tyrants and bad leaders

[whichphilosophy]

The cold war is often slated in terms of democracy vs totalitarianism, or personal freedoms vs totalitarianism. But it wasn't. It was capitalism vs totalitarian socialism. Capitalism isn't freedom, doesn't necessarily lead to freedom nor democracy. It is often the enemy of personal freedoms. And which why all democratic countries today all have lots of laws curtailing capitalists power.

Stalin didn't introduce anything resembling capitalism, even hyphenated capitalism. He introduced state socialism.

What the United States represented was Corporatism but was called Capitalism by the woefully uninformed. It was Corporatism vs. Socialism, neither of which has the option of freedom. The leadership of the United States realized that if you tell people it is Capitalism, tell people they are free, and don't loot them quite as badly but let them keep some of their stuff, then they produce more.

Under Stalin, capitalism thrived; it was called the black market.

 

[iolo]

Socialism as an economic system divorced from the political aspect simply means collective ownership of the means of production. It its undefined dream form it means the workers themselves in some undefined manner. In practical application that collective ownership is exercised through the government.

Stalin didn't introduce any sort of capitalism, even hyphenated capitalism.

Since, manifestly, the Russian workers were totally exploited and exploited by another class, manifestly Stalin retained a slightly different for of capitalism, and the last thing he produced was socialism. If collective ownership is socialism, every joint-stock firm must be that, for how many active owners were there in the big firm called the USSR? You are just being silly - capitalism can't function at all without a state to back its thieving, and never could.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Socialism as an economic system divorced from the political aspect simply means collective ownership of the means of production. It its undefined dream form it means the workers themselves in some undefined manner. In practical application that collective ownership is exercised through the government.

Stalin didn't introduce any sort of capitalism, even hyphenated capitalism.

Since, manifestly, the Russian workers were totally exploited and exploited by another class, manifestly Stalin retained a slightly different for of capitalism, and the last thing he produced was socialism. If collective ownership is socialism, every joint-stock firm must be that, for how many active owners were there in the big firm called the USSR? You are just being silly - capitalism can't function at all without a state to back its thieving, and never could.

That really is an ... unusual definition you are using. "The workers were exploited, therefore capitalism."

That is not a component of the definition of capitalism or socialism. They were exploited, that doesn't make it not socialism. Stalin produced socialism, he just failed to produce utopia so therefore it was capitalism.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Oh, I get it. When socialism is implemented forcefully by an authoritarian government, that form of socialism is called "state capitalism" so that when someone uses the larger umbrella term of socialism you can say "no no it is state capitalism". It is like me saying "That is a dog" and you saying "how dare you call it a dog, it is a poodle."

Of course this has nothing in common with any sort of capitalism other than a common pronunciation.

 

[skepticalbip]

Stalin was certainly a socialist, not a communist, according to the terms as employed by Marx. The people of the USSR didn't call themselves communists either - they called themselves socialists on the path of creating that communist Utopian ideal of eliminating private ownership of the means of production and eliminating government, this would be finally achieving a communist state.

In political terms, capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. According to Marx, the path from a capitalist system to a communist system must pass through a socialist system where the government (the people) takes control of the means of production by eliminating private ownership. The next step to achieve the utopian dream of communism is where the government cedes ownership of the means of production to "the workers" and dissolves itself leaving no government and no private ownership.

Stalin certainly established a Marxian socialist state - he eliminated private ownership of the means of production. In my opinion however, he like all who claim to be communist utopians, had no plans to dissolve the government and its (his) iron fist control over the means of production - in other words no plans to eliminate the Marxian socialist state to finally become a Marxian communist state.

 

[iolo]

Since, manifestly, the Russian workers were totally exploited and exploited by another class, manifestly Stalin retained a slightly different for of capitalism, and the last thing he produced was socialism. If collective ownership is socialism, every joint-stock firm must be that, for how many active owners were there in the big firm called the USSR? You are just being silly - capitalism can't function at all without a state to back its thieving, and never could.

That really is an ... unusual definition you are using. "The workers were exploited, therefore capitalism."

That is not a component of the definition of capitalism or socialism. They were exploited, that doesn't make it not socialism. Stalin produced socialism, he just failed to produce utopia so therefore it was capitalism.

That is obviously the definition of capitalism, which exploits workers totally, and needn't even bother to keep them alive, as was sensible for earlier systems. Socialism is democratic control, so who is there to exploit anybody, you noodle?

 

[Harry Bosch]

That really is an ... unusual definition you are using. "The workers were exploited, therefore capitalism."

That is not a component of the definition of capitalism or socialism. They were exploited, that doesn't make it not socialism. Stalin produced socialism, he just failed to produce utopia so therefore it was capitalism.

That is obviously the definition of capitalism, which exploits workers totally, and needn't even bother to keep them alive, as was sensible for earlier systems. Socialism is democratic control, so who is there to exploit anybody, you noodle?

I've been an owner, a member in a 4 person partnership that could be considered a pure socialist company, and now a worker in a huge corporation. I feel far less exploited in the blood thirsty corporation! I'm paid a fair wage. Have great health care. But I go to bed at night not worrying about the status of the company. I don't work weekends anymore. I love not being an owner. It's incredibly overrated. Making a lot of money is very overrated, especially when you have to work 80 hours a week to get there.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That is obviously the definition of capitalism, which exploits workers totally, and needn't even bother to keep them alive, as was sensible for earlier systems. Socialism is democratic control, so who is there to exploit anybody, you noodle?

I've been an owner, a member in a 4 person partnership that could be considered a pure socialist company, and now a worker in a huge corporation. I feel far less exploited in the blood thirsty corporation! I'm paid a fair wage. Have great health care. But I go to bed at night not worrying about the status of the company. I don't work weekends anymore. I love not being an owner. It's incredibly overrated. Making a lot of money is very overrated, especially when you have to work 80 hours a week to get there.

Yeah, but the fact that you have that choice puts you in the upper middle class category. Most people either don't have that choice, or aren't in a place in their lives where they have the financial or emotional security to make it possible. I'm in the exact same situation. But even still, I'm paid well above average salary. I make more than twice the median Swedish income. Yes, being rich is over-rated. But iolo is not talking about those people. He's talking (I think) about people struggling to find any job. Yes, those people exist.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I've been an owner, a member in a 4 person partnership that could be considered a pure socialist company, and now a worker in a huge corporation. I feel far less exploited in the blood thirsty corporation! I'm paid a fair wage. Have great health care. But I go to bed at night not worrying about the status of the company. I don't work weekends anymore. I love not being an owner. It's incredibly overrated. Making a lot of money is very overrated, especially when you have to work 80 hours a week to get there.

Yeah, but the fact that you have that choice puts you in the upper middle class category. Most people either don't have that choice, or aren't in a place in their lives where they have the financial or emotional security to make it possible. I'm in the exact same situation. But even still, I'm paid well above average salary. I make more than twice the median Swedish income. Yes, being rich is over-rated. But iolo is not talking about those people. He's talking (I think) about people struggling to find any job. Yes, those people exist.

I was dirt poor when I started my first company. I will say that my wife was able to keep the family going with her job until I could start drawing a salary. But the larger issue for me is that the responsibilities and stress weighed on me. Iolo assumes that companies just run themselves. Take away the capital providers and the decision makers and the companies will just run themselves via magic! Doesn't work that. I like working for a company where I'm paid well and only have responsibility for my work. I don't want to be responsible for making the 1,000 of decisions per day that companies need in order to survive.

We do have a employment problem, but it's area specific. If you live in Oregon or Washington: you can get a job if you have clean drug record and can show up on time. The biggest problem that companies have in the NW is finding workers.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We do have a employment problem, but it's area specific. If you live in Oregon or Washington: you can get a job if you have clean drug record and can show up on time. The biggest problem that companies have in the NW is finding workers.

So what about people who don't have a a clean drug record?

30% of all Americans have criminal records. Of those with criminal records 80% have them for drugs. So when you make a statement like "you can get a job if you have clean drug record" you're basically saying that 20% of all Americans shouldn't be allowed to work. Or we should accept that these people just hurry up and die as homeless people. Is that what you are saying?

Having a drug record is normal today. How do you propose these people find work? These people are so fucking fucked today. No, they don't have themselves to blame. We're a social species. We will do what people around us do. And there's many people (including me) who have figured out that alcohol is not a particularly good drug. I spent the weekend in Berlin popping exstacy in techno clubs and also doing touristy stuff since I wasn't hung-over. If I'd been out drinking alcohol I'd still be suffering the consequences of my drug use. Exstacy is a much better drug than alchol for these kinds of things. Also, way more fun. Yet, exstacy is illegal. Still worth it, since the chance of getting busted is so low. But it still happens. As the large numbers of people getting busted shows. Everybody in my group were all adult professionals who all had plenty to lose from getting busted. But they still went with the exstacy. This is the world we live in today.

So please enlighten me, how should people like me, ie normal people, deal with it if they happen to get busted for their normal drug use and lose their jobs? Do you have a plan for that?

 

[Harry Bosch]

We do have a employment problem, but it's area specific. If you live in Oregon or Washington: you can get a job if you have clean drug record and can show up on time. The biggest problem that companies have in the NW is finding workers.

So what about people who don't have a a clean drug record?

30% of all Americans have criminal records. Of those with criminal records 80% have them for drugs. So when you make a statement like "you can get a job if you have clean drug record" you're basically saying that 20% of all Americans shouldn't be allowed to work. Or we should accept that these people just hurry up and die as homeless people. Is that what you are saying?

Having a drug record is normal today. How do you propose these people find work? These people are so fucking fucked today. No, they don't have themselves to blame. We're a social species. We will do what people around us do. And there's many people (including me) who have figured out that alcohol is not a particularly good drug. I spent the weekend in Berlin popping exstacy in techno clubs and also doing touristy stuff since I wasn't hung-over. If I'd been out drinking alcohol I'd still be suffering the consequences of my drug use. Exstacy is a much better drug than alchol for these kinds of things. Also, way more fun. Yet, exstacy is illegal. Still worth it, since the chance of getting busted is so low. But it still happens. As the large numbers of people getting busted shows. Everybody in my group were all adult professionals who all had plenty to lose from getting busted. But they still went with the exstacy. This is the world we live in today.

So please enlighten me, how should people like me, ie normal people, deal with it if they happen to get busted for their normal drug use and lose their jobs? Do you have a plan for that?

I do have an answer! A strong safety net! I'm sorry but if you don't have the discipline to pass a monthly drug test while you are looking for work, you probably don't have the discipline to work well in a team or with complex machinery. If you're looking for a job, just stop taking drugs during that time period. The tests only last for 30 days! But it's really a safety and insurance issue. I had an employee who chopped off another employees finger in a work place accident. We found out later that he was high as a kite. Our insurance company at the time doubled their premium after this, until we implemented drug testing. But anyway, this is a diversion from the theme of this thread. If you start a new thread on this, I'll follow you over.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So what about people who don't have a a clean drug record?

30% of all Americans have criminal records. Of those with criminal records 80% have them for drugs. So when you make a statement like "you can get a job if you have clean drug record" you're basically saying that 20% of all Americans shouldn't be allowed to work. Or we should accept that these people just hurry up and die as homeless people. Is that what you are saying?

Having a drug record is normal today. How do you propose these people find work? These people are so fucking fucked today. No, they don't have themselves to blame. We're a social species. We will do what people around us do. And there's many people (including me) who have figured out that alcohol is not a particularly good drug. I spent the weekend in Berlin popping exstacy in techno clubs and also doing touristy stuff since I wasn't hung-over. If I'd been out drinking alcohol I'd still be suffering the consequences of my drug use. Exstacy is a much better drug than alchol for these kinds of things. Also, way more fun. Yet, exstacy is illegal. Still worth it, since the chance of getting busted is so low. But it still happens. As the large numbers of people getting busted shows. Everybody in my group were all adult professionals who all had plenty to lose from getting busted. But they still went with the exstacy. This is the world we live in today.

So please enlighten me, how should people like me, ie normal people, deal with it if they happen to get busted for their normal drug use and lose their jobs? Do you have a plan for that?

I do have an answer! A strong safety net! I'm sorry but if you don't have the discipline to pass a monthly drug test while you are looking for work, you probably don't have the discipline to work well in a team or with complex machinery. If you're looking for a job, just stop taking drugs during that time period. The tests only last for 30 days! But it's really a safety and insurance issue. I had an employee who chopped off another employees finger in a work place accident. We found out later that he was high as a kite. Our insurance company at the time doubled their premium after this, until we implemented drug testing. But anyway, this is a diversion from the theme of this thread. If you start a new thread on this, I'll follow you over.

The problem many get hooked to opiates from pain killers in prescription drugs; hence our doctors can be sometimes termed as legalized drug pushers.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I do have an answer! A strong safety net! I'm sorry but if you don't have the discipline to pass a monthly drug test while you are looking for work, you probably don't have the discipline to work well in a team or with complex machinery. If you're looking for a job, just stop taking drugs during that time period. The tests only last for 30 days! But it's really a safety and insurance issue. I had an employee who chopped off another employees finger in a work place accident. We found out later that he was high as a kite. Our insurance company at the time doubled their premium after this, until we implemented drug testing. But anyway, this is a diversion from the theme of this thread. If you start a new thread on this, I'll follow you over.

The problem many get hooked to opiates from pain killers in prescription drugs; hence our doctors can be sometimes termed as legalized drug pushers.

Agreed. There are jobs that don't require drug testing. But you put your team members at risk if you operate complex machinery while high on something.

 

[BH]

Dr. Zoidberg wrote

30% of all Americans have criminal records. Of those with criminal records 80% have them for drugs.

Dear sir,

I have never read that before and an an American citizen. Could you please reference a source for me on that. If it is true no wonder there is such a low respect by our people for law enforcement and government in general. The laws they pass and enforce is so out of whack with the public will. For all the ones caught there are probably as many not caught or think they should be left alone to use the drugs even if they themselves do not. And as ignorant as many people are I wonder if they do not vote because they think a minor drug conviction makes them forfeit their right to vote.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So what about people who don't have a a clean drug record?

30% of all Americans have criminal records. Of those with criminal records 80% have them for drugs. So when you make a statement like "you can get a job if you have clean drug record" you're basically saying that 20% of all Americans shouldn't be allowed to work. Or we should accept that these people just hurry up and die as homeless people. Is that what you are saying?

Having a drug record is normal today. How do you propose these people find work? These people are so fucking fucked today. No, they don't have themselves to blame. We're a social species. We will do what people around us do. And there's many people (including me) who have figured out that alcohol is not a particularly good drug. I spent the weekend in Berlin popping exstacy in techno clubs and also doing touristy stuff since I wasn't hung-over. If I'd been out drinking alcohol I'd still be suffering the consequences of my drug use. Exstacy is a much better drug than alchol for these kinds of things. Also, way more fun. Yet, exstacy is illegal. Still worth it, since the chance of getting busted is so low. But it still happens. As the large numbers of people getting busted shows. Everybody in my group were all adult professionals who all had plenty to lose from getting busted. But they still went with the exstacy. This is the world we live in today.

So please enlighten me, how should people like me, ie normal people, deal with it if they happen to get busted for their normal drug use and lose their jobs? Do you have a plan for that?

I do have an answer! A strong safety net! I'm sorry but if you don't have the discipline to pass a monthly drug test while you are looking for work, you probably don't have the discipline to work well in a team or with complex machinery. If you're looking for a job, just stop taking drugs during that time period. The tests only last for 30 days! But it's really a safety and insurance issue. I had an employee who chopped off another employees finger in a work place accident. We found out later that he was high as a kite. Our insurance company at the time doubled their premium after this, until we implemented drug testing. But anyway, this is a diversion from the theme of this thread. If you start a new thread on this, I'll follow you over.

That's no solution at all. Criminal records last a hell of a lot longer than 30 days. And it's idiotic to keep people with drug records on social welfare while they're waiting out their records to be wiped clean. People on welfare are more likely to develop a problematic drug use than people who have jobs. So it would be incredibly stupid. There's also zero research to show that recreational drug use would have a likely impact on work performance.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Dr. Zoidberg wrote

30% of all Americans have criminal records. Of those with criminal records 80% have them for drugs.

Dear sir,

I have never read that before and an an American citizen. Could you please reference a source for me on that. If it is true no wonder there is such a low respect by our people for law enforcement and government in general. The laws they pass and enforce is so out of whack with the public will. For all the ones caught there are probably as many not caught or think they should be left alone to use the drugs even if they themselves do not. And as ignorant as many people are I wonder if they do not vote because they think a minor drug conviction makes them forfeit their right to vote.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-man...ecord-probably-more-than-you-think-1438939802

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Crime#sthash.lim2k50t.dpbs

Imagine how a person must feel if they've been busted for possession of a small amount of weed three times. The three-strikes-and-you're-out rule has absurd effects.

USA is the world leaders in putting their own citizens in jail. Land of the not-free, lol.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That really is an ... unusual definition you are using. "The workers were exploited, therefore capitalism."

That is not a component of the definition of capitalism or socialism. They were exploited, that doesn't make it not socialism. Stalin produced socialism, he just failed to produce utopia so therefore it was capitalism.

That is obviously the definition of capitalism, which exploits workers totally, and needn't even bother to keep them alive, as was sensible for earlier systems. Socialism is democratic control, so who is there to exploit anybody, you noodle?

So it has nothing to do with private ownership of the means of production then. So if it exploits the workers, like Socialism under Stalin, then it is Capitalism. But if it doesn't exploit the workers, like the capitalism when it is not corrupted by corporatism, then it is Socialism. Anything that doesn't exploit, such as the free market, is socialism, while anything that does exploit, like collective control exercised by the government, is capitalism.

 

[Playball40]

Castro never intended to 'free' his people. He meant to replace them with one dictatorship to his own. He used the guise of a free state to get there, manipulating millions of people including Huber Matos (who would have made a good leader for Cuba). One in twenty-five humans are said to lack empathy, technically sociopaths. Many of them aspire to positions of power and worship (through business or politics) and are successful because they do not care who they trample in the process. Castro had Matos sentenced to 20 years in prison because he questioned Castro's self appointment as president and Russia's continuing influence in Cuba's politics. This is the man who rode in on a tank side by side with Castro when Batista fell.

You get dictators when vicious enemies threaten the country with destruction, so Napoleon takes over from the Republic, Stalin introduces State Capitalism and the police state in Russia because constantly under attack, and Fidel Castro (at least we are told) turns nasty in old age under constant threat of murder and senseless spiteful blockade, with nasties attempting to turn Cuba back into the Yank brothel it had been under the quisling. Best not to get dictators, but I wish the world knew how.

True:
Given the following who can blame Castro for getting a bit stroppy.

Batista was a dictator and Castro replaced him but the US turned a blind eye this.
The Cubana de Aviación Flight 455 was brought down in October 1976 for which 3 CIA linked Cuban exiles were convicted.

Since there were hundreds of assassination attempts against him, one could expect him to be a bit stroppy now and again.
He annoyed the Americans by hosting Russian missiles in Cuba; never mind those in Turkey at the time which were however moved silently while Russia pulled its out of Cuba.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/fidel-castro-dead-cuban-leader--9338372

A revolutionary the CIA couldn't kill: How Fidel Castro survived '638 assassination attempts' as Cuba's leader.

If the US returns, then perhaps some more brothels will open which would be good for some local traders. There again check ups for the local service industries are free since Castro-Care is free for all unlike Obama-Care which did help many but not all Americans at a high cost. Perhaps Castro-Care could be reviewed by the US government to see if any costs can be reduced without affecting the economy.

If Cuba was not blockaded and talks were held even if over a period of years, then I am sure things.

Oppressing another country only brings out Nationalism as a defensive mechanism with sometimes hard repercussions on spies and dissidents in that country.

 

[iolo]

That is obviously the definition of capitalism, which exploits workers totally, and needn't even bother to keep them alive, as was sensible for earlier systems. Socialism is democratic control, so who is there to exploit anybody, you noodle?

I've been an owner, a member in a 4 person partnership that could be considered a pure socialist company, and now a worker in a huge corporation. I feel far less exploited in the blood thirsty corporation! I'm paid a fair wage. Have great health care. But I go to bed at night not worrying about the status of the company. I don't work weekends anymore. I love not being an owner. It's incredibly overrated. Making a lot of money is very overrated, especially when you have to work 80 hours a week to get there.

If you do the work, what is 'fair' about paying somebody who doesn't to steal part of the value of what you do?

 

[iolo]

That is obviously the definition of capitalism, which exploits workers totally, and needn't even bother to keep them alive, as was sensible for earlier systems. Socialism is democratic control, so who is there to exploit anybody, you noodle?

So it has nothing to do with private ownership of the means of production then. So if it exploits the workers, like Socialism under Stalin, then it is Capitalism. But if it doesn't exploit the workers, like the capitalism when it is not corrupted by corporatism, then it is Socialism. Anything that doesn't exploit, such as the free market, is socialism, while anything that does exploit, like collective control exercised by the government, is capitalism.

It has everything to do with the mode of production - we do the work, and they steal a considerable part of the value of the product, 'they' being whoever is in a position to do the stealing because - as capitalists or party members - they 'own' our industry, our army, our police and our law. There is no 'free market' that doesn't exist by stealing, obviously, so what on earth are you talking about?