The so called "Free Press" (MSM) finally busted - and they can't wiggle off the hook now

[Chester]

I have read everyone's posts.

My comment is stimulated mostly by Aragorn's posts. In reading these posts, it seems clear that the problems that have derailed "ideal socialism" are caused by the dominant traits of human beings. And I see these exact same traits causing problems in other governmental systems.

I make odds high no system will fundamentally change the experience of life on Earth until the human being goes through a profound fundamental change.

[Dreamtimer]

I have read everyone's posts.

My comment is stimulated mostly by Aragorn's posts. In reading these posts, it seems clear that the problems that have derailed "ideal socialism" are caused by the dominant traits of human beings. And I see these exact same traits causing problems in other governmental systems.

I make odds high no system will fundamentally change the experience of life on Earth until the human being goes through a profound fundamental change.

The fundamental change we need is to give up the addiction to/need for authority. We are our own authorities. That's social heresy to many. I don't refer to anarchy because inherent in its definition is the idea that lack of authority automatically leads to chaos. It could if it became a sudden state, however we can move away from authority and still have order.

We order ourselves. It's what I do.

If people actually make responsible decisions for themselves we'll have plenty of peace and prosperity. Jesus is just one of many who have given us good guidelines.

We need respect. Of ourselves. Of each other. Of families. We need to see ourselves as a big family. We'd be a long way from the road of fear and greed if we could do that.

We don't need an official system. We need to allow ourselves to create an organic one.

We have to deal with a power structure that stops us from actually being free.

This comes right back to your love v. fear choice elucidated a while ago, Sam. The more of us who choose love, the less need we have for any authority systems.

[Aragorn]

I have read everyone's posts.

My comment is stimulated mostly by Aragorn's posts. In reading these posts, it seems clear that the problems that have derailed "ideal socialism" are caused by the dominant traits of human beings. And I see these exact same traits causing problems in other governmental systems.

I make odds high no system will fundamentally change the experience of life on Earth until the human being goes through a profound fundamental change.

I agree. I don't know whether the following has always been the case, but it is very obvious to me that modern humans — and by "modern", I mean to include at the very least the last couple of thousand years — experience a very solipsistic view of their own being, in which they regard everyone and everything outside of themselves as merely a tool by which to further their own comfort — for whatever value of the word "comfort". You see this in interpersonal relationships as well as in people's commitment — or lack thereof — at creating a better society. People get married, and then they get tired of their spouses and they get divorced. Repeat and rinse.

It's all about the self and the ego, and it borders with psychopathy. And the worst thing is that society actually stimulates that sort of mentality. If mankind is ever going to create its own paradise here on Earth, then they will first and foremost have to start looking at their fellow human beings as equals in every possible regard. And that takes empathy, as well as a concept of ethics, both of which — again — are actively muted and impeded in their development by the way the world works.

Overcoming this barrier would be nothing short of a transformation, indeed.

[Dreamtimer]

, Make it so, Number One.

[modwiz]

I have read everyone's posts.

My comment is stimulated mostly by Aragorn's posts. In reading these posts, it seems clear that the problems that have derailed "ideal socialism" are caused by the dominant traits of human beings. And I see these exact same traits causing problems in other governmental systems.

I make odds high no system will fundamentally change the experience of life on Earth until the human being goes through a profound fundamental change.

I could not agree more. A disease needs the correct terrain to grow and thrive. It is our petty behaviors towards each other and the personal dramas we get involved in that allows "them" to thrive. Something called the seven deadly sins is a useful guide to let us know what kinds of outside influence 'suggestions' are to be avoided. Those outside influences are those who give us 'their' mind. Zoroaster spoke of thses influences and called them daevas. He did not label them good or bad but into good and bad counselors. One group would offer advice, or mind insertions we think are our own, that would have good results personally and for society. The other group would offer ideas that would bring woe and strife. He said to ignore the latter. After his leaving this Earth, the usual nonsense of priestly types distorted and even inverted his teachings. Every spiritual school of thought/religion suffers the same fate because of humans following bad counsel. Especially priestly types who then guide poorly.

[Chester]

the last several posts... all of them, all great posts - thanks was not enough.

[Rebel&Rocket]

This thread is so...thoughtful I guess is the word.

A couple of years ago, a tech startup popped up in Silicon Valley, and their big idea was to operate on a sort of socialist foundation - everyone made the same salary. From the receptionist to the CEO, everyone was paid $70k/yr because the founders recognized that no one could survive comfortably in an area with one of the highest costs of living on the planet on a regular receptionist salary. It was a novel idea. The company went under very quickly.

The ideals of socialism are beautiful in theory - all are equal. Capitalism seems fair in theory - you get out what you put in. In reality, I have difficulty reconciling any blanket system working completely. If you stripped everything down, took every society on the planet back to zero and reconditioned them, you still have 7 billion very different people. A majority would just follow as they're expected. A minority would rebel in different ways. Some will work harder than others. Some will be motivated by different things. Some will find ways to take advantage. Some will be louder and influential and start making the conformists think. Would our nature eventually put us right back where we are?

[Elen]

A beautiful thread Sam, I am truly impressed with the input. I watched both videos and found them very informative in making a distinction between the different kind of thoughts and the ideologies behind them. To me, Socialism seems like the "Right Brain" versus the "Left Brain" Capitalism, or the heart versus mind. To find a balance between the two is key here. We ALL know in our hearts what is right, but then again, is it practical? Not on a global level, but in smaller groups I can see it being practised.

As a child my father wanted to teach me about money. He wanted me to put a value on my own efforts and what I did for him, and then pay me for it. I knew already then there was a catch. I replied, why don't I do something for you for nothing (because I love you) and you be my dad and look after me. And he appreciated it! He did learn that all he had to say was: It can't be done, it's too difficult with a wink in his eye. This way, I could do anything if I could see it in my mind first, and I was rewarded. He didn't take advantage of me and I didn't take him for granted. It was a great co-operation between us.

Sooo what I want to say is, if we could get our hearts in order and be guided "with that in mind," it will work on that level. There's no way any politician can make anything fair happen unless he/she speaks to our hearts first, because it has to be based on love and respect for each other.

For the ones that cannot love, I'd say, learn to respect and love will come later.

[modwiz]

[modwiz]

Here is a video you won't see on MSM and not just because the lady in the thumbnail, who speaks a little later in the video, tells it like she sees it with great passion. And that means speaking as adults do when they are frustrated and want you to know it. She is my age and she is the real deal.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBMWMj9bzfw

[Elen]

Here is a video you won't see on MSM and not just because the lady in the thumbnail, who speaks a little later in the video, tells it like she sees it with great passion. And that means speaking as adults do when they are frustrated and want you to know it. She is my age and she is the real deal.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBMWMj9bzfw

Thanks modwiz, shows you how it really is... And yes, she's the real deal.

[modwiz]

[Fred Steeves]

If you stripped everything down, took every society on the planet back to zero and reconditioned them, you still have 7 billion very different people. A majority would just follow as they're expected. A minority would rebel in different ways. Some will work harder than others. Some will be motivated by different things. Some will find ways to take advantage. Some will be louder and influential and start making the conformists think. Would our nature eventually put us right back where we are?

Yes.

She is my age and she is the real deal.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBMWMj9bzfw


I love that passion, as real as it gets.

[bsbray]

The key, as I see it, is to not have money be the motivator anymore for one's contributions to the functioning of society. Some people are better at doing hard labor because they have the physique for it, and they may not have any interest in, say, sciences, while they may even thoroughly enjoy doing hard labor. Others might be better at other things — e.g. doctors, scientists, teachers — and would be contributing to society in that manner. We're all individuals, and we all have to contribute in our own way.

I'm not sure how many people, even if built physically larger, would want to do hard manual labor just because it seems more appealing to them than a desk job or being a musician or any number of things. And if someone was willing to do hard physical labor then I wouldn't have anything against paying them more money than a fast food cook for the amount of work they do. Some jobs out there are grueling work and will put you in the grave early, and these professions don't necessarily include lawyers, politicians and government bureaucrats.

One of the problems that would-be socialist regimes have always created for themselves was the collectivist approach, where they didn't look at each individual's qualities and weaknesses, but truly regarded everyone as having the same qualities and weaknesses. And that is of course bound to fail.

I don't know about you but I wouldn't want my government determining my skills and weaknesses and putting me to work as they see fit. This kind of thing would be anathema to anything resembling a free society. Being able to choose what you do for a career is one of the most basic freedoms anyone can have.

So far, true socialism has never successfully manifested itself anywhere in larger societies — maybe in a few local communities, but certainly not at a nationwide level. And the reason for that is — as Richard Wolff explains — that most socialist revolutionaries got stuck at the stage where the people cease control over the government, without having a plan on how to proceed from there. In the former Soviet Union, Stalin claimed a victory for socialism while all he had achieved was state capitalism, and to the best of my knowledge, no would-be socialist nation has ever passed beyond that stage of state capitalism.

Then in all practicality what do people really mean when they say they are "socialist," if the ideal is virtually impossible to achieve? What is the practical reality of what is actually achieved, and how well is that actually working for you?

Well, there are different factors at play in that regard. First of all, there's the problem which almost every nation in the world has to deal with, which is that you cannot subsist on national produce alone. You will always need some kind of international trade to bring in resources which are not available locally, and to export products of which there is a surplus locally.

That depends on what you mean by subsist. Not all countries may be able to survive on domestic resources alone but I think a large number of them could if they had their economies geared the right way. The US could provide all of its own food and energy resources if it wanted to badly enough, and things like coffee or mangoes could be imported just as luxury items. That would be a more stable situation for us as a country (and insulate and strengthen our economy against foreign economic disasters) than beginning to literally depend on foreign food production to sustain us, or foreign resources. For small countries like the Netherlands trade would obviously be more important, just as trade has always been very important in the Netherlands.

Thirdly, capitalism in and of itself inevitably leads to corporatism. Bigger corporations make life hard for the smaller entrepreneurs and end up assimilating those smaller enterprises. We see it all the time. Look at the car industry. How many different marques does General Motors own? Or FIAT? Or the Volkswagen Group? We also see it in the mainstream news and entertainment media.

When corporations get so large that they impede competition and make the market vulnerable to arbitrary price changes, that's when you have a monopoly situation and the government is supposed to come in and break the monopoly up into several independent companies that are forbidden from working with each other. We've had presidents that ensured that this happened before, it just stopped happening because of corruption. But this is one of the few examples of where it clearly benefits the consumer for government intervention.

[Aragorn]

I don't know about you but I wouldn't want my government determining my skills and weaknesses and putting me to work as they see fit. This kind of thing would be anathema to anything resembling a free society. Being able to choose what you do for a career is one of the most basic freedoms anyone can have.

I'm not saying that the government as a bureaucratic institution would or should be assessing your skills or the kind of role you would be playing within the practical side of the system. Instead of a quid pro quo system with rigid rules, we should aim for a system with voluntary commitment and more flexible use of human resources. But that is of course going to require a major overhaul of the way people think. And that is most likely the biggest hurdle to overcome — way more difficult even than the already substantial practical and infrastructural changes.

Perhaps the term "socialism" is wrongly chosen, and we should actually be talking of a holographic society, where every member of society is a representative of the government, and where the government is a representative of every member of society. All for one and one for all, as the musketeers used to say.

Then in all practicality what do people really mean when they say they are "socialist," if the ideal is virtually impossible to achieve? What is the practical reality of what is actually achieved, and how well is that actually working for you?

As for what it means, see above, i.e. the holographic society model. As for how well it works for me, well, it doesn't, because I don't live in that kind of society. I live in a capitalist society, ruled by an immense bureaucratic apparatus, and then there's an even bigger bureaucratic apparatus on top of that, i.e. the European Union. And those bureaucrats are all serfs of the corporate world over here, and in particular, the banks and the IMF.

When corporations get so large that they impede competition and make the market vulnerable to arbitrary price changes, that's when you have a monopoly situation and the government is supposed to come in and break the monopoly up into several independent companies that are forbidden from working with each other. We've had presidents that ensured that this happened before, it just stopped happening because of corruption. But this is one of the few examples of where it clearly benefits the consumer for government intervention.

But then you would still have to be dealing with barter — and thus by definition with artificial scarcity — as well as with a regulating bureaucracy. Both of those are outdated concepts and should be discarded with prejudice when working toward a utopian society model.

The system you seem eager to preserve — at least, that is my impression — has had its chances and has time after time proven that it doesn't work. State capitalism — i.e. pseudo-socialism or pseudo-communism — doesn't work either. It is time for something different, and above all, something better.

"You cannot solve a problem with the same level of thinking as what created it in the first place."

(Albert Einstein)