Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

The word 'socialism' has been batted around so much lately that I doubt many of Americans have considered a few things. SooZen came across this today -

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock, powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service (of NOAA - the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating a breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food.

At the appropriate time (as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by NIST - the National Institute of Standards and Technology - and the US Naval Observatory), I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve bank.

On the way out the door, I deposit any mail I have to send via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at public school.

After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the Internet (which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration) and post on FreeRepublic.COM and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the Government can't do anything right.

It always irks me,(been wanting to use the word "irk" for sometime now), when people distort the words and thoughts of another for their own gain. I wonder how many people who get up in arms over the words communism, and socialism have actually read Marx. Ol Karl made it very clear that his economic theories should not come to rise through revolution but through evolution. Now mind you most who fear the bogey man also fear evolution. There never has been a communist state. China was almost moving in the right direction. Military dictatorship does not equal communism. Communism is the end result of a long process of human futility that comes to rise when capitalism fails, again not in a revolutionary way. Socialism is one of the stepping stones of this process, and communism the utopian result. So that's my rant for the day comrades....

right on, comrade!

marx also wrote that there were three economic states that we'd evolve thru - capitalism, socialism and communism. you're right on about there never being a true communist state, and there are far few true socialist states, either. Denmark has a seemingly (from here) decent socialized system going for it, you reckon?

"The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope." Karl Marx

I see a marked difference twix a socialist economy, and a communist state (i.e. 'a dictatorship of the proletariat'). As with any 'dictatorship,' there is a crucial loss of individual liberty. Marx advocates: the abolition of all private property, and even the confiscation of the property of "all emigrants and rebels"; that all communication, or transportation, must first be approved by the central government; that wealth and business be state owned; the creation of "industrial armies," and that all are equally liable to work for the state.

This is nothing less than Slavery. Not the old private slavery of yore (wanted to say 'yore'), but a new and improved slavery for an anonymous, conceptual, 'Massa' who will tell me what, where, when, and how, to work. And, if I should balk (wanted to say 'balk' too) at any of it, I'd be nothing short of a treasonous enemy of the state.

As regards the several governmental agencies amusingly mentioned in Cecil's quote; not one of them would function without free enterprise providing (most, if not all of) the materials, services, and capital that they are intended to regulate. Did the author really believe that the Dept of Energy made electricity?

Howdy, N(o) S(urprises)... nice seeing you around and about.

NS: I see a marked difference twix a socialist economy, and a communist state (i.e. 'a dictatorship of the proletariat').

Isn't 'twix' a candy bar brand?

Of course you see a marked difference. They are completely different. However, you, as most of us, i.e. the country and the world, are simply not ready for either to be the Law of the Land. We haven't evolved to that point and more than likely won't be seeing anything like that for several hundred years or more.

NS: "Marx advocates: the abolition of all private property... (blah, blah, blah)..."

If one truly wanted complete freedom, all these 'things' old Karl favors would allow full freedom for the individual. Huh? you say...

Review your mystic encyclopedia under the tag, "free" and you may read (depending upon the edition) where one surrenders mind and all mind conjures including all things and stuff, one finds the greatest liberation - Freedom... freedom from desire, freedom from want, freedom from needs, freedom from material possessions which hampers our liberty.

But again, as I stated above, the collective 'we' are simply not ready for anything as radical as complete Freedom. In America we can barely agree to our freedoms granted us in the Bill of Rights, much less agree that all people should have them.

NS: "This is nothing less than Slavery"

So is credit card debt and taxes, but that is another matter.

Yes, I agree that what you see would be a form of slavery. However, this ideal that Karl foresaw as an economic solution after mankind has continued evolving makes perfect sense. Not something that demands to be implemented as soon as some egomaniac sees their self as being the leader of; not some totalitarian state that deliberately squelches the individual against their will... these scenarios are what you and most of us envision because it is something too far down the economic evolutionary road to give precious time to foresee. Karl Marx had time to consider this theory and did so.. while maintaining his own individuality, btw.

Hi NS, I would just like to again state that Communism is not a dictatorship of any kind. It is the utopian result of an economic evolution. Stalinist Russia and others were never communist. This is a word sold to the American people to define the bogey man. I have always thought that a comic book hero could never be so without an arch rival

Howdy do, M(arxist) T(heorist) … good to see you giving me the fish eye once again.

MT: Isn't 'twix' a candy bar brand?

NS: Thought I’d give you something sweet, what with you being somewhere ‘twix twelve and twenty.’

MT: Of course you see a marked difference. They are completely different.

NS: Then that might explain it. I wondered why; thanks.

MT: you, as most of us, i.e. the country and the world, are simply not ready for either to be the Law of the Land. We haven't evolved to that point and more than likely won't be seeing anything like that for several hundred years or more.

NS: That’s certainly a relief to hear. I knew there was a good reason why I haven’t been keeping up with my personal evolution of late. It strikes me as being more of a ‘devolutionary dissolution.’

I once lived in a commune chock full of grand ideals. It would have worked too, but for the sad fact that we had actual people living there.

”Communism, like any other revealed religion is largely made up of prophecies.” (H.L. Mencken)

MT: Review your mystic encyclopedia under the tag, "free" and you may read (depending upon the edition) where one surrenders mind and all mind conjures including all things and stuff, one finds the greatest liberation - Freedom... freedom from desire, freedom from want, freedom from needs, freedom from material possessions which hampers our liberty.

NS: Cecil, you are a bright and fine fellow, and I love you like a rich uncle, but you’ll never have a clue as regards the message of mysticism.

MT: In America we can barely agree to our freedoms granted us in the Bill of Rights, much less agree that all people should have them.

NS: Tu tu true. But, that noise of disagreement you are hearing is the very sound of ‘freedom’ herself.

RE:NS: "This is nothing less than Slavery"
MT: So is credit card debt and taxes, but that is another matter.

NS: One is always free to default on the former, and loophole the latter.

MT: these scenarios are what you and most of us envision because it is something too far down the economic evolutionary road to give precious time to foresee.

NS: If your vision is conditioned on an imagined new species, then why not hypothesize gods who would have no need to share since everything is already there?

Hi Artguy,
AG: Communism is not a dictatorship of any kind. It is the utopian result of an economic evolution.

NS: Marx himself felt that you couldn’t get there from here without first devolving into a dictatorship (I trust we both agree that a dictatorship of any kind is a devolution from a constitutional democracy?)

I do agree with you that it is most certainly “utopian” if species evolution into a different creature is required in order to make communism pleasant. Otherwise, communism for homo sapiens is decidedly ‘dystopian.’ Perhaps, our “evolved” progeny will become the evolutionary equivalent to ants. They appear to do quite will with their communal arrangements. Now, there’s something to look forward to: becoming a species of insect.

”Socialism is workable only in heaven where it isn’t needed, and in hell where they’ve got it.” (Cecil Palmer)
NS (Nymphomania's Socialist)

NS: I once lived in a commune chock full of grand ideals. It would have worked too, but for the sad fact that we had actual people living there.

We all came from "once" and each "once" get's us closer to another "once". But there eventually comes a time when Now is sufficient.

NS: Cecil, you are a bright and fine fellow, and I love you like a rich uncle, but you’ll never have a clue as regards the message of mysticism.

Funny, that same idea came to me while I wrote that line in thinking of you... without the rich uncle reference, of course!

Mysticism is not as mystical as the mystic may have one believe, but rather mysticism is but one more 'once' in the evolutionary development of an individual in search of meaning. Discard all the philosophical baggage and travel lightly, my friend... your journey will be truly liberating.

NS: But, that noise of disagreement you are hearing is the very sound of ‘freedom’ herself.

Methinks you are confusing 'freedom' with 'cacophony' for that noise you hear is the sound of disagreement unable to free itself from opinion.

NS: If your vision is conditioned on an imagined new species, then why not hypothesize gods who would have no need to share since everything is already there?

"If" ? Is not this presumption hypothetical in itself?

Gods who have no need to share since everything is already there...? Everything is already here, not 'there' where one can't attain it. It is our possessiveness which prevents us from attaining this 'everything'. Dropping desire (which inflames possessiveness) is the first step towards freedom which paves the way to every thing.

To have every thing one must experience no thing from where all things originate... know the origin - understand the journey - accept the realization.

Hiya,
MT: We all came from "once" and each "once" get's us closer to another "once". But there eventually comes a time when Now is sufficient.

NS: I’m sure. But, ‘now’ I’m addressing my own relevant experience with communism visa vie humanity, as it ‘now’ exists.

MT: Funny, that same idea came to me while I wrote that line in thinking of you.

NS: As old and as educated as I am, I’ve learned to admit to my own “clueless” state concerning an infinite amount of subjects. There is no shame in this admission, since none of us can ‘know it all.’ You have admitted in the past that you are “not a mystic,” “do not agree with most of (religio-philosophical) mysticism,” and “have not read much of mysticism, or philosophy.” Again, no shame in those admissions. I certainly admit to your superiority in both knowledge and ability in the fine arts, and doubtlessly in many other areas of skill and knowledge besides. Why do you have trouble in admitting that your lack of mystical education would result from your lack of pursuing one?

This has nothing to do with the superiority/inferiority of your, versus anyone else’s, religious or philosophical preferences. You’re a ‘pantheist,’ are you not?

MT: Methinks you are confusing 'freedom' with 'cacophony' for that noise you hear is the sound of disagreement unable to free itself from opinion.

NS: Within this relative world, all ideas are (informed/uninformed) opinion; regardless of whether there is agreement or disagreement concerning them. The ‘noise’ is simply its free expression.

RE: NS: If your vision is conditioned on an imagined new species, then why not hypothesize gods who would have no need to share since everything is already there?
MT: "If" ? Is not this presumption hypothetical in itself?

NS: No, you were doing the hypothesizing, I was repeating your statement in the form of a logical premise, and its conclusion (‘if A then B’).

MT: Everything is already here, not 'there' where one can't attain it. It is our possessiveness which prevents us from attaining this 'everything'.

NS: Not true. It is lack that necessitates communist ‘sharing.’ No lack, no need to share.

MT: To have every thing one must experience no thing from where all things originate.

NS: If having “no thing,” were the goal, then again, ‘no need to share.’

What you appear to be doing here (and elsewhere in this discussion) is confusing mystical phrases, which refer to spiritual absolutes; with material issues (i.e. ‘dialectical materialism’), which can only carry meaning within a relative context. Cute, but not astute.
NS (Negligible Share)

Devolving into a dictatorship still does not mean that it should be called communism. My beef is purely linguistic. Communism as it it is taken to mean by the general western populous is a word sold to them to make it easy to sell the incumbent hatred that followed. Wether we like it or not Capitalism will evolve into socialism and ultimately communism. Lenin and Tse Tung took matters into their own power hungry little hands and twisted Marx into something it was not . You aslo mention democracy. Democracy is let us not forget Demo - Cratia (for the people and by the people). It is not an economic theory as communism and capitalism are. On is neither inclusive or exclusive of the other.....Let's just call a rose a rose. This also brings to mind the language that is used to sell war...whole different story but you get where I am going with this,,,,

NS: Why do you have trouble in admitting that your lack of mystical education would result from your lack of pursuing one?

True, my friend, I have done little to intellectualize mysticism. I don't know names of historical mystics nor can I utilize the vocabulary of intellectualizing the mystical experience. But I have personally had the experience of Satori (enlightenment) many years ago but time is not relevant to anything that experience gave me. I do know over the years that most, (if not all), major religions have their own mystics which have experienced this transcendence. I also know that there have been many who have had this same experience (cosmic consciousness), who have had no affiliation with any religion or philosophical belief systems.

I sought out a few definitions of 'mysticism' and thought they would be of some interest to the curious for the sake of this discussion -

1. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
2.The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
3. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.
4. Vague, groundless speculation.

another dictionary defines it as:

a) a doctrine of an immediate spiritual intuition of truths believed to transcend ordinary understanding, or of a direct, intimate union of the soul with God through contemplation or ecstasy.
b) obscure thought or speculation.

.. while yet another refers to the religious aspect -

In religion, the attempt by an individual to achieve a personal union with God or with some other divine being or principle. Mystics generally practice daily meditation.

... and Wikipedia offers this -

Mysticism (from the Greek mystikos, an initiate of a mystery religion), is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism usually centers on a practice or practices intended to nurture those experiences or awareness. Mysticism may be dualistic, maintaining a distinction between the self and the divine, or may be nondualistic.

A fairly wide area of authority all seem to be in agreement with what 'mysticism' is - a spiritual experience (communion) attaining a higher consciousness (I'm sure you have your own definition).

I also find it interesting, especially within the context of this very topic, the definition includes: "vague, groundless speculation" and "obscure thought." Having had many years of listening to others speak of such mystical experiences in different contexts, those definitions are just as factual as the positive... it's a foreign subject and very obtuse to so very many. And why not? Nobody should believe in such an experience and live by it or for it simply from hearing second-hand information. That would be foolish.

NS: You’re a ‘pantheist,’ are you not?

Re: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Pantheism is a metaphysical and religious position. "‘Pantheism’ … signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it." Even with these definitions there is dispute as to just how pantheism is to be understood and who is and is not a pantheist. Aside from Spinoza, other possible pantheists include some of the Presocratics; Plato; Lao Tzu; Plotinus; Schelling; Hegel; Bruno, Eriugena and Tillich. Possible pantheists among literary figures include Emerson, Walt Whitman, D.H. Lawrence, and Robinson Jeffers. Beethoven (Crabbe 1982) and Martha Graham (Kisselgoff 1987) have also been thought to be pantheistic in some of their work — if not pantheists.

Sometimes I do lean in that direction, yes. But I also have to say that I am a firm believer in the yin/yang principle, i.e. it is duality within the material world that gives life it's momentum.. the drive of opposites is, poetically speaking, 'the power of life' on this plane of existence. But this does not mean that I don't see this duality, yin/yang, as being one, because I do see that as one... one absolute derived from two forces working in harmony as one tune.

NS: What you appear to be doing here (and elsewhere in this discussion) is confusing mystical phrases, which refer to spiritual absolutes; with material issues (i.e. ‘dialectical materialism’), which can only carry meaning within a relative context. Cute, but not astute.

Cute? Should I thank you for that..? How can I 'confuse' spirituality with materialism if I believe they are both connected within the whole? Should I separate my spirituality from my physicality and treat them as total strangers who have different needs and wants? Please explain this comment of yours, amigo...it's goofy to me.

You often give me concern, N(o) S(ecret), that you have a particular fondness for labels that mean a great deal to you. Am I wrong?

Hi Artguy,
I’m glad you got back on this.
AG: Devolving into a dictatorship still does not mean that it should be called communism.

NS: True enough. Nor, did I (nor Karl) intend that it should. I simply raised the ‘evolutionary economic’ issue that in order to advance necessitates a decline (into dictatorship). I find that sort of reasoning to be suspect.

AG: Communism as it is taken to mean by the general western populous is a word sold to them to make it easy to sell the incumbent hatred that followed.

NS: The word has a clear enough definition for those curious enough to look it up. The opinions of those who are not informed, aren’t worth consideration. I’ve read M&E’s Manifesto, and can tell you that “communism” may well be advanced by Marx as just an economic theory, but any such major changes within a society are necessarily ‘political’ changes.

AG: Whether we like it or not Capitalism will evolve into socialism and ultimately communism.

NS: I’d be very interested in hearing you make a cogent case for that(?).

AG: One (democracy & capitialism/communism) is neither inclusive or exclusive of the other.

NS: Yes, but can communism allow for non-conforming individuals? We know that capitalism can, and does, because it does not mandate that everyone pitch in where they are needed. Capitalism can have 1,000 artists to one industrial worker, and simply raise the inducement to the one, until some others find it an offer hard to refuse. Yes, Marx expected ‘volunteers.’ But, Marx is not noted for his realism; capitalism is.

AG: Let's just call a rose a rose.

NS: If you are saying, ‘this is a thorny issue,’ I agree.

Hey MT,
Nice definitions! Now, we all know what ‘mysticism’ is. Yea!

MT: But I have personally had the experience of Satori (enlightenment) many years ago

Zen Saying: ”Have just one satori, and you fly to hell like an arrow.”

MT: How can I 'confuse' spirituality with materialism if I believe they are both connected within the whole?

NS: “Connected” does not preclude ‘context.’ If a shackled prisoner speaks of “freedom,” and a guru uses the same word, can we, do as you did earlier, juxtapose the two usages indiscriminately? If so, then what one earth is the prisoner complaining about?

MT: Should I separate my spirituality from my physicality and treat them as total strangers who have different needs and wants?

NS: Of course. To begin with, only physicality has either needs or wants. Spirits wants for nothing, and is sufficient unto itself. If your “satori” had anything of the spiritual about it, then you must know that. What could be more different than these two? One is born, is suspended in space-time, decays and dies; one is dependent upon, even subject to, other objects and forces; one has form, qualities and substance; one acts, and is acted upon; one can be sensed and understood intellectually…; and the Other can do, and is, none of these things…is no thing at all. As the Upanishads insist, one must:

”See clearly the difference between these two as clearly as that between milk and water.”

They do “connect,” my friend, since spirit is the source of all that merely appears.

”The source of life is as a mother.
Be fond of both mother and children, but know the mother dearer
And you outlive death.” (‘Tao t’ Ching,’ #52)

MT: You often give me concern, N(o) S(ecret), that you have a particular fondness for labels that mean a great deal to you. Am I wrong?

NS: I find labels a convenience; especially when sorting cans of soup from rat poison. But, if memory serves me correctly, it was your good self whom introduced an assortment of “mysticism” phrases, and the label itself into our discussion concern ‘economics.’ And, it was I who told you that your mystical applications were not applicable in our economic/political context. Rat poison & soup make for a poor mix, imo; but I may just be too fixated on labels to fully grasp label-free cuisine.
NS (Nut Soup}

Howdy, N(ickle) S(hy)...

Zen Saying: ”Have just one satori, and you fly to hell like an arrow.”

Zen saying? Does Zen talk? I've been flying to hell longer than my satori. That simply slowed down the speed to a glide.

NS: If your “satori” had anything of the spiritual about it, then you must know that.

I must know... I know I must know... give me a minute or two here, NS... I must know that my satori must have had some spiritual something about it.

Good grief, man..! Are you hung up on this spiritualness to the point where you don't think or believe nothing exists but spiritualness?

Re: ”See clearly the difference between these two as clearly as that between milk and water.”

You prefaced this quote with "As the Upanishads insist, one must..." but I really don't because to me it is obvious that these two (spiritual and physicality) are as milk and water, and those two are both liquid and provide their level of nourishment for life to continue existing within the physical. So what?

I think we conflict on these two points - spirit and physical. you seem to accept the physical as being non-important, simply a passing entity that comes and goes and is recycled ad infinitum, while spirit is eternal. I don't disagree at all. But I don't give spirit any more than I do the physical. Why should I? My physical is limited on this plane. I want to enjoy this journey as long and as much as I have the ability and potential to do so.

I have an eternity to become pure spirit after my ego shell no longer can support my light. I accepted my spiritual presence long ago and don't dismiss it, nor do I treat 'I' lightly, but nor do I dismiss my ego life with derision because 'I' is big enough to be both. I love hu'manity and all the complexities it is and all the differences and creativities we hu'mans have accomplished. I love the fact the hu'manity shares this one world with such a diverse population of not only hu'mans but all life that partake of this planet and what it provides. I find in my small mind these things to be magnificent and I believe life here on earth is a gift for all who have the eyes to see it, the ears to hear it, the touch to feel it, the nose to smell the variety of wonderful smells upon this earth... life as I am living it is unbeatable for my little ego life and I know that life if limited. I've been close to death and I have a far shorter period of time left to indulge my god given senses to enjoy what this body can enjoy until this body can no longer provide a residence to 'I'.

Yes, this ego life called Cecil will one day, like all life, cease to exist, and the true inner Self which resides within will move on. That's all there is, ultimately. All the words of the Bible, the Upanishads, the Koran, and every other so-called Holy Book that informs the uninformed about their personal Light within, are as limited in life as each and every one of us that breaths, drinks and shits to stay alive. These books have no ability to sensualize their presence as life itself is able to do, but they may be the best we have. To slavishly hold on to those words written on fragile paper can develop into a compulsion that relies upon those printed words over our own ability to know what is right and good for our own self. That is cheating ourselves and I don't favor doing that.

interesting word development in the thread! I guess in each country there are some "sensitive" words.

My take on socialism: here as a word it seems now it needs an adjective (the socialist parties added "authentic", "progressist" to their names, not adding in fact too much... ). So, words are getting old, and most of the time when you ask someone to define something the result is a personal description of a state of things with an story incrustated somewhere. More (or too much) spicy, maybe..!

That first sight lack of abstraction will be my path too: there is a world with too much concentrated economic power (means of production, land, buildings, natural resources, services, industries, esoteric finantial fields, etc, etc) in few hands that impose to governments and citizens their own contractual terms.

It´s a world, at the same time, where a lot of people don´t have access to minimun conditions for their lives (with obvious differences between zones & zones) and where most of the time governments are themselves or are trapped with more or less success in the crossfire/trama of heavy corporations and corruption. So, a sociopolitical system that objects this state of facts and at the same time try to work promoting (from laws to popular education: yeah, we are not still a total enlighted society! ) more equal redestribution of wealth, solidarity & empathy among people is desiderable. And...how can it be possible?. Some humble personal ideas! (sure you also have your own ones!) :

. Only with deep personal/social involment from the bases and not only with delegation of power.

. Having paciencia for the social processes and being proactive

. Being more sensitive of what, how, why and what for we consume...

. Being open from heart to dialogue, observation, new ideas and the unexpected

. Being in a state of vague faith (well..., at least it works for me! jaja! )