CAPITALISM: Do you know what it is? What is your opinion?

by Terry 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hillary_step

  Terry,

  It first happened on your "Exquisite Corpse" thread, one of your earlier ones on the Board. You wrote this as an introduction :

  Among Surrealist techniques exploiting the mystique of accident was a kind of collective collage of words or images called the cadavre exquis (exquisite corpse). Based on an old parlor game, it was played by several people, each of whom would write a phrase on a sheet of paper, fold the paper to conceal part of it, and pass it on to the next player for his contribution.

  When I read it, it rang a bell. It was lifted from a paragraph by Harry Rubin on a book on 'Dadaism' that I read a while ago. It was included on your thread without honoring the writer.

  It *is* true as you note, that you include Ayn Rand's direct quotation in your most recent thread, for example, without paying heed to that fact that she *wrote every word*. For example :

  In a Capitalist society the right to agree or not, to cooperate or not is judged by the individual based on his self-interest.

  The uninformed reader would have no option but to conclude that these were your words, but they are in fact plaigerized.

  In Capitalist society human relationships are voluntary.

  This may have been your definition, or one on this site : http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/Notes/defs.html.save. I can show you one or two others if you insist. I agree it is a common definition of Capitalism and may coincidentally have fallen from your mind in this order, but on the other hand.......

  I am sure that you did not do this with the intent to mislead, but it *is* misleading. It is always good netiquette to attribute a bibliographic reference to words and sentences written by others.

  Best regards, atop a lonely Mout Everest - HS
• 

  hillary_step

  Terry,

  The courage of the Poles was courage directed against the communist collective.

  Would you not agree, that is forming trade unions and rising against their communist masters, Solidarity was following one of the most basic tenets of Socialism? It is puzzling that you do not acknowledge that.

  Best regards - HS

  PS - What is Communist Socialism?
• 

  Pole

  Terry,

  The Solidarity movement loved communist socialism so much they couldn't wait to be free of it! The courage of the Poles was courage directed against the communist collective.

  A good point of view on the issue is expressed in this assertion:

  "It is a paradox the fact that the Communistic Party?s main slogan said ? Workers of All Enterprises ? Unite!? After all, there were the workers of all enterprises that got united to overthrow Communism." http://www.stfrancis.edu/ba/ghkickul/stuwebs/btopics/works/Solidarity.html

  My comment:

  The communist collective was fake - it only existed in the communist propaganda. There was no collective, only a small bunch of communist party leaders and the majority of Poles opposed it. A classic Animal Farm situation.

  The Solidarity collective (or "movement" as you call it) was real, or "pure" if you like. The Solidarity collective served to achieve a revolutionary goal of breaking free from the Soviet rule and totalitarianism. This goal was fulfilled when we achieved freedom, democracy and PLURALISM. I'd say the Solidarity movement was one of the very few examples of a socialist collective put to a good use in human history in that it didn't end up as an "everlasting transitional" revolutionary government (like in Cuba).

  The problem with communism is not that it promotes the idea of a collective. The problem is that it uses propaganda to convince people that there is a genuine collective in society.

  "All animals are equal ........ But some animals are more equal than others."

  Interestingly, the second part of the rule was a contradiction of the "pure" principles of communism. So wouldn't you say that the original principle isn't so bad, but it's only the mixing that spoils it?

  That's my point: Communism is terribly impractical. Capitalism can be very practical if you allow for moderate pluralism.
• 

  zen nudist

  The Divine Right Of Capital : Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy

  By Marjorie Kelly

  was my post simply ignored or does anyone think M Kelly's solution is not the best?
• 

  Terry

  HILLARY_STEP SAYS:It *is* true as you note, that you include Ayn Rand's direct quotation in your most recent thread, for example, without paying heed to that fact that she *wrote every word*. For example :

  In a Capitalist society the right to agree or not, to cooperate or not is judged by the individual based on his self-interest.

  The uninformed reader would have no option but to conclude that these were your words, but they are in fact plaigerized.

  My own understanding of plagarism is that one must be attempting to earn a grade in school, earn a reward (as in pay for writing an article) or present a theory to the scientific community for accreditation. None of which am I doing on a public discussion board.

  I see your point about quoting sources and I would if I were writing for print publication (such as a magazine article or newpaper column).

  I'd say my rate of quote attribution is about 50/50 and most frequently it will be Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Nietzshe etc.

  As I may have mentioned in other posts and topics, I have an eidetic (of visual imagery of almost photographic accuracy
  www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn) memory and a magpie mind. In the 8th grade I memorized the mammoth Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Coleridge and recited it in class for extra credit. I memorized the Periodic Table for chemistry class, Pi to 50 decimal places for fun, A Modern Major General by Gilbert and Sullivan for fun, TROUBLE from Music Man, etc etc. for the sheer joy of it. When I was a JW I memorized 825 scriptures which I'd use in door to door discussions. I also undertook to memorize Freddy Franz's chronology from the Babylon book.

  Most of the latter was a sheer waste of hardrive in my widdle head!

  But, back to your point--if I were trying to gain financial or academic credit for the philosophy of Any Rand (or anybody else) I'd agree with you that I should be very careful about attribution. But, here---I am more likely to be ignored or dismissed for what I write.

  However, I will take to heart the fact you care enough to point this out to me and I'll be extra vigilant that nobody confuses me with Mortimer J. Adler or Rand.

  Thank you
• 

  Terry

  Hillary_step says: Would you not agree, that is forming trade unions and rising against their communist masters, Solidarity was following one of the most basic tenets of Socialism? It is puzzling that you do not acknowledge that.

  Best regards - HS

  PS - What is Communist Socialism?

  I hate to be dense; but--maybe I am! Would you be kind enough to point out to me which basic tenet of socialism the trade unions rising against communism were following. Thanks.

  What is Communist Socialism? The U.S.S.R. was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and their social system was communism.

  Both are Altruist mysticism.
• 

  Terry

  Pole says: Interestingly, the second part of the rule was a contradiction of the "pure" principles of communism. So wouldn't you say that the original principle isn't so bad, but it's only the mixing that spoils it?

  That's my point: Communism is terribly impractical. Capitalism can be very practical if you allow for moderate pluralism.

  Since you are, after all, POLE---I have to think you must know what you are talking about.

  Good points.
• 

  Terry

  Gumball said:

  I have noticed that you intersperse comments in your posts that are lifted in their entirety from web pages available on the Internet, yet you pass them as your own work. This is bad netiquette. You leave people feeling as if you wrote some of these sentences, whereas they are actually the work of others.

  And here I thought he was just smart and I was a dumb bastard. The nerve a that guy!

  Gumby

  Heck Gummy, you can still be that if you try
• 

  Terry

  ballistic said: However, I am left with the question, why does right wing parties in power not equate to lower taxes if all the aforesaid is true.

  Can anyone answer me that?

  When Clinton was President and his ideology was blocked by the right wing majority; rather than have a failed presidency he got to the right of the right in his policies and rendered them helpless to oppose him!! This infuriated the Repulicans. However, they know how to fight back.

  Under Bush, to toss a sop to the "kinder-gentler" sobriquet, he got to the left of the left.

  However, Bush did push through tax cuts.

  What is interesting to me is this. Taxpayers pay taxes and non-taxpayers don't. Why does the Left insist on giving tax "refunds" to the non-taxpayers? Wouldn't that simply be a Robin Hood plan of welfare disguised as a Tax refund
• 

  hillary_step

  Terry,

  Come now!

  I hate to be dense; but--maybe I am! Would you be kind enough to point out to me which basic tenet of socialism the trade unions rising against communism were following.

  You must surely appreciate that the basic tenets of socialism *begin* with the workers union committing itself to rising up against the system that does not represent the workers interest. It matters not whether the system is communism, capitalism or fascism. Under *all* these systems socialists have often found themselves jailed and sometimes executed for refusing to compromise the basic tents of socialism. The rising up of workers is at the very *heart* of the socialist revolution, as it is by *this* means that revolution is afforded.

  I am convinced that you do not truly understand what socialism is, and view it as 'all that lot who do not follow capitalist ideals'.

  Best regards - HS