Socialism versus Capitalism, solved

As a democracy becomes larger and more complex voters rely increasingly on experts to figure out what is in their interest and for every expert there are 10 lobbyists posing as experts. As such there are limits to what can be decided "collectively" before corruption sets in, there is no fruit loop utopian vision that can simply wish away corruption and enable everything to be managed perfectly.

Thus it makes sense for socialists to think like capitalists, to recognise the limits of democracy and not overextend the limited administrative capital of voters, this would probably result in some kind of direct democratic system and strong local government taking care of welfare and public safety with otherwise unfettered capitalism everywhere else.

New problem: get socialists and capitalists to live together under one roof without killing each other.

>>2
I think the problem lies in the fact that socialists will blame capitalism for the problems socialism created in the first place.

The fuck? Voters don't rely on "experts" because democracy is somehow becoming more complex. They rely on Fox News because they're lazy pieces of poorly educated shit.

You want a solution that tackles the CAUSE of 90% of world problems? A better education system that produces people capable of critical thinking.

>>4
You say "critical thinking" but how exactly is "critical thinking" going to help?  Even so-called open-minded people believe certain things and deny certain things and no amount of critical thinking will make someone who dislikes something suddenly adore it.  There will be even less a chance if that like or dislike is automatic and unconditional.  Even completely rational people on the far end of whatever spectrum you are using to gauge people have those kinds of hangups.  Most importantly, "critical thinking" will never mitigate the "(but) I have a good idea" attitude.

Some of them, if I may correct, rely on Fox News because they trust it.  If they were smart, and Fox News was outlandishly lying about details they would learn with better education, they they would have no reason to trust it.  The same goes with MSNBC; CNN; and other such news sources.  The problem now is viewpoint: if our highly affluent person, whomever he may be, does not like the facts as presented, he may still not rely on "critical thinking" but may stick adamantly to his current beliefs (and change the channel).

If you want a "90% of the world's problems" then look no further from the fact that even intelligence doesn't stop people from believing things that are purely emotional, or being stupid.

"critical thinking" is a bit vague.

>>5>>6
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that neither of you seem to understand what I mean by critical thinking. Go watch this video, it doesn't take long and doesn't use the sound track from Inception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg

>>7
No, that movie talks about exactly what I was thinking about and exactly what I was saying wouldn't work.  It presents a decent argument for it, I will admit that, but it's entirely based on idealistic hope.  Regardless of how affluent the first world has become, intelligence breeds both elegant solutions and a higher-criteria of problems, but also the old problems remain.  People are people and naturally divide into camps; that's why conflict is unavoidable.  Our brain naturally categorizes things into a series of "likes" and "dislikes" and that is how it processes information.  You can make them as logical as they want but give them something they are divided about and time will create it owns flanderization with time.

Additionally, such idealistic postulations also suggest that people enjoy being capricious goldfish who will drop ideas, practices, and philosophies at the drop of the hat of "fact" and "logic."  Even what we would call smart people today aren't like that when not willing.  People do not like their lives overturned because someone proved a new theorem and, heaven and hell be damned, it's going to be used, whether or not they want it.

>>7
Also, yes, I am appreciative that it doesn't use the Inception soundtrack.  Or anything from the Matrix.

But my basic argument is this: people have been speculating that making people more affluent and intellectual would improve society for some time now, and indeed we've improved those areas.  We have not gotten anywhere with the other side of the equation, though, because the hypothesis itself is flawed by a lack of real evidence that changes like these have any sticking power.  Critical thinking does not change how people manage their information and does not address the underlying issue that critical thinking would only work if everyone had the same comprehension and opinions.  Or, alternately, was a tireless inquiry machine who had no other life.  Or, was not interested in seeking out other like-minded individuals as a method of validation.

>>8
>>9
Okay, tell you what. Let's get there first and see what happens. Better education will not hurt.

>>10
How do we get there; and, more importantly, why haven't we gotten there yet from wherever we were, or them having gotten there from wherever they were?

>>11
End rote learning and end the myth that knowledge = intelligence.

Identify the learning styles of students and actually act on that information instead of discarding it and getting everyone to open their book and read.

FUND IT. The money you spend on making smart citizens you will reap back 10 fold in the long term.

More incentives for teachers to say. Turnover rate in teaching is really high. Lots of people train to be teachers but don't stay teachers for long. Maybe better pay? Find it what teachers want, consider the feasibility of giving it to them and what you lose by not. 

We haven't got there because for many reasons but primarily because of "But that's the way we've always done it", lack of funding and faith schools.

>>12
How do you teach geography or grammar without at least going through the motions for rote memorization?

>>13
Imagine I'm rolling my eyes right now, okay? I'll reword it for you, 'End obscene over-reliance on rote learning that most schools engage in.'

>>14
I'm sorry.  You're right, it was awfully pedantic of me to press that particular issue.  All the same, what areas of schooling would benefit from a lack of rote memorization?  I am a product of such a thing as your "rote learning schooling" and, therefore, such a concept such as bringing more critical thinking into the classes room confuses me slightly.  Or are you advocating specific lesson planning, a curriculum, if you will, of topics nurturing critical thinking practices in general, much like how Catholic elementary schools have their own Religion course?

On a less serious note, and I apologize in advance for ducking into it, if your argument involves formulating better word problems in Math, I would definitely approve of that.

>>2,3
Blaming everything on each other is what ideologies do, that won't change. What will change are smart asses such as ourselves who mess up politician's propoganda efforts by coming up with new ideas and spreading them around.

>>4
Insufficient administrative capital is a consequence of voters being "lazy pieces of poorly educated shit", Fox News Channel is influenced strnogly by lobbyists posing as experts and a "better education system that produces people capable of critical thinking" is a way of increasing the administrative capital of voters.

So I agree, I guess.

>>5
Apparently there is some psychological basis behind conservatives and liberals, conservatives prefer structure and are sensitive to emotions while liberals prefer ambiguity. I would speculate these are coping mechanisms, conservatives get defensive when confronted with negative emotions while liberals change their mind to a more appealing perspective.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation

>>6
I got myself a special hate for "requiem for a dream".

>>8-15
The problem is schools seem to think critical thinking is taught by having quirky teachers who decide "let's have a lesson sitting under the ol' oak tree and read poetry" or some other pointless fruity activity deemed a learning aid.

I think Socialism is a downward spiral that parasitically feeds off any economic system you have until you go bankrupt. Then Socialism blames capitalism when you run out of money.

>>15
A curriculum centered around the children's interests WORKS. It has been proven.

The kids are interested in space? Build the curriculum around that: in math figure out space distances, science is easy, grammar: write essays & poems & read books about space, history: biographies of astronauts & astronomers.

Some of the kids weren't interested in space: they want to learn about superheroes. The next 6 weeks of study is built around that:
Math = probabilities of super hero behavior
Science = is there ANY possible way for humans to fly/ have x-ray vision, etc? also developing machines a la Green Hornet
Grammar = Make comic books. Also study them. Compare/ contrast, etc.
History = mythology, examples of super-hero type figures through time, etc.

Education could be easy, because kids WANT to learn. We just need to stop messing it up by telling them how to do it. They are sponges for what they care about.

>>18
Should probably give them a taster of how to execute these projects, instead of just saying "hurr science is magic guys", show them what it takes to make these things a reality.

>>18
Education could be easy, because kids WANT to learn.
Kids dont want anything and a kid coming out of low income alcoholic family will most likely become a low income alcoholic himself, even if his parents never messed with him and he spent his whole childhood on the streets.

>>20
Take the Jews for example, they all take higher society positions only because their parents and the Jewish society in general pushing them into the right direction, while in reality the Jewish kids are mediocre or outright moronic. While our kids begging for money on streets and they will spend this money on vodka or some other drugs.

>>21
What's wrong with pushing your kids in the right direction?

>>4
A better education system that produces people capable of critical thinking
people capable of thinking
Which is precisely why it ain't ever gonna happen.

>>22
The Jews are our enemy. If something is good for them, then it is bad for us.

>>24
So if life is good for them, we should consider killing ourselves?

>>24
I dare you to list everything that is good for the Jews. I double dare you.

>>25
No. We should consider stripping them of their life.

>The Jews are our enemy. If something is good for them, then it is bad for us.

Jews want Peace on Earth and prosperity for all. Why do you hate humanity? LOL!

>>27
I triple dare you, mother fucker. Make a list.

>>28
Jews want Peace on Earth
by exterminating goyim.

and prosperity for all...
the Jews!

Why do you hate humanity?
the Jews aint humanity.

>>29
Shalom!

>>29
>>30
29, why don't you try listing things you think are good for both "goyim" and "the chosen", then 30 can explain why they are not good.

>>31
Waste of time.  He's just going to ignore the question and, if he does quote the said list, he'll just refute it all with the same baseless propaganda that he has for every other post.

http://www.facebook.com/anthony.schmidt.10

spam this kid. please.

http://www.facebook.com/anthony.schmidt.10

http://www.facebook.com/anthony.schmidt.10

>>31
No. If he wants to claim that everything that's good for the Jews is bad for everyone else then I want to know what he thinks is good for the Jews.

Apparently life doesn't count, that doesn't obey the rule.

>>36
Life is like a chess play. All that is good for your enemy must be bad for you (if you have no intention to lose).

>>37
You gunna make a list or not, boy?

>>37
Well...that's a child's logic at best. It is devoid of any real logic or reason. You're over generalizing reality into abstractions based off convenient half assed assumptions.

>>39
Why? Because people can cooperate for mutual gain? Even in cooperation there is competition.

Let's say you're a baker and buying grain from a miller. One needs the other but what price is set?

You could buy grain from another miller but he is farther away and this will incur transportation costs, it's the same for the miller, he could sell to another baker but he will have to lower the price so the baker can afford to transport it.

If the miller sets the price at $1.51 you are better off buying flour from the miller in the next town.

If the miller sets the price at $0.99 the other baker can afford to buy his flour and transport it.

The thing is the miller doesn't know this. So do you tell him and watch him set the price at $1.50? Or do you pretend that your brother Percival goes to the other town every week, could transport the flour in the back of his truck as a favor and that only a price of $1 will do?

Already we're starting to see the importance of information and negotiation.

The miller could decide to hold out to see if you're bluffing, in which case you'll both have to pay transport costs, then eventually you would have to say "ok I will pay $1.45 but no higher" and tell yourself you saved yourself 5 cents per kilo, or you could convince him that Percival is hauling for you but has started charging you a small fee and say "yeah yeah, how about $1.10 then to sweeten the deal", which the miller may take it because he is starting to feel the pinch of the low prices.

So, the miller and the baker would be foolish not to cooperate outside the $1 to $1.50 margin, but within the margin you could see some quite fierce competition and machiavellian intrigue as each jostles for position, searches for useful information about the other's situation and tries to manipulate the other, all while trying to maintain the facade of being best buddies and trustworthy friends.

oops, said grain instead of flour for some reason

>>40
Why? Because people can cooperate for mutual gain? Even in cooperation there is competition.
Equal gain for both enemies is a draw, while the Jews are now a main enemy of every nation, so reasonable cooperation could be only against the Jews, just to put a big and dangerous enemy down.

>>40
Let's say you're a baker and buying grain from a miller.
Everything goes nice, but then come the Jews. These Jewish brokers forces all country farmers to sell all their grain at a low price, and then, using this monopoly, forces all bakers to buy grain at a high price. The bread prices set a record in no time and people are now starving, while the filthy Jews are bathing in riches, calling simple people "bydlo" for not earning enough to buy a loaf of bread, and when somebody dies out of starvation the Jews say that it is the Law of Darwin and only the Jewish speculators will survive in the end.

>>43
Indeed.

Why aren't good leftists allowed to notice that the "bankers" and "plutocrats" they decry are mostly Jews?

>>44
Most leftist are Jewish themselves, while the communism is an absolute monopoly. I.e. they advance communism not to free farmers and bakers from the Jewish middle man, but to expropriate all the little farmers and bakers still have. Commie Jews will come to a farmer and say that from now on farmer will work for free, as a slave, and his farm and cows are now Jewish property.

>Most leftist are Jewish themselves, while the communism is an absolute monopoly

Leftist yes. Communism not really.

>Commie Jews will come to a farmer and say that from now on farmer will work for free, as a slave

Oh, I'm sure that really happened in your mind. You've been so realistic thus far. LOL!

>>44
>Why aren't good leftists allowed to notice that the "bankers" and "plutocrats" they decry are mostly Jews?

Because statistics and reality don't match your pretend reality. Just saying, bro.

>>46
That really happened in Russia, leading to famines and death of millions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization

>>48
also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921

that is what "communism" really means.

Yes, a famine happened. Communists aren't very good at handling things that require intelligence. Those links don't even mention Jews.

You don't exactly drive a point home with your logic. It's as if there were magic ninja Jews with the power to control people's minds and rewrite history.     

Have you considered being a fiction writer? I know a few Jews who can hook you up. :p

>>50
Lenin, Trotsky and Lazar Kaganovich were Jewish (while Stalin was a criminal bank robber), and most of their administration was Jewish.

>>50
I know a few Jews who...
Shalom!

>>52
Yes, billy. Let your inner Jews out! Scream the mating call of mating Jews! Call out to me! Shalom!

I will impregnate you, son!

Tonight. You!