rather broad definition IMO.

[Az]

They get lots of shares and stock options, as well.

I do see your point .

[Iron Chancellor]

An interesting fact about "pure communism," or rather "pure Marxism," is that it would bring about the end of professional musicians and artists. Note that I do not mean propagandists, as there would always be a demand for them. According to Marx, artists don't produce anything with a direct value, so they should put away their paints and join a factory or they can just starve as they are just parasites.

Also, Marx also opposed families as a unit, and was a fan of the "free love" idea. Seems a little dangerous to me, not to mention a good way of dehumanizing people. Remove their sense of the smallest community unit known, so that they can be corralled into pens and taught that its the best way to live, and then you will have their loyalty. If they have no dependants, they'll dedicate themselves to the good of the state community, where the good of the state community is decided by the revolutionary Big Brothers.

1984 was right, the only way a communist nation can survive is when it's in a state of national crisis, and thus all are convinced of the need to sacrifice personal and familial needs to ensure the long-term survival of the state.

[Az]

Capitalism is murder.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor
An interesting fact about "pure communism," or rather "pure Marxism," is that it would bring about the end of professional musicians and artists. Note that I do not mean propagandists, as there would always be a demand for them. According to Marx, artists don't produce anything with a direct value, so they should put away their paints and join a factory or they can just starve as they are just parasites.

That's just wrong. You are just making an assumption here. Communism can be whatever we make it. There is no reason what so ever that communism should be the death of art.

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor
Also, Marx also opposed families as a unit, and was a fan of the "free love" idea. Seems a little dangerous to me, not to mention a good way of dehumanizing people. Remove their sense of the smallest community unit known, so that they can be corralled into pens and taught that its the best way to live, and then you will have their loyalty. If they have no dependants, they'll dedicate themselves to the good of the state community, where the good of the state community is decided by the revolutionary Big Brothers.

He encouraged people to think of the other members of society just as they think of their own family. That doesn't mean that he wanted people to think less of their family members.

Your views are so individualistic.

[Velociryx]

@ the capitalism is murder line. That's a good one. Certainly one that Comrades across the globe would love to have everyone believe.

Capitalism is all about exchange. You don't sell much to anybody if you murder them....makes them rather poor customers, would you not agree?

And Duncan, you make your last statement as though it were a bad thing.

Why do you think individualism is bad, or wrong-headed somehow?

Individualism brings with it some *enormous* advantages, not the least of which are initiative, and personal responsibility.

Contrast this with having the Politboro telling you what to think, and wether or not you're being a good little communist. Sacrifice yourself for the good of the state, and all that (and it has always amazed me that the guys at the top are so willing to tell the guys at the bottom that they must sacrifice themselves for the good of the state when they (the ones at the top) are strangely "immune" to such sacrifices. I would point to that as being something of a built in contradiction to the whole notion, but then again, I'm home sick today, and my fevered brain may be short-circuiting....lol

-=Vel=-

[Iron Chancellor]

Yes, I a damned individualist. Thank God for the Renaissance, and the rebirth of the classical ideals of democracy, republicanism, a love of learning, and curiosity with the world around us. Had it not been for us individualists, you would not be calling us such on the internet, using a computer, or even quoting Marx. Marx was an individual expressing his rights to freedom of speach and belief, whether you are like me and believe he was a crackpot or not doesn't change it.

Face it, individualists are those who advance society. If we all cared about the community, we'd never leave home, and still be living in villages at worst, or we'd be as over-crowded and backward as China in the 1800s.

Forced socialism is murder, extortion, and robbery.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And Duncan, you make your last statement as though it were a bad thing.

Why do you think individualism is bad, or wrong-headed somehow?

Individualism brings with it some *enormous* advantages, not the least of which are initiative, and personal responsibility.

I'm not condeming initiative and personal responsibility. I'm condeming the lack of social responsibility that exists in America and where ever there are large disparities in income and wealth.

It's the protestant ethic which is keeping us from advancing our society. There is nothing wrong with family, but when you treat your non-family members like they are the enemy that's not civil at all and its no basis for society. It's barbaric.