about that thread, globalization, cultural death, politics, sociology, and this community ....

[Nocke]

so there is this thread:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/28364-fw190-better-or-just-different-bf109/

 

which has partly become a political discussion I am enjoying very much, it doesnt look though so as if the original poster does enjoy it as well

.

My proposal therefore is to continue perhaps here ...

 

What I think is rather unique about this community is its heterogeneity in terms of political orientation. I have seen almost anything here (in the WW2 combat flight sim, that is..), ranging from fascists saluting with "blood and honour" to hippies and socialists, and anything in between and above and below. Also discussions like e.g. that thread about chute killing show an astonishing bandwith of opinions and attitudes. Usually, I dont find that on the internet. Most people are in their respective bubbles together with others basically sharing the same ideas. This seems to be a little different her.

We share this strange attraction to WW2 war bird simulations, probably parallel to some interest in technics, science and computer stuff, well, and we are apparently mostly male. Apart from these things, it looks like an intersection of quite a wide range of bubbles that can be found here.

 

So - perhaps because we are already killing us mutually and virtually in the game, maybe we can still get along pacifically and talk about our partly opposite views at the world, and what should/could be done to make it a better place? Shall we give it a try?

 

Coming back to the discussion in that above mentioned thread:

 

What stirred my attention was the discussion between Klaus Mann, Wulf, and the last phrase by Unreasonable, to which I would like to answer:

 

"- Contra Klaus_Mann: the universal tendency to ever larger political entities is offset by the tendency for them to break up when they get too large to control. Eventually they fail to take sufficient account of local circumstances, regional interests get restive, the centre wastes too much money on corruption and ceremony and eventually cannot resist the wish of local elites for independence. See Roman Empire, the Caliphate, Inca empire, Holy Roman Empire, USSR, EU. There is nothing inevitable about global government."

 

I strongly believe we have a moral obligation to create a universal political unity. The current state of humanity as it is is unacceptable. While some people, including myself, are living in practically paradisical conditions, others, on the same planet, at the same moment, are starving. And its not their fault, just bad luck, as much as I cant credit myself for having had the luck of beeing born in one of the more prospering parts of this world. And as long as we dont have this universal organization, but organize ourselves in independent organizations striving for their own, and only their own, wealth, it will stay like that. The people starving in Somalia are our family. 

 

Unreasonable, I belive such a universal structure must not (and shall not...) be an empire. An empire is a "top down" structure - somebody takes over and tries to dominate everything from above. Of course that never works on the long run. But the unorganized neighbourship of independent nations does not work either - see WW1 and WW2, and all the shit going on in the world right now.

 

I believe we should, on the contrary, conceive a sort of universal "bottom up" structure. Local organizations of local people, sending delegations to less local comittees, and so on, up to a world wide one, from which then informations and proposals, but not orders, would flow back downwards.

 

Actually, and ironically, if I am understanding that correctly, the actual soviets in the early stage of the revolution (and before!) where something similar. Unfortunately, around autumn 1917, the Bolshewik party managed to take over control of these soviets, turning their original intention 180 degrees around, and converting them into an instrument of dictatorial power.

 

It has to be discussed how this could be prevented from happen again.

 

 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I tend to believe in Individual Liberty and Global Unity. This is mainly inspired by Game Theory and the Selfish Gene. You could call me a Social Darwinist, just that I gained a proper understanding of what Natural Selection is. 

 

"Survival of the Fittest" and the "Selfish Gene" are both terms for the same Thing, the Drive to Survive and Pass on. Of course some people interpret that as meaning that actual Selfishness and Fitness are the Key to Survival. They aren't, as Game Theory attempts to proove. 

 

The TL;DR of these models is that the most Successful and Long Lived Animals and Groups are the ones that display Empathy, Compassion, Solidarity etc., all the traits of a highly Social Animal and they work together to achieve a common Goal. They survive in larger Numbers and are generally more Successful than the "Eigenbrötler" who try their Luck outside these Groups and achieve far less. 

 

This is why I am all for greater Unification, across the Globe. I probably am a Globalist by Heart, because all the Seperation is holding us back in our Capablity to create amazing Technology. 

The only Way for a United World to work would be bottom up with allowance for Private but Reduced Personal Property. State Run Public Infrastructure and Encouragement for Individual Venture in Science and Technology. 

 

The World would of Course have to be Run as a Federal Meritocracy, which right now would mean Democracy, but if at some Point we had a way to objectively Determine the Merit of the Leaders I will gladly drop the Demos. 

I agree with Churchill here about Democracy being a Bad System but the Best out there. 

 

 

Also: It's always a Toyota, isn't it?

 

[Finkeren]

As a socialist I very much believe in personal liberty. I think people should be free to live their lives pretty much any way they see fit and to enjoy the fruits of their own labor, as long as they don't harm other people in the process.

 

I don't think personal freedom should include the freedom to exploit other people for personal gain, and therefore Capitalism will always run contrary to my core values.

 

However, I also acknowledge, that I live in a World dominated by Capitalism, and therefore to a certain degree, I have to play by its rules. I also want to point out, that it's a common misconception about socialists, that we "hate" Capitalism and see it as inherently evil and the worst kind of system possible. This is false. To a socialist, democratic and socially liberal Capitalism is the next best thing after socialism. It is certainly a lot better than the kind of society it supplanted.

[Nocke]

In other words: From a purely egocentric point of view its better, because more productive, to cooperate, than to compete.

Who or what is the fittest anyways depends on the environment you test it in.

In a cooperative environment the best cooperator would be the fittest....

 

Concerning development of technology: It continously drives me crazy to see literally hundreds or thousands of laboratories or companies in the world working on the SAME stuff,

but keeping their results (and failures!) secret, just for the (unlikely..) case they could be the first to solve the problem and then make the big money.

Of course, all the other efforts have mostly been wasted time and energy, then. And there would be so much to learn from the failures of other intents on some problem.

 

There remains one problem, though: Some people actually seem to prefer to compete rather than to cooperate, and claim that would be a natural behaviour.

I am uncertain about that, I rather think its a cultural thing. I have two now grown up children, and my personal observation is just this: They are born "blank", then start looking at the people around them,

tinhking "ahaaaa.... that is then how a human beeing is", and just copy practically all they see. At least the first 2 years - but then the basic personality structure is already fixed.

 

But even if it would be inborn: It would certainly pay off to try to overcome that.

 

edit: that was to Klaus, had not seen Finkerens post in the meantime...

Edited March 31, 2017 by 216th_Nocke

[Nocke]

. To a socialist, democratic and socially liberal Capitalism is the next best thing after socialism. It is certainly a lot better than the kind of society it supplanted.

just thinking ... what was actually before capitalism? Was it feudalism?

[Finkeren]

just thinking ... what was actually before capitalism? Was it feudalism?

In some parts of the World, yes.

[Nocke]

.... I think people should be free to live their lives pretty much any way they see fit and to enjoy the fruits of their own labor, as long as they don't harm other people in the process.

 

 

I absolutely agree to that, but I guess the problem is almost anybody would agree to that. There are many capitalists that are absolutely convinced they are doing something good to society, e.g. they think they are creating jobs in their companies and people should be grateful for that. And then it comes to the definition of what does it mean to harm somebody? Advocats of a competitive society would say they are triggering the best in the people, and advancing society through the energy liberated by competition. I would rather say the harm done to the losers is way more important .... but just nobody is talking about them.

 

... trying to see if I can provoke some defender of capitalism here? There should be some around???

In some parts of the World, yes.

You got me. Eurocentric view at the world. Thx!

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

 

 

... trying to see if I can provoke some defender of capitalism here? There should be some around???

 

 

Unfortunately the Libertarian Arguments are mostly Stupid and mostly Ad-Hominem and Non-Sequiturs. 

[Finkeren]

I find, that the argument most defenders of Capitalism rely on, is the assumption, that it's the only system that works in creating both personal liberty and opportunity (for those that can afford it) and advances humanity technologically and socially.

 

I believe, that socialism can do that better and produce better results for the large majority of people.

[DD_Arthur]

I believe, that socialism can do that better and produce better results for the large majority of people.

 

This.

[Retnek]

"Survival of the Fittest" and the "Selfish Gene" are both terms for the same Thing, the Drive to Survive and Pass on. Of course some people interpret that as meaning that actual Selfishness and Fitness are the Key to Survival. They aren't, as Game Theory attempts to proove. 

 

Hm, tempting, forced myself to stay below the radar during the week, but now ... I cite Klaus_Mann to suggest alternatives like "survival of the most clever" and a "long term gene" - I think you're using it in a proper sense already, but both expressions are often and easily misunderstood. Biological evolutionary processes tend to reward a clever setup, intelligent strategies, long-term-success including the wealth of the neighbourhood, they avoid dangers. That's the way to go - social Darwinism presents a completely perverted understanding of nature.

  If we want to transfer those insights to our social or cultural processes the outcome is the same: try to be elegant, be defensive, find a common solution, don't squeeze people into something. Looking over the world, quite a few political and religious movements, after a period of welfare and peace usually, were able to reach a mature state (sadly it's mostly written down only, not transformed in real-world politics). They all postulate a civil society, peaceful ways to solve conflicts etc pp - I think a common way to go for a global community is visible and it's not dependent on geography, ethnics or religion.

  Back to our hobby here - a lot of pilots in the 1920'th, after the horror of WW1, had an idealistic setup in mind when flying. Finding new routes, trying to connect people over continents. People who know each other will respect each other, something in that direction. A lot of them found themselves squeezed into their own countries total war machine ("right or wrong - my country") in WW2.

[Nocke]

It seems the assumption this could be an adequate place to discuss with people with completely different opinions was wrong.

 

Just a bunch of socialist peaceniks around here 

 

Which is a most welcome surprise to me.

[Finkeren]

Don't worry. They'll get here.

I just hope we can keep it civil.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

What I see, and the poison pill in Klaus' vision of a global culture steeped in individuality; is that much of the world does not subscribe to that thoroughly Western notion.

 

In the far East and middle East you see cultures embracing modernization, while resisting the westernization that we in the west naively assume to come with it. Klaus' vision only becomes reality if everybody 'buys in' so to speak. That is not happening. Instead what you will get is a culture of 'individuals' unable to agree upon anything, supplanted by a culturally united people who refuse to bend to their anything goes attitude.

 

The modern conception of diversity, many different cultures with differing values sharing the same space, has never been a strength. In fact, it has historically always been a source of friction and fracture within societies. The United States for example only 'worked' when its citizens from all different cultures agreed to commonly embrace a single set of so called 'American' values of freedom and enterprise. They still had their culture and traditions, but agreed to honor those values.

 

It works when everybody does it; but when one or more groups refuse, then you begin to have problems.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

star Trek is the best way and form of government ..

No nations, No Patriotism, No Races(as they are a social construct and genetics have nothing to do with it)
No currencies, No money at all

[Finkeren]

Star Trek depicts something fairly close to a communist society.

[Nocke]

The startrek idea does, though, depend on the practically unlimited availability of energy. Its perhaps that simple: 

If there is plenty of anything, there is no need to fight, or to assure you posess your own reserved quantity of whatever, to let you rest and feel safe.

And everybody becomes friends ...

 

Actually the sun is sending FAR FAR more energy to the earth as we need or are using. And energy is even better than money, you can do ANYTHING if you got enough.

 

A global organization could e.g. allocate just a tiny fraction of the Sahara to recollect solar energy. Convert that to gas transport it around the world, build large direct current networks - star trek is possible. (Unsure about the warp drive, though...)

Just needs some cooperation.

[Nocke]

What I see, and the poison pill in Klaus' vision of a global culture steeped in individuality; is that much of the world does not subscribe to that thoroughly Western notion.

 

In the far East and middle East you see cultures embracing modernization, while resisting the westernization that we in the west naively assume to come with it. Klaus' vision only becomes reality if everybody 'buys in' so to speak. That is not happening. Instead what you will get is a culture of 'individuals' unable to agree upon anything, supplanted by a culturally united people who refuse to bend to their anything goes attitude.

 

The modern conception of diversity, many different cultures with differing values sharing the same space, has never been a strength. In fact, it has historically always been a source of friction and fracture within societies. The United States for example only 'worked' when its citizens from all different cultures agreed to commonly embrace a single set of so called 'American' values of freedom and enterprise. They still had their culture and traditions, but agreed to honor those values.

 

It works when everybody does it; but when one or more groups refuse, then you begin to have problems.

Yes, most probably any society needs a well chosen balance of individuality and commonly accepted rules, a.k.a culture. But we are free to think about it and to choose what we want to select as our common ground, and what we want to leave to individualism. I guess. Just a proposal

[Original_Uwe]

Star Trek depicts something fairly close to a communist society.

And it is what communism and socialism are-a fantasy.

A worldwide government would necessarily repress the rights of individuals to govern themselves via local government representative of their values and beliefs. This is absolutely and objectively immoral.

 

The difference between very conservative people like myself and the well meaning socialist seems to be on who and what they value more. I personally lean very much more toward favoring the right and liberty of the individual where the communist and socialist cite a greater good.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that in order to bring up the have nots you take from the labor of the haves. It's simply theft and wealth redistribution. Something that if done by an individual is a crime, but when sanctioned by the government becomes a political theory.

 

Now do we as members of a society pay into programs that benifit the public at large via taxation? Yes of course. It's the extent to which you have the government doing so that is key. As in many other things less is more with government. As long as the government in question works for and represents its constituents above all others then it's on the right path, but as soon as it allows itself to be co-opted by a foreign entity, that is favored above the will of its people it is absolutely broken and no longer serves the people it was intended to protect. Such people are obligated to overthrow by any means that government and institute new means by which to better serve them above the foreigner.

 

So how does one square this idealistic want to make everyone equally happy with the realities of wealth redistribution and massive government? It cannot be done. Name a successful communist government, where the people were better off than their capitalistic foes? I can't, but I can name a laundry list of socialist and communist states that were instituted for the greater good but became some of the most awful cautionary tales of human history.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Nocke, from where I'm sitting, we can't even agree on those parameters concerning the small things these days. Forgive my pessimism when imagining us trying to do that with issues of importance to entire nations or humanity itself.

 

Part of it I think is that we are in a lot of ways victims of our own success. Humans are at their best when we have a common goal to strive for. Right now, we are comfortable enough that we can have a lot of goals, but nobody can agree on what's most important, and we have limited resources with which to tackle them all. We're at a point in history where humans are trying to decide how to spend their figurative tax return.

 

We need that unlimited energy. Or we need some hostile space aliens to show up or something. :D

Edited March 31, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

LMAO Rights of individuals Pffft (only if it benefits the whole :D)

 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

First of all I am amazed to have a a Civilized Discussion on the Internet. It's amazing. 

 

Secondly, as a Social Democrat I'm thinking more in practicality. Of course, a System in which everybody is free as a Bird without Obligations or Restrictions would be Wonderful, but not Realistic. 

Of course a World in which Infrastructure was just there and paid for and nobody taxed me for it would be Wonderful, but in the Real World Infrastructure requires Building, Upkeep etc. and that Money has to come from somewhere. 

And a System without Social Safety Net would look somewhat like 19th Century Europe and America, where Peasants in the Cities were Worth less than Dogs, Child Work was normal and People were a Disposable Ressource. 

 

These were the times in which  Unions, Socialism, Communism and Social Democracy were born, out of Necessity to prevent further Exploitation. These were the times of massive Strikes, crippling Economies and Revolutions. 

In order to create a peaceful and working Society you have to provide the Lower Classes with a Safety Net to Fall back on, in Order to prevent Extreme Poverty and Acts of Solidarity. 

Back in those Days the "Greater Good" was for the Benefit of the Poor. The Rich didn't loose anything. 

 

And the same Idea is somewhat true Today. The Rich have almost nothing to lose, the Workers do. And Policy should aim at keeping the Workers safe, because the Rich already are. 

Germany is a Good Example of Social Democracy, and apart from the Migrant Crisis just look at the Nordic Countries. These are High Tax, Big State Countries and People are generally happier. 

 

I don't really get how People still believe the Narrative of "The poor Rich People being sacrificed for the Greater Good". Don't pity Rich People. Pity the Poor. They need it more. 

[Retnek]

Don't worry. They'll get here. I just hope we can keep it civil.

Hm, from my gut: 10 years ago we've had a bloody battle here, but things calmed down a lot. Maybe I'm getting old, but over the last 10 years I see a growing tendency by the Anglo-Saxons and (to a lesser degree) by the Russians to "stay for themselves", not that much delight in flight, fight and discussions over the borders. I have no empiric data for it, just my impression.

[Nocke]

Hmmmm... I am trying to respond to Uwe's last post, finding it difficult to quote and refer to so many different aspects. How does one do this best? First I tried to quote your text, and then insert my remarks in between, but thats somehow not respectful.Trying now to answer simply with another wall of text

 

So, Uwe:

 

Yes communism and socialism are fantasies, and to my knowledge no working communist society has been established so far. The main reason probably has been that you shall not force people into anything, that does not work, those oldschool communists did not understand that. They had the idea they knew what was right, and from there derived the right and obligation to force and impose its realization.

I would call myself a communist, but I am absolutely not advocating anything like that. I just want to convince people. Let me dream. Why not? As said before, the actual state of human society on this planet is absolutely not satisfying for me. Let me repeat myself: While I am sitting here in my cosy home, nipping from my whiskey, in front of my high tech flight simming PC, people in other places are starving. Dying. Nothing to eat. And beeing killed raped, whatever, you name it. That is not acceptable. And, as said, I am not in my lucky position because I am such a smart guy, but only because I have been extremeley lucky to be born, by chance, in a corner of the world that in this moment is doing economically well, arguably at the expense of others. I dont know your personal situation, and I can tell you that in my country my personal economic situation is just about average, but I think its a safe bet that both of us, beeing able to do this flightsimming thing, are among the top richest 10% of people in the world. Of course, there one tends to defend the status quo.

 

Concerning your objections about a global government, or governments at all: Again, as said before, I am not dreaming of a global government in the style of the governments we have now. I agree with you in that such a thing would probably be horrible, way too powerfull, uncontrollable, whatever. I am intentionally speaking of global structures, not governments. I also dont have the perfectly elaborated plan how these structures should look like or work, but let that not stop us from thinking about what could be possible. My personal vision is about a sort of selforganizing, globally interacting, but local structures. Without power. One cant impose the world I am dreaming of, Its a matter more of reprogramming ourselves. About learning to see humanity as a whole, and about learning to trust each other. Because thats simply is the most efficient way. We are egocentric - but thinking about it, we will learn that on the long run we are better of cooperating.  Admittedly there is a long way to go. But just dont let us stop at this point where people say what we have is the only possibility. Dont let your fantasy dy. The wolrd changes, slowly, because and if the way how people are thinking changes.

 

Concerning the contradiction you see between right and liberty of the individual, and communists citing a greater good: I dont see the difference. Is not right and liberty of the individual a greater good, as long, as has been said above already, it does not affect the rights and liberties of someone else? The current situation with a small minority on this planet living extremeley well, while others just can watch, is affecting the rights and liberties of those who are poor, extremely.

 

Now, when you come to wealth redistribution beeing robbery: Just a cultural thing. In a different framework one can see private possession as robbery. What is it else, to grab stuff, say its yours, and not give to somebody who for whatever reasons does not have what he needs? That would not make sense in a communist society. You would also not need to be afraid, because you would know you would get what you need, if possible at all. And you would be extremely rewarded by living in a friendly society, when people are not fighting each other anymore to grab a bigger part of the cake.

 

I dont really want to defend the so-called communist states that have existed, but concerning your last sentence: I actually believe that e.g. Russia before the revolution was an even worse place than the soviet union. If you compare Ivan the terrible to Stalin, and later Czars to the late soviet governments, one has to admit that people did live in much better conditions in the soviet union. Farmers have been SLAVES before. Private property of the landlords. People were starving. No healthcare, unless you where rich. These "communist " societies did not work, but they have not been the worst story in human history, as you say. 

 

Thx for the discussion, and I just hope no strange language or cultural barriers will stop us from continuing.

[Nocke]

Nocke, from where I'm sitting, we can't even agree on those parameters concerning the small things these days. Forgive my pessimism when imagining us trying to do that with issues of importance to entire nations or humanity itself.

 

Part of it I think is that we are in a lot of ways victims of our own success. Humans are at their best when we have a common goal to strive for. Right now, we are comfortable enough that we can have a lot of goals, but nobody can agree on what's most important, and we have limited resources with which to tackle them all. We're at a point in history where humans are trying to decide how to spend their figurative tax return.

 

We need that unlimited energy. Or we need some hostile space aliens to show up or something. :D

Agreed, its all very daunting. But no need to worry. None of us carries the full responsability for the future of the world. We are many, and the outcome in the end is the sum of what everybody does. Sometimes I think perhaps the internet has caused us all some sort of narcissistic trauma. Somehow we are connected to everything, and affected by everything in the world, at least we get informations about it. And we feel so small in front of all this, I guess this is partly the cause for this recent rise of populism.

b.t.w, I disagree with your initial statement. Wherever you are sitting, and with whomever you are in contact, there is alway a common parameter: Everybody wants to be happy. From there, its just a matter of logical thinking and communication to get somewhere. Theoretically. But doable.

[Finkeren]

To me communism is an idea of an ideal society, but it is just that: An ideal. Like all ideals it may be pursued and we may get ever closer to it, but in its purest form it is unattainable. In that sense it is not so much an end goal as it is an ulitimate standard, against which real life societies can be measured.

[Nocke]

LMAO Rights of individuals Pffft (only if it benefits the whole :D)

 

 

Please elaborate

 

 

I am just guessing. Are you refering to Finkeren saying this, above?

"As a socialist I very much believe in personal liberty. I think people should be free to live their lives pretty much any way they see fit and to enjoy the fruits of their own labor, as long as they don't harm other people in the process."

 

If so, do you believe everybody should be free to do what ever he likes to do, disregarding consequences for others?

 

I am REALLY just interested, I dont want to provoke. For me, this thread is sincerely about getting inside into other peoples thinking, who think different from how or what I think.

 

edit: lol, I dont want to get inside your thinking. I wanted to say insight

Edited March 31, 2017 by 216th_Nocke

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Read up on the Non-Aggression Principle. It is close to what he is saying- but a bit incompatible with socialism.

 

Also, I think Fink may not know what capitalism actually is. Capitalism allowed me to seek out investors to help me start my own business and grow it. Then as we grew, I was able to hire more people. To get the best people, I paid my people significantly more than my competitors. As a result, our product costs more, but is superior to that on offer from our competitors. Meanwhile consumers benefit because they get more choices.

 

Capitalism has been a godsend in my life, and we have used what it has given us to improve the lives of those around us. Even the social democracies of Scandinavia are anchored by a firm foundation of capitalism.

 

Fink is just seeing the worst of it, and I believe what he confuses it with is * corporatism*. I have worked for a large corporation, and they can indeed be exploitive and rapacious. Especially when you throw in a dose of government collusion, which favors the large corporations over their smaller competitors. The opposite of capitalism.

Edited April 1, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[unreasonable]

Since Nocke's first post was partly addressed to me a couple of quick thoughts, then I have to go to catch a plane for a week of holiday without internet.

 

"I strongly believe we have a moral obligation to create a universal political unity. " 

 

As it happens, I do not believe - nor do may others - that a universal entity is a Good Thing, just as I do not believe that it is inevitable, for reasons touched on earlier and others I have no time to address. The question is how are you going to bring about your Leviathan when a large proportion of people do not want it?

 

Since the reasons given by yourself and others are entirely unpersuasive, except to yourselves, argument will not work.  Are you willing and able to use force? If not, any attempt to create such an entity is futile. 

 

"The current state of humanity as it is is unacceptable."

 

It may be unacceptable to you, but if so, what are you actually doing about it?  

 

 

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

its hard in a world filled with Amoral people who need a book to learn right from wrong

[Finkeren]

Also, I think Fink may not know what capitalism actually is. Capitalism allowed me to seek out investors to help me start my own business and grow it. Then as we grew, I was able to hire more people. To get the best people, I paid my people significantly more than my competitors. As a result, our product costs more, but is superior to that on offer from our competitors. Meanwhile consumers benefit because they get more choices.

 

Capitalism has been a godsend in my life, and we have used what it has given us to improve the lives of those around us. Even the social democracies of Scandinavia are anchored by a firm foundation of capitalism.

 

Fink is just seeing the worst of it, and I believe what he confuses it with is * corporatism*. I have worked for a large corporation, and they can indeed be exploitive and rapacious. Especially when you throw in a dose of government collusion, which favors the large corporations over their smaller competitors. The opposite of capitalism.

This is an answer I often get from small business owners and people who have started their own enterprise and who believe, that they would have been utterly unable to do so under socialism.

 

I think you are misunderstanding how I view things like your business. In my view, you are not so much an "exploiter" (regardless that you employ a few people) rather, you are being exploited by investors, who have claim over a large share of your profits. They make money simply by having money and buying into new enterprises, that other people work their asses off to create.

 

Under a well-functioning socialist system, creating an enterprise would actually be easier because you could get low-interest public funding, where the investor is not singularly focused on, how much profit you can turn but can actually afford to look at the benefits your enterprise might provide for society (a true job-creator would have no trouble getting public funding) and you'd be able to grow the business and instead of hiring people and pass the exploitation on to them, they can help you shoulder the burden of the enterprise by running it as a collective.

 

Here I always hear the objection "But under socialism, I wouldn't own the business I create" No, not unless you can run it on your own, but do you actually own the business you create under Capitalism, or are you living in indentured servitude to your investors?

 

"But the investor is just running a business too. He/she is running risks through the investment and deserves to have that rewarded through profits." If that was actually the case, why is the investors always first in line to get their money, if your enterprise ends up under water? Why not you, who have worked your ass off to build something from scratch? Why not your workers who have toiled to grow your business? Why always the person/firm with the money?

 

Again: Keep in mind, that I don't see Capitalism as inherently "evil", nor do I view the people who profit off of it as malicious in any way (sometimes they are, but bad players exist in every system) I simply think, that Capitalism fails morally because of the exploitation of people for profit and ultimately will lead to its own destruction because of its reliance on unsustainable exponential growth. Anyone who has taken a basic science class knows, that any exponential growth is ultimately unsustainable and will either plateau (if we're lucky) or crash, yet somehow economists get to completely overlook that simple fact.

 

Socialism, in my view, would mean more opportunity for the vast majority of people (including entrepreneurs like you) not less.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Finkeren

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I actually bought out my investors.

 

I can see what you are getting at, in theory. Unfortunately nobody has made your system work yet. Not without being propped up by a capitalist economy. The few true social states we have seen have been nightmares for anybody seeking upward mobility.

 

Maybe they'll get it right "next time". That said, I do feel our "speculator economy" is long out of control; and these type of supposed investor do A LOT of harm, and hurt the free market. The system is far from perfect, and has big warts.

 

But anyhow, continued growth is possible, so long as people keep creating goods from natural resources. It is really the only way real wealth is created. Now resources do run out eventually, and that is why continued innovation is needed. Nobody overlooks that there are drops and plateaus. Economists are keenly aware of it. Rises and falls are inherent to the system as the market evolves, but so long as real material wealth is being created from resources, the economy will continue to grow. Where we run into problems is when the creation of wealth stalls, and we try to manufacture growth "on paper" to keep things going.

 

I think what you are referring to is our monetary system itself, in which all of our currency is debt, and where banks can trade debt and loan money that doesn't actually exist. Thereby creating ever more currency. Not through printing money, but through creating more debt, investing with money that doesn't exist.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Again that is not a problem due to capitalism. That is a whole separate problem all its own, our monetary system. Socialist economies are just as vulnerable to it, as we have seen.

 

I don't think anything will ever convert you, so I'm not trying to do that. All I'm really saying is that the system has worked for me; and I'll have to see your vision first before I'll believe it can work the way you describe. I *can* see that our system is riding for a fall; but it is because of our refusal to let itself correct. We continue to create debt that is going to make the eventual crash worse. Every day, we add a brick to the tower we're going to jump from.

Edited April 1, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[Nocke]

I do not believe you can separate the monetary system from capitalism. I rather believe that the monetary system is going over the edge currently, because too much money is put into the system actually in a desperate intent to save capitalism. The capitalist system seems to be failing for many years now to produce enough sufficiently well paid jobs to keep people calm and happy.

I also do not share your belief that the system would correct itself if we only would let it. On the contrary, I think, in a mathematical or physical sense, it is an instable system, meaning that small disturbations grow instead of beeing damped out. Disturbations here are for me accumulations of capital: Once you have some, and dont have too much bad luck, and do not do too stupid things, it will grow. It will grow until you have a situation like now, where (put in exact figures as you like) a very small number of people in the world controls the huge majority of money. And this is not only important because of envy: Money is power, and these people have more power than many smaller nations, which from a democratic point of view is inacceptabel.

You say the system worked for you so far: Congratulations. But it does not work for everybody. And it is not true that everybody has the same chances. All depends on the situation you are born in, your education, and a lot of luck, as it is. There is this thing called survivor bias: In the end we only see those that have had success with what they are doing. For every one who had success, like you, there is many more others who failed, but dont show up and tell it. Nobody wants to hear their looser stories.

I am now equating capitalism and competition, perhaps not absolutely true, but somehow related (endless discussions ahead..), but: These competitions among companies, where often the winner takes it all, and the others just have invested a lot of resources for nothing, are not effective on a global scale, only for the winners.

While in a cooperative environment, nothing would be wasted. It would all be valuable experiences which can be shared, and even failures and mstakes would not be needed to be hidden.

Coming back to your first statement, that nobody has made a communist system work so far: Agreed. But depending on what you call working, I would say this current system is not working either. What happened with globalization, is that also the social segregation has been globalized. While in the 19th century you could be living as a wealthy person in some capitalist city and have extremely poor workers very near by in your same city, today we have the bourgoise society (us) living in the relatively rich industrialized countries, while the miserable proletariate is living somewhere far away where we do not see them.

But the fact that what we have is not perfect, and that we do not have an absolutely clear idea of how it could and should be, should not stop us from thinking about alternatives.

Sociological changes are very slow processes. This brings me to the next idea:

I think the main difference between communists and capitalists is actually in what they think what, or how, human nature is. Very much simplified, communists think people are „good“ and „cooperative“, capitalists thing they are „bad“ and „greedy“ (the homo economicus...). I think we are basically nothing when we are born, our brain starts as something basically freely programmable. We now live in a world where people learn from the begining that all is about competition, winning, and beeing better than others, and if you are not, its your personal fault. Sometimes I think people have probably had a very happy life in the good old times of the stoneage. There was very few of them, they did not have to compete, could choose to live in the best places of the world. I would assume those where rather pacific times. Then they became too many, resources became scarce, hunger, fighting and competition came into the world.

Now, perhaps, thanks to renewable energies starting to show up as a real possibility on the horizon, perhaps we have the chance to create a new star trek like age, where we do not have to be afraid, and can live and work together, instead of against each other.

But thats still a long way to go, as much as in technic as in psychological change. But it will not come if we do not believe it could be possible. In the end then we could even have anarchy. No need for rules if everybody is happy.

 

Amen.

Edited April 1, 2017 by 216th_Nocke

[coconut]

 

 

The capitalist system seems to be failing for many years now to produce enough sufficiently well paid jobs to keep people calm and happy

 

Aren't automation and globalization to be "blamed" for that? I'm using quotes because I believe these two things are positive overall, but they have a cost, and they are not equally good for everyone.

 

Capitalism is a means by which people with too much money and too little to do provide money to people with too little money and too much to do. Wealth redistribution, but on a voluntary basis and aimed at increasing production, rather than obligatory aimed at helping the incapacitated.

 

I share your worry for the instability of capitalism, though. Financial markets are gaining value consistently faster than the economy, and I can't see that going for ever. Middle class workers have currently nowhere to invest their meagre sparing but risky investment banking. If I am right and financial markets are indeed experiencing a generalized bubble, we'll have revolutions on our hands when it bursts.

 

Regarding the criticism of socialism and communism expressed by @@hrafnkolbrandr:I agree there is evidence to suggest it does not work well as a form of government, but it has worked well for the software industry. The means of production are owned by and available to all, and they have enabled academics and hobbyists at first, then internet startups to shape the software industry as we know it today. It has worked so well that software giants, including some who were once opposed to the concept, have now joined the party, providing products for free, often including source code.

 

 

 

why is the investors always first in line to get their money, if your enterprise ends up under water? Why not you, who have worked your ass off to build something from scratch? Why not your workers who have toiled to grow your business? Why always the person/firm with the money?

Indeed, there is something wrong about the lack of rewards for employees. I wish a bonus system where all employees regardless of rank share a part of the benefits would be the rule rather than the exception. Obviously lenders should get their money back, and investors are entitled to a part too. But so are employees.

[Finkeren]

Wow. This is so civilized it blows my mind No mud-slinging, name-calling or personal attacks. Just people sharing their views clearly and concisely and being respectful to one another.

 

This is such a contentious topic, and the thread is going so much better than a debate over Fw 190 stall behavior or Yak-1 flaps.

[Nocke]

 

 

Aren't automation and globalization to be "blamed" for that?

I'd say these are just tools and not to be blamed for anything, it is about who uses them and how. Capitalism, or its defenders, are promising to give jobs to the people, and people are believing in this and therefore voting for the capitalist system. 

 

 

Capitalism is a means by which people with too much money and too little to do provide money to people with too little money and too much to do. Wealth redistribution, but on a voluntary basis and aimed at increasing production, rather than obligatory aimed at helping the incapacitated.

And this is one of my personal biggest problems with capitalism: Capitalism, by definition, is the accumulation of capital (I think ). And capital=money=power. People with capital can choose what to invest in, which gives them an inappropriate power over the direction the development of the entire society is going to take. And I dont buy they will always, because of own interest, invest in the "best" things - the safest bet for your money coming back with increases is not necessarily the "best" for mankind.

What shall be done, generally, should not be decided by people who for whatever reason or by whatever method got their hands on a sack of money. Unfortunately I have to admit I cant come up with an elaborated alternative, still struggling with that. Should somehow be part of my dream of smallscaled, independent but cooperating organization units. Working on that idea

Wow. This is so civilized it blows my mind No mud-slinging, name-calling or personal attacks. Just people sharing their views clearly and concisely and being respectful to one another. This is such a contentious topic, and the thread is going so much better than a debate over Fw 190 stall behavior or Yak-1 flaps.

AAbsolutely agreed. Thx to everybody. I dont feel like fighting over arguments here, which is really rare, already in everyday life, and even more so on the internet ...

[Nocke]

I feel a need to come back to this one, somehow, I feel something has been left on the road at that point:

 

 

 

Read up on the Non-Aggression Principle. It is close to what he is saying- but a bit incompatible with socialis

 

Just to be sure: Was that you telling me that =r4t=shadow was refering to the principle? Or the other way round? Or telling shadow that Finkeren was refering to the principle?

I tend now to believe the last one? (seriously, not trolling!)

 

In any case: Why should that principle be incompatible with socialism? I feel somewhere around here hides a very important and fundamental misinterpretation about socialism. Is it the idea that socialists will come, take away all your stuff, and then force you to do together with all others all the same stuff, which you dont really want to do?

I think Finkeren, whose points I share her, has already pointed out that his (inspite of the avatar I have the strong feeling it/he/her is a guy... not that it mattered .... anyhow ... back to topic:) out that the idea is not about that, its on the contrary very much about creating a safe background, on which then everybody can live his/its/her freedom. In the capitalist society, only a few, namely the rich ones, can be relatively free. The others have the freedom to keep struggling and eat shit, in a sense. And not everybody can be a winner in a race, very important point. People then at this point start talking about the trickle down effect.. I think that is a little obscene. (not implying that you, hrafnkolbrandr, are saying that ...). And anyways, there remains the above mentioned point that those with the money, and therefore the power, can shape the world to their likes, taking the freedom away from the others to participate in a equal manner, in shaping the world. Both systems limit your freedom. Any system limits your freedom. But I am afraid we are not mature enough yet for anarchy ....

[Lusekofte]

I am a liberalist, but I do not believe in capitalism. It is failing miserably, people start not believing in it. And the worthless paper called money is only worth something as long as people got faith in it.

So If you are truly free, why do all those free souls from the past end up in another form of hierarchy. Why does the speaker of personal freedom always end up as a leader for the people he wished personal freedom for. Why do people seek leaders.

I work 2 to 3 weeks on and 2 to 3 weeks off. Many people ask me how I can stand being free and home for 3 weeks, none ask me how I can stand working for 3 weeks. 

I do not believe we are individuals, we are a cheep hird

[Original_Uwe]

Hmmmm... I am trying to respond to Uwe's last post, finding it difficult to quote and refer to so many different aspects. How does one do this best? First I tried to quote your text, and then insert my remarks in between, but thats somehow not respectful.Trying now to answer simply with another wall of text

 

So, Uwe:

 

Yes communism and socialism are fantasies, and to my knowledge no working communist society has been established so far. The main reason probably has been that you shall not force people into anything, that does not work, those oldschool communists did not understand that. They had the idea they knew what was right, and from there derived the right and obligation to force and impose its realization.

I would call myself a communist, but I am absolutely not advocating anything like that. I just want to convince people. Let me dream. Why not? As said before, the actual state of human society on this planet is absolutely not satisfying for me. Let me repeat myself: While I am sitting here in my cosy home, nipping from my whiskey, in front of my high tech flight simming PC, people in other places are starving. Dying. Nothing to eat. And being killed raped, whatever, you name it. That is not acceptable. And, as said, I am not in my lucky position because I am such a smart guy, but only because I have been extremeley lucky to be born, by chance, in a corner of the world that in this moment is doing economically well, arguably at the expense of others. I dont know your personal situation, and I can tell you that in my country my personal economic situation is just about average, but I think its a safe bet that both of us, beeing able to do this flightsimming thing, are among the top richest 10% of people in the world. Of course, there one tends to defend the status quo.

 

Concerning your objections about a global government, or governments at all: Again, as said before, I am not dreaming of a global government in the style of the governments we have now. I agree with you in that such a thing would probably be horrible, way too powerfull, uncontrollable, whatever. I am intentionally speaking of global structures, not governments. I also dont have the perfectly elaborated plan how these structures should look like or work, but let that not stop us from thinking about what could be possible. My personal vision is about a sort of selforganizing, globally interacting, but local structures. Without power. One cant impose the world I am dreaming of, Its a matter more of reprogramming ourselves. About learning to see humanity as a whole, and about learning to trust each other. Because thats simply is the most efficient way. We are egocentric - but thinking about it, we will learn that on the long run we are better of cooperating.  Admittedly there is a long way to go. But just dont let us stop at this point where people say what we have is the only possibility. Dont let your fantasy dy. The wolrd changes, slowly, because and if the way how people are thinking changes.

 

Concerning the contradiction you see between right and liberty of the individual, and communists citing a greater good: I dont see the difference. Is not right and liberty of the individual a greater good, as long, as has been said above already, it does not affect the rights and liberties of someone else? The current situation with a small minority on this planet living extremeley well, while others just can watch, is affecting the rights and liberties of those who are poor, extremely.

 

Now, when you come to wealth redistribution beeing robbery: Just a cultural thing. In a different framework one can see private possession as robbery. What is it else, to grab stuff, say its yours, and not give to somebody who for whatever reasons does not have what he needs? That would not make sense in a communist society. You would also not need to be afraid, because you would know you would get what you need, if possible at all. And you would be extremely rewarded by living in a friendly society, when people are not fighting each other anymore to grab a bigger part of the cake.

 

I dont really want to defend the so-called communist states that have existed, but concerning your last sentence: I actually believe that e.g. Russia before the revolution was an even worse place than the soviet union. If you compare Ivan the terrible to Stalin, and later Czars to the late soviet governments, one has to admit that people did live in much better conditions in the soviet union. Farmers have been SLAVES before. Private property of the landlords. People were starving. No healthcare, unless you where rich. These "communist " societies did not work, but they have not been the worst story in human history, as you say. 

 

Thx for the discussion, and I just hope no strange language or cultural barriers will stop us from continuing.

 

I know what you mean. Its the most efficient way of responding but at the same time seemingly argumentative weather you planned it as such or not. No worries!

 

I will try to reply in kind, but damn this is going to be difficult lol!

 

Ok so yes-any form of government forced upon the people is Evil, no disagreement there. Power should come from the people and be codified into law with their assent, the law limiting and shaping the government as they see fit. Res Publica and all that. If you can convince the people to give away all they have worked for to benefit those not of their in-group well more power to you, but people like me will quite literally fight you to the death to stop the dissolution of national sovereignty and independence.

 

I am in fact solidly in the middle class. My wife a healthcare professional and I work for one of the few branches of the US Federal Government that is legitimate in that it is a named power of the federal government in the Constitution (all such unnamed entities, not found in the Constitution should be abolished and that power given back to the people in their various states in my opinion).

 

You obviously feel a great deal of guilt about your state of being, comparing it to those around the world who are less fortunate. I don't, at all, and I don't really see the state of the world as being all that bad. I shouldn't speak of where you get your ideas but I'm rather compelled to so correct me if I'm wrong but here goes. I think that you see the state of the word and compare it to an ideal utopia (no place) in which wealth, resources, and happiness are distributed equally and find the discrepancy between the actual world and your ideal appalling. The down side of this is that you will never be happy because everything could always be better.

On the other hand I see the world today and compare it to where we came from. We are without a doubt advancing rapidly as a species. Read the book "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined" by Steven Pinker. In short it details how as bad as you think it is we are in fact living in a golden age of peace that has been unprecedented in human history. Violence is on a sharp decline world wide by any metric and has been for some time. We are improving and quality of life for most people is improving. So in that regard I'm rather happy.

 

(*Edit: You cite rape, starvation, and poverty of foreign lands as a reason to export your peoples wealth, what of the same crimes and deprivations occurring in your own land? Should your own country not be a utopia before you go to export your wealth to bring others up?)

 

Furthermore you seem to think that the states we are blessed to live in just are. Quite the contrary. My country just 500 years ago was utterly unused and unrealized land, largely empty by modern standards, and inhabited by primitives who were at least 7,000 years behind the men who ended up conquering them. My ancestors worked very, very hard to first take this land from said primitives, then develop it into the massive industrial and military powerhouse it is today. Within this context Ive worked very, very hard to bring myself up from poverty to the middle class. By the sweat of my brow and literally bleeding for it I have made a comfortable life for my family so that my children will be able to advance further than I can. That is how people and nations develop and thrive.

I see you live in Germany. Talk about struggle. Your people (and mine but by long extraction) have for thousands of years fought each other and foreign empires to finally realize the unity of the greater German people at the end of the 19th century. How many generations of proud men and women worked their whole lives to establish the sort of security that you enjoy? How hard have you had to work to give yourself the level of security you have in your own life? Generations of men worked to be better than the last so that you could have the opportunity to work yourself into the worldwide top 10 percent.

You feel bad because you live in the top 10 but the fact is that you and your ancestors won that for you by their blood, sweat, and tears. Nothing was just given away to them, no lottery was won that you would live when and where you do, nothing was pre ordained. You had the option to be impoverished in your own land but chose not to-you have their drive to improve and be better! Congratulations!

 

The common thread there is the struggle to do better. Our ancestors had it, we had it, and thus we are who and where we are. That struggle and realization of self has led our nations to unheard of prosperity and power. That power is the right by which we live better than others, because in the end we are a tribal primate species and the powerful tribes take what they want. See the Melian dialogue: "...you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

Might makes right-this is the sum lesson of all human history.

If we surrender it, we become the powerless, both as individuals and as tribes and nations. It is a universal rule.

This is why I feel no guilt, because my way of life was won, and in my own context I won it for myself in my society. My tribe, my Nation, and my People before all others in that order.

Yes it sounds horrible, I agree its detestable in principle, but it is the world and indelibly reflected in the human condition.

 

As to the contradiction between individual and collective good well its quite obvious when you think of it:

-In order for people to be equal they must have equal resources.

-Resources must be controlled by a central entity that distributes them equitably.

-At some point that means this central government must have taken these resources from individuals with more and given them to those with less.

= State sponsored theft and wealth redistribution.

Further it means surrendering the right of the individual to work hard and be rewarded for exceptional ability must be surrendered to support equally distributed mediocrity (at the very best). Unless you don't believe people have the right to acquire wealth and do with it as they wish, this whole system is abhorrent.

So is it worth it to repress the hard working exceptional to reward the ordinary and lazy? I don't think so.

 

Which brings us to personal property rights!

As in all things right boils down to might. However in our societies this more violent truth is diluted within the confines of the law. Thus it is represented by acquisition of wealth through work. Hard work brings more stuff. If things were just as you imply laying around it might be one thing but in the world around us nothing is free, we must work to have things that we need, and for that labor we earn our necessities.

Now in a communist society regardless of your labor you will be compensated equally with your lay about neighbor-so why work? Thus the system breaks down. It actually happened this way in the soviet union, who's economy peaked in 1962, while the capitalist west continues to reach new highs.

Also-I don't see this "fighting each other for what they need." anywhere. What I see are the people who work hard or have valuable skills are rewarded and those that do not complain about how unfair it is. I find it rather repulsive. All have the same opportunity to succeed or fail in the western world, what else can you ask for? Here again we se a difference between you and I, where you want equality of outcome I only believe in equality of opportunity within my own tribe. As long as everyone has the opportunity to succeed or fail they should be left to live by their decision to do one or the other.

 

And if I may Ill quote the last paragraph of yours.

"I don't really want to defend the so-called communist states that have existed, but concerning your last sentence: I actually believe that e.g. Russia before the revolution was an even worse place than the soviet union. If you compare Ivan the terrible to Stalin, and later Czars to the late soviet governments, one has to admit that people did live in much better conditions in the soviet union. Farmers have been SLAVES before. Private property of the landlords. People were starving. No healthcare, unless you where rich. These "communist " societies did not work, but they have not been the worst story in human history, as you say. 

 

Thx for the discussion, and I just hope no strange language or cultural barriers will stop us from continuing."

 

You cant actually do that-compare the 16th century to the 20th. They are so different as to have no common ground for comparison.

A better comparison is of the soviet union with the government that preceded it.

There was reform within the Czarist government but in this as in all things Russia was lagging far behind the west. Communism killed that dead.

Further-Farmers were slaves in Czarist Russia, but ALL were slaves in the Soviet Union. Slaves to the state and the party.

All property and means of production belonged to the state, People starved (shall we ask the Ukrainians about the equality of food distribution under Papa Stalin?), healthcare was rationed to those at the top and quickly dwindled to the masses at the bottom, all in all by your metrics the situation didn't really change much, except that the amount of wealth privately controlled by those at the top was exponentially higher than that controlled by the Czars. Communism only benefited those that ran it, the life of the people was still a nightmare compared to what we in the west took for granted. Thus I stand by my assertion that communist/socialist governments have been some of the worst cautionary tales in human history.

 

Apologies for the massive TL;DR wall of text, but these are rather deep subjects, its very late here and I'm quite drained lol.

Its nice to entertain an opposing view amicably rather than turning into a screaming match. Here's hoping it stays that way. Kudos!

[Holtzauge]

This discussion is very fascinating and a lot of good ideas about how to make the world a better place have been brought forward but IMHO there is a major obstacle that needs to be circumvented before people around the world can engage in a fruitful discussion about an optimal state of government and that is, you guessed it, religion. There are just too many crackpots out there promoting a multitude of silly religious ideas they are willing to die and kill others for.

 

Let’s rewind the tape back a 1000 years and look at the situation in the Nordic countries. Here is a quick synopsis of my ancestors view of the world:

 

Odin and his brothers, create Middle-earth (the world of humans) from the body of a giant: The three brothers kill a giant named Ymir and create the world from his body, using the different body parts to make different things: From his flesh and some of his bones, they make the land and rocky mountains. They use his blood to make the sea and other bodies of water. Ymir's teeth and some of his bones become gravel and boulders. The three brothers place Ymir's skullcap above the earth and place a dwarf at each of the earth's four corners. These dwarves are named North, South, East, and West. They use Ymir's eyebrows to create a protective fortress around the earth, in order to prevent the giants from ever entering it. They call this place Midgard, or Middle-Earth. From Ymir's brain, they make the clouds. I could go on but I think you get the picture……

 

Now anyone who does not subscribe to this word view is of course an unbeliever and fair game. We Vikings roamed the world taking what we wanted and killing those who resisted us and why not? They were unbelievers anyway so what’s the problem?

 

In addition, dying is nothing that bothers a true Viking: As long as you fall on the battlefield or pillaging unbelievers, things are hunky dory: You are picked up by a Valkyrie (you know, those broads with pointed steel bras who sing opera), whisked off to Valhalla where you are a 100% guaranteed to get a seat a Odin’s table where you drink mead all day, fight battles amongst your peers, and at the end of the day all fallen brothers arise, feast on the succulent flesh of the pig Särimmer who practically, is also resurrected every evening to be spitted and grilled again. All nicely arranged ain’t it?

 

Note that any resemblance to any now active religious fanatics is purely coincidental. Anyway my point is that as long as you have people who believe religions ideas and modes of living trumps secular society then creating a better world for everyone is going to be an uphill struggle.

 

So IMHO the sad state of affairs in the world is that the discussion of capitalism versus socialism is largely moot and a western luxury problem since for a serious portion of the world’s populations they still believe life should be lived based on a religious, not secular foundation.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Holtzauge