Bipolar Society

[Superman]

Friends, you know I hate to raise controversial concepts here, but I want to hear your thoughts. A friend recently mentioned something to me that will not exit my thoughts. He says that most societies, probably every society, contains people who are natural capitalists, and other people who gravitate toward socialism. Now, before you say "Duh!," let's look at that.

Some folks just want to live in harmony with other folks, be good stewards of the environment, watch out for each other, achieve synergy (2 + 2 = 5), be happy, be secure, help and be helped. Barn raising, pooling our money to build schools, roads, etc. We're not willing to take something that someone else can better use, just because we can. Competition is fine, but it's more of a sport than a lifestyle.

Then there is another group. Take what you can get/defend/keep. Life itself is a competitive game not a cooperative game.

The socialists like to live in a community of socialists
The capitalists understand each other.
The capitalists are semi-happy living in a community with socialists, though they consider the socialists to be non-contributors and whiners.
But the socialists detest the presence of the selfish capitalists. If these people are competitors rather than cooperators, then they'll eventually win by sucking up all the money and other resources.

So, these two groups cannot effectively coexist in the long run.

And maybe we're seeing that played out on this ball-shaped community, not just nationally.

discuss.......

[dhoward]

But your leaving out the third group.
The group of individuals who are a little of both. The majority.
Bipolarism in an off topic forum is the norm. Pick any subject message board and you'll find the same thing as here. But, look at the community as a whole (or hole ) and you'll find many more moderate thinkers.
We're just bigger bullsh!iters.

[john_colasante]

Being a capitalist does not necessitate that one is not philanthropic or interested in communities.

[dd74]

Capitalists also produce things. They make items the socialists need, such as clothes, food, shelter. So coexistence has to occur on some level. It is the necessity of needing each other which makes socialists and capitalists somewhat hostile.

[Moses]

Guess which group funds all the charitable work, establishes scholarships, builds childrens hospitals, and feeds the poor?

Passive participants in the economy may be full of good intentions but do little to help others. They rarely have the resources to do much more than care for themselves.

Those who achieve wealth or position in our society provide for most of the philanthropic work that gets done. That is the way it ought to be. Our lives have little meaning if we live only to serve ourselves.

Most capitalists believe in freedom, including the freedom of socialists to contribute less than they could.

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by Moses

Those who achieve wealth or position in our society provide for most of the philanthropic work that gets done. That is the way it ought to be. Our lives have little meaning if we live only to serve ourselves.

Good point. There is a valid reason why the majority of the libraries, parks,(and even a University) around Pittsburgh feature the names "Frick, Carnegie, and Mellon".

[island911]

Originally posted by Superman
Friends, . . ..

Some folks just want to live in harmony with other folks, be good . . .

Then there is another group. ..

discuss.......

Divide, demonize, and destroy.

Hey, Super? Adolph called . . .he want's his plan back.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Superman
Friends, you know I hate to raise controversial concepts here, .......

Oh man that's a good one - had me laughing for at least five minutes.

Chew on this:

"Some men see things as they are and say, "why?"
I dream things that never were and say, "why not?""
Robert Kennedy

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Serge914]

I have to admit that I agree with you Superman.
We had a kiddygarden in our home for 7 years; just observing how 2 and 3 years old kids are reacting you can easily tell wich one are the capitalists, wich one are the socialists and wich one are bipolars.
Now dont ask me if it is genetic but I can tell you that you usually find both opposites in the same family.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Serge914
I have to admit that I agree with you Superman.
We had a kiddygarden in our home for 7 years; just observing how 2 and 3 years old kids are reacting you can easily tell wich one are the capitalists, wich one are the socialists and wich one are bipolars.
Now dont ask me if it is genetic but I can tell you that you usually find both opposites in the same family.

Though I don't necessarily want or expect anyone to agree with me, this post is the kind of 'bullseye' I look for. I also believe these tendencies are rather evident and obvious, and that the leopard's spots are there from the beginning and do not change. I also agree that many folks are a mixture of tendencies, and that folks on the outer edges of the scale are much more rare.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Moses
Guess which group funds all the charitable work, establishes scholarships, builds childrens hospitals, and feeds the poor?

Passive participants in the economy may be full of good intentions but do little to help others. They rarely have the resources to do much more than care for themselves.

Those who achieve wealth or position in our society provide for most of the philanthropic work that gets done. That is the way it ought to be. Our lives have little meaning if we live only to serve ourselves.

Most capitalists believe in freedom, including the freedom of socialists to contribute less than they could.

This I think is bull*****. Though I respect Moses, both the historical figure as well as the current one. But yeah, I think this is largely excuse/rationalizing. Take Carnegie for example. Lots of money to build libraries. The one in Olympia is now a commercial enterprize, BTW. And Carnegie made hsi money by crushing labor each time he had any opportunity. He was a very rich man, but no working person thought he was the slightest bit "good." I'm not sure his libraries made up for the damage he did to labor. Here is a quote I would probably use to illuminate Mr. Carnegie's deception:

"All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms labor is treason. If a man tells you he loves America yet hates labor, he is a liar. If a man tells you he trusts America yet fears labor, he is a fool. There is no America without labor, and to fleece the one is to rob the other." Abraham Lincoln

I have seen poor people get fed, and it happens every day in your community. What really happens is that a group of folks from the first group described above, decides that the poor need to be fed. Then they scrounge up money. They find it is hard to come by. Usually, they find agricultural organizations that are willing to give away, instead of throw away, waste food. Chicken farms for eggs. Hog farms for bacon, etc. This food is prepared by volunteers and served by volunteers. In this scenario, which as I say is repeated daily in most communities, generous donations are either not, or are just barely, part of the equation. It's nice when rich folks and those who stick up for them argue that they are the source of charity. But the reality is that the main source of charity for poor folks are folks who are nearly as poor themselves.

[dhoward]

"You know, a good goat'll do that.."

[Superman]

"Yeah, but you picked the ugliest one."

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by dhoward
"You know, a good goat'll do that.."

been using that one all day

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by Moses
Guess which group funds all the charitable work, establishes scholarships, builds childrens hospitals, and feeds the poor?
Passive participants in the economy may be full of good intentions but do little to help others. They rarely have the resources to do much more than care for themselves.
Those who achieve wealth or position in our society provide for most of the philanthropic work that gets done. That is the way it ought to be. Our lives have little meaning if we live only to serve ourselves.
Most capitalists believe in freedom, including the freedom of socialists to contribute less than they could.

Reminds me of the parable of the rich man making a big deal when he gives a big coin and the poor woman humbly giving all she has.
I think you will find that the poor sacrifice more for others than the rich any day.

[Superman]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Reminds me of the parable of the rich man making a big deal when he gives a big coin and the poor woman humbly giving all she has.
I think you will find that the poor sacrifice more for others than the rich any day.

That has been my observation. In my experience, charity in a pure, Christian sense is rare. And I normally find it in the very poorest. Minimum wage workers piling their change to drum up a hundred dollars for a friend to take a needed vacation... et cetera.

[stevepaa]

Just watch any homeless guy on a street corner and see who gives him money.

[dd74]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Just watch any homeless guy on a street corner and see who gives him money.

Who? I want someone to give me money.

Most socialists will become capitalists given the opportunity. The socialists who sit back and cry about their lot in life are either too lazy or too stupid to become capitalists.

[dd74]

I wouldn't call socialists stupid or lazy. I rather think they are idealistic and would like to believe there is a utopia where all things economic are fair for everyone.

What happens to a socialist, simply is it becomes un-hip to be poor, especially when you see all your former socialist friends living in nice houses and driving nice cars.