Blacksword wrote: The T wrote: Blacksword wrote:  It will take centuries to make mankind totally subsurvient to their elite masters, and to grind their sense of self worth into the dirt with this programme of sustained learned helplessness, but it will be countered; violently. If we don't see it, our children will. Sorry Blacksword but this doesn't make any real sense. Mankind is already subservient to its elite masters, and not precisely the communist party of anywhere but a bunch of wealthy people who decide everything. Socialism, for all its flaws, it's not a "programme of sustained helplessness". Only propaganda and an agenda can make you believe that.  Sometimes you have to call things out as you see them, not as you would like to see them. If anything my sympathies actually lie more with the left than the right, because I was on that side of the fence for so long. Old habits and that... All I'm really trying to say is that to me a world where the individual is encouraged to be strong, self reliant and resourceful and successful is preferable to a world where everyone is encouraged to let government take care of everything when history has shown that they demonstrably will not do that, and where they try they invariably f**k it up. Nobody is saying government should take care of everything or anything close to that.  But tell me, since this is something that gets thrown around a lot, how does a world encourage one to be strong, self-reliant and resourceful and successful? How is that supposed to be done?  BTW, communism is historically administered by a 'bunch of wealthy people who decide everything' That's it's great irony. It decrees that it's citizenry are all equal as a central principle of that political philosophy, but in reality its leaders live in the sought of palatial luxury they declare to be a vulgar trait of their capitalist counterparts.  None can argue with this. Elites ended up running parties. But, curiously, they were usually not that wealthy.

The T wrote: Blacksword wrote: The T wrote: Blacksword wrote:  It will take centuries to make mankind totally subsurvient to their elite masters, and to grind their sense of self worth into the dirt with this programme of sustained learned helplessness, but it will be countered; violently. If we don't see it, our children will. Sorry Blacksword but this doesn't make any real sense. Mankind is already subservient to its elite masters, and not precisely the communist party of anywhere but a bunch of wealthy people who decide everything. Socialism, for all its flaws, it's not a "programme of sustained helplessness". Only propaganda and an agenda can make you believe that.  Sometimes you have to call things out as you see them, not as you would like to see them. If anything my sympathies actually lie more with the left than the right, because I was on that side of the fence for so long. Old habits and that... All I'm really trying to say is that to me a world where the individual is encouraged to be strong, self reliant and resourceful and successful is preferable to a world where everyone is encouraged to let government take care of everything when history has shown that they demonstrably will not do that, and where they try they invariably f**k it up. Nobody is saying government should take care of everything or anything close to that.  But tell me, since this is something that gets thrown around a lot, how does a world encourage one to be strong, self-reliant and resourceful and successful? How is that supposed to be done?  BTW, communism is historically administered by a 'bunch of wealthy people who decide everything' That's it's great irony. It decrees that it's citizenry are all equal as a central principle of that political philosophy, but in reality its leaders live in the sought of palatial luxury they declare to be a vulgar trait of their capitalist counterparts.  None can argue with this. Elites ended up running parties. But, curiously, they were usually not that wealthy.

A child can be taught to be self reliant and strong, they can be encouraged to win and the lessons will stick with them for life. Of course they can fall off the horse, but what some parents may fail to deliver - possibly through their own negative learnings - in terms of good example and influcnce, can be compensated for in the education system.

I don't know how you do things in the US, but here in the UK there appears to be a trend in state education of teaching children that everyone is a winner, even when they fail to achieve what they want. How does someone cope with loss and disappointment in adulthood if they are told as a child they are always a winner? How is rewarding failure and not encouraging success in childhood conducive to a happy and productive adulthood? The Huff Post article in my other thread on this forum (If you can't accept me at my worst etc) may be worth another read. It makes some valid points around this.

The T wrote: Blacksword wrote: The T wrote: Blacksword wrote: The T wrote: Blacksword wrote:  It will take centuries to make mankind totally subsurvient to their elite masters, and to grind their sense of self worth into the dirt with this programme of sustained learned helplessness, but it will be countered; violently. If we don't see it, our children will. Sorry Blacksword but this doesn't make any real sense. Mankind is already subservient to its elite masters, and not precisely the communist party of anywhere but a bunch of wealthy people who decide everything. Socialism, for all its flaws, it's not a "programme of sustained helplessness". Only propaganda and an agenda can make you believe that.  Sometimes you have to call things out as you see them, not as you would like to see them. If anything my sympathies actually lie more with the left than the right, because I was on that side of the fence for so long. Old habits and that... All I'm really trying to say is that to me a world where the individual is encouraged to be strong, self reliant and resourceful and successful is preferable to a world where everyone is encouraged to let government take care of everything when history has shown that they demonstrably will not do that, and where they try they invariably f**k it up. Nobody is saying government should take care of everything or anything close to that.  But tell me, since this is something that gets thrown around a lot, how does a world encourage one to be strong, self-reliant and resourceful and successful? How is that supposed to be done?  BTW, communism is historically administered by a 'bunch of wealthy people who decide everything' That's it's great irony. It decrees that it's citizenry are all equal as a central principle of that political philosophy, but in reality its leaders live in the sought of palatial luxury they declare to be a vulgar trait of their capitalist counterparts.  None can argue with this. Elites ended up running parties. But, curiously, they were usually not that wealthy.  A child can be taught to be self reliant and strong, they can be encouraged to win and the lessons will stick with them for life. Of course they can fall off the horse, but what some parents may fail to deliver - possibly through their own negative learnings - in terms of good example and influcnce, can be compensated for in the education system. In an ideal world full of well-off middle class families that would be enough. But who is going to teach a children to be self reliant and strong when the child's parents are a disaster themselves (or nonexistent)? Is that child doomed to be poor his entire life because he was born in the wrong place? Is there anything you think we could accept we can do to help?   I don't know how you do things in the US, but here in the UK there appears to be a trend in state education of teaching children that everyone is a winner, even when they fail to achieve what they want. How does someone cope with loss and disappointment in adulthood if they are told as a child they are always a winner? How is rewarding failure and not encouraging success in childhood conducive to a happy and productive adulthood? The Huff Post article in my other thread on this forum (If you can't accept me at my worst etc) may be worth another read. It makes some valid points around this. Oh from what I've seen it's even worse. Not only are children high majesties who have zero obligations and lots of privileges, but it's all about ME ME ME and nothing about learning empathy and understanding for others. Also, of course teaching a student that when they fail is not their fault is the worst thing you can do to a person's future. Also, you mention "state education". Many people would like public education to disappear in the US. Here in the US those discussion for some reason are still being had. Probably, the poor results don't help.  The "if you can't accept me at my worst" thing is one of the most stupid narcissistic things one can say. Why is anyone supposed to accept anybody at their worst as first condition?

I agree re; the whole ""if you can't accept me at my worst" idea. It makes for awful people.

So, who is behind the steering of the state education ship? (That's a rhetorical question btw) I've yet to hear anyone say they approve of the approach to teaching children, but somewhere is a panel of people who have decided that this is the best way to steer children while they are at school. What is their desired result I wonder?

To be frank I'm more and more pessimistic as time goes by.I often think that globalization is making more and more victims from children working in factories in Bangladesh and any country where labor laws do not exist to people like us who live in rich countries.Of course any economic expert would tell me that I'm a fool and that fierce competition between individuals is the right evolution but when I consider their arguments I keep asking myself lots of questions and I unavoidably feel lost.Among all these questions one always comes back to mind:is it possible to find a third way benevolent to us all?Some stupid advocated for paranoid collectivist hell,Other loonies kept telling us that laissez-faire policy was the best for everybody.The latter won but nothing has really much changed.The only difference is ideology and in the end it's only a transfer of power between nomenklatura and financial lobby.I can't stand seeing a minority of wealthy people posessing almost everything whereas the majority is suffering from austerity in Greece for example or famine in Africa.I remember hearing five years ago that 30 billion dollars were sufficient enough to put an end to global famine but at the same time governments were spending billions in order to save greedy banksters.Where are we going?

The T wrote: The usual argument is: those people in Foxconn in China or Bangladesh factories are better off than they were prior to these jobs appearing. And we westerners (ate least in the US) can enjoy our smartphones and clothes much cheaper than they would otherwise be. Everybody's happy.  That's what the argument would say.

The T wrote: And trillions in wars, you forgot to mention.  The usual argument is: those people in Foxconn in China or Bangladesh factories are better off than they were prior to these jobs appearing. And we westerners (ate least in the US) can enjoy our smartphones and clothes much cheaper than they would otherwise be. Everybody's happy.  That's what the argument would say.

Sorry,I know about it.War to prevent wars like in Iraq and always the same who perish i.e.civilians and poor.At the same time Blackwater,Halliburton and the usual moneymakers make big bucks.I suppose it has to do with capitalists '"fairy tales"and all these lies about the invisible hand of the market which is supposed to rule efficiently worldwide economics.You well summarized what I really think. 

The T wrote: Dean wrote: The T wrote: <span style="line-height: 1.2;">The usual argument is: those people in Foxconn in China or Bangladesh factories are better off than they were prior to these jobs appearing. And we westerners (ate least in the US) can enjoy our smartphones and clothes much cheaper than they would otherwise be. Everybody's happy. </span> That's what the argument would say.  ...on Page 2 of this very thread in fact. Though not presented as an argument, nor as a justification, merely an observation of reality. You did present it as an observation. But there are those who present it as an argument, as if this situation was already ideal. Sure it's better than zero in both sides, but it's far from ideal and demands to improve working conditions and eventually raise those wages have their place, even if we have to pay more for our next smartphone.

Stephen Hawking Says We Should Really Be Scared Of Capitalism, Not Robots

"If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed."