@Thomas,
It should be noted that
Radio DDR was the lesser political broadcaster ...
Stimme der DDR,
Freiheitssender 904 and
Soldatensender 935 mainly used the term "socialistic" when referring to the GDR and "communist" when referring to their "socialistic sisters and brothers".
In our (naval/NATO) 'language' during the cold war times, all Warsaw pact countries were Communists.
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:What country would you call "communist"? The both the USSR and pre reform China termed themselves as socialist: communism was in their terms still a distant goal.
This may be true as a point of political philosophy, but I don't think it was true in their practical usage of language. My recollection from listening to
Radio DDR is that when they referred to East Germany and its fellow Warsaw pact countries, they sometimes called them "Socialist", sometimes "Communist". I have no problem following that usage and calling them "Communist", too.
Perhaps their references were to the Communist political parties of which their primary political spoksmen were usually members.
In any event - as you acknowledged - they were and, in their serious, deliberate references to themselves, described their political and economic structures as socialist, not communist -- and that is the relevant point here.
Hawkeye wrote:
true, and I am impressed that you have the balls to say that. Years ago I read the book "in defense of elitism" were the author pointed out that equality exists no where in nature. This was maybe 15 years ago, but even then making such a statement was enough to get this book attacked by the PC Police.
America used to be a meritocracy, which made one hell of a lot of sense, and worked pretty good for a long time. This idea that we replaced it with, that we are all equal, or should be, or will be, or could be, is so outrageous that it is funny. What is sad is that so many people can believe such an obvious impossibility. This speaks to the weakness of mind of moderns, and also of spirit, because so many now can't bring themselves to face the truth.
*************************************************************
This is so absolutely true.
Hawkeye 10 is again on the ball.
We cannot be equal and free at the same time. Anyone who thinks about that for a while will understand why. If, in some incredible dystopia, the government were to redistribute wealth yearly and, at the same time, prohibit anyone from making more than a predetermined amount, then we might have equality but we would certainly not be free.
As Okie has mentioned, equality of opportunity is the watchword. Any minority student, who is not absolutely drowned in a deficient and backward culture, can, in these days of affirmative action and tons of grants, scholarships, etc. can do well.
Hawkeye 10 says we used to have a meritocracy. I agree that the pure concept of meritocracy has been eroded by Affirmative Action and political game playing, however, if one studies the higher reaches of finance, the superior officers of the large Fortune 500 companies, the most successful Physicians, Lawyers and Scientists, it is clear that Meritocracy is limping but still alive.
Evolutionary Psychologists have noted that if it were possible to make the environmental influences equal for all people(not very likely) Nature( inherited intelligence) would rule. As we continue to "equalize" the playing field, it is clear that pure merit is sought by more and more companies and institutions. When inherited intelligence is added to a functional culture which prizes education highly--See Chinese-Japanese-a large number of people are added to our highly productive leader group.
@Walter Hinteler,
Herr Hinteler keeps commention on things he knows NOTHING about. He is a German who still thinks that Germany should have won World War I and World War II> He believes in the Ubermensch. That is why he is so free with his advice which is usually erroneous.
@genoves,
Quote:Hawkeye 10 says we used to have a meritocracy. I agree that the pure concept of meritocracy has been eroded by Affirmative Action and political game playing, however, if one studies the higher reaches of finance, the superior officers of the large Fortune 500 companies, the most successful Physicians, Lawyers and Scientists, it is clear that Meritocracy is limping but still alive.
Meritocracy died a slow death, drip by drip, partly at the hands of the victim culture. We used to build monuments to hero's, now we built them to victims, that says it all.
We have some winners on merit still, even a few who are allowed to say that they are successful because they are better than other people, but this is a constantly dwindling pool genoves. The trend, the imperative that no one is allowed to publicly believe that merit is unequal, is clear.
@hawkeye10,
Your point is well taken, Hawkeye--It is considered heretical for anyone to claim that they won on merit--(except in baseball, basketball, football, etc. where INBORN TALENT rules--or so they say.) but I think that most people are able to view the results which may be a more powerful message in the long run than advocacy.
When people see or hear of the great lawyers performing; when they note the articles about the most difficult operations done by expert physicians; when they are told of the financial geniuses in our country; and when they visit places like Silicon Valley, they can assume that those people got there on merit.
@genoves,
Quote:Your point is well taken, Hawkeye--It is considered heretical for anyone to claim that they won on merit--(except in baseball, basketball, football, etc. where INBORN TALENT rules--or so they say.) but I think that most people are able to view the results which may be a more powerful message in the long run than advocacy.
Listen to them Genoves, these days your claimed exceptions will usually say that the did better because of luck, or because of God. They usually WILL NOT say that they performed better , and never will say that they ARE better. Most of your exceptions are not, they conform to the social mandate like everyone else does (well not me, but I am a freak).
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
conservatives believe in equal opportunity so long as wealth and class are subtracted from the discussion, in other words you don't believe in equal opportunity but you like to pretend that you do.
I think that is nonsense, hawkeye. I grew up with not much, but I am not complaining about the lack of opportunity. It takes work and responsibility, and if some people do not have both, they won't make it.
Quote:They way it used to work, and should work again, is that disadvantaged people have possibilities of bettering their lives, be it through education, military service, or plan old hard work. They never have a equal shot to those who are born with good genetics, money, and are raised in the upper classes, but they have a shot....they have reason to work and to hope.
As a zen socialist I sure as **** do not believe that equal opportunity exists, but at least I am honest about it.
I don't know where you have spent your life, but it is still very very possible to achieve a decent life with hard work. Millions have proven it, and still are. Where have you been? Now if somebody wants everything handed to them on a silver platter, then no, it probably won't be, unless Obama can do it before the country goes completely belly up. That is why alot of people voted for him - you should know.
Quote:Quote:P.S. I guess that is what you were talking about when you mentioned meritocracy, which is a fancy word for earning what you have. Socialism seeks to replace that. Thats what Obama's change was about, rob the producers and give it to the non-producers
Only if you have low expectations of people can you believe that socialism replaces merit. I don't so I will tell you that most people who get ahead on merit in a socialist system would be committed to lending a hand to help others. Being primarily concerned with the well being of the collective changes everything about this capitism breed idea that someone else getting ahead means that you will not.
I will grant you one point, people that care about others, being honest, and being fair, I do think the almighty dollar has trumped some of that, but that can be done with or without socialism in my opinion.
@Amigo,
What are you talking about. You need to be precise in your comments.
In the land of the slothful, everybody can be equally slothful. In the land of the industrious, equality makes no sense, since everyone is competing to be more industrious. My own take on the Grasshopper and the Ant fable.
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
Fear not, H2O MAN has plenty of calluses.
maybe you should try using more lotion, or not doing it so hard.
Hawkeye 10 wrote;
Listen to them Genoves, these days your claimed exceptions will usually say that the did better because of luck, or because of God. They usually WILL NOT say that they performed better , and never will say that they ARE better. Most of your exceptions are not, they conform to the social mandate like everyone else does (well not me, but I am a freak).
********************************************************************
I am sorry, Hawkeye 10, I am afraid that I was imprecise. Let me try again.
Although Bill Gates would , I am sure, never say that he performed better, 99% of the people who know what he did will agree that he is indeed better as an entreprenuer and a thinker. Similarly with Steve Jobs, Franc is C rick, James Watson, and Henry Kissinger in their respective fields.''
Granted, it has become boorish to wear your Phi Beta Kappa key as a display on your vest or to list your membership in MENSA on a resume, but most people are sufficiently tuned to the social scene so as to know that a Harvard Degree or a certificate from the Wharton School or a Law Degree from Chicago or a upper level position in Goldman Sachs or NASA had its own cachet.
These achievments advertise their owners perfectly well!
@genoves,
Super, so as long as the achievement goes unmentioned by the one who achieves they are allowed to achieve without being socially stigmatized. And you are fine with this? No, communication must always conform to reality, what is must be named, a man (or woman) must be free to tell others who and what they are without interference from the collective.
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye---That would be wonderful but in this screwed up society where the highest rated TV show is something about dancing with stars or American Idol and where facebook and other such abominations hold the interest and backing of millions of nearly decerebrated morons, it is not so much that the achievement is not mentioned, it is that there is no place where it can be mentioned---at least no place where it will be heard or noticed by the masses.
One of my favorite books has always been Ortega yGasset's "Revolt of the Masses". If you have not read it, I think you will like it. Ortega says:
"The characteristic of the hour is that the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose them whereever it will. As they say in the United States, "to be different is to be indecent". The mass crushes beneath it everything that is excellent, individual, qualified and select."
Accumulation by dispossession
Accumulation by dispossession is a concept presented by the Marxist academic David Harvey, which defines the neoliberal changes in many western nations, from the 1970s and to the present day, as being guided mainly by four practices. These are privatization, financialization, management and manipulation of crises, and state redistributions.
Financialization
The wave of financialization which set in the 1980s is allowed by governmental deregulation which has made the financial system one of the main centers of redistributive activity. Stock promotions, Ponzi schemes, structured asset destruction through inflation, asset stripping through mergers and acquisitions, dispossession of assets (raiding of pension funds and their decimation by stock and corporate collapses) by credit and stock manipulations, are, according to Harvey, central features of the post-1970s capitalist financial system.
@Amigo,
Amigo, what college did you attend, or perhaps you are still at college, even teaching? In other words, where did you learn this stuff?
@okie,
Copied/pasted from Wikipedia.
@DontTreadOnMe,
My calluses are from hard work, your calluses are from working yourself hard... you should
probably follow your own advice or ask ceci girl, TKO and Cyclotroll to give you a hand...
@okie,
Quote:Amigo, what college did you attend, or perhaps you are still at college, even teaching? In other words, where did you learn this stuff?
I grew up very poor in the ghetto. No food, No clothes, no toys, nothing. One day when I was walking home at a very young age very hungry with huge holes in my shoes and socks I swore that instead of looking for money and serving moneyI would look for the truth and serve the truth.
In seeking the truth I have gone through almost all religions, philosophies, ideologies, Political science, etc,etc.
These theories/ideas are all from Karl Marx. I you read some of them, be carful, they are hard for any logical man to deny.
The Marxist definitions are from wikipedia.
@Amigo,
Your answer sounds a little hoky or contrived, but I will take your word for it.
I have some advice. Abandon your search for utopia on earth. Marx is not the answer. You will not find happiness through money or grinding an axe, through anger at the rich or anyone else. Envy is counterproductive, besides, alot of rich people are very miserable people. Class warfare is an idiotic thing to worry about. Find a line of work that you enjoy, and if an education is necessary, go to work on it. If you find a line of work or occupation that you enjoy, don't worry about the money, adjust your lifestyle to the money you will make, and enjoy the journey, don't worry about the destination, but be responsible, don't go in debt, enjoy family life if possible, and someday you will wake up to the fact that you were successful.
This country offers countless opportunities, be happy, quit complainin. Karl Marx is not the answer to your problems. Marxist theories have never worked very well, so give it up.
