[BDA_ABAT]

Capitalism isn't necessarily about accumulating as much money as you possibly can and holding on tightly to it all. And socialism isn't really about doing good for others. Reducing the discussion that that level of simplicity will get you nowhere.

I'm glad your folks are doing good and are aware of what they mean to others. Does that necessarily mean that those who have different points of view are by definition NOT doing good and are NOT aware of what they mean to others? That seems to be what you're trying to say.

Education provides opportunities.... not necessarily awareness or knowledge. Lots of folks go to college. Getting the degree helps open doors. The reality is that if Morello went to a different school, we probably wouldn't even be talking about the fact that he went to college. But, that doesn't mean that just because you went to college that you learned something. It also doesn't exclude folks that didn't go to college from learning or from gaining awareness.

And maybe he would have different views had he gone somewhere else. Who knows? His father is someone with more socialist leanings, so who knows if the influence was from home or from school. Doesn't really matter. In a socialist world, there is no such thing as a Harvard. Harvard by definition is ELITE. That's not something tolerated well in a true socialist system.

Again, kind of like decrying capitalism and gloablizating while raking in big bucks for yourself while working for a global behemoth like Sony. It's a consistency issue. You cannot have it both ways.

Bruce

 

[kerelybonto]

Quote:

In a socialist world, there is no such thing as a Harvard. Harvard by definition is ELITE. That's not something tolerated well in a true socialist system.

Harvard is by definition elite because they (primarily) only take students that deserve to be there. If you're saying that would change in a socialist system, you're either misunderstanding socialism or talking about something else entirely. Harvard and all other major colleges and universities are almost socialist already, in that they make people pay based on their ability to do so.

kerelybonto

 

[BDA_ABAT]

BTW: Braver, you mentioned in a previous post that you were leftist, socialist with an interest in history. Very interesting....

OK, what does history tell us about how well socialist systems have done? How do/did they treat the people they supposedly were there for? Don't care if you look at the former USSR, North Korea, Cuba, China. The answers are still the same.

Great examples of the success of socialism vs more capitalistic systems: North and South Korea and East and West Germany. Both countries were split off into two different ideological modes. Before the split, the people were largely the same, the land largely the same, they had largely the same birth rates and death rates, largely the same literacy rates, largely the same levels of poverty, same levels of pollution, similar food production rates, yada, yada, yada.

OK, split both countries, wait a few decades, and see what happens.

The more Western countries are thriving: literacy has increased dramatically, people live longer and better, death rates have dropped dramatically, food is plentiful and cheap, the environment has improved dramatically.

The more Socialist countries aren't doing so well. In fact, the people of North Korea are starving and looking to Western countries for help just to keep people ALIVE. Well, not all people. There are a fair number of well fed folks at the top of the food chain. But the rest of the people are starving.

The former East Germany is a total mess compared to West Germany. Everything from infant mortality to literacy is WAY lower in the East than the West. The environment is a total mess. Literacy rates are below those in the West. Again, the awful, greedy, money grubbing West is now helping clean up the mess created by the East.

To bring this back to a more HeadFi related thread, how was/are music and art dealt with in these socialist utopias? Sorta scary to see how artists do in some socialist societies. Artists are independent folks with IDEAS. Ideas are not well tolerated in socialist societies.

OK, more of a basic question... How about things like high end headphone systems... how many high end headphone systems (or, insert any type of high end product in place of headphone systems) are there from socialist countries? The do not even exist in a true socialist system. In fact, even the concept of headphones is pretty much antithetical to socialist doctrine. They are for INDIVIDUALS, not for the group.

It's good to read. It's good to study history. It's good to explore. You often discover that things that you thought were true sometimes are not.

Bruce

 

[BDA_ABAT]

K: Harvard as an institution is ELITE. It is CAPITALISTIC at it's core. Many of the faculty of the institution have more socialist leanings, but that doesn't change it's true nature. If those faculty truly were socialist, they wouldn't be where they are.

People get into Harvard because of a variety of things. You may get in because you have excellent academics, you may get in because your family donated large sums of money to the school or someone in your family was once President of the United States. And even people with great grades, great SAT scores, still may not get into Harvard. Admission is not soley about academics or about what you have accomplished.

Colleges like Harvard are ELITE and would not be tolerated in a true socialist system. They charge enormous sums for the priveledge of attending. The faculty bring in huge sums of money in the form of grants, contracts, and gifts. They are huge money making institutions.

And, just so we're talking apples and apples, here's the definition of socialism from the American Heritage Dictionary.

"1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. "

Websters definition:
\So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

Interesting... think those graduates of elite institutions like Harvard are forgoing most of their salaries to assist with a complete reconstruction of society? What's the starting salary for Harvard Business School graduate?

No, these institutions are not socialist, they are capitalistic. They have the fundamental resources to tolerate socialistic behavior of some of their faculty and use them to put on a good face when the cost for tuition rises several times faster than the costs of living.

Bruce

 

[kerelybonto]

The common modern conception of socialism, which is probably what Braver admires, is not the perverted communism of the former Soviet system, nor the similar incarnations in China, North Korea, and elsewhere. Rather, he probably means the economic system that's really just an extention, a continuation of the modern welfare state. Our neighbors to the north enjoy (in perhaps an unenjoyable sense) such a way of life, and Sweden, in particular, is the best example of something that could really be considered democratic socialism.

Really, most of the Western world is fairly socialist, much more so than the United States. If paying 40-60% taxes so you and everyone else can get universal health care, higher education, and all the benefits of a pervasive welfare system is your thing, well, okay then.

kerelybonto

 

[kerelybonto]

Is that really Webster's definition? That's really bad. "... [M]ore just? ..." What the hell does that mean? "... [L]awless, revolutionary? ..." Uh, no.

Fact is, institutions like Harvard really are very merit-oriented now. Yes, they still let in the governor's son, but anymore the Ivies and most other elite private schools aren't nearly as connection-and-legacy-based as, for example, Notre Dame.

And I still maintain that they're pretty socialistic. Kind of hard to argue against that when they don't operate for profit, and when costs per student usually range from $50-60,000 but only charge $30-40,000. And even then, most students don't pay nearly any of that. I go to a school that costs a few hundred dollars under $40,000 and only pay a bit over $3000 plus about $1500 in loans. The whole reason these schools have multi-billion-dollar endowments is so they can give money to people that otherwise could not attend. Call that socialistic or just plain charitable, but it's the same thing.

kerelybonto

 

[Braver]

Kerelybonto got my point. I'm very much aware of the way comunism and socialism failed as a way to run a country. the concepts and idealisms behind it are, however naïve perhaps, very valuable. if you forget about 'the human factor' (greed for one) and folks like Lenin, it's a very idealistic movement. but it doesn't work, unless implemented in a democracy.

I agree with the points Kerely is making about Harvard as well. Harvard probably wouldn't survive in a totally socialist country as we have seen them. hardly anything does, so....

about some of the points I made BDA-ABAT. you're slamming em out of whack and taking em to an extreme. that's not how I meant em.

 

[BDA_ABAT]

Ahh... they key is there!

First, definitions. Glad we clarified that. The countries that you talked about are not really socialist... The Netherlands (actually almost all of Europe), Canada, etc are all capitalist economic systems. See this from the CIA World Factbook 2001 about the Netherlands.
"The Netherlands is a prosperous and open economy depending heavily on foreign trade. The economy is noted for stable industrial relations, moderate inflation, a sizable current account surplus, and an important role as a European transportation hub. Industrial activity is predominantly in food processing, chemicals, petroleum refining, and electrical machinery. A highly mechanized agricultural sector employs no more than 4% of the labor force but provides large surpluses for the food-processing industry and for exports. The Dutch rank third worldwide in value of agricultural exports, behind the US and France. The Dutch economy has expanded by 3% or more in each of the last four years and real GDP growth is likely to be about 3.6% in 2001. The government in 2001 will implement its most comprehensive tax reform since World War II, designed to reduce high income tax levels and redirect the fiscal burden onto consumption."

Second, the underlying issue is still the same. Institutions like Harvard can offer to have folks that don't always have the means to afford to attend school BECAUSE of their capitalistic roots. Without accumulation of all that wealth (either by the school or by it's benefactors), that charity would not be possible. At Harvard, the government doesn't provide much assistance (at least, not the majority of it), the school provides most of the assistance. That's a major difference.

Same thing with Rage: they can afford to "Rage" because of their means. They obtain that means by doing exactly what they accuse others of doing. If it's so wrong for others to make money and to globalize their products and services, why is it OK for Rage to do it?

Braver: Think broader, think about definitions, think about underlying structures. THINK! If you label yourself as a socialist, it makes sense to understand the actual definition. It's also useful to look at societies that have previously built their foundations on socialist dogma.

You seem to think that capitalism is solely about greed. If so, why are there so many charitable endowments in the US doling out BILLIONS of dollars in the US and around the world? If the US system is so awful, why do people from around the world flock here by any means necessary (and frequently risk death in the process) just to have an opportunity to live here? It's not because of the dental plan.

Again, to reduce capitalism to simplistic "greed vs charity" is not addressing the issue. Charity is not the sole realm of one political belief. And greed is not the sole realm of one political belief either.

What does this all mean? It means that; a.) no system is perfect; b.) people can have different ideas about stuff; c.) you can believe what you want, if you live in a free society.

Bruce

 

[kerelybonto]

No, those countries aren't socialist in the purest sense, but they have exensive, compulsory welfare systems that have the same effect as socialism. Take a look at this comparison of welfare tax to national income to see what I'm talking about. I used Sweden as an example because, as you can see from the link, they have an unrivaled welfare system.

I also don't quite understand where you're going with the Harvard thing. I thought your point was that it was an elitist institution. My point was that it is not, at least not in any sense that matters in the context. It's irrelevent whether Harvard's funding is private or governmental.

Now, before we get into a full-fledged debate on socialism, let me note that I'm playing the devil's advocate here. I an opposed to any form of socialism, including those forms of welfare found in the US. I belive in as much personal freedom as possible, which includes monetary freedom. If you want to give away your money to someone who doesn't have as much, there's nothing stopping you from doing so in a capitalist system; I see no need for compulsory governmental redistribution, which is often inefficient, misdirected, unhelpful, or unnecessary.

Back to Rage -- I agree with what you've said. I stated much earlier that I disagree with their politics, which I don't even consider good arguments for positions I disagree with.

But I still like their music, which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

kerelybonto

 

[Braver]

Quote:

Originally posted by BDA_ABAT What does this all mean? It means that; a.) no system is perfect; b.) people can have different ideas about stuff; c.) you can believe what you want, if you live in a free society.

I'll agree to that!

 

[BDA_ABAT]

kerelybonto: Good to hear!

The reasons for getting into this partially as a discussion of socialism was because of Bravers comments about being a leftist-socialist AND the sympathy for Rage's lyrics. I appreciate your DA position.

But, in fairness, the Harvard situation is the key to the essence of the discussion. It IS elitist which in a true socialist system is unacceptable since the whole socialist thing is about common-ness. And, when you wrote, "It's irrelevent whether Harvard's funding is private or governmental." I'd make the argument that it's extrodinarily relevent. Why? Demonstrates that you do not need compulsory government action to produce the desired result. In fact, government action would likely end up with a different, less desirable result... there would likely be less outside efforts to endow the school. While there might be some governmental support, there's no way it would be close to the amount raised through donations, grants, contracts, and the like. The bottom line, just stating that the government ought to DO something and throw taxpayer dollars at a particular problem is not necessarily the answer.

You make the case further when you wrote, "I see no need for compulsory governmental redistribution, which is often inefficient, misdirected, unhelpful, or unnecessary."

Exactly.

BTW: I LIKE RATM sound. However, I cannot accept their messages. It's especially galling when that message is delivered/distributed via Sony. This isn't a slam against Sony. Unlike Tyll, I don't have major problems with them. But if RATM is railing against globalization and greed, then why are they signed with SONY??? It's total hypocrisy.

Bruce

 

[Braver]

well, if they weren't signed by a major label, they wouldn't have reached so many people...

crap, I'm defended RATM, but the more I think about it the less I feel like keeping it up. :/

 

[NotoriousBIG_PJ]

So... anyone like Cornell's last album? I know I didn't.

Biggie.

 

[kerelybonto]

Yeah, who's heard it? I only head a couple cuts on the radio when it came out, and it sounded too different from Soundgarden for me to like much. He did just have the one solo album, right? ...

kerelybonto