Ambrosia Software Web Board: A useful topic of some kind - Ambrosia Software Web Board

Just out of interest, how many people here are humanists? And what sort of things do you agree with and disagree with?

let me put to you humanists a basic question - would you follow someone if they were a humanist that was more intelligent, or do you flatly support humanist ideals but are a strong individualist? There seem to be 2 types I encounter. Also there's the overly collectivist type, like Pharris, who I don't dislike, I just refer to him as overly collectivist. Would you say the needs of a larger group justifies anything?

-note.---

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people, those who can count, and those who can't.
Society is always at loggerheads with improvement.

Please define your terms, I've never heard of these classifications before.

------------------
We are condemned to be free.

A humanist is self-defined and follows humanistic ideals. Jesus Christ was thought by many to be a humanist. I would say most people who oppose killing people would be humanistic... I just thought it would be something you would know naturally.

Collectivist is also obvious - just look up the word 'collectivity'. I really don't want to define such basic words.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people, those who can count, and those who can't.
Society is always at loggerheads with improvement.

In that case, I say neither. When forced to choose one, I'd go with humanistic.


------------------
We are condemned to be free.

But _what_ _kind_?

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people, those who can count, and those who can't.
Society is always at loggerheads with improvement.

I've flirted with the ideas of secular humanism a little, since they're rather close to my own. However, I can't really embrace them; I'm pretty sure that there's something spiritual out there which atheistic belief systems miss.

As for collectivism, in any of its forms- of course it has its merits. "The greatest good for the greatest number". Unfortunately, it's easy to take this too far, and the result- Communism- does not give the greatest good for the greatest number.

It's all very well to believe in the essential virtue of humanity, but if you don't temper that belief with a recognition with the omnipresent effect of greed and corruption, no social scheme will go far.

------------------
Sundered Angel,
The One and Only
Ares Webboard Moderator, and all-around Nice Guy

Collectivism isn't something that needs to bow down to corruption and greed. Because it's not implicit.

Actually, it's emotion that needs the essence of selfishness. People these days think of selfless beings and cannot but be filled with dreams of smiling angels. The reality is of course, quite different.

How many emotions are there? Revenge, hate, etc... A selfless person has no definition of self. A society which creates hate *and* selflessness, will actually self-destruct before your eyes. And it's not healthy not to hate - so I don't forsee the ability to have emotions and total selflessness to be, well, viable. It will always be with us as long as we have emotions. And when we don't? Say goodnight!

Collectivism gives the greatest good for the greatest number - at the expense of the value of your own life. Because if there was value, then you'd want to protect it. So the only way communism *could* work, is by making people have nothing to value.

Greed and corruption are inimical to human survival.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people, those who can count, and those who can't.

Quote

Actually, it does. You're confusing 'communism' with the 'dictatorship of the proletariat.' Unfortunately, 'true communism' requires a society in which all of its members are perfect collectivists, and perfect collectivism does not - and can not - exist.

The inherent problems with communism are twofold: first, those in power gain absolute power, and are unlikely to surrender it in order to form a communist state. Second, those governed have no motivation to work. Society is ultimately contaminated by individualism, preventing the success of an otherwise superior system.

------------------
* Dark Side: Gates gives $100m to fight HIV, $421m to fight Linux, Thomas C. Greene, The Register, 11.13. $100m over 10 years to fight AIDS in India; $421m over three to fight Linux. Priorities.

I balk at the intended argument that communism is a superior system. Even if all else worked, the vast amount of central planning necessary to support a state like i.e. Russia, or the US, or even the bloody world would be just too much for any organic human to handle. It doesn't work as well as the capitalist system in this regard. Think why capitalism is so superior? Think! Because when you act selfishly in it, you benefit the greater good.

People in a capitalist system have no orders, no directions - yet there myriad actions like those of ants in an ant hive contribute perfectly to the overall wellbeing of the system. I would call that true collectivity of a better stamp than taking orders.

Oh Pallas - you think that power and stuff are unnecessary? Well begging you pardon, I don't see any collectivist-only humans that have come down from the paleothic era to visit us? Because, - they were all killed off by the supposedly selfish decadent individualists!

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people, those who can count, and those who can't.

Those who act selfishly in a capitalist system do not necessarily benefit the greater good. You speak of capitalists as "little ants, all working together." Those little ants are not working together - they're all pulling the system apart as hard as they can. Government regulation is all that keeps such a fragile system from becoming irrevocably imbalanced.

It takes every bit as much regulation to keep a capitalist society viable as it would to keep a true communist society viable. In both cases, the necessary decsion-making process is spread among a wide selection of people. The difference lies in who employs the decision-makers: the government, or the individual corporations.

Communism's real advantage lies in its stability - in a communist society, everyone wants the system to remain balanced; in a capitalist society, everyone wants to unbalance it. I prefer socialism myself, as it's the last practical step towards communism.

--

Also, remember - I don't believe that Communism of the sort I describe is possible. I never said that there were any 'collectivist-only' humans, and I don't believe there ever were. It's too built into human nature to act like a decadent individualist.

------------------
* Dark Side: Gates gives $100m to fight HIV, $421m to fight Linux, Thomas C. Greene, The Register, 11.13. $100m over 10 years to fight AIDS in India; $421m over three to fight Linux. Priorities.

oops[editing in progress]

[This message has been edited by Joveia (edited 12-02-2002).]

Quote

Yes they do - because they are helping the system to grow and provide happiness by paying. It is antlike in the way that it 1) works and 2) all works in a way that puts the effeciency of the communist system (whose by the way, is terrible) in the shade. Alot of ants without direction that STILL make a perfect construction (or near perfect) is in my mind, proof of collectivity.

Quote

Communism employs those that they employ by force, ideology, or sheer bloody-mindedness. There is no chance to do what you want, no chance to be payed what you want, to have the market (supply demand) regulate the economy. Why would you work well? Failing that, why would a beauracracy function in which it had no power to benefit from it's own success. I hope you're not suggesting we put death threats on every living being in our government... in fact, I think that you'll have a hard time arguing for communism, since just about everything I bring up will be derived from economists past who lived in Communist systems and agree with me, as well my own considerable capacity for logic.

Quote

It was communism that broke up, not capitalism. Capitalism supports those who support themselves, and supports those who are trying to make money. It is the job of the government to regulate things. It is the job of the philanphropist, who are extremely numerous in a rich country like America, do make good on your wealth. You'd be surprised how many Ivory leage universities would not exist were it not for rich men like Carnegie...

If you like socialism, I'm not sure whether or not you're pointing a thumb (upwards) at Hitler. He was perhaps the most visible example of a socialist system. Many say he helped the system run well. In reality, socialism is a half-step towards capitalism, not communism, still using the old rule of power and intimidation to enforce itself. The nationalised industries, unless they are run well, always fall short of a similar industry run by itself. I find the nationalised industries to therefore be less effective. But who am I to say? Merely do some research on basic economics pallas, and you'll agree with me.

Quote

Unfortunately for you, decadent individualism will always exist. As I have said. Unless of course, you want to risk such a high-powered emotional culture. I'm not saying that's bad, but in the past, humans have been consistently unable to interract in such a culture of selfless-ism and yet survive... want to know why? What's the first negative emotion you can think of? We can't let such a pace of development counterract the need for stability via selfishness. Be glad of it.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people, those who can count, and those who can't.

[This message has been edited by Joveia (edited 12-02-2002).]

Pallas, in case you want clarification, here's an essay on mine for the necessity of selfishness and what a perfect culture would have. Basically I model my own humanism on this, and on several other inalienable truths.

Humans are the most stable and productive- resulting in the most change for the good when they're societies in terms of selflessness, selfishness, and negative/positive emotions are at a point on a arbitrary diagonal line.

Imagine such a line.

The top end of the line represents total selflessness and total positive emotionality. The other end represents total selfishness and total negative emotionality. For clarification, an emotion is positive when it is love, or related to helping society. It is negative when it is related to hate, and harming society.

Selfishness acts as an emotional damper, for good or ill. A selfish person acts in their own interest, none of their interest can be guided by emotions. Emotions, as you should know, are tools for the constructive of better societies for more happiness, more equality, and even sometimes to force the change of those societies. This was deemed by evolution/nature as being the perfect thing for us to have to change us.

The most balanced society, or 'alpha' society is one where everything is at the exact middle. To put it simply, you encourage a mix of emotions, because all emotions, whether 'positive' or 'negative' (since all emotions serve the same purpose, none are good or bad) encourage the perfect society to develop. Selfishness is not strictly necessary here, but we have found it necessary due to the increasing scope of atrocities selfless people with the power of the technological aid and assistants can inflict. To put it simply - it is no longer viable for a completely selfless person to exist without endangering greater society.

Yet these people do have a right to exist on this ladder. This is because they are acting to the maximum of society. But they also act badly - and thus their negative emotions should they have them would prove ruinous, despite the fact that change may proceed at a more rapid pace. This ladder in facts represents would is viable. As we all desire to be living, thinking beings on this one earth, and not to be sufferers of hate, famine, disease or other ills. So we must not, for our own good, allow selflessness to have negative symptoms. To do this, we must therefore encourage a society of total love for stability should selfless people occupy it alone.

But of course, this means we've just completely defeated the PURPOSE of emotions, turning human beings only into willing slaves for a society which they are incapable of conceiving any difference. Thus they become evolutionary deadpans, unable or unwilling to change, and our civilisation and the mission of life in us is dead. This must not come to pass, despite the petty ambition of collectivists.

Likewise, the selfish society defeats emotionality and evolution/improvement by preventing people from acting on behalf of improvement. They cannot proceed any more than a selfless society.

So I can only conclude that anyone serving the interests of our species must at all times be both a negativist and a positivist - they must at all times be serving both the group and themselves and equally in both ways. Thus is the future of our race if we are to be worth anything, and which I hope my fellow humanists will succumb to.

[This message has been edited by Joveia (edited 12-02-2002).]

For some reason my back button is posting stuff. It doesn't usually do this. Must be this browser.

[This message has been edited by Joveia (edited 12-02-2002).]

Quote

A very convincing - and unfortunately irrelevant - argument. As I have said, quite repeatedly, Communism will only work in a society in which all of its members are complete collectivists. Pure collectivists do not *want* personal gain; they want the society to function well. The bureaucracy would function, not because it wanted to benefit from its success, but because society would benefit from its success.

Also, no one has ever lived in a Communist system. It hasn't happened, and can't.

Quote

Communism didn't break up; it never existed. Get that into your head.

Quote

Pure capitalism is sheer idiocy, because individuals would destroy society, and pure communism is impossible, because people are inextricably linked to their individuality. One would assume that there is a "balance point" between the two, where the greatest overall benefit is present. People seem to think trust-busting capitalism is the correct place, but I consider that too close to capitalism.

Society is lucky to have its philanthropists who, after ruthlessly exploiting others for their personal benefit, donate money towards good causes - perhaps you'd like to refer to my signature. In our society, individualism almost always trumps collectivism, and that is ultimately detrimental to society.

I'm not familiar with Hitler's economic policies, but if they're at the midpoint between capitalism and communism, I approve of him in at least that one regard. That "half-step" is where society will run most efficiently, since it makes full use of collective tendencies without forgetting about individualism.

Quote

I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument, that country A's nationalized industries are run well, and that country B's privatized industries are run well.

Now, if country A produces 800 gizmos a day, and country B produces 1000 a day, B is not necessarily the better system. Because country B's privatized system will probably be paying its workers less, and its executives more. The rewards in capitalist societies have a tendency to go out of sync with the actual value of its employees. In a socialist society, rewards would forcibly remain in proportion.

Thus, in A's socialist system, the workers will be slightly more motivated, and the executives much less motivated. I consider those *both* to be good things. Quite undeniably, individualists make good workers. However, if execs stand less to gain individually, they will be more likely to be collectivist, and work towards the general good. Individualist execs create situations like Enron, which hurt society.

------------------
* Dark Side: Gates gives $100m to fight HIV, $421m to fight Linux, Thomas C. Greene, The Register, 11.13. $100m over 10 years to fight AIDS in India; $421m over three to fight Linux. Priorities.

Joveia, you're knowledge of big words still makes me laugh. And the grammar you use, bravo. You sound awfully smart. But you kinda contradict yourself by saying (this is a paraphrase): "Take the middle path but only go on the middle path you like." But whatevs, I still get enjoyment from reading your ideas. And that's what we're here for, not to try to change others' views. Let's let them do that for themselves.

So anyways.

If you remember from whatever posts I've ever done on these boards you'll remember that I am happily socialist. Well, a lot has happened since then. Let's just say, I now hate the system and all systems and don't care about anyone but myself. Don't get me wrong, everyone should care about being happy, hell, we only live once. It's just that I don't care if anyone else is happy with what I do or not, because I'm going to do it anyways. And when you live in a system (any system), there will be some things that people will enforce on you that you don't want to do. And it's up to you if you will do them or not, even if the other party is threatening you; you'll always have a choice.

Now, seeing as that any system will threaten you in some form or another if you do something they don't like, it's pretty impossible to do what you want. So what do I propose? Anarchy. Now, now, don't get your panties in a bunch, I know what you might be thinking. I'm not some idiot punker kid roaming the streets in a jean jacket with spikes. I actually come from an upper-middle class family in a suburban town and have never had problems with police in my life. See, anarchy doesn't target anyone, it's just kind of like: "Yo, what are you doing? Alright, I don't care." This could get pretty violent of course, as everyone wants to do their own things and some people might take it all drastically. But what do we all know about Anarchy that is an unavoidable fact? That it doesn't work, because someone will always try to make some rule or try to get his ideals over someone else's, and eventually these little groups will form their own little governments of terror.

Now what I say about these little groups is: good. Let them, it's what they want to do. And as Joveia implied, we all want what is best for ourselves, that's what makes us human. What will eventually happen is groups will form alliances and enemies and eventually the area would be populated with small and large tribes, all trying to get by. Now the tribes would either become self-sufficient or would take things from other tribes to get by. Eventually these tribes that take from the smaller tribes would have to become self-sufficient themselves because they would run out of smaller tribes to feed off of. There would be that or slavery. But the most likely possibility is that the self-sufficient tribes end up destroying the conquering tribe(s), because they see it as a threat to themselves and their way of life (which is why I supported anarchy in the first place, because I don't like when I can't do what I want.) So what's left are these semi-happy little self-sufficient tribes, that would probably become a larger self-sufficient tribe, that would probably become some sort of capitalist society similar to USA.

So it's just a big cycle. But the main idea kept throughout the entire time is that the people did what they needed to make themselves happy. And that's what I'm trying to do, just stay happy, because that's all that really matters.

And if you're wondering:
Yes, I support the bombing of Iraq and its allies.
Yes, I support Iraq using biological warfare on the USA and its allies.
And why do I support them? Because we're all idiot brainwashed embryoes that don't know what they should have even if what they need is staring them in the face.

------------------
Beware My Big Stick

Quote

You need to know what collectivism IS before you go touting it. First of all - it is not a care for society. Collectivism (or selflessness, as I believe you're using the word, since you seem to be so paranoid about it) is about not thinking of yourself. This can lead to either good or bad things.

Quote

Assimilated for the future reference in which I have to defend the existence of capitalism against a system which is even worse, by virtue of it not ever existing, nor is possible to exist.

Quote

Well, tough luck.

Quote

Pardon? Did society somehow lose it's human population while I wasn't watching?

Quote

Hmm, not sure about that.

Quote

In the situation of the communist system in Russia this didn't happen. I'm sorry, I'm not going to elaborate, but you're completely wrong on all counts.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people, those who can count, and those who can't.

[This message has been edited by Joveia (edited 12-03-2002).]

Quote

*Ignored for the sake of sanity.*

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people, those who can count, and those who can't.

Quote

OK, then. To elaborate: I see people on a scale - 0 to 100% "Self over society" corresponds to 100 to 0% "Society over self." When I talk about individualism, I refer to the former scale, and when I talk about collectivism, I refer to the latter. I'll continue to use the word 'collectivism' for now, but if you've got a better one, I'm flexible.

Quote

I'm talking theoretically here. Communism may not possible for a human intelligence, but an alien intelligence might be able to achieve it. This is an Ares board, remember? My argument is that any society which could acheive communism (Let's say the Ishimans are all collectivist commies) would inherently be better than a society which could not (The Bazidanese free trade zone freaks).

Quote

Um... no? Care to explain that comment?

Quote

Would you mind listening every so often? I've made this point in every single post, but I'm going to type in in all caps this time in hopes that you'll understand:

RUSSIA WAS NOT COMMUNISM. RUSSIA WAS A DICTATORSHIP.

If you'd bother to read the Communist Manifesto, perhaps you'd be a little more clear on this point. Marx calls for what he calls "the dictatorship of the proletariat" in order to *prepare* a country for communism. Marx never explains what should happen during that period, so Russia's leaders created a purely individualistic government and claimed it was on the path to Communism - which it wasn't.

Never, ever mention Russia as an example again.

Back to my point:

An actual Socialist system would be true to this - I personally consider it a prerequisite for socialism. If the leaders were sufficiently collectivist to set up a Socialist government, then they would include such measures. While such wage distribution is beneficial to society, it is immediately detrimental to the individual. However, as things even themselves out, you would find yourself with a society that is overall more efficient thanks to the distribution of individualists and collectivists.

------------------
* Dark Side: Gates gives $100m to fight HIV, $421m to fight Linux, Thomas C. Greene, The Register, 11.13. $100m over 10 years to fight AIDS in India; $421m over three to fight Linux. Priorities.

Quote

Alright. Individualism or selfishness is a rejection of evolutionary sentiments as expressed by emotion. Since selfless people are capable of this sentiment, they can act good or evilly on vaster scales than any individual can. You assume such actions to be good, but while they are often, by necessity they must also (and are often) bad.

Quote

I think the perfect system would involve a collective consciousness. Somewhat similar.

Quote

Quote

Individualism hasn't yet managed to annihilate our collective happiness. So I assume that a system run by individuals for individuals would crash according to you? You seem to have such a fear of us/them/you. And no.

Quote

Oops. I suppose I should have been thinking more along the lines of your 'commie-Ishimans.'

Quote

I somehow doubt people who desire freedom would like this. Do you collectivists desire freedom? Well, assuming the management authorities are perfect, I accept this. (This means either they have advanced reasoning capabilities along with _selflessness_ or they have quantum computers to guide them.)

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people, those who can count, and those who can't.

[This message has been edited by Joveia (edited 12-03-2002).]

Quote

Perhaps a perfect socialist society would require psychohistory/whatever, but I think that a socialist society is still superior. While some bad decisions would inevitably be made, humans are capable enough of predicting reactions to iron out the problems that arise. Bad decisions are quite frequently made in Capitalism, and we can still recover.

Socialism, as far as I'm concerned, is fairly simple. It seeks to change the rewards in society. By paying increasing its workers' wages, and decreasing its authorities' wages, it plays upon both individualist and collectivist tendendies. Individualists stay near the bottom for their personal benefit, and collectivists rise to the top for society's benefit.

All that really needs to be done by the authorities is to maintain that system - and as collectivists, they desire to do so. For a more sweeping change, some sort of "advanced prediction powers" might be needed, but such changes aren't necessarily a part of socialism. Perhaps collectivists might try to implement sweeping changes, with the intent to better society, but through trial and error, a balance point could be found.

Quote

Agreed. We both know quite well that the Auds would kick Commie-Ish and Cappie-Zid butt if the Sals weren't holding them in.

Quote

Given the choice between an action that benefits society at the expense of the self, and an action that benefits the self at the expense of society, I think the vast majority of humans would take the latter. Thankfully, there is enough net collectivism to prevent such a crash - but yes, a system run by individuals for individuals *is* bound to crash.

------------------
* Dark Side: Gates gives $100m to fight HIV, $421m to fight Linux, Thomas C. Greene, The Register, 11.13. $100m over 10 years to fight AIDS in India; $421m over three to fight Linux. Priorities.

Quote

It fine tunes itself. Communism does to but the reaction needs to go through the management authorities who are frequntly humanly unable to cope with the rapid changes the market puts on them. And I would say that bad decisions were unacceptable. If you have advanced enough technologies, then no bad decisions by communist leaders (in regards to economics) should need to happen. The problem would be that you were now runing a sort of techno-communist system.

Quote

heheh. I actually formulated a capitalist-democracy based upon this I called 'socialist capitalism'. Basically it made sure that the pyramid of income earnings was kept exactly that, with the highest earner only earning twice as much as the lowest. I'm not including any provisions for the lowering of authority wages though. In my opinion, high wages would also attract people who were capable of administration. There are other ways of preventing them from running the system badly.

Quote

thats why capitalism was so successful - the choice isn't so monopole. Individuals can make those decisions without it harming society. In regards to collectivism - I think the human race is overwhelming on your side. The power of 'selfish individuals' is dying out, thanks to propoganda, not any actual failings on their part. (selfish individuals frequently rose to the top of the dog pile and caused other to try to imitate them. Now with propoganda we are imitating the selfless. Kind of reverse evolution isn't it?)

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people, those who can count, and those who can't.

Quote

Socialism needs a large, united, but independent bureaucracy to function. The number of people needed to make a decision needs to be kept to a reasonable number, but authorities would have to make decisions that would be approved of by the entirety of the state. Socialism would probably be unable to function initially as anything larger than a province, in order to maintain homogeneity, but could eventually expand to cover a larger area.

Also, the nature of a socialist economy will prevent rapid changes in the market. Rapid changes such as the dot-com bubble bursting were caused primarily because everyone wanted to "get in on the action." A socialist economy would be able to ease into a new market more slowly and safely, since individualist tendencies are reduced (although not eliminated).

I'm going to shorted "techno-communist" to "technocrat" and dub the Salrilian government a Technocracy, if you don't mind. I don't consider techno-communism a "problem" either, although the apparent lack of free will would be disturbing to some.

Quote

High wages attract people who are capable of administration, but they also attract people who could care less about the job and want money. A successful manager shouldn't earn more than an equally successful worker, and an *unsuccessful* manager (not infrequent in capitalism) should really earn less (very infrequent in capitalism).

In my system, there is a reward for doing your job better - more money - even if you do not advance along the corporate ladder. If you see "helping society" as a reward, you might wish to advance, even without the promise of additional pay. Thus, an individualist will probably strive to be a good worker, and a collectivist will strive to be a good manager.

Quote

Individuals usually don't harm society in their decisions, but they usually don't help it either. After all is done, an individual may have had a positive effect - philanthropists, for example - but often the effect is negligible.

Socialism and communism create the power to significantly harm society, but they also create the power to significantly help it. It's the same thing on a grander scale; a socialist or communist system that harmed society would quickly die out, but those that helped it would have a much greater positive effect than one would ever see in a capitalist system.

------------------
* Dark Side: Gates gives $100m to fight HIV, $421m to fight Linux, Thomas C. Greene, The Register, 11.13. $100m over 10 years to fight AIDS in India; $421m over three to fight Linux. Priorities.

1. Be kinder to individuals, please.
2. Learn to accept others' ideas and not bash them with repetetive ideas.
3. Don't be afraid of others' logic.

Quote

You just contradicted yourself (I will now be contradiction man because joveia doesn't like the way humanity actually thinks). You think a collective conscious type society is better over others. Then wouldn't being selfless with "no emotions" as you put somewhere before be closer to this collective conscious?

Please, I'm begging you to correct me on this...

So you're saying that you want a capitalist society where those that can get to the top deserve the best, because they did what they could to get there. And you're saying the best society is a collective conscious society. Those kinda are complete opposites.

Please, think of how you would like to see the human race and don't go mixing about with other ideas, you just end up losing any argument you come up with and have to come up with a new idea.

Also, do you work? I don't, I just wanted to know what life experience made you support capitalism. Also, (you don't have to answer, and you prolly won't for reasons that I understand) what social class did you come from? I'm from upper-middle class, so you know when you say. And finally, tell me, you haven't noticed the majority of intelligent thinkers around the world have supported Pallas' and my kind of thinking? Herman Hesse's "Siddhartha". Fairly popular, read if haven't.

------------------
Beware My Big Stick

I'll go with the nutcase first.

Quote

Yah, to 1. I ignored your argument because I just don't like you. 2 I don't believe I bashed his ideas, rather, tried to convince him of mine. And if my ideas are sounding repetitive maybe it's my logic that is bashing you? 3. I'm not. I'm afraid of being contaminated by idiocy.

Quote

I don't know what you're talking about. Your grammar is so terribly awful.. and your syntax. Please re-write that sentence in recognisable grammar.

Quote

My new position on this is that society evolved to a point where power class systems did worse than social welfare systems, and we've naturally taken to re-interprating the 'elite' as now being something worse. While elevating the common people. This idea is not necessatily bad, it just contradicts with our more immediate concerns, which is how to become rich in 40 days.

Quote

What the fück.

Quote

Yes I realise that 'you're' kind of thinking has been thought of before, and verily has been tried before. Fascism, Hitlerism, Communism, Russia-ism, being in complete shît-ism. Basically conservatism capitalism came about because Keynesian economics (tell me if you've heard of that before) didn't work at later stages. Though it worked fine at the beginning. This is for various reasons, I won't go into now. Unfortunately with massive population boosts and nationalised industries falling apart, plus classic willingness to spend destroyed it. The new system is crueler, harsher, less social, more intolerant, but works. Kind of sad.

I don't think drawing out a book will go with me well because first of all 1) haven't read it, so I don't know whether you're not just re-interpreting to support you and 2) my own theories are based on various information.

I come from a middle-class family. Kind of upper class.



------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people, those who can count, and those who can't.