How Do You Define Morality?
By common standards, I am not only going to Hell, but I'm making the journey at light speed. Yet...you all know me, in a sense. Somehow, I've been able to communicate effectively enough that I never get anyone spewing back anything worse than, "I couldn't live that way, but I am interested in hearing how it works out for you."
Morals are supposed to be invariable. Absolute. Inflexible. But clearly, they are not.
So, Cellarites...what are your moral bases? And what do you accept, tolerate, and support in others, even though you yourself prefer not to cross a line?
For me, its in the Wiccan Rede..."an it harm none, do as ye will shall be the whole of the Law". And even that is subject to endless interpretation.
What say you? What's by you? What's by others?
I dont know what my morals are. I think my problem is the lack of them.
Right and wrong for me is very subjective to the situation, but as a rule, I am a fairly non judgmental person.
Like, I see nothing morally wrong with what you and Selene do 'spode , and most would know I can fully justify being the bit on the side.
The law is my moral compass mostly.
I'm with you on this one: "And it harm no-one, do as you will."
Seriously, all morality is just a codification of the rule-sets that allow humanity to exist in communities. Morality is intensely dependent on time, place and circumstance.
Ditto, morals are just arbitrary codes of conduct, I can't believe at all that there's some ultimate truth and consequences from ignoring it.
Of course it's arbitrary. Your morals are the limits of behavior that you set for yourself. What you feel is right and wrong, what you feel you should and shouldn't do. Everyone determines their own morals.
It's cost vs benefit, what you can do depends on your situation and that of the people around you. If you're among people who are easily manipulated, then you have lots of options. It's an especially useful tactic to hogtie others with their own platitudes when the situation suits you.
Of course it's arbitrary. Your morals are the limits of behavior that you set for yourself. What you feel is right and wrong, what you feel you should and shouldn't do. Everyone determines their own morals.
Well, that's what your morals are... There are millions of people out there who believe that there is a true moral code. That God sets out rules and we are to follow them. So, to them, it's
not arbitrary, it's absolute.
I always think "Would I be happy about this if I were on the receiving end". If not, I think harder and find other reasons to do bad things :lol:
Oh ok THIS IS SRS THRED?
then next I consider whether my actions benefit more than they piss off.
If the answer is still no, then morally it's a bad thing. But occassionally I play the family joker card -yes I would hate it, yes it's pisses off more than it benefits, but.... my daughter will die without a heart transplant so it's OK to murder this 10yo girl I found in the park. Just as long as I do it quickly enough that the heart will be harvestable.....
(that example may have been a little extreme, but you get the picture...)
For me, it's in the two Great Commandments of Christ: Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself.
Of course I don't live up to this code; but the moral code is about what we ought to do, and strive for.
According to the Muslims, it's all written down in this one book, and you can kill people that disagree with you.
According to the Christians, it's all written down in this one book, and you can kill people that disagree with you.
I try pretty hard not to.
then next I consider whether my actions benefit more than they piss off.
What Monster states here, whether in jest or not, is the core of the matter. Think about the oath that neurosurgeons take..."First, do no harm".
*Any* action based on a particular point of view has potential to be beneficial to one party, and the certainty of being detrimental to another. Think not? Next breath you take, try not to kill any microbes.
Well, that's what your morals are... There are millions of people out there who believe that there is a true moral code. That God sets out rules and we are to follow them. So, to them, it's not arbitrary, it's absolute.
It's still up to you what your morals are. If you choose to copy someone else's morals that's your decision.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
That line sums up my basic philosphy of life and underpins my moral code.
According to the Muslims, it's all written down in this one book, and you can kill people that disagree with you.
According to the Christians, it's all written down in this one book, and you can kill people that disagree with you.
Since you're neither Muslim nor Christian (safe to assume, since you've got both groups wrong), you are in no position to categorically state what they believe and on what they base those beliefs.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?
I agree with the majority that morals are completely subjective. There is an illusion because our base morals come from society so there will be common morals between a group of people giving an illusion that it is universal and there will be a few morals that won't show up (killing all your offspring for example) since the society that makes that practice moral will die out in a few decades, making it seem like a universal immoral. I believe we shouldn't look for "universal morals" but the morality that helps our society and the world the best in whatever goal we pursue.
If you live in a society that is very production based, then worker rights will not seem like a big issue but if you live in a society that is more socialistic, worker rights will become a big moral issue. One is not more "barbaric" or "advanced" than the other, but just pursuing different goals.
I personally try to do what is best for the greatest number of people or society in general and with personal decisions I'll weigh that against my own personal want/freedom and make a decision.
And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?
Whats the point of saying this anyways? Besides trying to be an asshole? In terms of morality, no one knows what is best for the other person and have to make assumptions.
I believe we shouldn't look for "universal morals" but the morality that helps our society and the world the best in whatever goal we pursue.
[COLOR="Blue"]But how can you define 'best' unless you refer to some objective concept that places choices on a continuum[/COLOR]?
One is not more "barbaric" or "advanced" than the other, but just pursuing different goals.
[COLOR="blue"]Do you truly believe that there is no possibility of one morality being better than another, or that no concept of 'good' or 'better than' exists? So that Nazi morality, for example, was just a choice, like choosing to dye your hair blond or red, and there was no right or wrong involved?[/COLOR]
I personally try to do what is best for the greatest number of people or society in general and with personal decisions I'll weigh that against my own personal want/freedom and make a decision.
[COLOR="blue"]What would be the drive to do what is 'best', even if you could define it, for others? Won't they all be pursuing their individual 'bests'? If their 'best' means killing your children and eating them, is that just a choice, or does it have moral value?[/COLOR]
I'm still master of the uneducated multi-quote post. :( Can someone please help?
"Mirror neurons" (aka empathy) are what allow us to "know" what someone else wants/needs. If you can't make an educated guess at what is going on in someone else's head, you're probably autistic or have some other such disorder.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?
Whats the point of saying this anyways?
Is it because DanaC's philosophy crosses the line from personal to active imposition of her beliefs on others?
It's still up to you what your morals are. If you choose to copy someone else's morals that's your decision.
That's true in your book and mine, but it's something to keep in mind that for someone who DOES believe in a higher order, there is no choice. Or at least no real choice.
Is it because DanaC's philosophy crosses the line from personal to active imposition of her beliefs on others?
But more importantly because he doesn't agree with her beliefs. Unless you are a staunch libertarian, you believe in enforcing your views on others to some extent. And even
then if there is someone who believes that the proper society is one that's controlling, by having a completely laissez faire society that's enforcing your will upon him.
Just look at what Elspode said, everything we do changes the world around us, so staying apart from it isn't really an option.
Oh and for the record, Dana, fuck yeah!
Morels are tasty. :yum:
as are chocolate morsels :yum:
...but hold the chocolate morels..a'kay....yuk :greenface
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
That line sums up my basic philosphy of life and underpins my moral code.
The Golden Rule
And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?
"Mirror neurons" (aka empathy) are what allow us to "know" what someone else wants/needs. If you can't make an educated guess at what is going on in someone else's head, you're probably autistic or have some other such disorder.
Is it because DanaC's philosophy crosses the line from personal to active imposition of her beliefs on others?
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
That line sums up my basic philosphy of life and underpins my moral code.
And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?
What if each individual were honorable enough to judge his own possessions and needs, and deposit or withdrawl fairly?
I agree that morals change, and the golden rule is a good guide.
Since you're neither Muslim nor Christian (safe to assume, since you've got both groups wrong), you are in no position to categorically state what they believe and on what they base those beliefs.
Not only do I reject the premise that I am incapable of having knowledge of clubs of which I am not explicitly a member, I submit that you haven't provided a substantiation for that premise; IE, by what mechanism is this knowledge restricted from entering my brain, and, were I to declare "I am a _______" by what mechanism would the information then be allowed? Your casual "you are in no position" claim will not be accepted at face value.
Justify your statement:
Not only do I reject the premise that I am incapable of having knowledge of clubs of which I am not explicitly a member, I submit that you haven't provided a substantiation for that premise; IE, by what mechanism is this knowledge restricted from entering my brain, and, were I to declare "I am a _______" by what mechanism would the information then be allowed? Your casual "you are in no position" claim will not be accepted at face value.
Justify your statement:
I didn't say you're incapable of having knowledge; I said you're in 'no position' to categorically state what they believe, i.e. no position of authority or integrity to speak for either group. Your lack of authority is self-evident. Your lack of integrity is reflected in the fact that you haven't informed yourself about either religion to the point where you can provide a short, 'public' summary of either faith's beliefs accurately. Either that, or your words are simply meant as an insult to both groups.
The question was: How Do You Define Morality? ...
Not "provide a short, 'public' summary of either faith's beliefs accurately" ... The answer, for these religions (relevant as it applies to so much of the human population) is: they define morality as what is written in a book.
...you haven't informed yourself...
I'm curious, how do you
know to what level I am informed? (Hint: saying it's "self-evident" isn't a real answer) ...
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
That line sums up my basic philosphy of life and underpins my moral code.
I knew you were a commie. ;)
That's doomed to failure, of course, because of the inevitable human confusion between "needs" and "wants."
I knew you were a commie. ;)
That's doomed to failure, of course, because of the inevitable
conservative ;)
human confusion between "needs" and "wants."
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
That line sums up my basic philosphy of life and underpins my moral code.
I can understand some people reacting strongly on reading this, either from emotional reaction or from frustration (or both). Those with family who survived (and didn't survive) the horrors of communism in Russia, which began with the philosophy stated above, will react as strongly as WWII holocaust survivors would to a statement of Nazi belief. (NB I am not directly comparing communism with Nazism here, just comparing survivor reaction.) Their families have lived that social construct and suffered under it.
The trouble is that someone
does have to decide what each person shall contribute, and what each person shall 'need'. That's absolute power, something we've been trying to liberate ourselves from (as a system of government) for quite a while.
And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?
Nope.
The question was: How Do You Define Morality? ... Not "provide a short, 'public' summary of either faith's beliefs accurately" ... The answer, for these religions (relevant as it applies to so much of the human population) is: they define morality as what is written in a book.
I'm curious, how do you know to what level I am informed? (Hint: saying it's "self-evident" isn't a real answer) ...
I agree, the question
was 'How Do You Define Morality'; not 'How Do You Think People of Religions Not Your Own Define Morality'. I'd have been interested to hear your thoughts on what defines morality for you, Flint.
As for the short, 'public' summary, you are the one who made a statement on behalf of two religious faiths. It was inaccurate and insulting. Your statement "They define morality as what is written in a book" doesn't even make sense. (I could assume that you're saying they take their moral principles from their sacred writings, and you still wouldn't have the entire concept, and that's not the point anyway.) My question is, why do this? Why attempt to state what someone else, whose beliefs you don't hold, believes, when the question is how do
you define morality?
Finally, I didn't say it was self-evident that you are not informed; I said it was self-evident that you're not in a position to speak authoritatively on behalf of either Muslims or Christians ... given that you're not one (that was the self-evident part). I said that
either you haven't informed yourself about these faiths,
or you're choosing to be insulting.
Yeah, I'm being insulting. You are, I assume, "speaking from a position of authority"[COLOR="White"] . . .[/COLOR] ha ha ha
I'm still master of the uneducated multi-quote post. :( Can someone please help?
[*quote]I'm still master of the uneducated multi-quote post[/quote]
Then take out the *
But how can you define 'best' unless you refer to some objective concept that places choices on a continuum?
I can not define best but there are common sense choices. Usually that is a mix of freedom and the voice of the people for big choices. I don't have the time to get into my personal choices and hypocriticalness right now but I can later if you want.
Do you truly believe that there is no possibility of one morality being better than another, or that no concept of 'good' or 'better than' exists? So that Nazi morality, for example, was just a choice, like choosing to dye your hair blond or red, and there was no right or wrong involved?
According to my personal morals and my society's morals, what Hitler did was bad. You can not be all accepting with morals, if there is direct confrontation with morals, you have to fight for one or the other, I have chosen my side. That also brings up another problem...I love subjective topics.
What would be the drive to do what is 'best', even if you could define it, for others? Won't they all be pursuing their individual 'bests'? If their 'best' means killing your children and eating them, is that just a choice, or does it have moral value?
The way I see it, we live in a direct relation with society. If we help society, it will help us. If we work against society, it will work against us. Its gets a lot more complicated but most situations work out that way. I can go into my own personal theories when I have the time.
The way I see it, we live in a direct relation with society. If we help society, it will help us. If we work against society, it will work against us.
I like that.
Also, though, if you disagree with an aspect of that society, sometimes you have to swim upstream.
That's very true Flint.
I want to come back to this one:
And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?
I've been thinking about this response, and I find it quite an interesting one. I said that the sentiment "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" underpins both my political philosophy and my personal moral code. I am not sure how that gives the impression that I am the one who decides what each person's needs and abilities are. I am not a revolutionary, I am a socialist who believes in the democratic process.
In a democratic system, citizens vote politicians in and out of power, they hold the final and most powerful card in the pack. Those politicians enact laws and control the tax system. If an individual or party believes in flat taxes they campaign for flat taxes, if they believe in prgressive taxation they campaign for progressive taxation and the electorate decide which of those individuals or parties they will vote for.
I personally believe in socialist values therefore I, along with many of my ilk, campaign for redistributive taxation. I say again, I am not in favour of revolution; it's about winning people to your point of view, persuading them of the benefits of the system you believe in and if you succeed with enough people, in that argument, it finds its expression in the ballot box.
Just as your country has come to certain shared conclusions so has ours. If a democratic country elects its politicians and agrees a set of codes on which to run their country (such as taxation levels and styles) there will be some individuals for whom that decision will not sit easily. Unless you remove government entirely and remove taxation entirely then someone, somewhere is making decisions about what other individuals can and should pay in tax, and about what they can and cannot do in law. That is no different to a country electing a government which believes in socialist values. If you don't like it, then get involved and campaign and make sure you cast your vote carefully.
Thanks, Dana, your post is very helpful. I misunderstood your earlier, shorter post; because it stated the Marxist view without comment I thought it implied that you are in favor of a communist system, not a democratic one. While I may not agree with your particular political views, I definitely agree on the importance of becoming active and informed within a democracy, and of working to further the values you hold.
I still contend that a government with the power to decide each person's appropriate contribution (which would cover education, activities, career choice, and offspring - number, sex, and parents thereof, along with finances) and needs (again, broad categories) would have far too much power and would stifle (at best), or kill (more likely) the population and economy. I would/will always work against that.
orthodoc, the thing about Marxist philosphy is that it takes as its basis a democratic process as the goal. Communism
in theory is about as democratic as it's possible to be. The idea of
Sovietsin every workplace, each sending representatives to a larger body who then send reprentatives to an even larger one until eventually every town, city and factory has a say, in theory is highly democratised. Now, obviously the way it was actually done in Russia didn't meet that model. But the theory had a lot of interesting possibilities.
It's also important to understand that Marx wasn't working towards a revolution, he was predicting the conditions that in his view would lead to one. Given the proximity of his writing to the 1840s revolutions and the earlier French Revolution, that wasn't entirely off base. Also, given the extremes that existed within the emerging industrial nations it was something that many people were talking about.
We all think of Marx as the one who came up with socialism, but actually he was merely one part (though a biggy I'll grant you) of a strand of political thinking that was around in much of Europe at the time. There were groups in England in the late 18th century who were experimenting with communal living long before Marx was writing.
I still contend that a government with the power to decide each person's appropriate contribution (which would cover education, activities, career choice, and offspring - number, sex, and parents thereof, along with finances) and needs (again, broad categories) would have far too much power and would stifle (at best), or kill (more likely) the population and economy. I would/will always work against that.
And you'd find most socialists (and indeed most communists in my country) would also work against a government that sought to control "education, activities, career choice, and offspring - number, sex, and parents thereof, along with finances".
The history of leftwing activism in my country includes fights against laws which dictated who could do what trade or job, it includes the fight against overbearing employers who sought to dictate morality to their workforce. It's about
increasing freedom, not curtailing it.
[COLOR=blue]Do you truly believe that there is no possibility of one morality being better than another, or that no concept of 'good' or 'better than' exists? So that Nazi morality, for example, was just a choice, like choosing to dye your hair blond or red, and there was no right or wrong involved?[/COLOR]
I'm pretty sure that in the grander sense, the universe doesn't give a sh*t if you
are a hitler. However, your mother cares, your descendants may care, and therefore you may care if only by extension. It's all tied to time, place & circumstance.
The question of why one race might consider itself to be superior is merely an extension of why our species considers itself to be the culmination of creation -- IMHO, it ain't. There is no absolute.
orthodoc, the thing about Marxist philosphy is that it takes as its basis a democratic process as the goal. Communism in theory is about as democratic as it's possible to be. The idea of Sovietsin every workplace, each sending representatives to a larger body who then send reprentatives to an even larger one until eventually every town, city and factory has a say, in theory is highly democratised. Now, obviously the way it was actually done in Russia didn't meet that model. But the theory had a lot of interesting possibilities.
The trouble arises in the gulf between theory and practice. In Russia there
were Soviets in every workplace and town. My father-in-law had to watch pro-communist films at night after working all day, and if he nodded off in exhaustion he was woken up with the business end of an assault rifle. The kulaks in Ukraine didn't want their farms taken away and collectivized, so Stalin deliberately starved them to death. The democratic part broke down.
We all think of Marx as the one who came up with socialism, but actually he was merely one part (though a biggy I'll grant you) of a strand of political thinking that was around in much of Europe at the time. There were groups in England in the late 18th century who were experimenting with communal living long before Marx was writing.
Some of them were the monasteries (I am familiar with Orthodox monasteries, rather than RC ones)! The communal model has always been the monastic standard. However, these are small communities whose main raison d'etre isn't to attempt an ideal economic or social system. Most small communes I've read about that are based primarily on a social model don't seem to have done well long-term. Still, I realize there was a great deal of legitimate unrest and frustration in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries.
And you'd find most socialists (and indeed most communists in my country) would also work against a government that sought to control "education, activities, career choice, and offspring - number, sex, and parents thereof, along with finances".
While the Soviets in Russia didn't dictate who should get married, they did control education, activities, and careers. China has dictated number of children per family. I admit that sex and parentage are an extrapolation, but one that isn't far-fetched if a very efficient government were in control. It would be the logical development of assessing each person's appropriate contribution to society.
In Canada the public schools promote socialist philosophy, and kids are taught that policies different from Canada's are 'bad' (my kids experienced this when we were back there for a couple of years). No discussion of alternate policies or politics was permitted. This, in my view, is one type of socialist control of education. Whereas in American schools my kids have been presented with and have discussed several models of government, politics, and issues such as health care.
The history of leftwing activism in my country includes fights against laws which dictated who could do what trade or job, it includes the fight against overbearing employers who sought to dictate morality to their workforce. It's about increasing freedom, not curtailing it.
I completely agree with the institution of labor laws that provided for safe working environments, reasonable work hours, and an end to child labor. Unfortunately, in Canada leftwing activism has led to unions that do curtail freedoms - that dictate who can do what trade or job, and who employers must or must not hire. The streets are monitored with video cameras and a pilot project is in place to try interactive video, i.e. allowing the 'watcher' to shout orders or warnings to people who are violating accepted behavior. In spite of the fact that the government constantly told me (through radio and TV commercials and broadcasts) what I should be doing to be a safe, healthy, good citizen, I did not feel protected. I felt spied on, helpless, and angry.
The Soviet Union was NOT communist. It was a totalitarian state that said it practiced communism while basically practicing state capitalism.
The best example of what communism is meant to be would what Venezuela is striving for by switching from Social Democracy to Democratic Socialism but it is still far from the communist idea.
In Canada the public schools promote socialist philosophy, and kids are taught that policies different from Canada's are 'bad' (my kids experienced this when we were back there for a couple of years). No discussion of alternate policies or politics was permitted. This, in my view, is one type of socialist control of education. Whereas in American schools my kids have been presented with and have discussed several models of government, politics, and issues such as health care.
Yes, but there is a main focus on capitalism and democracy. They may go over what they are but they don't actually dwell into the theories or how it works. No free thinking is involved.
The Soviet Union was NOT communist. It was a totalitarian state that said it practiced communism while basically practicing state capitalism.
This is
such an old and nonsensical argument. If true, it means that communism can never be put into practice and is simply a theory to waste the time of social philosophers.
The best example of what communism is meant to be would what Venezuela is striving for by switching from Social Democracy to Democratic Socialism but it is still far from the communist idea.
Again, if the 'communist idea' hasn't ever been properly done, could it be that the idea you refer to isn't possible, due to human nature if nothing else? I can imagine utopian societies that would never work because of human nature. Or could it be that communism has indeed been 'done' and we've seen the result in practical terms?
Yes, but there is a main focus on capitalism and democracy. They may go over what they are but they don't actually dwell into the theories or how it works. No free thinking is involved.
I disagree with your comment about no free thinking being involved. My (four) kids have had an enormous amount of opportunity and time to discuss and argue in class, and many teachers and students are very pro-socialist. The theories may not be developed at an advanced level (although they will be in whatever colleges the kids attend) but they are well covered. And I think it appropriate that capitalism and democracy are given time; our society and economy are based on them, after all. It's not indoctrination to teach the basis of our system. But the kids definitely do get to discuss and think for themselves. I haven't encountered a whole lot of conservative, capitalist teachers in the dozen places we've lived. Socialist thought is well presented.
I can not define best but there are common sense choices.
My point was that, without an understanding of 'good' or 'best' as an objective thing to which we can compare other things, we can't talk about good or bad or choosing sides or common sense. We wouldn't have a concept of 'good', just of what we feel like doing at the moment. In order to choose what you think of as arbitrary, personal morals, you have to use concepts of good and bad that come from an objective definition of them. If everything was really arbitrary then morality, which addresses what we ought to do rather than what we like, wouldn't be a meaningful construct and we wouldn't be having a discussion about it.
The Soviet Union was NOT communist. It was a totalitarian state that said it practiced communism while basically practicing state capitalism.....
This is such an old and nonsensical argument.
How so? As I understand it, the Soviet Union never achieved communism as expressed in Dana's definition of morality, although that was its original aim. The early intentions of the mensheviks, and then Lenin and the bolsheviks was to work towards a withering away of the state, and then it all went awry in the hands of subsequent politicians/power-mongers.
If true, it means that communism can never be put into practice and is simply a theory to waste the time of social philosophers.
...
Again, if the 'communist idea' hasn't ever been properly done, could it be that the idea you refer to isn't possible, due to human nature if nothing else? I can imagine utopian societies that would never work because of human nature. Or could it be that communism has indeed been 'done' and we've seen the result in practical terms?
In my view communism has never been successfully tried, probably because of the flaw in human nature which Wolf has cited, and to which you also refer. Doesn't mean to say that "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" is not a nice ideal to strive to attain.
"If each man gives up a thread, you'll get a new shirt for someone who hasn't one".
This is such an old and nonsensical argument. If true, it means that communism can never be put into practice and is simply a theory to waste the time of social philosophers.
Or, it could mean that Stalin wasn't shooting for a communist state...
Again, if the 'communist idea' hasn't ever been properly done, could it be that the idea you refer to isn't possible, due to human nature if nothing else? I can imagine utopian societies that would never work because of human nature. Or could it be that communism has indeed been 'done' and we've seen the result in practical terms?
If the idea of communism can work, it will not work in or even close to the first try. You can not expect a theory that needs a different personal philosophy to succeed in the first try, and communism isn't the only leftist socio-economic theory, there are many different variations. To say they will all fail because a variation that wasn't even close to it did is pretty flawed logic.
Personally, I do not think true communist like state can exist from a revolution since the way of living is directly contradicting the nature of how we were raised. A version of social democracy is needed to make a smooth conversion and that might not even be enough. To be successful in a leftist economy, you need to be raised in a leftist philosophy or it will fail.
I disagree with your comment about no free thinking being involved. My (four) kids have had an enormous amount of opportunity and time to discuss and argue in class, and many teachers and students are very pro-socialist. The theories may not be developed at an advanced level (although they will be in whatever colleges the kids attend) but they are well covered. And I think it appropriate that capitalism and democracy are given time; our society and economy are based on them, after all. It's not indoctrination to teach the basis of our system. But the kids definitely do get to discuss and think for themselves. I haven't encountered a whole lot of conservative, capitalist teachers in the dozen places we've lived. Socialist thought is well presented.
What do you consider socialist? My teachers would have been on the same page as the democrats, which isn't really socialism. And just because there is discussion, it doesn't mean they are thinking about it. Most arguments in high school about politics are regurgitated opinions with little meaning to them.
My point was that, without an understanding of 'good' or 'best' as an objective thing to which we can compare other things, we can't talk about good or bad or choosing sides or common sense. We wouldn't have a concept of 'good', just of what we feel like doing at the moment. In order to choose what you think of as arbitrary, personal morals, you have to use concepts of good and bad that come from an objective definition of them. If everything was really arbitrary then morality, which addresses what we ought to do rather than what we like, wouldn't be a meaningful construct and we wouldn't be having a discussion about it.
Everyone raised in the same society will share the same moral base. If you take away that base, then your argument is fine but that is unrealistic because every society has a moral base that is roughly the same and you will not have an ethical system if you are not raised in a society. I made the assumption that everyone still had that basic moral base given by our society, then we do have a place to start when it comes to morals. If you use this moral base, not to hurt other people, 90% of moral decisions can be made that way.
You can not expect a theory that needs a different personal philosophy to succeed in the first try, and communism isn't the only leftist socio-economic theory, there are many different variations.
Good point, eh? How long did simple democracy take? The magna carta is heralded as the first democratic contract (even if it was mostly lords getting more power for themselves), but what about the greek cities? How about Rome's attempts? It's been several hundred years by some guages, a couple
thousand by others, and I would still argue that we haven't gotten simple democracy right. So the 2 or 3 major countries that tried communism didn't last really means nothing about it's 'plausibility.'
Ask a nobleman a few hundred years ago if the populace was up to ruling themselves, I bet he would have said something like "Oh, they can't be trusted to rule them selves,
they can't ignore their simple nature." Socialism is just one more step in human evolution, if you ask me.
Also, ask yourself how much of the distaste you have for communism comes from it being the west's 'enemy' for so long...
Approximately 160,000,000 people were murdered by Communist governments in the 20th century.
That's a lot of distaste. And a lot of people to overlook in a thread about the definition of morality.
Communism? American Indians.
Approximately 160,000,000 people were murdered by Communist governments in the 20th century
I would contend that they were not communist governments. There are plenty of pseudo-democracies in this world. I would suggest that thus far, we have only really had pseudo-communism.
How many did the pseudo-democracies kill?
Wanna go back through all time? Didn't a government calling itself democratic kill, um, Jesus? You can't say that because pseudo-communist countries killed more people, it's somehow more evil. It's not about the system of government they're mimicing, it's about how heinous the bastards in charge are.
...also, the pseudo-communist countries, two of them had quite a hell of a lot of people to work with, so it's a little easier to kill that many.
...also, this is all assuming that communism isn't democratic. In it's inteded form, it's pretty damned democratic.
It's about how much power the heinous bastards are allotted, and how they can maintain it.
It's about what is fair to human beings and what rights are maintained by the people.
You want to make some sort of Democratic government that is capable of central planning and total redistribution of wealth AND where the power remains in the hands of the people?
Well good luck with that.
You can't say that because pseudo-communist countries killed more people, it's somehow more evil.
Say again? Do we have the same understanding of the meaning of the word 'evil'? Evidently not. And enough already with the 'pseudo-communism' labels. Soviet Russia, China, and Cambodia all explicitly declared themselves communist. Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot would all laugh at you for declaring them pseudo-communists ... and then kill you.
Of course, it's the easy but intellectually dishonest thing to say, once your pet project has failed miserably, that it wasn't an example of your pet project at all. How many millions more have to be slaughtered in additional 'tries' to get it right? No more of my family, thanks. Try it on yourself.
...also, the pseudo-communist countries, two of them had quite a hell of a lot of people to work with, so it's a little easier to kill that many.
Sure, what's a few million here or there if you've got extra?
Say again???
...also, this is all assuming that communism isn't democratic. In it's inteded form, it's pretty damned democratic.
Nothing democratic about it. Or maybe the Nazis were the real communists. They were the National Socialist Party, after all.
I would say, quite simply, that might makes right.
"If each man gives up a thread, you'll get a new shirt for someone who hasn't one".
If he does not give it, do you take it from him?
And enough already with the 'pseudo-communism' labels. Soviet Russia, China, and Cambodia all explicitly declared themselves communist. Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot would all laugh at you for declaring them pseudo-communists ... and then kill you.
But that's the point: just because they explicitly decalred themselves communist states doesn't mean they
were communist states: any more than Zimbabwe is a democracy. MUgabe was 'elected' in a 'democratic process'.....except that we all know the election was rigged and there's no such thing as democracy in Zimbabwe. So shal we point to it and say yes, but they say they're democratic therefore they are and as such we can see that democracy is obviously evil?
.
Of course, it's the easy but intellectually dishonest thing to say, once your pet project has failed miserably, that it wasn't an example of your pet project at all.
Whose 'pet project' do you think they were? They were the pet project of murderous dictators and powermongers. They weren't communism.
Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot would all laugh at you for declaring them pseudo-communists ... and then kill you.
Yes....because they weren't communists they were vicious dictators.
Nobody is saying Stalin was right. Nobody is saying that those who suffered in Russia and China and Cambodia and elsewhere deserved their fate. Of course if that had been actual communism then we could say that communism is evil. Just because someone claims their administration is communist, doesn't mean they are.
It's like someone committing a crime and loudly claiming that they heard God telling them to kill... we do not conclude from that that God did tell them to kill and is in fact a cold hearted murderer...we conclude from that that they are insane. We draw conclusions about them as they are...not as they claim to be.
we do not conclude from that that God did tell them to kill and is in fact a cold hearted murderer...we conclude from that that they are insane
I bet the Canaanites feel much better now.
I am not sure I understand your point rk? Are you suggesting that we should accept that God ordered many deaths?
You are saying that god justified it makes them insane. I say you are right, in ALL cases.
I see *nods*
This discussion has drifted into the pros and cons of communism :P So at the risk of continuing that drift...
One of the things to remember about Russia, is that it was a totalitarian state before the revolution and after the revolution. The Tsar of Russia was the last of the truly Absolute European monarchs. As a primarily agrarian economy, most of its inhabitants were farmers and most of those were peasants. Within living memory of those peasants their status had been changed from property to person (they were chattel, tied to the land). They were subject to the vagaries and whims of the petty lords to whom they owed their rent and allegiance and had no right of movement without permission. In many areas peasants were still expected to seek permission from their lords in order to marry or engage in ther occupation beyond their farming.
Even in the cities, where industrialisation was slowly taking hold, there were few freedoms. A vast buraecracy and judiciary oversaw an oppressive governmental machine. There was no right to free speech, no right to assembly. Any published material had to be submitted to the censor who would either approve it or deny it. Striking workers or protesters against food shortages faced mounted soldiers with bayonets, and were on several occasions massacred.
Russia was a totalitarian state prior to the revolution and it was a totalitarian state after the revolution. There are those who suggest that Russia is once again heading towards totalitarianism this time under the name of democracy.
Soviet Russia was not totalitarian because it was a communist state, it was totalitarian because it was Russia. It was totalitarian because the revolution failed to undo the totalitarian nature of the state: instead they adapted many of the systems and mechanisms of the previous state and incorporated them into their 'communist' vision.
China also was a totalitarian state prior to its revolution.
Someone has already mentioned that Revolution is not the way to achieve democracy. Communism is a form of democracy (i.e the theory is based upon widening the democratic participation to include all citizens) therefore it can only truly exist if it has been arrived at through the building of consensus. In Russia that consensus was not built. Instead a relatively small number of people (the so-called 'vanguard') attempted to force the pace of change and speed up their progression towards what they believed was an inevitabe revolution (this idea that revolution is the inevitable consequence of capitalism and industrialisation was one of the many things they got wrong).
The revolutionaries attempted to force a top-down revolution with a middle class intellectual elite at it's head. In doing so they singularly failed to create a truly communist (and therefore democratic) state. All they did was swap one brand of totalitarian oppression for another.
Because they claimed themselves a communist state does not mean that they were a communist state.
The essence of Christian faith is a belief both in God and in Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, who died for our sins and rose again. If I said to you " I am a Christian, I believe in God, but I do not believe that Jesus was his son" you would have a strong case for telling me I am mistaken in believing myself to be a Christian.
Within living memory of those peasants their status had been changed from property to person (they were chattel, tied to the land). They were subject to the vagaries and whims of the petty lords to whom they owed their rent and allegiance and had no right of movement without permission. In many areas peasants were still expected to seek permission from their lords in order to marry or engage in ther occupation beyond their farming.
Even in the cities, where industrialisation was slowly taking hold, there were few freedoms. A vast buraecracy and judiciary oversaw an oppressive governmental machine. There was no right to free speech, no right to assembly. Any published material had to be submitted to the censor who would either approve it or deny it. Striking workers or protesters against food shortages faced mounted soldiers with bayonets, and were on several occasions massacred.
Russia was a totalitarian state prior to the revolution and it was a totalitarian state after the revolution. There are those who suggest that Russia is once again heading towards totalitarianism this time under the name of democracy.
You present a claim that Russia was, is, and will (likely) be a totalitarian state, as though there is something in her people's makeup that causes it. However, what you wrote could equally be applied to every European country at that time; in fact, Russia in the 19th century was a leader in social reform. Debtor's prison was abolished and debts forgiven. Tax arrears for the poor were cancelled. In 1857, on Alexander II's birthday, he wished to release prisoners from prison, and there were no prisoners found in the fortress of Peter and Paul.
Serfdom wasn't an integral part of Russian culture; it didn't arrive until the 17th century, most likely from contact with European countries. Serfs could own their own land and sell things from it, and keep the profit. They were tied to the land, not to the owner. This doesn't justify the practice, but it was far less oppressive in Russia than in European countries. The imposition by Peter the 'Great' of a head tax on the male population that landlords, rather than the serfs, had to pay led to the practice of
obrok wherein the serf paid the landlord his portion of head tax and was free to pursue other employment elsewhere.
From the end of the 18th century onwards, a movement had grown up to free the serfs. Many nobles unilaterally freed them, and in 1858 Tsar Alexander II emancipated the rest - without a civil war, and without a revolution.
Communism in Russia was certainly totalitarian. We disagree about the nature of communism, obviously. In every large-scale experiment, it has led to dictatorship and oppression. Given the absolute power of a centralized government that owns all wealth and redistributes it at will, and plans for the entire population, oppression will happen. The arguments against absolute monarchy run the same way. In theory, with a wise, just, compassionate monarch who chooses wise advisors, it would be a great system. In practice we've seen what happens when you add human nature to the equation. So, have we never seen an example of 'true' absolute monarchy? Perhaps, but we're not all clamoring to keep trying it, sure that next time it'll work. We've seen the pitfalls and they can't be overcome. I say the same about communism.
Soviet Russia was not totalitarian because it was a communist state, it was totalitarian because it was Russia.
This is a pretty insulting statement, and not true. Is it in human nature to desire oppression and dictatorship? Does the individual long to be the pawn and slave of the government? Russia embraced monarchy, as did European countries.
Communism is a form of democracy ...
Because they claimed themselves a communist state does not mean that they were a communist state.
The essence of Christian faith is a belief both in God and in Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, who died for our sins and rose again. If I said to you " I am a Christian, I believe in God, but I do not believe that Jesus was his son" you would have a strong case for telling me I am mistaken in believing myself to be a Christian.
You have claimed repeatedly that communism is a form of democracy. Is there a statement or set of writings that explicitly declare this? For a Christian, the Nicene Creed summarizes the basic beliefs of the faith. You would indeed be able to tell me whether I was in agreement with the Statement of Faith. But communism doesn't seem as well defined. Could it be that you are wrong in thinking it's an essentially democratic process? The workers' committees and local participation that went on in Russia were the 'theory' of communism. They did exist. But the dictators that you deplore were actually necessary to implement the centralized power that communism requires. There's no other way that a central power could own everything, take everything, distribute everything, and control everything, always on behalf of 'the people'. Do you really think that intelligent people will vote for a regime that does this to them?
I got too caught up in addressing specific points to return to my own main point. What is unacceptable, to me, about communism and left-wing politics is the desire to control others and suppress individual freedom.
I don't think there is a perfect political system or society. Human nature is too corruptible. We can work to address the injustices we see, and be as compassionate and helpful as we are able, but a centrally planned ideal society is not possible. Leaving freedom to the individual allows for more of both good and bad; but at least the individual retains the ability and choice to pursue the one and address the other.
I got too caught up in addressing specific points to return to my own main point. What is unacceptable, to me, about communism and left-wing politics is the desire to control others and suppress individual freedom.
I don't think there is a perfect political system or society. Human nature is too corruptible. We can work to address the injustices we see, and be as compassionate and helpful as we are able, but a centrally planned ideal society is not possible. Leaving freedom to the individual allows for more of both good and bad; but at least the individual retains the ability and choice to pursue the one and address the other.
Very well expressed.
I think it is just silly to state that if you have two workers and one works harder and smarter than the other that you should not reward the worker that does better than the slacker.
If you invent something, it is yours.
If I spend all week chopping wood and my neighbor sits on his ass and their is a storm he does not get to steal my wood.
The idea of communism is stupid.
I got too caught up in addressing specific points to return to my own main point. What is unacceptable, to me, about communism and left-wing politics is the desire to control others and suppress individual freedom.
...
Funny, I see conservatives as the repressive ones. Sure, there have been authoritarian regimes, both on the left and the right. But I don't think you can call Sweden, about as close to a socialist state as you can get, repressive. Northern Europe is described as wefare-states, and they are not repressive at all. Conservatives, on the other hand, want to tell:
a woman what she can do with her own body
what gender you can marry
who you can have sex with
when you can pull the plug on your wife who is in a consistent vegative state
you that you have to continue to live when you don't want to
you that you are not allowed to buy sex toys
you that you can't get high
you that you can legally discriminate against people
you that you have to pray in school (to their god)
Those are a lot of individual freedoms that they want to supress.
Well now I have to use the ridiculous, horrible, and totally unfair phrase "people like you". I apologize in advance.
Dana. This whole notion of "but they weren't Communist" would hold a lot more water with me if people like you had said it just once before 1989.
All during the preceding 7 decades, people like you were holding up the U.S.S.R. as a model for a fine, functioning Communist society.
People like you went there, were taken on official government tours and came back raving about how much better their Communist system was. They have a great educational system! They have zero unemployment! There is no homelessness! The people seem happier there!
Only after glasnost and the opening of the society did it come out... that Stalin had effectively murdered and starved and purged so many people, that nobody could tell whether it was 20 million or 30 million. It was the only way he could keep his country, it turned out. The shit had been hitting the fan all along.
Meanwhile China was figuring it out. Maybe it was the experience of having capitalist Hong Kong boom right before their eyes. The Communists implemented free market systems and wham, they started booming. The Indians denationalized their farm system and suddenly they had enough food. South Korea outgrew North Korea by double every year. Until it was way too obvious... Communism always was an abject failure resulting in the deaths of millions. And it still is. You can't provide us with a single example of its overall success. Where it is implemented, people usually end up dying.
Meanwhile one of the biggest problems in free market nations is obesity amongst the poor. I repeat, the poor are obese. If Marx had foreseen that, which of course he totally didn't, he would have thrown away his writer's quill and taken up accounting.
The game is over, and free markets won. It was a blowout.
But I knew, in 1989, that people like you would start to say that this wasn't Communism. It was too much for the minds of people like you to face the total and obvious evidence. Nobody ever says "well that's it, I was wrong all along." There had to be another explanation. Up until 1989, those countries said they were Communist, you said they were Communist, we said they were Communist, everybody said they were Communist. The tag was proudly waved around and understood. So what the hell changed?
I think it is just silly to state that if you have two workers and one works harder and smarter than the other that you should not reward the worker that does better than the slacker.
How about a woman who marries a guy, has two kids with him, and leaves him because he beat her repeatedly. The argument for capitalism is always to point out the lazy people who would take advantage of the system. If the least able, or laziest people are provide a mere subsistence lifestyle, who would choose to live like that voluntarily?
If you invent something, it is yours.
Not in corporate America. Most companies force you to sign away the rights to anything you invent, while you are employed by that company. They own your invention.
If I spend all week chopping wood and my neighbor sits on his ass and their is a storm he does not get to steal my wood.
Steal? Socialists don't steal. It's like living in a family. If your mother sat on her ass, and there's a storm, would she have to steal your wood, or would you offer it to her? Show some love.
The idea of communism is stupid.
The "idea" is not stupid, IMHO. The execution has been poor. I'm not one of those people who have to "have it all". There's a point where a comfortable life is enough - there no need for private jets and islands. After a comfortable lifestyle, I would forfeit my excess wealth to those who were truly in need.
rk, you, more than anyone, should feel that we are all one. Those in need suffering is the same as you suffering.
I don't think there is a perfect political system or society. Human nature is too corruptible.
That and people have a different idea of what is a theoretical perfect political system as shown here with libertarianism and social libertarianism.
The game is over, and free markets won. It was a blowout.
The free market beat a heavily influenced state capitalist system, not a communist system. And communist system won't win a GDP contest with a free market system anyways, it focuses in other issues in the socio-economic spectrum that free market lacks.
That doesn't determine that the free market will win every time with economy either. I know a lot of people here don't like Venezuela, but their welfare state (social democracy) worked very well to keep their oil money in Venezuela so private enterprise could flourish. They might be moving towards democratic socialism if a change in the constitution get passed and that will be interesting to see what happens.
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
I think it is just silly to state that if you have two workers and one works harder and smarter than the other that you should not reward the worker that does better than the slacker.
How about a woman who marries a guy, has two kids with him, and leaves him because he beat her repeatedly. The argument for capitalism is always to point out the lazy people who would take advantage of the system. If the least able, or laziest people are provide a mere subsistence lifestyle, who would choose to live like that voluntarily?
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
If you invent something, it is yours.
Not in corporate America. Most companies force you to sign away the rights to anything you invent, while you are employed by that company. They own your invention.
Only if you
chose to sign the agreement in the first place for that job.
I have been working on an invention now. Some of it are registered now. Once it is done all of it will be mine. Why would I give it to anyone else?
I am the only person who invented it.
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
If I spend all week chopping wood and my neighbor sits on his ass and their is a storm he does not get to steal my wood.
Steal? Socialists don't steal. It's like living in a family. If your mother sat on her ass, and there's a storm, would she have to steal your wood, or would you offer it to her? Show some love.
If I give that is one thing. If someone takes without your permission it is stealing.
The "idea" is not stupid, IMHO. The execution has been poor. I'm not one of those people who have to "have it all". There's a point where a comfortable life is enough - there no need for private jets and islands. After a comfortable lifestyle, I would forfeit my excess wealth to those who were truly in need.
rk, you, more than anyone, should feel that we are all one. Those in need suffering is the same as you suffering.
You
really don't know the difference between can't and won't?
There's a point where a comfortable life is enough
I am not ok saying that to someone else.
If they generate the income I am not ok stealing it. I am not ok dictating to others what is their level of "enough". My ego/hubris is not that large/complete.
To say "you only get what you need, fuck-off". This is why communist nations have to be prisons.
It is great that you would give what you don't need to others. I have always given a great deal of my time and much more percentage than the average of my income to charity. What I will never do is tell others that they HAVE to do it.
I believe in a flat-tax and some governmental regulation for those who CANNOT do for themselves.
For those who will not... nothing.
People like you went there, were taken on official government tours and came back raving about how much better their Communist system was. They have a great educational system! They have zero unemployment! There is no homelessness! The people seem happier there!
Only after glasnost and the opening of the society did it come out... that Stalin had effectively murdered and starved and purged so many people, that nobody could tell whether it was 20 million or 30 million. It was the only way he could keep his country, it turned out. The shit had been hitting the fan all along.
So what the hell changed?
You answered your own question, what changed was our knowledge of what the system was like. They took communist foreigners on official government tours, through pretend neighborhoods and parts of moscow that were constructed and occupied by, effectively, actors. I've got Polaroids of them at my parents' house.
The borders of Russia were incredibly tight and hid their dirty laundry for decades. 'People like that' didn't
know what it was really like before they started saying it wasn't communism. The kremlin simply tricked the rest of the world into thinking they were something else.
I was young, but when I lived in Berlin, my pops would bring some Russian military members around (he worked with the whole nuclear drawdown) and these people were amazed that we had more than one kind of coffee in the states. They were like kids in a candy shop. That, I think, was the first time it occured to many people that maybe it wasn't so great over there, because it was the first time anyone got a real look inside the borders.
The game is over, and free markets won. It was a blowout.
Depends on what you mean by 'won.' We made the most money, drive the most cars, and have the most guns. If that's the important thing than fuck yeah we won. But if you're more worried about the increasing wealth gap, if you're worried about the urban decay in a lot of major cities, if you're worried about consolidation of media, etc. I would say we defeated the enemy, but maybe we didn't 'win.'
Final point: Communism and socialism aren't going to happen by revolution and they're
certainly not going to happen in a barely industrialized nation like early 20th century Russia (Which, I think, was Dana's point, not some ridiculous idea that the Russian people can't live free... that's something someone would use as an excuse to... maybe leave Iraq?). I think it's going to happen in a slow slide. In fact, the western world has been getting more and more welfare-ish and socialized this entire century. It's just that the US is a little further behind. I think it boils down to a 'me and mine' centered opinion that the states glorifies versus the 'everyone' mentality that is necessary for socialism.
And stop saying 'it's just human nature.' It's also just human nature to kill your opponents and take whatever woman you find most suitable. We've got strong evolutionary drives, but we can ignore/overpower them with enough practice. (and hey! in evolution, if we do that long enough, it won't be our nature any longer!) Saying 'oh, well, it's a nice idea but it's just not in keeping with our bad sides.' is maintaining the status quo. If we're not trying to build a better mousetrap every time, and trying to flaunt our
good sides, why bother?
Humans basically lived in a communal system for all of our history besides the past 10,000 years. Hunter-gatherer tribes isn't communism because there is a hierarchy, but it was much closer to communism than anything else we've seen since we've left that way of living.
And to avoid a smartass comment, the early agricultural lifestyle was much harder and harsher than the hunter-gather lifestyle so it wasn't a progression, just a different way of living. We can still live that way without problems.
Human culture seemed to have worked well in small groups, so that each person could be personally aquainted with all members of the community. In fact, I wonder if our way of thinking isn't hard-wired into this kind of situation, so that our present lifestyle doesn't even make sense to ourselves.
In a smaller, intimate group, surely you are inclined to share with your extended family, in order to ensure the survival of those close to you. Of course, just across the horizon are "the others" and therein lies the ingrained "us versus them" mentality. Maybe larger societies attempt to overcome this through creating a large, homogenous family. But, it's anonymous; A merit-based leadership becomes harder to achieve in such large numbers. [/tangent]
I think it is just silly to state that if you have two workers and one works harder and smarter than the other that you should not reward the worker that does better than the slacker.
If you invent something, it is yours.
If I spend all week chopping wood and my neighbor sits on his ass and their is a storm he does not get to steal my wood.
The idea of communism is stupid.
It is more about the fact that 100% employment is a goal that has yet to be proved attainable in a capitalist economy and therefore those that cannot, or even would rather not, work are those best suited to be without work. (It would seem to cost more in health care and law enforcement if those that are unemployed are unhappily so).
It is more about asking whose work is more "valuable" the hospital manager or the hospital cleaner.
It is more about who "generates" the wealth, the guy putting in the mental effort in planning, or the guy putting in the physical effort in production.
And I repeat that as I understand it communism included a striing towards a "withering away of the state", via centralisation of the economy. I'm not saying that was the right path, but that was the intention, I believe.
It is more about asking whose work is more "valuable" the hospital manager or the hospital cleaner.
Depends on how you define value.
Supply and demand and bang for your buck makes the manager the clear winner here.
A better manager is going to give you far more profit and make your hospital far more valuable than just one good cleaner.
You can replace that one cleaner far more easily and one good cleaner will generate far less positive change than one good manager.
It has always bothered me when envious people gripe about CEO and sports figure's salaries.
Those salaries are a fraction of what they bring in profits to the business, if they do their job well they deserve it.
If the inventors and managers did not do their jobs well the laborers would not have jobs at all. Just because they put their hands on the end product does not mean they do the most "valuable" work.
Let them run the company for a month and see what happens, then get back to me.
Edit:
BTW, I have been on both sides and know it from both views... management deserves to make more money most of the time.
I'm curious.
If you do not pay management differently?
How do you motivate people to do the job for the same pay?
I would not go to school the extra time, do the extra continuing ed, do the extra hours per week, take on the extra stress, work from home, get called in, etc, etc, etc, for the same pay as a laborer who learned his skill in six-months to a year.
My answer to that would be fuck-you.
If told to do it... still would be fuck-you.
If told in grade school "you have aptitude for leadership we are going to put you in management training"... fuck-you.
That sounds just like my response to being put in management, no matter how much it would pay. I don't want to be a baby-sitter.
This is a pretty insulting statement, and not true. Is it in human nature to desire oppression and dictatorship? Does the individual long to be the pawn and slave of the government? Russia embraced monarchy, as did European countries.
I apologise Orthodoc, I made the point badly: It wasn't the people of Russia that led it to be a totalitarian state. The reason I say it was because it was Russia was because the Russian Empire (and later Soviet Russia) tried to combine a central authority with a vast landmass. That (imo) creates a need either for a significant move of power outwards into more hands, or extreme, central control. Totalitarianism wasn't the only way Russia could go, but with a starting point of a single ruler and vast landmass it was highly likely. I also think there are aspects of Russian culture which lends itself easily to personality cults, due to their seeming fondness for 'Strong Men' leaders. Of course, I am basing that purely on the bits I've read and am happy to accept that may not be the case.
[eta) Orthodoc, you asked if there was anything specific in his writings that stated explicitly that Communism was democratic. I would say that if you look at the theoretical structures its intent is to widen participation rather than delimit it. Also, in terms of the totalitarian question: Marx predicted/warned about the route to dictatorship in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852). In the Communist Manifesto, envisoned a system in which all Commune officials were elected and subject to recall.
Also from the Communist Manifesto:
In place of the old bourgois society with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all
Marx was not seeking a totalitarian system, nor were the majority of communists of the day (Many, many people in Europe counted themselves communist at that time) they sought instead to overturn oppression. The problem with Marx's analysis as with many of his contemporaries was the idea of Revolution as the means of achieving this ideal.
With 20/20 hindsight, it's easy for us to see the political and economic progression that brought a society with such extremes of poverty and wealth into an age where even the poor have luxuries that Marx's contemporaries couldn't dream of. In the 19th Century this did not look so clear. We know, because we have the benefit of that hindsight, that the rights, freedoms and higher living standards which we now enjoy, didn't need a revolution to be achieved.
We also have the knowledge of just how devastatingly wrong a system born of revolution can go. What did they have to go on? The Terror in France? Big, but we're not exactly talking the same scale as the Gulags.
That's the other key factor I think, along with the scale of Russia. Violent revolution doesn't build consensus...true communism is absolutely dependant upon the building of consensus.
I would like to see true Communism; however, I do not believe in Revolution, unless there is no other outlet for democratic expression.
Here's a question for you, not really about whether socialism is good or bad, but along the same lines:
Imagine a society, if you will, where everyone makes the same wage based on 'tiers' so to speak. Based on your experience, and certain evaluations (in which education, job performance, etc are factored), you can move up a 'tier,' and make more money. You make the same money as others in your tier, regardless of birth, raising, skin color etc. Certain jobs would get more money if they're less desirable or are more taxing, but for the most part it's even.
Now, regardless of which tier you're in, EVERYONE in the society gets full health care, money for housing and sustenance based on the cost of living in the surrounding areas, and money based on whether you are single of have dependents, and everyone works.
Two questions about this society:
One, is this a good idea for a society? You DO make more money if you work harder, but no one can live off of the system. You stay in the same job, but you can change jobs if you're up to snuff, it just takes some paperwork.
Two, is there something ironic or even wrong if this society (which is undeniably socialist) has the single job of defending another society who detests socialism? I'm of course, talking about the US military, but I'm starting to think that with some tweaking this could be a system of governance (if you eliminate the whole absolute rank thing).
What if I want to move to Montana and raise dental floss?
Of course, just across the horizon are "the others" and therein lies the ingrained "us versus them" mentality.
I just remembered to reference where I got this image:
Behind the finer feelings, the civilized veneer, the heart of a lonely hunter guards a a dangerous frontier.
If you do not pay management differently?
How do you motivate people to do the job for the same pay?
That's an interesting one. I would do it for the job satisfaction and prestige, I think.
In the society I live in now, I would expect financial reward commensurate with my experience, training and seniority. But that's because I know this is how my society indicates value. If it was the norm that people be paid at the same rate and respect, validation and recognition was expressed in a different way then that'd be fine by me. As long as I have a reasonably comfortable house, enough money to eat reasonably and go out for a drink with my friends a couple of times a week and a basic model TV, radio and Computer I don't really have much need of a large income. If I have those things, it doesn't matter me that someone else has them and had to work less. I have them, that's all I need to know.
Queeq... that is a caste system, or class system.
I would do it for the job satisfaction and prestige
I thought the idea was that the two jobs were
equal?
I would not work more, more often and harder for the same, or less, than others. That is ridiculous.
I'm curious.
If you do not pay management differently?
How do you motivate people to do the job for the same pay?
I would not go to school the extra time, do the extra continuing ed, do the extra hours per week, take on the extra stress, work from home, get called in, etc, etc, etc, .....
If told in grade school "you have aptitude for leadership we are going to put you in management training"... fuck-you.
That's where we differ, I think. I like to have a job that facilitates a lifestyle I want.
I did the $100,000/p.a management-thang to earn enough to buy a house where I want to live. I then did (and
preferred) the $22,500/p.a job (care assistant in an old folks' home) to pay the bills here. I now sell soap for a living, which pays a little better than that; but if all jobs paid equally, I'd rather be providing personal care to old people in a residential home than doing what I'm doing now.
If all jobs paid equally, wouldn't it be glorious to have the freedom to choose what you
want to do, rather than what you
have to do for the bucks?
Serfdom wasn't an integral part of Russian culture
Maybe not, but as an institution it remained in place until 1861. My point wan't that they were still serfs, but that for some at the time of the revolution, serfdom was in living memory.
I thought the idea was that the two jobs were equal?
The two jobs are equally valuable as long as both are necessary. If two people do two jobs, one skilled, one unskilled but both are necessary to the company then why is one valued by the company more highly than the other? That doesn't mean both are equal in prestige though. It doesn't mean the skilled person can't be recognised and respected for their contribution.
If all jobs paid equally, wouldn't it be glorious to have the freedom to choose what you want to do, rather than what you have to do for the bucks?
I don't know about glorious... who is going to choose to be a garbageman?
I don't know about glorious... who is going to choose to be a garbageman?
Someone who doesn't have the skills (or doesn't want a job that requires them to invest heavily of themselves) to do more skilled work but who wishes to be a productive member of society.
True story: when I was teaching adult lit last year I had a student (Ronnie) with learning difficulties. As well as the literacy and numeracy lessons (and the 'skills for life' such as how to cook a meal, how to read a timetable, how to access dental care etc etc) we were supposed to try and get this guy into a job. I asked him what he wanted to try for. The one thing he really, really wanted to do...and I had difficulty getting my head around this if I am honest, all he wanted to do was work at the municipal dump. Seriously. That's what he wanted. I tried to get him a work placement, but they didn't have enough supervisors to be able to take on someone with his support needs. He was gutted. I tried to figure something else out that he might like to do...I eventually got him into a food packing factory. Nice clean factory, variety of jobs, good supervisors. He went for it and made the best of it...but he was still adamant that he wanted to work in the dump and I had to promise him that i would keep phoning them up from time to time to see if the situation had changed so I could let him know.
Another of my students had a deep desire to be an exterminator (as in vermin).
I rather like queeq's idea of offering a small increase in wages for the worst jobs, rather than the best. If you are motivated by a desire for money you'd go fo rthe dirty, nasty jobs. If you want are in a job you enjoy then you don't need the high wages to compensate you for your time. Just a playful thought.
Russia in the 19th century was a leader in social reform. Debtor's prison was abolished and debts forgiven. Tax arrears for the poor were cancelled. In 1857, on Alexander II's birthday, he wished to release prisoners from prison, and there were no prisoners found in the fortress of Peter and Paul.
True enough, but didn't Alexander III turn the clock back on a lot of those reforms?
They were tied to the land, not to the owner. This doesn't justify the practice, but it was far less oppressive in Russia than in European countries.
Tied to land still meant that they could be bought and sold with the land surely? Also, unless I am mixing up the condition of russian serfs with earlier european models, didn't the lord have rights of permission when it came to marriages?
As to European countries, I have been guilty of a wide sweep in my earlier post. Most of western europe had ended serfdom by then I think. Certainly most of the major players had reformed it away.
I certainly wouldn't say that Russia was more oppressive than european nations, merely that it was more totalitarian, given that most of the major monarchies had by then moved to a 'mixed monarchy' system rather than divine right absolutism.
When Russia changed to a communist state it didn't go from 'freedom' as we wold understand it in the modern era, to dictatorship. It moved from one form of highly centralised control to another and exchanged one form of oppression for another (admittedly more violent) form of oppression.
What is utterly tragic, is that at the point that the revolutionaries actually made their move, they did so against a Tsar who was genuinely motivated towards reform and had they been able to see ahead to what was going to happen in the other industrialising nations over the next hundred years they'd have seen that there was another way to achieve many of their goals.
The arguments against absolute monarchy run the same way. In theory, with a wise, just, compassionate monarch who chooses wise advisors, it would be a great system. In practice we've seen what happens when you add human nature to the equation. So, have we never seen an example of 'true' absolute monarchy?
What we haven't seen is a monarch who was truly God's appointed which was what they claimed to be. In practice, actually, very few 'absolute' monarchs were indeed absolute. They relied on the compliance and support of their aristocracy and the acceptance of the populace.
I still contend that Communism does not require totalitarianism, in fact totalitarianism runs entirely contrary to the spirit and form of the communist ideal. Unfortunately, after the Russian revolution, other countries took the Russian system as the base model for communism. Consequently most other attempts at bringing about a communist state have followed similar patterns. But that wasn't inherent in the idea of communism.
Queeq... that is a caste system, or class system.
It's not a caste system if you're capable of moving freely through the different castes.
And bruce, that is the one main problem with any socialist system is that it does require a job to be had. The life I live (or have lived) is semi-nomadic, so it's a little hard for me to accept... but living in a capitalist society you can't really get by without a job either...
What if I want to move to Montana and raise dental floss?
Shush, you're messing with my livelyhood.
You do realize that there are many jobs out there that require so much extra effort and sacrifice that you'd practically need to make public alters to them in order to justify it, right? I could, conceivably, go along with a system that requires everyone to work exactly the same hours, gives everyone exactly the same amount of time off, and requires the same amount of accountability from everyone. So basically I would not be required to work a minute longer to be a doctor then to be a garbageman. This would be fair. However, our life spans are not long enough to get through med school like that. Big oops there, kind of hard to provide universal healthcare if you can't train docs. :3eye:
but living in a capitalist society you can't really get by without a job either...
You can't get by without enough wealth to provide for your needs, which usually means a job.
The difference is that you can look for any type job, anywhere you wish. The constraints are only there being a job you're qualified for, where you wish to live.
I'd prefer that to having to live where the government feels I'm (my skills) are needed.
Got*da*yum this is some good stuff!
And to think I first came here for the funny pictures and goofy videos. Talk about your mental floss, whew.
Let me throw this in the mix...
Being civilized means to move past our nature.
Communication is the key to civilization,
and the Internet will be our saving grace.
The two jobs are equally valuable as long as both are necessary. If two people do two jobs, one skilled, one unskilled but both are necessary to the company then why is one valued by the company more highly than the other?
The skilled person's added value comes from the fact that they are more difficult to replace. Think about it in terms of widgets. Harder to find, more complex widgets cost more than the simplest widgets.
I understand that Perry, but that only holds true if you are applying a supply and demand model.
I'd prefer that to having to live where the government feels I'm (my skills) are needed.
That raises a good point - that in a communist society people are reduced to a set of skills - the person is not important, just what he/she can bring to the State. Not many people want to be regarded as a moveable, disposable commodity - a pair of hands with particular skills that are to be used to benefit an abstraction.
@Dana - sorry, I've been unable to sit down to answer your posts and likely won't get back to the computer for a couple of days. But thanks for the apology (I appreciate the clarification) and the thoughtful replies.
Morality for me isn't dictated by government nor religion.
That bad ass biker might have more of a moral base than the self righteous.
I found this quote that sums it up good enough for me.
"Where there is no free agency, there can be no morality. Where there is no temptation, there can be little claim to virtue. Where the routine is rigorously proscribed by law, the law, and not the man, must have the credit of the conduct." [William H. Prescott, "History of the Conquest of Peru," 1847]
The reason I chose the phrase I chose in my first post, is because my moral code is based primarily on my understanding of fairness and justice. I try, as much as possible, not to be unfair towards my fellows. 'Do onto others as you would be done by' might equally apply.
Conservatives, on the other hand, want to tell:
a woman what she can do with her own body
what gender you can marry
who you can have sex with
when you can pull the plug on your wife who is in a consistent vegative state
you that you have to continue to live when you don't want to
you that you are not allowed to buy sex toys
you that you can't get high
you that you can legally discriminate against people
you that you have to pray in school (to their god)
Those are a lot of individual freedoms that they want to supress.
Way to generalize, Spexx! Of course every conservative thinks those things, if you've said so.
You may notice that many of your points relate to the morality of harming others. Do you feel that it should be an individual freedom to harm others? If I wanted to generalize, I
could say that liberals want to tell:
a woman that she is free, at her whim, to kill another genetically distinct human being
husbands they can kill their wives who are mortally ill, even though the wife's parents are willing to care for her, so that the husband can carry on with his new lady-love and make off with all the insurance money
doctors that they must kill their patients when it's demanded (nice opening for relatives who don't want their inheritances used up on medical care, and for insurance (including, especially, government insurance in the case of universal health insurance) companies to cut their costs)
you that you can legally discriminate against people
you that you can have sex with anyone, even children (what else is prohibited??)
you that you can ruin the lives of those around you through drug use
you that your child must adopt (as a way of 'learning') the religious practices, and pray to the gods of (in certain California districts), any religion with the one exception of Christianity
as for the others, tossing out the definition of the most important legal relationship in our society shouldn't be done by activist judges; if it's done, it should be through the democratic process;
don't know of restrictions on buying sex toys ... are you talking about lethal ones??
But I don't generalize because I know that not all people who disagree with me on some things want to remove all my freedoms. So I favor actual discussion over categorizing and stereotyping with stupid lists.
'Do onto others as you would be done by' might equally apply.
Now we have a point of agreement, Dana! (I do know that this concept is found in many religions and philosophies.) We just differ on the means of implementing it ... ;)
Supply and demand is not just a "model", it applies to everything on this earth, as if it were a natural law. You can either work with it or against it. If you work against it you will eventually fail. You can create a differing "model" but eventually the cracks in your model will be due to economic rules that have more power than you do.
By the end of the USSR, a third of the food produced was sold illegally on black markets.
Way to generalize, Spexx! Of course every conservative thinks those things, if you've said so.
You may notice that many of your points relate to the morality of harming others. Do you feel that it should be an individual freedom to harm others? If I wanted to generalize, I could say that liberals want to tell:
a woman that she is free, at her whim, to kill another genetically distinct human being
husbands they can kill their wives who are mortally ill, even though the wife's parents are willing to care for her, so that the husband can carry on with his new lady-love and make off with all the insurance money
doctors that they must kill their patients when it's demanded (nice opening for relatives who don't want their inheritances used up on medical care, and for insurance (including, especially, government insurance in the case of universal health insurance) companies to cut their costs)
you that you can legally discriminate against people
you that you can have sex with anyone, even children (what else is prohibited??)
you that you can ruin the lives of those around you through drug use
you that your child must adopt (as a way of 'learning') the religious practices, and pray to the gods of (in certain California districts), any religion with the one exception of Christianity
as for the others, tossing out the definition of the most important legal relationship in our society shouldn't be done by activist judges; if it's done, it should be through the democratic process;
don't know of restrictions on buying sex toys ... are you talking about lethal ones??
But I don't generalize because I know that not all people who disagree with me on some things want to remove all my freedoms. So I favor actual discussion over categorizing and stereotyping with stupid lists.
But notice how almost every single one of those is 'you are free to...' or 'you can...'
Erring on the side of freedom is always,
always better than erring on the side of authority.
But notice how almost every single one of those is 'you are free to...' or 'you can...'
Erring on the side of freedom is always, always better than erring on the side of authority.
Free to kill? Free to rape? I disagree that that's a better thing.
Edit: I more than just 'disagree' - will sit down later to discuss the problems with anarchist philosophy. :headshake
... communism and left-wing politics is the desire to control others and suppress individual freedom.
...
Way to generalize, Spexx! Of course every conservative thinks those things, if you've said so.
...But I don't generalize because I know that not all people who disagree with me on some things want to remove all my freedoms. So I favor actual discussion over categorizing and stereotyping with [COLOR="Red"]stupid[/COLOR] lists.
More demeaning language from a conservative - what a surprise.
Nice generalization in your first post, then denial in your second one.
More demeaning language from a conservative - what a surprise.
'Stupid' referred to lists like that and their use; they reduce important issues to inaccuracy and useless oversimplification.
Nice generalization in your first post, then denial in your second one.
It was a similar laundry list that wouldn't be fair to aim at liberals - that's what I pointed out. Guess I could have just pointed it out. :p
Free to kill? Free to rape? I disagree that that's a better thing.
Obviously, I do to. But again, it is still better to err on the side of freedom than on the side of authority.
For example...
It's not better to make murder okay...
but it
is better to let a murderer go free than put an innocent man in jail.
... communism and left-wing politics is the desire to control others and suppress individual freedom...
Nice generalization in your first post, then denial in your second one.
It was a similar laundry list that wouldn't be fair to aim at liberals - that's what I pointed out. Guess I could have just pointed it out. :p
This
... communism and left-wing politics is the desire to control others and suppress individual freedom...
is a generalization.
More demeaning language from a conservative - what a surprise.
'Stupid' referred to lists like that and their use; they reduce important issues to inaccuracy and useless oversimplification.
Then say what you mean. "Stupid" does not mean "reduce important issues to inaccuracy and useless oversimplification".
BTW, much of that list is the platform of the repubican party, the self-professed "conservative" party. I think it pretty closely reflects "conservative values".
but it is better to let a murderer go free than put an innocent man in jail.
The thought question attached to this is that if I let all accused murderers go, I could truthfully claim that I had never once put an innocent man in jail. There is
always a degree of doubt in regards to innocence or guilt in court.
I would also say that any system that attempts to totally eradicate success of the fittest as well as environmental pressures will eventually crumble. We are subject to the laws of nature as well.
But notice how almost every single one of those is 'you are free to...' or 'you can...'
Erring on the side of freedom is always, always better than erring on the side of authority.
Free to kill? Free to rape? I disagree that that's a better thing.
Not to bring Orwell into this, but it is quite funny, ironic really, that ultimate freedom is the same thing as authority. If everyone has ultimate freedom, someone is going to start to taking away other people's freedoms and then we will go back to an authoritarian state. And if you look at it, even authority is ultimate freedom because the authority is free to do whatever they want.
A balance between the two is needed. A system that allows someone to have as much freedom as they can without taking away other people's freedom. A loose authority can do this but preferably a society can reach equilibrium and enforce it themselves without the need for a strong central power.
Free to kill? Free to rape? I disagree that that's a better thing.
Edit: I more than just 'disagree' - will sit down later to discuss the problems with anarchist philosophy. :headshake
You are taking it out of context.
Freedom is not free to harm others.
Freedom is not to infringe on the freedom of others.
Anarchy is a silly concept it ALWAYS leads to totalitarianism.
That's where we differ, I think. I like to have a job that facilitates a lifestyle I want.
I did the $100,000/p.a management-thang to earn enough to buy a house where I want to live. I then did (and preferred) the $22,500/p.a job (care assistant in an old folks' home) to pay the bills here. I now sell soap for a living, which pays a little better than that; but if all jobs paid equally, I'd rather be providing personal care to old people in a residential home than doing what I'm doing now.
If all jobs paid equally, wouldn't it be glorious to have the freedom to choose what you want to do, rather than what you have to do for the bucks?
Actually that sounds like hell to me. What do you do with the jobs no one wants to do?
What do you do with artists and inventors? Steal their products? They don't get to say what the value of their inventions are?
The two jobs are equally valuable as long as both are necessary. If two people do two jobs, one skilled, one unskilled but both are necessary to the company then why is one valued by the company more highly than the other? That doesn't mean both are equal in prestige though. It doesn't mean the skilled person can't be recognised and respected for their contribution.
And how, exactly, do you do that?
I can't help but see the denial of freedom as an illness. It is against nature.
If communism is so awesome someone would actually be doing it and people would be in line waiting to get into that nation, end of story.
... if all jobs paid equally, I'd rather be providing personal care to old people in a residential home than [selling soap for a living].
If all jobs paid equally, wouldn't it be glorious to have the freedom to choose what you want to do, rather than what you have to do for the bucks?
Actually that sounds like hell to me. What do you do with the jobs no one wants to do?
The jobs that "no-one" wants to do - you mean like washing faeces off a person who has no control over their bowels and suffered diarrhoea in the night? That is [part of] what I meant by "providing personal care". I can't say I relished that part of the job, but I accepted that it was part of what I should expect. Others would, and do, of course, refuse to consider such employment precisely because it can involve that sort of task. See also what DanaC said about her client who wanted to work at the town rubbish dump.
What do you do with artists and inventors? Steal their products? They don't get to say what the value of their inventions are?...
I also create hand-knit items. I have one for sale in a local shop. I don't get a say in what it's worth - the "market" values my skilled labour at around $2/hour, if that. No, of course, I have a "say" - sell it at that price or give it away ... :yelsick:
...I can't help but see the denial of freedom as an illness. It is against nature.
If communism is so awesome someone would actually be doing it and people would be in line waiting to get into that nation, end of story.
I repeat that communism is a great idea, but probably unworkable because of human greed. Doesn't mean I can't have a dream, does it?
Do you have to make everything about you?
Inventions and fine art have real value.
There are jobs far worse than taking care of people. Try cleaning out the bottom of a still full of one inch maggots and rotten mash. Risking your life while doing it, CO2 pockets (I have done this job and was paid well to do so).
What would be the point of doing that if you are going to get the same pay as doing something else, sitting on your ass watching a computer screen?
You keep saying it is a great idea, but have yet to SHOW it.
don't know of restrictions on buying sex toys ... are you talking about lethal ones??
In many states it is technically illegal to buy or sell "sex toys." Texas is one of them. However, you may buy both "marital aids" and "novelty toys" without a problem. They're laws that just haven't bothered to come off the books.
It's not so much the jobs on the bottom end that would be vacant, there will always be people who don't want complicated work. It's the highly skilled jobs that take years of sacrifice to be able to do, the ones that are incredibly stressful and that force you to work longer hours with more responsibility that you will need to force people to do.
The difference is that you will be holding your best and brightest at the equivalent of knifepoint, demanding that they sacrifice more then their neighbors 'for the good of the country'.
Exactly. I would not do those jobs... I would just fail the test on purpose.
Exactly. I would not do those jobs... I would just fail the test on purpose.
And in such a way the system would be self selecting :P
There are enough people who enjoy the challenge and respect that comes with management who would take on that role even if reward was not measured primarily through money. I know plenty of people who take that experience and training and all that hard work and use it to get a job doing something very important and stressful within an organisation like the Refugee Council. I also know of people who have chose n a lesser paid position because the job held more prestige than a similar, better paid job with a less respected company. And people who have chosen to take their skills and training and use it to bring on a worthy company (such as a local theatre company).
There are many co operatives operating in the UK (though not as many as in Germany: their company law is much more adaptive for co-operatives and mutuals) where, though there is a differantial in wages between different staff levels, those levels are set by the members as a whole. Often people will work in such co-operatives for significantly less than they would get in an ordinary firm.
Lots of people do jobs which are paid less than they could potentially earn elsewhere. Those who don't feel like working so hard for so little would preumably fail the test on purpose (rk) and do lesser jobs instead.
Actually, I would just leave such a place and go where people appreciate excellence.
Which is what happens to socialist nations, those who excel, the artists and inventors leave.
Actually, I would just leave such a place and go where people appreciate excellence
Again you are equating appreciation with financial reward. I would suggest that not everyone shares that definition of appreciation.
.
I do not feel that way. If that had been the case I would have chosen jobs/careers differently. I turned down a job with my family that would have made me quite rich. Even causing some hard feelings for a few years.
I did not want the job. The money was not even a consideration.
The two, the work and what you get for it, are not equivelent... but one must feel that the two are fairly connected.
The two, the work and what you get for it, are not equivelent... but one must feel that the two are fairly connected.
Again though what constitutes a fair connection depends on your cultural relationship with currency.
Most cultures value it.
[SIZE=1]and people within those cultures exchange it for goods and services[/SIZE]
Agreed Bruce. But this whole discussion of paying management the same as wokers began with a hypothetical society. I was suggesting that in such a hypothetical society the relationship between currency and culture would be different. In a culture that does measure value through currency obviously people want remuneration commensurate with their skills and workload.
Rk said he would leave such a culture and go where he is appreciated. I was saying that if he'd been born into the hypothetical culture we'd been discussing, he would relate differently to currency.
Do you have to make everything about you?...You keep saying it is a great idea, but have yet to SHOW it.
I choose to talk about my own experience (other posts in this thread have been criticised for talking generalities). Oh, and I have cleaned out the most appalling domestic kitchen bins full of maggots, so that's a start... I have tried to show from my own experience that I prefer a job in which I find "job satisfaction" to one which pays well, but will accept one which pays well to achieve my financial short term goals. If they were paid equally I'd choose the "worse" (to many people's way of thinking) job of washing shit off people, to sitting in a office.
I agree with DanaC that there are many people who thrive on the responsiblity/big wheel thing for the sake of it, rather than specifically for the cash. I'm not one of them.
Exactly. I would not do those jobs... I would just fail the test on purpose.
Actually, I would just leave such a place and go where people appreciate excellence.
Which is what happens to socialist nations, those who excel, the artists and inventors leave.
I do not feel that way. If that had been the case I would have chosen jobs/careers differently. I turned down a job with my family that would have made me quite rich. Even causing some hard feelings for a few years.
I did not want the job. The money was not even a consideration.
The two, the work and what you get for it, are not equivelent... but one must feel that the two are fairly connected.
in the above quotes the
bold emphasis is mine. I don't mind that all these posts are about you. You are talking about your own experience.
Most cultures value it.
[SIZE=1]and people within those cultures exchange it for goods and services[/SIZE]
Which brings us to the question of which goods and services you exchange it for ... which are necessities and which are luxuries?
[SIZE="1"]and who is to decide? Or is it, if you step back a little, just common sense?[/SIZE]
What's really peculiar to my mind about the way our culture relates to the economy, is that we usually pay more for luxuries than we do for necessities. Cetainly in terms of the way we pay wages. A doctor is a necessity for the country, a footballer is not. Who do we pay more?
If financial reward is how we measure our value to society, does this mean we realy value footballers above doctors, or does it mean that we don't actually indicate value through money?
Most cultures value it.
[SIZE=1]and people within those cultures exchange it for goods and services[/SIZE]
Agreed Bruce. But this whole discussion of paying management the same as wokers began with a hypothetical society. I was suggesting that in such a hypothetical society the relationship between currency and culture would be different. In a culture that does measure value through currency obviously people want remuneration commensurate with their skills and workload.
Rk said he would leave such a culture and go where he is appreciated. I was saying that if he'd been born into the hypothetical culture we'd been discussing, he would relate differently to currency.
who are you responding to?
oops. sorry, not sure why I wrote bruce :P thanks sky. I've amended it now :P
no appology required. It made me realize I didn't know UT's name. What IS UT's name? Hey UT what is your name? Chris? umm I have no idea.
The amount of indoctrination needed to make a change as drastic as the one
you are describing would be so massive as to be unthinkable Dana. This is assuming a transformation in a (relatively)short time span of course. If, over the next 200-300 years our culture shifts in that direction, that's slightly different in my mind even though I am convinced it will not happen for that sustained period.
What I could see happening is something like an aftershock effect from the hippie years. Many of them took jobs in education and thought it was their mission to 'reeducate' a new generation. The next decade or two might very well be much more socialist, but such systems are unsustainable in the long term and it will revert to an independently monetary one.
I'm a little curious though. In your ideal system, are people allowed to move where they want and participate in whatever other systems they wish? In the US you would be totally free to join a commune and do business with the rest of us. Would you allow capitalists to operate in smaller micro-economies which could interact at will with the general public?
I'm a little curious though. In your ideal system, are people allowed to move where they want and participate in whatever other systems they wish? In the US you would be totally free to join a commune and do business with the rest of us. Would you allow capitalists to operate in smaller micro-economies which could interact at will with the general public?
Capitalists would be able to operate within that system, the only thing that changes is the relationship to wages and the effect that wuold have on the flow of finance. Freedom of movent and choice would be essential.
And I agree with your first point about the violence of change. This is why I am not a revolutionary :) Having spent a lot of time amongst some of the wilder trots in my country I am quietly convinced that I'd be on the other side of the barracades were they to try and provoke a revolution :P
What's really peculiar to my mind about the way our culture relates to the economy, is that we usually pay more for luxuries than we do for necessities. Cetainly in terms of the way we pay wages. A doctor is a necessity for the country, a footballer is not. Who do we pay more?
If financial reward is how we measure our value to society, does this mean we realy value footballers above doctors, or does it mean that we don't actually indicate value through money?
Good point, well put.
Cathy, nice to meet you.
aww,
right back at'cha
If financial reward is how we measure our value to society, does this mean we realy value footballers above doctors, or does it mean that we don't actually indicate value through money?
I think it definitely means we don't indicate value through money. It seems like evidence that supply and demand is a primary factor in how much someone is paid. Compare the number of professional footballers in the world to the number of doctors: There's your wage differential.
What's really peculiar to my mind about the way our culture relates to the economy, is that we usually pay more for luxuries than we do for necessities. Cetainly in terms of the way we pay wages. A doctor is a necessity for the country, a footballer is not. Who do we pay more?
Supply and demand again. There are only a handful of top footballers who entertain hundreds of millions, and the same handful of top docs can only treat a limited number of patients a day. The footballer who is not entertaining is paid less than the average doc. I can't find the inequity.
In effect in a free market, the decision of what makes life meaningful and important is made by everyone, and not by a cultured few. It is what is right for them, and it's not your business to question it. In fact one might note that if you consider it your business to reform others' choices they will be less interested in having you lead them. Thus your control becomes a matter of force.
We might next ask which cultures produce the best doctors and the most medical cures. Which ones have the most Nobel prizes for medicine?
Here's the list. Do the winners come from the countries where they centrally plan what people are paid? Wow, Not At All! For the most part they come from countries that produce highly-paid footballers. Maybe there is something to this freedom to choose deal eh?
Supply and demand again. There are only a handful of top footballers who entertain hundreds of millions, and the same handful of top docs can only treat a limited number of patients a day. The footballer who is not entertaining is paid less than the average doc. I can't find the inequity.
What's odd though, is that the the top of the heap brain surgeons and research scientists who are as rare as the top of the heap footballers, are paid less than the Beckhams of the world.
One of the things that puzzles me about the arguments for supply and demand economics being something that is natural and inherent and impossible to regulate away sustainably, is that actually we do regulate the supply and demand model. Our economic health depends upon such regulation. Most countries which have embraced capitalism have also instituted strict anti-monopoly regulations.
In reality true laissez-faire economics would lead to a handful of monopolies controlling each sector of the economy. We institute laws against monopolies to protect the free flow of trade and to allow competition within the market to drive prices down and spread the effects of wealth creation.
I would be interested to hear an explanation as to why it is acceptable/desirable for controls to be added to that part of the system and not acceptable/desirable to control the part of economy that deals with wage levels.
The monopoly argument was started a century ago and it is not aging well in the information era and through the end of scarcity.
In this country, with the least number of restrictions, we find that almost all monopolies are unnatural, requiring government support to retain their monopoly power (such as public utilities).
There hasn't been a serious anti-trust case fought here in years. The last one was Microsoft and although they were not successfully prosecuted, it would appear that the most serious competition for their product has appeared, cannot be bullied out of the market, and is 100% free of charge.
I call that a good outcome. The long run corrects better than the courts ever could.
I would be interested to hear an explanation as to why it is acceptable/desirable for controls to be added to that part of the system and not acceptable/desirable to control the part of economy that deals with wage levels.
I have a completely out of my ass explanation. There are controls on wage levels. Minimum wage being one of them. Minimum wage laws like anti-monopoly laws are restrictions on what I suppose you might call the controlling class. Anti-monopoly and minimum wage laws give the little guy a chance to survive, and if they have the right stuff, compete.
It all has to do with minimal levels of fairness. If you regulate past a certain point you are enforcing too much fairness. Where is the line? I don't know, but putting restrictions on the top-end of earning seems wrong (aside from reasonable taxation).
It all has to do with minimal levels of fairness. If you regulate past a certain point you are enforcing too much fairness.
And that is the essence of the disagreement: as you say, where is the line?
What's odd though, is that the the top of the heap brain surgeons and research scientists who are as rare as the top of the heap footballers, are paid less than the Beckhams of the world.
Beckhams only play for twenty years, if they are VERY lucky, and it takes a MASSIVE infrastructure to be a Beckham (what they make is not what they actually end-up with, not even close).
Doctors practice for as long as they like and don't need managers, agents, personal assistants, PR managers, to travel a fraction as much, and tend to have much longer lives than sports figures. The money they finally end up with is earned and is probably about what those top doctors make, or less.
And, unlike those doctors, they work 18 hour days, seven days a week.
I would not do that job.
What's really peculiar to my mind about the way our culture relates to the economy, is that we usually pay more for luxuries than we do for necessities. Cetainly in terms of the way we pay wages. A doctor is a necessity for the country, a footballer is not. Who do we pay more?
But... but... you want poor people to be able to afford necessities!
What's odd though, is that the the top of the heap brain surgeons and research scientists who are as rare as the top of the heap footballers, are paid less than the Beckhams of the world.
You've shot your own analogy right there--can you
name a single "top of the heap" brain surgeon or research scientist? The average person in your country watches and enjoys football, and especially enjoys Beckham himself. The average person does not require brain surgery, and certainly doesn't receive it from that one top surgeon. It's not about the rarity of the
person, it's about the quantity of service they provide.
What confuses me is what we pay teachers and those who care for our children.
We need to create demand in that market to raise the quality of those doing the job.
I would generally agree to the idea of making teaching positions very well paid, and making them very dependent on performance. You would need to abolish teachers unions, make the training program very rigorous and demanding, and have schools compete for the best teachers. Essentially you would need to limit the field much more to achieve a consistently higher quality of teacher.
You would need to abolish teachers unions, make the training program very rigorous and demanding, and have schools compete for the best teachers.
If you have schools competing fo rthe best teachers, would that not mean that some schools lose that competition and end up with most of the less effective teachers? What's the chances that the school that failed to attract the better teachers would likely be the ones erving poorer areas?
The teacher's union is the most wrecked piece of shit you can imagine!
Why, what's wrong with it?
When I was involved it, in no way, represented teachers best interests.
The ways in which this was evident are too long to list... just know that "no way" is literal.
That it is called a union is a joke, it is as much a union as a building on a college campus is.
When I was involved it, in no way, represented teachers best interests.
Unforgivable. We have a few unions who are a bit ineffective, but the worst is when you get a branch (it's rarely a whole union that's at fault, more likely a branch in a particular part of the country) where the branch officers are working primarily to continue their own role. I've come across one or two like that. One of the Leeds branches of one of the major general unions is awful fo rthat. They run it like a club. They are getting paid by their nominal employer, to work for the union and represent their members interests: instead they fuck about wanking each other off about how great they are, knocking off at 3 on Friday to go to the pub and just not being effective, or interested in their members' struggles.
I know this because they got so pissed off with the few who did do their job and therefore made them look bad that they effectively ran one of them out of the union. Made up a bunch of stuff, slurred him and ended with him having to change unions. Shame, he really gave a shit about his members. The worst of the guys at that union, is an incompetant alcoholic and if he ever had to try and survive again in Social Work he'd end up pensioned off before you can say "drunken twat".
But...in my experience there's usually enough decent people working in most union branches that most of them at least try to represent their members effectively.
In terms of teaching unions: I think the NUT is a solid member led union. Certainly my interraction with teachers from that union and their reps has impressed me.
In the US with the teacher's union, it is a national problem.
They just will not stand-up for what the teacher's need.
There is a perception problem, that when they do that they are "holding the children hostage". Which is utter bullshit!
It is clear that teachers are not paid well enough and do not have proper benefits, otherwise we would have enough qualified, decent, teachers. THAT is clear.
Not only that, when local administrators break rules it it next to impossible to get the union to stand-up for the teacher.
We are expected to work during our breaks and when we eat... the list is endless.
*Shakes head* that's really sad. The old argument of 'holding children/patients/victims of crime/etc" hostage by demands for fair pay and conditions is something that really winds me up. It's the argument that's always levelled at the teachers, nurses, the rank and file police and prison wardens, firemen etc by politicians over here too. We recently had the first ever wildcat strike by prison warders, who had finally had enough of being told their requests for fair pay and more attention to safety would not be considered.
One of the worst effects of the Thatcher years (and I must confess it has continued apace under my own party) on unions was losing the right, in many parts of the public sector, to collective bargaining. It has declawed many of the most potent unions and has tended to particularly damage pay and conditions for teachers.
I wish I had the time and my hands felt better.
Just say that it was a LONG day for all the teachers.
Last straw for me was in the teachers lounge with about ten teachers, some of them lifers.
I said, after he left, "does it get any better?".
Most just shook their head.
I said "fuck this, I'm not doing this any more".
No one said "stay, it is worth it, do it for the kids... etc".... several, that day and the next told me they wished that they could and are going to quit when they can. That they envied me.
That was ALL I heard.
Once I got to teaching college and when I get to now by phone, internet and the occasional visit, it is the most rewarding thing I have in my life next to my wife and son.
More than actually doing the thing I am teaching.
That is how bad it is... it can ruin that for people.
The US educational system is a black-hole right now and I lay 90% of it squarely on the doorstep of the teacher's union.
Really, teachers are not going to need to strike... we are just quitting.
In your opinion, where did the teacher's union go wrong? I mean in terms of how it represented its members. What do you think they should have done differently? (if it's too long and involved to go into I understand:))
I don't know... but to me... it seems like it works for the enemy, or itself.
Somewhere, it lost it's charter.
They need to ONLY work for the interests of the teachers.
In your opinion, where did the teacher's union go wrong? I mean in terms of how it represented its members. What do you think they should have done differently? (if it's too long and involved to go into I understand:))
It pays teachers on how long they've been working, not performance.
Then we have the problem with merit pay and teachers just teaching for standardized testing. The only real way to make teaching very efficient, I am talking about what is best for the students, is a subjective pay that varies by how well the teachers teach that goes beyond standardized testing but that is extremely difficult if not impossible.
I've never really understood what was so evil about teachers in low performance areas teaching to a test. The standardized tests cover a baseline proficiency in math, reading, and writing. If students cannot even score reasonably well on these, then shouldn't the focus be on making sure the basics are covered before launching into more esoteric subjects?:confused:
Its brainwashing. I don't want to be to be taught word for word what to think, I would rather be taught how to think and figure it out by myself. You can't test how well you can think on standardized tests. There are times when you have to have subjects force fed to you, but a lot of times you don't and it ruins the whole point of getting an education.
Standardized tests also have a very bad reputation for being culturally biased.
Its brainwashing. I don't want to be to be taught word for word what to think, I would rather be taught how to think and figure it out by myself. You can't test how well you can think on standardized tests. There are times when you have to have subjects force fed to you, but a lot of times you don't and it ruins the whole point of getting an education.
That's crap. Basic arithmetic should be "word for word what to think." There is no deep analytical skill involved in the base levels of these tests.
The answer you're actually looking for is: the problem with teaching to the test is that every student who isn't a complete moron is bored out of their minds. Which just means there should be more honors/regular/remedial separation at younger ages, and more willingness to make kids repeat grades early on. Poor test scores reflect very little on a teacher's skill and very much on the general performance of the students in the area.
That's crap. Basic arithmetic should be "word for word what to think." There is no deep analytical skill involved in the base levels of these tests.
Thats why I said some subjects need to be force fed to you.
The answer you're actually looking for is: the problem with teaching to the test is that every student who isn't a complete moron is bored out of their minds. Which just means there should be more honors/regular/remedial separation at younger ages, and more willingness to make kids repeat grades early on. Poor test scores reflect very little on a teacher's skill and very much on the general performance of the students in the area.
That would help but it still doesn't allow a child develop basic problem solving skills for situations they've never been in before. All it does is give them more information they can forget in three months.
There should be two different types of classes, one be the type we have right now where it is an A-F scale and more or less standardized and then there should be another group that would be pass/fail that isn't based off a curriculum but can help the students with life skills and basic understanding of the world. Those classes would be mostly electives and be classes like Phy Ed, Sociology, Psychology, Child Development, Political Science, Debate, Personal Finance, etc.
There should be two different types of classes, one be the type we have right now where it is an A-F scale and more or less standardized and then there should be another group that would be pass/fail that isn't based off a curriculum but can help the students with life skills and basic understanding of the world. Those classes would be mostly electives and be classes like Phy Ed, Sociology, Psychology, Child Development, Political Science, Debate, Personal Finance, etc.
You're honestly not making any sense. You do realize there's a difference between "standardized testing" and the generally accepted curriculum for classes in a given state, right?
Yes, but on the part you quoted me on I was talking about actually removing the generally accepted curriculum or at least really limiting it for some of the elective classes.
Okay... but that still has nothing to do with standardized testing. There's "improving the overall education system," which seems to be what you're talking about, and "standardized testing," which is a quick little check-in from the state making sure kids can actually read and add numbers long after they were supposed to have learned it in the first place.
If the kids can't read, it's not because they didn't have enough 'P.E., Sociology, Psychology, Child Development, Political Science, Debate, or Personal Finance' classes. If the kids could pass these incredibly low-end tests in the first place like they ought to be able to, then there would be room to talk about adjusting the curriculum to more life-enhacing topics. Being taught how to think for yourself and figure out real-world problems comes after knowing how to add.
Its brainwashing. I don't want to be to be taught word for word what to think, I would rather be taught how to think and figure it out by myself. You can't test how well you can think on standardized tests. There are times when you have to have subjects force fed to you, but a lot of times you don't and it ruins the whole point of getting an education.
Standardized tests also have a very bad reputation for being culturally biased.
Reading, math and science cannot be culturally biased if it is a standard.
Unless you are talking about not putting slang on the tests?
I have no issue with a low-end standard test for those basic subjects... the union would have to agree on the test though.
Okay... but that still has nothing to do with standardized testing. There's "improving the overall education system," which seems to be what you're talking about, and "standardized testing," which is a quick little check-in from the state making sure kids can actually read and add numbers long after they were supposed to have learned it in the first place.
Ok.
Reading, math and science cannot be culturally biased if it is a standard.
Unless you are talking about not putting slang on the tests?
I have no issue with a low-end standard test for those basic subjects... the union would have to agree on the test though.
It is the word problems that make them culturally biased, not the actual material.
Please remember that rkzenrage continues to discuss all of American education based on his very limited knowlege. New York and Pennsylvania both have powerful teachers unions, high salaries, and huge barriers to employment. You cannot use a broad brush when discussing education in the US.
What do you mean by barriers to employment?
Certification requirements. Rob apparently lives in a state where anybody can teach in a public school. In NY/PA you need your degrees (BA and MA) along with a lot of testing and continuing coursework beyond the degrees. I was talking to a friend yesterday who was a certified elementary teacher in Minnesota, but can't even substitute in PA.
It is the word problems that make them culturally biased, not the actual material.
A word problem is a word problem. If it is mangos or trains the math is the same.
A word problem is a word problem. If it is mangos or trains the math is the same.
No, it is not. There was a question on the 4th grade(?) math exam in New York State a few years ago dealing with subway stops, something completely foreign to rural upstate children, which they could not put into context. Cultural bias needs to be considered when writing tests.
Yeah, I'm sure they have no trains there & that it entirely changed the nature of the math.
Word problems, by their very nature, involve decoding language. Prior knowlege is a determining factor in understanding, if a child never heard the terms subway or red line she would be at a disadvantage when answering related questions on a test.
You are right, if a child does not know what a train is by the time we are doing word problems, we have a problem.
Part of going to school and education is learning about other cultures, ways of life and living... at least IMO.
But they are not testing cultural knowledge, they are testing math. In this example, the test would be on two subjects (math and cultural knowledge) for one group of students, but only one subject for a different group. That isn't a standarized test, in reality.
Right, as long as the numbers in the word problem are present, then they can work the problem.
If a test asks if so many pounds of Gruyère are taken away from the block then some is added back, do I have to know cheese to work the problem?
It's a silly notion.
Your uncle walks in, jingling the coins in his pocket. He grins at you and tells you that you can have the coins if you can figure out how many of each kind of coin he is carrying. You're not too interested until he tells you that he's been collecting those gold-tone dollar coins. The twenty-six coins in his pocket are dollars and quarters, and they add up to seventeen dollars. How many of each coin does he have?
Easy, right? I mean, a quarter is clearly 1/4 of something. But what if the coins are pennies, dimes? Or shillings or quids or loonies or toonies? Sure, no cultural knowledge there? If you know how many toonies it talkes to pay a $7.60 fare and what change you'll get, you do so because you wtf a toonie is.
What is the area of a baseball diamond where the outfield fence is 300 feet from home plate?
Any cultural knowledge required here? I think so.
Math problems are hard enough, making good problems is harder, and expressing good math problems well in English (don't get me started on ESL) is harder still. It's not a slam dunk.
4th grade? That's 8-10 right? Unless you can present the problem to them in real world terms they will be able to relate to then you should present the problem in purely numeric terms.
A 9 year old living in a rural area may well never have experienced travelling by train. Alternatively they may have travelled on a train with an adult who would likely have taken care of details like reading the timetable and purchasing tickets.
In terms of it totally changing the maths: the mathematical question may remain the same, but the child's understanding of it may be hampered if an example designed to enhance their ability to relate to the problem instead adds confusion. If it was just a question of maths then they should have presented it as such. Burying the question in a real world situation is all very well, but if the child has no way to relate to that situation then they are being asked to abstract out the maths from a situation they don't understand.
Just as an aside, my sister used to work for Houghton Mifflin, which is a school textbook company. She was tasked with writing some of the word problems for one of the algebra books they were doing. She wrote our mother into one of the problems involving an airplane, since my mom was a pilot back in the day.
Seems to me that kids should know what a train is or what a plane is, and they should be able to figure out problems involving basic attributes of those vehicles. BigV's example of finding the area of a baseball field is completely different though. That does require more advance knowledge about what baseball is all about.
glatt, I'm pretty sure people know what a train is... I think the question was regarding train schedules. What are they? How do they work? I don't even know, I've never riden a train, or a subway. I've seen them in movies, so I know what they look like, but that doesn't really help.
Is something wrong with me, that I don't know about train schedules or subway stops? Maybe, but that shouldn't influence my score on a math test, should it? The math test is supposed to test math, not knowledge of trains. It's a math test.
I'm not saying I couldn't figure out the question, maybe piece together what they were talking about, through context, but I will say this: it will take me extra time, cause me extra frustration, and make the test harder for me than someone who rides the subway to school every day. A standardized test isn't supposed to do that.
I agree that a train schedule question is probably going to be harder than a train question.
I remember lots of questions in algebra I class about trains traveling at different speeds leaving at different times going to the same destination, and for those questions you don't have to know anything other than "trains are a mode of transportation." I had never been on a train then either.
BigV's baseball question is a very good example, because it's easy if you know how a baseball field is laid out, but it's impossible if you don't.
Is something wrong with me, that I don't know about train schedules or subway stops? Maybe, but that shouldn't influence my score on a math test, should it? The math test is supposed to test math, not knowledge of trains. It's a math test.
Yes, but learning just math is pointless, it is the application of math that is needed. For standardized tests, word problems should go or they at least be presented in a way that can be understood by everyone but when it comes down to it, students need to learn how to apply math to real life and that is where word problems come in. Not only does it work on application, it works on a student's ability to problem solve, which is needed beyond math class and the application of math in real life.
That brings us, or at least me, up to a problem. Standardized tests should be objective as possible and that would mean the exclusion of word problems but the learning of just math won't help a student much. The only thing I can think of if we decide to keep standardized tests is to have a separate section for math application.
Then there is also the problem that a lot of math does not have direct application but is just a base for more advanced math that does have direct application.
That's crap. Basic arithmetic should be "word for word what to think."
:headshake
oh no. Basic arithmetic is about understanding numbers. About understanding how they relate to real life concepts. Learning sums and procedures by rote fucks kids up. really. I spent this morning teaching subtraction to 5th graders. Yes, subtraction. yes 5th graders. 10-year-olds. Are they stupid ? No. Has "the system" let them down? yes.
Ours is and "alternative" (public) school. We concentrate on teaching the kids how to learn. How to work out stuff for themselves. We often end up being the last resort for kids who are floundering in "the system" for no discernable, diagnosable reason. These kids had (mostly) transferred to us this year from other public schools in the district.
It turned out the problem went back as far as addition. They knew about carrying the 1 when adding 23 and 48 together. But they had no idea why they were doing it, and so couldn't extrapolate to larger numbers or to sums with more than two numbers. And had even less idea what it represented in the real world when they did it in reverse for subtraction. But they gotmany of the answers right on paper, although they couldn't explain why they did what they did, and couldn't find their own mistakes in the ones they got wrong.
We got out the unit and 10 and 100 blocks and had them physically add numbers together and "trade up" 10 smaller ones for a bigger unit. Then we worked it in reverse. We could see the lightbulbs going on as they gradually got it. it was a great teaching experience, but frightening that these kids would have gone on to get OK test scores without getting a good grip on what they are actually supposed to be learning.
Oh, and the school disctict they are in is supposed to be a very good one. It's desirability triples house prices compared to neighboring cities. And it's test scores are awesome. but I'm telling you, those kids knew bugger all about basic arithmetic.
You are right, if a child does not know what a train is by the time we are doing word problems, we have a problem.
Part of going to school and education is learning about other cultures, ways of life and living... at least IMO.
but you are able to equate "train" with "redline" and "subway". it would be unreasonable to expect a child in a rural area with no public transportation to do so. To them a train is a long thing that passes through with 6 engines and goes toot toot tut toot at crossings. Not something that takes three minutes to travel between stations, stops for 30 seconds at each station and there are 6 stations between points A and b how long does it take to go A to B?
I would generally agree to the idea of making teaching positions very well paid, and making them very dependent on performance. You would need to abolish teachers unions, make the training program very rigorous and demanding, and have schools compete for the best teachers. Essentially you would need to limit the field much more to achieve a consistently higher quality of teacher.
This is a big issue round here at the moment. Our teachers are very well paid.
http://blog.mlive.com/ann_arbor_news_extra/teacher_pay/
and here's the quote from our principal:
Naomi Zikmund-Fisher, the principal at Ann Arbor Open at Mack, said traditional merit pay plans are dependent on the individual students in a class.
"If you get a class full of students that are way behind grade level and you bring them up to grade level, you might have done a better job than someone who got a class full of students that already are at grade level and just moved them up a bit, yet on the tests it would look like the second teacher had better achieving students," Zikmund-Fisher said.
exactly. Just what we are demonstrating with the 5th-grders needing subtraction tuition. A better class test score would probably be attained by continuing to teach them enough by rote to scrape through rather than taking the time to make sure they actually understand.... and then more time could be devoted to moving the rest up an extra bit of a notch. Fortunately, our school relies on parental support, so the "we" this morning was me and another mom who is an elementray teacher with a math speciality, so the class teachers could also work on cranking the whole class up another notch, and even had time to provide some extra challenges for the children who exceed the required standard.
I'm reading this thead backwards so I'm assuming this is what got us onto standardized tests?
We covered "from each according to his" to footballers pay scales to mistaken generalizations about teachers salaries to standardized testing... you know the usual cellar thing
A good read about morality.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
[COLOR="Green"]“Morality” is an unusual word. It is not used very much, at least not without some qualification. People do sometimes talk about “Christian morality,” “Nazi morality,” or about “the morality of the Greeks,” but they seldom talk simply about morality all by itself. Anthropologists used to claim that morality, like law, applied only within a society. They claimed that “morality” referred to that code of conduct that is put forward by a society. This account seems to fit best those societies that have no written language, where often no distinctions are made among morality, etiquette, law, and religion. But even for anthropologists “morality” does not often mean simply “code of conduct put forward by a society.” Often, morality is distinguished from etiquette, law, and religion, all of which provide codes of conduct put forward by a society.[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Teal"]On all of the accounts of morality as a universal guide that all rational persons would put forward for governing the behavior of all moral agents, it is concerned with promoting people living together in peace and harmony, not causing harm to others, and helping them. For most philosophers, the prohibitions against causing harm, directly or indirectly, are not taken as absolute. However, unlike most kinds of actions, a justification is needed for violating the prohibitions in order to avoid acting immorally. Some philosophers who hold a strict deontology, such as Kant, hold that it is never justified to do some of these kinds of actions. Those who hold that the principle of utility provides the foundation of morality, such as Mill, hold that it is justified to violate moral rules only when the overall direct and indirect consequences would be better. However, all those who use morality in its normative sense agree that the kinds of actions that directly or indirectly harm other people are the kinds of action with which morality is concerned.[/COLOR]
To me, "morality" is defined as the best possible balance between altruism, loyalty and self-interest. All three of those are necessary at times, and which is most important can only be judged by the individual situation.
I believe that morality is subjective, if only to a certain extent. Some things are pretty much always wrong, and vice versa, but even within one religious denomination people will argue about the morality of things like stem cell research, the death penalty, or dog fighting. The answers to those questions are inevitably based on the individual priorities of the person answering them.
Personally, I'm sure a lot of people think I'm an immoral person. I have engaged in a lot of practices that the majority in my country think are wrong, although they don't hurt anyone. Since I'm not a believer in the literal text of the Bible, I don't see any reason not to behave in a way that makes me and those close to me happy. I don't mind if other people disagree as long as they don't get in my face about it too much.
To me, "morality" is defined as the best possible balance between altruism, loyalty and self-interest.
I would agree with that. I think you could probably make a case for that underpinning much of what we consider 'civilised'.