Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Capitalism is all about keeping poor people screwed over financially forever..

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Capitalism is all about keeping poor people screwed over financially forever..

    Here are the classic questions....

    How? By having one group of people Capitalists and owners of the means of production live off the surplus value of the workers. And by controlling resources, land, technology (intellectual and material products and services IOW R&D), and keeping it in exclusive hands. Employers try to hire workers for the least amount possible to maximize profits.

    Where? They do it by keeping the concept of private property private. Lol. For use and abuse by those lucky enough to be either inheritors of wealth (40% of all wealthy people inherit their wealth in the USA they don't acquire it through their own merits, the other 'wealthy' if self made do it through using their 'connections' and their 'cultural capital' and having access to huge loans and venture capital and startup capital).

    When? When do they screw the poor people over? Simple. Anytime they can and as much as they can and still legally get away with it. Usually when Fascist mentality types are in power.

    What? Yes, they can screw the people over. That is the purpose of profit maximization. To live off the majority who are not the top 1% of the wealthiest. Why some are wealthy and others aren't and how consistently the poor tend to remain in poverty and the rich tend to remain rich is interesting...and well analyzed. If interested in a list of how it happens....continue on.

    Why? Because capitalism is about that. CAPITAL. And not human justice. It is about matter and products and productivity and consumption and production..supply and demand and competition. Not about equity, human needs, justice or fairness. No. But it is combined to consolidate one small group of people's power and wealth over the needs of the majority. Where is the evidence? PLENTY. Usually the EXPLOITED vs. EXPLOITER always have a conflict of interest. It is based on power relationships. And the concepts that economic power and social privelege are interlinked.

    What is capitalism based on? At its core it is about selfishness and keeping what is not one's right to keep (the mass labor of many millions of people) in the hands of select individuals. These individuals are not geniuses or kings or divine beings. NO. Business brilliance? Lol. compared to what Physicists with smaller salaries? Professors and bright people from all walks of life? No. It is about who is the one most willing to be the most competitive and selfish and usually ruthless of the bunch. Some feel guilty about their wealth and give many millions of it away to charity. That way they feel their lives of opulence are not all about themselves and vanity. In the final analysis they too will be dust in a grave eventually but while they are here, they want to think they are a little more 'clever' than the people who work for them that struggle with the fear of not eating and being thrown out into the street.

    I don't expect the Opp McVeigh to show up. This thread is just a little contrarestante to his non-sense. Lol.

  • replied
    HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT CAPITALIST JOKES?

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by FULANODETAL
    [B]Perfect example of leftist dogmatic rhetoric that has the pragmatic value of instructions to sixth graders on how to utilize mitrochondria during a forensic evaluation.

    Quote:
    In order for you to choose a paradigm you must choose a theory to go with your paradigm, just so you can defend it when you argue with Suki. Here are some that are popular in the USA-
    *** the quote then continues with the spew of a whole lot of theories about nothing one could really use.

    Lookee heree- you are not revealing any epiphanies, divulging unrecognized insight or providing useful instruction. You are putting together big words to inflate your starving ego.

    Spare me and the rest of the readers with this utter jive and selected language; it demonstrates your vanity and lack of skill in oratory presentation.

    ____________________________________________________________

    HOW ABOUT CAPITALIST JOKES, ARE YOU GAME FOR THOSE?

    Capitalism for Dummies

    Traditional Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

    American Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

    French Capitalism: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

    Japanese Capitalism: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create cow cartoon images called Cowkimon and market them World-Wide.

    German Capitalism: You have two cows. You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

    Italian Capitalism: You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch.

    British Capitalism: You have two cows. Both are mad.

    Russian Capitalism: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

    Arkansas Capitalism: You have two cows. That one on the left is kinda cute...

    Hindu Capitalism: You have two cows. You worship them.

    Swiss Capitalism: You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge others for storing them.

    Canadian Capitalism: You have two cows. Let’s make a hockey team, eh?

    Chinese Capitalism: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the numbers.

    Irish Capitalism: You have two cows. You feed them potatoes and wonder why they emigrate.

    Israeli Capitalism: So, there are these two Jewish cows, right? They open a milk factory, an ice cream store, and then sell the movie rights. They send their calves to Harvard to become doctors. So, who needs people?

    Enron Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull.


    Politically Correct Capitalism: You are associated with (the concept of "ownership" is a symbol of the phallo centric, war mongering, intolerant past) two differently - aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender.

    Disney Capitalism: You have two cows. They dance & sing.

    Microsoft Capitalism: You have two cows. You patent them and sue anyone else who has them.

    Hollywood Capitalism: You have two cows. You give them utter implants and also teach them to bullet-dodge, wall climb and shoot milk out of their utters on command.

    Clinton Capitalism: You have two cows. You deny any knowledge of them.

    Bureaucratic Capitalism: You have two cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs the regulations say you should need.

    Gore Capitalism: You have two cows. You claim you invented them.

    Real-World Capitalism: You have two cows. You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors bicker about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need". Meanwhile, no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of starvation.

    Australian Capitalism: You have two cows. You try to wrestle them.

    Iraqi Capitalism: You have two cows. They are biochemical weapons.

    Perestroika Capitalism: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the black market.

    Jewish Capitalism: You have two cows. You set them on fire and they burn for 8 days.

    Cambodian Capitalism: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

    Mormon Capitalism: You have two cows. You tell everyone that they should as well.

    Military Capitalism: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

    Texan Capitalism: You have two cows. You teach them to fire guns.

    Totalitarian Capitalism: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.

    Nevadan Capitalism: You have two cows. You charge lonely men from Arkansas to spend the night with them.

    Jehovah’s Witness Capitalism: You have two cows. You go door to door telling people that you do.

    Bureaucrat Capitalism: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

    Real Capitalism: You don't have any cows.
    The bank will not lend you money to buy cows, because you don't have any cows to put up as collateral.

    Environmental Capitalism: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking them.

    Surreal Capitalism: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

    Californian Capitalism: You have two cows. They are happy.

    Bush Capitalism: You have two cows. You think that cows and humans can coexist peacefully. You give all of the milk to the upper class when they have cows of their own, and the lower class needs milk.

    Martha Stewart Capitalism: You have two cows. After decorating them, you sell them because a farmer told you the price of milk might go down.

    Ayn Rand Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell both so that you can invest in a new dairy company. After it does well, you sell you stock and buy a cow farm.
    After that does well, you take out a loan using cows as capitol and build a milk manufacturing factory. After making your milk the most sold, you sell the company and retire to Hawaii with your millions of dollars.
    ____________________________________________________________

    HAVE A HAPPY DIA DE LA RAZA HUMANA!!!!!!

    YAUTIA

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Cascaras De Guineos

    Perfect example of leftist dogmatic rhetoric that has the pragmatic value of instructions to sixth graders on how to utilize mitrochondria during a forensic evaluation.

    Quote:
    In order for you to choose a paradigm you must choose a theory to go with your paradigm, just so you can defend it when you argue with Suki. Here are some that are popular in the USA-
    *** the quote then continues with the spew of a whole lot of theories about nothing one could really use.

    Lookee heree- you are not revealing any epiphanies, divulging unrecognized insight or providing useful instruction. You are putting together big words to inflate your starving ego.

    Spare me and the rest of the readers with this utter jive and selected language; it demonstrates your vanity and lack of skill in oratory presentation.

    After nearly 20 years of observing judges and lawyers, and testifying in numerous complex cases; I have learned something about arguments from people a lot smarter than you. You know what that is?. The use of plain straight forward language. When you try to dazzle them with your briliance they will invariably come to the conclusion that you are a blowhard with a high opinion of yourself and you have lost the argument. The lesson; spare them the bull and give them the plain articulable facts. It is much more effective, convincing, and persuasive.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by PhiDaWg61
    Originally posted by Suki
    It is easier to believe blindly and without analysis of the system and the society you live in, than to see it with objectivity and do something to change it. Even if it means never living with security. Financial, social, or political. Most people refuse to challenge the system they live under or to pursue changing it. It is the toughest thing to do and requires abnormal sacrifices. So many prefer to join the chorus of the conformists and tout how great it is. They avoid the 'defects' and obvious shortcomings and failures. To acknowledge that someone has to pay the price of relative 'opulence' (whether it be cheap labor in the third world, or environmental degradation worldwide so a few can live in relative 'prosperity') is too much for most. People we are not here to live high on the hog and be cheerleaders to a system that is basically anti-humano. We are here to leave the society a better place than we left it. And being blind and deaf to its defects is not going to make change. it never does.

    Suki.


    Lord knows I can't knock what you're saying. It sucks cause you must live your life as you are. As you live in your world and please those around you that depend on you, you can't help the feeling that you are a polluter, consumer, etc etc. But I live here in the US and wouldn't have it any other way. I might like some other countries but this country of my birth is my bread and butter. I can't wake up every day thinking or even worrying about why some don't have. I gotta go to work.
    Phidawg,
    You don't have to live guilty or constantly thinking about pollution and other things. No one can live in constant fear or in constant mental struggle. Change is something you can do. With daily actions. Like being kind, communicating with others your point of view. And not seeing the 'third world or non USA living 94% as 'inferior' or the 'enemy'. No. Instead you see them as your brothers and sisters. And by doing the things that makes you human. Working, being responsible, trying to improve your defects. Looking honestly at your life and choosing to improve what you know you need improvement on. And being less of a judge and jury and more accepting of others. Especially those trying to be responsible to their fellow citizens and human beings. The USA needs people who care and show it. And do for others. In their families and in their communities. That is enough. And hard enough to accomplish in the hectic lives many of us lead.

    Too much emphasis on instant gratification, and self centered pursuits and false expectations are created by it in this society. Take care of yourself Phidawg. Take care of yourself well. Eat right, exercise, set goals for yourself. Spend time with people who are worth it for you. And try to improve everyday. Do your best. For yourself and for the society. Be true to your conscience. And think of EVERYONE. Not just your group or nationality or immediate family. It is true that saying of "Think globally and act locally." That is what it is about. Not being worried about poor people suffering far away and being powerless. No. That is too much for anyone to think of. Instead do right in your world. In your country. And lead it with responsibility. The rest will fall into place. And of course. WORK. Laugh. Love and LIVE. That is what you should do always. LIVE. And don't forget participation and learning is great. NEver stop doing either thing. Participating in society and learning.

    One friend of mine asked me once, "Suki, don't you think there are some things people shouldn't put up with? In someone else?" I thought about it and said I subscribe to three strikes in three parts of life. Here they are:

    If you are involved with someone else (whether domestic partners, married couple or serious relationship DUMP the relationship if one of the three strikes are present):

    1) A violent person. A person who solves conflict by taking their fist and or another type of weapon and hits you with it and solves 'arguments' that way. With terror and pain and so on. DUMP THEM.

    2) A person who is on drugs and refuses treatment or to committ to change. That includes alcoholics, druggies and etc. A person that is drugged or drunk during their time on earth just how 'present' are they in life? They have to wake up sometime and change. Or they are on the suicide path and their abilities to contribute to the society in general are seriously impeded. If they don't want to change. DUMP THEM.

    3) A person who has no work ethic. They don't have goals, or commitments. They want to live off of others and not contribute to anything. Not because they are 'wounded' by some terrible traumas. Those just need treatment and lots of care and tender love and guidance and acceptance. But the ones who are hardcore lazy and just plain don't want to be responsible for anything. If they don't 'mature' and change. And it is a pattern they aren't willing to change. DUMP THEM.

    Think about it. If a person is hard working, has goals, is not violent or on drugs or alcohol--can you work things out with that person? I think you can. In general.

    It goes pretty well with the society too. If a society is hard working, not violent, not medicating itself or numbing itself, and it acts for the good of the whole instead of out of selfishness or for small cliques--is it a good society? YES.
    _______________________________Filosofia____________

    1) Commitment to bettering themselves and the society. Having social responsibility. That is of the essence.

    2)People who want justice and seek it. Look for ways to seek justice.

    3) Doing what is necessary and what is responsible and dutiful. Not what is convenient or expedient.


    Change is not that hard. All it takes is wanting to change, and having the right tools to change and being consistent in the change. But habits are hard to break. And sometimes sacrifice is hard. But, if the habit is bad. Breaking it is liberating. And Liberation is quite fun.

    Thanks Jane and Phidawg. For your perspectives too on this thread. Yautia. As always. Your comments are educational. And remind me of so many things. Lots of love Yautia.

    Suki.

    [Edited by Suki on 8th October 2004 at 13:56]

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    PHI:

    Lord knows I can't knock what you're saying. It sucks cause you must live your life as you are. As you live in your world and please those around you that depend on you, you can't help the feeling that you are a polluter, consumer, etc etc. But I live here in the US and wouldn't have it any other way. I might like some other countries but this country of my birth is my bread and butter. I can't wake up every day thinking or even worrying about why some don't have. I gotta go to work.

    JM:

    very well said! The worrying can sometimes drain you.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Suki
    It is easier to believe blindly and without analysis of the system and the society you live in, than to see it with objectivity and do something to change it. Even if it means never living with security. Financial, social, or political. Most people refuse to challenge the system they live under or to pursue changing it. It is the toughest thing to do and requires abnormal sacrifices. So many prefer to join the chorus of the conformists and tout how great it is. They avoid the 'defects' and obvious shortcomings and failures. To acknowledge that someone has to pay the price of relative 'opulence' (whether it be cheap labor in the third world, or environmental degradation worldwide so a few can live in relative 'prosperity') is too much for most. People we are not here to live high on the hog and be cheerleaders to a system that is basically anti-humano. We are here to leave the society a better place than we left it. And being blind and deaf to its defects is not going to make change. it never does.

    Suki.


    Lord knows I can't knock what you're saying. It sucks cause you must live your life as you are. As you live in your world and please those around you that depend on you, you can't help the feeling that you are a polluter, consumer, etc etc. But I live here in the US and wouldn't have it any other way. I might like some other countries but this country of my birth is my bread and butter. I can't wake up every day thinking or even worrying about why some don't have. I gotta go to work.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Social Change takes place all the time and in every society!

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Suki
    [B]Fulano said:

    "Retorica Vacia
    I won't bust your bubble; good luck with your crusade, you're going to need it. I just don't have the confidence that our fellow citizens can change the way you think they can. History has simply not convinced me of such a notion. Notwithstanding, keep on fighting sista. Not that it matters either way, but I have no real beef with this thinking."

    _______________________________________________________________

    Look Fulano everybody joins a crusade, in the US its the right wing of the Republican Party, vs. the left wing of the Democratic Party. Everybody else is ignored. Why? It's called the equilibrium theory. Read on. Then pick your paradigm.

    In order for you to choose a paradigm you must choose a theory to go with your paradigm, just so you can defend it when you argue with Suki. Here are some that are popular in the USA:

    SOCIAL CHANGE THEORIES:

    1) FUNCTIONALISM (relates to Linear development models of social change, see Lenski)

    (It can be reduced to: If it works, why not?)

    Theory of order and stability or Equilibrium theory: concept of stability is a defining characteristic of structure, defines activities that are necessary for the survival of the system, i.e. society has functional requisites or imperatives where different functional requisites produce differentiated structures that specialize in accomplishing the requisites.

    Goal: To promote Capitalism, no matter what!

    Parson’s Evolutionary Theory - types of change:

    System maintenance – most common: restoring a previous pattern of equilibrium


    Structural differentiation- very common: increasing differentiation of subsystem units into patterns of functional specialization and interdependence


    Adaptave upgrading: new mechanisms of integration, coordination and control are developed to incorporate the integrative problems by having structural differentiation


    Structural change – least common change: when key features of the system, e.g. basic cultural values, goals, distribution

    Key evolutionary universals that were evident in transition from pre-modern to modern societies (describes modernism but does not explain it):


    social stratification


    bureaucratic organization


    cultural legitimation of existing structural arrangements


    money economy and markets


    generalized or universalistic social norms


    democratic associations


    Neo-functionalism

    Tension-management system (society is not an equilibrium system): if there are strains or tensions, organization will initiate compensatory, adjustive or counterbalancing actions to counter disruptions change will be confined to internal features, if these strains are so severe or prolonged that such actions cannot compensate, organizational features will be altered or destroyed and entire organization changes


    Criticisms

    deals mainly with gradual evolutionary change, less able to deal with revolutionary, fundamental, rapid transformations, or emergence of new values (such as the new world order and the global economy, high tech and high touch, information vs service economy for the US, ilimination of the middle class, creation of a small elite and a massive amount of people under poverty, large number of low paying jobs and need for foreign labor to maintain the transnationals).


    sources of strains ambiguous unless exogenous in origin

    see change as good - views modernism as a benevolent trend. Societal growth produces differentiation, and problems with increased complexity stimulate adaptive change with new coordination and control mechanism. Increased bureaucratic specialization and complex division of labour in mass societies provide rationality, efficiency, high levels of mass consumption, decline in cultural parochialism and forms of intolerance and superstition

    Mass society theory - Functionalist critique of modernity

    along with modernity have erosion of traditional life and culture

    replacement of local community with bureaucratic depersonalization and anonymity

    weaker and impersonal ties of functional interdependency

    argued that mass developed societies are in a process of demassification

    Here comes the "Other Paradigms" based on "Conflict Theory"

    2) CONFLICT THEORIES (relates to Dialectical models of social change)



    Strains are inherent in social structures. Source of strains/contradictions is the inherent scarcity of certain goods and values. Thus inequality is source of conflict.


    Marxism (see other course notes - if you are a sociology major/minor, you should know this already)
    Neo-Marxism - differs from Marxism in the following ways:




    Sources of conflict - traditional Marxism too narrow an understanding of structural basis of conflict, doesn’t always derive from struggles in control of the means of production; other conflicts based on politics, religion, ethnic or ideological differences, e.g. class, status and power


    Role of culture: symbolic realm of ideas, values and ideologies are semi-autonomous and not merely derivative of material base (Critical theorists analyze cultural and cultural ideologies in modern society as manifested in popular literature and mass media); culture is viewed as symbolic formations and ideologies that become tools in social struggles between various groups and classes, i.e. ideas and values produce solidarity and unity (as functionalists agree) but also social control associated with interests of particular groups; same as Marxism, i.e. dominant culture stems from dominant groups in society; production of culture is one way that existing system reproduces itself; when there is widespread disillusion, disbelief or cynicism about dominant symbols in society, a legitimacy crisis - change occurs


    Inevitability of revolutionary change: neo-Marxists less deterministic about outcomes, not simply total system transformation or revolution, nor inevitable; one result of contradictions could be reaffirming of dominance, or ongoing stalemate, or gradual reform and piecemeal changes



    Conflict can be:


    unregulated: e.g. terrorism, sabotage, disorder


    regulated by social norms: e.g. economic boycotts, parliamentary debate, marketplace competitions


    intense conflict: high degree of mobilization, commitment, emotional involvement


    violent conflict: random, unorganized


    pluralized conflict: many conflicts but not necessarily related and thus not much change, gradual


    superimposed conflict: dyadic conflicts, large cleavage between us and them, dramatic/intense change, not necessarily



    Conflict can result in:


    stability as ongoing stalemate OR


    defeat of established or insurgent groups OR


    total or partial system change



    Any settlement of conflict is only temporary; each restructured system carries within itself the seeds of its own transformation – thus a dialectical theory. Unlike Marxism which sees a utopian society with no conflict in the end, neo-Marxists are antiutopian. Conflict is engine of change - has both destructive and creative consequences, destroy old orders, create new ones.


    Ralf Dahrendorf



    Saw combination of functionalism and conflict theory, human societies are stable and long lasting yet they also experience serious conflict. Social control in general is broadest basis of conflict in society. All social systems have association of roles and statuses which embody power relationships, some cluster of roles have power to extract conformity; power relationships tend to be institutionalized as authority – normative rights to dominate; i.e. some have authority to give orders, others obliged to obey.


    Criticisms:

    What about change not rooted in conflict? E.g. cultural or technological change


    Sees only dichotomous authority relations rather than continuous gradations of relationships


    What of non-institutionalized power relationships – deals with authority, only one form of power; what of violence, or age/gender/race and associated conflicts not based on economics





    3) INTERPRETIVE THEORIES



    Derived from Weber whose focus was not solely on overt behaviour and events but also on how these are interpreted, defined and shaped by cultural meanings that people give to them, i.e. interpretive understanding of social action – verstehen. All types of interpretive theories focus on way actors define their social situations and the effect of these definitions on ensuing action and interaction; human society is an ongoing process rather than an entity or structure, as humans interact they negotiate order, structure and cultural meanings. Reality is an ongoing social symbolic construction put together by human interaction.



    For Functionalists and Conflict theorists, the starting point of sociological analysis of change is structure.

    BUT…

    For Interpretivists, change itself (interaction, process, negotiation) is the starting point, and structure is a by-product and temporary. Social change is the constant creation, negotiation and re-creation of social order. Social change can be understood by looking at change in meanings and definitions. Groups, societies, organizations become real only insofar that the actors believe they are to be real, thus a negotiated consensus about what is real emerges; i.e. society is literally a social construction, an outcome of historical process of symbolic interaction and negotiation. In complex societies, there is only a partial consensus on what constitutes objective social reality, instead there is a virtual tapestry of contending realities.



    When external factors change, this does not automatically produce social change. Rather when people redefine situations regarding those factors and thus act upon revised meanings, i.e. alter social behaviour, then there is social change.




    Symbolic interactionism : see Mead, Blumer





    Social phenomenology: see Schutz, Berger and Luckman





    Criticisms:

    Not much said about structural sources of redefinitions,


    Argue humans are less constrained by external factors, thus these theories are less deterministic


    Doesn’t say whether actors seek to reconstruct reality by engaging in cooperative joint action or conflict with others so consistent with either functionalism or conflict theory.



    4) Multiple perspectives and change: Reconciling agency and structure



    Structures have potential to operate, agents (individuals) have potential to act; combination of agents working within, creating and being limited by structures is referred to as human agency. Praxis is the interface between operating structures and purposely acting agents, i.e. the combination of actions of people and operation of structures in the actual outcomes of social interaction or in praxis.




    Buckley’s morphogenesis: unique capacity of social systems to elaborate or change their form, structure or state, emphasizing the active, constructive side of social functioning


    Archers’ double morphogenesis: both structure and agency are cojoint products of interaction, agency is shaped by and reshapes structure where structure is reshaped in the process.


    Etzioni’s active society: society is a macroscopic and permanent social movement engaged in intensive and perpetual self-transformation


    Touraine: making of society and history is carried out by collective action, through the agency of social movements
    Gidden’s Structuration theory: replaced static concept of structure with dynamic notion of structuration - more later (see my thesis information).

    Sources: see (your favorite) social change bibliography
    (after you pick your paradigm.)

    Remember there is no such thing as "yo soy neutral", solo los muertos son neutrales!


    Yautia




    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Fulano said:

    "Retorica Vacia
    I won't bust your bubble; good luck with your crusade, you're going to need it. I just don't have the confidence that our fellow citizens can change the way you think they can. History has simply not convinced me of such a notion. Notwithstanding, keep on fighting sista. Not that it matters either way, but I have no real beef with this thinking."

    Fulano if change were impossible, then you don't believe in the theory of evolution. You don't acknowledge science. The process of mutation, and the proven fact, that change is part of this world. History? Has shown over and over again that Empires that use greed, coercion, violence, terror and unethical tactics to retain power, always fall hard. History shows that the common people (the majority) continue on and keep going, and that the elite minority, perish under historical power plays. History demonstrates through the fires of trial and error that the fires of social change continue to evolve and make a different society from the old ones. That bad choices lead to bad consequences and that excellent and good choices lead us to good consequences. And that individuals who sacrifice for the group and are part of a group effort for change always accomplish more than the rugged individualists who reject help from their fellow men and women. And history shows that the non-cynics and the people of solid principles always win out. If not immediately or presently in the now. Then in the future. Differences in priorities and in philosophies Fulano. That is what there is.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Retorica Vacia

    I won't bust your bubble; good luck with your crusade, you're going to need it. I just don't have the confidence that our fellow citizens can change the way you think they can. History has simply not convinced me of such a notion. Notwithstanding, keep on fighting sista. Not that it matters either way, but I have no real beef with this thinking.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Fulano one quote is the important one in philosophies--

    It is this one:

    One man in the movie "The Mission" says to the Archbishop who comes to destroy the Jesuits so he can make some cynical dirty compromise deal for the Church and decides to sacrifice the fellow priests who built the missions with the Guarani and opposed the slavedrivers and slavetraders. One cynical slavedriver told the archbishop upon hearing of the dead priests floating in the river:

    "Thus is the world. I did not make it. I have to live in it."

    And the Archbishop smiles sadly and says,

    "No. Thus we have made the world." Yes. We choose the world we make. By accepting it cynically. One does not have to be some wet behind the ears, naive kid to really forge ahead with change. All you need to do is see clearly what is anti-humano and unjust and CHOOSE to change it and challenge the injustices. And be consistent. And do what is NECESSARY. If you choose to not change it and blame the world. And shrug it off. That is the precise reason why change does not happen. CHANGE is innate to our species it is programmed in our gene code. It is an integral part of who we are. What amazes me is how much we refuse to use that incredible power to benefit each other. We choose to be short sighted and to ignore the glaring problems." And drag out what is changeable and prolong our agonies and our inequities. But cycles of change can't be stopped. Impossible. Just say, "thus we have made the world. But we have the power to REMAKE IT. Into something better. Always better."

    Suki.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    De Acuerdo

    Suki-

    Let me be as honest as I can be.

    I think man, when left to his own devices, will INVARIABLY do the wrong thing for himself or others. One of the qualities of man is that he is evil.

    I am not happy with the world; I hate the suffering that man put man through. My support of religion died a long time ago although I cling on to the hope that the god that does exist out there, will some day make wrong - right.

    Yes, I am a pessimistic cynic who trys to hang on to hope. But I try real hard to have fun during the course of my life. That I can assure you of.

    But let me make it clear, WE ARE ALL CONFORMISTS. Pragmatically, you and I are probably no different. Our views may differ but when you drive you stay in between the lines, right. What makes us different is basically degrees of ideological separation. But in the real world we all do what we have to do to eat, transport, maintain, house, and develop our lives. It is important that we try to maintain between the abstract and the real if we are to avoid auto- deconstruction.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    It is easier to believe blindly and without analysis of the system and the society you live in, than to see it with objectivity and do something to change it. Even if it means never living with security. Financial, social, or political. Most people refuse to challenge the system they live under or to pursue changing it. It is the toughest thing to do and requires abnormal sacrifices. So many prefer to join the chorus of the conformists and tout how great it is. They avoid the 'defects' and obvious shortcomings and failures. To acknowledge that someone has to pay the price of relative 'opulence' (whether it be cheap labor in the third world, or environmental degradation worldwide so a few can live in relative 'prosperity') is too much for most. People we are not here to live high on the hog and be cheerleaders to a system that is basically anti-humano. We are here to leave the society a better place than we left it. And being blind and deaf to its defects is not going to make change. it never does.

    Suki.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    US Haters

    All this talk against the US, cloaked under an attack on Capitalism.

    Yet how many of the people here are ready to put their money where there mouth is and move anywhere else on this globe. They won't because they are too comfortable in their leather [or perhaps cloth] chairs while the sit in front of their $1000 computers using their expensive internet service to talk all that trash.

    La hipocresia es el mal de mucha gente
    Que te saluda, te abrasa y no lo sienten.

    La hipocresia se conviert en epidemia
    La humanidad le aqueha

    Sentimiento comun y corriente
    Pero que hay que acabar con ella- by Roberto Rohena "El Mal de la Hipocresia"- bad song yo.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Re: CEO's = Politburo = CEO's

    Originally posted by PhiDaWg61
    Under any system you will ALWAYS have the gorgers of wealth. I for one would rather deal with the devil I know than the devil i don't know.

    True, this consumer society leaves much to be desired and the healthcare situation in the US is a farce. I like 85 other people at MSNBC had our tech jobs sent over to India. But at least our capitalist system keeps goods flowing, so I bought my own truck and am making 5 times what I was making as a tech. I wonder how long it would have taken me to do this under any other system.
    Bingo!!!!!!!

    In Capitalism, you get ahead for what you do, not like in
    CUBA and in NORTH KOREA, where only the Communist Party Leaders are the ones to live better off than everyone else.

    By the way,
    Comrade Suki pontificates about the 40 million illegal aliens residing in the USA and having no medical insurance, but the poorest person living here in the USA lives 100 times better than the average Communist Party member in CUBA and in NORTH KOREA.

    I wonder why Puerto Rican
    Commies are so eager to disrupt the elections in the USA ...



    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    CEO's = Politburo = CEO's

    Under any system you will ALWAYS have the gorgers of wealth. I for one would rather deal with the devil I know than the devil i don't know.

    True, this consumer society leaves much to be desired and the healthcare situation in the US is a farce. I like 85 other people at MSNBC had our tech jobs sent over to India. But at least our capitalist system keeps goods flowing, so I bought my own truck and am making 5 times what I was making as a tech. I wonder how long it would have taken me to do this under any other system.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X