Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Koveras]

This forum has an excellent feature. After I click "submit", and before anything is really submitted, it graciously provides me with an hour or two in which to review what I've said. The result is a large number of edits as I notice things I should have said, and ways I could have better said other things. If you would be so kind as to re-view my earlier post, and then make changes (or not) to yours as you deem necessary.

[bacasper]

^Nothing typifies Bill Gates' genius as much as including Solitaire in Windows.

[Fox]

Additional response to the edit (seems easier than editting my own post):

[Koveras]

I think I'll make one last thorough reply here before turning my attention to a new thread.

[HappyPineapple]

As a socialist, I find your initial posting offensive. Understandably, this thread has expanded its scope to include philosophical musings/rants/arguments, but I think the initial point (that the United States is becoming/has been socialist or communist) requires more attention.

To begin with, is the concept of socialism being grasped here? Fundamentally socialism is about doing away with free market ideology and practices and redirecting capital to benefit the many rather than the few, with the goal being the eradication of exploitation. I challenge you to give me the basis for your argument that Obama is leading the country in that direction. The bailout, you say? Who benefited from the bailout? Was it the taxpayer? Was it the janitors' union? Was it children in inner city slums? There has been extensive documentation in mainstream news sources (http://www.truthout.org/033109J, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=avJwPOJehjeM) of bonuses that were paid out irregardless of thousands of layoffs taking place in the lower rungs of big business and retail. My point is simply this: Barack Obama is so far from socialism that it's depressing. The USA is NOT getting a single-payer, universal health system. The USA is NOT ceasing to outsource business or send our young people to war tour after tour. Obama is a slave to big business (pharmaceuticals, insurance, etc), free trade agreements (See recent news on the struggles in the Peruvian Amazon), the military industrial complex, and all the other troubling, CAPITALIST money makers his predecessors have supported.

The other issue I'd like to briefly touch on is Marx. Koveras said:

"Yes. The socialist, democratic, and globalized society is the more efficient means for reaching Marx's true goal: the last man. Every other part of Marx's philosophy was contingent to this. In the USSR it was systematized and enforced; in the West the same movement has been spontaneous, "free"."

Marx's true goal? Really? For someone who has expounded with such authority on a slew of philosophical issues, I'm surprised he isn't aware that Marx was far from an ideologue. Rather, he was a sociologist, who made predictions about future trends based on political/economic/social conditions during his time. Yes, Marxism has been hugely and undeniably influential in shaping socialist and communist movements around the world, but what you said in the above quote (and numerous times throughout this thread) indicates you have no read Marx and do not understand his role in history.

The United States is a very polarized nation with the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich. Our policies largely support the population of our country that controls capital and resources. Arguing that would be difficult, but I'd love to see you try.

[HappyPineapple]

And just for fun...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtUAHPYYzeM

[Koveras]

[HappyPineapple]

Allright, alllllllright. Fair enough. Saying Marx wasn't an ideologue was actually foolish on my part- I tend to believe everyone is promoting some ideology or other, even when claims of objectivity are made. And of course Marx wanted revolution, a better system, etc.

And it's possible I'm misunderstanding parts of this thread- I read quickly yesterday and felt like contributing (always a bad idea). But if we are saying "America is Marxist" in the sense that Marx's predictions about the nature and inherent failures of capitalism are coming to light, then I couldn't agree more.

On the other hand, it seems the idea of "barracks communism/socialism" is often equated with pure socialism. That gets me all riled up. The idea of the few at the top controlling the masses is a function of capitalism. Yes, one can point to North Korea, USSR, China, etc. as examples of how terrible socialism is and how concentrated wealth became in a few hands in those cases. However, I'd argue that the corrupting factors could always be attributed to the global control of capital by the capitalist west.

I'll stop now...

[mises]

[mises]

[Fox]

[mises]

[Rusty Shackleford]

[HappyPineapple]

[quote="mises"][quote]The United States is a very polarized nation with the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich. Our policies largely support the population of our country that controls capital and resources. Arguing that would be difficult, but I'd love to see you try.[/quote]

http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=displayblog&month=9&year=2004#466
[quote] 21:56 - POOR DEFINITIONS: Does anyone know this gentleman: He has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two colour televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family�s essential needs.

This is the typical American poor, according to the definition by which there are 12.5 percent living in poverty. There is also real poverty in the US, people who experience something like overcrowding, temporary hunger or difficulty obtaining health care. But that�s only about a third of those officially classified as poor, and the groups shouldn�t be confused. [/quote][/quote]

The passage you quote is correct in stating the 2007 poverty rate in the US is 12.5%. But, it's funny... I couldn't find anything in the Census Bureau's definition of poverty about a DVD player. Here's what I did find:

A household's income is determined by adding the money received by every household member over the age of 15 in a calendar year. This money includes "wage or salary income; net self-employment income; interest, dividends, or net rental or royalty income or income from estates and trusts; Social Security or Railroad Retirement income; Supplemental Security Income (SSI); public assistance or welfare payments; retirement, survivor, or disability pensions; and all other income."

The official poverty level depends upon the number of people in a household and the number of those people who are related children under the age of 18. Let's look at some examples.

Household of 1 adult, no children: $10,787
Household of 1 adult, 1 child: $14,291
Household of 1 adult, 2 children: $16,705

Household of 1 adult, 8+ children: $40,085

Household of 2 adults, no children: $13,884
Household of 2 adults, 1 child: $16,689
Household of 2 adults, 2 children: $21,027

Household of 1 adult, 65 years or older: $9,944
Household of 2 adults, 65 years or older: $12,533

I understand your position to be that only the bottom third of folks with household incomes lower than these amounts experience overcrowding and hunger. Do you stand by that position?

(All figures are from 2007: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld.html )
(Access to health care is another ball of wax.)

[Fox]