APP - 'What We Owe to Each Other'

M

midcan5

Member
If you learn one thing as you go through this short time we call life, it is that people do not think. Situations, conversations, ideas go into our heads and some piece of the mind connects with another piece and instead of thinking about the topic it pulls the answer out immediately. If we wait we come back with the same answer, only now we think we thought about it. Have you ever wondered why you dream such nonsense or why certain things will create some feeling of dread or happiness or whatever? It is because much of what we are is simply our mind's evolutionary process at work. But maybe, sometimes, we can take those synapses and move them around so that next time something different comes out. Possible?

Anyway that is my intro to an interesting interview in the 'Boston Review.' Quote below for my wingnut friends who often tell me how much they appreciate my quotes and book links.

"Most interactions with people that you trust, people that you love, or people that just need to cooperate with on an immediate basis, take the form of “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.” It doesn’t matter if you’re working for the government, working for a corporation, or working in your family; if you need to fix the toilet because it’s leaking and you say “Hand me the wrench,” the other guy doesn’t say “What do I get for that?” It’s not an exchange; people act according to their abilities to chip in. Ironically communism is applied because it’s the only thing that works; it’s the most efficient way to allocate resources. Thus I like to say that you could argue that capitalism is just a bad way of organizing communism." David Graeber

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.1/david_graeber_debt_economics_occupy_wall_street.php
 
Have you ever wondered why you dream such nonsense or why certain things will create some feeling of dread or happiness or whatever?

Huh? Sorry, pal, but I don't spend time thinking nonsense. must be a liberal asshole thing. Now I think I understand you a little better. LOL
 
Midcan, the guy hands you a wrench because of a thing called a paycheck. In some unions, he can tell you to fuck off, because you can't fire him and he still gets his paycheck, but generally speaking, he is working for a paycheck.

As an American Capitalist, I don't need to be forced to cooperate with my family members like a good communist (i.e. at the point of a gun), because I love them. This concept, alien to the communists, is actually quite a driving force in the world, and doesn't involve the words "proletariat" or "Mother Russia."

A similar ideal applies to civic action, where a person feels an emotional love and belonging to his/her community at the local level. I take pride in my location, because it is where I was born and raised, and because there is much to love about it. We love what we have, because it is ours, and this forms a basis for many things, such as patriotism.
 
General Chamberlain said:
Midcan, the guy hands you a wrench because of a thing called a paycheck. In some unions, he can tell you to fuck off, because you can't fire him and he still gets his paycheck, but generally speaking, he is working for a paycheck.

As an American Capitalist, I don't need to be forced to cooperate with my family members like a good communist (i.e. at the point of a gun), because I love them. This concept, alien to the communists, is actually quite a driving force in the world, and doesn't involve the words "proletariat" or "Mother Russia."

A similar ideal applies to civic action, where a person feels an emotional love and belonging to his/her community at the local level. I take pride in my location, because it is where I was born and raised, and because there is much to love about it. We love what we have, because it is ours, and this forms a basis for many things, such as patriotism.
Click to expand...

you are mistaking soviet style communism which is not communism but a totalitarian government

home life is perhaps as close as you can get to true communism not because of a paycheck bet because it is best for the family

communism may work for a small community but not for any larger grouping of people just as capitalism does not work well at the family level, in fact capitalism and communism do not work well for nations

a hybrid of socialism and capitalism perhaps works best, but it must be flexible and mutable

democracy does not work well either but a form of a democratic republic perhaps works best but only when large amounts of money do not control the government

i do not think we have evolved to a point where any form of government works, just some better than others, but only until said government becomes corrupted

maybe a constitutional monarchy where the king/queen selects the next monarch and cannot select a member of their own family
 
DQ, if communism had succeeded in the USSR, no one would be running around claiming it wasn't "real." This line of denial about what happened there only sets the world up for another outbreak of communism in the future.
 
General Chamberlain said:
Midcan, the guy hands you a wrench because of a thing called a paycheck. In some unions, he can tell you to fuck off, because you can't fire him and he still gets his paycheck, but generally speaking, he is working for a paycheck.

As an American Capitalist, I don't need to be forced to cooperate with my family members like a good communist (i.e. at the point of a gun), because I love them. This concept, alien to the communists, is actually quite a driving force in the world, and doesn't involve the words "proletariat" or "Mother Russia."
Click to expand...

Unless you sit by the pool and wait for your dividend check to come in the mail you are not a capitalist. If you do not live off of the money you have invested you are a worker or in other words a proletariat.

The term 'communism' always comes up when the capitalists get too greedy and the proletariat gets shit on. Kinda like what's happened to all workers in the U.S. for the last 30 yrs. Conservative capitalism always leads to monopoly and wealth accumulated in the top 1%, that's when the capitalists start complaining about communism, socialism, social programs and anything else that costs them a penny.
 
General Chamberlain said:
DQ, if communism had succeeded in the USSR, no one would be running around claiming it wasn't "real." This line of denial about what happened there only sets the world up for another outbreak of communism in the future.
Click to expand...

i said just the opposite regarding the success of communism in the former soviet style communism

what i did say is that communism could only work in a small community
 
midcan5 said:
If you learn one thing as you go through this short time we call life, it is that people do not think. Situations, conversations, ideas go into our heads and some piece of the mind connects with another piece and instead of thinking about the topic it pulls the answer out immediately. If we wait we come back with the same answer, only now we think we thought about it. Have you ever wondered why you dream such nonsense or why certain things will create some feeling of dread or happiness or whatever? It is because much of what we are is simply our mind's evolutionary process at work. But maybe, sometimes, we can take those synapses and move them around so that next time something different comes out. Possible?

Anyway that is my intro to an interesting interview in the 'Boston Review.' Quote below for my wingnut friends who often tell me how much they appreciate my quotes and book links.

"Most interactions with people that you trust, people that you love, or people that just need to cooperate with on an immediate basis, take the form of “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.” It doesn’t matter if you’re working for the government, working for a corporation, or working in your family; if you need to fix the toilet because it’s leaking and you say “Hand me the wrench,” the other guy doesn’t say “What do I get for that?” It’s not an exchange; people act according to their abilities to chip in. Ironically communism is applied because it’s the only thing that works; it’s the most efficient way to allocate resources. Thus I like to say that you could argue that capitalism is just a bad way of organizing communism." David Graeber

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.1/david_graeber_debt_economics_occupy_wall_street.php
Click to expand...


I see the problem as being two-fold. First, many people do not understand that most communist regimes are/were corrupt. Second, people tend to equate socialism with communism.

The success of the USA is due just as much to the “rule of law” as it is to capitalism. Socialist countries/countries with social policies, that are not corrupt, offer a very good lifestyle.

I heard someone talking about stress the other day on TV and the usual causes of stress for mankind were the lack of food, shelter, disease, etc., whereas, today, stress is caused by competitiveness with each other. There is plenty for everyone but capitalist policies result in some possessing more than their share.

For example, one tactic used by stores is they put out a limited number of items. That results in people feeling compelled to buy the item before there is none left. When that “policy” is transferred to things like food the producer will produce 10 items at $10.00 an item rather than 15 items at $7.50 each. In the majority of cases the extra number of items does not equal a corresponding amount of work (effort). In other words a shortage is manufactured. There is unnecessary competition/stress.

That was one of the big complaints when eBay implemented the policy where other sellers are listed who are selling the same item. People complained because they wanted it to appear there were a limited number of items and people were encouraged to pay a higher price. For example, one would buy a hundred items for resale and list ten at a time giving the impression there were only ten available.

While I’m not a fan of communism in the sense everything has to be equally divided I believe there are sufficient necessities available for everyone such as food, housing, medical care, etc. In today’s society there is no need for anyone to be destitute as healthy, happy individuals do desire a reasonably good life.

We owe each other the basic necessities and we owe each other to at least try to remedy any problems which interfere in their ability to obtain a decent life; be it medical care, education, counselling, etc.
 
apple0154 said:
I see the problem as being two-fold. First, many people do not understand that most communist regimes are/were corrupt. Second, people tend to equate socialism with communism.

The success of the USA is due just as much to the “rule of law” as it is to capitalism. Socialist countries/countries with social policies, that are not corrupt, offer a very good lifestyle.

I heard someone talking about stress the other day on TV and the usual causes of stress for mankind were the lack of food, shelter, disease, etc., whereas, today, stress is caused by competitiveness with each other. There is plenty for everyone but capitalist policies result in some possessing more than their share.

For example, one tactic used by stores is they put out a limited number of items. That results in people feeling compelled to buy the item before there is none left. When that “policy” is transferred to things like food the producer will produce 10 items at $10.00 an item rather than 15 items at $7.50 each. In the majority of cases the extra number of items does not equal a corresponding amount of work (effort). In other words a shortage is manufactured. There is unnecessary competition/stress.

That was one of the big complaints when eBay implemented the policy where other sellers are listed who are selling the same item. People complained because they wanted it to appear there were a limited number of items and people were encouraged to pay a higher price. For example, one would buy a hundred items for resale and list ten at a time giving the impression there were only ten available.

While I’m not a fan of communism in the sense everything has to be equally divided I believe there are sufficient necessities available for everyone such as food, housing, medical care, etc. In today’s society there is no need for anyone to be destitute as healthy, happy individuals do desire a reasonably good life.

We owe each other the basic necessities and we owe each other to at least try to remedy any problems which interfere in their ability to obtain a decent life; be it medical care, education, counselling, etc.
Click to expand...

And the persons who are getting these "basic necessities", without really working for them; what do they owe and to who??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And the persons who are getting these "basic necessities", without really working for them; what do they owe and to who??
Click to expand...

They owe an honest effort to try and contribute to society. However, if a person is unemployed, before we assume they're lazy, find them a job and see if they show up for work.

In today's market jobs are definitely in short supply. All one can do is apply and hope for the best.

Rather than trying to find ways to disqualify people from assistance, which really is the main goal of most social service employees, use that time to help people. From workshops showing people tips on how to write a resume to how to present themselves to ensuring they're healthy to begin with it's time to work with the people instead of making it a battle of wits between the program trying to find ways to disqualify people and the people trying to find ways to beat the system.

My personal experience with assistance was with unemployment many years ago. From what I've learned since from welfare tenants is the "case worker" is only interested in finding ways to disqualify people. They seldom, if ever, advise people if they're entitled to more. The "case worker" is an advocate for the government, not for the person requiring assistance. When one is receiving minimal assistance and knowing the priority of the assistance program is not to help but to seek out ways to disqualify them it's natural animosity will quickly develop.

Until the focus is truly on helping and not on trying to deny the few begrudgingly given dollars nothing is going to change.
 
apple0154 said:
They owe an honest effort to try and contribute to society. However, if a person is unemployed, before we assume they're lazy, find them a job and see if they show up for work.

In today's market jobs are definitely in short supply. All one can do is apply and hope for the best.

Rather than trying to find ways to disqualify people from assistance, which really is the main goal of most social service employees, use that time to help people. From workshops showing people tips on how to write a resume to how to present themselves to ensuring they're healthy to begin with it's time to work with the people instead of making it a battle of wits between the program trying to find ways to disqualify people and the people trying to find ways to beat the system.

My personal experience with assistance was with unemployment many years ago. From what I've learned since from welfare tenants is the "case worker" is only interested in finding ways to disqualify people. They seldom, if ever, advise people if they're entitled to more. The "case worker" is an advocate for the government, not for the person requiring assistance. When one is receiving minimal assistance and knowing the priority of the assistance program is not to help but to seek out ways to disqualify them it's natural animosity will quickly develop.

Until the focus is truly on helping and not on trying to deny the few begrudgingly given dollars nothing is going to change.
Click to expand...

So the people out of work aren't obligated to owe anything?
 
Don Quixote said:
just an honest effort to find employment as apple0154 said

i have attempted to survive on unemployment and it sucks
Click to expand...

And if they don't look for employment; because Poet want's to give them EVERYTHING they need, to continue their lifestyle, without them having a job?
 
Crashk said:
Unless you sit by the pool and wait for your dividend check to come in the mail you are not a capitalist. If you do not live off of the money you have invested you are a worker or in other words a proletariat.

The term 'communism' always comes up when the capitalists get too greedy and the proletariat gets shit on. Kinda like what's happened to all workers in the U.S. for the last 30 yrs. Conservative capitalism always leads to monopoly and wealth accumulated in the top 1%, that's when the capitalists start complaining about communism, socialism, social programs and anything else that costs them a penny.
Click to expand...

LOL, okay, so when I'm retired, and living off my investments, I will be happily living by the pool. Typically, this is referred to as the investment class, as capitalism is a much larger umbrella. I'm glad you think you are so special, that you "work for a living" as I have heard nothing else from you. Work is good character building stuff, or so I'm told.
 
Last edited:
General Chamberlain said:
LOL, okay, so when I'm retired, and living off my investments, I will be happily living by the pool. Typically, this is referred to as the investment class, as capitalism is a much larger umbrella. I'm glad you think you are so special, that you "work for a living" as I have heard nothing else from you. Work is good character building stuff, or so I'm told.
Click to expand...

you might want to try it sometime...lol
 
Don Quixote said:
?

i was talking about unemployment insurance

what are you talking about, entitlements, and if so what entitlements?
Click to expand...

Apple feels that anyone who isn't working, or is working and not earning what they "should", deserves to be compensated for the difference of what they need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top