got tonkaed wrote:i would have to look him his name, but hes the from the family of Howard Johnson, who own the company johnson&johnson. Essentially he is worth hundred of millions of dollars, which was released to him upon his 18th birthday simply for being born a Johnson. Id recommend his documentary, Born Rich, where he struggles with whether or not the system which he was born into truly is fair.
If he thought the system was unfair, he could have refused and left the family. Did he?
"Disease, suffering, hardship...that is what war is all about."-Captain Kirk, from "A Taste of Armageddon"
got tonkaed wrote:i would have to look him his name, but hes the from the family of Howard Johnson, who own the company johnson&johnson. Essentially he is worth hundred of millions of dollars, which was released to him upon his 18th birthday simply for being born a Johnson. Id recommend his documentary, Born Rich, where he struggles with whether or not the system which he was born into truly is fair.
If he thought the system was unfair, he could have refused and left the family. Did he?
How many people are goigng to leave a pile of money, even if they know they dont deserve it.
He may have thought the system was unfair, but he sure as hell wasnt going to leave a life of luxury just because his concience tells him too.
We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes, we own all your generals. Touch us and you loooose...
Would any single person leaving the system do anything at all to correct the fallacies of the system they were leaving?
Of course it wouldnt, the fact that he raises questions shows that he is doing more that he certainly could have, perhaps not being so lazy to borrow other words from different arguments. The lazy person sees something they do not like and either submits to it or gives up on it. The person with a little more gumption attempts to do more to alleviate the problems of the system.
However i dont wish to get into a discussion about whether or not Johnson was right for doing what he did. The simple arugment remains, he simply has had more oppertunity because of something that he had little to no control over. Because of that level of oppertunity he certainly could have had the choice to study business and because of his family name, worked his way up through a few different boards, until he was in a position that he liked. The fact that he did not choose to do this doesnt remove the possiblity. For someone to reach the point he has, having to work throughout high school while getting good enough grades to go to such a higher level of school, while working to pay for that school, would have to work exponentially harder than individuals who simply have those things taken care of for them.
However if a number of these people were in fact in the CEO positions my arguement would be invalid because people would have shown that yes they did work hard enough, however it hasnt proven to work out like this, it has been the Johnsons of the world who are the CEOs. It just proportionally isnt there.
got tonkaed wrote:i would have to look him his name, but hes the from the family of Howard Johnson, who own the company johnson&johnson. Essentially he is worth hundred of millions of dollars, which was released to him upon his 18th birthday simply for being born a Johnson. Id recommend his documentary, Born Rich, where he struggles with whether or not the system which he was born into truly is fair.
If he thought the system was unfair, he could have refused and left the family. Did he?
How many people are goigng to leave a pile of money, even if they know they dont deserve it.
He may have thought the system was unfair, but he sure as hell wasnt going to leave a life of luxury just because his concience tells him too.
Not very communist, are you? If the people championing these ideals dont follow them, how can we be expected to?
got tonkaed wrote:Would any single person leaving the system do anything at all to correct the fallacies of the system they were leaving?
Of course it wouldnt, the fact that he raises questions shows that he is doing more that he certainly could have, perhaps not being so lazy to borrow other words from different arguments. The lazy person sees something they do not like and either submits to it or gives up on it. The person with a little more gumption attempts to do more to alleviate the problems of the system.
However i dont wish to get into a discussion about whether or not Johnson was right for doing what he did. The simple arugment remains, he simply has had more oppertunity because of something that he had little to no control over. Because of that level of oppertunity he certainly could have had the choice to study business and because of his family name, worked his way up through a few different boards, until he was in a position that he liked. The fact that he did not choose to do this doesnt remove the possiblity. For someone to reach the point he has, having to work throughout high school while getting good enough grades to go to such a higher level of school, while working to pay for that school, would have to work exponentially harder than individuals who simply have those things taken care of for them.
However if a number of these people were in fact in the CEO positions my arguement would be invalid because people would have shown that yes they did work hard enough, however it hasnt proven to work out like this, it has been the Johnsons of the world who are the CEOs. It just proportionally isnt there.
I can name companies that are not like this. Dominoe's Pizza was started by a lower middle-class person, and look where it is now.
"Disease, suffering, hardship...that is what war is all about."-Captain Kirk, from "A Taste of Armageddon"
by naming an exception to the rule you by no way invalidate the rule. The fact of the matter is at somepoint the discussion hinged on a fact that you are of the opinion that working hard was the outlet of all economic mobility. Which it has been proven is not the case. The simple fact that the majority of humanity does not advance out of the class that we were born into shows, that working hard just does not overcome class differences.
The issue of class positioning is too strong for the majority of people to ever overcome, and most people are not lazy. The support of the myth of the American Dream only allows this situation to remain unquestioned.
got tonkaed wrote:by naming an exception to the rule you by no way invalidate the rule. The fact of the matter is at somepoint the discussion hinged on a fact that you are of the opinion that working hard was the outlet of all economic mobility. Which it has been proven is not the case. The simple fact that the majority of humanity does not advance out of the class that we were born into shows, that working hard just does not overcome class differences.
The issue of class positioning is too strong for the majority of people to ever overcome, and most people are not lazy. The support of the myth of the American Dream only allows this situation to remain unquestioned.
Majority of humanity, yes, majority of America, no. America is the best place to move up socially, much more than other countries. Cuba, anyone?
"Disease, suffering, hardship...that is what war is all about."-Captain Kirk, from "A Taste of Armageddon"
I agree, in america especially in our modern economy it seems that most of the time it takes money to get money (there are obvious exceptions). There has been created a system in which the lower classes, ie imigrants, have little oportunity while there is slightly greater to the middle class and so on. It must be noted that the figures posted for the cost of running for president this year are in the tens of millions of dollars, which only the rich can afford. The rich run the country. The people merely vote amongst the upper class.
The whole point behind Marxism and communism is the elimination of such classes, ideally at least. I would personally suggest reading and focusing on the premise behind the book Poor People by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.
i would again say exception/rule. The fact of the matter is that in America it has been shown that individuals are not performing any better than their parents were, which is a good barometer for whether or not hard work does in fact lead to economic mobility. After all, each generation could be assumed to work probably nearly as hard as one another on balance, and with technological advancements we should be doing better than before, but that simply isnt the case. The American Dream is simply thus, a dream that is not all that connected to reality.
Im not saying America is a terrible place to live, i am quite comfortable here, but to assume that this is some kind of haven and that it truly is better here...is simply ethnocentrism.
everywhere116 wrote:Majority of humanity, yes, majority of America, no. America is the best place to move up socially, much more than other countries. Cuba, anyone?
Thats because the US is full of resources. Generally other peoples resources. Oil from the Middle East. Cars and other complicated electronice from Japan. Cheap, mass produced items from China.
A good portion of the worlds resources are flowing too America, just so that you can have all your opportunities to rize above your starting Class.
We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes, we own all your generals. Touch us and you loooose...
Need an example? Big Texas oil company, owned by the Bush family. 2 presidents. My Portugese neighbors, father a former construction worker, guess what his son is.
KomradeKloininov wrote:I agree, in america especially in our modern economy it seems that most of the time it takes money to get money (there are obvious exceptions). There has been created a system in which the lower classes, ie imigrants, have little oportunity while there is slightly greater to the middle class and so on. It must be noted that the figures posted for the cost of running for president this year are in the tens of millions of dollars, which only the rich can afford. The rich run the country. The people merely vote amongst the upper class.
The whole point behind Marxism and communism is the elimination of such classes, ideally at least. I would personally suggest reading and focusing on the premise behind the book Poor People by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.
Irellevent. The people still decide if they run in the primaries and they still decide who wins in the election. Also, societies eliminating do eliminate social barriers. Everyone is poor as dirt. Cuba, anyone?
got tonkaed wrote:i would again say exception/rule. The fact of the matter is that in America it has been shown that individuals are not performing any better than their parents were, which is a good barometer for whether or not hard work does in fact lead to economic mobility. After all, each generation could be assumed to work probably nearly as hard as one another on balance, and with technological advancements we should be doing better than before, but that simply isnt the case. The American Dream is simply thus, a dream that is not all that connected to reality.
Im not saying America is a terrible place to live, i am quite comfortable here, but to assume that this is some kind of haven and that it truly is better here...is simply ethnocentrism.
This is too funny. You say that America isnt some kind of haven, but wouldn't want to move. This is called "hypocrasy."
"Disease, suffering, hardship...that is what war is all about."-Captain Kirk, from "A Taste of Armageddon"
Anarchy Ninja wrote:a mix of anarchist and communist ideals would be best i think
Agree but elements of capitalism are necessary.
Youre probably right. Niether Communism or Capitalism is stable on long enough time periods or with large enough groops of people to really be considered a proper system. The best would either be a way to combine them, with a healthy dose of Anarchy added in for good measure (good luck trying to get two mutually exclusive systems to combine), or a fourth option, completly different from the others (except tht it is mostly Anarchy, because you just cant beat Anarchy)
Also, because I dont want to double post:
ksslemp wrote:
Neutrino wrote: The point of Communism is not man against man, but man for man. They were only competing against America because they knew if they didnt, they would become outdated and obsolete. They had to do it to stay in the running, even though it went against the point of their whole society.
Thank you for making my earlier point.
What? That Russia was forced into a race that it didnt want to run? Thats plain to see if you just think about the situation for a few moments! How can pointing out the plain and obvious be considered 'a point'?
everywhere116 wrote:Majority of humanity, yes, majority of America, no. America is the best place to move up socially, much more than other countries. Cuba, anyone?
Thats because the US is full of resources. Generally other peoples resources. Oil from the Middle East. Cars and other complicated electronice from Japan. Cheap, mass produced items from China.
A good portion of the worlds resources are flowing too America, just so that you can have all your opportunities to rize above your starting Class.
I wonder why that is? Is it because we follow capitalism, the wealth generating machine, so we can afford that stuff? Other countries can too, you know, and the rest could if they were capitalist.
Last edited by everywhere116 on Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Disease, suffering, hardship...that is what war is all about."-Captain Kirk, from "A Taste of Armageddon"
got tonkaed wrote:i would again say exception/rule. The fact of the matter is that in America it has been shown that individuals are not performing any better than their parents were, which is a good barometer for whether or not hard work does in fact lead to economic mobility. After all, each generation could be assumed to work probably nearly as hard as one another on balance, and with technological advancements we should be doing better than before, but that simply isnt the case. The American Dream is simply thus, a dream that is not all that connected to reality.
Im not saying America is a terrible place to live, i am quite comfortable here, but to assume that this is some kind of haven and that it truly is better here...is simply ethnocentrism.
This is too funny. You say that America isnt some kind of haven, but wouldn't want to move. This is called "hypocrasy."[/quote]
No, that's called "America is not perfect, but it is the best option available"
We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes, we own all your generals. Touch us and you loooose...
got tonkaed wrote:i would again say exception/rule. The fact of the matter is that in America it has been shown that individuals are not performing any better than their parents were, which is a good barometer for whether or not hard work does in fact lead to economic mobility. After all, each generation could be assumed to work probably nearly as hard as one another on balance, and with technological advancements we should be doing better than before, but that simply isnt the case. The American Dream is simply thus, a dream that is not all that connected to reality.
Im not saying America is a terrible place to live, i am quite comfortable here, but to assume that this is some kind of haven and that it truly is better here...is simply ethnocentrism.
This is too funny. You say that America isnt some kind of haven, but wouldn't want to move. This is called "hypocrasy."
No, that's called "America is not perfect, but it is the best option available"
I wonder why that is? Hmm.....
"Disease, suffering, hardship...that is what war is all about."-Captain Kirk, from "A Taste of Armageddon"
well i suppose by discrediting me you have in fact discredited everything ive said?
Simply there is no place that really is a haven, and its a bit silly to think that there is. By choosing not to believe in some of the cultural myths which help keep the system (which has some postive elements...dont get me wrong) in place i understand that this argument is bound to come. The whole well if you like it why dont you leave, which is a bit silly of course, but i suppose needs to be answered.
First, im not afraid to admit i am in fact at times hypocritical. Yes i am human, im by no means perfect and it would be a shame if i believed that because of any my thought processes i wasnt up to the same level of examination as anyone else. But i ask you who isnt? And like i mentioned earlier, finding some flaw in me doesnt do anything in terms of our discussion.
Also, im not exactly in a spot of life where it would make a whole lot of sense to go somewhere else. Shamefully i only speak a little bit of spanish so logistically i dont do too well in many places. Also, im certainly not as a student financially independent enough to decide well id like to live in some fantasy country somewhere.
However, if we refuse to look at our world critically, and this especially means taking a careful examination of the cricumstances around us, we cut off much of our oppertunity for growth. If you are willing to accept the cultural myths of an area, which are used to exploit, then you remain in a position where you simply will not overcome the exploitation. Im not saying by not believing in those myths that i am in some superior position or that ill amount to anything different than anyone else. But i at least will be able to try and spread a somewhat different message, which hopefully will challenge people to at least look at things with a somewhat more suspicious eye.
If ive done anything to attempt to discredit you, i of course apologize, at times we get heated in discussions like these.
If I can grow up in little Powell, Tennesse with my single father who can't finacially support himself and therefore lives with his parents yet I apply myself in school (taking AP/honors classes) and take the necessary steps to fund my college education (applying to EVERY scholarship possible, student loans), why couldn't anyone else?
Neutrino wrote:Thats because the US is full of resources. Generally other peoples resources. Oil from the Middle East. Cars and other complicated electronice from Japan. Cheap, mass produced items from China.
A good portion of the worlds resources are flowing too America, just so that you can have all your opportunities to rize above your starting Class.
I wonder why that is? Is it because we follow capitalism, the wealth generating machine, so we can afford that stuff? Other countries can too, you know, and the rest could if they were capitalist.
Calpitalism does not create wealth, it manufactures it. Manufacturing implies a raw material from which wealth can be produced.
As it is now, for the sake of argument (I dont know the actual figures), lets say 15% of all things mined, produced, manufactured and caught goes straight into America. The other 85% stays with the rest of the world. Now: using those figures (I know they arn't correct, im just using them for the sake of argument) an area roughly 6 times the size of America could live at the same level as the average of America is now, while using up 90% of the worlds resources. Roughly 1.5 Billion people, 90% of the worlds resources. 5 Bilion people, 10% of the wolds resources. The real figures might allow you too squeeze in a few more Americas, but there is stil no way in hell that this plannet can sustain humanity if everyone became Capitalist.
We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes, we own all your generals. Touch us and you loooose...
If there were honestly ap classes and scholarships out there for everyone who did all that work, and to some degree there is(i know, there are quite a fair amount scholarships out there) then it really wouldnt be much of an issue. But frankly with poor funding for many schools and issues of tracking, there just simply are not oppertunities for everyone out there that are the same.
everywhere116 wrote:I wonder why that is? Is it because we follow capitalism, the wealth generating machine, so we can afford that stuff? Other countries can too, you know, and the rest could if they were capitalist.
Okay- so the only way that capitalist countries are still around is because they annex resources from other countries...but these countries could somehow do the same? No wait! I got it...they could get the resources from America, and America could get them back, and so on, and so forth. The perpetual capitalist system. It's flawless!
not sure how i missed that, but neturino and yeti do handled that pretty well, the world simply could not bear it, if every country was a capitalist country and used resources in the fashion the US does. Which is partly why we wont sign international treaties that would expect us to cut back on emissions while at the same time expecting developing countries to not even think about using up as much resources as we do, because it would be bad for the environment.
got tonkaed wrote:well i suppose by discrediting me you have in fact discredited everything ive said?
Simply there is no place that really is a haven, and its a bit silly to think that there is. By choosing not to believe in some of the cultural myths which help keep the system (which has some postive elements...dont get me wrong) in place i understand that this argument is bound to come. The whole well if you like it why dont you leave, which is a bit silly of course, but i suppose needs to be answered.
First, im not afraid to admit i am in fact at times hypocritical. Yes i am human, im by no means perfect and it would be a shame if i believed that because of any my thought processes i wasnt up to the same level of examination as anyone else. But i ask you who isnt? And like i mentioned earlier, finding some flaw in me doesnt do anything in terms of our discussion.
Also, im not exactly in a spot of life where it would make a whole lot of sense to go somewhere else. Shamefully i only speak a little bit of spanish so logistically i dont do too well in many places. Also, im certainly not as a student financially independent enough to decide well id like to live in some fantasy country somewhere.
However, if we refuse to look at our world critically, and this especially means taking a careful examination of the cricumstances around us, we cut off much of our oppertunity for growth. If you are willing to accept the cultural myths of an area, which are used to exploit, then you remain in a position where you simply will not overcome the exploitation. Im not saying by not believing in those myths that i am in some superior position or that ill amount to anything different than anyone else. But i at least will be able to try and spread a somewhat different message, which hopefully will challenge people to at least look at things with a somewhat more suspicious eye.
If ive done anything to attempt to discredit you, i of course apologize, at times we get heated in discussions like these.
Everyone is human, and everyone makes mistakes. Finding a flaw in you doesnt discredit anything, but finding a flaw in how you conduct things related to this arguement does. In the only point in your post other than saying no one is perferct, you say that capitalism exploits people. What about Cuba? USSR? North Korea? Do you have any idea how rich thier leaders were while thier people were dirt poor? Under Communism?
"Disease, suffering, hardship...that is what war is all about."-Captain Kirk, from "A Taste of Armageddon"
Neutrino wrote:As it is now, for the sake of argument (I dont know the actual figures), lets say 15% of all things mined, produced, manufactured and caught goes straight into America. The other 85% stays with the rest of the world. Now: using those figures (I know they arn't correct, im just using them for the sake of argument) an area roughly 6 times the size of America could live at the same level as the average of America is now, while using up 90% of the worlds resources. Roughly 1.5 Billion people, 90% of the worlds resources. 5 Bilion people, 10% of the wolds resources. The real figures might allow you too squeeze in a few more Americas, but there is stil no way in hell that this plannet can sustain humanity if everyone became Capitalist.
The estimated figures for the States is around mid 9h per person (second highest- the United Arab Emirates are above 10h). Estimated available for the current global population is 1.8h (ish) er capita- and this isn't factoring the absolute base amount of land recommended for conservation- I think that's around 12% or something.
Last edited by foolish_yeti on Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
very true tonkaed. We are sharing our opinions of this topic, you cant call someone's opinions wrong, just try and see it from their point of view first.
Now, as it happens, I see what you are saying, everywhere116 (please keep in mind I am using my full knowledge of the workings in America, i'm Canadian). There may be more oportunities to advance, yes, however, there are just as many to decline, and they are often much easier to take. Communism strides to eliminate that. Now admitted in preactice it doesnt always work out, like in your obsession to Cuba, however, that doesnt mean that the principle is wrong. I have stated earlier again and again that communism and Marxism are IDEALS, and they might not always work out in real life.
everywhere116 wrote:I wonder why that is? Is it because we follow capitalism, the wealth generating machine, so we can afford that stuff? Other countries can too, you know, and the rest could if they were capitalist.
Okay- so the only way that capitalist countries are still around is because they annex resources from other countries...but these countries could somehow do the same? No wait! I got it...they could get the resources from America, and America could get them back, and so on, and so forth. The perpetual capitalist system. It's flawless!
You do know that those countries get something in return? And voluntarily agreed to sell resources? Tkae Japanese electronics. Some of the biggest companies, arent they? They're not American. Sony, Mitsubishi, huge companies getting rich off of us buying Playstations. How are we "annexing" resources?
"Disease, suffering, hardship...that is what war is all about."-Captain Kirk, from "A Taste of Armageddon"
