It doesnt mean what you think it means (you know who I am talking to)


Quote:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Link

SOB

This means what you and him both think it means:
ATF3 Engine.
The engine has a 2.88:1 bypass ratio at Sea Level (2.52. at 40,000 feet, MACH 0.8), and a 21:1 pressure ratio. FAN spool-speed maximum limits are 10,400 rpm for ATF3-6 engines and 10,700 rpm for ATF3-6A engines. LP (low-pressure) spool speed limit is 17,200 rpm for all ATF3 engines, and the HP (high-pressure) spool speed limit is 36,900 rpm for all ATF3 engines. The ITT (inter-turbine temperature) maximum limit is 1850 degrees Fahrenheit (1010 degrees Celsius) for all ATF3 engines. Transient limits for the ATF3 engine are 102 percent N2, 103 percent N3, and 1868 degrees Fahrenheit (1020 degrees Celsius) ITT. Transient overspeed for the FAN spool is not allowed.

chimera wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:08pm:

This means what you and him both think it means: ATF3 Engine. The engine has a 2.88:1 bypass ratio at Sea Level (2.52. at 40,000 feet, MACH 0.8), and a 21:1 pressure ratio. FAN spool-speed maximum limits are 10,400 rpm for ATF3-6 engines and 10,700 rpm for ATF3-6A engines. LP (low-pressure) spool speed limit is 17,200 rpm for all ATF3 engines, and the HP (high-pressure) spool speed limit is 36,900 rpm for all ATF3 engines. The ITT (inter-turbine temperature) maximum limit is 1850 degrees Fahrenheit (1010 degrees Celsius) for all ATF3 engines. Transient limits for the ATF3 engine are 102 percent N2, 103 percent N3, and 1868 degrees Fahrenheit (1020 degrees Celsius) ITT. Transient overspeed for the FAN spool is not allowed.

So fairies are real? Wow. Whodda thunkit?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 4:56pm:

It doesnt mean what you think it means (you know who I am talking to) Quote: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Link SOB

Seriously. Is this happening in oz?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 4:56pm:

It doesnt mean what you think it means (you knbow who I am talking to) Quote: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Link SOB

I don't know about who you are talking about, but I,am socialist minded, but do not think it works.
Reason; because everybody in society tries to put the cost onto someone else.
Nobody is prepared to contribute to society according to their ability, but want to take as much as possible, even if they do not need what they take.
To me it appears, that we need the whip of the capitalist, to produce the goods and services that a society needs, and the  "wages for the whip" is very high. It can be compared to a horse race; some horses will do all in their power to win a race, and it is useless to use a whip and try to make them run faster, while there are lazy horses, which without the use of a whip would always run last.

chimera wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:08pm:

This means what you and him both think it means: ATF3 Engine. The engine has a 2.88:1 bypass ratio at Sea Level (2.52. at 40,000 feet, MACH 0.8), and a 21:1 pressure ratio. FAN spool-speed maximum limits are 10,400 rpm for ATF3-6 engines and 10,700 rpm for ATF3-6A engines. LP (low-pressure) spool speed limit is 17,200 rpm for all ATF3 engines, and the HP (high-pressure) spool speed limit is 36,900 rpm for all ATF3 engines. The ITT (inter-turbine temperature) maximum limit is 1850 degrees Fahrenheit (1010 degrees Celsius) for all ATF3 engines. Transient limits for the ATF3 engine are 102 percent N2, 103 percent N3, and 1868 degrees Fahrenheit (1020 degrees Celsius) ITT. Transient overspeed for the FAN spool is not allowed.

Congratulations; your post has me completely bamboozled.
I must have missed a lot of education in life.

hawil wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:19pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 4:56pm: It doesnt mean what you think it means (you knbow who I am talking to) Quote: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Link SOB I don't know about who you are talking about, but I,am socialist minded, but do not think it works. Reason; because everybody in society tries to put the cost onto someone else. Nobody is prepared to contribute to society according to their ability, but want to take as much as possible, even if they do not need what they take. To me it appears, that we need the whip of the capitalist, to produce the goods and services that a society needs, and the  "wages for the whip" is very high. It can be compared to a horse race; some horses will do all in their power to win a race, and it is useless to use a whip and try to make them run faster, while there are lazy horses, which without the use of a whip would always run last.

In most of these things the end result is a few owning everything and the masses having nothing. Capitalism, communism = same end result.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:13pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 4:56pm: It doesnt mean what you think it means (you know who I am talking to) Quote: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Link SOB Seriously. Is this happening in oz? SOB

no

chimera wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:08pm:

This means what you and him both think it means: ATF3 Engine. The engine has a 2.88:1 bypass ratio at Sea Level (2.52. at 40,000 feet, MACH 0.8), and a 21:1 pressure ratio. FAN spool-speed maximum limits are 10,400 rpm for ATF3-6 engines and 10,700 rpm for ATF3-6A engines. LP (low-pressure) spool speed limit is 17,200 rpm for all ATF3 engines, and the HP (high-pressure) spool speed limit is 36,900 rpm for all ATF3 engines. The ITT (inter-turbine temperature) maximum limit is 1850 degrees Fahrenheit (1010 degrees Celsius) for all ATF3 engines. Transient limits for the ATF3 engine are 102 percent N2, 103 percent N3, and 1868 degrees Fahrenheit (1020 degrees Celsius) ITT. Transient overspeed for the FAN spool is not allowed.

Is this one of those hitch hikers guide to the galaxy things?

Dunno. Dunno what the question in #1 is.
Maybe it's like "how much is too much?"
In US the community owns the Postal Service and the military but that is changing with private contractors. Maybe we can all invest in USN and grow the business in Iran oil victories at sea.

chimera wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:58pm:

Dunno. Dunno what the question in #1 is. Maybe it's like "how much is too much?" In US the community owns the Postal Service and the military but that is changing with private contractors. Maybe we can all invest in USN and grow the business in Iran oil victories at sea.

Well nothing in oz is community owned really but that friggin NBN - whats that gunna be?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:59pm:

chimera wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:58pm: Dunno. Dunno what the question in #1 is. Maybe it's like "how much is too much?" In US the community owns the Postal Service and the military but that is changing with private contractors. Maybe we can all invest in USN and grow the business in Iran oil victories at sea. Well nothing in oz is community owned really but that friggin NBN - whats that gunna be? SOB

community DISOWNED once superfast wireless becomes available.

Quote:

Socialism

D: A political system in which the collective owns the means of production.

Karl Marx apparently thought that the way to communism was through socialism. First the capitalist structures had to be dismantled by putting into the hands of the government, before the powerful centralized government could be replaced by something better.

Anyone who thinks that an all powerful centralized government will voluntarily legislate itself out of existence probably owns a flock of flying pigs.

:(


Quote:

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

D: A democracy in which a majority of people believe they make themselves better off by voting themselves money through the public trough.
Pork barreling is rife in social democracies, as everyone tries to live at everyone else's expense.

Governments realize that the electoral cost of increasing taxes is lower than than the benefit from spending the money to pork barrel, and taxes slowly spiral upwards.

A favorite analogy is with frogs in hot water. If you put a frog into boiling water it will hop out immediately, but if you put it in cool water and slowly heat it, you can boil it alive.

A century ago, democratic governments would not have survived the imposition of a tax regime in which 40% of GDP was taken in government taxes - they would have been thrown out of office at the following election. At the start of the 21st century, 40% is a low figure for many democracies.

Is there a limit to how much governments will tax their citizens? Will taxes spiral forever to the point of economic collapse? No. Taxes reach the maximum point on the Laffer curve and governments, wanting to maximize their pork barreling funds will not go beyond that.

:(


Quote:

TRUE BELIEVERS

D True Believer: One who supports the ALP, regardless of the merit of their policies.
These people are almost always unable to understand cause and effect, and specifically the effect that disincentive has on people's actions. They do not understand that rewarding something creates more of it, and that rewarding need creates more need.

:(

Economic Models explained with CowsiSOCIALISM



You have 2 cows.



You give one to your neighbour.







COMMUNISM



You have 2 cows.



The State takes both and gives you some milk.







FASCISM



You have 2 cows.



The State takes both and sells you some milk.







NAZISM



You have 2 cows.



The State takes both and shoots you.







BUREAUCRATISM



You have 2 cows.



The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away...







TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM



You have two cows.



You sell one and buy a bull.



Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.



You sell them and retire on the income.







SURREALISM



You have two giraffes.



The government requires you to take harmonica lessons







AN AMERICAN CORPORATION



You have two cows.



You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.



Later,



you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.







ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM



You have two cows.



You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then buys your bull.







THE ANDERSEN MODEL



You have two cows.



You shred them.







A FRENCH CORPORATION



You have two cows.



You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.







A JAPANESE CORPORATION



You have two cows.



You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called 'Cowkimon' and market it worldwide.







A GERMAN CORPORATION



You have two cows.



You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and Milk themselves.







AN ITALIAN CORPORATION



You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.



You decide to have lunch.







A RUSSIAN CORPORATION



You have two cows.



You count them and learn you have five cows.



You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.



You count them again and learn you have 2 cows.



You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.







A SWISS CORPORATION



You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.



You charge the owners for storing them.







A CHINESE CORPORATION



You have two cows.



You have 300 people milking them.



You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.



You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.







AN INDIAN CORPORATION



You have two cows.



You worship them.







A BRITISH CORPORATION



You have two cows.



Both are mad.







AN IRAQI CORPORATION



Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.



You tell them that you have none.



No-one believes you, so they bomb the **** out of you and invade your country. You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy....







A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION



You have two cows.



The one on the left looks very attractive.







AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION



You have two cows.



Business seems pretty good.



You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:13pm:

Seriously. Is this happening in oz?

No, it's definitely not happening. Private individual ownership of property is still alive and well in Australia.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:23pm:

In most of these things the end result is a few owning everything and the masses having nothing. Capitalism, communism = same end result.

You're probably right to some extent, except I don't think Australians own nothing. It's relative. We have a lot more than people have in third world countries.

The difference between socialism and capitalism is the distribution of property. If people can't own things, then they won't spend their whole lives trying to increase their collection of "wealth." They have no permanent home, no permanent car, television, washing machine, stove, etc. Everything they have belongs to the state.

In a pure socialist society, life revolves around work. In a capitalist society, life revolves around the accumulation of property.

Because people don't waste their time trying to accumulate more property in a socialist society (because they own nothing), they don't waste energy and resources on something "essentially useless" and can redirect their efforts toward something of real utilitarian value like producing capital and white goods, health services or developing a country's military hardware.

Can you increase your worth as a person in a socialist society? Yes. Are you completely equal to everyone else? No. Everybody has something to contribute. Some people are labourers and tradespeople. Some people become scientists and engineers. The State will throw more money at people who contribute more to society. For example, scientists and engineers may be paid more. Because there'd be no buying or selling of property in a purely socialist society, all money paid to scientists and engineers will be spent on R&D projects rather than mortgages.

The trouble with a purely socialist society is that the responsibility for deciding the worth of any work is with a single centralised organisation: the State. If the State mistakenly pours tons of money into projects that ultimately don't help the country as a whole, the entire society suffers. If they also fail to support or sponsor people who have great potential, they will also miss some really great opportunities.

One of the benefits of letting people own "stuff" is so that they can play and experiment with, study and get to know their "stuff." If you control what people own, you might take away the opportunity for someone to develop valuable talents. A person who owns a car may become a car mechanic. A person who owns a computer could become a software developer or accountant. If you can keep your textbooks you might one day be a rocket scientist.

A capitalist society (to some extent) balances itself out. If a company produces a product or offers a service that is practically useless and nobody wants, that company will lose a lot of money and probably go bankrupt and go out of business. It's economic darwinism -- survival of the fittest. The worth of any product, service, project, equipment or property is determined by how willing people are to put money into it. If that product/service/project fails to succeed in its goals, the company that made it will suffer, but the effect on the rest of society is much less than in a purely socialist society.

One of my main gripes with capitalism is money going to inflated property bubbles rather than to production of goods with utilitarian value. I reckon the inflated property bubble is one reason why Australia's manufacturing base hasn't been growing. People put so much money into something that ultimately doesn't do anything but sit there: a house. It's just a construction of wood, brick and cement!!

I think auctions are ridiculous. Auctions contribute to inflation. If someone wants to buy a house, it should be first-come-first-serve, not who's got the most money. Auctions should be replaced with waiting lists. :(

Mnemonic wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 8:27pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:13pm: Seriously. Is this happening in oz? No, it's definitely not happening. Private individual ownership of property is still alive and well in Australia.

Most houses are mortgaged. Most finance derives from China. Chian derives from Karl Marx. He owns the lot.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:23pm:

hawil wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:19pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 4:56pm: It doesnt mean what you think it means (you knbow who I am talking to) Quote: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Link SOB I don't know about who you are talking about, but I,am socialist minded, but do not think it works. Reason; because everybody in society tries to put the cost onto someone else. Nobody is prepared to contribute to society according to their ability, but want to take as much as possible, even if they do not need what they take. To me it appears, that we need the whip of the capitalist, to produce the goods and services that a society needs, and the  "wages for the whip" is very high. It can be compared to a horse race; some horses will do all in their power to win a race, and it is useless to use a whip and try to make them run faster, while there are lazy horses, which without the use of a whip would always run last. In most of these things the end result is a few owning everything and the masses having nothing. Capitalism, communism = same end result. SOB

False dichotomy.


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:59pm:

chimera wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:58pm: Dunno. Dunno what the question in #1 is. Maybe it's like "how much is too much?" In US the community owns the Postal Service and the military but that is changing with private contractors. Maybe we can all invest in USN and grow the business in Iran oil victories at sea. Well nothing in oz is community owned really but that friggin NBN - whats that gunna be? SOB

You haven't put much thought into this have you?

Quote:

One of my main gripes with capitalism is money going to inflated property bubbles rather than to production of goods with utilitarian value.

It is where the effort goes that matters and where the potential for waste comes in. The flow of money merely reflects what people want. If you spend a fortune on a house, the money does not disappear. It goes to the owner of the house who can then invest it in something. If ti goes into a new house, then surely that has utilitarian value.


Quote:

I think auctions are ridiculous. Auctions contribute to inflation. If someone wants to buy a house, it should be first-come-first-serve, not who's got the most money. Auctions should be replaced with waiting lists.

You prefer the Russian model?

all of your isms have proven to be a failure

separation from source will manifest this confusion

so be it

forgiven

all is in accordance with the divine plan

namaste

-:)

Most houses are mortgaged. Most finance derives from China.

___________

http://images.pseudoreality.org/bankingpyramid.jpg

I think auctions are ridiculous. Auctions contribute to inflation. If someone wants to buy a house, it should be first-come-first-serve, not who's got the most money. Auctions should be replaced with waiting lists.

You wouldn't say that if you were selling the property .. in a market based system it's supply versus demand ... you have one house, and one or ten people demanding it , how much are they willing to pay?  auctions in many way are a prime example of market based systems .. although often peoples emotion overule everything else , thats why agents love auctions

Quote:

You're probably right to some extent, except I don't think Australians own nothing. It's relative. We have a lot more than people have in third world countries.

Heh. 1 thing though I never said this was a communist or capitalist country. In fact I didnt even say it was socialist. I was just pointing out the end results of the 2 systems.


Quote:

You haven't put much thought into this have you?

Thought into what?

SOB

Into what our community owns.

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Into what our community owns.

You arent making any sense. Unless you were again trying to insult me instead of answer a question that wasnt directed @ you anyway.

SOB

Have another think about what our community owns. It's a bit more than nothing.

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 9:45am:

Have another think about what our community owns. It's a bit more than nothing.

What is community owned?

SOB

The Opera House.

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:03am:

The Opera House.

Anything else?

SOB

The Harbour Bridge.

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:17am:

The Harbour Bridge.

The State Government owns the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Sydney Harbour Tunnel. Try again. Anything else? Sure looking socialist so far.

SOB

Bondi beach steps. Rail. Roads. buses. hospitals. schools. forests. council depots. police cars. uni. political corruption. Julia owns post offices and defence bases.

What's the difference between state ownership and community ownership?

What has Abbott and Flannery got to do with that?

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:36am:

What's the difference between state ownership and community ownership?

Heh. Communism and socialism I expect.

SOB

Other way round isn't it. Marx wanted communal factories.

chimera wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:40am:

Other way round isn't it. Marx wanted communal factories.

Dont know. Havent read marx. Going by dictionary definitions.

SOB

Football teams used to be communist, now they're capitalist

Communists remind me of atheists - people who have nothing and want to share it with everyone.

falah wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:

Communists remind me of atheists - people who have nothing and want to share it with everyone.

Most atheists dont give a hoot whether you are atheist or not. We just laugh @ your fairy tales but who cares of you believe in them its your problem.

SOB

Muslim oil governments have everything and share nothing with everyone

chimera wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 3:24pm:

Muslim oil governments have everything and share nothing with everyone

The government you refer to are nationalist puppets of the US and are un-Islamic.

Islamic governments like the Taliban do not actually have oil.

Beautiful. Excellent.

falah wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 3:59pm:

chimera wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 3:24pm: Muslim oil governments have everything and share nothing with everyone The government you refer to are nationalist puppets of the US and are un-Islamic. Islamic governments like the Taliban do not actually have oil.

There are no true scotsmen

SOB

Ye're right laddie tha noo, but true Scorts there be aye:
Muslims plan Gaelic translation of Koran - News - Scotsman.comwww.scotsman.com/.../muslims_plan_gaelic_translat... -7 Jun 2008 – MUSLIM scholars are working on a plan to find new followers in the Western Isles : they want to translate the Koran into Gaelic.

Atheists have nothing eh?
Better than the house of cards you are standing on.

Quote:

Spot of Bog wrote In most of these things the end result is a few owning everything and the masses having nothing. Capitalism, communism = same end result. SOB

Couldn't be any further from the truth.
People now have more material possessions than they've ever had throughout recorded history.
In Communism, and before industrialization, the masses were dirt poor.

Capitalism generates more goods but the relative distribution is far more unequal. Communist bosses lived better than the masses but the general poverty was handed out fairly.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 9:10pm:

Quote: Spot of Bog wrote In most of these things the end result is a few owning everything and the masses having nothing. Capitalism, communism = same end result. SOB Couldn't be any further from the truth. People now have more material possessions than they've ever had throughout recorded history. In Communism, and before industrialization, the masses were dirt poor.

Like I said the end results of the systems.

SOB

One major problem with communism was probably not communism itself, but the speed and means by which it was implemented. The communists pursued their goals through revolution rather than slow and gradual change. They destroyed an already working system. It's like what happened in Zimbabwe. They took land from competent farmers and gave them to incompetent peasants. It was class warfare against the "evil capitalists" or "evil white people." Energy and resources were redirected and redistributed and used inefficiently and ineffectively. Revolutionary communism set society backwards and forced people to relearn things and start from scratch.

Because capitalism did not achieve its goals through revolution, forced seizure of property and goods from those who were already experienced in a particular trade or profession and disruption of existing systems and infrastructure, capitalism didn't have to start from scratch.

Mnemonic wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 2:23pm:

One major problem with communism was probably not communism itself, but the speed and means by which it was implemented. The communists pursued their goals through revolution rather than slow and gradual change. They destroyed an already working system. It's like what happened in Zimbabwe. They took land from competent farmers and gave them to incompetent peasants. It was class warfare against the "evil capitalists" or "evil white people." Energy and resources were redirected and redistributed and used inefficiently and ineffectively. Revolutionary communism set society backwards and forced people to relearn things and start from scratch. Because capitalism did not achieve its goals through revolution, forced seizure of property and goods from those who were already experienced in a particular trade or profession and disruption of existing systems and infrastructure, capitalism didn't have to start from scratch.

Interestingly, the Russians are making similar mistakes in their switch to capitalism.

No matter what the question, Socialism is never the answer.

Mnemonic wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 2:23pm:

Revolutionary communism set society backwards and forced people to relearn things and start from scratch..

But after 70 years Russia should have been starting to get the idea. After 40 years China had it worked out. The communists should be the ruling class for capitalists. This became the Moscow Circus.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 2:33pm:

No matter what the question, Socialism is never the answer.

Pretend democracy is a much more effective form of control

Marx did not invent 'socialism' by any stretch.


Quote:

...I believe it is my duty, as it is the duty of all socialists, to maintain for some time yet the critical or dubitive form; in short, I make profession in public of an almost absolute economic anti-dogmatism. Let us seek together, if you wish, the laws of society, the manner in which these laws are realized, the process by which we shall succeed in discovering them; but, for God's sake, after having demolished all the a priori dogmatisms, do not let us in our turn dream of indoctrinating the people; do not let us fall into the contradiction of your compatriot Martin Luther, who, having overthrown Catholic theology, at once set about, with excommunication and anathema, the foundation of a Protestant theology. For the last three centuries Germany has been mainly occupied in undoing Luther's shoddy work; do not let us leave humanity with a similar mess to clear up as a result of our efforts... ...I myself put the problem in this way: to bring about the return to society, by an economic combination, of the wealth which was withdrawn from society by another economic combination. In other words, through Political Economy to turn the theory of Property against Property in such a way as to engender what you German socialists call community and what I will limit myself for the moment to calling liberty or equality. But I believe that I know the means of solving this problem with only a short delay; I would therefore prefer to burn Property by a slow fire, rather than give it new strength by making a St Bartholomew's night of the proprietors ... Your very devoted Pierre-Joseph Proudhon http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/proudhon/letters/proudhontomarx.html

from correspondence with Marx. An Anarchists view.

Capitalism, which I consider to be a good idea at the time, has reached the apex of absurdity. We have never been wealthier and yet everybody is in debt. We fear the collapse of a mythology; that money has an inherent woth transending honest book-keeping. Clearly some adjustments need to be made.

Grey wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 2:52am:

Marx did not invent 'socialism' by any stretch. Quote: ...I believe it is my duty, as it is the duty of all socialists, to maintain for some time yet the critical or dubitive form; in short, I make profession in public of an almost absolute economic anti-dogmatism. Let us seek together, if you wish, the laws of society, the manner in which these laws are realized, the process by which we shall succeed in discovering them; but, for God's sake, after having demolished all the a priori dogmatisms, do not let us in our turn dream of indoctrinating the people; do not let us fall into the contradiction of your compatriot Martin Luther, who, having overthrown Catholic theology, at once set about, with excommunication and anathema, the foundation of a Protestant theology. For the last three centuries Germany has been mainly occupied in undoing Luther's shoddy work; do not let us leave humanity with a similar mess to clear up as a result of our efforts... ...I myself put the problem in this way: to bring about the return to society, by an economic combination, of the wealth which was withdrawn from society by another economic combination. In other words, through Political Economy to turn the theory of Property against Property in such a way as to engender what you German socialists call community and what I will limit myself for the moment to calling liberty or equality. But I believe that I know the means of solving this problem with only a short delay; I would therefore prefer to burn Property by a slow fire, rather than give it new strength by making a St Bartholomew's night of the proprietors ... Your very devoted Pierre-Joseph Proudhon http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/proudhon/letters/proudhontomarx.html from correspondence with Marx. An Anarchists view. Capitalism, which I consider to be a good idea at the time, has reached the apex of absurdity. We have never been wealthier and yet everybody is in debt. We fear the collapse of a mythology; that money has an inherent woth transending honest book-keeping. Clearly some adjustments need to be made.

IMO a better system would include elements from all.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 9:33am:

Grey wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 2:52am: Marx did not invent 'socialism' by any stretch. Quote: ...I believe it is my duty, as it is the duty of all socialists, to maintain for some time yet the critical or dubitive form; in short, I make profession in public of an almost absolute economic anti-dogmatism. Let us seek together, if you wish, the laws of society, the manner in which these laws are realized, the process by which we shall succeed in discovering them; but, for God's sake, after having demolished all the a priori dogmatisms, do not let us in our turn dream of indoctrinating the people; do not let us fall into the contradiction of your compatriot Martin Luther, who, having overthrown Catholic theology, at once set about, with excommunication and anathema, the foundation of a Protestant theology. For the last three centuries Germany has been mainly occupied in undoing Luther's shoddy work; do not let us leave humanity with a similar mess to clear up as a result of our efforts... ...I myself put the problem in this way: to bring about the return to society, by an economic combination, of the wealth which was withdrawn from society by another economic combination. In other words, through Political Economy to turn the theory of Property against Property in such a way as to engender what you German socialists call community and what I will limit myself for the moment to calling liberty or equality. But I believe that I know the means of solving this problem with only a short delay; I would therefore prefer to burn Property by a slow fire, rather than give it new strength by making a St Bartholomew's night of the proprietors ... Your very devoted Pierre-Joseph Proudhon http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/proudhon/letters/proudhontomarx.html from correspondence with Marx. An Anarchists view. Capitalism, which I consider to be a good idea at the time, has reached the apex of absurdity. We have never been wealthier and yet everybody is in debt. We fear the collapse of a mythology; that money has an inherent woth transending honest book-keeping. Clearly some adjustments need to be made. IMO a better system would include elements from all. SOB

That IS an Anarchist system. Anarchism concerns itself with the structure of making consensus decisions; not who's sitting at the table. On Q & A last night there was a general agreement that leadership is problematic for all parties. That's what Anarchism addresses. There's never been a good leader in all human history. The whole concept of leadership is a primitive throwback. We need to make decisions as a community; not elect leaders to make decisions for us. 

Grey wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 9:33am: Grey wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 2:52am: Marx did not invent 'socialism' by any stretch. Quote: ...I believe it is my duty, as it is the duty of all socialists, to maintain for some time yet the critical or dubitive form; in short, I make profession in public of an almost absolute economic anti-dogmatism. Let us seek together, if you wish, the laws of society, the manner in which these laws are realized, the process by which we shall succeed in discovering them; but, for God's sake, after having demolished all the a priori dogmatisms, do not let us in our turn dream of indoctrinating the people; do not let us fall into the contradiction of your compatriot Martin Luther, who, having overthrown Catholic theology, at once set about, with excommunication and anathema, the foundation of a Protestant theology. For the last three centuries Germany has been mainly occupied in undoing Luther's shoddy work; do not let us leave humanity with a similar mess to clear up as a result of our efforts... ...I myself put the problem in this way: to bring about the return to society, by an economic combination, of the wealth which was withdrawn from society by another economic combination. In other words, through Political Economy to turn the theory of Property against Property in such a way as to engender what you German socialists call community and what I will limit myself for the moment to calling liberty or equality. But I believe that I know the means of solving this problem with only a short delay; I would therefore prefer to burn Property by a slow fire, rather than give it new strength by making a St Bartholomew's night of the proprietors ... Your very devoted Pierre-Joseph Proudhon http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/proudhon/letters/proudhontomarx.html from correspondence with Marx. An Anarchists view. Capitalism, which I consider to be a good idea at the time, has reached the apex of absurdity. We have never been wealthier and yet everybody is in debt. We fear the collapse of a mythology; that money has an inherent woth transending honest book-keeping. Clearly some adjustments need to be made. IMO a better system would include elements from all. SOB That IS an Anarchist system. Anarchism concerns itself with the structure of making consensus decisions; not who's sitting at the table. On Q & A last night there was a general agreement that leadership is problematic for all parties. That's what Anarchism addresses. There's never been a good leader in all human history. The whole concept of leadership is a primitive throwback. We need to make decisions as a community; not elect leaders to make decisions for us.

If you're going to San Francisco
Be sure to wear a flower in your hair

Yes it's a primitive fetish to think that someone will have higher levels of special insight from being elected. It's like the idea of royalty being a separate level of humans. We're all the same in the shower, it's just the clothes and posture which are different. Same as animals displaying  more height, muscle or feathers.

Grey wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 9:33am: Grey wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 2:52am: Marx did not invent 'socialism' by any stretch. Quote: ...I believe it is my duty, as it is the duty of all socialists, to maintain for some time yet the critical or dubitive form; in short, I make profession in public of an almost absolute economic anti-dogmatism. Let us seek together, if you wish, the laws of society, the manner in which these laws are realized, the process by which we shall succeed in discovering them; but, for God's sake, after having demolished all the a priori dogmatisms, do not let us in our turn dream of indoctrinating the people; do not let us fall into the contradiction of your compatriot Martin Luther, who, having overthrown Catholic theology, at once set about, with excommunication and anathema, the foundation of a Protestant theology. For the last three centuries Germany has been mainly occupied in undoing Luther's shoddy work; do not let us leave humanity with a similar mess to clear up as a result of our efforts... ...I myself put the problem in this way: to bring about the return to society, by an economic combination, of the wealth which was withdrawn from society by another economic combination. In other words, through Political Economy to turn the theory of Property against Property in such a way as to engender what you German socialists call community and what I will limit myself for the moment to calling liberty or equality. But I believe that I know the means of solving this problem with only a short delay; I would therefore prefer to burn Property by a slow fire, rather than give it new strength by making a St Bartholomew's night of the proprietors ... Your very devoted Pierre-Joseph Proudhon http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/proudhon/letters/proudhontomarx.html from correspondence with Marx. An Anarchists view. Capitalism, which I consider to be a good idea at the time, has reached the apex of absurdity. We have never been wealthier and yet everybody is in debt. We fear the collapse of a mythology; that money has an inherent woth transending honest book-keeping. Clearly some adjustments need to be made. IMO a better system would include elements from all. SOB That IS an Anarchist system. Anarchism concerns itself with the structure of making consensus decisions; not who's sitting at the table. On Q & A last night there was a general agreement that leadership is problematic for all parties. That's what Anarchism addresses. There's never been a good leader in all human history. The whole concept of leadership is a primitive throwback. We need to make decisions as a community; not elect leaders to make decisions for us.

Q-A last night. WTH was that stereotype blond bimbo doing on the panel? If it was for diversity then they would have had someone who actually supports labour.

SOB

"Adventures in Democracy"  ;D ;D ;D

with all the usual suspects. Not once have they strayed outside outside the box. You put a pop star on - their fan club tunes in. That's why.