h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

My wife is teaching social studies in 6th Grade (That's 12 year olds). Last night, she told me that she was teaching political and economic systems. I just wanted to bounce the definitions of y'all to see if they're good working definitions:

Capitalism: Where essential and non-essential industries are in the hands of the private sectors.

Socialism: Where essential industries are in the hands of the government, while non-essential industries are in the hands of the private sector.

Communism: Where non-essential and essential industries are in the hands of the government.

Does that sound about right?

It does to me, however I think it would be worth noting what an essential and a non-essential industry is.

What they meant by essential was food production, medicine, trapsotration, education, utilities. Stuff you need in a modern country.

Non-essential would be stuff like fast food, personal computers, amusement parks, etc.

Obviously, no system would be pure. In the US, we have government schools, parks. The USSR granted farmers small plots to grow produce to sell.

Perium,

I was not asking for your sympathy. The facts are that the Airbase I was referring to is 150 miles to the North and is an Australian one. The base was not informed by the American control at Amberley (also Aust) 850 miles to the South that this exercise was happening. The military air corridor is 30 miles to the West. The Australian Squadron Leader tendered an apology because it is illegal in Australia for military planes to low contour fly over civilian areas. This is not to mention the missile that was lost 10 miles from our home in a separate incident. The sound of overflying warplanes is the sound of death, wounded people, and utter destruction. I've been down that road, when you have also, tell me how free you feel then.

The reference to civilised societies was actually a quote that is about 3000 years old. If the world's societies today are incapable of caring for those in most need, and setting a template which maintains a welfare level that delivers at least the basic needs to its people, then it is no civilisation. Mine or yours.

I don't know what American fairness and justice means, but the above is the position I lobby for in this country.

It does sound about right, although I'm sure communists would argue that it's not the government which should control all industry, but the workers . The fact that this is unattainable isn't really the issue as there are no examples of a true capitalist economy around, and almost no-one really wants one either.

I don't know about sound of freedom. I do think flyovers are kind of cool.

Of course, I was raised by an aviation enthusiast. I went o several air shows when I was little. When I was in Desert Shield, I thought it was pretty cool to see foreign war planes every once in a while. My last posting in the Army was on an Air Force Base. When I lived out in California, we'd always here sonic booms from what we all assumed was the latest project from the Skunk Works. I live under the approach pattern for a large airport now (I can hear them flying by even now.

I like to stand and gawk when military aircraft fly by.

Oi TBTPM & Im/Perium

Ya Know, what really gets up the worlds collective nose is your entire attitude that ONLY YOU know what's best for the world, why can't you just stay at home and go on holidays every now and then, maybe learn that not everyone aspires to be AMERICAN. What is it you just don't get?,is it that you don't read any news apart from that produced by hollyweird? Take a look without your nationalistic rose coloured shades. Ya know, we also wish to be left alone. I was involved in one of YOUR wars. I don't EVER want another.
The US bases atm are just proposals(yeah and Colon Powell just came for the scenery)
Rocket
.303 loaded

Two Bit,

I don't think it is an international jobs program either, but hey, why not at least make the effort to be polite. A little way of saying thank you again for letting us stay here and thanks for your service.

I don't think that is all that wrong.

As far as welfare-->look around. How many people do you see that are defrauding the system? If the answer is more than you find comfortable, I'd say the system needs to be re-vamped. I would think that you would agree with me in that sense. Actually if only one, just ONE, who is de-frauding the system that is too many when it comes to my tax payer money.

>>You will definitely have to explain your opinion. I cannot abide my country being compared to Stalin and his regime<<

Well both the Soviet Union and the United States were established in order to achieve the same ends. Liberty, equality and happiness for it's citizen through greater participation and less intervention in their lives. These ideas coming down form a common inspiration "The Rights of Man" a fine socialist document, and probibly the first to succinctly enshrine it's aims Though there are lots of earlier examples too (not least Christianity - which thought it could liberate us using only ideology, then up pops a bureaucratic church and starts oppressing, torturing and castigating us all - there's a theme here about to emerge).

The US Constitution sought to establish a socialist model for this through a federal framework designed to encourage a co-operative and fraternal relationship with minimal state control, through the executive, judiciary and legislature. These aims were essentially ignored and the constitutional bodies were used to produce a massive and monolithic governmental bureaucracy, and in true Animal Farm fashion, the new government oppressed it's people in just the same way as the previous one, no-one was any free-er, more equal or happier. Largely because Adam Smith's belief that the free market would bring about social and economic equality proved to be false. And the government who believed that "That government is best is that which governs least" (Jefferson) is now the government which keeps the largest proportion of it's population in prison.

Marxism (which is or course not the only school of communism - but is the school Lenin followed) tried to improve on this, by suggesting that if socio-economic divisions were to be levelled, instead of widened as had occurred in the US, then economic as well as political liberty and equality had to be brought about through a redistribution of wealth, which would liberate human potential, after which the state would "wither away". And it was on this basis that the workers councils took over the running of the CCCP. Stalin replaced this with democratic centralism, producing a monolithic governmental bureaucracy, stifling the work of the soviets to improve their lot and definitely not thinking about withering anywhere.

Two beautiful ideas ignored and left to rot.


>>Show me the ONE TRUE UTOPIA, meaning I have no knowledge of one, surely not even my country, and I'll show you an island of Lotus Eaters.<<

I agree completely with you here. There is, has, and will never be a perfect society. It's an imperfect world, people die, accidents happen, individuals can be weak, foolish, greedy. This does not mean of course (and i'm not saying that you do) that we shouldn't aim for a perfect society in order to at least achieve the best we can. It's one thing to be an idealist, another to be a practical optimist.


>>Perhaps there is a law somewhere that does not allow that.<<

The point is rather that there isn't a law that stops them, so they did. It's not in the nature of capitalism or imperialism to hand out anything it doesn't have to (and we all know what a tight budget the armed forces have to run on).


>>In this country the welfare program is trashed mainly because those of us who lead productive lives invariably come across someone who is not productive, lives on welfare, and is enjoying relatively the same lifestyle as I am.<<

Let me pose you a question: Do you feel the same out rage when you meet someone who earns thousands of times the amount that you do, but works as hard, maybe less, maybe not all?

And it's important to remember three things:
1. That there just aren't enough jobs in an industrialised society to employ everyone. Someone has to be on welfare (equally do you grudge the elderly, children or the infirm the right to sit on there arses and rake it in?)
2. That many people on welfare may be constructively unemployed, perhaps they are carers, artists, mothers, community leaders
3. That most people on welfare probibly don't behave anything like that, and that most do not have lifestyles immediately comparable to your own. However i would imagine that you're lifestyle is not outrageously extravagant or lavish, just normal, and isn't everyone entitles to a normal, comfortable lifestyle?

I work, and i wish that no-one had to scrape, compromise and go without the way i sometimes have to. I wish people on welfare go three times what i earn, then they might be comfortable. I actually earn less than welfare now, and don't qualify for anything because i do work, but then again, i'm a fool for doing so.


>>Your statement that success creates poverty for others is not true. My relative state of "rich" in no way shape or form caused the streetperson to experience a relative state of "poor."<<

It was me who said that i think. And i didn't mean that it was your personal wealth making anyone poor. Rather its the wealth of the super rich, the governments and the corporations (the aristocracy of capital) that makes YOU poor, just like the guys in penury. After all it's not about money, it's about wealth, capital, and if you're going to make a profit, you have to be making it out of someone. You can't take more out of the system than you put in without a huge hole opening up somewhere. That's how we created the third world, and it's how we are creating underclasses.


>>He/she made there own choices with what they were given in life and so was I.<<

But you are not free to make your own choice are you, you are restricted by laws, and states and police. You can't opt out of that. And when vast profits are being made by making people jobless, homeless, landless, parentless, hopeless, useless; if you can't turn round and say "No, you're not going to stop me living here, you're not going to bomb my home, you're not going to close my factory", then what freedom do you have.
Your born into this bizarre situation when everything, even essentials, food, land, water, along "belong" to someone, and you have to take part in this bizarre capitalist experiment in order to survive, and you can't opt out. So if you can't they have two choices: kill you, or give you welfare. And if they give you welfare because they've denied you food and shelter they expect you to be grateful - where do they get off?
They break our legs and we say thankyou when they offer us crutches.


>>While the workers council may claim to represent the people, it is quite obvious that they didn't.<<
The workers councils were councils of workers (not party members - though some were of course) and they were the instruments that told the government what needed doing and who ran things at ground level. They were the people, and they ran the country. But with Stalin's ascendancy, and the centralisation of power, that all became a farce obviously

>>How is America socialist.<<

It's not. But freedom, social & political equality, of opportunity, a good standard of living, happiness and security for all, peaceful social co-operation and brotherhood are. That is socialism. If you can't see an attempt to enshrine that in your national constitution, and if you don't see in engrained into you national consciousness, then you're looking at a different America to me. If you see much of that in the nation state that was borne out of it, i'd be very much surprised.

America is now the oldest liberal democracy in the world. Which is surely something to be historically proud of. Land of the Free and all that.


>>the sounds of those planes are the sound of freedom.<<

It doesn't sound much like freedom if your a Kosovan, or an Iraqi, or a Nicaraguan.

The sound of freedom is the sound of kids playing in the street, it's the sound of your partner gently snoring before you wake up, it's the sound of 10,000 people singing at a sports match, it's the sound of someone calling you brother, friend or comrade.

>>You will definitely have to explain your opinion. I cannot abide my country being compared to Stalin and his regime<<

Well both the Soviet Union and the United States were established in order to achieve the same ends. Liberty, equality and happiness for it's citizen through greater participation and less intervention in their lives. These ideas coming down form a common inspiration "The Rights of Man" a fine socialist document, and probibly the first to succinctly enshrine it's aims Though there are lots of earlier examples too (not least Christianity - which thought it could liberate us using only ideology, then up pops a bureaucratic church and starts oppressing, torturing and castigating us all - there's a theme here about to emerge).

The US Constitution sought to establish a socialist model for this through a federal framework designed to encourage a co-operative and fraternal relationship with minimal state control, through the executive, judiciary and legislature. These aims were essentially ignored and the constitutional bodies were used to produce a massive and monolithic governmental bureaucracy, and in true Animal Farm fashion, the new government oppressed it's people in just the same way as the previous one, no-one was any free-er, more equal or happier. Largely because Adam Smith's belief that the free market would bring about social and economic equality proved to be false. And the government who believed that "That government is best is that which governs least" (Jefferson) is now the government which keeps the largest proportion of it's population in prison.

Marxism (which is or course not the only school of communism - but is the school Lenin followed) tried to improve on this, by suggesting that if socio-economic divisions were to be levelled, instead of widened as had occurred in the US, then economic as well as political liberty and equality had to be brought about through a redistribution of wealth, which would liberate human potential, after which the state would "wither away". And it was on this basis that the workers councils took over the running of the CCCP. Stalin replaced this with democratic centralism, producing a monolithic governmental bureaucracy, stifling the work of the soviets to improve their lot and definitely not thinking about withering anywhere.

Two beautiful ideas ignored and left to rot.


>>Show me the ONE TRUE UTOPIA, meaning I have no knowledge of one, surely not even my country, and I'll show you an island of Lotus Eaters.<<

I agree completely with you here. There is, has, and will never be a perfect society. It's an imperfect world, people die, accidents happen, individuals can be weak, foolish, greedy. This does not mean of course (and i'm not saying that you do) that we shouldn't aim for a perfect society in order to at least achieve the best we can. It's one thing to be an idealist, another to be a practical optimist.


>>Perhaps there is a law somewhere that does not allow that.<<

The point is rather that there isn't a law that stops them, so they did. It's not in the nature of capitalism or imperialism to hand out anything it doesn't have to (and we all know what a tight budget the armed forces have to run on).


>>In this country the welfare program is trashed mainly because those of us who lead productive lives invariably come across someone who is not productive, lives on welfare, and is enjoying relatively the same lifestyle as I am.<<

Let me pose you a question: Do you feel the same out rage when you meet someone who earns thousands of times the amount that you do, but works as hard, maybe less, maybe not all?

And it's important to remember three things:
1. That there just aren't enough jobs in an industrialised society to employ everyone. Someone has to be on welfare (equally do you grudge the elderly, children or the infirm the right to sit on there arses and rake it in?)
2. That many people on welfare may be constructively unemployed, perhaps they are carers, artists, mothers, community leaders
3. That most people on welfare probibly don't behave anything like that, and that most do not have lifestyles immediately comparable to your own. However i would imagine that you're lifestyle is not outrageously extravagant or lavish, just normal, and isn't everyone entitles to a normal, comfortable lifestyle?

I work, and i wish that no-one had to scrape, compromise and go without the way i sometimes have to. I wish people on welfare go three times what i earn, then they might be comfortable. I actually earn less than welfare now, and don't qualify for anything because i do work, but then again, i'm a fool for doing so.


>>Your statement that success creates poverty for others is not true. My relative state of "rich" in no way shape or form caused the streetperson to experience a relative state of "poor."<<

It was me who said that i think. And i didn't mean that it was your personal wealth making anyone poor. Rather its the wealth of the super rich, the governments and the corporations (the aristocracy of capital) that makes YOU poor, just like the guys in penury. After all it's not about money, it's about wealth, capital, and if you're going to make a profit, you have to be making it out of someone. You can't take more out of the system than you put in without a huge hole opening up somewhere. That's how we created the third world, and it's how we are creating underclasses.


>>He/she made there own choices with what they were given in life and so was I.<<

But you are not free to make your own choice are you, you are restricted by laws, and states and police. You can't opt out of that. And when vast profits are being made by making people jobless, homeless, landless, parentless, hopeless, useless; if you can't turn round and say "No, you're not going to stop me living here, you're not going to bomb my home, you're not going to close my factory", then what freedom do you have.
Your born into this bizarre situation when everything, even essentials, food, land, water, along "belong" to someone, and you have to take part in this bizarre capitalist experiment in order to survive, and you can't opt out. So if you can't they have two choices: kill you, or give you welfare. And if they give you welfare because they've denied you food and shelter they expect you to be grateful - where do they get off?
They break our legs and we say thankyou when they offer us crutches.


>>While the workers council may claim to represent the people, it is quite obvious that they didn't.<<
The workers councils were councils of workers (not party members - though some were of course) and they were the instruments that told the government what needed doing and who ran things at ground level. They were the people, and they ran the country. But with Stalin's ascendancy, and the centralisation of power, that all became a farce obviously

>>How is America socialist.<<

It's not. But freedom, social & political equality, of opportunity, a good standard of living, happiness and security for all, peaceful social co-operation and brotherhood are. That is socialism. If you can't see an attempt to enshrine that in your national constitution, and if you don't see in engrained into you national consciousness, then you're looking at a different America to me. If you see much of that in the nation state that was borne out of it, i'd be very much surprised.

America is now the oldest liberal democracy in the world. Which is surely something to be historically proud of. Land of the Free and all that.


>>the sounds of those planes are the sound of freedom.<<

It doesn't sound much like freedom if your a Kosovan, or an Iraqi, or a Nicaraguan.

The sound of freedom is the sound of kids playing in the street, it's the sound of your partner gently snoring before you wake up, it's the sound of 10,000 people singing at a sports match, it's the sound of someone calling you brother, friend or comrade.

Why don't you just come out and call me a baby killer?

In any case, it is the sound of freedom, and yes that freedom has a price. In many many cases that price comes bought with blood. Don't think I just get the warm fuzzies because I like the sound(although a part of me does), I KNOW what those planes mean, I KNOW what they can do, and I still KNOW what that means to me. That is how I feel!

As far as civilization, that is your opinion, I've state mine.

Perium (#377) -

Actually, you're quoting post #365 by the autist... I will toss out, however, that:

1) The fact that there are "haves" means, by definition, that there must be "have-nots". One cannot exist without the other, much like 'light' cannot exist without 'dark (absence of light)'.

2) If I ever strive for wealth over happiness and contributing to the betterment of my fellow beings, I will consider myself a dismal failure as one of those beings.

I'll be back when I have time to get into 'the arts' as 'essential'.

-7rob7

Whoever said that you should aspire to be American?
Whoever said that only I know what is right for the world?

I've said it once, I'll say it again, as for myself, and American, I really don't give a rip what you do with your country as long as it doesn't do anything to mine, but I will not stand by and let you trash on the country I love, particularly when all you have is a one sided point of view, and are obviously embittered.

If you can't play nice Rocket Rod, don't play at all......tut tut tut.

Rant.Rant.Rant. Dogmatism is Dogmatism whether Religious or Political. It would seem to me, that until such time that the US truly decides to join the world community then they will continue with their old COLD WAR policies. What? Russia's not the enemy anymore? Let's get CHINA!

oopppss, SORRY

7rob7.

ps. to my last post
Im/P If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Sorry for posting that last, huge, one twice. I'm not sure how i did it.


>>Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism - Does that sound about right?<<

We have a problem in comparrison here, as socialism and communism are philosophies, ideaologies, with economic systems to allow them to proliferate. Socialism does not pre-suppose or demand nationalisation. Capitalism is just an ecomonmic system with no ideology. The economics are only important because of thier social impact.

Britian's socialist period was also a capitalist period, they are not mutually exclusive, in fact, capitalism has always had some other force to temper it Christan morality, Socialism, or simple logistics. The problem the world is currently facing is that global capitalism has none of these moral restraints.

The definitions are all bogus as they create false opposties.

So how about:

Capitalism is when a society is geared toward the accumulation of capital and the making of profit.

Socialism is when society is ordered for the benefit of its citizens.

Communism is a form of socalism where the state is replaced by the control of the masses.

Yeah Oops indeed. 7rob7/Perium is it?

>>in many many cases that price comes bought with blood<<

The people's flag is the deepest red
It shrouded oft our martyred dead
And 'ere their limbs grew stiff and cold
Their hearts blood dyed it's every fold

>>I really don't give a rip what you do with your country as long as it doesn't do anything to mine, but I will not stand by and let you trash on the country I love<<

Then ship the boys back home and keep them there. You seem to fail to notice that America has been the primary agressor in the world since WWII, how is that us being one sideded?

If you don't want people to trash your country, stop electing country trash.