Socialism or families?
The news show I watch keeps announcing we have a child care crisis and the government should fix it. :lol: I always thought that is what marriage was about. I have some really crazy ideas such as family rights and duties and national rights and duties. I think this has something to do with liberty and democracy or socialism. You know, like Athens and Sparta. When Persia began invading and Athens imitated Sparta to some degree. Athens expecting all men to defend the country and in return giving them a say in government, but it did not start taking care of everyone's needs as Sparta did. We seem to be shifting away from family values and responsibility and into a society that depends heavily on the government. My 1940 Family Law book holding family responsible for family, no longer applies. Have we made this social change with much thought?
Comments (188)
The usual conservative canard.
Anything good for poor people or working people = handouts, dependence, entitlement, a failure of entrepreneurship. Big government is the problem. People should be responsible for themselves and not rely on big daddy government to solve their problems. Nothing is free.
Etc.
Meanwhile wealth inequality is at a point that rivals the time of the pyramids, wages have stagnated while productivity has increased, and power becomes more and more concentrated into fewer hands. All with the help of government — but that’s OK. The real issue is providing free public college, free child care, and free healthcare — that’s socialism!!
What a bunch of bullshit. The rich know their propaganda, I have to say.
Apparently it was a difficult life for children in Sparta. Among other harsh child care practices, it is reported that "unfit" children were killed soon after birth. I think your idea of good child raising is different from mine.
Quoting Athena
Yes.
As ever (no apologies for repeating myself) the issue seems more about mass global media and the advent of the internet age we've just started coming into. I put a lot of the current sociopolitical turmoil/upheaval down to greater awareness and exchanges between peoples/cultures than in any period in human history.
I think this account for a seemingly growing polarity between different political attributes, but the reality is more or less that we just have more contrast (and extremist views) thrown around in social media circles leading to the appearance of (and perhaps creation of due to belief in?) a greater problem than the reality of the situation has to offer.
I think there is too much emphasis on the extremes of both ends of the argument and that hyperbole doesn't help much. I would like to see free healthcare and education on a global scale. When I saw a woman on UK news interview complaining about funding to help with her children out of school I laughed! It is people like her that are the main problem and usually the most vocal too (note: She did her interview with fine bone china clearly on display in her cabinet behind her and she wasn't particularly concerned about how others were struggling and just wanted her piece of the payout).
I would prefer to see people at the LOWEST end of the spectrum receive a larger chunk and cut out people who simply feel that they 'deserve' something because they 'work so hard'.
Neither conservatism nor socialism are dirty words. They are both perfectly legitimate policies but either as a stand alone scheme to fix all problems are pretty terrible.
Quoting Athena
No. We never will because we cannot see what happens until it happens. Conservatism will hold us back from finding a 'better' way or making a terrible make, and Liberalism will open us up to more more mistakes yet allow us to search beyond the norm for a 'better' way.
Too much thought will lead to stagnation, and too little will just lead us back to where we begun with no step forwards. We have to learn (in group thought and/or individually) through our mistakes. Sometimes the cost will be brutal but there is always tomorrow - until there isn't! :D
Economics, I think.
For a number of economically motivated reasons, women began to move into the work force in the 1960s (well before then, like during WWII, then back out). As women began working outside the home more, the need for childcare services increased. Eventually, women were far more IN the workforce than not, and the availability of childcare became a national issue.
Over time, families found they needed more than one income to support their desired lifestyle. (Essentially they needed 2 incomes to pay for what most working class people wanted.). They could have done without stuff they wanted, been poorer, and women could have remained home and in charge of child care. That's the sort of home I grew up in. Most people wanted the stuff.
Further... wages have lagged behind inflation for decades, reinforcing the need for two (or more) incomes to maintain a certain lifestyle. Then, there are women who have decided to have children without partners who have set themselves up for a much higher likelihood of poverty.
So, the changes in child care needs are a side effect of a decision to run the economy for the benefit of the rich and to screw everybody else.
Consume, consume...trash the Earth and your neighbor and you trash yourself and you trash the soul of your family.
You can't have it both ways. This life is archaic. This is not order.
Replace 'rich' for 'financially stable' and I think that sums it up fairly well. Except I think the ignorance of the middling population are not intentionally 'screwing' everyone else, they're just too busy trying to be super rich or believe they deserve a little reward for floating above the rest.
I think it might be reasonable to consider that middling incomes are more likely to look down on poor people than rich people because they are one step away from them and think why can't they do what I did? Why should they get help and I not? It is petty and childish, but humanity isn't exactly paragon of its possible self just yet.
I'll be the first to agree with the notion we want safety nets for the genuinely downtrodden and severely ill-fortuned to avoid becoming a fluffy mattress for the lazy and willfully inept, simply for the sake of those who actually need or deserve it and basic decency as a whole, but that doesn't mean we just throw the baby out with the bathwater all willy nilly like. No system is perfect, there will be faults and flat out abuses, especially as safeguards and the like are fine-tuned.. and threats properly assessed, which takes time. After all, you won't know how to fix something you didn't build until it reaches a less than ideal state. Stress test, throwing a wrench into the works to see what happens, burning the village to save it, sometimes these are all things that must be done. Not always. But for fledgling creations such as American democracy, and even most other things, if you don't do it, somebody else will.
The feminist solution was "wages for housework". My mother was extremely smart, but as soon as she married, she had to give up her job in the bank, and become a housewife - bank rules and social pressure was that married women did not work (except fishwives of course, but being married to a fisherman was a bit part-time and likely temporary, and thus easily despicable).
As I have mentioned elsewhere, patriarchal society depends on the control of women's sexuality. The childcare crisis is part of the way the patriarchy pressurises women, (alongside restricted abortion of course) Traditionally, unpaid domestic service kept women dependent. (Fishwives were proverbially foul-mouthed, because they had some financial independence.)
But the root of the modern problem is that children are a glut in the market. Men can produce robots more efficiently than women can produce babies, and they are cheaper to run. And of course the sex is better too. So. we look forward to a world without work, without women and without children. And that will solve the climate problem too, as well as the childcare crisis; a win, win.
We’re all to blame. State power grows in inverse proportion to the decrease in social power. We’ve given up on educating and rearing our children, passing that responsibility to the state, then wonder why people seek statist solutions. It’s all they’ve ever known.
:up:
Well then somebody ought to hurry up and tell the Scandanavian / Nordic countries that they've been doing their brand of welfare-state capitalism wrong for almost a century. :shade:
Is There a State Crises in Sweden?
Food for thought. Balancing a welcome carpet for immigrants with social welfare movements. Law and order issues. And more. Sweden's wealth distribution figures are similar to those of the US.
That is an excellent explanation of Sweden's problem. The disparity between who feel like they are on the inside of Sweden's social order and those who don't is evidently a serious problem. A speaker at the 1917 National Education Association explained our schools were Americanizing immigrant children and it was expected their parents who did not understand the US democratic institutions would learn from their children. This was necessary to stop the bombings and other acts of violence. That is so easy to understand. People on the outside fighting for what they want because they do not know how to get it any other way. Every country should take this problem seriously and stop thinking in terms of criminals as naturally immoral people and enemies of the state, and address the reality of those who are on the inside and those who are not.
Family values are important to social order because they support morality emotionally and intellectually. This was the main focus for Confucius, but it is also important to democracies. Strong families mean strong nations. And gays are not destroying family values but are often better models of family values than straight families. Family values can be promoted by education and the media. At this point in time, the US education and media score very low when it comes to family values, and this concerns me.
The natural family support system of immigrants is broken by the fact of separation. Others in the forum have mentioned how war and poverty also break down the family support system. When the family support system is broken down, there is a greater need for the government to become a strong parent enforcing discipline and providing assistance. In the US, the family support system is very weak because family values are very weak. Ignoring this is like ignoring cancer. The problem will get worse.
Thank you.
When the US entered the first world war, Industry attempted to close the schools claiming the war caused a labor shortage and they were not getting their money's worth from education because education was not preparing the young for jobs and they still had to train new employees. That is when we began VOCATIONAL TRAINING. it was not just industry that needed trained workers but our lack of vocational training was a national defense crisis! In times of war the government is the biggest employer and we were not ready for war! We needed typists, engineers, machanics, etc now!
Teachers argued an institution for making good citizens is good for making patriotic citizens, and everything they did to support the war effort was awesome! Education was the most important civil institution for mobilizing us for war until 1958, when military technology made it possible to mobilize for war in 4 hours, instead of a year. We no longer need patriotic citizens as we once did, and we dropped education for good citizenship and family values.
Today it is the parents who can argue they are not getting their money's worth from education because our young are being prepared to be products for Industry. That was something we stood against. I want to highlight what you said. "State power grows in inverse proportion to the decrease in social power." There is a huge difference between educating for family values and good citizenship, and educating the young to be products for Industry. Hail Hitler. To whom are you loyal, your family or the state? If you go in for counseling, the mental health professional will turn you away from family values in favor of being self-centered and will help you see your family as toxic and your need to become independent. In the past, this was a need to grow up, and education helped the young do that. If you can not depend on your family, who can you depend on? The state of course.
Please, explain what you think I said, and how you think your idea of good child-rearing is different from mine.
My point was, Sparta had on family values. As soon as males came of age they lived in the barracks with other men and everything, including sexual intimacy, was focused on those male relationships. This was extreme loyalty to the state and a lack of family values.
I want to address both of you on this understanding of economics. When the USSR "liberated women" they said the full-time homemaker was a none productive member of society and the state intentionally created social pressure to get women to join the workforce. The effect was economic improvement because of doubling the workforce. Wages could stay low and productivity went up.
The rate of abortions and divorces went up, and increasingly women and children fell below the level of poverty. It didn't take long to realize state-paid child care was essential to this economy. John Dewey an American education expert was dismissed as the USSR education advisor, in favor of education for communism and loyalty to the state.
In 1958 we radically changed public education and replaced our "domestic education for good citizenship (strong family values and independent thinking) with education for a technological society with unknown values. (end of family values and "group think). This resulted in radical social changes that were an improvement, but also an increasing abortion and divorce rate and growing poverty, and finally, we recognize the government must pay for child support. We can add to this, the number of women and children involved in violence and crime has increased both as victims and offenders.
NO ONE WANTS TO BE JUST A HOUSEWIFE! How well I remember the "New Woman" magazine and the destruction of the value of a full-time homemaker. Loyalty to the family has gone to hell and dependence on the state has increased.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N9K7eoVtm0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80GYLwgVxQs
Changing the image of a woman was very popular and this came before the cost of living required two paychecks Let us be aware of this, Our economy is based on supply and demand. As women entered the workforce, not only did wages drop with the increased supply of labor but more and more families could apply for housing loans, and as the banks got richer, the cost of housing went up, and we are trapped in an economic system that is in serious trouble, while our children are institutionalized because no one wants to be "just a housewife" and only the disgusting poor women stay home to raise their children.
Just a housewife? Oh.. oh wow. My dear lady, with all due respect have you gone mad? What greater role is there in human development than the role of a constantly present and nurturing mother? Not more than I can think of- save for oxygen perhaps. Oh my dear, you have it all wrong. The woman is not confined but enshrined in the most important role a man has in his life, the future of his offspring and legacy. My dear, please. Have a cup of tea, and relax.
Personally, I believe family is more important than individuals. Love of state over love of family is reminiscent of Hitler's fascism.
Or, it could simply be a phrase used as an excuse for sensible policy.
Okay, let us compare fascism with democracy. Where does one's loyalty lie? With the state or
with the family?
What are the values that are best for social order and why?
Some define "family" in the conservative capitalist way of a "nuclear" family. In the old days, and especially among indigenous people, family was more communal. One had many brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and grandfathers and grandmothers. Blood was not determinative.
Some would divide and conquer this traditional notion in order to better utilize the individual human resource. Nuclearize him and he becomes less dependent upon the group and more dependent upon his employer.
Socialism is just the family writ large. If we were to make a virtue of necessity, and exalt the giver instead of the taker, then positions of authority would be filled by the provider that no one would be required to follow, suffering only ostracization if they upset the family apple cart.
Listen to the givers. Pay attention to how they got what they give. Realize you and your spouse aren't much good at raising well-rounded humans all by yourself. It takes a village. Look around at how fucked up the world is right now. Not enough mothers, brothers, etc. Too many who think they are an island.
Yep, in fascist societies one indeed has to tow the party line or you're in trouble.
What does loyalty to democracy mean? Belief that it should be the way that a nation is governed? If it means that, OK, I don't see a problem. But the word "loyalty" has connotations of subservience.
I still don't know what family values are supposed to mean.
I'm being superfluously expressive.
Are you really going to sit there and call a man admitting a woman is the most important part of the household if not humanity altogether misogynistic? Are you serious? Now I'm being angry if not concerned, or morbidly amused. How is that OK with you? Can you not see the larger picture?
There are so many excellent posts!
We can see what will happen by learning how different sets of values, played out in different nations. The US has adopted the bureaucracy and education of fascist Germany and the destruction of family values of the USSR.
George Orwell from the late 40's could observe fascism. While many in the US thought fascism was the solution to economic crashes, George Orwell saw the danger of centralizing power and authority. Democracy in the US was far from efficient and the federally controlled social programs we have today would not possible without adopting the German (Prussian) model for bureaucracy. Social Security would not be possible without the change in bureaucratic order.
The change in bureaucratic order was made for good reasons. The problem is we lack of awareness of that change. Because we have no understanding of it, we have no control of our government, and this loose of control is leading to concerns of civil war.
We strongly stood against the federal government controlling education until the 1958 National Defense Education Act replaced our democratic model built on Athens' model of education for well-rounded individual growth. The huge difference in these education models is preparing everyone to be generalist or specialist and preparing everyone to be independent thinkers or reliant on authority. We can see in Perciles' funeral speech that democracy requires generalists, not specialists, and we can see in Eisenhower's warning of the Industrial Military Complex there is a danger in depending too much on specialists. We have experienced a huge shift of power and authority and in general, have no understanding of what happened. All we know is we are pitted against each other. If we do not resolve this problem before my generation dies, the memory of the democracy the US once had will be as forgotten as the memory of Athens, and we return to a dark age.
Sparta had a subject population, the Helots, to take care of the needs of the Spartans. There were far more Helots than Spartans. Hardly socialism. But it does seem familiar, doesn't it?
Nicely said.
Before 1958 we had education that promoted families and being cooperative. In 1958 we began education for Military-Industrial Complex and completed the shift from dependence on family to dependency on the state. We replaced the classical Greek and Roman philosophers with Germany's philosophers, the very ones who lead to Nazism. We now worship the power of the state and instead of family acceptance and values, we want to be absorbed by the state and identify with a social unite bigger than the individual, bigger than the family, even though this means being like the Borg, with no individual power of authority. Groupthink, dependency, the end of family.
Someone mentioned robots and that is cheaper to make robots than prepare children for Industry. Sorry, I can not find that post but I want to acknowledge the importance of that thought. And to say, effectively we do have robots and a computer-controlled society. This is the result of adopting the German/Prussian model of bureaucracy and the 1958 National Defense Education Act, which prepares the young to be products for a society controlled by Industry.
Arguing about capitalism or socialism is being pretty clueless.
Wait a minute you lost me. Enslaved humans are the machines a society uses, they are not part of that society. Only Spartan men and women were part of that society and it was totally socialist. The state had complete control over individuals and Athens stood against that.
Spoken like a true Spartan!
Thank you. And I must mention Trump. What is up with that? I am absolutely blown away by the power so many have given Trump, and as Hitler and Neitzche, the cry is to be superior and crush the weak. That is not the best thing for the international reputation of the US. That is not what made America great.
This change in the opinion of being great comes with the change in bureaucratic order that makes individuals weak unless they are party members.
The truth is hidden by paradox and confusion.
What does democracy mean? To be as the gods. However, the gods did not have absolute power as they had divided power. They argued with each other until there was a consensus on the best reason, making democracy rule by reason, not rule by a king, and making the Christian kingdom of God, unfit for democracy. Democracy is not authority over the people but the people empowered to rule themselves by reason. I do not think Trump is a ruler for democracy, any more than Hitler and the power of fascism.
So we have a definition of "democracy", which is good, it works for me.
I also agree that large portions of the population are confused by ideological propaganda. Of course, I am not free myself of my own ideology, but I try to look at the evidence and arrive at conclusions on this merit alone. But I could be wrong.
People who, for example, believe in the Q conspiracy theory or think vaccines are modes in which we will be controlled by microchips have a distorted apprehension of the evidence. Likewise with people who think Trump is amazing. This is a big problem in political discourse.
We can quibble about the causes of bureaucratic problems, no problem. But I've yet to understand what is meant by family values. I won't be a nuisance and ask again, I'm curious by what you mean here.
The Christian god said his people are not to be slaves, but they could own slaves. Then later He changed his mind and advised Christians to be good slaves and He promised He would provide good leaders. We called these God-chosen leaders kings. Today, the Evangelicals swoon over Trump, who believes he is a good father to our nation. But democracy in the US begins in part by Locke's argument, that the king fathers keep us as children and do not help us grow up and become independent adults. While the misogyny males among us, direct their anger against women, instead of system that keeps them powerless.
Don't know if anyone can follow the leaps of thought. but I want to say women in the west were resentful of the big stink made over slavery when their own enslavement called marriage, was ignored. What makes a human being deserving?
Oh please do make yourself a nuisance and ask again. So many thoughts are coming up and my head is in a swirl of competing thoughts. I find myself responding to one thought and forgetting to respond to another.
The gods are not almighty kings. They are a family. Our single-unit family is the result of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and the Hebrew/Roman male head of the family. This has blocked our understanding of being brothers and sisters and a democracy. The family of democracy is brothers and sisters, not a father/king/ Trump, head of the household/nation.
We stopped educating for democracy and left moral training to the church, you know, the story of Cain and Able, pitting brother against brother, and a kingdom. Now we live with a Christian mythology of democracy and I hope everyone sees the problem with that. Instead of the old grade textbooks focusing on family values and cooperation, we embrace authoritarianism and a dog-eat-dog social order. We are pitted against the notion of democracy being rule by reason with fear of Satan and knowing we were thrown out of the Eden by desiring knowledge. We are now a warring nation with the Power and Glory of God, and we are no longer a nation of charity and peace, but a nation of power struggles, winners, and loosers. Thank you for asking about family and helping me get back to one way family is important to democracy, brothers and sisters, and rule by reason.
Family is also important to democracy because when we can depend on our family, we do not need to depend on the state. The one thing most homeless people shared in common, is believing they can not turn to family for help.
Yes, I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were putting Sparta's way forward as an example of loyalty to traditional ways of life and duty to country.
Well, you've expanded on the usual notion of "family" that tends to come to mind automatically. It is legitimate to do so, because in a certain sense, we are brothers and sisters. But family's have problems, as everyone knows.
It's as Robert Fisk once pointed out, the biggest, nastiest fights we have in life are with family, not with friends or strangers. If applied to the whole of society, then some of our family members believe things that kill other family members and are odious. So it's still a problem, though this way of thinking can be useful.
The religious depictions can be argued for a long time. But you could also take the idea that aspects of society can be used for familial improvement. That's the impulse for things like social security, health care and the like. The word "state" is subject to fierce controversy these days.
There was, on the one hand, a booming, expanding post-war economy. On the other hand, the kind of jobs women went into in the 50s and 60s were not generally great jobs. In most cases, the personal rewards of being a 'new woman' in the business environment were pretty meagre. The state did not step in with child-care when American women started working. Women were expected to continue their role of housewife in addition to wage-earner. Not a good deal! Something more compelling than ideology was at work here.
The economic motivation wasn't simply survival, for many families. Upward mobility often required a second income.
Those born into the real middle class (business owners, professionals like doctors and lawyers, upper management, etc.) had more options from the start. The group of strivers we are talking about are mostly working class. The appurtenances of the aspirational middle-class life often required more than one income. A home in a good school district, a better car, the summer vacation road trip, lots of "stuff" all required more money.
The inflation / falling relative wage crunch didn't begin until the 1970s. There were roughly 25 years after the end of WWII where these generational social changes took place.
By the way, the military industrial complex was created in WWII, a good 18 years before 1958. It just got bigger after the war, and is still with us, unfortunately.
Quoting Athena
And this:
Quoting Athena
I see the latter as being more accurate. We don't worship the power of the state. We worship the power of the dollar, which is controlled by the plutocracy. The military industrial complex is only related to the state in that the complex owns the state. Government is just a punching bag for the people to blame when things go wrong and the plutocracy loves that. It keeps the heat off of them.
The family was never autonomous or powerful. They just pretend to feel that way, at home, at night, in their "castle", where they might be allowed to sleep in peace at night before returning to the machine. Even then, the man ruled the woman.
And the state is not the machine. The state is now a fully owned and operated subsidiary of the machine. Politicians are bought and paid for.
You did an excellent job of seeing an important difference with the family model. The Greek gods fought a war with their parents and the parents' generation. I don't think they had a sense of brotherly love as Christianity would have us be loving. And oddly the goddesses were as liberated modern women, but the women of Athens were not. However, we are speaking legitimacy of power. Each has his/her realm of power and decisions were made with different points of view. And by the way, Zeus was a real jerk from a female perspective. It is bad enough that he slept around, but dragging his feet in helping Demeter get her daughter back from Hades crosses a line of my tolerance. :lol:
Because the gods did argue with each other, we have the question of how did they resolve their differences? This separated the Greeks, especially those of Athens, from the rest of the world. Here is where we get the notion of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, and even the gods were limited by logos. To clarify, the supreme power was not a god, but universal law.
Sparta did not pay much attention to the gods and sure did not live by family order!!! Here is the socialist difference. Germany was the Sparta of modern times because of being organized by Prussian military order and the US was the Athens of modern times until it began imitating Germany and adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education.
Tocqueville warned that Christianity would bring modern democracies to despots. We do seem to be going that direction, with government ruling over us like the Christian God and taking care of us so much our ability to act like adults is in question.
Everything you said is true and spot on. For sure the Military-Industrial Complex was put in place at the beginning of WWII. One of my old books expressed a lot of concern about those government contracts and the direction the US was going. The author questioned if things would return to a domestic economy or not? :grimace: Largely because of economic reasons it did not. There was a brief period between the end of the war and the beginning of the Korean war when government contracts were being dropped. You can bet your pibby that industry was thrilled to get back those government contracts, and those making the decisions noticed our economic boom was much better with those government contracts. Even without the USSR threat of Sputnik, there was a lot of pressure to maintain government contracts.
My grandmother wrote romance stories for women's magazines and at least one of them centered on the conflict between husbands and wives when the war ended and now women were expected to give their jobs to the men, and they were to return to being domestic women. I know this conflict was one of the things that lead to my parents divorcing, and in general, divorces were increasing. Please can we stay with this fact of life for a moment?
I lived through the "history" of which you speak. My cohort is perhaps the last one that was supposed to stay home and care for family. This was economically enforced by strict limits on the kind of education a woman could get and the kind of jobs she could have. My well-meaning father, the one who was strongly opposed to my mother following her dreams, told me the only thing I could study in college was homemaking and I should spend my life being a good domestic woman because men naturally earn more money, therefore, I should remain dependent on one. :grimace: I did my best to be a good daughter, a good wife, and a good mother, and this value system is in every cell of my body. I am compelled to put family first because this is what a good woman does. Please, understand this is a very physical thing, not just a thought.
Okay, admitting that old social order did not work well for me and that I am aware that my notions of right and wrong could be more physical than rational, my notions are very much about social order and being independent of government or dependent on government. What is the alternative social order? How about military order applied to citizens? That is what we have now. Our technological society is no longer family order and there are good and bad things about this. Our lack of awareness of the change is absolutely terrible and very threatening. Since 1958 we have prepared the young for the Military-Industrial Complex and family order bearly exist. None of our relationships are as they once were. Now everything is controlled by policy, not individuals. This is a huge shift in personal liberty and power and I write to raise awareness of this.
I speak because I am not at peace with my thoughts. Spartan women had much more freedom and equality with men than Athenian women. I like that. However, the downside is no one had individual liberty and power. Athens adopted Spartas communistic, everyone serves the state and the state takes care of everyone when we mobilized for war against Prussia. However, Athens stopped short of being a welfare state. Pericles' funeral speech makes it very clear, in the war against Sparta, Athens was fighting for individual liberty and power. There are huge social, economic, and political ramifications to being too much like Sparta and the US has crossed that line.
B
Being a full-time homemaker can be a personal sacrifice that we do not want to make, but do we want to be a socialist despot? Do we want to give up our liberty and power to be well taken care of?
How old you are really matters to your perception of change. I have largely withdrawn from society because phone trees and trying to get things done by pushing buttons instead of talking to a human being is just rude! Dealing with a human being controlled by "policy" and expecting everyone to be equally controlled by "policy" completely destroys our liberty and power. My grandmother refused to teach in schools that did not give her complete authority over her class and so would anyone of her generation. Our understanding of what we defended in two world wars is so screwed by the false belief that our changed reality is progress.
I was horrified the first time I was told not even if I pay cash can I see a doctor because only if I have the right insurance can I see that doctor. Every aspect of our lives is now controlled by an authority other than our own authority. This is so insidious, words to describe it, fail me. Getting dental care with my insurance is like being processed on a conveyor belt. We have lost so much liberty and power it is intolerable and Trump followers are justified. They are just wrong to attack liberals for the problem, and liberals are just as wrong because they have no more understanding of the problem than Trump followers have.
The movie "The Brave New World" reveals the problem far better than I can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn5yUgci5Zg
Follow the money, Athena. It will not lead to the government you rail against. Government is merely the tool, bought and paid for by that same money.
"Socialism" is just the family writ large. It was actually the norm for the majority of the last 200k years and it is what got us to where we are today. Once we left off of hunter-gather lifestyles, we started working toward what you rail against.
This would not be possible without the adoption of the German bureaucratic model that destroys individual liberty and power. Before we adopted the German bureaucratic model, our government was too small and too weak to do what it is doing today.
So where did you study public policy and administration and what books do you recommend?
Liberty and responsibility go hand and hand. We fought a war against being ruled by a king, and without understanding what was happening, we replaced our individual liberty and responsibility, the democracy we had, with a bureaucratic order that is more powerful than any king and unlike a king, a bureaucracy does not die. There can not be socialism without this change in bureaucratic order and the change in bureaucratic order crushes our individual liberty and power.
I don't know anything about the German bureaucratic model, but I will stipulate that you are correct, except on one point: You said "we" adopted. I don't think Americans sat down and said "Hey, let's adopt the German bureaucratic model!" To the extent that is what "we" have, it was just part of that tool I was talking about. The Plutocracy might very well find the German bureaucratic model more efficient it accomplishing their goals. But you know what? The Plutocracy absolutely LOVES you blaming government. That is one reason they keep government around: a punching bag for you, so you don't blame them for what they are doing to you (and "family").
I'm also reminded of Mussolini. Didn't he make the trains run on time? Didn't he coin the term "fascism". Isn't that a condition where there is no distinction between the corporation and the state? Hmmm.
Again, follow the money.
Colorado State University and University of Idaho, a life-time ago. I don't recommend any books.
Quoting Athena
When I hear "bureaucratic order" I think of "deep state." If the "deep state" is what kept fascism from a successful coup in January, then I'll tip my hat to it. Having a bunch of Masons acting as back up couldn't be all bad. I used to hate the two-party system (and still do), but I have also come to understand how a party might be useful, especially if a newbie gets in office and needs some institutional memory to keep the ball rolling. I'm all for throwing out the bathwater, but not the baby. Especially if a fascist is doing the tossing.
Anyway, my point is, I'm not as quick to disparage institutions as I once was. What we need to do is take our government back from the Plutocracy. Good luck with that.
Perfect! :cheer: You win the prize! WE did not! there would be no reason for me to say anything if people understood what happened.
"The Plutocracy might very well find the German bureaucratic model more efficient it accomplishing their goals" Now you are on the right track! :grin: and neither Trump or Biden have the awareness to change this reality. You can bet your last dollar that this system favors the plutocracy because it favors power, not individual liberty and power and because the government is now a power game, both Trump and Biden will make terrible decisions. I keep saying democracy is rule by reason but unfortunately, I seem to be the only person who has that understanding of democracy so there is no support for this notion. Without understanding democracy is rule by reason, that leaves us power conflicts that will destroy our country.
I disagree with your understanding of the plutocrat's understanding of government. Government is their tool, they own it and they control it. The Military-Industrial Complex is a trinity of power- military might, Industrial economy, and government all working together.
Everyone loves to blame government. The plutocrats understand how it works and play it a fiddle and as long we can keep us believing the government is our enemy, we will remain powerless.
"I'm also reminded of Mussolini." :heart: :cheer: Wow I am impressed! Yes, absolutely! During the Great Depression many people thought fascism was the solution to economic crashes and that is when we gave our government NEW POWERS. WE did not pay attention. Who studies bureaucratic order and power? We vote for the person we believe will best serve our interest and how they go about it does not matter. Like if we need a tumor removed from our brain, we don't want the medical details. That is how we vote, pick the best man to do the job and trust he will do the job well. SOCIAL SECURITY is not possible without adopting the German model of bureaucracy.
Awe, that is why you are so smart and thought of Mussolini. We now have a great discussion going because you do know more than the average person. I am impressed by how you thought the good of political parties.
I used to vote for both parties to keep things balanced, but we shifted from democracy being rule by reason, to power games. Our democracy is now unbalanced and I think this follows the 1958 change in education. Education for a technological society with unknown values has made our democracy an unknown value and we just assume everyone is fighting everyone else because we have conflicting interests. But having good government is not a conflicting interest.
Democratically good government is not the Christian notion of God and a kingdom and its power and glory and Trump. :groan: We should have never dropped education for democracy because only when it is defended in the classroom can it be defended. Leaving moral training to the church along with adopting the German model of bureaucracy has us on the same path Germany followed. Now our most threatening enemy is not a foreign enemy.
I don't know about the dates, but I agree there was a shift. The plutocracy wants schools to produce good little producers and consumers; thus, they emphasize STEM, and de-emphasize the Liberal Arts (philosophy, reason, logic, language, history, political science, social studies, civics, etc.). It's interesting that a good foundation in the Liberal Arts actually stimulates an intellectual curiosity for STEM. I would think a kid going for STEM because he/she was curious about it would be the critical distinction between us and other countries (China?) that drill down on STEM as the be-all and end-all of education. But a kid that can think analytically and critically and logically and philosophically presents a substantial, credible threat to the plutocracy and we can't have that! Hell, even mom and dad don't want little Billy and Sally to come home from school and 'larn them; so they don't champion schools either.
Biden and Trump may both be caught in the web, but Trump loves the web and wants to be the spider. He'd make the trains run on time all right, but not for everyone.
Mussolini did invent fascism (an old Roman symbol, the fasces (a bundle of wooden rods and an ax blade). It was a symbol of power and authority -- below is an image of it on a Roman mile stone. Corporation served the state.
I have read that, contrary to his reputation, Mussolini did not make the trains run on time. He did build some decent looking buildings and improve Rome's infrastructure. It was not very antisemitic. The Nazis didn't make the trains run on time, either. German trains had been running on-time since the get-go, under the tight management of the Reichbahn company. German fascism was an economic mess in many ways.
I find it hard to pin down exactly what fascism means today. One scholar said that fascism is better defined by it's methods than its ideology.
You are obsessed with the National Defense Education Act and Eisenhower's speech on the Military-Industrial Complex. The changes that you lament (it sounds like an lament, anyway) started much earlier than 1958.
Land Grant schools began with the Morrill act of 1862. The act set aside land in states to be used to help fund higher education. The Big Ten state universities are examples of beneficiaries of the Morrill act--universities like Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa, and others.
Up until the time the Land Grant colleges and universities got up and running, higher education was largely an elite affair. The private colleges were focused on the Liberal Arts and limited their enrollment. The big Land Grant universities had the liberal arts as well, but also institutes of technology, medical schools, business administration departments, agricultural colleges, home economics, and so on. They were far more democratic in their mission and admission policies.
The end of WWII brought a huge wave of enrollment by men returning from the war, at least partly funded by the VA program. The Baby Boom followed their father into college (starting in 1964). This brought about still more democratization of higher education, and yes, a dilution of old academic traditions and practices. The Berkeley Free Speech Moment (think Mario Savio: “The revolt began in the fall semester of 1964 as an extension of either vicarious or actual involvement in the struggle for civil rights.”) was a prominent flash point in the changing higher education culture.
I would agree that democracy in the United States is not in great shape, but I blame the founding fathers. A lot of them wanted democracy for the few, not the many, and to a large extent the is the way things have worked out.
The elite (based on wealth) ran things in the 17th and 18th centuries, continued through the 19th and 20th centuries, and appears to be immovable for the rest of the 21st century. So yes, democracy is unbalanced and has been in this country from the get go.
I don't think I have come across someone who understands the problem as well as you do.
In 1958 President Eisenhower asked congress to passed the National Defense Education Act. It was to last 4 years but as we can see we never returned to what Eisenhower called our domestic education. That education was liberal from the first day of school and focused on being cooperative. My grandmother would say we teach math to teach children how to think. We used the conceptual method where children learned increasing complex concepts. A forward to an old text book explains to the teacher not to fuss too much over students knowing the details of history, names and dates, but rather focus on the child's understanding of concepts.
That domestic education was great for science and education for technology is not. Only specialized people are doing well with science. I have an old science for citizens book that was popular because everyone learned, school only prepared them to learn more, and it was their responsibility to keep learning on their own. Back in the day, people with only 8th grade educations would have thought people who do not understand the importance of wearing a masks during a pandemic were ignorant people. It was a patriotic duty to not be ignorant. Eisenhower warned us of the danger of relying too much on specialist and Pericles in his funeral speech explained Athens was generalist and that is better than the specializing of Sparta.
So let us be clear about this. The change in education goes with the change in bureaucratic order. In the past people defined their job themselves and everyone did their job differently than others because how a job was done depended on what worked best for the person doing the job. Of course you can see when the person died the whole operation would be thrown into chaos, because the person who filled the job would not do it the same and everyone would have to adjust.
Prussian military order controls everything with policy. Every job is narrowly defined and everyone who does that job is expected to follow policy, not his/her own inclinations of the best way to do the job. The organization meant, even if all the generals were killed, the war could go on because decisions were not made by individuals but a committee and from there everything is a matter of policy.
Do you see how that change in bureaucratic organization leads to education preparing the young to be followers not leaders? Eisenhower praised the Germans for their contribution to democracy, because the bureaucratic order and education for technology is a great leveler. Independent thinkers are undesirable and this gets tangled up with Christianity! Teachers had to take Texas to the supreme court because Texas was forcing text book companies and teachers to teach creationism as equal to science. In 2012 the Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education in higher order thinking skills. Their reasoning was HOTS lead to children questioning their parents and that was a bad thing. Do not question anyone but do what you are told.
I sincerely hope people can see what this has to do with racism, why Trump was elected, and why the Capital Building was under siege. Our politics are now as reactionary as Germany's politics were when Hitler came to power and thugs roamed boldly in the streets.
Last thought, we replaced Greek and Roman philosophers with Hegel and Nietzsche.
This is an absurd re-writing of history, as if there were a time in the past when rigid bright lines divided the family and society, where only through aggressive invasion could the powerful state impose its will on the family and provide for it food, shelter, clothing, education, and other means of social assistance. There never has been this dichotomy, with society properly "out there" while the family worked its magic independently and efficiently, leaving us now to lament a wonderful lost past.
If you wish to argue that society at large is taking too large a role in what could better be handled independently by families, that might be a sustainable argument, but I don't think you have a point when you try to harken back to a time that never was prior to all this societal interference.
In truth, secularized society is a fairly new idea in itself, with prior interventions being made by religious institutions. Regardless, you're talking about a time that never was and are trying to advance the ideal of a rigid family/social distinction. Appreciate at least that your ideal is fraught with all sorts of problems, as it allows the unfortunate offspring of disadvantaged families to remain disadvantaged despite the many resources the greater society could be providing them. You need to ask yourself why you would want to perpetuate such a system that allows inherited disadvantage when it so easily remedied.
This is all to say it's a matter of degree, with how much social assistance each person receives for family matters as opposed to whether there should be any at all.
Yes, and I look to our Jewish brothers and sisters to let us know when it's time to start kicking ass before it's too late. They should have a good feel for that now. But so far, everyone seems to be content with relying upon the rule of law. So I also look to the DOJ, the FBI and others. Assuming they are not corrupted from within by sympathizers with the thugs, and can keep their own house clean, they should be out nipping these racist white nationalist fascist thugs in the bud.
Time will tell.
What difference did the Morrill act of 1862 make? It had nothing like the social, economic and political ramifications of the 1958 National Defense Education. In fact, education for technology and merit hiring levels out society. What you think is important and what I am talking about are completely different things.
How many elite people ran everything? Most people were farmers or farm hands. Plenty of people owned their own business and in most the country there was no industry that people could depend on for jobs. You either owned land for an income or you had to create your own business and in rural America that is still true. Without a service economy people in small towns would have no jobs! I don't think those working people are the elite you are talking about.
The US is best known for a person with nothing making it to the top. I do not believe the Founding Fathers are to blame for anything. For sure Jefferson took a strong stand against the Federalist and insisted the power rest with the people.
Maybe if you understood why I focus on the change in bureaucratic order and education, we would share an agreement on why the US is now like Germany was when Hitler came to power. For sure there were serious problems with family order, such as excluding people because they are a different color, or a different religion, and hiring people not because of their merit but they are family or a friend of the family. The old family order was both good and bad. A technological society weakens family order.
There is a lot to talk about, such as US industry is autocratic and not democratic and I have a big problem with that. James understands the value of liberal education and if we returned to that and replaced autocratic industry with democratic industry we could have a new golden age.
For fascism to exist the bureaucratic order must be developed to control everything and the young need to be taught to follow orders.
The state is necessarily and increasingly paternalistic. So it is no wonder that its most obsequious subjects are invariably callow. In the UK, the welfare state architect used the phrase “cradle-to-grave” to describe his social security scheme. Now that’s a telling phrase.
It seems likely to me that anyone living in that sort of system—raised in it, educated by it, paying for it—is nearly doomed to become dependant on it. And to be honest, I can hardly blame the man, his money stolen and used to build the system, when he seeks some sort recompense in the form of what it can offer. It’s beyond the point of repair now. The best we can do is raise and educate our children otherwise and hope for the best.
Okay I have the book on Family Law and it is authentic. What is your source of information?
And I would not claim it was a wonderful past. Actually, some of the pioneer women in the west were very, very resentful of the big stink made over slavery while their own slavery was ignored because it was called "marriage". Some of them were married off to older men when they were 14. This was about survival, not love and marriage. I have spoken with women from a generation that is no longer with us and these women who were very glad when their husbands died, leaving a few years to enjoy their own lives. How do you know of their reality? What do you know of it?
One must ask, with my daemon Cicero--Qui bono fuisset? Who benefits from efforts to undermine and demonize a government's assistance to its people?
I am glad you have a better understanding of what I am talking about than some do. However, I do favor public assistance, but as Locke said of kings, It would be fine if kings be like fathers, if like fathers, they prepared their children to be independent. In part I am talking about education the helps the young grow up and not only be independent but also capable of being civil and industrial leaders, Without that education, and the past understanding of family duty and responsibility, we get a socialist welfare state.
My thinking includes respecting and trusting all professionals and giving them the authority they deserve. Stop trying to control them making them conform to policy.
The Plutocracy is necessarily and increasingly paternalistic. So it is no wonder that its most obsequious subjects are invariably callow. In the US, the Plutocracy uses the phrase self-relient “bootstrapping” to describe their scheme of keeping people in their cubicles. Now that’s a telling phrase: We all know it defies the laws of physics to bootstrap.
It seems likely to me that anyone living in that sort of system—raised in it, educated by it, paying for it—is nearly doomed to become dependant on it. And to be honest, I can hardly blame the man, his money stolen and used to build the wealth of others, when he seeks some sort recompense in the form of what it can offer. It’s not beyond the point of repair though. We can raise and educate our children to be what the family used to be, before it was nuclearized to benefit the Plutocracy with lies of independence.
As stated earlier, socialism (democratic) can be seen as the family writ large. Any paternalism is just all of us acting as a father-figure to those obsequious, callow, petulent kids who come running home when the world gets tough, but run away, acting all tough, when they don't like when daddy says "our house, our rules." They want all the benefits of society but they don't want to contribute. Oh well, they can run away to their cubicle and get to work for their masters.
:100:
Quoting Ciceronianus
The interestng thing is, the haters are all about socialism when it comes to the military. But it's the MIC that benefits when government's assistance to it's own people is diverted to it. Their denial is overwhelming at times.
As much as I like Cicero, I fault him for having a very poor understanding of economics. An economic system that exploits some to benefit others, may not be any better than institutionalized slavery and excluding some from property rights because of their race or religion, or ethnic background. Free public education is awesome as it can empower people to achieve their full potential and to me, that is the best thing humanity can do for humanity and it is a goal of democracy.
I like Roosevelt's attempt to lift everyone better than what we are doing now! Just giving people money because they breathe, is a terrible idea! What we get needs to be tied to what we give. Social Security is based on age and is based on past wages, that is, based on what was given. The idea is to protect people's dignity. Getting food, money, etc. based on need instead of on effort is damaging.
I must mention Socrates who argues justice and said, if we exploit people, sooner or later they will become a social problem. That is something we want to avoid. How we avoid that is a challenging problem. But turning back to Roosevelt and thinking of our environmental needs such as reducing the destructiveness of fires, means we can tie what people get to what they give. And the giving is about good citizenship.
Actually, he asked the question in connection with his defense of someone accused of a crime. The sense of it is, that in determining who did something it's appropriate to ask who benefited from the act. And, it should be Cui bono fuisset.
:grin: Philosophy is fun because we can look at the same thing, but it does not look the same from different points of view and like the gods we can share our different points of view and work for agreement. That is democracy! What rules is not you or me, but what we agree upon. Rule by reason.
I am 100% behind pulling one's self up by their own boot straps and my different point of view on this, probably is my age. I could be closer to the generation that survived the Great Depression than you are. We must do the best we can do until we can do no more. We must do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. How people think today is completely different from what I grew up with.
About your mention of grown children returning home but only for their own reasons, not a more wholistic understanding of family. Now we worry about people's emotions and if a young person is not happy, this can be blamed on the family, and the hurt person is encouraged to turn away from the "toxic" family. I took in my grandmother with Alzheimer's and she had no idea who I was and thought I separated her from her son and daughter and was holding her as a prisoner. Her son and daughter wanted nothing to do with her and dumped her on me, and the following years were not pleasant, but I saw it as my family duty and did the best I could. I have gone through life not thinking what it is in for me, but rather is the right thing for me to do for my family, and community, and country.
But I hurt my grown granddaughter's feelings and she tells me I am "toxic" and that she wants nothing to do with me, or her mother, or her sister. This is a very different way of looking at life. What I want versus what is the right thing for me to do in this situation. :lol: I never would have dreamed of speaking to my grandmother as my granddaughter speaks to me, and when I turned to the internet for information, I found an explanation of generational differences. I can also see, when people turn their back on family, the family is more apt to need government assistance. That is where family taking care of family is also about democracy, liberty, and our country. We are good citizens because that is how to have a strong nation and a good citizen takes care of family.
But the Plutocracy is another subject. It is related because everything is related to money and meeting our needs. But I think our Plutocracy problem is government supporting industry. I think the idea is a strong arms industry means good-paying jobs and citizens need good-paying jobs, so the government will support the arms industry. Using our military to secure our control of oil is essential to our national wealth. We can see what happened when OPEC embargoed oil to the US and its economy collapsed. We can not let that happen again, so we must maintain a military strength to prevent that from happening again. But this military action is not like wars of the past, modern warfare relies on industry to supply the military needs so we now have industries like Cheney's company Halliburton. It is more than this. Our government protects Mc Donnal's and Microsoft's interests around the world. These industries are part of our national wealth, but that wealth is paid for by our tax dollars supporting the industries and is not benefiting us as much as it benefits the multimillionaires. I wish I could be more factual. I hope someone can correct me or explain what I am saying better than I have. Whatever, this is not the old plutocracy, this is a stronger trinity of military might, industry, and government. And the taxpayers are paying for it.
My memory is poor, but seems to me, Cicero was clueless about the reality of those who went to war for Rome and lost their land while they were gone to war! Not only did they loose their land, but they could not get jobs because of slavery. The wealthy were wealthy because they owned land and had slaves. They also held the seats of power and that means the system was to benefit the wealthy, not all citizens.
To a degree, giving the landless bread and circus prevented a violent revolution, but if I recall correctly some generals lead their troops to fight for what they believed they deserved, and in time these generals came to the seats of power. Should I look for more information?
My mom and dad both grew up in the heart of the Great Depression. I'm pretty sure no human being in the history of the Earth ever defied the laws of physics by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. That's just another myth that keeps us striving for the 1%.
Quoting Athena
Yes, and many would argue that taking care of the weak lame and lazy is the right thing to do, and what strong people do. Those who argue "teach a man to fish" often don't know how to fish. They are still eating fish caught by others. And let's not forget the fish itself. If we are to turn our backs on, and ostracize the lazy, we should start with the 1% who spout shit like "bootstrapping" and "fish."
Quoting Athena
Bingo! And I tip my hat to you. That is what democratic socialism is all about.
Quoting Athena
Family disfunction is not caused by a government that is there to provide a safety net. That disfuction is the result of an economic system that devalues the family and defunds community, democracy, liberty and government. The need for government assistence is created, and then not funded, so those who need it hate government instead of the system that drove them to it. That system is afraid of a strong nation, good citizens and family.
Quoting Athena
Government supports industry because industry owns government.
Quoting Athena
You said it just fine. But it's not new. See "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler. This MIC stuff has been going on for well over a hundred years.
It's actually worse than taxpayers paying for military might, industry, and government. "Labor produces all wealth." Period. Working people -- wherever the factory is located--Guangdong or Indiana--produce the goods and services that are the basis of wealth accumulation everywhere. The wealth workers produce is harvested by capitalists and concentrated in their hands. The workers are left with no more than it takes to keep them functioning as a class.
As a consequence, workers range from absolutely poor to only relatively poor. Remember, the working class constitutes the vast majority of the population.).
Capitalists, the plutocracy, the ruling class, the kleptocracy--whatever you want to call them--possess an overwhelming share of national wealth -- not just here, but in the G20 in general, though the extreme of wealth is worse here than in most countries.
Quoting Athena
I was born at the end of WWII. My parents, born in 1905 and 1906, had a rough time from 1929 to 1959, roughly. Too many children, not enough money, too much work -- but a good, reasonably happy family none-the-less. So... I too am pretty close to the Great Depression.
As for the bootstrap lift, as @James Riley pointed out, "We all know it defies the laws of physics to bootstrap." You can pull your boots on with the strap, and that's about it.
Look, most working people owe more than they own. Student loans, credit cards, and mortgages count against any assets they have access to, like their house--for which like as not a bank holds the title. Not only can they not lift themselves up, they are in a deep financial hole to start with. Sure, retired workers may be in better shape than younger workers, but they aren't "wealthy" by any stretch of the imagination.
Uncle Karl summed up the relationship between government and the plutocracy: "Government is a committee for organizing the affairs of the ruling class." Maintaining the capitalist machine which concentrates wealth is the priority of government (which includes the military).
You read history quite differently than I do. True enough, bureaucratization occurred in both Germany and the US (as well as numerous other countries). I don't think a large industrialized economy can exist without bureaucratization.
I'm not sure about your information, or what it's based on.
Cicero died in 43 B.C.E. I don't recall reading any writing of his addressing land ownership or loss of land by men of the legions.
Owning land stopped being a requirement for military service as part of the reforms made by Gaius Marius in about 100 B.C.E. I don't know how many men of the legions owned land from that time forward, let alone lost land. Marius began the development of the legions as a professional force. They were provided with equipment, armor and weapons. They could receive land or additional pay on retirement.
Towards the end of the Roman Republic, generals like Sulla, Caesar and Pompey began to reward their legions with loot obtained during successful campaigns, and they became loyal to and dependent on their generals. The civil wars began which ended with the establishment of the Principate by Augustus, who standardized soldiers pay and guaranteed them land and money on retirement. Augustus and successor emperors sought to make the soldiers loyal to the emperor.
We get the reference to "bread and circuses" from Juvenal, who wrote in the late first and early second centuries C.E.
There certainly were wealthy people, some of them former slaves (freedmen), and slaves, and there were also people who were not wealthy, and neither slaves nor freedmen, but lived and made or didn't make money. The system certainly favored the wealthy. That's been the case throughout history, however.
Okay, same cohort.
I have to question the right of feeding lazy people. However, it could be argued getting rich by what one owns rather than by working. is just as much a problem as feeding a lazy person who owns nothing. Democracy is about relationships. It is about being inclusive and working together. We can throw in the statement that "man does not live by bread alone" and ask what else does he need? How about acceptance and fellowship and self-value?
Before the 1970 recession, I did my "good thing" for "those people". In the recession, I became one of "those people". From this point of view, Roosevelt was very wise to create jobs for "those people". It might be better to make "them" one of "us" rather than to throw money at "them and feed them"?
Okay, we may have an agreement but I am not sure what socialism is? Where is the locus of control? I want us to replace the autocratic model of the industry with the democratic model, and put the locus of on individuals working together rather than authority above them.
That is not how things look from my point of view. Family dysfunction is caused by many things. Alcoholism and drugs are big causes of dysfunctional families. Cultures can make families strong or weak and right now our culture in the US is doing many things that make families weak and this why I started this thread. Many of these bad things are done with good intentions, by people who do not participate in this forum and do not have the information and feedback they need.
I would also point to autocratic industry as a very strong factor in making families and our democracy weak.
Remember Joseph Campbell? He said the purpose of mythology is to transition youth into adults who function well in their society. Our education in the US had a mythology and made good citizenship a priority of education until 1958. Until then, parents controlled their local schools.
There are good and bad things about parents controlling their child's education, but right now we are in a fight for our children and this is a fight against the government's control of education. I am thrilled to see this fight become so strong, but I am also stressed about how this fight is happening and that we have lost the understanding of the importance of culture and how to transmit it. Personally, I believe the 1958 National Defense Act, ripped our children away from us, and that this is behind the national youth crisis that was announced in the 70's, and the popularity of Trump and the attack on the Capital Building and even more serious social problems.
Absolutely no argument there! And, they took control of education in 1958 and this is destroying families and our democracy.
If people do not realize the changes made by Roosevelt and Hover working together to create big government, and how this became the Military-Industrial Complex we have today, then there is no hope of correcting the problem. Yes, in the past industrialist enlisted the help of government, but that was nothing like the Military-Industrial Complex we have today. Today is not equal to the past. We did not have the institutional organization for the Military-Industrial Complex until adopting theGerman model of bureaucracy and the education that goes with it. Also, the US was a self-sufficient nation, meaning we did not have to import anything. We could mine and produce everything we needed. That is no longer true. Next, our money was backed by gold and silver and that is no longer true. Today is not like the past. Our high-tech, taxpayer-supported military might is new to the US. We oppose taxing people to support a large military and we had no interest in the rest of the world and WWII changed all this, not only because of enjoying being a military might, but our economy and technology depend on imports, and that makes military might essential. This is not the innocent and naive past. Only the average man on the street is clueless, not those above us.
We don't feed the lazy for them, we feed the lazy for us. We don't honor our agreements for the benefit of others. We honor our agreements because it is good for us to honor our word. I've oft used the example of Indians: We should not honor our treaties with them because we want what is best for them. Forget them. We should honor our treaties because our own Constitution provides that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. We do it because it is who we want to be. We feed the lazy because we are good, right, strong, and not lazy. This is how we set standards that people want to aspire to. There will always be lazy, but there will be fewer of them when everyone looks around and says "Hey, would I rather be lazy and get something for nothing? Or would I rather be that guy who carries the lazy with broad shoulders and a smile on his face, embracing the suck, leaning into the load and enjoying the burn as he works his body?
Quoting Athena
It is the family writ large. It is community. Quoting Athena
The people, not the Plutocracy. The Plutocracy forfeited their right to the status of people when they created the corporation. It was only then that they created laws making corporations people. But they are not. Only the people are people.
Quoting Athena
Yes!
Quoting Athena
It is not the alchol or the drugs that cause the dysfunction. Ask what kind of culture causes people to turn to drugs and alcohol?
Quoting Athena
I think you and I are saying much of the same thing and the agreement is there.
Quoting Athena
That is only true because government is controlled by the Plutocracy. There is nothing inherently wrong with goverment control of education. The problem lies in who controls government. Our foundind fathers believed in public education and they were right, in my opinion. But what happened to civics, etc.?
Quoting Athena
Again, big government is not the problem and never has been (in the U.S.). The problem is, who owns the government? Money, or people? FDR was on the right track. But it was NOT government that created the MIC out of thin air or a vaccume. It was the private sector monied interests that did it. To kill government is to cut off your nose to spite your face. Kill instead the monied ownership of government. You see the giant turn in 1958 but money has sought to own government since the founding.
Reagan scapegoated our poor for our economic troubles and he lied to us about not needing to conserve, so he could slash the domestic budgets and pour everything into military spending.
Who benefits?
:100: As Dennis Miller once said "If trickle down isn't fair warning that you are about to get pissed on, I don't know what is."
Reagan was a nice, likable guy, but he should have been providing sing-alongs around a campfire with a guitar at a camp for kids with cancer.
:heart: I love your reasoning and it is my understanding too, except we have a little difference of opinion about helping the lazy. I hold that enabling people to make bad choices is harmful. My city has made a gallant effort to help the homeless and I believe it was my activist work when Reagan was in office that woke people up to the need to help the homeless. The problem is our homeless population is growing and this is not sustainable. It has filled our city with undesirable people and this means more crime and is harming businesses and some neighborhoods. Just like when I brought people into my home and they stole from me, and/or became very angry with me because the more they took the worse they felt and it was my fault.
A simple example of misguided city intentions was announcing a work project open to everyone and a free meal. The idea was to give them meaningful work cleaning up the city and thus including them in our community as people with value. Make it possible for them to feel like one of us. Problem was, they fed everyone first and they all walked away without doing a lick of work. I am sure you would agree this did not have the intended effect of everyone feeling like a valuable citizen. That is the first step to getting out of the trap of feeling worthless and having no motivation to change one's unfortunate circumstances. How would you feel if you took and walked away?
That is a good answer but I don't think it works. I think under socialism the locus of control is the government.
For sure I question what culture has to do with addictions and the destruction of the family. I rather have someone who cares about me and is fun to be with, than rely on alcohol or a drug to feel good. But having that special someone depends on having social skills and also material things. Social skills must be learned and we might consider that an important part of education as it was in our past. And addictions are very much a chemical thing, it could be sugar, alcohol, or drugs or even watching the news, or exercising- these behaviors are about chemicals and hormones. And like wearing a mask to avoid covid, education could help improve decision making, but teenagers aren't likely to value the lesson.
I think we agree on almost everything, and I think our nation has a problem with religion. Some of our forefathers objected to religion that advanced false notions, but there was agreement that religion is good for teaching moral values. Unfortunately, superstition goes with those moral lessons, and Christianity is about a kingdom, not a democracy. Especially an Evangelical Christian believes we must be saved by a supernatural being and all this boils down to in 1958 we replaced our education for good moral judgment with education for technology and left moral training to the church. This was the worst thing we could do.
It is not just the Plutocracy that is causing a problem. It is also religion! Christianity has been the worst enemy of education and the best buddy of Plutocracy that doesn't want to waste time and money on preparing the young to be good citizens. Especially Christianity with zero literacy of Greek and Roman classics is problematic! Only when there is literacy in Greek and Roman classics is democracy defended. We are now living with a Christian mythology of our democracy and this is terrible! It is very much behind the culture wars we are having and amoral atheist are throwing fuel into the fire. [/quote]
Well, there we disagree. The Military-Industrial Complex is what Germany had, The Bush family and Hitler referred to it as the New World Order. It did not come out of nothing. It came out of war and awareness of how technology can change war.
:lol: That is a good idea. In a way, he was a wonderful President because he gave us wonderful feelings of patriotism. Unfortunately, that was good acting, and not based on reality. He lied to us about oil and the need to conserve. The only way to improve our economy and meet our need for oil was to use our military to overpower OPEC.
But back to your faith in big government, your mention of Reagan allows me to make a point. I said the Eisenhower created new relationships with research and the media. Okay, that enabled the Reagan administration to completely replace research on poverty with research on welfare fraud. The findings of research on welfare fraud were fed to the media to scapegoat the poor for the economic crisis caused by OPEC embargoing oil. Exactly how Bush was able to feed the media and take the US into an illegal war with Iraq. That was an action taken by neocons, and Bush and Cheney were neocons.
Why do you think big government that can be controlled by a handful of people is a good thing? The Civil War was very much about sovereign states having more power than the federal government. The Native American Federation and the Greeks and Celts basically all had city-states. We know Rome was the most powerful country in its time until it exhausted its supply of gold and could no longer pay for its military, leaving the church to bribe barbarians and prevent an invasion. I wonder if our fear of immigrants is related to the fall of Rome? They keep coming and coming and we are losing control.
What can be done to increase the power of the people? Almost lost in this thread is the notion that strong families have something to do with the people having power over their government. The media is an essential defender of our democracy, or it once was, before education of a technological society replaced education for citizenship.
It's a different way of thinking altogether. The genious of the indigenous, tribal view toward helping cannot always be understood by one who has been raised in, steeped in, the very culture of greed they abhor. Working with horses, or dogs, will make clear how feeding the lazy does not enable them. It is other, outside forces that are undermining your (and your city's) efforts. But those forces are powerful and have people believing the lie about enabling. After all, fingers must be pointed anywhere but at those forces and they are masters at deflection.
Quoting Athena
It is! But under democratic socialism, government is the people. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Quoting Athena
Pretty much everything. Change the culture, change the empty search for fullfilment denied by the old culture. Again, I think of the horse. Virtually every rider will chose the soft-broke horse from the remuda over the one with the broken spirit. Comparing people to horses, and the use of the word "soft-broke" may be off-putting until one understand the terms and the culture involved. Then the light goes on over the brain pan.
Quoting Athena
Religion is just another tool used by the Plutocracy to deflect from them, provide solace to the masses, like opium, booze, etc. Follow the money.
Quoting Athena
I don't think we do. You just keep looking at the symptom instead of the cause. The MIC is not government. It is private sector control of government. Maybe an example is in order: The family might be a good thing, but if it's controlled by an asshole, not so much. We can ask why an abusive spouse/father is the way he is, or we can just say the family sucks. I prefer the former.
I don't, and never said as much. Democratic socialism is the ass opposite of that.
Quoting Athena
Democratic socialsm will return the family to it's seat of power and make government beholden to it.
Quoting Athena
Conservative feel-good politics is BS.
However, that is a little simplistic. We protect entrepreneurship with pattens and anti-monopoly laws. In the past, 8th-grade dropouts began their own businesses and the US is known for its rags to riches stories. We are known as the land of opportunity. Overpopulation is a huge problem, but this is not a government-caused problem, nor are the rich to blame for it. We have exploited our national mineral wealth and spent the money but this is not a government-caused problem. We have very serious resource and population problems and I think we could do better. But on the good side is our education system that enabled millions of people to leave the farm and get good-paying city jobs. Following WWII and the GI Bill, a college education almost guaranteed upward economic mobility.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I think we have very serious economic problems but who is to blame? The GI bill included low-interest home loans. I knew a retarded couple who bought a home through a special government program that made it possible for low-income people to own their homes. Homeownership is a huge good and the government has supported it, but lately, our government is failing us and bankers sure have become our enemy! This proves the problem with amoral education for technology that has lead to immorality at the top, not just the lowly criminal element, and a loss of personal liberty and power.
We can do better, but that will not be achieved by blaming others and understanding no more than some people are richer than others. Greenspan was wrong to believe deregulating banks was a good idea, and maybe our fiat money is a very bad idea. Both of those bad ideas seem to go together. Economies that depend on growth instead of on sustainability may be a very bad idea?
Botton line, we need a better understanding of the problems than blaming the rich and we need to take responsibility.
:100: He was also making a deal out of Pete Buttigieg and breast feeding. The whistles are no longer dog. It all quite out in the open now. Pretty soon it should be legal to . . . . never mind.
I actually was just googling Tucker to see if he was married. It seemed so unlikely. But the answer gave truth the old saw that there is someone for everyone. :roll:
As far as I know, he did not. And that is why I fault him for not understanding the economic problem.
[/quote] Owning land stopped being a requirement for military service as part of the reforms made by Gaius Marius in about 100 B.C.E. I don't know how many men of the legions owned land from that time forward, let alone lost land. Marius began the development of the legions as a professional force. They were provided with equipment, armor and weapons. They could receive land or additional pay on retirement.
Towards the end of the Roman Republic, generals like Sulla, Caesar and Pompey began to reward their legions with loot obtained during successful campaigns, and they became loyal to and dependent on their generals. The civil wars began which ended with the establishment of the Principate by Augustus, who standardized soldiers pay and guaranteed them land and money on retirement. Augustus and successor emperors sought to make the soldiers loyal to the emperor.
Rome, totally blew it with their white togas. Imagine how much better their economy could have been with a wide variety of clothes and seasonal changes in what we wear. Sorry, that is most certainly a female point of view and not to be taken seriously. I don't think the history of Rome could have gone any differently because of the need to constantly find new supplies of gold. And I see the same thing in the US. Jeese, I thought fracking was going to make us independent of foreign oil, and the news has made it clear the cost of gas is going up because the Arabs are not interested in producing more oil, and Britain is struggling, and Russia is arguing the decline in gas exports is not political.
I am not terribly worried about the poor if they can continue to have the essentials of life, such as family and community, Our focus has been pretty materialistic. Why would anyone want to be rich? Is there anything better than wealth? When there were two men in my life and I had to chose one over the other, I chose the man who had nothing but was the most caring. The man with all the wealth was a jerk. I am not materially rich, but through books and discussions like I can find here, I have a very rich life. I have known rich people who do not have rich lives.
Quoting Neal Wood
I think we can assume he was not a liberal when it comes to property rights.
I think letters written by Cicero concerning ownership of property would complement what
Quoting James Riley Quoting Bitter Crank
have been saying about government protecting the rich, but at the same time we might see how this benefits everyone. I don't know, there is so much to understand about economics and I know I do not know enough. My best economic understanding comes from a geologist who wrote "Mineral Resources and the Destiny of Nations". Mineral resources have a lot to do with history and the future. However, if one is in the middle of game like Cicero was, the economic considerations are very different.
Private property rights is one of the primary liberal tenets. They were further caveated by Smith and other capitalists with the notion of "enlightened" self-interest. Don't milk your cow to death.
Yes. That is the main point of this thread but it could be lost in verbiage. Everything is so complex. I really do not understand the difference between socialism and capitalism. Fascism is private property but government control of industry. Which makes the capitalist very interested in government and next thing you know, they are running the government. Obviously, Fox News and Christianity play very important roles in our politics. Making Plato's objection to democracy obvious.
Do you mean Adams Smith's book The Wealth of Nation's? Morality plays a strong role in economics and in family and I think I bit off more than I can chew but I look forward to returning tomorrow and chewing on all this.
First, we, as a society, need to distinguish between true capitalism and the faux shit spouted by today's self-identified capitalists who are quick to socialize their costs, hide behind big government's skirts, and refuse to take personal responsibility for their own actions.
Once we understand that difference, then the only objection a socialist might have to capitalism is how the capitalist came into possession of "his" personal property in the first place.
Same guy. But he was not alone. Most men of the Enlightenment were headed down a liberal, if not radical road.
No need to add to the already celestial-sized choir singing the praises of protecting the assets and asses of the rich.
There are some very significant downsides to the preserved-wealth of the top 1%:
Their wealth is less productively invested now than say 50 and more years ago. The rich and the super-rich tend to put their money in paper instruments which churn 24 hours a day, and produce handsome rewards. (so says Piketty in Capital in the 21st Century). I have not read Das Kapital or Le Capital except in excerpts, so don't ask me about him. He's French, I can tell you that much.
Focusing on paper investments deprives material activity (like developing renewal energy) of much needed capital.
The concentration of wealth in 1% deprives 99% of the population (at least 90% are working class) both income for necessary current expenses and paying off debt; it prevents them from saving for their old age, and in general impoverishes their lives.
The United States exhibits wider disparities of wealth between rich and poor than any other major developed nation. World wide, same thing. "According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report, the world’s richest 1 percent, those with more than $1 million, own 43.4 percent of the world’s wealth. Their data also shows that adults with less than $10,000 in wealth make up 53.6 percent of the world’s population but hold just 1.4 percent of global wealth." (wealth = assets minus debts)
Quoting Athena
Indeed they do. As the mining industry says, "If it wasn't made from plants, it was mined from the earth."
Do you think 100 billion dollars in assets can be morally accumulated? I do not.
Neither do I. In America, we have this notion of "deserve" which is often tied to having worked hard, or worked smart, or having worked hard and smart. We also have a high tolerance for "luck", as in the lottery. But the lucky usually pay taxes. Those who work hard also pay taxes.
Those who work smart think it's smart to legally avoid taxes. Indeed, they shovel a percentage of their gains into lobbying for legislation which makes as much tax avoidance as possible legal. So, basically, we need to do two things: 1. Amend the laws and apply a progressive tax with deductions limited to proven investment into something that benefits everyone except for the would-be taxpayer; and 2. Enact claw-back provisions for anyone who would try to run or hide, especially when they see #1 pending. This would include civil, peaceful means, of course. Followed by draconian criminal pursuit. Followed lastly be Tier One Operators rolling these ex pat criminals up in the middle of the night and spiriting them off to black sites for "enhanced interrogation" regarding where they stashed our money.
It's good for people to understand civic responsibility.
Oh yeah! If it were not for government contracts there would not be so much wealth. This is one of the biggest problems with big government! There is virtually no control of the money.
Corporate personhood should NOT exist legally because a corporation is not a person.
All human beings should have the right to unionize just as capitalists have a right to form corporations.
But this might be getting off-topic and in a philosophy forum, some interesting things might be said of the power and purpose of the different human unions? Should we start such a thread?
There is no problem with big government. The problem is those who own and operate it. And that is not the people. That is the Plutocracy. And make no mistake about it: They control the money.
Quoting Athena
:100: :up:
P.S. People do have the right to unionize. Unfortunately, they don't have a right to prevent scabs or other efforts by the Plutocracy to increase the labor supply, thus reducing demand and value of labor. They just run over seas to the billions of people getting 30 cents an hour. The Plutocracy's rising tide lifts Chinese boats.
:lol: Zuckerberg sponsors public broadcasting shows, and with my limited hearing I hear "suck a bird". Not until I saw your spelling of the name did I realize what I hear is not exactly what is said.
On to the point you made. I wish my poor brain would do math and then that economic explanations came with the math. I think it is stupid as hell to demand higher wages and then blame the government for inflation! And what kind of sense does it make to restrict how rich a person can get? Restricting how people get rich makes sense to me, but not the amount.
Now taxing the wealthy makes sense because I knew a man who won a shrimp picking plant in a poker game, and this resulting in him having so much money he had to invest it to avoid paying too much in taxes. Of course, his investment would mean more money the next year, so he would have to invest even more money! That meant his need to invest lead to the community having new businesses and more jobs.
But the shrimp picking plant put many people out of work because before the machine came in, the shrimp was picked by hand and this meant more people got a wage off of the same industry. I thought it would have been so much better if the people who lost their jobs, could have bought the plant and each taken a turn at doing the far fewer jobs, with everyone getting a wage. But- maybe someone getting rich and starting more businesses was better for the community? Only with math can we know that. Capitalism is not just getting rich, it is developing a growing economic base for increasing wealth.
And all those silver and gold mining towns that went belly up when the mines were exhausted were very poorly managed because the profit from the mineral should have been invested in a source of income that would replace the income from the mine, then all the landowners and businesses would have kept the value of their land and businesses. I think that is how government should work. It is really stupid to build up property value and businesses and let it all die because of poor planning.
:lol: At this moment in time, I wonder if anyone would believe I normally argue in favor of socialism. But it is my nature to be contrary and no matter what someone says, I am going to think of an argument.
I think that needs to be clarified by saying most educated men. The masses were not educated except by their church. Some churches had well-educated leaders and many did not. The well-educated men were literate in Greek and Roman classics (classical/liberal education), but even their colleges were tied to religion, not science and technology. On the other hand, the Masons were more excited about what science might reveal and really focused on the Enlightenment and New Age. They might have been deist, but not so much interested in unenlightened religion. I feel like this needs to be brought out because Christian control of education would lead us to believe Christianity gave us an understanding of democracy and that is not exactly true. No one saw anything to do with democracy in the Bible until there was literacy in the classics and if we are to defend democracy we need to be literate in the classics, not the Bible.
:up:
The price of the $5 dress is sweatshops and low wages. This is a consumer choice, not just the plutocracy's choice.
Greenspan would have loved to have had the control of money that he thought he did. He was wrong to deregulate banks, and that crashed all the industrial economies. That was not within the power of a plutocracy. There are different economic theories and for sure big government can not control money. One reason our government can not control spending is that the amount of money that is being spent is beyond comprehension.
I live in a RTW state. RTW for starvation wages so the tax payers pick up the tab with food stamps and the Plutocrats laugh all the way to where ever they feel like.
Quoting Athena
Everything except time and nature is within the power of the Plutocracy. And they are fighting those, too.
It is only Satan. The Bible has told us of the last days and here we are. I think that is as much of a fact as I believe Plutoncrats are the problem. In other words, I don't believe those explanations and think things are more complex than those simple beliefs of evil powers.
To each his own. Nothing is more simple or lacking in complexity than pointing a finger at "big government" with no understanding of how governments can and should work. How the Plutocracy prevents that understanding is anything but simple, and they even have people thinking big government is evil. But yeah, you can keep following their lead if you want.
Ah, sorry...just can't help responding to this one. When you say "fall into", you mean as if one slipped on the bank and fell into the river? This is a sloppy use of a pat expression which is hopefully not reflective of your thinking. Saying that "I fell into drug abuse" is akin to the young lad saying "that rock broke your window, Mr.Jones", as opposed to "I broke your window with that rock, Mr. Jones"...a linguistic evasion of responsibility. Better had you simply said "Of course nobody wishes...to become a severe addict or substance abuser."
Quoting Outlander
I think you might have misread Athena's use of this expression. Rather, I think she(?) used it as exemplary of the social thinking against which she is railing with this thread, the fact of which becomes clear from her following sentence:
Quoting Athena
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting Athena
As did Adolf Hitler, Athena, you completely...utterly misunderstand Nietzsche, which is easy enough to do as he often wrote in allegory, but I enjoin you to read him a bit more deeply, and with some guidance if that is found necessary. You cheapen he who was a profound thinker when you place him in category alongside someone like Hitler. In a nutshell, Neitzsche's "will to power" did not describe the striving to be superior over others, it described the striving of one's own will against other wills, in other words the striving to have one's own will done, as well as the striving to self-mastery, and his "Ubermensch" is he who has perfected self-mastery. @Joshs renders a clear though succinct exposition of this in my current "will" thread. Wait...am I still on the "Philosophy Forum" site??
Quoting Athena
Quoting Athena
Your thesis in brief. I agree with your observations for the most part, but I disagree with your conception of the mechanism at work. I don't think that the percieved "decline of the family" is caused by an increased dependence upon the state. Rather, I think that the erosion of the concept of family, and particularly of "lineage", attended the revolutionary genesis of the American nation. This country was formed as a reaction against aristocracy, and by extension thereof, as a reaction against the concept of "lineage". This anti-lineage stance was early on codified within American law within such principles as "the Rule Against Perpetuities". The results of this today are that the concept if "lineage" has been so weakened in the American mind, that the expression of that concept is usually met with reactions of incredulity.
When you do away with the "lineage", all you are left with for a concept of "the family", is the impotent "nuclear family", which is not a strong enough conception to withstand the onslaught of society's claims upon the individual person, and the claims of the nationalistic spirit for the affections of the individual. Why do you think we have the national anthem, the "pledge of allegiance" to the flag, various allegorical stories about the "founding fathers" of the country (many of which are utterly fabricated, like the G. Washington "cherry tree" fable, or embellished to the point of unrecognizability, like the "Paul Revere's Ride" nonsense), and other similar nationalistic devices? These are simply items of propaganda meant to secure the affections of a people left rootless by the destruction of the concept of "lineage", to a giant abstraction called "the state". This, of course, supported by more recent types of propaganda emanating from socialist thought (oddly placing nationalism and socialism in bed together), has been wildly successful in America, and are the reason for the diminishment of the weak "nuclear family". I might agree with @James Riley about the importance of community within a tribalistic or small communistic context, but within the context of "the state", the word "community" loses all of it's meaning, since the state makes all of the claims upon the individual that the community once did. This claiming obscures the fact that there is no true community within the context of the state. In the end, all who buy into the state's remonstration about "community" are left as no more than isolated individuals dependent upon and utilizing the state's willingness to mediate all traditional community functions in the creation of a type of "community by proxy", which leaves the state as the intermediary and arbiter of all function.
That makes a lot of sense. I just think it's never been tried here, and where it has been tried (almost every first world ally we have) it beats the hell out of what we have now. The "state" will indeed make demands on the citizens, but the citizen will be making demands too. In fact, citizens are now making demands but they are drowned out by counter-democratic marginalizing and division techniques of the Plutocracy and their foreign allies like Russia.
But here's the upshot, for me anyway: After what we just went through, and what I perceive to be as the accelerating vortex, I'm willing to throw what is left to lose on the table with a roll of the dice. I know I'm not the one to suffer the most if it fails, but who dares wins. Go Bernie! Go AOC! What we usher in could be better than what our allies have.
YMMV.
Sure, it's not been fully realized, but we can yet draw some conclusions about the relationship (or the lack thereof) between state brokerage of social function and it's effects on "community" from the tendencies that we have experienced as a society, can we not? From the height of the Industrial Revolution, say roughly 1840, until the present time, we have experienced the government, the "state", gradually increase it's role as the intermediary of social function. This has been absolutely necessary, especially in countering the effects of industrialists' creation of a situation which ignored the humanity of it's human resoure, and of industrialization's causing a static social milieu devoid of any mechanism for social mobility, and of a wealth gap which had the working class living in squalor. The.part played by the state in remedying that economic situation has been necessary and good, and was well executed by the government. However, as the government has picked up more and more function over the years, we have experienced an increasing personal isolation in American society. The individual American seems more isolated now than he was before industrialization, with each of us occupying, both actually and metaphorically, our own little boxes.
This is good and bad, but has been largely good...for at least most of us all have little boxes to occupy! Even so, "community" as I understand that word, seems to neither have been built nor increased. The modern "epidemic" of American homelessness, which has grown alongside increasing social brokerage by the state, testifies to this fact. I have known people from West Africa, for instance, who cannot comprehend how so many people can be homeless in a country like America, where there are so many resources. In their countries, anyone who has no place to live is generally taken in by family, friends or acquaintances...the concept is that people cannot just be left out in the byways without help. This type of idea, of course, is a communal one, a notion of community. The fact that it appears to be absent here in the U.S. seems indicative that there is no sense of "community" here. The suggestion that an increased brokeraging function by government results in society becoming more communal appears, to myself, illusory. Individual communities of people (in the truest, fullest sense of that term) can exist within the nation-state, but I think that despite the fact of the state, rather than because of any action or functioning of the state as the intermediary of social function.
American government has always been a good faith actor throughout our history. We have been blessed, largely because of the Constitution and the structure of our government, with a government which has held the welfare of the populace to be of the foremost importance. But overreach is a potential problem for any actor, whether that actor be a government or an individual. Safeguards against overreach are always desirable. I think that our government has begun to overreach in certain respects of it's functioning, and to do so because of specific reasons. Recently, and going forward, there appear a couple of phenomena which have the power to threaten to make the government derail, and, while yet remaining protective of the society as a whole, jump to a track somewhat less friendly to the individual American. In particular, I fear that individual liberty and individual privacy, which have always been viewed as guaranteed, appear to be vulnerable to subordination to the attainment of certain social goals.
The phenomena of international crime and of international terror has caused the government to seemingly subordinate the civil and privacy rights of the citizenry to the desire for security. In general, I think this a bad development. The concurrent phenomenon of the institutionalization of the "progressive movement" within American liberalism, which institutionalization began in the aftermath of the "counterculture" movements of the 60's, has resulted in an increased willingness to subordinate those same individual civil and privacy rights to the attainment of (generally good) social goals. I am fully in favor of most of those goals, for example of universal healthcare (I don't know how anybody could oppose this from a conceptual standpoint), but not at the expense of my individual liberty or my individual privacy. The recent rapid increases in information technology have served to make my liberty and my privacy much more vulnerable to encroachment than they have been previously, which frightens me. The development of applicable law to safeguard individual liberty and privacy has not kept pace with the developments in information technology, leaving the population vulnerable. The recent Administration plan to have the IRS monitor the bank accounts of individual citizens is anathematic to myself.
There are a couple of things at play here. We can start with sheer population growth. To have a larger population without a larger government would be an interesting trick that I would like to see performed on some other group that wanted it. We can observe and see how that works out for them. But human nature has me not wanting to participate in the experiment.
Another concern is the same issue that I see with Athena: A continued focus on government itself, while giving a pass to the actors who have purchased the government; and who have it do it's bidding, run interference for them, and keep the population off balance so they can continue their idea of what constitutes "government". Some times that includes tossing a bone or some bread and circuses, but the the real goal is to walk that tight rope between keeping the cow alive and producing, right at the margin of bovine health. This results in virtually all of the problems you mention in the back-and-forth of government getting torn between caring for the cow and keeping the farmer from killing it. Meanwhile, the farmer just wants to make sure the cow doesn't kill him.
To the extent the U.S. government has always been a good faith actor, it is due to the few remaining glimmers of democracy that twinkle under the ever-growing cover of Plutocratic darkness. That darkness does not want community any more than a conservative wants their child to return from college with enlightenment. Produce, consume, shut up. Community is getting together to rail against government. That is the kind of community the Plutocrats support.
[Side bar: Did Venezuela fail because democratic socialism is inherently flawed? Or did it fail because external bad actors were ostracizing it on the outside and fucking with it on the inside? (Agent provocateurs, CIA BS, etc.) I think the latter. And those same tactics are used here at home.]
As far is privacy is concerned, I like to draw on an old health care example: I absolutely supported the confidentiality of me and my family's personal medical information . . . when I thought the health insurance industry was going to use it against me or mine. But once pre-existing conditions were met, caps were removed, and conditions covered, I supported the widespread dissemination of my private medical information to every freaking nurse and doctor on the planet. I'm always surprised out how there is no centralized data base somewhere that a doctor in Timbukto could pull up and consult if I get hauled in for treatment. I'm always surprised that I have to remember what happened to me 30 years ago, or what my ancestors experienced in the way of cancer or whatever.
My point here is, the only people who give a shit about your personal information are those who can or would use it against you. That is only government when government is controlled by money and not people. We, as individuals, just aren't that important for government to spy upon us unless government is controlled by bad actors. That is an absence of community right there. Community helps people. And community also recognizes the desire of someone to be left alone if they want. But being left alone might entail a limitation on access to community resources. Don't want to pay taxes? Fine, but stay off the roads the community built, etc.
I have a friend who works for FINCEN. They track every transaction of $10k. This is designed to track money laundering, drug and human trafficking, etc. In other words, it is designed to neuter cartel activity. Cartels are the other side of the Plutocratic coin: both leave the other alone to their shenanigans (caveat below) while maintaining government to do their dirty work and serve as a punching bag or foil. Both will cause government to fail in this or that provision of services, then provide that service and endear themselves to the "community". Anyway, I digress. What I'm getting at is, I don't know why the IRS is planning to snoop on yet even smaller transactions, but it will only be for nefarious reasons if government itself is working for Plutocrats or cartels. When the tug of war gets too close to the margins, then the Plutocracy will use government to pursue the the cartels. But those cartels are just wannabe Plutocrats so they have their own struggles.
The point being, if people want small government they should work toward a small population. If they want responsive government, they need to wrest control back to themselves.
Quoting James Riley
Regarding this, I have come to feel that most of our nation-states are just simply too large, in many cases far too large, for them to operate on a reasonably human scale. Generally, our states were founded in one of two ways: according to shared language, with the idea being that the entirety of a linguistic group should comprise a single state, or otherwise by the necessities of colonial administration. This has resulted in a slate of very large states which naturally tend to develop an administrative remoteness from the concept of the individual citizen, leaving only the judiciary to be concerned with individual rights. I don't have any good answers for this, but it seems like a bit of a problem.
Agreed. I've long been an advocate of drastic population reduction (for environmental reasons). But I would not want to return to disparate groups of people scattered around the world in isolation. We'd just start the same roll all over again if that happened. We need to progress, forward, and grow smarter and wiser, not bigger. I don't see that happening but if we were all we crack ourselves up to be, then we could figure it out.
It appears there is no awareness of intentional propaganda to double the workforce, such as the USSR saying "the full-time homemaker is a non-productive member of society". The point I was making seems to have been completely missed. the very dramatic social changes we have been through did not just happen. They follow a change in education.
It does not matter if I miss understand Nietzsche. It matters how his philosophy encouraged Nazi behavior in the past and present. This includes believing one's self to be above the law and storming the Capitol Building. His effect has gone far, far beyond those who read his books. So to has the effect of Hegel's philosophy had a much greater ramification than influencing those who read his books. At least Charles Sarolea was concerned about Hegel's and Nietzsche's popularity and the possibility that Germany was preparing war.
We might argue which came first the egg or the chicken? As I said happened in the USSR when women were "liberated" there was a rise in divorce and abortions rates and increasingly women and children fell below the level of poverty. It was realized working mothers made it necessary to provide child care. In the US marriage law was weakened following WWII and increasing jobs for women made it possible for them to get divorced, or for their husbands to be less concerned about the family they leave behind. This is a little complicated and it is not this or that but an interaction of this and that and the end result is we are no longer living under family order and we no longer valuing women as we did in the past and children are not growing up as they once did under the care of a mother. More and more is falling on the state, and more and more some religious folks are talking of how bad things are.
I never knew of "the Rule Against Perpetuities". or even imagined a dead person had any power after death. That is an interesting subject. I noticed a failure of leaving behind estates and no longer thinking in terms of a man's home being his castle, did play into a weakening the family. So have the values of a technological society played into the weakening of family.
"When you do away with the "lineage", all you are left with for a concept of "the family", is the impotent "nuclear family", which is not a strong enough conception to withstand the onslaught of society's claims upon the individual person, and the claims of the nationalistic spirit for the affections of the individual"
That is nicely said however, I thought we have a national anthem because we go to war and when we are in a state of war we need to be strongly united and working together. Well, we did in the past. Our high-tech military has made that totally unnecessary. Now because we are not firmly united against a foreign enemy we are at war with ourselves. Our culture war is tearing us apart. Religion and changing social values are very much a part of our culture wars. It seems extremely few women want to be valued as we once valued women, but I think there are good reasons why we should.
Until merit hiring we had nepotism.
We still have nepotism because it is human nature, but legally and by policy people are supposed to base decisions on merit. But that does not prevent family businesses and I am glad of that. The Maccabees fought a war with the Greeks because the Greeks were doing merit hiring and not basing the decision of who got a job on the person's linage. Merit hiring kind of goes with democracy. And at this point can I thank you a lot for opening this expanded discussion of family verses a lack of family values. You have made this a much more meaningful discussion.
"but within the context of "the state", the word "community" loses all of it's meaning, since the state makes all of the claims upon the individual that the community once did. This claiming obscures the fact that there is no true community within the context of the state. In the end, all who buy into the state's remonstration about "community" are left as no more than isolated individuals dependent upon and utilizing the state's willingness to mediate all traditional community functions in the creation of a type of "community by proxy", which leaves the state as the intermediary and arbiter of all function".
wahwho! :cheer: "The Lonely Crowd" by David Riesman; ?Nathan Glazer?; ?Reuel "Democracy in America" by Tocqueville and the new despot we will live under. And Hegel the state is God and how about the Bible and God's kingdom, but that kingdom does carry family values, Paradoxical. Do we want our children growing up without being bonded to family and being only members of the state desperately seeking their own happiness without family bonds?
Excuse me, I studied government policy and administration at the college level. Did you say I do not understand how government works? The most important thing I have said about the shift in power and authority is the change in the bureaucratic order that now crushes individual liberty and power and controls everything by policy. If this form of organization stopped with the federal government, I would not object, but it has consumed every aspect of our lives. Individualism has been destroyed and we are all reduced to being members of a lonely crowd with a despot controlling even the minute details of our lives.
It was the German model of bureaucracy that the US adopted that made Tocqueville's fear of what would happen to Christian democracies, a reality.
Read what I said again: "can and should."
If you keep blaming big government instead of those who use it as their personal tool, then you clearly don't know how it can or should work. Did they teach you about how money buys government? Or did they just teach you that we live in a democracy/republic/federal system and all the good little citizens are in charge and actually slitting their own throats with their own government for some silly reason?
You keep raising 1958, the German model, bureaucracy, etc., as if government is this thinking individual evil person who pulled all that out of thin air as a way to better manage the serfs. I keep telling you to quit doing what the Plutocracy has trained you to do: blame big government, so you don't focus on what they are up to. It's like taking a gun and throwing it in jail while letting the shooter walk. It's like the shooter saying "Don't blame me, blame the gun!" And then you are like "Well, let's render the gun inoperable and all will be fine." It makes no sense.
Thanks for the education on Alexis, et al. I digested all that forty years ago. I'm looking at what is happening in the U.S. today. It's the same thing that has been happening for over a hundred years. It is not what you find in Poly Sci text books on forms of "government."
Yeah, two thumbs up for that one. :up: :up:
Quoting James Riley
Alas, we are not.
Sad, but true. The only slight glimmer is youth (and maybe women). I like the 2015 movie Tomorrowland" with George Clooney. Short of something like that, we're screwed. The Earth, however, will carry on with a "Meh."
National anthems are symbols, just like national flags and any other type of nationalist symbolic device. Their purpose, whether there is war or there is peace and prosperity, they have in common with all similar devices: the psychological, and especially emotional, binding of the individual and his affections to the state, particularly at the expense of other institutions such as the lineage, the tribe, and the ethnicity.
I think your belief is limiting your ability to understand the change in organizational power that comes with adopting the German model of bureaucracy and the education that goes with it. It may be futile to continue this argument but I will try.
Tocqueville foresaw a change, away from family order to bureaucratic order. Do you have any thoughts on what makes the two possible forms of social organization different?
At a 1917 National Education Association conference a teacher quoted a poet in India, Tagore. "Whatever their efficiency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely effective in crushing out individual liberty and power." That defines the enemy we fought against. Then we turned around and adopted this enemy's bureaucratic organization and later the enemy's education for technology for industrial and military purpose. We are now what we defended our democracy against, and people feel this in their bones, and their desperation to restore their personal power, they have refused to wear masks in a pandemic or to get vaccinated when this became possible. We are living with insanity because there is no understanding of how we became as our enemy. There was a time when the most important authority in our lives was family, not the government.
The weakening of the concept of "perpetuity" both in general and in particular: familial, social, environmental, etc., has definitely weakened the concept of "family", and nearly destroyed the concept of "lineage". Genealogical research has today become no more than an exercise in curiosity. The weakening of perpetuity has also resulted in modern cultures having become "rootless", and in the citizens of modern societies having become absorbed in their "selves" (self-absorbed), as that rootlessness has increased and the importance of place and of extended family have diminished.
That is well said, and this thread is about our liberty and power being crushed by loyalty to the state, and what family order has to do with having liberty and power. The US has stood ready for war ever since Eisenhower established the Military-Industrial Complex and education for a technological society with unknown values.
My parents came unglued when I told them I was looking for fire hazards in our garage and had to report them. That night at the dinner table, it was made clear, our evil enemy required people to carry ID and to report their family and neighbors to authority. We now carry ID from the day we are born and Texas has really gone overboard on reporting family and neighbors to authority.
As I just said to James, people are aware the US has changed and they are desparate to get back their liberty and power. But refusing to masks in a pandemic and refusing to get vaccinated is not going to make things better.
I think you have made a very important point and the efforts by Native Americans and people of color support that point.
Native Americans are doing a good job in fighting against that rootlessness and so have people of color stressed the importance of family and knowing our roots, but the fight of people of color is different from the Native American one. Native Americans have a chance of reclaiming their ancestral land, and that just doesn't work as well for people of color, however, people of color are making progress on claiming historical sites and being sure their story becomes part of our national consciousness.
That is unfortunately true. The leadership of the Third Reich (who probably never even read Nietzsche) cherry-picked utterly uncontextualized terms and phrases from his writings, and applied them in grotesque ways as suited their own purposes. Nietzsche was a highly analytical and complex thinker who dealt with some of the more difficult questions of the philosophy of mind, and had the misfortune while publishing his thoughts, of being a highly introverted personality which was itself urgently suppressing the effects of a latent mental illness. This has made him an easy mark for characterization as some type of "Proto-Nazi" monster by those who have not bothered to study and come to grips with the meanings presented within his opera. There is a good presentation of Nietzsche's personality online here if you are interested: https://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA005/English/RSPI1960/GA005_c01_1.html
@Athena, this is presented within The Old Regime and the Revolution, no? I would like to look this up, and read about AdT's thoughts on this. Can you easily provide a rough reference?
My belief is not limiting my ability to understand your continued reference to the German model of bureaucracy. Did you know that this is like the fifth time you've brought this model up? And did you notice that not one single time did I disagree with your historical lessons regarding this model? You know why I have not disagreed? Because, assuming you are correct:
1. At no time in history did people, the family, or the community sit down and say "Hey, let's impose upon ourselves the German model of bureaucracy. You know, just for fun! Because, what the hell; we'd like to be oppressed by our own government."
2. At no time in history did the people's government sit down and say "Hey, let's impose the German model of bureaucracy on the people. You know, just because we're sadistic and we want a more efficient way to screw with our people."
Your belief that big government is the problem is limiting your ability to understand how and why the change in organizational power came about in the first place, and how it is maintained.
Follow the money.
Who pays for the campaigns of the politicians? Who pays for the lobbyists who wine and dine those politicians? Who can afford to do that? Do you think they spend countless billions of dollars buying politicians, drafting self-serving legislation and regulations, supporting bureaucratic red tape to strangle would-be up-and-coming competition, and otherwise molding their subsidiary (government) because it doesn't work? Because they just like throwing money around for nothing? Who said money = speech? Speech is free. What money = is being heard. The Plutocracy is speaking and the government is listening.
So you see, I can stipulate to all your alleged evils of big government and all your stuff about 1958 and Germans and Prussians and Ike, and whatever. It doesn't matter. It's not the fault of big government. It's the fault of those who own and operate big government. And guess what? That is not the people, the family, or the community. The fault lies squarely at the feet of those who stand between the people and their operation and control of big government.
Quoting Athena
See above.
Quoting Athena
No, we didn't fight against an enemy and then turn around and adopt the enemy's org. The enemy never lost because we had our eye on the wrong enemy. And the enemy likes it that way.
People who blame big government are a Plutocrat's wet dream. They love it when they aren't under the spotlight.
You seem very convinced, James, that the nation is, indeed, a "plutocracy"; I am less so. I'm not prepared to say whether the U.S. is, in fact, a "plutocracy" per se, if there is even a set of discernible qualities indicating such a definition, but I do agree that moneyed interests have a great deal of influence with politicians across the political spectrum. Soros and the Koch brothers are only the beginning. If such people do have as much influence as you suggest, though, whose fault is that? Is it not the fault of we the electorate, who continue to reelect the same politicians that allow themselves to be influenced, and their votes to be bought? We can find fault with the values of the wealthy, but we cannot blame them for seeking to exert themselves in realizing their will. We all want to see our individual wills done, do we not? We should not blame the plutocrat for desiring to exert influence, we should blame the politicians for allowing themselves to be influenced, and vote them out of office. If we as an electorate do not do that, then whose fault is the continuing situation regarding political influence?
In fact, the continuing problem of political influence is one of the problems that I think might be somewhat mitigated by the scheme of distributing social roles among the majority of the citizenry as civic duties, which I posited elsewhere. Another consideration: the larger the organization, the more it tends towards corruption. I think that if we had much smaller nation-states fairly uniformly all over the world, then corruption would be much easier to control. Well, that is only a dream...
You are right: they are only the beginning. The real players are grey men. (See Exxon, Chevron, Goldman, etc.)
Quoting Michael Zwingli
It's their fault.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
No, it's not. As stated to Athena, money does not equal speech; money equals being heard. We only hear what money wants us to hear. Gerrymandering, laws that favor the two-party system (lesser of two evils), voting restrictions, hatred/division, the so-called "fourth estate", all that and more stands in the way of doing what's right.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
I certainly can, and do. To quote Spider Man, "With great power comes great responsibility." In some indigenous communities, the counter-intuitive case of the person giving away the most somehow continued to have the most. A great warrior returns with more buffalo than anyone else and he gives it all away to those who can't hunt. Somehow he keeps stumbling on largess and keeps giving. Broad shoulders, lifting, carrying, working hard for the sake of work, philanthropy in silence, without recognition, doing the right thing when no one is watching, honor, integrity, dignity, community, grace, gratefulness. I *think* those are the old "family values", "community values" we sought. We better make a virtue of necessity or we are doomed. Giving a pass to those who stand on the shoulders of everyone else, who never saw a boot-strap in their life, is not in accord with what I think should be our values.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
We might indeed, if our collective wills have not been and cannot be expressed. Hell yeah! Every man for himself! We too can be like them, if only we do what they tell us, support them, and step on others on the way up.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
It's the fault of those who make government their bitch to the exclusion of those they divide and separate from a viable franchise.
Now you have elucidated precisely, specifically by the provision of contrast, all the things that I resent the nation-state for. The state provides a favorable environment for the fostering of the diametrically opposing values to those which you have stated, and I hate living within that situation. This is why I have trouble in concieving of our country, and probably of any nation state, as a "community". I cannot easily discern precisely why, but the environment naturally created within a nation state appears adverse to fostering the qualities that you have mentioned, as did the tribe and the clan. Certainly, the existence of complex heirarchies, and of money as a store of value play a role in this. In addition, the sense of interdependence which existed in the tribe, but has been replaced in the state by common dependence upon the state plays a significant role in this. I feel certain that there is even more to it than that. Not that I want to romanticize the tribe and the clan, but there seems to myself to have been therein, a certain social cohesion which created an environment of shared responsibility, and which is absent from the context of the state, wherein there is no discernible social cohesion, but rather a "shared isolation" and mutual, universal distrust. Within the state, nobody "does the right thing when no one is watching", because within that context, "it's all about me", and not "all about us". We have derived many benefits from living within the context of the state: medical, lifespan, educational, economic, but I might be willing to give all that up to have the type of communal, shared experience of life enjoyed within the tribe or the clan.
Yes, I would likewise not romanticize groups that were perfectly capable of acting in the worst of human nature. But I also think we have an opportunity to throw out the bathwater and keep the baby. The state, due to the size of the population over which it exercises authority, does have some practical distance from our tribal forebears. However, I don't think we've really tried very hard to have a state of us, where we view us as family, looking out for each other. That sounds too touchy-feely for the tough guys, but if there were really any true tough guys left, they could set the tone. It would start with education and ostracization, and making a virtue of necessity. I have a long rant on education but I'm tired. As to the cancel culture (ostracization/consequences) and virtue, we just need to champion grace, gratitude, generosity, strength, courage, and maybe just a touch of species-humbleness. We could exalt those who exhibit those traits and turn away from the those who don't (Trump being an example, but there are a lot of grey men and others).
It's all pipe dreams but it's not unheard of. When I was a kid, the "real man" ideal that little boys aspired to be like was much different from what we see today. Greed turned the point and now the momentum is on the down-swing.
You said that well and I am so glad you easily grasped why I associate him with the Nazis. And it is the same today with modern Nazis. I really don't think our present Nazis are deep thinkers. :lol: I fault education for technology for this problem! In the US, education was modeled after Athens education for well-rounded individual growth and we used the Conceptual Method, teaching increasingly complex concepts. That 1958 National Defense Education Act, replaced that education with the German model of education for technology and left moral training to the church which brings to Hegel.
Hegel was also amazing but his thoughts are tangled with Protestantism and an idea of God and nationalism that some people find objectionable and that brings us to Tocqueville.
The following contains the explanation of despotism that seems to perfectly describe what is happening. That is one of the last things of which he speaks after beginning with praising how Americans do not depend on the government but work together to take care of those things needing to be done, such as building a courthouse or organizing a posse; forming unions and granges. Each one of his subjects could be food for thought for new threads and if you want to start a thread and build on what he has said, please pm me.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/816/816-h/816-h.htm
I would like to read your Nietzche link but it does not fit on my screen and I do not know how to resolve that problem.
This is where I am going to stop because I see no reason to think you understand the difference between the bureaucratic order we had, that made the individual very important, and the bureaucratic order we have today that crushes individual liberty and power. When this is not understood, nothing else of importance can be understood stood.
It's probably good that you stop. Because it's apparent that you don't understand that I DO understand what you are saying. You just can't get past your own enthrallment with your education to see that the argument has moved beyond "the difference between the bureaucratic order we had, that made the individual very important, and the bureaucratic order we have today". I have stipulated to all that. DOH! What I'm talking about is HOW that came to be. You blame big government, as if it did all that, sui sponte. I have tried to teach you HOW that came to be but you don't understand. That's cool. Bye.
Thanks to the change in education, not many people know what a virtue is, nor that we once thought a virtue is synonymous with strength. Like Darwinism, Dawkins's selfish gene dominates our thinking, not the literature of the past that advanced a different morality.
Prove it.
I did. I stipulated to it. Like umpteen times. But apparently not to your satisfaction.
Please refer me to where you have paraphrased what I said about everything being controlled by policy instead of by individuals and I will pick up from there. What are the good reasons for changing the powers of government? Why is social security possible today and not in the past?
When was the change made and why?
Quoting Athena
Drop the tone, honey. You are not a professor and I am not your student. You don't give me assignments to prove I know what you are talking about. I've already stipulated to what you are talking about (go look up the word "stipulate"). If you want to play that game, I will ask you to first hand in your assignment: Answer all the questions I've asked you about HOW and WHY those changes that I have stipulated to came about in the first place.
P.S. And if you say "big government" just pulled it out of it's ass like a rabbit out of a hat, or the people wanted it, then you have not understood your lesson.
The toga was a garment worn only on formal and ceremonial occasions, you'll be relieved to hear.
For a number of reasons, I think, for all its faults (which are not peculiar to it). For its development of a system of laws that continues even today in various forms (even in Louisiana, where the laws are derivative of the Napoleonic Code, which retained a good deal of Roman law); for the fact that it managed to develop a system of government which ruled over diverse nations and peoples for well over a thousand years if we include the Roman successor states in Western Europe and the Eastern Empire, which though in diminishing form lasted until the 15th century; because it extended citizenship to all people in the Empire; because the Principate became open to men from the provinces (e.g. Spain, North Africa, the Balkan region) and wasn't limited men from Rome itself or Italy; because its longevity assured that Greek art and knowledge as modified by the Latin tradition survived even Christianity; that sort of thing. There has never been anything like it in the West--all Western law, culture and society must look back to it and is reliant on it.
Quoting Athena
Cicero was a novus homo, the first in his family to become a member of the Roman Senate and a consul. Having mastered the system, he came to champion it in the struggle to retain the Republic, thus becoming an enemy of Julius Caesar and the first and second triumvirates, (he was killed by order of the second triumverate), forerunners of the Empire. Not a liberal, no; more a conservative along the lines of Burke (actually, Burke was along the lines of Cicero).
Quoting Athena
Ah, perhaps then you agree with Jesus when he said the poor will always be with us. He's been interpreted as saying that we should accordingly be generous to them. But we're not a generous people, are we? Except perhaps sporadically and by impulse. We care far too much about ourselves, our rights, our property, to trouble ourselves with others, and resent it when we're made to even indirectly. Why should other people have the benefit of our money? Here in God's favorite country we're not that far away now from the times in which John Steinbeck's character Tom Joad lived, and are different only to the extent that social welfare programs exist.
How about this one. "In the past, personal and political liberty depended to considerable extent upon governmental inefficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing; but its organization and material equipment were generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely." Aldous Huxley
On another thread about stoicism, one "Amity" said to me: "What is your understanding now? Answers to be in essay form. Minimum word count = 200." So, when you asked me to prove that I understood what you said, it came across as you might perceive "big government." Like you, I don't like that. But I also know that my perception of your intent may be just as misunderstood as your perception of why the stipulated dramatic change occurred in our social order.
Quoting Athena
And that is where we have our fundamental disagreement. See below:
Quoting Athena
Better yet, how about this one:
Every single solitary thing you just said (Huxley), and have said (repeatedly), constitutes what those in the medical profession would call a "symptom." I can stipulate to your recitation of all those symptoms all day long. And indeed, I agree with you on virtually all of those symptoms. But I am talking about the CAUSE. To the extent you consider causation at all, you point your finger at big government/bureaucracy. Our fundamental disagreement is on that point. I say that big money is behind the government/bureaucracy, and that the government/bureaucracy is simply a symptom.
I really don't know what else I can say, unless and until you can argue that big money is not the cause. I suppose we could point to fundamental human stupidity, or masochism, or a desire to be subjugated, or whatever, but I haven't heard you cite those or any other reason. All I hear is "big government/bureaucracy", as if those things exist, unfunded, in a vacuum.
I am agreeable with everything you said and have nothing to argue or add to what you said, until your last paragraph. Yes, I agree with Jesus that we will always have the poor with us, but the 1970 recession taught me important things about myself and poverty. Up until this time I was one of the "nice people" doing my good thing for "those people", you know, the one's in need. I thought poverty was a meaningful experience that those of us born white and middle class could never have. The 1970 recession made me one of "those people".
The reason White middle class people could not have the meaningful experience of poverty is, number 1, they are privileged. They could play at poverty but as long as poverty is a choice it is not the real thing. As long as there are jobs to be had and family and friends to turn for help, poverty is a choice and not real thing. The recession meant no jobs and family and friends didn't have eoungh to share. We could not assemilate the young into the economy and when older people were laid off, they often lost everything. After years of tightening my belt, everything was worn out and breaking down and there was no money to replace it. That is when I became concerned about economics and the role government plays, which lead to understanding what mineral resources have to do with economies and little things like WAR.
This can get way off topic. Many things play into poverty and many things play into good times. Government plays a much larger role in this now than in the past. WWI was a huge turning point, and WW II made war a permanent factor in our lives. We are on a treadmill that does not turn off, but someday it may come to a sudden stop and once again our survival may depend more on family than the government and career opportunites. We can look to Rome for a better understanding of all of this.
Big money is not the cause. Without it, we would be much worse off for several reasons. One reason is fiat money.
There is nothing funny about our military spending. It is economically essential and right now China has far more advanced military technology and is in a position to win a nuclear war. We are seriously vulnerable right now.
Our school children get a free breakfast and lunch and if the family is low income the family can get a SNAP card for food, and medical care, and possibly assistance for housing and their education is free to them. There is not enough to meet the growing need for assistance, but paying for more is a challenge, and if we did not have a successful economic system (most of the time) none of that would be possible.
In the past, we didn't have any of that. Family had to depend on family and charity. By law, fathers were held responsible for providing for their families, and mothers were held responsible for caring for them.
I do not object to the government relieving mothers and fathers of their responsibilities, but there is a price for doing that and the price is not just money.
Nobody is laughing, except the MIC (Plutocracy).
Quoting Athena
In 2019, the U.S. remained the world's top military spender by far, at about $649 billion. China was second at about $261 billion. So, we are seriously WASTING our money, or someone is blowing smoke up your butt. Can you say MIC?
By the way, where do you think China got all that money? Was it from those American made widgets sold in America by our benevolent Plutocracy?
Quoting Athena
Yeah, when we piss a trillion down the drain on a POS fighter plane. You're old enough to recall the old bake sale sign.
Quoting Athena
Well, just make sure you keep blaming the government while those who are responsible laugh all the way to themselves.
By order of Antony...the bastard.
Very accurately and succinctly said. I am very torn on this issue. I don't like the government compelling private citizens to do anything, but we must provide relief and hope to the less fortunate. I feel that the central problem is that of our culture, which is too individualistic and not communal enough to override basic human nature and the defensive mechanisms of the human mind.
Here is what you are saying,
This thread is about social order, and especially about relying on the government for our needs or our families. I have said in the past our social order was based on family order and independence of government, that this is no longer true. I do not see your argument as addressing the family matter. How would you say a plutocracy determines our social order and family values?
How about listening to women? A matriarchy is very different from a patriarchy. Since women have held seats of power, a whole lot more has been done for children and vulnerable people in general. The difference in the focus of women's lives compared to the male focus concerns me and I am not sure this difference will be maintained as women leave their homes to have careers or work in factories. The meaning of being a good woman has changed and what might be the ramifications of this change?
I agree with that quote.
Quoting Athena
So you want to focus on the symptoms and not the cause. Got it.
Quoting Athena
And I have stipulated to that.
Quoting Athena
Because you want to talk symptoms, not cause.
Quoting Athena
I've beat that horse to death. As already explained, the Plutocracy uses, as a tool, that very government/bureaucracy to do the things that the family and the community used to do. But even then, it only allows that to be done enough to keep the people's focus on government/bureaucracy, bread and circuses, etc. and to keep the pitchforks in the barn, or pointed at each other, or at government/bureaucracy; all while still producing the largess flooding up to them. That is only one aspect. They also own the media, sew division, spread myths about ourselves, etc.
If you don't like government/bureaucracy and what it is doing, that is primarily because you, the family and the community don't control it. As stated, the problem is not big government. The problem is who controls it.
This is off topic but you do understand what oil has to do with all industrial economies and what military might has to do with controlling oil, right? What does the plutocracy have to do with those realities?
I suppose you could use Cheney and Halliburton to answer that question, but Cheney and the neocons are not the cause of the reality, they are only people with a good understanding of those realities and therefore know how to position themselves to take advantage of the realities. We could call them plutocrats and we most certainly can question their morality, but what do they have to do with our family values and social order?
Great, what is it about the bureaucracy I do not like? How was the bureaucracy different before adopting the German model?
You got me. You win. The Plutocracy couldn't possibly have anything to do with the economy, oil, or the MIC.
Quoting Athena
Nothing. You got me. You win.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. If you have a problem, blame government.
Well, before families got together and decided to adopt the German model, families used to run everything. After families adopted the German model, an evil government/bureaucracy arose to subdue them, oppress them, turn them against each other, and milk them like a borrowed cow. Now families, oil companies, CEOs, majority shareholders and other common, salt-of-the-Earth folk suffer; while evil bureaucrats are each worth millions and billions of dollars, setting policy and regulations and forcing to common working oilman to send in all his hard earned money to keep the bureaucrats in the standard of living to which they want to become accustomed.
Quoting James Riley
Your smart-ass answers are the last straw. We are done.
:party:
When it comes on screen, simply "squeeze it down" with thumb and forefinger until it fits. Then, start squinting.
Quoting Athena
This is good for women, but in some senses bad for families. It is clearly good for the familial bottom-line, but I think the children suffer a loss of an important aspect of their formative years. Worse still, having the child significantly influenced by people, such as day care workers and teachers, who may not share the worldview, belief system, and values of the parents, has the potential of robbing the parents of having the child reflect themselves in favor of reflecting others in society. This I would strenuously avoid at all costs. I want my son to reflect myself and my wife, our worldview, our beliefs, our values and interests, rather than those of the day care worker, know what I mean? Ideally, In my perfect world, I would earn enough money myself, be married to an intelligent and educated woman (at least a master's from a tier two school minimum) who shares my worldview, beliefs, etc., and shares my ideas on education (the "Trivium" all the way, heavy on logic, rhetoric, critical thinking, philosophy as examplary thereof with critical analysis, math, languages/linguistics with Latin & Greek from very early on; computer architecture and programming concepts beginning g6; chem, bio, physics after g8; nix the generally bullshit history, the propagandistic civics and sociology crap, and other garbage which they will pick up simply in becoming well read people), who could home school the children (and perhaps any other neighborhood kids as the parents show interest), and so avoid the shit educational system we have in this country. In that way, we would shape and form the minds (where the mind goes, the body follows) of our children as we see fit, and make them into what we want them to be, without external interference. But, then I awaken, and there is, here is the reality...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sm23e0a5_w
I think this is pretty on topic. Your idea of an ideal mother is far from what I think a child needs. But it does make an interesting discussion.
Eureka! Athena, you are a genius!
No...in actuality, I would prefer they be fully human. My hope, however, would be to find a woman whose beliefs, values, and all that jazz, approximate my own, and then to have very intentional conversations together in deciding what "all that jazz" will (is "officially" too strong a word here?) be for our family. Then, we could try to mold and shape our children accordingly. The underlying principle of this would be to have the latter generation reflect the former, rather than reflecting others in society. There are alot of strange and perplexing concepts out there which I would not want my kids to claim as their own, thus making them the beliefs of my family.
Michael, I see two ways to go with your post. I told a friend I got into an argument with my sister over some social issue and she looked at me with horror, and asked why I was even discussing that with her? I know there is a lot I do not discuss with neighbors to avoid unpleasant feelings. And I was really enjoying exchanging thoughts with @James Riley until all of a sudden we had a dismisunderstanding that became very unpleasant. That makes me question do we want to engage intellectually with people we want long-term relationships with? :lol: I was told if I want a man in life, I must give up my books.
Second, I think it is natural that we want our children to grow up appreciating the culture and values we teach them. This is very important to Jews, Christians, and others. This is a big issue with ethnically different people. When indigenous peoples' lives are severely disrupted by colonizers, it is very destructive to individuals and the tribe. Well-meaning missionaries destroyed tribes and when an Asian moves to the west, they want their children to remember the family's culture and values. Personally, I want all those differences preserved because it is what makes humans so interesting. But how much can public education accommodate those differences, or should it even try? Should we have one culture and specific shared values?
Yes, I was a bit dismayed by your exchange. "James" is a man of strong feeling, and one must keep that in mind when dialoguing with him, if a continued good relationship is desired, especially if one is a person of equally strong feeling, and somewhat differing opinions, such as myself. You can't be confrontational with James, cause he tends not to shrink from his opinions...you have to know who you can "bully", and you can't "bully" James.
Quoting Athena
I don't think that to be true in any absolute sense, but I will agree that being unopinionated does widen the field somewhat, perhaps substantially. To me, though, an unopinionated person is one of two types: either they are stupid, or they lack the courage of their convictions. To myself, both qualities are "disqualifatory", if you know what I mean. The first, because, from the genetic standpoint, I want my offspring to be "smart in relation", and the second because having a spouse who lacks axiologic ferocity simply poses a danger to my family and lineage. My advice: be true to your own self. Keep your books, and find "that guy".
Quoting Athena
Ha, well said. My absolute favorite novel of all time, despite the relative simplicity of it's prose (I tend to appreciate complex erudition, such as that of George Eliot, which is why I love Cicero so much...he is the unequalled champion of complex erudition) is a slim volume entitled "Things Fall Apart", by a Nigerian author named Chinua Achebe. "Okonkwo", the protagonist of the story, is a favorite tragic hero of myself. The narrative contains a brilliantly exposed statement of the destructivity of cultural imperialism, particularly as an adjunct of "Western" colonialism.
or easy to frustrate, and impatient. :cool:
I feel 'ya...I can relate.
:rofl: I love starting my day with a good laugh and "being unopinionated does widen the field somewhat" is a hilarious comment when I think of myself. I so admire the Asians I have known who do not get their backs up when someone says something that is disagreeable. They seem to go more easily with the flow. I don't think they are stupid or lack conviction, but rather accept it is as it is, and getting upset about it won't make things better. At least that is what Jon want said when I admired him for being reticent.
:lol: I have already slept with the best men in history and do not need a man. Genghis Khan was exciting but not my idea of a congenial person. He was a little rough on the edges if you know what I mean?
"Things Fall Apart", sounds like a great book to read. Right now we need to give much thought to our behavior and stupidity! The whole world is not envious of us and wanting to be like us. Our way of life is not sustainable and a few other problems go with it, such as the destruction of family, and creating people totally alone in the crowd, clawing at each other as they fight over the crumbs. Our violence against others and one's own self is sad. :cry: I don't think this will come to good.
Me too.
:smile:
I highly recommend it, especially as it is brief while being profound. One caveat for the potential female reader: traditional West African cultures, including the Igbo culture depicted by Achebe, were highly male-dominant and patriarchal...dare I say from the "Western" perspective, "male chauvanist verging on misogynistic"? The intended readers of Achebe, who was writing primarily for a West African audience, would have understood that, so the moral of Achebe's story would not have been obscured thereby. For a Westernized audience, though, the depiction of the cultural setting has the potential to shock the sensibilities of some, and so obscure Achebe's thesis. Even with this, though, it is definitely worth the read.
Correct. Communist Russia’s population growth dropped by more than half from 1.8% a year in the 1950s to 0.8% in 1980-1981, due mostly to declining fertility.
The Soviet Union: population trends and dilemmas – NIH
A major cause was the abortion rate that was the highest in the world. The abortion rate in Capitalist America (and in the West in general) was much lower.
Abortion rate in the U.S. and Soviet Union 1970-1989
So, it seems that Socialism did have a major problem. In fact, the economic, cultural, and psychological impact of Socialism was so severe that former Socialist countries like Russia never recovered even decades after the collapse of Socialism.
You have piqued my interest. I am deeply interested in the environmental conditions that lead to matriarchy or patriarchy.
The God of Abraham religions are certainly patriarchal, and "male chauvinist verging on misogynistic" seems to describe reality in the US as well. I don't think this is helped with feminism that seems to include a hatred of men. But I am an odd duck. Despite the reality I have experienced, I think the greatest happiness and human good comes from family. I think democratic values are important for the best family experience, and that autocratic Industry led to autocratic families, and today we call the autocratic family dysfunctional. Of course, the religions are autocratic, an authority above the people, as well as patriarchal.
Well, your post was a pleasant surprise. That is the most supportive statement I have had in several years. Normally people attack what I am saying. It helps that you are working with information and just your opinion.
Dare I say life might go better if we enjoy being male and female and raising children. Today, gay people are doing a better job of that than straight people. God forbid that woman wants to be feminine to stay home to raise the children and support her husband. Forgive me, I have looked into joining a couple of different organizations where the requirement was to hate men and to hate being intentionally attractive to them. Like being a woman who enjoys being a woman, is terribly wrong. I know such a small sample of reality should not be generalized too far, but I am remembering an old New Woman magazine that attacked a first lady for being satisfied with being the first lady and not desirous of becoming president as though being a first lady had no value! :gasp:
In the 1970s I went from being a Mother Goddess, gardening, canning, sewing, knitting, and proud of all my domestic skills to provide for my family, to "just a housewife", It was a terrible experience for me. My self-esteem crashed! That sent me back to college and that did not go well either because the male of the household did not approve. :lol: Gibran wrote, we speak when we are not at peace with our thoughts. Hopefully, I am not the only one who thinks the full-time homemaker is a very valuable person playing an important role in our human experience.
Yeah, apparently I am full of surprises, or so I am told! :grin:
I can't say I agree with everything you say, but I think you are making some valid points. Not everything in life is about things like advanced technology or “equality”.
Imperial Russia was backward in some ways, but it was a prosperous nation with a lot of potential.
In contrast, though Socialism had some good points, we can imagine how disastrous its impact must have been on the Russian people to experience such extraordinary rates of corruption, alcoholism, divorce, abortion, low fertility, and rapidly declining population. We must also take into consideration that Russia has been kept alive by its large oil and gas reserves without which God only know where it would be now.
The way I see it, when a nation loses interest in having families and children, and is unperturbed by a falling population, i.e., its own slow but sure demise, then something must be fundamentally wrong with that nation.
In other words, the supporters of Socialism are too eager to stress what they see as positive outcomes of that system, and in the process, they ignore the negatives. In some ways it is like a religious belief system that blindly follows its own unverified claims.
Obviously, capitalist society is beginning to experience some of the problems seen by former socialist states. So, presumably there are some shared causes somewhere. In any case, the future of the Western world doesn’t look very good at the moment and I don't think Socialism is in a position to offer any real solutions.
At 1.7 children per woman, Socialist China has a fertility rate well below replacement level. In contrast, Africa has the world's highest fertility rate with an average of 4.27 children per woman. This could be an indication that technological, economic and social progress comes with gradual extinction. In which case, "progress" isn't necessarily what it seems ....
I think the main reason for this was cultural and political. Socialism was seen by some in the West as “acceptable” whereas communism – due to the East-West antagonism – was not.
But the fact of the matter is that communism or Marxism-Leninism is a form of socialism.
Marx and Engels and their followers like Lenin taught that Socialism was a transitional phase from capitalism to communism. Communism was the utopian ideal to be achieved in the future.
This is why so-called “communist” states like Russia officially called themselves “socialist”: they were ruled by an officially communist party, i.e. a party that had the establishment of communism as its official program, but for the time being the system was socialist not communist.
Hence “communist” Russia’s official name, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
If your poly sci class made the distinction along these lines, then it was probably right.
The cultural and political aspect is the conservative/capitalist mindset that wants to paint socialists with a Stalinist, Maoist, Pol Potist brush. It's no different than a liberal /socialist wanting to paint the conservative/capitalist as a fascist Nazi Hitler Musoliniest. It denotes a lack of education in intro to Political Science.
Quoting Apollodorus
One has to be able to parse or conflate (depending on their rhetorical goal) the economic from the political use of these terms, each of which can have cross-over. Much like capitalism and communism (see China). Or capitalism/socialism/representative Democracy (United States).
Quoting Apollodorus
And some like to hang on the slippery-slope mythology that comes with a fallacy of the two-valued orientation. They ignore all of the first world countries on the planet because they are on all the way to the gulag. They also conveniently ignore the socialist aspects of the U.S. and how capitalism would have a snow-ball's chance in hell without them.
Quoting Apollodorus
An education in the Political Sciences teaches one to not confuse what countries say about themselves with what they really are. An example is "Nazi" which the conservative agenda likes to point out, has the word "socialist" in it (see above, re Stalanist, Maoist, Pol Potist). But they are slow to acknowledge the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as democratic or a republic. Another example is the the Republican who correctly notes that Republicans freed the slaves from the Democrats, all while conveniently failing to note that it was actually the liberals that freed the slaves from the conservatives.
Anyway, your name fired a synapse in the back of my head so I went to a log I keep and, low-and-behold, there you were as someone I had informally banned. While I can't remember the reason now (I don't log such things, and you aren't that important to me) I'm smelling an inkling as to why. So I will cede the floor to your august retort, hoping against hope that you might have learned something. At the very least, maybe someone else did. Adios, and apologies to myself for the re-engagement.
If political science teaches that we must not call countries what they call themselves, then why should anyone "acknowledge the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as democratic or a republic"?
Quoting James Riley
I think people are free to parse or conflate as much as they want. The fact still remains that communism is a form of socialism:
https://www.dictionary.com/e/socialism-vs-communism/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
As to North Korea, which you call “democratic”, Wikipedia makes the following interesting observation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
“Sham elections” and “totalitarian dictatorship”, doesn’t sound particularly “democratic” to me.
Oh, and after the introduction of socialism, North Korea’s fertility rate dropped from about 5 children per woman in the 1950’s to currently less than 2, i.e. below replacement level.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/north-korea-population
We must avoid perfect agreement at all costs. What would we talk about if we agreed? And if we didn't argue with each other, our minds would not expand. That would be a terrible thing!
I am quite sure Russia's biggest problem is long cold winters. We feel freer in regions where the climate is mild and food grows naturally. I have heard on some tropical islands the problem is not growing plants and trees that fruit, but preventing the vegetation from taking over. Try growing those plants and trees in Siberia. I have heard Siberia is not a good place to go skinny dipping.
Genghis Khan is a good representative of a harsh climate. The Mongols saw our cities as very immoral because of the lack of cooperation and the competition that leaves some no choice but to lie and steal. Both were punished by death under Genghis Khan, but because life was so hard in the harsh environment, no one was denied food and shelter, because that could be a death sentence. I say this because we have been harsh on communism and perhaps we should consider what is behind it?
That sure was true of Sparta! The first military socialist state.
That is why I bring the issue up. Athens imitated Sparta for military reasons when Prussia began invading but it never took care of its people as Sparta did. Athens' individualism went with its liberty. I ash is that important? Is that something we should consider, and exactly what does that look like? Dying our hair green and putting studs in our face? Or the stimulus of figuring out for ourselves how we will survive?
Yes, that is something we should think about. Remember? the Greek notion that we are like cattle, and only a few are chosen by the gods to be heroes. Always the hero's journey begins by pushing the person to his absolute limits. In the US education was very much about teaching the young to be heroes. This was done with literature. How desperately we need this now, but not as children's TV is doing it with superheroes or children who play the roles of adults with no adults caring for the children. I think the intentions of those shows are good, but anti-family and anti childhood, and possibly not a good influence? We are forcing our children to be as miniature adults and I think this has a negative effect, and socialism taking care of all of us is not going to have only good results.
[qoute]At 1.7 children per woman, Socialist China has a fertility rate well below replacement level. In contrast, Africa has the world's highest fertility rate with an average of 4.27 children per woman. This could be an indication that technological, economic, and social progress comes with gradual extinction. In which case, "progress" isn't necessarily what it seems ....[/quote] China, India, and Africa, absolutely must reduce their populations and if they do not do this intentionally, nature will continue to eliminate them, with disease, famine, and war. The whole world is in trouble right now because of overpopulation but that is a different subject.
It is as Zeus feared, with the technology of fire, man has gone on to discover all other technologies and now we are technologically smart, but we have turned our backs on the gods and are unwise. We have a huge challenge before us. We have succeeded! :party: Now how do we live with our success? If we can not fly around the world, and have huge high-tech homes, and whatever else is supposed to make us happy, what is left? Family. Family can be a great source of happiness and maybe we want to develop that? That is sustainable but our glut based on consuming resources is not.
"If we reflect upon the various ideals of education that are prevalent in the different countries, we see that what they all aim at is to organize capacities for conduct. This is most immediately obviousin Germany, where the explicitly avowed aim of higher education is to turn the student into an instrument for advancing scientific discovery." 1912 William James' "Talks to Teachers on Psychology, and to Students on Some of Life's Ideals".
In 1958 the US replaced its domestic education modeled after Athens education for well-rounded individual growth, with the German model of education. Now the conservatives and liberals are pitted against each other and none of them have a clue what this has to do with the change in education. They will fight for what they believe in, but will they fight for our democracy? How do they understand their democracy?
Democracy begins with a family of gods, and we are destroying childhood and family in favor of all adults working for the state and preparing our children to be products for industry. That is not the democracy we defended in two world wars. How about returning to education for democracy and well-rounded individuals? I think that needs to come before education for political science.
Not only that, but if I agree too much with you, people might start imagining me in a ten-gallon Stetson hat and cowboy boots made in El Paso, or something. :grin:
But I think one aspect of the issue may be formulated something like this:
Individuals depend on the population of which they are a part.
Therefore social and economic progress must take into consideration both individuals and the wider population.
If social and economic policy ignores, neglects, or harms the wider population, then it is a harmful policy.
A policy that results in the social and economic progress of individuals on one hand, and the decline of the wider population on the other hand, is harmful to the wider population.
Since individuals depend on the population of which they are a part, policies that are harmful to the wider population are ultimately harmful to the individuals within that population.
Therefore policies that are harmful to the wider population are unacceptable.
And the equality aspect:
Men and women should enjoy equality in the sense of having the same rights in law, the same opportunities, being treated with equal fairness and respect, etc.
Having children is a basic right of both men and women.
Policies that force women to take up employment at the cost of having children, means placing them in a position where they are unable to manifest their right to have children.
If socialism or socialistic ideologies and policies result in any or all of the above problems, they are harmful to women and to society at large and therefore are unacceptable.
Quoting Athena
That's hardly going to happen if people think that North Korea is "democratic", though, is it? If that's what the educated think, what can we expect from the uneducated?
I wonder if those with degrees in political science see any resemblance between North Korea and the Democratic Party?
But I agree that the issue does revolve on democracy in a crucial sense. True democracy means that power belongs to the people. But making people rightless and childless means making them powerless. And robbing a population of its future seems plain anti-democratic and anti-people. I think this encapsulates the socialist or socialistic problem. An ideology that aims to "socialize" a population out of existence or otherwise promotes policies with that result seems highly suspect to me.
Socrates said something like that and he wanted us to be aware of each other. In the US textbooks prepare the young for life, not to be products for industry as it started doing in 1958. I think it is obvious that was not a good change in education. We have improved by eliminating the old prejudices but without shared values and principles we are in big trouble.
The breakdown of family comes with education for a technological society with unknown values and that worries me. I can see the benefits of weak families but I think the problems are much worse.
Thank you for acknowledging forcing women into the workforce takes away their right to be mothers, and caring daughters and granddaughters. :lol: If everyone were aware of what it is like to give birth to a child and get up several times during the night to feed the child, there might be greater acceptance of giving her time to be a mother. And I hear there is a reluctance to give family time off the care for older members or sick members of the family. Seriously? What are our values? Humans succeeded because of their willingness to care for each other and shouldn't a civilized society encourage that? It is not just an inconvenience to find someone to care for a family member, but it is anti-family to be put in the position of finding someone else to do caregiving.
We had family fidelity when women stayed home to care for their families and that is being destroyed as now they must have fidelity with their employer, and sorry family, you all must fend for yourselves. It is not gays destroying family values. I think, what you have suggested is socialism can strengthen the family instead of weakening it. Have I interpreted you correctly? I was not thinking of socialism in that way but I really like that idea.
Quoting Apollodorus
Are you suggesting democracy is about being full human beings? Not just voting? I wish we all understood democracy as a way of life and an experience of being empowered to fully actualize ourselves. Government is one aspect of democracy. Individualism and family are other aspects of the democratic way of life, and if we replaced the autocratic model of industry with the democratic model, we could better manifest the democratic way of life.
Quoting Apollodorus
I interpret that to mean you are opposed to socialism. I can see socialism going either way, supporting families or destroying them. What is the goal of socialism? Is it possible it can be harmful or beneficial depending on the determined goal?
Quoting Athena
Being full human beings is one aspect of it. But we need human beings in the first place.
Overpopulation does not refer to the number of people in one country. It refers to a country's capacity to sustain its own population.
Africa, China, India, have large populations, but if they manage their resources efficiently, they can sustain their populations.
China has a large population but it is also a large country with sufficient resources. Israel has a very small population but in terms of natural resources, etc. may find it more difficult than China to sustain itself.
But what I was talking about was for example countries in Europe, especially Russia, where population levels are stagnating or falling and if this trend continues, their populations will inevitably shrink to dangerous levels and with that their economies, their military and political power, etc.
The problem is that once a country's population has peaked, it will decline faster and faster until over time only remnants are left that are insufficient to sustain a thriving democracy. And hostile powers like China or Turkey are waiting to strike.
I don't think that socialism strengthens family values. This is why I gave the example of Socialist/Communist Russia where divorce, abortions, and extremely low fertility are a big problem.
"Fidelity" has always been problematic. I suppose infidelity is in a way part of human nature. But culture can act as a counterweight. In the old days the house wife could pass her time with the milkman or plumber, and the husband with the maid or mistress. But there was a tendency to stay together all the same for the sake of the family. The current trend is for relationships to last six months at the most or to have "open relationships", which is OK in principle but does not seem to promote family values.
I agree that gays are a small minority that poses no threat to families. Besides, there is nothing to stop gay people from having children. The threat to the family comes from the materialism and egotism of mainstream culture.
And yes, if women are forced to work instead of having children, then we are taking away their right to have children, their power, and their future. A society without children is a society without a future.
A woman who only works, buys goods, and goes to political rallies, is a tool in the hands of economic and political interests. If that's what she wants to do, that's fine. But then she can't claim that she cares about society, because if all women did what she does, then society would cease to exist within a few decades.
And without society, we can't have democracy. So, we need to decide whether we want democracy or not.
Quoting Athena
I am opposed to socialist policies as already explained. I am not saying that all socialist policies are bad.
However, I think the main goal of socialism is total state control over society, economy, and politics. And that isn't very democratic.
We have too many agreements. :lol: But your parting statement hit a nerve. Not because I disagree but because I think the is true for the US and the Military-Industrial Complex that has zero family values. Our young have been raised to be products and consumers for Industry. I would not be speaking of family values if we all took them for granted.
Historically US history has put Industry first. I think in the past, our education put being human first and educated for well-rounded individual growth, but our laws and police force protected property owners more than human rights, more than civil rights. Union workers risked getting their heads bashed in, or in some cases being gunned down, in their fight for better wages and better working conditions. Right now property owners who rent can make decisions about who lives in a rental and these laws are opposed to family helping family. If an elder woman is in section 8 housing and helps a son or daughter who does drugs she can be evicted and that becomes a serious barrier to getting into housing. So the woman who does the right thing of helping family becomes homeless. Of course, all the racist laws including when some states outlawed interracial marriages, are opposed to human rights. I suppose we could add laws against homosexuals to the list. That is certainly true when it comes to family, however, the reality is, gay families tend to do better than heterosexual families.
We could ask what is a family and what are family values and rights and duties. Then we might have better grounds for how Government could support family values?
You are absolutely right. Capitalism can have its negative sides, too. No system is perfect. But unless we revert to pre-capitalist or pre-industrial conditions, and seeing that socialism or communism is not an option, I think we are stuck with capitalism - until someone comes up with a better idea. :smile:
As regards the family, the mainstream definition of “traditional family” seems to be a nuclear family, i.e. “a child-rearing environment composed of a breadwinning father, a homemaking mother, and their (normally) biological children” (Wikipedia).
Of course, there are also “extended families” where close relatives like grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc., all live within one household.
It may be argued that the extended family provides a wider network of support than the nuclear family.
But considering that child-rearing is the defining element, values that are related to and supportive of this would qualify as family values and policies promoting child-rearing families would be family-friendly policies.
One important aspect of this though would be culture. You would need to have a culture that is family-oriented in the first place.
Economic factors can play a role. But people on a higher income don’t necessarily have more children than those on a lower income. So, I think you would need to start with a family-oriented culture and education system in the first place.
And then support political parties that promote this. Also start your own campaign group.
Since women are the child-bearers, it would probably be best to start as a women’s initiative in which men can be enrolled gradually.
But I think you would first need to organize your thoughts on the topic and make them part of some kind of integrated belief system and political program.
So maybe begin with a discussion group that can grow into something bigger once a clear ideology has been developed and its appeal to the wider public has been assessed?
You thoughts might go well in the new thread about Creating and Destroying a Civilization.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12077/creating-and-destroying-a-civilization.
I don't think there can not be capitalism before industrialization.
Tribes work together to feed everyone. Often the effort to feed everyone is tied to mythology implying some form of supernatural power must be appeased with taboos against putting self-interest first. I have heard Russia's communism is an imitation of Native American organization of people caring for each other.
In my younger years, I never imagined it would be so hard to have strong families and therefore a strong nation. Confucius was adamant about strong families being essential to a strong nation.
All aspects of adult human capital, from work force skills to cooperative and lawful behavior, build on capacities that are developed during childhood, beginning at birth … The basic principles of neuroscience and the process of human skill formation indicate that early intervention for the most vulnerable children will generate the greatest payback.”[/i] (The Science of Early Childhood Development, 2007)
In the report’s entirety, the term “investment(s)” was used 22 times, “return” appeared eight times, “cost(s)” five times, “capital” appeared on four occasions, and either “pay”/“payback”/“pay that back” was used five times. While some may justify it as a normal thus moral human evolutionary function, the self-serving OIIIMOBY can debilitate social progress, even when social progress is most needed; and it seems that distinct form of societal penny wisdom but pound foolishness is a very unfortunate human characteristic that’s likely with us to stay.
Due to the OIIIMOBY mindset, the prevailing collective attitude, however implicit or subconscious, basically follows, “Why should I care—I’m soundly raising my kid?” or “What’s in it for me, the taxpayer, if I support child development education and health programs for the sake of other people’s troubled families and bad parenting?” Meantime, too many people procreate regardless of their (in)capacity to raise children in a psychologically sound manner, according to child-development science; and consequential dysfunctional parenting occurs considerably more often than what is officially known thus acknowledged.
If society is to avoid the most dreaded, invasive and reactive means of intervention — that of governmental forced removal of children from dysfunctional/abusive home environments — maybe we then should be willing to try an unconventional proactive means of preventing some future dysfunctional/abusive family situations.
Being free nations, society cannot prevent anyone from bearing children; society can, however, educate all young people for the most important job ever, even those high-schoolers who plan to always remain childless. One can imagine that greater factual knowledge of what exactly entails raising and nurturing a fully sentient child/consciousness in this messed-up world — therefore the immense importance and often overwhelming responsibility of proper rearing — would probably make a student less likely to willfully procreate as adults.
Also, I've heard criticism that such curriculum would bore thus repel students from attending the classes to their passable-grade completion; however, could not the same reservation have been put forth in regards to other currently well-established and valued course subjects, both mandatory and elective, at the time they were originally proposed? (Also, currently well-established and valued course subjects, such as algebra and chemistry, likely won’t be of future use to students.)
Additionally, such curriculum — which could be wholly or in part based upon the four parenting styles: Authoritarian, Authoritative, Permissive and Uninvolved — may actually result in a novel effect on student minds, thereby stimulating interest in what otherwise can be a monotonous daily high-school routine. Some exceptionally receptive students may even be inspired to take up post-secondary studies specializing in child psychological and behavioral disorders.
They may ascertain that a psychologically and emotionally sound (as well as a physically healthy) future should be every child’s foremost right, especially considering the very troubled world into which they never asked to enter. Mindlessly minding our own business on this matter has proven humanly devastating.
your wrote:
Prussia?
I'm curious to know more about your views. Di you publish anything on this subject? Can you suggest any readings that support or elaborate more on your statements?
1. At conception stage (think)
2. At implementation stage (act)
It's unclear to me at which stage socialism fails.
I hate it when I make mistakes like that. Obviously, I meant "Persia" when I wrote "Prussia" and was speaking of the Persian invasion of the Greeks. :grimace:
For years I tried to write a book and I have given up. I have put information into forums and gotten such a negative reaction it seems that my effort is futile. Your response is very surprising!
The notion of Prussian military bureaucracy being applied to citizens may have come from Charles Sarolea's 1912 book "The Anglo-German Problem". Little pieces of information come from different books and my memory is not precise. However, when it comes to understanding the Military-Industrial Complex I think Charles Sarolea's book is the best and it is free online. He uses Prussian quotes that make you feel like a fly on the wall when big decisions were being made. I hate the violence of war, but the strategy of war is thrilling! War strategy and technology go hand and hand and often have dramatic social ramifications. In modern times, the connection between war and technology has great economic ramifications. The internet is the result of government military research and then the genius of men who saw the potential of this technology and how to create a new reality.
A main source of information is an old college text "Public Administration and Public Affairs" by Nicholas Henry. That one confirms the US adopted the German bureaucratic model and explains why that was necessary. The bureaucratic organization we had was extremely inefficient and something like a national pension plan would be impossible without improving the technology of the system we had.
Very important to understanding how Roosevelt and Hoover worked together to radically change the US federal government is the book "Big Government" by Frank Gervasi.
Then we go from those books to the ones that warn the US could be moving in a dangerous direction because of wartime government contracts and those who had those contracts and wanted to keep them. These books were written at the end of WWII. The US demobilized after every war until the Korean war. That is when Eisenhower embedded the Military-Industrial Complex in the US. Part of the reason for doing that was keeping our economy strong. Instead of shutting down the war industry and ending jobs, we repurposed their mission and kept them going.
I lost my best source of information about what Eisenhower did to embed the MIC when the U of O document library decided to digitize the books and removed the books from the shelf! This should be considered a crime against society! Now, none of that information can be accessed without knowing the precise title of what one is looking for. In the past, a person could spend all day looking through the books, made when history was made, and discover unexpected things, like Eisenhower's letter to Germany praising Germany for their contribution to democracy. Or what Eisenhower did to create new links between government and research and new links between government and the media. Setting us up for the insanity we have today and making it possible for Reagan and Bush Jr. to misuse their power to lie to us and use our military might in ways it should not be used. Without access to those books, I can no longer validate what I read.
Those links Eisenhower made, along with the 1958 National Defense Education Act, have serious social, economic, and political ramifications. But then it may be interesting to study the changes Roosevelt and Hoover made more carefully along with having a better understanding of the changes Eisenhower made. Most of us do not pay attention to the political matters that need our attention. Like people have accepted global warming and as not that unusual, we seem to think our government was always as it is today. Unless we are discussing this stuff, the reading can be too boring to interest anyone. It is pretty dry. :brow: But hey, history is dead, this is a new day and our technology has made us so superior we do not need to look back. :worry:
When the masses are clueless, as they are, democracy is only an illusion.
In another thread, Weber was mentioned so I pulled out a book of Weber Selections and he may have been a genius, but re-reading what he said, it is alarmingly mechanical. A quick scan impresses me as soulless. I may be wrong and I am inviting other opinions.
:clap: :clap:
Thanks a lot for your feedback and the references!
> I lost my best source of information about what Eisenhower did to embed the MIC
Isn't Eisenhower also the one who warned the US about the danger of the MIC?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-jvHynP9Y
Quoting neomac
Yes, he was and he knew what he was talking about. I was going through the books that contained the government documents for every year, because I wanted to know more about the National Defense Education Act. After I found the information I wanted, I skimmed through the books to see what else might be interesting. That is how I found the information about new connections between government and research and government and education.
Years later I checked the abstracts for information about the recession that started in 1974 because of OPEC embargoed oil to the US. I noticed all research on poverty disappeared from the abstracts and in its place was research on welfare fraud. (controlled research for a purpose) About a year after the research change the news was talking about welfare fraud as much it takes about covid today (manipulation of the media). Germany never did better. It is what the Germans did when they wanted money for war. Control information to manipulate the public.
This research pitted the public against those bums on welfare and domestic budgets were slashed. Some states discontinued welfare to two-parent families when there were no jobs because of the recession. Forcing men to abandon their families so their families could get help. This created a huge family problem that is still with us today and then Reagan poured money into military spending.
Some of that money is what made Saddam strong because we were bribing oil producers to sell us oil cheap. We had the navy stationed in the Mediterranean Sea, making it clear one way or another we were going to take oil. The recession was caused by OPEC embargoing oil, making just about everything Reagon said about us not needing to conserve, and the poor being lazy bums, a lie. There was a huge shift in wealth and power during the Reagan years.
What I have said is directly related to the dispute about socialism and also concern about families.
Thanks a lot for the additional information! I think that your manifest passion and knowledge could be better shared on a dedicated blog where to collect your forum posts, thoughts and findings on these topics. This would certainly let others better explore/assess/popularize your views. If you already did, I'd definitely like to have the link because I've been always fascinated by the subject "family", maybe more from an anthropological and sociological point of view, than from a political or moral point of view, but that's why I also see your approach as complementary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX78iKhInsc