CAPITALISM: Do you know what it is? What is your opinion? (page 8)

hillary_step

Terry,

My own understanding of plagarism is that one must be attempting to earn a grade in school, earn a reward (as in pay for writing an article) or present a theory to the scientific community for accreditation. None of which am I doing on a public discussion board. I see your point about quoting sources and I would if I were writing for print publication (such as a magazine article or newpaper column).

Perhaps you are missing the point. The point is that you included material written by other persons in the body of *your* own writing, without references, parentheses, inverted commas, or any other notation that indicates they were *not* your words.

This leaves the reader without any conclusion to reach but that you were the author of these thoughts. This is *clearly* a misrepresentation of the situation and whether in a discussion Board environment, in published works, or in a musical composition is not ethical. To attribute this to an exceptional memory is just disingenuous.

Please let us know when you are quoting another persons written thoughts, that is all I ask.

Best regards - HS

hillary_step

PS Terry,

What is Communist Socialism? The U.S.S.R. was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and their social system was communism.

I know what the Russians *called* themselves, I just wondered what your definition of communist-socialism is?

Best regards - HS

Terry

hillary_step says: I am convinced that you do not truly understand what socialism is, and view it as 'all that lot who do not follow capitalist ideals'.
Best regards - HS

Well, maybe we both need to define what we mean by Socialism. Wouldn't that help?

A socialist is invested, not in his own welfare per se, but is vested in "society as a whole"or the collective, with distribution controlled by the state (government) and with production.

The U.S.S.R. was communistic socialism. The Nazis (National Socialist) in Germany were fascist socialists. The stated goals (for propaganda purposes) were achieving general prosperity, abolishing poverty, progress, human brotherhood (limited to certain humans!) and, ironically: peace. Socialst government makes PLANS and avoids natural market forces. In effect, power is vested summarily in the state.

Additionally, because of certain political developments in Russia and Germany it was easy to point to a power elite and accuse that group of denying the downtrodden their natural "rights" as a pretext for hijacking the state and using it as a tool for the elite agenda.

Ideally, Socialism is an absolute system without a fixed head. Authority is "shared" according to natural ability. Private property is abolished. Except by the state. The state owns everybody and everything. The citizen of a social state is the private property of everybody who has equal demand on his life and service.

The dictionary definition:

An economic and political system in which private property is abolished and the means of production (i.e., capital and land) are collectively owned and operated by the community as a whole in order to advance the interests of all. In Marxist ideology, socialism is considered an intermediate stage in the inevitable transformation of capitalism into communism. A socialist society is envisioned as being characterized by the dictatorship of the proletariat; the existence of a high degree of cooperation and equality; and the absence of discrimination, poverty, exploitation, and war. With the non-existence of private ownership, the private profit motive is eliminated from economic life. Consequently, market forces do not play a role in organizing the process of production. Instead, large-scale government planning is employed to ensure the harmonious operation of the process of production.

Terry

hillary_step says: This is *clearly* a misrepresentation of the situation and whether in a discussion Board environment, in published works, or in a musical composition is not ethical. To attribute this to an exceptional memory is just disingenuous.
Please let us know when you are quoting another persons written thoughts, that is all I ask.

Respectfully, I aver.

The first principle of law is CUI BONO? If a foul deed or crime is committed it is natural to ask "for whose profit?".

I have nothing to gain from misrepresention here since nobody is paying me for my personal views. Indeed--where do my PERSONAL views differ from the people I read and agree with?

I do have an exceptional memory. What are you implying with the "disingenuous" remark, pray tell?

Define: Disingenuous: not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness; "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who...exemplified...the most disagreeable traits of his time"- David Cannadine; "a disingenuous excuse"

Terry

hillary_step: PS Terry,
What is Communist Socialism? The U.S.S.R. was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and their social system was communism.
I know what the Russians *called* themselves, I just wondered what your definition of communist-socialism is?

I don't see ANY DIFFERENCE between communism and Socialism. The means of achieving the same ultimate ends may differ; but, philosophically they are the same. Both, turn men into slaves of the state. Communism uses force and Socialism uses the vote.

Isn't the main point here what the outcome has been historically? Isn't there enough pudding that the world has had a taste?

Capitalism has a track record in all its mixed-forms and the result is properity and a higher standard of living. What track record can we point to for Socialism?

Terry

hillary_step: Terry,
It first happened on your "Exquisite Corpse" thread, one of your earlier ones on the Board. You wrote this as an introduction :
Among Surrealist techniques exploiting the mystique of accident was a kind of collective collage of words or images called the cadavre exquis (exquisite corpse). Based on an old parlor game, it was played by several people, each of whom would write a phrase on a sheet of paper, fold the paper to conceal part of it, and pass it on to the next player for his contribution.
When I read it, it rang a bell. It was lifted from a paragraph by Harry Rubin on a book on 'Dadaism' that I read a while ago. It was included on your thread without honoring the writer.

I wanted people who didn't know what an Exquisite Corpse was to read a pithy definition. I ran a websearch on the words: equisite corpse and found the above quote. I cut and pasted it.

This was a simply shortcut. Are you suggesting I harmed William S. Rubin by doing this? Did I cheat him out of credit? Was there a style of verse contained in the definition that I passed off as my own so as to dazzle people with my writing ability?

What are you getting at here? If you are trying to say something; go ahead and spit it out.

<edit for clarification>Here is the correct attribution of the author:

Source: "Dada & Surrealist Art," by William S. Rubin,
Chief Curator of the Painting and Sculpture Collection,
The Museum of Modern Art, New York.
Publisher: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York 1968

hillary_step

Terry,

This was a simply shortcut. Are you suggesting I harmed Harry Rubin by doing this?

No Terry, again you miss the point. You misled the readers of this board, who were led to believe that these were your words and not another persons. It is *that* simple. On a discussion Board a person is the sum of their posts, nothing else. This is how we get to *know* our fellow posters and we learn to interact with them on this basis. In giving the impression that you wrote words that you did not write, you have misrepresented yourself.

What are you getting at here? If you are trying to say something; go ahead and spit it out.

For goodness sakes man, how much more clearer can I put it?

This is my last attempt at getting you to see the real point at issue, if you cannot see it now you never will.

Best regards - HS

Terry

hillary_step:No Terry, again you miss the point. You misled the readers of this board, who were led to believe that these were your words and not another persons. It is *that* simple. On a discussion Board a person is the sum of their posts, nothing else. This is how we get to *know* our fellow posters and we learn to interact with them on this basis. In giving the impression that you wrote words that you did not write, you have misrepresented yourself.

Is it possible that you are missing the point? The definition of Exquisite Corpse is of no consequence to anybody on this board except, perhaps, you as to attribution.

Are people going to gasp and say aloud: "Oh my god! I thought Terry himself was defining an exquisite corpse in his very own words. But, now, it turns out he was using the definition he cut and pasted because he is lazy! I'm misled. I thought I KNEW Terry by the sum of his posts! Now I don't know him at all." Heavenly days!

hillary says:
What are you getting at here? If you are trying to say something; go ahead and spit it out.
For goodness sakes man, how much more clearer can I put it?
This is my last attempt at getting you to see the real point at issue, if you cannot see it now you never will.

Ethics officers of the Universe unite! Crackdown on thought crimes before others are misled!

I will tell you what, Hillary_step, I'll make an especial effort not to mislead you by applying all my conscious power to attributing anybody I may be quoting (or cut and pasting for convenience) if it will mean peace of mind for you.

I will do this out of respect for your opinion and on the chance that I may have "stumbled" my weaker brothers in the faith.

Thank you for your correction, I accept it in the spirit of friendly advice which you have extended by your unfailing attention to netiquette.

minimus

THIS IS CAPITALISM!

minimus

AND I LIKE IT.

CAPITALISM: Do you know what it is? What is your opinion?

Share this