What possible solution to the Israeli / Palestinian conflict do you think would solve the situation?

None of the above. My solution is the same as the one I suggested in the linked survey:

I'd create a new conglomerate nation consisting of the present nations of Cyprus, Egypt, Iraq, Israel (including Palestine), Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Then I would set it up as a Revolutionary Marxist state. People would be free to come and go as they please. I'd empty the prisons of any political prisoners (and probably try to phase out the prison system in general) and declare amnesty on any prior political offenses. (Much like what Mandela did in South Africa.) It would require some kind of massive propaganda campaign to convince everyone that they were all equal and could live together in peace and tolerance. Of course, any laws which allowed one group to have dominance over others would be tossed out. In fact most of the laws would get the axe, and there would be a new constitution etc..

I assume that you will create the Marxist state in the same way as other similar states were established - through force - since no group of people have ever willingly gone down that path. In fact all popular revolutions related to Marxist dogma were FROM it, not towards it. You would therefore not be able to do away with prisons, but would have to build more gulags to hold the resistant bourgeoise who object to having all that they have worked for confiscated. I assume you will also ban all religion as Marx considered religion a dangerous alternative to the power of the state. What are you going to do with people who won't abandon their religion or their belief that they have more right to a piece of land than others? More gulags?

Yes, that is why it is called "Revolutionary Marxism". First we put all the liberals up against the wall and shoot them!

This is not a Stalinist revolution. There will be no gulags. The bourgeois will be required to undergo revolutionary psychological training to ease them of their reactionary delusions. No one will be required to give up that which they have worked for; all of the products of labour will be returned to the workers. Marx was opposed to organised religion primarily. I see no problem with freedom of thought and belief. The powers of organised religion are to be opposed. They should not be given any special status.

But you are a liberal.

No I'm not! You are!

*I'M* a liberal?

How can you have a Marxist revolution if people are able to accumulate wealth, which is what people who keep what they work for generally do? I'm not sure you understand Marxist dogma. There's a surprise.

The workers create wealth; the product of their labours, and they control that wealth. That is the essence of Marxism. Rather than being exploited for their labour by capitalists who reap the rewards of the worker's labour, while providing nothing of value.

So you think current capitalism offers no rewards to workers? How do you propose people with no wealth set up the infrastructure needed to create wealth? How many members of the proletariat have ever built a factory? What happens if one of those workers takes the wealth they share and uses it to create more wealth while another drinks his wealth? Should the person who used their reward wisely then have their assets confiscated to subsidise the boozer? Come on Zang. You are too intelligent to believe that any Marxist dogma makes real pratical sense. What about freedom? Shouldn't a person with skills be able to sell their labour?

If you think that getting back part of what you make is a "reward". It seems to me that under capitalism, the rewards go to the capitalist.

The infrastructure already exists. The workers have already built it. Every factory has been built by the proletariat. A capitalist might OWN a factory, but they certainly wouldn't BUILD one. They might get their hands dirty or work up a sweat!

I'm not sure what you are proposing in terms of "...takes the wealth they share and uses it to create more wealth...". Can you be more specific? You ARE asking about a situation under my proposed "Revolutionary Marxist" state, are you not? I'm not sure that could happen. Could you give me an example in concrete terms?

I'm not proposing to deny anyone freedom. Except perhaps the "freedom" to exploit the labour of others. I don't believe that anyone wants to "sell their labour" for less than it is worth. That is the basis of capitalism. The difference between the value of labour and what the worker is paid, is called "profit". Perhaps you've heard of that?

I don't think this will ever be resolved.

I posted a comprehensive and generally well received peace plan in the Forum a few months ago.

The only way for this to be solved is to give up the idea of Palestinians and Israelis and learn to be people of earth. And live alongside each other.

They should all get over it. They both want to live on the same and - then live on the same land! Work out a way to mutually govern the land. Put aside their differences in order to find a prosperous future; set an example to the rest of the world.

"Change will come at the barrel of a gun"

Yes! That's a wonderful Buddhist perspective, Dino-dharma!

"Change must come thru the barrel of a gun"

Alabama Three

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Mao Tse Tung

I suspect Mao wasn't so concerned that it rhyme in English.

Why thank you. *bows*

There is no solution because both the Israelis and the Palestinians want Jerusalem as undevided capitol city of their territory.

You are so stupid you don't even recognize humor or cynicism when it hits you right in the face, do you?????

Hey you know them! I thought you might

What am I supposed to do
when everything that I've done
is leading me to conclude
I'm not the one

Whatever I've done
I've been staring down the barrel of a gun

A few very large nuclear bombs on both of them would eliminate the problem.

Besides halting israeli border incursion, (didn't they learn from their own concentration camp experience?), Jerusalem should be made into an international pilgrimage park, just as places like kenya, java, madagascar, & the galapagos should be made into international nature preserves. Anyone actually living in jerusalem would have dual citizenship, temporary yet indefinite, and really be more of a displaced native of israel, palestine, new zealand, or wherever. An all encompassing (equal open enrollment by all nations and faiths) UN type org would administrate these international pilgrimage sites. Any faith has a right to visit holy sites they identify with, but no one faith would have have domination of world geographical treasures.
1967 borders are a good restoration point. Two millenia ago borders are irrelvant now. Water administration should be internationalised and socialised. It is the source of contention with iran and iraq, india vs. western corportaions, the us vs. mexico, etc. Private industry is making a grab for water resources just as they did with oil. The american natives once said that 'white man would make you buy air if they could find a way to do so'.

I imagined that solution too. Likewise for africa. not necessarily marxist (though that would be nice), but at minimum, trade confederacies which could stand up to the WTO, and end third-world exploitation. I imagine there's already administrative policy to ensure that day never happens though.

Get the Jews out of there and relocate them into Alaska instead and while you're at it, move all the "Orange English" out of Ireland back into England. Yeah, that's it... While you're at it, remove all the Europeans from South, Central and North America back to where they come from and let them bring all the slaves' descendants back to Africa!

THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY SOLUTION!!! Forget about it and let them fight their own wars! I have grown up all of my life listening to their warring factions and if you walk a mile in either shoe - you will find that they both have legitimate grieves! I'm sick to death about their woes....

Jeez! When the hell am I going to win the lottery so I can be rich enough to move to another planet?
"Beam me up, Scottie!"

Dream on Zang! I hear the mushrooms are real good in your area!

...and you still insist that there is plenty of room on this planet for all these people? In times past, when a people was conquered; they had an option - they could go somewhere else and rebuild. We have wars like these now because the conquered people have nowhere to go!!

a lions wrath.
things could probably still work. someone might listen, be the hands for something worthwhile.

I don't know enough about this subject to give an answer.

There are two options:
1. Turn the entire region into a huge sheet of glass with the aid of a large thermonuclear device, or
2. Pour millions of dollars of aid into Palestinian areas to help them raise their standards of living and education, and wait for this generation to die.

I have to be honest. I think the whole thing stinks and I pay as little attention as I can.

Judea and Samaria should become the seventh and eighth districts of the State of Israel, with all law-abiding residents, regardless of race, religion or national heritage, having the full benefits of citizenship.

Pompeii them? Isn't there an ancient melt down site near pakistan too, without the volcano to explain it? I encountered it on a site about angelic warfare in the times of Garuda.

I have no idea!

Fudge off you liberal bigot. You're so stupid to realize Zang has said this before and means it. Talk about stupid. And you passed THOSE genes on? What a crime against humanity.

There's plenty of room dear, as you noticed yourself, room is not the problem, it's people with differing ideology, ethinic background or religion being unwilling to share. Northern Ireland is plenty big enough for all those who live there if they just stopped fighting.

The rewards go to capitalists? So no worker owns their own homes or can feed themselves or buy computers to talk about how hard done by they are huh? OK.

The infrastructure is there because of capital. The proletariat choose to sell their labour. Who's exploiting who here? If you advocate Marxism you are against freedom. People CHOOSE to work at the rate they work at. They CHOOSE to pay what they pay for goods produced. The difference is profit that's true, but profit is a result of choice. You're advocating force, as most socialists do. If I offer to pay you 3cents a day to clean out my septic tank with a toothbrush and you choose to do it, that's your choice and you have accepted the terms. That's freedom. The reason that would never happen is because the proletariat set the price of their labour as in what they are willing to accept as payment for their work. That's freedom. When you start forcing people to pay a certain amount and not requiring an equal commitment from the worker you are taking away freedom.

God I don't even know why I need to go through this. Even most socialists reject Marx today. Perhaps you're aware of the fact that the proletariat of former socialist countries rejected socialism? Perhaps the lack of freedom had something to do with that ya think?

Sorry but I really don't think you are that stupid.

Let's keep dreaming krystal...

There's not enough room kaleb...
You write;
"it's people with differing ideology, ethnic background or religion being unwilling to share"

This will never change, ever... Hence, there is not enough room for us all. We get along fine as long as we're far enough apart.

Let the Israelis and Palestinians duke it out ,and the winner keeps all the marbles.

I think some of these are good solutions, but I don't think anything can really solve the problem because greed and religion will perpetuate the conflict. I don't think any solution, no matter how logical, will appease both sides.

The Palestinians should be provided with the land they once occupied within the modern borders of Israel, Syria, and Jordan. Likewise goes for the Kurds....they should be provided with the land they once occupied in Turkey and Iraq.

indeed indeed.

Let's just ask him.

Zang, stop playing with Kaleb's mind. He just can't handle it.

If the choice is between cleaning out your septic tank with a toothbrush for three cents a day or nothing, what do you choose? The workers "choose" to sell their labour because all of the other possibilities have been removed. I need money to survive in this system (not my choice). I have to put a lot of time and effort into simply finding a position and being accepted for it (not my choice). The employer pays me as little as they can possibly get away with (not my choice). I'm not feeling a lot of freedom here.

Hey! How've you doing lately Krystal? Any earth shattering events in your life lately? Not much is going on for me these days, I'm still waiting to defrost from this freakin' season so I can't start living again... I NEED to get into the bush!

I'll be meeting Mat soon as he's received the camera. He sounded a little bummed out last time he wrote me... I'll go shake him up!

I'm working on defrosting too. I brought home a renaissance bard who asked me to play guitar at his tarot booth on venice beach. Early spring here. Mat is who?

Mat, you know... He comes here and well... I guess he hasn't been around much lately! People are forgetting him!

Early spring for you is just grand for me! I don't need to thaw from that kind of weather!
What kind of responses are you getting from the crowds at the tarot booth?

I still need to do it, take davantage of the fresh energy here. My guest is going out alone while I catch up on housekeeping and projects, and not having much success latelly. He's seeing that I can't really afford groceries, and applying to fast-food restaurants. It seems a minor tragedy considering the creative brilliance he possesses. That's what I did at his age, but I didn't really blossom until I stepped out of the rat-race. My major R&D project has been homeless and retirement community design, so his stay is convenient for understanding one of the most critical demographs applicable. Now I'm not so sure that any structured dirt-cheap socialism, no, matter how free-form, will work for the rogue mind-set living on the street. My time homeless, as a retired professional with a structured history (even if it didn't suit me) wasn't typical of what's out there without a roof or stable meal.

Who is this "guest"?

I was playing guitar on Venice Beach with an intent to investigate what it would take to set up a tarot booth. This gargantuan worldly 18 year old (I thought he was about 26) asks if I could play guitar at his tarot booth. When it became apparent that he had started too late to earn hotel board, I him invited to stay at my place for the night. It turns out that he was the first person I had met when I had arrived homeless in LA myself 7 years ago. I did a tarot reading for his druid coven at the time, and still have some gifts they gave me. He's a bard at the renaissance faire with a great voice. He's in town with a mission of finding an old friend for his mother.

You met him when he was 11?

or 12, perhaps. I thought he was about 17 at the time. He's 6' 9" now. He (this time around) thought I was about 27 too. Worldliness can add to age. He graduated early, and considers me the first person he's met in a year that intellectualy challenges him. He's a lot like a clone of who I was back in my renaissance faire, fantasy gaming, and early spiritual research days.

Hmmm.... Does he have a name?

Yes he does. ...but I think I should ask before identifying him. Well, heck, there are a million Chris's on the planet. Scottish royalty resides in his other (birth-given) names.
Ok, he's been online with his title anyhow, so here it is:
Sir and Lord Caine Greatheart, knight Combatant in the nationwide Adrian Empire, in the service of The High Emperor, His Highness Emperor Sephiroth Morgainia, Lord and master of the almighty fighting house of Greatheart, patriarch of the house of Rolling thunder, captain in the royal army of the kingdom of Esperance, knight bardic in the canto of Aquataine, high commander of the Sangriel fighters, and overall valiant warrior in the service of our queen, will present and pledge his allegiance to the high emperor sephiroth. Come forth sir caine.

Chris would have been enough!

Israel, Syria and Jordan should each offer land to form a Palestine state with closed borders. And the US should quit trying to make excuses for Israel. We have enough of our own problems. And this is just my OPINION!!!!! Great Survey--many choices and creator is well informed it seems.

I am a liberal and don't care who knows it

You seem to be in pretty good company around here. I won't hold it against you personally, but I can't speak for those yobbos further to the right of you.

thank you Zang, you're right though some will hold it against me, but that's THEIR problem right?

We do enjoy a little spirited debate around here from time to time. Unfortunately, some people resort to name-calling. It doesn't score any points with me, but perhaps some people are swayed by that kind of rhetoric.

spirited debate is good for the soul and the

Yes. I enjoy it. I think it is the best way for people to exchange ideas and question their own beliefs. Survey Central is an excellent format for such discussions. You can get an idea where people stand on an issue and how many people feel one way and how many an other...

when they all figure out that there is no god, then it will all be over

Socialism has to be forced on people, surely that must give you a clue as to which system is better. Even the workers in Russia rejected it which is why they were sent to the gulags or starved in their millions through contrived famines. The only reason you want socialism is because you have failed to accumulate wealth through skill or effort and now want to confiscate someone elses accumulated wealth. Like all socialists you are selfish and envious. Grow up.

People who want socialism are forced to live in capitalism too. People who believe in the motto 'live simply so others may simply live' usually spend long hard hours helping people. They would consider those trying to accumulate wealth to be selfish. Lazy people who do wish to have others support them certainly do exist, but they usually don't have it together enough to debate about politics. For that matter, many capitalists are after just the same notion, to own stocks in some company, and live off of the dividends profited from others labor, without having to do any work themself. How would you feel about all stocks being owned by the government, and out of the hands of venture capitalists?

Oh, are we back on this again?

Socialism does NOT have to be forced on people. People have actually voted for Socialist governments. There are numerous democratically elected Socialist governments in Europe. In Canada, we have a Socialist party which has been elected many times to govern provinces and has had members in the national Parliament for several decades.

I don't know what you are referring to in the second sentence. It may vaguely resemble history, but you seem to have skewed it to fit your argument. If you are talking about The Soviet Union under Stalin, I hardly think that is a good example of "Socialism". There is another name for that; it is called "Stalinism". Even "Bolshevism" would be a more accurate term. Your rather limited understanding of political history puts you at a loss. You seem to constantly confuse words and issues.

I have never said I wanted "Socialism". I defy you to find any statement I have ever made where I said that. I suggest you do a little more research into the difference between Socialism and Revolutionary Marxism.

As far as your personal attacks on my character; I don't think they're even worthy of a response.

I think he's jealous.

Hey! How's it going? I was looking at your website yesterday. What have you been up to lately?

I just got 6 more previously unknown about aunts and uncles in the UK, and lots of cousins, through a cousin who discovered my family tree web page. I had an 18 year old druid bard stay here for a month, while I tried to fill him with good karma ethics. All I lost was an un-rare coin collection, that had me taken years to gather, but even the top coins in that showed up similarly at the goodwill a couple days later. Perhaps I've set loose something more conscientious upon the world than had arrived here (better than sweet talking sleight of hand, preying upon kindness).
I'm a bit lonely today, waking up near sunset on Easter. My meditation the other night was hours of transcribing Krsna Murti and such, like a one on one with God. Mostly about the formulaic relationship between the tao and kaballism. Our throne swims in effulgent light. (air becomes water becomes fire, in the directions of time/space). The Earth is our well equipped spaceship. Universes occur at each different frequency of the wave graduation between being and anti-being. Eternity exists with the moment. Working on my car, just in case I need to do something with it. Lately I've been in blue crystal starlight phase with moonlit tropical music. It's the same old story, too much work to leave the house, and no need/excuse to do such anyhow. I'm working on convincing Arnold Schwarzenegger at his Aerospace conference keynote with wolfowitz, to suggest a reactor on our uranium/thorium moon, instead of telling local communities to build more WMD's. Been meeting neighbors on an animal chakra plane (new to me).

Oh yeah? My life's a little more mundane than all that.

You seem to constantly confuse words and issues.

Like when he somehow managed to mistake my negative review for the MOIVE The Passion for an attack on a RELIGION, Christianity.

And to think I used to enjoy debating with the man.

Religion? Now I'm really confused. I posted a critique of the 1968 Masumura film in Forum today in response to your post. I assumed your "snuff film" comparison was to the triple suicide that ended the film. Pretty gritty stuff certainly, but I didn't see the religious subtext. Are we talking about the same film?

Um, no. I'm surprised all the hype about The Passion of the Christ has escaped. It graphically and sadistically (IMHO) depicts the final 12 hours of Christ's life and is directed by Mel Gibson, whose father is a galloping anti-Semite.

Oh that! I did hear some hype about it. You shortened the name, and I failed to make the connection. The title itself isn't something I would have remembered, but I did hear a lot of hype about a new film about Jesus that had certain people getting their knickers in a knot. I've seen a couple myself: "The Life of Brian"(1979) & "Jesus de Montreal"(1989) both got similar reactions from the weak of heart/mind.

Well, yeah, but Life of Brian rules. And not just cause my name is in the title.

Yes. I saw it in the theater when it first came out. It is quite possible that I have never laughed so hard...

Why?

I'm not sure.

Neither am I.

Oh, are we back on this again?

Why do you socialists ALWAYS claim that wherever socialism has failed it is therefore not really socialism but some other -ism? If you're going to play that game the same can be said for any capitalist system you find objectionable. Clearly none of those are "true" capitalism.

The socialist governments of Europe are not anywhere near or anything like the type of socialism you claim to want. The reason the small socialist aspect of those European governments works is because it is paid for by the capitalist system embraced by those countries. Marxist socialism is a joke. Only people who don't understand it adhere to it. Even Marx admitted it was a flop.

Personal attacks on your character? Oh please! You really do need to grow up don't you?

The only reason people can "live simply" is because there is so much disposable income in wealthy capitalist countries to support an artsy bohemian culture. Try surviving in N Korea by selling cute art made from driftwood. People there can't afford to eat. The alternative lifestyle followed by so-called socialists in wealthy capitalist countries relies heavily on capitalism to survive. Like most socialists they are hypocrites who soak up everything good provided by a western capitalist society while sitting on the sidelines criticising it.

All stocks held by government? That would lead to an unsustainably enormous bureaucracy common in the type of socialist countries Zang admires as well as nepotism and unaccountability of bungling fools. Not to mention the lack of competition that leads to poor service. Shareholders gaining more power and influence over companies is the expansion of the ownership of capital to the proletariat. Socialism takes that power away and concentrates it in the hands of a few ruthless ideologues who run the huge central government. Socialism leads to the removal of power from the proletariat. Capitalism leads to the expansion of the bourgeoisie and democracy. Socialism's biggest lie is that it empowers the workers.

Why do you Liberals always confuse Socialism, Marxism, Bolshevism, Stalinism...?

Why is it that an american can survive making a few driftwood sculptures, and a N Korean can't survive woring all day in a factory making driftwood sculptures? because the Koreans have been capitalised upon. The poor residents of other countries don't want things like nafta and cafta. If foreign developers offered the same conditions as american driftwood sculptures were offered, they would.
I bicycle down the paved streets and do consider how much easier life is than if we were all farming in our yards. Still, look at what would happen in our current western lifestyle if everyone from the top down handed 10% of their wealth to someone lower down the chain until it got down to people living on the streets with no one worse off to hand it to. What we actually do is really generally the exact opposite; Any employer strives to get 10% off of those that work below them, or in any sales transaction.
Try a democratic socialism, whre everyone votes on what to do with holdings, not just a subset of shareholders interested solely in profit. For one thing, employees would probably make a higher share of income. Companies that exist solely to con consumers with useless products would no longer exist. Ads for useless things would cease. It could all be more efficient. Nothing says they couldn't still compete. High school athletes compete, without concern for money. Most people still want to look good. You equate bureaucracy with non-accountability? Either system can exist just as much in capitalism as socialism. In socialism effective systems can be enforced, but the down side is that ineffective systems can also be enforced.
Suppose mega-corp bought the street in front of your house and decided to make it profitable.?. That's almost exactly the goal of nafta/cafta deals. It's good for shareholders of mega-corp, but not for you. Th only way I see the system working is if the 3rd world human resources are granted shares proportional to their share of the work force. That way, if it was true that a capitalis system made it better for everyone, they would immediately profit. Workers in Gadzook africa would then be glad to have their factory competitive with one in Bardoslavia owned by Global-corp. It won't happen though. Mega-corp is in the business of capitalising UPON those 3rd world resources, as well as upon consumers.
It's the system of control itself which empowers the workers, not the subsidiary sharing of wealth, and other subsidiary functions. Prior grand social schemes failed in their control structure, not their wealth sharing ideology.

Give me a break Kristal and do some homework. Nth Korea is the best example of an isolationist, socialist catastrophe. The Nth have absolutely nothing to do with capitalism which is why it is an abject failure. How the hell can they be being exploited when there is zero interaction????????? Sth Korea is a success because of capitalism. God, doesn't the fact that the Nth experience famine on a regular basis tweek anything in your socialist pea-brain? Can you see any link between those countries that are a success?

First of all, I would not consider myself a liberal. Second, why do you Marx apologists hide the lack of logic, adherance to violence and failure of socialism with semantics?

Didn't you say you want to line up the liberals and execute them? Typically socialist of you that is - kill all who disagree with you then steal what they earnt. Too bad you can't build wealth through hard work and ingenuity but have to advocate state theft. You're pitiful.

I didn't suggest isolationism from the market. Read my example again; mega-corp factories in Gadzook competing with Global-corp factories in Bardoslvia, all competing for favored global utilisation, but all owned by the people who would otherwise be capitalised upon as part of that competition. Global trade is vital. The island of Sri-Lalala shouldn't be living on three bowls a day of nutmeg while the rest of the world goes without. What I object to (nafta) is some distributer stepping in and paying a dollar per kiloton of nutmeg such that working locals couldn't afford three bowls of nutmeg at the store with their paycheck.
Your arguments are like telling the wright brothers that human flight is impossible.
Some people are good at singing, some good at machining parts, some good at business deals. Few are good at everything. Your whole philosophy (the philosophy of capitalism) rewards capitalist business savvy above all other specialties. It's the same sort of thinking which led to the ever increasing lawsuit industry. Look at how much the nations of the world owe in lending debt because we let private banking prosper.
If I ever have the time, comparing N & S Korea would probably be a good exercise for me. I doubt accurate research numbers exist though, and it's sure to be comparing apples to oranges. How do you compare tilling a field and having a transistor radio to working in a factory and having a tv? I'd prefer the former, but that's purely a matter of taste. Comparing a radio to a tv won't be accurate. There's also comparing average lifestyle to lowest poverty lifestyle, where things like socialised healthcare come into play.

On a larger scale scale contemplation, in spite of vast injustices in the 3rd world countries we capitalise upon, I'm not so sure the average total physical effect is any worse than a nearly ideal socialism. What gets me is more ideological. I consider it a resentful abomination that anyone should have to have a single thought of competing with others in order to survive themselves, or that any person can get away with making a better living in proportion to their ability to suppress or tax the efforts of others. I see socialism as all of us working for the same company with uniform performance and benefit guidelines at all levels, and equal opportunity. Employment should exist foremost for the sake of all of the employees. This ideology is evident in my suggestions that multi-national companies be forced to offer globally consistent employee benefits. In the late 80's/early 90's much of our computer manufacturing went overseas, and employment here was reduced to management positions. The companies make just as much money, but it's not going to local workers anymore, so presumably it's going to people who make less so management can make more. Even from a local national average level, I don't see that we benefited any. The company here itself may make just as much money, but it's not in the hands of those more likely to spend it on street commodities, or those who will contribute employment taxes anymore. We aren't paying foreigners enough to start their own companies, and if a manager here does, they'll only repeat the pattern.
When it comes down to it, I'm trying to dream up an earthly system which is congruent with a philosphy in which people benefit the more giving they are, and not the more greedy they are. Giving is productivity and creativity; taking is annihilation, yet in our current system the latter is the more rewarding; if you only give you will run empty. In order for giving to work as a system, everyone has to give, and give to those in need or reward those who give. I realise that it's nearly a hopeless vision, given that not everyone shares that philosphy, and systems to enforce that philosphy generally fail. Because there are these two opposing philosphies, there are only two choices (and a third) which ensure the survival of everyone: Force one group to give, force the other group to take, or seggregate communities into capitalist and socialist systems.
That latter option is really the more realistic option I've been working on for a couple years now. where everyone is free to join one system or the other, perhaps through enrollment in governmental corporations with their own laws about employment, barter, ownership, housing, etc. The obstacle here is that the two philosphies are so deep seated that people fear the opposition to the extent that not only do they insist upon being capitalist (for example), they will also crush any movements of others to try socialism. They don't seem to appreciate the thought that half of the planet may be off limits to their potential personal ownership. Nafta is an example. Nafta is more than us being able to trade with foreign nations. It's multi-national companies applying pressure on foreign city mayors to sell-out their socialist villages, to sell the streets and water supply to mega-corp, and blackmail them with turning off their international banking (needed for their independent global trade) if they fail to comply with selling-out.
I'll grant you that capitalism of independent contractor consumers is democracy, but the WTO is not remotely a democracy. They have more uninvited power than Hitler ever did.
I've heard you say again and again that capitalism is choice, and socialism is not, but contemplate briefly for understanding's sake that in a capitalist dominated world, capitalism limits the options for socialists to be socialists, that just as a capitalist resents having to live as a socialist, a socialist resents having to live with the iternal ideology of capitalism. All your time comparing the freedom of social system structures, I believe you have been starting with the presumption of a capitalist philosophy individual conforming to capitalism or socialism, and never a socialist ideologue conforming to those sytems. It's an incongruency which leaves such thinkers feeling that they've landed on a hopeless planet where they don't belong, one lacking ethical/moral sensibilities.

My mother says I can't play with you anymore.

Hang out in poor neighborhoods and you'll find that those people lack neither ingenuity nor effort. and even if it were true, is it right to be preferential to ingenuity? When a parent is low on groceries should they stop feeding the uglier kid? Effort is the only thing remotely within peoples control, yet if I devised a society in which everyone was rewarded in proportion solely to their effort, you'd scream bloody murder too. I know it. You have a cross to bear and you want everyone to bear one long side you.
The failure of socialism, and the savvy victory of some capitalists, is the mean truth that wealth and effort are hardly related at all. That it even might be is a delusion the elite propagate to the masses to maintain their own position. I don't know what they call that over there, but over here it's called 'the american dream', and no truly intelligent has been buying it for decades now. It died with the birth of the industrial revolution. Eventually one man controls the lever on the one machine which feeds 7 billion others. Socialism means we all own the machine, capitalism means we all kneel down to the guy who finally won the lever. There were 100 times more manufacturers of cars than are now 80 years later. It's the same in every industry, and they keep merging. A few centuries ago when mercantilism made sense, there was no risk of anyone cornering the global chocolate market. Everyone could compete. Now big business gets elected as president to get it's way. The trend towards one mega-business has done nothing but increased with each passing year. So has the trend for a handful of people to own most of the worlds wealth. This should be just as obvious as the failures of socialism you mention. Were it always the case that the more prosperous a ruler, the more prosperous his subjects, then maybe that wouldn't be such a bad arrangement, but that's not the case just as often as it is. I was doing nearly identical work as my father at the same age, and his buying power was probably a hundred times that of mine; a boat, a camper, owning a home, while I was scraping to pay rent and buy a pizza once a month. (auto restoration - it takes a lot of ingenuity and effort). You're capable of effort and ingenuity. You'd probably enjoy a swimming pool and monthly vacations to rome or tahiti. Why don't you demonstrate to the rest of us how fair and available this capitalist dream is. I'd enjoy drinking a brew with you as much as Gates, so I'm not sure why we're kneeling to him.

Glory be to capitalism, Brother. I have seen the light, and the light says take, take, take. Do not pity those who do not drive Jaguars for they are weak and lack ingenuity, and the lord will not help them because of their naievety and sentimental ways.

{that's what his mother said too. bless her considerate soul.}

I've just been given tickets to a showing of the canadian production 'The Corporation', by a calif. group CalCORE advocating for SB-917, similar to a nat'l leagues prallel, which redefines corporations as being in the public interest (environmentally, labor, etc). It's not too different from my own visionary platform in which the public can veto annual corp plan licenses which are against public interest.

I've never heard of it.

The nations of the world owe so much because they are run by corrupt governments who take development loans and spend the money on wars etc. When it comes to repayments, there has been no development so the people are forced to sell their resources. Why is that the capitalists fault again? Unless you go in and topple all the corrupt warmongers you will not be guaranteed the money lent is spent appropriately. I was under the impression you socialists didn't want the west to do such a thing since you seem to oppose the removal of Hussein constantly. So, that leaves lending huge amounts of money with no expectation of ever getting any of it back or simply not lending money to the third world at all. Which do you suggest the west adopt? And please don't come out and say the west should just give the rewards of OUR labour to the third world and expect nothing. I don't know about your ethics, but if someone works hard to create a beautiful house and nice car I am not the type of person that believes they somehow owe me something because I have failed to get my crap together. Look at me, talking to a socialist about work ethics, the people who advocate the confiscation of private property!

You seem to blame the flaws of globalisation on capitalists. Globalisation, or the concept of it, came from the left. They advocated it as a way of shifting jobs to places with no industry. It backfired of course. That doesn't change the fact that the people who complain about poor wages in the third world once had zero wages because there was no industry at all. If you do any research on the global warming lies perpetuated by the left you will realise the whole thing is another device designed to shift wealth from the west through deception. That too will backfire. It's already started with the west shifting their most dirty industries to the third world. If you doubt me you should realise that many politicians from the left don't care if global warming is a lie, they see it as a good lie to push - "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." -Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998. This will be done through the carbon credit fiasco, which if you think about it cannot possibly reduce emissions, it simply forces the west to pay poor nations for their pollution rights. It's socialist social engineering at it's most typical and deceptive. Fudge the truth huh? Note this quote - "The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority an alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now." -Louis Proyect, Columbia University. What the hell has owning your own house so you don't have to work as hard for "the Man" to make house payments got to do with global warming or reducing poverty? God help us with that sort of logic!

Capitalism only limits people's opportunity to be socialists because it stops socialists stealing property from capitalists. Individual socialists cannot be socialists, whatever that means anyway - you all seem to say everytime socialism fails that it isn't true socialism. Socialism might work on paper, but it fails miserably in practice, even with no interaction with capitalism. The Eastern Bloc failed to provide anything close to the basics taken for granted in capitalist countries. Don't you get it yet? Capitalism while not perfect works a hell of a lot better than any form of socialism adopted thus far. Why do you think the people in socialist countries dropped socialism like a bag of crap? You resent living with capitalism? LEAVE! Christ, people leave regimes they dislike all the time. I suggest it's far too free and easy in the capitalist world you loathe to give you the motivation to get out of it. There are plenty of places a lot closer to what you consider to be nirvana than the USA. HAven't you ever asked yourself why the countries that have the most immigration are the most capitalist? Doesn't that tweak anything with you? Do you think they're all brainwashed by evil property owners or something?

Boy do you have balls talking about ethical and moral sensibilities! You advocate the theft of property paid for by sweat and blood so it can be distributed to those to stupid or lazy to earn it. Don't ever talk to me about ethics! SOCIALISM DOES NOT MEAN YOU ALL OWN THE MACHINE. It means you all own a share of fudge all because no one has any incentive do excell. No one will make any extra effort. Why would they if their reward is to be stolen?

I am happy with my life as it is. I work for what I get. It is possible for me to work harder and accumulate more but I don't need to. I am happy to have a life as well as a job. I don't envy or want to steal what others have like socialists do. The more I talk to you the more sad and ignorant you seem. Do you understand anything at all about supply and demand? You see in a capitalist system, you get rewarded by offering a service or good other people want. Under your centrally planned socialist nightmare you would get paid even if you made something totally useless. This is why Moscow buearacracy resulted in famine and shortages of the most basic goods. Auto restoration might require effort but it has to sell. The fact you couldn't afford luxuries should have made you think you might have done better offering a more popular or needed service. But, sadly, your socialist mindset makes you believe the world owes you a living and you should be getting rich doing obscure services. I'm starting to see why you are a socialist. You're greedy for what other people have but you're not prepared to do the hard yards - research, ingenuity, marketing etc. No, you just want to suck at the bewb of the state who you will support when it sends people to gulags if they object to the product of THEIR hard work being confiscated. You're a jealous, angry zealot who is pissed socialism fails miserably but too stupid to look around and figure out for yourself what system works best for people. When was the last time a western capitalist country lost 2 or 20 million people to famine? Get a clue Kristal.

Is it her who taught you that if you see something you like being played with by another child to confiscate that toy and lock the owner up in a closet? Maybe she taught you how to make North Korean salad? Take a handfull of frozen grass and chew blaming the west for how it tastes. What about Ukraine revolutionary burgers? Take one frozen, starved child, yours of course, place forearm in mouth and bite off some flesh. Don't forget to tell yourself this is all for the benefit of the workers.

I didn't sanction corrucpt governments, and I know they exist, in both socialist and capitalist circumstances. If you ask me, selling out to nafta (or at least that which follows it's lead) is an indication of corruption.
Hussein was a criminal jerk, but nat 100% because he did at least nationalise oil ownership. The oil on that land belongs to the iraqi people, or to be shared by the whole globe, not to entrepreneurs, esp foreign. At worst, such entrepreneurs should operate as independent contractors, on behalf of the iraqi or global profit owners.
Have you heard of predatory lending? I used to be illegal in the U.S. (and I wish it still was). Most states had a maximum legal interest charge of 6%. Global lenders tend to create conditional situations which will perpetuate the dependence and revenue siphonment of the lendee nation. If the banks that made such loans were owned by truly global citizenry, international predatory lending would be absurd. The lending could be like disastor relief from the federal gov to flood victims. So yes, I suppose, that borders on just helping them, but it's no less absurd than just taking advantage of their plight.
It could be argued that if we start with the the premise that the world is shared equally by all, then it is the capitalist who becomes a landlord who is doing the taking, and not the socialists taking from the disproportional owners. Your argument about taking from those who have built a nice home only applies to their later investment/contribution efforts or their inheritance.. Yet, if you read deeper into your communist-socialist philosphers, you will find that what they were really after was wealth proportional to individual effort, not dependent upon inheritance, opportunity, nor taking leveraged advantage of others; but each by the sweat of his own brow. Towards that end, unfortunately, some ludicrous things occured. The major flaw of the system was that it was born of the industrial age, when in fact economy, employment, and national prosperity had already just entered post-industrial logistics. That is what held famous grand-scale socialist experiments in the dark ages. Capitalism was ideally suited to benefit from the post-industrial paradigm. Communist-socialism could have been, but it was not. It's logistical ground-work was authored in the wrong age, and the man who should have best understood the dialectic, appears to have intentionally preferred to remove it from the pardigm he authored, opting instead to intentionally (it seems), guarantee the perpetuity of dark ages to guarantee the perpetuity of labor equality.
You come at a particularly interesting juncture for me. On one hand, the divine word has told me it's time to personally become a capitalist again; and on the other hand, I've been invited in a couple days to meet with the new director of LA housing assistance which serves some 22,000 people, where I will be presenting a proposal for self-sufficient urban condo-communes for those currently or desiring assistance, on the premise that even if they can not earn enough to be self-sufficient in a capitalist economy, that their cost of living can be greatly decreased living in self-owned communal environments with part-time communally owned entrepreneurial non-profit concessions shared by the community. My personal venture involves having created a system to do live tarot readings over the internet, and eBay as a marketing medium. Oh, I also just bought a tandem bike to convert to a hybrid moped.
The com/soc you are familiar was obsolete before it was launched, unless it's repurcussions were intended. It wasn't the most forward thinking. It ignored/sacrificed a lot of stuff to guarantee it's philosphical premise. A two tiered system of democratized socialist capitalism for society with entrepreneurial communism at the personal level has never been tried.
I can only speculate about the authors, but it seems to me that what they are saying is that if the public at large owned the globe, and/or industry, that they would vote to not pollute one with the other. Individual home ownership is probably not what they are talking about, excepting that it creates a premise which extends towards larger capitalist ventures.
Exactly, you can't be a socialist if everyone else (including others who wish to be socialists) are capitalists.
When people claim prior examples were not true socialism, aside from some elite living physically better than others, I think what they really mean is that it was hierarchial, and not a truly democratic socialism; that wealth was absolutely (in theory at least) decentralised, yet logistics were absolutely centralized. My system is near absolutely decentralised in both aspects, excepting a consistent medium of democratically and entrepreneurally decentralizing decision logistics.
Leave global warming out of this one. You appear to be grasping for seperate subsidiary circumstantial concerns not directly related to the ideological premise of socialism or capitalism (as you typically do).
I can't afford to move, for one; and for two, I keep in mind a woman who used to campaign for the legalization of marijuana. I asked her why she struggled so much when it would be easier to just move to another country. She replied 'Because it should be people's natural right here. The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.' Besides, you're making a cheap argument. If your neighbors tore up the streets to make dirt fighting arenas, or made home-ownership illegal, or even if it always had been illegal, given your position, it would seem reasonable that you protest for your convictions on what's right, rather than moving. Beside again, at least for my stance, such places are getting harder to find. Capitalist nations have knack for getting the third world resources they want. As we speak, Columbia is about to fall prey to severe capitalism, and (in spite of elections) not because that was the pre-existing dominant view, but because U.S. political and corporate forces paid for a campaign which would have convinced the democrats to vote for hitler or santa. True socialists don't stand a chance because their fundamental premise is non competitiveness. Put a pacifist and a boxer in boxing rink, and who do you think will win. This is one of those philosophical malaises I spoke of. The active existence of capitalism is an imposition which forces socialists to become something akin to capitalists just to survive.
To use one of your sorts of arguments (which I've used before), if capitalism is so great, why don't family units switch internally to capitalism? Alas, some actually have, as when spouses keep seperate bank accounts. I find it tragically loathsome. - I think when it really comes down to it, the difference between a socialist thinker and a capitalist thinker is that the latter is not willing to treat the general public as close family, and sometimes not even treat their immediate family as family. Although I also think that a well designed socialism is the most efficient and beneficial system for society, I come from it with the same theology held by C.S. Lewis, that it is essentially the most Christian of societal systems.
On a situational basis, divine word or circumstance interjects the moment I take any pride in ownership. I was accused of greed the moment I started thinking about hot rodding that bike which had been chosen up till that point simply as the most practical solution. When I've had guests here, I came to see by contrast, that I work constantly, every minute, on chores or my social projects. The social projects often involve sacrifice, like having to go without grocery shopping when I'm out of food, and I don't even get public recognition for my efforts, only the satisfaction that I did what the divine asked, and it bore fruit that I will never eat myself. Sometimes I wonder if you're actual complaint is that to live in systems as I describe, you'd have to live like I do, and change to the consciousness of a monk to remain content with life and still accomplish something.
I'm pretty content with my physical life, except that I'm buying groceries and the bike I need on credit. My motivation is not to improve my lot in life at the expense of others, it is to save others from having to participate in a rat-race in which they are capitalized upon in the process. People living on social security receive under $10,000/yr. There are possibly more people in prison, and at a cost of $60,000/yr per inmate. That money could have been spent on a system which didn't drive people to desperate crime in the first place. I had someone break into the trunk of my defunct car and steal three cases of bottles I was saving to make root-beer. That sort of preposterous desperation shouldn't exist. I do all that research and effort you speak of with most of my free time, not for hope of any personal gain, but because I believe people have a right to live in a utopia. I recently spent an hour on my own cleaning up litter in a massively gardened street that I only see for a few minutes every couple of weeks when dropping off mail. I did it in support of the neighborhood, the ideology, and the woman who only sleeps three hours per night so she can plant the neighborhood in flowers. The nurseries in turn give her truckloads of free flowers to her that are at risk of dying and less likely to be profitable. That is socialism - total service to humanity. If everyone did it, this world would be a beautiful place.
After years of conversation, you still don't seem to feel a sense of what I or socialism is really about.

hmm.. I was unaware those asterisks convert text to bold.

*sigh*