socialism in America.

[OddTrader]

Certainly a good man!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie

Later in life, Carnegie's firm opposition to religion softened. For many years he was a member of Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church, pastored from 1905 to 1926 by Social Gospel exponent Henry Sloane Coffin, while his wife and daughter belonged to the Brick Presbyterian Church.[108] He also prepared (but did not deliver) an address in which he professed a belief in "an Infinite and Eternal Energy from which all things proceed".[109] Records exist of a short period of correspondence around 1912–1913 between Carnegie and `Abdu'l-Bahá, the eldest son of Bahá'u'lláh, founder of the Bahá'í Faith. In these letters, one of which was published in the New York Times in full text,[110] Carnegie is extolled as a "lover of the world of humanity and one of the founders of Universal Peace".

World peace

Carnegie commemorated as an industrialist, philanthropist, and founder of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1960[111]

Influenced by his "favorite living hero in public life" John Bright, Carnegie started his efforts in pursuit of world peace at a young age.[112] His motto, "All is well since all grows better", served not only as a good rationalization of his successful business career, but also his view of international relations.

Despite his efforts towards international peace, Carnegie faced many dilemmas on his quest. These dilemmas are often regarded as conflicts between his view on international relations and his other loyalties. Throughout the 1880s and 1890s, for example, Carnegie allowed his steel works to fill large orders of armor plate for the building of an enlarged and modernized United States Navy, but he opposed American oversea expansion.[113]

Despite that, Carnegie served as a major donor for than newly-established International Court of Arbitration's Peace Palace - brainchild of Russian Tsar Nicolas II.[114]

His largest and in the long run most influential peace organization was the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, formed in 1910 with a $10 million endowment.[115] In 1913, at the dedication of the Peace Palace in The Hague, Carnegie predicted that the end of war was ‘‘as certain to come, and come soon, as day follows night.’’[116]

After over 100 years of Carnegie's wishes of World/International Peace, perhaps it'd be not impossible that a few things nowadays could lead to a better peaceful world, after carrying out so many experiments, including the formation of UN - Founded: 24 October 1945. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

Perhaps the very first thing would be every politician should compose a Statesman Vision Statement. People should vote for only the politicians who include Peace in her/his Statesman Vision Statement.

Perhaps we could give it a trial period, imo.

Just as mentioned before, every nation/country should have a National Vision Statement, which should be include Peace in the Statement, probably as required by the UN for all member countries and territories/regions.

The scope of Peace covers not only Peace to Human, but also Peace to Nature and Environment.

Without Peace to Human/ Nature/ Environment, now and later, our future generations would have to bear all the potential problems - probably irreversible ones. lol

I'd have to say I'm interested in public policies that generally affect local/national/global lives. To me, policies and strategies or dynamics/ systems are almost interchangeable terms.

I think that doesn't exactly mean politics but it appears to me that politics and public policies are easily intervened. Leaving many lives living in fairly uncomfortable environment and conditions. Sad!

Historically, it has been proved that some politicians are just good at creating unneeded conflicts through effective politics (sometimes even religions). That, imo, is simply a huge waste of resources which should be used for needy people and places, locally and internationally. Then a better peaceful and mindful world, I think!

Vision statement, imo, should be a good thing for modern corporations. Should vision statements be applicable to nations (that could be useful for voters to decide their meaningful votes according to their National Vision, rather than ...)?

Perhaps National Vision statement could really unite people, much more than any slogans - ad hoc!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_statement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_statement

We of course cannot say that a nation without producing a Vision statement has no National Vision, can we? lol

* Wolff’s Admission to Lies in His Book Puts Him in Legal Jeopardy

Examples: 1. As if World peace should have been part of Vision statement for every country, any two countries talking about peace proposal...

Post by: OddTrader, Jan 7, 2018 in forum: Politics

* Wolff’s Admission to Lies in His Book Puts Him in Legal Jeopardy

imo, CEOs should be evaluated and measured according to a predefined Vision statement, rather than judged by volatile profits or opinion polls or...

Post by: OddTrader, Jan 7, 2018 in forum: Politics

* Wolff’s Admission to Lies in His Book Puts Him in Legal Jeopardy

...Then a better peaceful and mindful world, I think! Vision statement, imo, should be a good thing for modern corporations. Should vision...

Post by: OddTrader, Jan 7, 2018 in forum: Politics

 

[carrer]

A socialist/communist society can only exist when everyone is very giving to each other, not individualistic, helpful and willing to give away to help others, don't mind working harder to help others, a saint. A utopia.

Sadly, it will not work in the current world because people are greedy, individualistic, self-centered. It's how the humans are, it's in our genes. Also, being self-centered and individualistic is not necessarily bad. A wise man once said "help yourself first before helping others".

Therefore, I still think capitalism would be the better system for the current world.

 

[Humpy]

" Therefore, I still think capitalism would be the better system for the current world. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The trouble with capitalism is that most of the wealth is hogged by the few owning most of the assets.
The poverty of say Rio's shanty towns are a disgrace to the human race.
Revolutions are sparked in these deprived areas by the resentment felt.

 

[tomorton]

" Therefore, I still think capitalism would be the better system for the current world. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The trouble with capitalism is that most of the wealth is hogged by the few owning most of the assets.
The poverty of say Rio's shanty towns are a disgrace to the human race.
Revolutions are sparked in these deprived areas by the resentment felt.

Capitalism at least leaves open the opportunity for each person to pursue their own interests: these might or might not be financial wealth, but at least if they become wealthy they also have the opportunity to spend / share / donate their wealth with others, spending being a form of sharing anyway. The point is that the opportunity to sell their labour and gain capital is equal and open to everyone, it is the outcome that varies.

In socialist societies, people have more often not had the opportunity to gain personal wealth or even to pursue their own personal goals. The opportunities are reduced to the lowest common denominator, and while the outcomes are more equivalent, they are of equivalent low value.

Rio's shanty towns are disgraceful but are not an automatic result of capitalism in a social democratic country. Where are the shanty towns of Europe, the US, Australia, Canada?

On the other hand, oppression of the individual is automatic in a socialist society.

 

[Sig]

Capitalism at least leaves open the opportunity for each person to pursue their own interests: these might or might not be financial wealth, but at least if they become wealthy they also have the opportunity to spend / share / donate their wealth with others, spending being a form of sharing anyway. The point is that the opportunity to sell their labour and gain capital is equal and open to everyone, it is the outcome that varies.

In socialist societies, people have more often not had the opportunity to gain personal wealth or even to pursue their own personal goals. The opportunities are reduced to the lowest common denominator, and while the outcomes are more equivalent, they are of equivalent low value.

Rio's shanty towns are disgraceful but are not an automatic result of capitalism in a social democratic country. Where are the shanty towns of Europe, the US, Australia, Canada?

On the other hand, oppression of the individual is automatic in a socialist society.

As we keep saying over and over and over, yes, where are the shanty town of the socialist nations of Norway, Sweden, Finland, France....? Socialism isn't communism and socialism does not preclude capitalism! Your critiques are those of communism, and literally no-one here disagrees that communism suffers from every ill you ascribe to it. It's not clear why you insist on this repeated misuse of the commonly accepted definition of Socialism except to generate conflict where there is none?

 

[tomorton]

As we keep saying over and over and over, yes, where are the shanty town of the socialist nations of Norway, Sweden, Finland, France....? Socialism isn't communism and socialism does not preclude capitalism! Your critiques are those of communism, and literally no-one here disagrees that communism suffers from every ill you ascribe to it. It's not clear why you insist on this repeated misuse of the commonly accepted definition of Socialism except to generate conflict where there is none?

I'm not sure I agree with your distinctions between current and historical socialist and communist states. I definitely suggest that living under one is pretty much just as wretched as living under the other. Anyway, socialism is just a pre-cursor of communism, there is little practical hope of a socialist regime not morphing into a communist one.

 

[Humpy]

Socialism in my view is a fairly gentle way to re-distribute wealth in a country, so ideally there is no starvation and exploitation of the many by the rich few.
There are poor communities even in the USA etc. Haven't you heard of the underground culture in Las Vegas, Los Angeles etc. and other wealthy cities ? The poor are living in the drains literally. Probably not advertised much on the tourist posters.
Some argue - why should the rich have so much when the very poor are desperate ?

 

[tomorton]

Poverty is a problem in all countries: relative poverty is nit, its just BS. As for starvation in the capitalist west, who are you kidding? Obesity seems to be killing more people than starving to death.

However, to deal with poverty it is not necessary to destroy the capitalist society, it is simply a matter of making available to the offspring of the poor all the opportunity that good health, housing and education can obtain. And all these are paid for through successful GDP. And that comes from capitalism. Ask any North Korean if you're not sure.

 

[Sig]

I'm not sure I agree with your distinctions between current and historical socialist and communist states. I definitely suggest that living under one is pretty much just as wretched as living under the other. Anyway, socialism is just a pre-cursor of communism, there is little practical hope of a socialist regime not morphing into a communist one.

As I already demonstrated, in this very thread, no. We have dozens of prosperous socialist states in western Europe, not a one of which is in a pre-cursor of communism position, and pretty much none of the communist states slid a slippery slope of socialism to get there, they got there through violent revolution or from being occupied by an existing communist state. And violent revolutions, by the way, historically have happened in places where there was huge wealth discrepancy and wealth concentration...that actually is true. It's decidedly NOT wretched to live in Finland or Norway, or Iceland, or France at the moment, while it's not fun to live in Looneyville, WV (real place) and pretty damn wretched to be living in the slums of capitalist Brazil. I've pointed this all out to you before, and your only answer is point out a definition of socialism that only you seem to hold which the rest of us call communism. So again, are you just trying to be argumentative, or do you truly believe that Norway has little hope of not morphing into a communist regime and can you please point out literally anywhere in socialist Norway that is as wretched as much of capitalist Rio?

 

[Trader200K]

She was extremely disturbed and I'd recommend anyone look at her biography. The same style of distraction argument can me made for Stalin, he was not a psychopath, he was a mourning father and husband. There is truth to that, but.. the death of his wife and child becomes a very small thing the the larger picture.

Rand was utterly deranged and her libertarianism has the same faults as communism, people are dicks.

Disagree.

Read carefully, Atlas Shrugged was partially a love story about the most valuable, attractive, focused lady engineer businesswoman in the world suited by the three most eligible bachelors in the world. I would marry a Dagny in a heartbeat. An absolutely amazing heroine, with the best of qualities.

You completely misrepresent Francisco's actions. He did not harm the little guy, but bankrupted the crony elites that were using the government to steal money for them and destroy people's freedom. (And I am as much of a fan of GoldmanSachs as Bolsheviks).

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/08/franciscos-money-speech/

Ayn was no sociopath, but a writer that inspired men-of-mind and proud producers to excel in freedom and sociopaths to attack her concepts that threaten to debase every negative screed and thought they espouse.

Even though Ayn was an atheist because of her Bolshevik / Church People run-ins, (and I find it hard to spend one second disagreeing with her "Mystics of Spirit" points) the anti-Rand vitriol from net tyrants reminds me of atheistic vitriol against people of faith.

If atheists are sure there is no God as they know there is no Easter Bunny, logically why do they not simply chuckle and go on doing something fun in their own lives rather than spend their efforts in endless persecution? I would find it a complete waste of my life to try to get advertisers to never display a cute little yellow bunny in their advertisements.

It's like a friend told me.

When someone that believes in freedom and liberty, but doesn't like guns ... he simply does not acquire one. But when a tyrant that wants to take your money, property, freedom, liberty, etc doesn't like guns, he vilifies anyone to extinction who opposes him. Upon gaining enough political power, his deep hatred can be actualized into genocide ... after he takes their guns. (AKA Stalin's Gulag Archipelago-further powerful reading)

Ayn also correctly identified these evil ones at the other end of her spectral lexicon as "Mystics of Muscle". Her description is apt.

Everyone should be free to have and express their opinion and everyone should have the right to peacefully assaemble OR peacefully depart from those opinions. There's a lot of assembly space here between coasts.

Clearly the Second Amendment is under attack right now precisely by those that would take our freedoms away to suit their desire to force their will on those that disagree with.

When a politician doesn't want your guns, you probably don't need a gun.

When a politician says you don't need a gun, ... you NEED a gun.