Xard

immaterial. financial matters are ultimately what is used to survive. no one person can do everything, therefore he needs to obtain the services and products of others. the most equitable way to do this is through trade. since not everyone has something the other needs, or wants, we have money. suddenly it's a financial thing. Uhh, if we reduce everything to survival we can reduce financials away too, as those are not something one needs for survival. since when does any consensus mean anything? the rest of the world has spent its life in poverty, subjugated to the very thing you claim will save them. of course they advocate a third way, it is easy to advocate taking from others to serve their own needs. instead, we end up with more of the same. Massing the wealth for few has always been part of capitalism and not something that can be avoided. Hell, whole libertarian western world holds ridiculously big chunk of world's resources. No amount of free market will fix that inequality and without big (and never going to happen) redistribution of wealth it won't change. But oh, that would be inequal way of dealing with people! yes, indeed. keynesian philosophies don't work, and there aren't many sane economists that believe in him. Funny your quote regarded policies in the 40s, not today. I'm not "keynesian", but he is big name. There are many big names and within today's economy your extremely radical capitalism is still in minority.

I can and do. Still, you should read the article because it is very neutral with rebuttals and counter rebuttals etc. besides, it saves me from the pain of having to write some of those arguments again No, as Finland has always been "capitalistic" country. However neoliberalism's influence on the other hand has not been so big in the past. The great value vacuum the materialistic capitalistic culture/spirit of era imposes with heavy attention on "efficiency" and "economical growth" as most important things in the world... yes, that indeed is very negative influence that shows more and more with each passing year

I don't glorify anything

sorry, but still not true, and history beyond 100 years ago hardly counts. when communities were small, socialism was required. not so anymore. Apart from stone age these communities were hardly "small". And why would history beyond 100 years ago hardly count? Nature of man hasn't changed a lot. And it's not case of what is required. ah yes, china as an example, dictatorship, communism. moving towards free market and capitalism... yeah, good example. examples of collectivist societies is not proof that we are as such by nature, it is merely proof that some are capable of asserting their will over others. Again, primary focus being culture and psyche. And I'd say they very well are proof as even hyperindividualized 20th and 21th century western world (I wonder when tide will turn, it'll happen eventually) has so many collectivistic traits in them (apart from the fact society even exist, heh) it is impossible to count. I think you too acknowledge this as otherwise you would't rant against current systems, yes? However to truly understand human nature you must see how it works under varying situations and especially how it was around the magical era of 50,000 BC and some tens of thousands of years forward, when man's psyche was as "pure" as it could be, free of great cultural influences. And in these cases collectivist nature of human thought showcases very, very clearly. For example there was this psychological experiment that showcased that under horrendous stress or panic situations (statistically) near all humans start to act like sheep. And that isn't very individualistic way of behaviour. communism/collectivism is an immaterial difference. it is, at best, sematic. hopefully, no. but either way, you need to shed your programming. really, you're smart enough, i don't understand why you can't do it. taks And this is still where you go wrong. Man is individualistic AND collectivistic, it isn't either or situation

I agree with that. On the other hand, we are social animals by need. That's Hobbesian line of thought with only social contract stopping the war of everyone against everyone - it doesn't have any basis and idea wouldn't have been born if it wasn't for era when Hobbes lived. However, as it should be very clear by now, his ideology was way too pessimistic and basic anthropology studies on stone age men shows it to be false. Man is both collectivistic and individualistic by needs (and in latter by sense of ego) and on which side one eventually leans depends on their culture, situation and their own free choices - though without sufficient abilities and knowledge third factor plays least role (but it still plays!). I'd say situation is the most important factor, although social psychologists might prefer culture.

I could also add every single pre-european South American culture on that list. i could care less where you think you stand politically, if you favor any collectivist mechanism, you are inevitably promoting socialism, even if you don't think you are. the mythical "third way" is nothing more than an incremental step towards such an end. saying you're individualistic, yet promoting such a system is either hypocritical or delusional. in either case, you ain't individualistic. I feel stupid for having to spell this out: There's a lot more to individualism than merely financial matters. And I'll never advocate goverment driven communist economy. You're in odds with me and majority of other humans on this planet when it comes to existence and viability of "the third way". Some sort of third way is what drives all democracies. And if there exists no Third Way (still "lolwut" inducing thinking) that's just one more point towards "collectivism". oh yes, no doubt few sane economists, or people in general, give a rat's arse about what keynes says. again, give me a definition of morality, a true definition, that favors one person over another. Indeed? using big names, and understanding what their messages mean are two totally different concepts. you don't understand their message. yes, btw, both keynes and chomsky are/were socialists. sorry if you can't see that, but it is true. Chomsky was; Keynes wasn't unless we're using taksish speech I'll write more personal answers after I unearthe my book on social philosophy (I must check few terms) but for beginners Criticism of capitalism would be good starting point, especially parts Democracy, Economical Freedom, Imperialism and Human Right violations, Religious Criticism (esp. Christian socialism etc. because Christianity is base of whole western values) and last but not least and Noam Chomsky's great critiques that got its very own section.

no, this is utter nonsense. we are individualistic by nature. not sure where you are getting these concepts. again, you're either making things up, or just plain lacking in understanding of human nature. I comment on this now: READ PSYCHOLOGY or hell, read history, anthropology or biology Humans are collective animals. There's no way around that. Ever heard of S-O-C-I-E-T-Y for example? Ever looked into mind of early or Middle Age man? Ever heard of empathy or self-sacrifice for collective? Ever heard of far east countries like "China" or "Japan"? Man is not communistic by nature (which is the reason why communism fails), because people are individuals and need something to call their own. That's basic psychological need. Communism also presumes best out of men which ultimately leads to its downfall. However mind of men are also heavily collectivistic which is basically foundation of our whole culture; it is something without with our civilizations wouldn't exist. Humans are not like eagles, humans are like apes or ants or any other hivelike lifeform. Society is not born out of social contract; Aristoteles was right all along. Man is social animal by their very essence. Again there wouldn't be any problem with these parts of your views if you'd give up the ridiculous and artificial "us and them" setting of capitalism and "collectivism". This leads to: collectivism = socialism --> world already is socialist and shall be so evermore"

my god, you are deluded. bull****. um, socialism IS collectivist, so is communist, fascist, marxist, etc. there is no meaningful difference. they are all variations of the same. tell me, do any of you read anything other than pro-collectivist rants? really, what the heck are they teaching you eurosnobs? taks I don't read any "pro-collectivist rants", I've been a lot more "right" person politically and my background is completely middle class and academic. In recent year I've become much more radical so to speak, but not communist or anything like that. My problems with capitalism stems forefront from morals and values of life it promotes and with "socialism" from the levelling everyone to same mass of "workers". I'm very individualistic so group mentality is hard for me. However, despite my personality I do recognize the fact human beings are collectivistic by their nature. It is unsepatarable part of the human nature. We're pack animals to use (way too) crude and unsophisticated words biologist might use. It is psychological fact and once you deny reality of this collectivism you're fighting a losing fight. Collectivism is one of the keys to ever so mysterious morals (which science haven't explained at all, despite some incredibly flimsy theories by evolutionary psychologists) which in turn might be the most defining aspect of mankind. You can't take collectivism out of human mind. ergo: if collectivism = socialism World already is socialist and shall be so evermore “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes See? I too can play with Big Names to get support for my "sociopolitical views" John Maynard Keynes was *not* socialist btw; unless we use your good/bad dischotomy Or Noam Chomsky perhaps?

no, the truth. read some von mises. there is no "middle ground." you're either a capitalist or a socialist (collectivist, actually). Congrats taks, by using this line of reasoning you forever lost your cause Mankind is collectivistic by its very nature. Not so much as in communism, but nevertheless collectivistic which I guess for you means socialist.

Jesus Christ, couldn't your world be any more black and white? What the hell do you even mean with socialism? It must be very different from meaning rest of the world gives to it

uhh, not my point... I was simply contributing to Volo vs Nick debate.

never mind me, I just leave these here...

fluid dynamics are totally overrated Huzzah! Rally onwards my proletarian brethen!

The Beatles - Maxwell's Silver Hammer Joan was quizzical; Studies pataphysical Science in the home. Late nights all alone with a test tube. Oh, oh, oh, oh. Maxwell Edison, majoring in medicine, Calls her on the phone. "Can I take you out to the pictures, Joa, oa, oa, oan?" But as she's getting ready to go, A knock comes on the door. Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer Came down UPON her head. Clang! Clang! Maxwell's silver hammer Made sure that she was dead. ^_^

prior to this he was

what's not in your pants?

I should add that for good(?) and bad free market is amoral system so that's nullified too besides, viewing taxes as stealing is one of the weirdest moral povs I've yet to see - I even understand better "property is theft" which is something that was pouted by one of the core anarchist philosophers s sometime in 18th or 19th century I wonder if taks has ever even given thought to, say, John Rawl's theories of social justice ...whoops, it has the word social in it... so I guess no

this thread has taken turns from utterly obscure to somewhat funny and now with recent dev comments it found its way to land of Awesomeness *salute*

Yeah. The US is the only superpower. I mean, some record, eh? They obviously don't know what they're doing. And these comments always come from Euro-know-it-alls. Oh well, I guess some things never change. Well, you're one too No one excepts world's only superpower to play completely fair, but somewhere along the line things got really twisted. Hmm, maybe even as far as 1950's because the great fight against communism is pretty much reason for all non-ethic modern day conflicts. Iran, Iraq, whole South America etc. And of course Vietnam war. Still, observing american camp vs USSR camp it's not hard thing to see the "good" guys won. This is probably the single most intelligent comment in the thread so far. The US prez is the US prez is the US prez. Don't kid yourselves, folks. I'm not sure what people are actually excepting on that front I don't know about "evil conspirators", but Ch

Pretty much *all* finnish weapons are hunting rifles and like.

I thought you were around when that happened? Anyway, if you are referring to the thread to close the forum, no. It was a "global notice"-sticky by Feargus which appeared as an overhead, that was taken down when the storm passed. well, I was very infrequent visitor in early days and after geristering I pretty much forgot about it. Most of the time I didn't even remember I had registered in here at all So I wasn't around the great ****storm. for the last part; too bad :/

Dude, that's epic Are there any threats lying around? I want to read

ouch

Oh, I can read just fine. I read the part where you said you couldn't know the specific reason, and I also read the part where you laid down a rather simplistic and tendentious possible explanation of the circumstances that made him go bat****. That is called contradicting oneself. lern2write I didn't put blame on "capitalism" for this shooting; I put blame on capitalism on the overall situation which contributed to this. nah, it's just that our country is fail nowadays

The Beatles - Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds