"private property is evil" ?? WTF? Communism/socialism taught in WA school?

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=022107C



:wtf:

Hugo Chavez is in charge of schools' curricula now?

As much as we don't want The Bible taught in public schools (in a means other than an historic work of literature like The Iliad or The Odyssey or Shakespeare), surely no one could condone this. I know I don't! Even if this is a private school.

It's the "Greed Is Good" website.

I took a quick look around that site; also the frontpage
for the Heartland Institute that the article's author lists
in her creds.

I'm not blindly accepting their version of ANYTHING, to
put it mildly.

The article is nonsense.

as long as they meet criteria for certification, provided they want certification. I don't care for socialism being promoted either but if parents want that taught to their children and are paying for it, that's their choice.

Is this something we should have in schools?

But, after reading the link below to the original article on Legotown, it seems the teachers did open the door to the children thinking about a good solution, unlike what Creationism "teaches".

Socialism is not a religion. It is an economical system, a different way of looking at how society should be economically driven.

All four are complete and total fables.

communism and socialism are scientific and based on reality. They have worked before and they will work again.

Try reading something sometime.

Every time I hear/read a Marxist saying his/her secular religion is "scientific" I gag. Marxists uses arguments like "you are being mislead by bourgeois ideology" and other forms of circular reasoning to make their dogma immune from being falsifiable, and falsifiability is the standard of what makes a theory scientific or not. Marx's hypothesis was falsified; it, like all other utopian ideologies, lead only to totalitarianism. That is not to say SOCIALISM ITSELF is a bad thing, I consider myself a socialist, but the Marxist and Anarchist forms of it are BS and only result in tears.

1.) Marx analyzed capitalism scientifically, communism is scientific. Why? We look at the relationships that people have to the means of production, how societies reflect economics, how class conflict plays out and many other factual facets of capitalism.

2.) Marx's hypothesis was not falsified, and it is purely delusional to claim as much. Why? Class conflict is playing out before our eyes, the characteristics that Marx (and later Lenin) identified are MORE than palpable today. Furthermore, the experiences in Russia, Cuba, Paris and other places have shown what Marx and Lenin have said all along.

3.) Communist ideology does not lead to totalitarianism. The dictatorship of the proletariat means democracy for the workers, with the guidance of the vanguard party (a contribution of Lenin). This is not totalitarian, it is the workers taking state control and suppressing the bourgeoisie (instead of the bourgeoisie using state control to suppress the workers).

4.) Nothing is more ridiculous than "socialists" who ignore every analysis of value. What about BS?

So yes, you are misled.

but don't let the facts get in your way. :eyes:

Socialist and leftist worker movements in Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico and other places are gaining more and more momentum. Meanwhile, capitalism is on the precipice of disaster, and it is likely that we will see yet another period of revolutionary activity.

Whenever communism is questioned as being bad fiction, one of the excuses is that it has never been tried.

CLUE: A kibbutz is about as close as you are going to get, and they do not scale.

do you know what communism is? Let me help you out: it's a classless, stateless, borderless society. Does the USSR, China, DPRK or any other country in the past 2,000 years fit that definition? No.

Cuba is a bit bigger than a kibbutz, and Cuba works extremely well (healthcare, housing, literacy and education, democracy, etc...). Oh, and the Soviet Union provided many positive things for the people, even at its corrupt and weak end. Read up on what happened to Russia and Ukraine after the fall and you'll know what I mean (also, read "Revolution Betrayed" by Trotsky).

but can therefore be argued as possible. The pragmatic needs of running basic infrastructure and the lack of emergence of "new socialist peoples" anyplace communism has been attempted are a clear indicator that the thought experiment you propose will clearly fail.

Cuba is now where near communist, marginally socialist at best, and will be in turmoil when the Castro brothers die. Again, not a sustainable construct. Their lack of press and travel freedoms there are mindful of Eastern Europe.

I think I have read everything Trotsky published, bad fiction at best.

Communism is as dead a Marx or Lenin, and like Lenin we need to quit preserving the corpse and give it the burial it deserves.

Progressive democracy is clearly going to be the most desirable and sustainable.

Socialism has already been attained. Communism will be attained when socialism is established definitively and class conflict ends.

Did I say Cuba was communist? READ MY POST. I explicitly stated that Cuba was NOT communist. Cuba is fully socialist and led by Marxism-Leninism. The revolution is gaining strength, and Castro has already left office without any "turmoil". Cubans can travel and they do travel, people will oftentime find Cubans throughout Latin America. Counterrevolutionaries are, in fact, allowed to speak their views, but that doesn't mean they don't meet opposition. Furthermore, you can listen to CNN on a simple radio in Havana.

Bad fiction? Trotsky accurately predicted what would happen to the Soviet Union in 1935, but nice try.

They said communism was dead in 1848, then in 1871, then in 1989...they're still wrong. Communism is just as alive and well as it ever was, revolutionary efforts in Venezuela, Mexico and elsewhere are gaining momentum.

Progressive democracy has been overcome by the bourgeoisie and the inevitable consolidation of wealth under capitalism. It's time to do away with the problem entirely.

not attainable, so your argument is theoretical at best, though any analysis of the practical issues associated with it clearly shows that it will not work.

Cuba is not a fully socialist anything, its your garden variety dictatorship with some pretty slogans thrown in for color. Any local opposition including the media are suppressed by the Government as are foreign journalists. The Castro BROTHERS are still in charge, and its not clear what will happen when that generation dies.

Every other so called socialist or communist nation has given up on the failed ideologies, but some have retained the name.

You deny the one workable approach of progressive democracy, proclaim the triumph of a kind of socialism that doesn't exist, espouse the impossible as a panacea, while spouting rhetoric that is so inane that even Castro quit using it.

I think there was a Beatles song about this a while back...

and more importantly, it is inevitable. What analysis of "practical issues" are you citing? The nature of class conflict lends itself to the establishment of such a society.

Cuba is socialist. It is a dictatorship of the proletariat, the workers democratically wield state power. Opposition groups are allowed to have meetings and demonstrate, but there is a great amount of opposition because the Cuban people know that they seek to destroy the achievements of the revolution. Fidel stepped down, but power is held by the people through the Popular Assembly, local bodies and non-governmental organizations. Educate yourself about the Cuban system.

Venezuela and Mexico sure aren't giving up on the "failed ideologies", not to mention other movements.

Progressivism ignores the fact of class conflict and the nature of capitalism itself. Capitalism WILL consolidate wealth, increasing inequity and deprivation; regulating it and reforming it doesn't work because of these facts and others. What, exactly, has progressive democracy accomplished aside from merely delaying the developments that we are seeing today?

The socialism I espouse has existed and does exist, sorry.

Between the Beatles and scientific analysis of class and capitalism, I'll take the latter.

If one examines expressionism, one is faced with a choice: either reject Marxist class or conclude that expression comes from the masses, given that the premise of substructuralist narrative is valid. Several dematerialisms concerning the role of the artist as reader may be discovered. But the main theme of Pickett’s<3> essay on pretextual discourse is the common ground between society and narrativity.

In the works of Smith, a predominant concept is the concept of textual sexuality. In Chasing Amy, Smith reiterates expressionism; in Clerks, however, he examines the postcapitalist paradigm of context. Therefore, if Marxist class holds, we have to choose between pretextual discourse and cultural theory.

If one examines neomaterialist cultural theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept Marxist class or conclude that the significance of the observer is social comment. Lyotard uses the term ‘expressionism’ to denote the role of the poet as writer. Thus, la Tournier suggests that the works of Smith are reminiscent of Fellini.

An abundance of appropriations concerning pretextual discourse exist. But Baudrillard’s model of presemanticist theory states that art may be used to entrench hierarchy.

The subject is contextualised into a Marxist class that includes reality as a reality. Thus, several modernisms concerning the rubicon, and subsequent meaninglessness, of cultural sexual identity may be found.

The premise of expressionism implies that the raison d’etre of the poet is significant form. It could be said that Derrida suggests the use of Marxist class to deconstruct capitalism.

The subject is interpolated into a pretextual discourse that includes narrativity as a paradox. Thus, Lyotard promotes the use of expressionism to analyse reality.

So, I figure when I get a rare chance to say I agree
almost 100% with everthing you're saying, I'd better jump on it.

I agree almost 100% with everthing you're saying.

I won't bother trying to disabuse Bolshy of his beloved fallacies;
I have a feeling that TIME is probably gonna take care of that.

A few posts back you said:

"communism and socialism are scientific and based on reality. They have worked before and they will work again"

and now you're saying "Communism has never existed but don't let the facts get in your way."

Make your mind up, please. or the rolling eyes smiley will refer solely to you.

Most of us have. We all know you; many of us
used to -BE- you. You're rather fun to read, in
an "Awww, ain't he cute" kind of way.

As I said last night, try to enjoy your zealotry
now, while it lasts. Making huge mistakes is an
important part of growing up. Don't let anyone
ever tell you different.

Muriel is trying to tell me what I was referring to and what I wasn't referring to, which is tantamount to putting words in my mouth. Catching it? S/he's only catching shadows of his/her imagination.

Oh, and I do know that many here have flirted with leftism before. That's no surprise. Does it matter to me that those people have embraced capitalism? Not one bit. Will it ever matter to me? No. If you'll allow me to quote something:

"Though cowards flinch, and traitors sneer,
we'll keep the red flag flying here"

That was written in the late 1800's (IIRC), and it still rings true today.

Funny how your "scientific" philosophy has pushed you
so far out of touch with reality, innit? You won't even
admit that you wrote what you wrote despite the fact
that everyone can clearly see it.

Great quote there. Really satisfies your NEED to pretend that
your existence is full of drama and "high purpose", dunnit?
Not juvenile at all!

I guess.

Look, you're telling me what I was referring to and what I wasn't referring to? That's completely ridiculous and you know it perfectly well.

"Socialism and communism have worked". That is what I wrote. However, I was talking about communism the ideology, while I corrected another poster on a common error (thinking that communism the system has existed).

Again, if you refuse to read what I wrote, that is your problem.

I like the graphic, very "mature"...except not. Do try to make an intelligent post next time.

Talking to you is starting to feel like beating up a kitten,
so I'm gonna stop.

Best of luck in all your endeavors, should you ever actually
undertake any. Bye now! :hi:

maybe as in explaining what I was saying. You're talking to your own delusions, so it's good for you to stop.

Bye.

I was referring to communism as an ideology.

Communism, the economic system, has never existed. Communism, the ideology, has.

I hoped people would be able to recognize a pretty obvious statement, but I guess not.

In reply to "Communism and socialism are the creationism and intelligent design of economics"

you said communism has worked before. So, clearly, you were saying that communism as an economic system has worked. The reply to you was that communism has been a total failure. They you said it has never existed. No-one said anything about 'ideology' as opposed to an economic system. You just turned your argument 180 degrees when someone pointed out it was a failure, not a success.

Hint: if you're going to try and argue contradictory points, do it more than 2 posts apart on a forum. It's too easy to spot.

"socialism and communism have worked before". I was referring to communism the ideology. You, on the other hand, tried to tell me what I was referring to without any evidence.

Communism the ideology has worked in creating socialism (ie it works). Communism the economic system has never existed. Now, you failed to recognize the fact that I was responding to someone who made no indication that they knew that communism (the system) had never existed. I was correcting a common mistake.

It's also "too easy to spot" things that are in your head.

Rather than reading what's on our screens, we should be able to pick up your thoughts that you neglect to put down in writing?

"without any evidence" - bollocks. I've already been quoting your words, and you've claimed (without evidence) you were talking about ideology one moment, and economics the next. Let's review the sub-thread:



QED. post #114 specifically talks about economics; you reply communism has worked before. Post #152 says is was a total failure; you reply that it never even existed. No mention of 'ideology'. You try to be patronising ("Try reading something sometime" and "don't let the facts get in your way. :eyes:"), and then, when your inconsistency is pointed out, rather than re-reading what you wrote, and realising that you did contradict yourself, you try to pretend there were 'subtleties' (no, being patronising isn't subtle) that I failed to grasp, or that I couldn't catch something. Don't try to blame me if you can't communicate properly. I was going on what you wrote, exactly. I wasn't putting any words in your mouth - just pointing out what you wrote. You continue being patronising ("I corrected another poster on a common error"), and claim people are refusing to read what you wrote. We've all read what you wrote, but so far, you haven't showed the same.

I didn't fail at anything. The conversation was about communism as part of economics, and it was your claim in post #129 that communist economics has worked. What's in someone's head is your claim that you were talking about communism as an ideology then. You said nothing at all like that.

First, I referred to an ideology.

Second, I referred to a system.

It's not that hard to understand, but I guess you'll refuse to recognize facts when it's convenient for you.

I finally realized that poking him with a stick
wasn't ever gonna get any more interesting, so I alerted
on him.
I can't take credit- Surely I'm not the only one.
And I certainly should have been more mature, and done
it much sooner.

But, at any rate, he's now sporting one of these:


Is it WRONG of me to enjoy that? I hope not, cuz I do.

I suspect he's just a teenager who's read Marx and Trotsky, and the official publication of one of the parties, been bowled over by it, and thinks that it's all so right - and that other people think the same. But he typed a few things as if they're eternal truths, without thinking how other people may approach them, and without backing up his arguments well (just giving a party line), or considering the problems with the theory that others bring up. Worse, he was assuming that what he'd said was what he would say again, given a second chance - and then refusing to back down when it turned out his memory was faulty; understandable in a spoken argument, but in a written one, it makes you look foolish.

I'd rather he was still around, and we'd got him to relax and think a bit. He was just 'Citizen Smith'.

But I like "Bolshy the WonderCommie". :D

I agree that he was obviously a young person head over
heels in love with his first "ism". That really kinda
took me back to my own youth, y'know?

My first "ism" wasn't Marxism, but that makes no difference.
The symptoms are generally the same with any first "ism",
when you're still young enough to know everything.

What a LONG time ago that was....*sigh*.

Supporting FARC in Colombia, as he does in this thread, is highly suspect.

Pure capitalism has failed as surely and as repeatedly as many attempts at socialism.

An analogy which would make capitalist ideology into the analogue of evolutionary theory (not that biologistic ideas haven't been an important influence on capitalist ideology).

To the teachers showing how socialism can be a solution (where it's arguable they are anti-capitalists - I don't think they really are), a similar analogy is the pro-Creationism teacher who thinks that the Bible is unerring and that science doesn't provide all of the answers.

*I* am not saying evolution, itself, is a theory. Evolution is a FACT. The *theory* of evolution is in the manner in which it works.

I'm just saying you have to look at this from the perspective of a Creationism proponent and then the analogy is quite glaring.

Creationism denies basic science. Socialism (and it's a matter of opinion if this is 'socialism', or just teaching a sense of community and social values) does not deny any science.

with private, Christian schools teaching Creationism. I DO have a problem with public schools teaching it. I wouldn't send my child to a school that taught it, but private schools have the right to teach what they want.

Private schools should have the same curiculum as public schools. Otherwise, we end up with a portion of the population ending up backward from established scientific knowledge. If they want to talk about the bible, that's one thing, but to treat creationism as science is flat out disinformation.

that I would never ever ever send my children to a school where creationism was taught as a science. I do think it's wrong and ignorant to ignore evolution. I just don't have a problem with a private school teaching the Bible, religion classes, or creationism.

Creationism has no scientific validity whatsoever, so teaching it as science is simply misinformation.

or science. Teaching of diverse social theories is not comparable, and when you get right down to it, the ultimate basis of capitalism is theft. Isn't the idea that stealing is wrong one of the basic tenets of the social contract?

The next thing you'll hear is they want everybody to have the same Health Insurance!!

while secretly amassing the powers of a dictator.

I can't remember what comes first, the personality cult or the decidership?

as the article states. I could be wrong, but perhaps you're seeing a red herring, so to speak.

who always tricks the communists into believing she/he will not be as greedy as any other living human being on Earth.

There will always be some person, or group of persons, with ulterior motives and *wanting all the green Legos for themselves".

who wanted all the green legos, and got them by means of lies and deception.

But perhaps that was the point you were making.

At least where some form of imperialistic ideals start moving to the forefront.

There is not, nor has there ever been a utopian society where all men and women are equal in all ways. It is an impossiblity because of simple human nature.

is doomed to fail, regardless of whether it's a religious, economic, environmental or social system. The problem is not with the views presented by any system, but that extreme views tend to cultivate fanaticism and therefore are impossible to consider for the rest of the population. We already know (from the Soviet Union) that socialist/communist governments to the very far left are unsustainable, and it only when they incorporate moderate ideas that they can last longer. We, as the human population, have yet to come to a system that can and does work better, though--our founding fathers did have foresight to think of many angles to the future U.S. and account for many potentialities, but we have gone to a point far beyond what they might have been able to concieve, even in their wildest dreams (and that's the bad as well as the good!).

It is only when all citizens have equal representation under the law to enjoy liberty and justice that a government can even come close to being successful.

Maybe he didn't talk like one, but he sure walked like one.

although he did force huge burdens upon the workers, he was not a capitalist.

He was the figure-head of the bureaucracy, which eventually developed interests different from those of the workers. Therefore, he made the Soviet Union a degenerate worker state.

Indeed - don't you think the Stalinist bureaucracy gained financially due to pursuing their "different interests"? What do you think those different interests were?

So the relationship is not the same.

The different interests were in preserving their hierarchy and position within the worker state (deformed worker state). Therefore, they pursued those interests first and the interests of the workers second. Just my opinion.

just not by means of traditional commercial endeavors. Though it did involve business, after all the state controlled the corporations (or if you will, the other way around - same effect). The profits were for the government and quite a bit of it was spend by government officials, on government officials - in short: they were enriching themselves.

Maintaining power to the detriment of "the people" always involves a lot of money - if only because money is the means to that end: to maintain power in defiance of the will of the people.

Stalin lived a pretty simple life (but I should research that more).

My point is that even if they did aggregate capital, the process by which they did it is wholly different from any capitalist process. The bureaucracy was better off than most people (to varying degrees, of course), but I think it would be a misrepresentation to say that they were merely "enriching themselves", they were part of a state in which property was publically owned (publically controlled is another matter, and that is exactly why it is a degenerate worker state).

I disagree with your final comment. Maintaining power, which sometimes went against the interests of the workers, does not involve money persay, it more directly involves control and privelege. Does that include better living conditions? Yes. Does that include vastly rich people? No.

Again, that's just my view and your points are very well taken.

As much as possible, in the current form of capitalism.

It requires influence/power to do so, and money can buy you the control and privilege that brings that power. So power and money form a positive feedback loop. The extent to which it is abused depends on the morality of the individuals involved.

Even if Stalin himself did not get extraordinary rich, he was not the only one who had influence, not the only one in a position to get rich.

Aren't we all under the dictatership of the top 2% now? I really don't see where we have anything to crow about.

I remember when I lived in NYC and we had a rush of immigrants from Russia. It was not long before these immigrants began complaining every loudly that although they were grateful for the "promise" of more freedom they missed the communist economic system. Some voiced their disappointment that they had come here and were sorry they could not go back.

But, beyond that, look to countries that *have* been around for a long time (primarily Europe) and have generally been successful and don't appear (on the surface) to be nearly broken under the strain of leverage assets and money manipulation.

been a capitalist state for that whole time.

What has been does not mean what will be, or even what is best.

even in just the last century with the rise and fall of fascism.

All soceties, no matter how great the original ideas, in time become corrupted and need to be reshaped by the people. It is human nature. The same will happen here at some point in the future.

Or some sort of catastrophic event.

and warmongers in control of our foreign policy, we're not far.

either-

so what is wrong with questioning not only authority, but the 'way things are'?

I'm glad there are schools where kids are encouraged to think, and question.
Where learning and play are connected-

peace,
blu

It shed some light on the subject which is what I figured DUers would eventually do. I will take blame for not having researched this more thoroughly before posting and I plead ignorance of the tcsdaily site (I got to it thru a techcentralstation - or something like that - link. not something I recognized as some rwingnut site)

and receives extensive funding from corporations - especially for climate change denial.

EVERY form of government eventually gets corrupted and has to be reshaped. We have seen this throughout history. Human nature compels certain people to push for power (power gets the good food and shelter which gets the women, which allows for procreation) we might not like it, but it is in our DNA, at least for now. With that in mind, no form of government is immune from corruption and greed. As a people we need to mix things up every so often and re-callibrate the scales.

capitalism inevitably consolidates wealth into fewer and fewer hands. Why? Competition eventually rewards fewer and fewer people, namely the people who can exploit the workers the best. Therefore, Wal-Mart and other putrid monopolies and robber barons are representative of the logical conclusion of private property and capitalism.

The rise of the Welfare State during and right after WW2 proved Marx wrong, and it disproved a fundamental part of his ideology, the notion that democratic reform reigning in or even eventually abolishing Capitalism is impossible.

the welfare state has given way to Wal-Mart and robber-baron tactics of the bourgeoisie. To think that the welfare state did anything aside from postpone increased exploitation and deprivation and class warfare is simply laughable. What did the policies of FDR and LBJ do? Absolutely nothing, all those regulations have been overcome all too easily by the bourgeoisie.

The resurgence of capitalism and the obvious increase in inequity have proven Marx (and others) completely correct.

Furthermore, Marx never said that the revolution had to happen before 2006. Marx knew that capitalism, like feudalism, would take time to be overthrown. However, that doesn't mean that the destruction of capitalism isn't inevitable.

Enjoy your Marxist zealotry while it lasts, kid.

You gotta enjoy it NOW, while it's still burning so hot
that you don't notice what an utter ass you're making of
yourself.

Because it's gonna be a REALLY embarrassing memory someday,
and you sure as hell aren't gonna enjoy it then.

So enjoy it now.

Marxism is pretty much a secular religion, it's no use trying to reason with fundamentalists like him.

"I used to be a Marxist...so I'm right!"

It is painfully clear that you are oblivious to reality. Come back when you have something valuable to say.

:eyes:

Care to make a point?

By the way, enjoy insulting people you don't even know. What was that about being an "utter ass"?

The US has a fascist system.

what makes our system fascist? How are we not capitalists? How are neo-cons not capitalists?

Fascism is the reactionary response to revolution, where the middle class helps solidify society into a painfully stratified and regulated society.

but do so through overpowering the government with the economy, instead of the communist method which is to overpower the economy through the government.

Capitalism is reality.

An economic system is only a system that models human behavior and distributes goods and services accordingly, and human behavior is consistently marked by greed. Capitalism turns greed against itself through making greedy people compete with one another.

The major problems with capitalism arise out of the exploitative arrangements that are remnants of an earlier time in world history wherein wealth and power were concentrated in the hands of a select few. The current legal structures of many companies reflect this, and focus on the equity of an investor more than the equity of the workers in a company.

Communism/socialism is really blind to the fact that investors are needed for most companies.

What's needed is a better more democratic version of capitalism that gives workers and investors power over a company, with shares based solely on their respective equity in a company and its products.

The reason our system is a fascist system stems from the totalitarian legal structure of our companies, but this can be changed simply by updating and strengthening legal structures for businesses to accommodate these simple truths.

that's a characteristic of capitalism, the connection between economic power and political power.

Capitalism is reality? What is that supposed to mean?

Human behavior is determined by what surroundings they live in. Change society and you cahnge people's behavior. Capitalism demands that people be greedy or face poverty and/or starvation, and so people are greedy. Take out capitalism and you change the equation entirely. Just remember that people behaved in radically different ways during other epochs with other economic systems.

Capitalism ALWAYS consolidates wealth into the hands of a select few, it is precisely how it works. Competition is the process whereby concentration of wealth occurs, and exploitation, deprivation and inequity increase. Why do you think we are seeing the developments today?

No, it is not blind to that. It identifies the fact that it is in the interests of the workers to destroy capitalism and establish socialism (and eventually communism).

There is no "more democratic version of capitalism", period. No matter how many reforms or regulations you put in place, the bourgeoisie will ALWAYS overcome them in their blind rush for more profits. Did any of the reforms and regulations of FDR or LBJ stop Wal-Mart and other putrid corporations from taking hold? No, and they NEVER will, because capitalism will ALWAYS defeat and overcome them.

Again, the US system is FAR from fascism, and it is petty to say that it is. All bourgeois governments are closely linked to business interests, this is nothing new. You make changes by overthrowing a corrupt and putrid economic system that only causes inequity, exploitation and worse, not by petitioning the bourgeoisie for a bigger soup bowl.

You claim "Capitalism is reality" - as if it's something inevitable. Then you say "The current legal structures of many companies reflect this, and focus on the equity of an investor more than the equity of the workers in a company".

Now that is a reasonable definition of what 'capitalism' is - "focus on the equity of an investor". It is the investor who provide the capital for a company, and demands a return from it. In capitalism, workers don't have equity in a company - they have an ongoing contract to provide labour in return for wages. This isn't "remnants of an earlier time" - it's the heart of capitalism.

What you advocate - giving workers more power in a company, which you call "more democratic", is a mixture of socialism (ownership and/or control by the workers) and capitalism. Capitalism is about capital - money for investment. Democracy has nothing to do with capitalism - they can co-exist, but one is about government, the other economics. Capitalism isn't about voting, or people's opinions, or their lives.

I may roughly agree with you that this mixture of capitalism and socialism would work best, in terms of obtaining personal freedom and prosperity for everyone. But don't dismiss socialism - it's part of what you want.

:shrug:

First, you're thinking about socialism, not communism. Communism is stateless, borderless and classless.

The vanguard party is part of the proletariat, and so it is impossible for them to have any more "green Legos" by definition. Secondly, many communist leaders lived very simple lives in simple conditions (Lenin, Castro, Mao, etc...). Lastly, communist thought is ALL ABOUT wanting stuff, it's based on class interest and class conflict. Therefore, the workers will take the green legos for themselves, which is the basis of communism itself.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

because the vanguard party is both a natural part of worker movements and a proven method for overthrowing capitalism and establishing socialism.

What do you suggest? Petition the bourgeoisie for a bigger soup bowl? :eyes:

Vanguard parties have only resulted in totalitarian hellholes.

but I've read history, and vanguard parties have resulted in socialism and worker control. The experiences of the Soviet Union, Cuba and many other instances show this.

While the "market socialists" are too obsessed with their innocence to do anything constructive (except complain about movements that are actually getting stuff done), the Leninists and their vanguards are overthrowing capitalism, establishing socialism and contributing to progress.

who claim to be spreading democracy around the world.
There are far more of those then there are communist dictators; just about every US friendly government in Latin America during the past couple of decades.

communism/socialism is the way of the future.

and where the way of a not so distant past.
I think it's obvious that all the privatization and deregulation we've been having, have contributed and still are contributing to the mess we're in.

is the real reason our nation is in such a sorry ass condition. That was allowed to happen because our people are very irresponsible and are not exercising the immense power they have as consumers to make demands of their suppliers.

there is so much privatization and deregulation because corporations have taken over.
So we agree on that, except that i think citizens are more than just "consumers", and that the more important power we have is the power we have over our government, to demand that it actually represents our interests. Corporations don't even have a legal obligation to represent our interests, our government does.

Money is power. You use it to buy things. Things are important. Things get you other things. For instance, money gets you property, property gets you a factory, and a factory gets you workers, workers get you more money.
The entire system is set up in a way that people attempt to accumulate wealth. Wealth generally equals power. And, when someone tries to restrict it? Well, money is what everyone wants, so it's easy to buy what you want. Deregulation, etc. Need your guy in office to do that? You have to be rich to run, so you can cherry pick your candidate.
The whole system is set up to encourage and allow a few people to accumulate wealth which is exactly what causes this problem. It is also designed to fool everyone else into thinking someday maybe THEY TOO can accumulate this wealth, so those people don't blame the wealthy because THEY TOO might some day BE the wealthy.
It's bullshit.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.

try being specific instead of speaking in abstract concepts.

What dictatorship are you talking about? Lenin? Even his worst enemies say he lived a VERY simple life. Castro? His living conditions are basically average. Mao? He had a pool; that's about it. Stalin? I know little of his living conditions, but remember that he got to power because of the rising bureacracy in the Soviet Union.

Socialism is about democracy for the workers, and property is held in common. Your assertions are baseless and incorrect.

Stalin also lived a relatively simple life style. He had an apartment in the Kremlin and a dacha in the country, outside of Moscow. Both were rather spartan by Western European standards.

I'll remember that. Thank you.

they wouLd make Lenin bLush.

You're responding to a conservative opinion piece about an original article that appeared in a liberal publication.

Do the math.

It would be smarter of you to read the original article in "Rethinking Schools," and then form your own opinion. I'm familiar with the publication and its political orientation. Perhaps you could familiarize yourself, too.

"We saw the decimation of Lego-town as an opportunity to launch a critical evaluation of Legotown and the inequities of private ownership and hierarchical authority on which it was founded. Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."

"We're concerned about what was happening in Legotown, with some kids feeling left out and other kids feeling in charge," Kendra explained. "We don't want to rebuild Legotown and go back to how things were. Instead, we want to figure out with you a way to build a Legotown that's fair to all the kids."

It does say that the 'ownership' of the lego should be shared.



There's obvious spin in the TCS article.

That's VERY different from saying private property is evil.

Reminds me of those people that call you a communist if you say you like how things are done in Finland. Stupid hyperbole, nothing more.

:shrug:

what the teachers should have concluded but they stopped before they did is that to be successful and competitive in this world, you have to work hard and fight for what you want. There are no handouts in life. If you miss out on one opportunity, you need to search out another one instead of sitting on your ass whining.

Capitalism does generally rule the roost and that won't be changing for a very long time.

I am compelled to point out that this lego project happened at an after-school child care program. It was not part of organized classroom curriculum.

The saga of Legotown evolved organically as a consequence of two events: 1) some children were hoarding the "cool" legos, and 2) Legotown was destroyed by outsiders. The teachers/caregivers chose to use the hoarding and the destruction to teach some important concepts: private vs. public, ownership, what constitutes the public commons. This is highly engaged teaching, and I applaud these teachers for their ingenuity and creativity

Some of us, including myself, grow up never knowing that there are resources that belong to us all - air and water, for example. It's important for everyone to learn that privatization of the public commons can hurt or it can help. It's all dependent on how ownership of the resource is managed.

I'm going to snip some things here with the hope that it provides a better context for criticism. Anything in boldface or italics is my emphasis, not the authors'.



My child would be fortunate to be on the receiving end of such brilliant teaching.

I'm so shocked!

They don't live in reality, remember?

A steady of diet of lies, smears, and insults results in producing more of the same: garbage in, garbage out.

Looks like the teachers took advantage of a teachable moment and did a great service to these kids.

Taking the Legos out of the classroom was both a commitment and a risk. We expected that looking frankly at the issues of power and inequity that had shaped Legotown would hold conflict and discomfort for us all.

But not so much discomfort as caused to the kids who spent months building their Legotown.

The lesson is that if the products of their hard work cause envy among the rest, they're a problem.

The teachers "lesson" was wholly inappropriate. The kids built something of which they were proud, and the teachers established rules after it was accidentally destroyed to prohibit them reoffending by recreating something else in any way exceptional.

The Lego originally came from communal bins; children took what they wanted from it, used the pieces, and bartered them. But after the accident, they insisted that they still had 'ownership' of the pieces they had used before.

Now, it's reasonable to assert ownership of a structure that you've designed and built; but to assert that, because you used a piece earlier, and all the structures have now been destroyed, you have ownership of that piece (which came from a communal pile - ie what it is in now) in perpetuity does not seem reasonable, to the teachers, and to many more people.

The teachers did not "prohibit them reoffending by recreating something else in any way exceptional" - from the article:



And, after the games with assigning arbitary values to the lego pieces, they did create something else - the Pike Place Market model. But this time, the children had worked out some rules among themselves about fairness and cooperation.

You can bet that if a fire were to destroy the market, the individual vendors would vigorously defend their "right" to the spaces their businesses occupied. It's not reasonable for their wishes to be overridden because the power imbalance between vendor (them) and customer (me) make me feel uncomfortable.

Just like the vendors at the market, the builders of legotown constructed something that transcended the individual structures - yet the individual structures were inseparable from the whole, as is the creativity that the individual builders brought to them.

I didn't own the trees from which the lumber was milled that I eventually built my house with. Nevertheless, if the house were to be knocked down, I'd certainly feel proprietary toward the components of my home - primarily because of the effort I expended turning the "building blocks" into a structure.

It sounds like the students are allowed to experiment with the idea--what's wrong with that? If they are allowed to experiment with capitalism, it sounds like a good idea.

Besides, social/economic constructs are very different from spirituality--and I say that as a church/state separatist Christian.

OTOH, Socialism/communism being taught at a PRIVATE school? Gotta love that one!

Edit: spelling

It's really very simple: to much of anything is bad.

This socialist (me) says _to much_ private property is bad - such as: corporations claiming ownership of the rain that falls out of the sky (see Bechtel in Cochabamba).
Likewise, _to much_ capital in the hands of a few is bad, because money is power and concentration of power is the antithesis of democracy.

What the article in the OP presents is a caricature of socialism, possibly for the purpose of discrediting socialism.

through undemocratic methods.

The means are as important as the ends in a true democracy, and when someone allows one leader to gain as much power as Chavez, then it is a destruction of the very thing his followers seek to achieve.

The problem is that Chavez will do something to piss just enough people off someday, that his government will be overthrown by an ultra-conservative one.

Or he'll be taken out by a death squad.

If on the other hand, he'd listened to the 40% of his country that completely despises him, that opposition would have been de-radicalized.

Another problem is that he's a demagogue. It may not be possible to completely eliminate the need for a leader, but they should be very powerless. The people of Venezuela should be controlling their futures, not a single man.

the prediction has yet to come true.

I suppose you are referring to the "rule by decree" - in spite of all the debunking of the RW spin on it: Venezuela before Chavez and many other nations have been (partially) ruled by decree at one time or another. Chavez' decree is limited in time and scope (only certain economic measures).

And then there''s the RW spin on the term limits, in spite of all the dunking: term limits would only be extended if the opposition party boycotts elections.

In the mean time parts of Venezuela's middle class is catching on to the fact that what Chavez is doing is actually good for the economy, which is also to benefit of middle class.

And regardless, to suggest that Chavez is opposed to private property is totally disingenuous.


On edit: Chavez' rule by decree was granted to him by the Venezuelan parliament, which was elected by a majority of Venezuelans. That's not nearly as undemocratic as you make it out to be.

that a single ruler is never in the best interests of the people in 1776.

How is Chavez any different than an "enlightened despot"?

And aside from his temporary rule by decree on economic matters, i'm not so sure he has the executive powers that a US president has by design.

Chavez is no more an enlightened despot than any other elected leader.

How is that better?

Why not actually involve the people in the decisions instead of giving the power to a single man?

(involving the people in the decisions, not elective monarchy)

And i think the governments of Cuba and Venezuela, and APPO in Mexico/Oaxaca are much closer to that than the US or any European democracy.

Are you saying Chavez is not involving the people in the decisions? Most of them seem to be pretty happy about what he's doing. And they knew what he was about, that's why he got elected. Then he went and did what he had announced he would do, and the effects are as announced. The only ones unhappy about it are a bunch of rich folks who can't get richer still as easily now as they could before Chavez..

It could get more democratic still if we'd do away with the concept of president as a person with special powers. In theory we only need an assembly of elected representatives, and one or a few representatives of the assembly who serve as spokes persons; they'd have no special powers.

The Marxists' economic determinism makes them them all attempts at democratic reform are useless and that since they believe that their utopia is inevitable they ignore the means to the end, leading to authoritarianism.

Socialism doesn't generally do that.

It might be worth thinking about that before you try and interpret anything else about this story.

The kids did not own the lego pieces.

Hilltop Children’s Center: Why We Banned Lego
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=522203&mesg_id=529401

In the current issue they describe how some kids hoarded the "best" pieces, denied their classmates any access at all to the pretend town they were building, and displayed other undesirable behavior surrounding ownership and the social power it conveys.

So the teachers banned Legos, and worked with the kids to surface the issues raised by the ways they had been using the popular building blocks.

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/

Not!

From the original article:

A group of about eight children conceived and launched Legotown. Other children were eager to join the project, but as the city grew — and space and raw materials became more precious — the builders began excluding other children.

Occasionally, Legotown leaders explicitly rebuffed children, telling them that they couldn't play. Typically the exclusion was more subtle, growing from a climate in which Legotown was seen as the turf of particular kids. The other children didn't complain much about this; when asked about Legos, they'd often comment vaguely that they just weren't interested in playing with Legos anymore. As they closed doors to other children, the Legotown builders turned their attention to complex negotiations among themselves about what sorts of structures to build, whether these ought to be primarily privately owned or collectively used, and how "cool pieces" would be distributed and protected. These negotiations gave rise to heated conflict and to insightful conversation. Into their coffee shops and houses, the children were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys — assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive. As we watched the children build, we became increasingly concerned.

...

We had an initial conversation with the children about our decision. "We're concerned about what was happening in Legotown, with some kids feeling left out and other kids feeling in charge," Kendra explained. "We don't want to rebuild Legotown and go back to how things were. Instead, we want to figure out with you a way to build a Legotown that's fair to all the kids."

...

This brief exchange raised issues that we would revisit often in the weeks ahead. What is a fair distribution of resources? Does fairness mean that everyone has the same number of pieces? What about special rights: Who might deserve extra resources, and how are those extra resources allotted?

...

Now, with Legotown dismantled and the issues of equity and power squarely in front of us, we took up the idea of power and its multiple meanings. We began by inviting the children to draw pictures of power, knowing that when children represent an idea in a range of "languages" or art media, their understandings deepen and expand. "Think about power," said Kendra. "What do you think ‘power' means? What does power look like? Take a few minutes to make a drawing that shows what power is."

...

In the weeks after the trading game, we explored questions about how rules are made and enforced, and when they ought to be followed or broken. We aimed to help children see that all rules (including social structures and systems) are made by people with particular perspectives, interests, and experiences that shape their rule-making. And we wanted to encourage them to consider that there are times when rules ought to be questioned or even broken — sharing stories of people who refused to "play by the rules" when the rules were unjust, people like Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez.

It sounds like the teachers pushed the kids in a particular direction; but it also sounds like the kids got to hash out a lot of the problems on their own. Their is a lot more to it then just "teaching socialism/communism".

You'd think they were educators or something!

Just checking.

In any case, as some of the posts on this thread have made clear, this was totally appropriate. It was a sensitive and intelligent way to break up a small cadre of kids who were hogging the "good" legos, and involve more kids in the project. Really, all they were doing was teaching the values of sharing and inclusivity. I think there's a lot right with that.

I do accept that private schools have plenty of leeway in what they teach - this included.

My question is that for those who think this is simply an alternative perspective, do they consider creationism also simply an alternative perspective.

of course you probably know that already. You're just trying to be cute.

When you can prove to me that capitalism is one of the basic principles of the Universe, we will talk. Until then, your question is a false analogy.

They are - all over the world.

:eyes:

Maureen Martin (martin@heartland.org), an attorney, is senior fellow for legal affairs at The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit organization based in Chicago that promotes free-market solutions to social and economic problems.


...

Did you even bother to read the actual article?

Apparently not.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If your friend send you a link to a Drudge Report "article" or a piece on OReiley's "Talking Points", would you post it here?

And you obviously didn't just post this to "get DUs thoughts", that's apparenty by the phrasing of the OP. You just posted it, and commented on how wrong it is for the school to do this.

So what is your agenda?

Trolling, perhaps?

Yes, I do believe so since I *never* claimed this article "as literal fact". Or perhaps all of those question marks in the topic title and the :wtf: in the OP were somehow missed by you.


Now, go read this ENTIRE thread, please.

funny thing is, you are actually arrogant enough to keep insisting that you were always right all along.

Wow!



Just..... wow.

when in fact your question is irrelevant, because your link is a bunch of bullshit anyway.

And then you tried to link capitalism vs socialism with Evolution vs Creationism, thus creating a false issue because, once again, no one was pushing that private property is a bad thing, as you and your bullshit link implied.

Its like posting a thread from FreeRepublic about how Democrats hate America, and asking, "Why do these Democrats hate America so much?"

Your "question" you posed was based on spin and didn't even accurately reflect the point of the lesson.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=522203&mesg_id=522394

(hence my imploring you to read the entire thread)

But, thanks for the acrimonious tone you added to this thread. There was some decent discussion going on until you came in and shat upon it.

Hope you're happy!

you are still advocating the merits of the article at other points in this thread.

Forget you.

If I want to hear libertarian and conservative bullshit, I'll turn on Fox News.

And if I want to debate the magic and mysticism of the wonderful "free market", I'll find a first year Econ student.

Some of us actually enjoy having a conversation and don't need you telling us what is okay to talk about.

As anyone has every right to do.

Conversations on a political forum such as DU, tend to be for more than mere enjoyment. If enjoyment is all you are looking for in a conversation, the Lounge is waiting for you.

side of the teachers here-

I think it's good for kids to question the accepted way of doing things-

As someone who strives to advocate for people in need of shelter, you begin to see this country in a different way, when it becomes against the law for people to exist unless they own or rent a peice of REAL ESTATE- There is no place for people to lay their heads without 'permission' or incarceration.
Pretty frickin sad state of affairs, for the 'land of the free' to have fallen into.

Greed, and domination are two of the most difficult flaws of the human species. "Ownership"- to the point where people can own a 'phrase' of language is a sacred cow. (IMHO)

peace,
blu

There are reasons why we have deeds and titles to land (and other forms of property).

Just as we need to have regulations on corporations to prevent them from abusing the public trust and the environment, so too do we need regulations preventing human nature from abusing that same public trust.

if you are in possession of that property...

There is a collective responsibility and obligation that all good human beings owe to each other.

That's a much better idea than bashing each other over the head with LEGOStm.

As I wrote previously,

The teachers, imo, should have concluded (but they stopped before they did is that) to be successful and competitive in this world, you have to work hard and fight for what you want. There are no handouts in life. If you miss out on one opportunity, you need to search out another one instead of sitting on your ass whining.

kind of life-philosophy talk... now tell that to the no-bid-contract, tax-abated, corporate welfare crowd...

we're stuck with our tax dollars covering obscene amounts of corporate welfare.


That said, there is nothing stopping anyone with a halfway decent education from being able to take care of themselves. I have no problem with a "hand up" type of welfare system but for pure "handouts", nope. That shit has to STOP.

who isn't in the position to know where that leaves those less fortunate than you-

It is nothing but a fluke- a roll of the dice that you ended up being born into a situation where you have the PRIVLIDGE of looking down your nose at those who have nothing to lose, while America builds acres upon acres of storage sheds, to hold our 'STUFF' and complain about "hand-outs" to individuals who have nothing.

May you never have to walk their paths-

peace,
blu

We'll need to take up arms and kill each other to end corporate greed, but giving comfort to individuals- people "we" think should be able to 'do better' is shit that has to stop????? WTHell?

I'm glad this makes no sense to me- let be remain stupid if this is what 'intelligent thinking' is all about.

I lost my home during an extended period of unemployment. I couldn't even collect an unemployment check as I'd been self employed.

I did resort to food stamps and help with utility bills from a community action agency for a month after my savings were depleted.

But, did I continue seeking assistance? No, I kept at it and got back into the IT industry. My salary at that job was less than half what I was making when I was self-employed but I'm now back almost to the level I was before.

Sure, I could have sat on my ass and felt sorry for myself and lived off family/friends collecting gov't money but I am able to work and I have a family to care for and I have dreams and want to see other countries and provide an education for my daughters and clothe them, etc. etc. so I got up and did what I needed to do. Anyone else that's capable and has an education has NO excuse for not doing the same.

step outside your own personal experience here.

Your comment that you could have 'sat on my ass and felt sorry for myself and lived off family/friends collecting gov't money" is proof positive that you don't have a real idea of what some individuals in this 'land of opportunity' face.

You had a home that you lost- I'm sorry to know that happened to you, but what a fortunate person you are to have the skills, energy, drive, and ability to be among those who are able to realize the dream of home ownership.
You obviously have family and friends with the means and generosity to open their homes to you- You'd be surprised at the number of people without shelter- who aren't so fortunate. Some have no family, some have family that are unable or unwilling to help. Try getting a job when you don't have an address where you can receive mail- try getting public assistance, or putting your kid in school when you are living out of your car- Try applying for work and not having a number where you can be reached- Washing your hair in public restrooms, or showering at the Y or in a truck stop- carrying all your worldly goods with you- I'm so grateful I haven't experienced these challenges-

Many of the people I've come to know have substance abuse problems- most came from troubled childhoods, and troubled homes. Some aged out of foster care, too many didn't have ANYONE who was reliable or safe to lean on and turn to growing up. There wasn't any kind of a consistant healthy 'role model'-

You had savings to cushion your fall, which says that you had someone involved in your upbringing who tried to instill in you, skills that would serve you well in this world- And you had the intelligence and drive to put that to use!! I don't think you realize what a difference that makes, and how many people are not that fortunate.

Your "down" had to have been a difficult and humbling experience. I'm glad you made it through, that your were able to get yourself back to where you are. I am sure it wasn't easy and that you had to really work at it. I don't begrudge you your success. However, I don't begrudge anyone- the basic necessities of life- Whether they 'deserve' it or not- (and who is to judge their degree of worthiness?) My money is fattening mr.Cheney's already obese bankroll, the rich are getting richer- and more and more people are falling through the cracks, cracks that grow larger and larger on a daily basis- Why should there be people starving to death in this world????? honestly- ask yourself that question- we send rocket ships to other planets- people are payed millions of dollars to play GAMES- hit balls aroung golf courses, sing songs- make music, pose nude-or waltz around in fancy clothes. Make movies or strut around on stage pretending they are someone else- Billions of dollars are tossed around for things like this, as people all over the world die of thirst and starvation, exposure and lack of the basic necessities for life.



I don't want to play 'my boo-boo's bigger than yours'- I too have experienced 'being down'. I won't bore you with the details. I will say, were it not for the MERCY- of people who could have judged us as poor white trash and looked the other way- my children would have ended up in foster care, and I would be dead. I'm amazed and encouraged by the kindness and generosity our family has known- kindnesses that can never be repaid, but can be passed along.

Life isn't 'fair'- sometimes really lazy people 'make it big'- and sometimes people work like hell just trying to get to the starting blocks, and the race is called before they get there.

We are all a part of one another- when there is suffering we all suffer in ways we don't see until it is too late-

I'll shut up now- sorry for the rant-
blu

You spoke in ways for many of us who haven't found the way to speak so movingly, intelligently, ourselves.

Depth of character really counts, and you've proven it. It's in painfully short supply.

of people with lots of education in dire straits across this country.

I will say it again... There is not a direct correlation between hard work and wealth in this country.

George W. Bush used to spew that Bullshite when he was governor of Texas and it JUST ISN'T true.

I'm talking about being able to care for oneself (housing, transportation, food, clothing, etc.) and one's family.

If you have an education (even if you don't, really) and are physically able, sitting on your ass doing nothing but bitching and moaning and waiting for a check to come in from the gov't then you are nothing but a leech on society.

Yes, you can get a "hand up" to look for a job but if you aren't looking for a job but are able to work, why should the rest of society pay to keep you propped up?

material possessions, wealth, political connections or lack there-of.

One thing that is VERY different today, than during the depression of the 30's- is that there is practically NO un-encumbered land left in this nation. If you own an RV and want to squat in a Walmart parking lot, then you are golden, but if you don't have a vehicle, much less an RV, you are a 'vagrant'- you are vulnerable to being picked up by the police and incarcerated, or dumped off on the county line for others to deal with.

We have become an anal, greedy, possessive society. For those who are equipped to cope with the expectations that society has put upon people, for those who are fortunate to be born into lives where they start out at least on solid ground, or for some, already several rungs up the ladder, nobody even questions what it would be like to begin life with their feet in a deep hole.
And those folks are relegated to the margins of our society- we try and pretend that they aren't there, and when that becomes difficult, we blame them for their lot in life, while beating our breasts and reciting how hard we've worked to 'have' what we 'have'.

I've seen the light- and I'm not wanting to waste any more time cursing the darkness. We need to 'get over ourselves' and look with our eyes wide open, and our egos on the shelf. We have lost sight of what is important.

People without tons of money are still part of the "Public"- and the "Public Trust" should include them, regardless of their financial status.


I'm not your mainstream thinker- but my perspective counts too.

peace,
blu

and there is help for them but they also have to seek it out.

For those able to care for themselves and with a halfway decent education, there is no excuse for not finding some sort of work. Pride must step aside in order to jump-start or re-start someone's life.

a "half-way decent education?"- I work with folks like this, the reality that they DON'T have the skills is often not because they didn't try, or said 'screw this'- but rather, it is that the 'system' failed THEM- and now "society" or 'the system' blames them for having the audacity to survive- For finding a way to hang in there regardless of the odds- They are living proof, that sometimes bootstraps break, or rot away, or were never handed out to begin with-

It's not pride Roland- REAL life has a way of destroying pride- All human beings deserve to be treated with a degree of dignity. There but for 'luck' go you, or I or anyone-

peace,
blu

I don't know where you got that impression.

"For those able to care for themselves and with a halfway decent education, there is no excuse for not finding some sort of work. Pride must step aside in order to jump-start or re-start someone's life."

Key passage: "HALFWAY DECENT EDUCATION"- I'm a Second Start tutor- do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a GED today? One person I'm working with is trying to learn english, and get her GED so that she can get a job that allows her to work daytime hours- This is a 2-3year commitment. (taking classes around her housekeeping job, and raising her 2 young children) The GED isn't very friendly to many segments of our population. Most kids don't drop out of HS as honor students- They are often struggling, and have been struggling for years-

Having a difficult time with academics doesn't mean a person cannot adequately care for them self- but when a piece of paper with the appropriate words stamped on it is a pre-requisite for employment, it can mean the difference between being employed, and and being jobless- not for lack of intelligence or ability. There are many kinds of intelligence- our society values academics over all others-

peace,
blu

My ex-wife got hers several years out of high school.

My oldest daughter will have to get one (she had to drop out of high school due to medical problems).

She'll then get whatever financial aid she can and go on to community college.

difficult than it used to be.

I know of quite a few people who have college degrees that would find the current GED exam a challenge.

peace,
blu

You claim we need regulation to put a stop to parts of human nature, but the law is a man-made creation and is subject to those very same abuses. It can't work -- it's built on faulty logic. If human nature is faulty you can't correct it with other man-made creations because those new creations contain the same faults.

There is no way, no way that a true free market economy can exist (at least not for a prolonged period of time)

Seems like a positive message to me.

"private property is evil" probably stems from the 19th century French anarchist Pierre Joseph Proudhon who wrote (roughly translated) that "all private property is theft"

Slandering?????????? Of fucking give me a break. We are discussing forms of government, we don't always agree. Communism and solialism do not get a free pass, they are not some golden cow, immune to question or disent, at least not yet...

socialism and communism believe "all private property is evil" is not based in fact and is, therefore, a slander. That's what the person who started this post did.

If you want to criticize anarchism for saying "all private property is theft" (as Proudhon did), you would be justified.

Why don't you grow up and get some intellectual responsibility? If you are going to criticize socialism and communism, at least have the courage and fortitude to criticize them for positions that are part of the socialist and communist tradition.

What is Property?
Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government
a book by the French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1840.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property%3F

...
Some contemporary anarchists use the terms personal property (or possession property) and private property to signify the distinctions Proudhon put forth in regard to ownership of the produce of labor and ownership of land. In this sense, private property would refer to claimed ownership of unused land or goods, and personal property would refer to produce of labor currently in use. This differentiation is an important component in anarchist critique of capitalism.
...

---

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is the first self-proclaimed anarchist, a label which he adopted in his 1840 treatise What is Property?. It is for this reason that some declare Proudhon the founder of modern anarchist theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

As well as how the evils of rampant capitalism has just about destroyed this country and the world.

BTW-Chavez isn't the devil-greedy * is.

In Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one of them and gives it to your neighbor.

In Communism: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and gives you part of the milk.

Where the owner has two cows and keeps them for himself while his neighbor dies of starvation.

Person and two cows: He sells one and buys a couple chickens. Then he invites his neighbors over for omelets!

That should apply to all systems I think.Unfortunately in reality it really seems to apply to none of them :(

Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one of them, and buy a bull. The cow and bull have a great love life; you sell the movie rights to Hollywood. Then you go into real estate.

and a get-rich-quick fantasy for capitalism.

"fair and balanced" as some would say.

Forkboy's version is much closer to the truth.

Socialism: there is a state, which is controlled by the workers. There is class conflict, and the bourgeoisie are suppressed by the workers.

Socialism is the transition stage to communism.

Communism: there is no state, there are no classes, there are no borders.

people don't know socialism from communism from their elbow. It's unfortunate.

If anyone was wondering, socialism is the dicatorship of the proletariat, when there is a state and continued class conflict. Socialism is the transition stage to communism, and communism is a stateless, classless and borderless society.

Communism is a utopian fantasy.

Then again, Market Socialists like myself are just "petty bourgeois scum" to you Marxists... :eyes:

when it succeeds, that is. For instance, anarchists in Northern Spain created socialist societies, but they couldn't endure a year of weak opposition, meaning their structure left much to be desired.

If you want to create a LASTING and VIABLE socialist society, the workers MUST take control of the state and repress the bourgeoisie. If not, you'll suffer defeat before you can say "third way".

Moreover, communism is not utopian, and only people who neglect scientific analysis would state as much. Why? Classless society would develop after the definitive establishment of socialism. After there is no need for a state, the state being inherently a result of class conflict, it would become irrelevant and fade away. It's logical, it's inevitable.

Market socialist? :eyes: Have fun establishing what will lead to your downfall. The market WILL take over and allow the bourgeoisie to take control (if they ever lost it, which is doubtful thanks to your ideology). Please, I wouldn't call you "scum", just someone who plays right into the hands of the bourgeoisie.

:puke:

What do I care?

They can teach whatever they want to in private schools.

http://www.hilltopcc.com/
"Hilltop was founded in 1971 to provide child care for the families of Queen Anne. Since that time, Hilltop has grown to serve 70 children daily, and has evolved into a nationally recognized early education center. Hilltop is a non-profit organization."


Article here:
http://www.hilltopcc.com/news/2007/03/14/response-to-why-we-banned-legos/
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/

It's not like it was hard to find, since it was the first result on Google.

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/21_02/lego212.shtml