Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centur

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by moon@Jun 9 2005, 08:53 PM
Well I have worked for a large oil company and directly with their involvement in Corporate Responsiblity and know that, there at least, the actions that they were taking were not solely for bottom line benefits but to also improve the communities they operated in. They often went above what was asked for and needed to comply with standards and regulations.

Also just because companies do things to support their bottom line that help the communities shouldn't negate what they did. Sure in many cases things may get done for the wrong reasons but I think it is more important that they get done then to worry about why.

Awesome. I'm sure there are some corporations out there that have people with morals who do care and are making a difference.

My point is that it's a drop in the water compared to what we should be doing for the poor of the world. There's no need for people to live in poverty in this day and age. We have the resources and technology to look after everyone if that's where our priorities lay.

[peter12]

Originally posted by habernac@Jun 8 2005, 02:44 PM
Alright, fine, the book itself isn't evil, but the ideas it contained were dangerous and ultimately very harmful, and that makes the book dangerous.

So by that logic, every movie thriller we watch is dangerous too and should be on the banned list?

Come on...
Mein Kampf has been a guiding light to all the filth of the world that have chosen to follow in Hitler's footsteps.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Food for thought on the debate: the per capita GDP of the world is roughly the same as the per capita GDP of emerging 3rd world countries like Thailand and Brazil.

So roughly speaking we could all live like they mythical average Juan in Brazil.

[Incinerator]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+Jun 9 2005, 08:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ Jun 9 2005, 08:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

It's not a fact, it's your opinion. My opinion is that what you just said is a myth. I'll leave it at that.

How can you believe it's a myth? And how can you leave it at that? This is probably the most fundamental issue in the world today. Providing food, water, shelter, etc for everyone on the planet.

Think of how much you need to live (food, water, shelter). Now think of how much extra you have that you don't NEED to live. Now think of all the rich countries and how many people live in them. Then think about all the poor countries and how much they have, how many people they have and how much they would need to be able to get water, food and shelter.

The average Canadian, American, Western European, etc makes easily over twice what they need to live if not much, much higher.

Saying that we don't have enough resources to feed, clothe and shelter everyone in the world, now that's the myth. And I can't believe anyone could believe it. What's your argument? How are you thinking that's possible? [/b][/quote]
If the issue is as easy as you've just described it, why aren't you living only on food and shelter? Why are you posting on CP on your high speed internet connection. Where did you get your education from? It's not all free you know, would you like to give up everything you have right now if a nutjob named Marx jr. came along and told you he can give EVERYONE on this planet the basics, the catch is that everybody would have to live on ONLY the basics?

Fact is, depending in what type of setting/environment you were born into, you will need certain things other than food and shelter to live. If you live in the third world, you will need clean water, food, and shelter. If you live in the developed world, you will need to be literate, at the very least, and that means and education. You will need money, from a job, to pay for food and shelter, means of transportaion, means of communication....etc etc etc etc......


If the issue was as simple as you've just described it everybody would be living in socialist utopia right now instead of just a portion of hypocrites talking about it, no?

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally posted by Incinerator@Jun 9 2005, 03:12 PM
If the issue is as easy as you've just described it, why aren't you living only on food and shelter? Why are you posting on CP on your high speed internet connection. Where did you get your education from? It's not all free you know, would you like to give up everything you have right now if a nutjob named Marx jr. came along and told you he can give EVERYONE on this planet the basics, the catch is that everybody would have to live on ONLY the basics?

Fact is, depending in what type of setting/environment you were born into, you will need certain things other than food and shelter to live. If you live in the third world, you will need clean water, food, and shelter. If you live in the developed world, you will need to be literate, at the very least, and that means and education. You will need money, from a job, to pay for food and shelter, means of transportaion, means of communication....etc etc etc etc......


If the issue was as simple as you've just described it everybody would be living in socialist utopia right now instead of just a portion of hypocrites talking about it, no?

:yes:

Well put.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

It's not a simple issue obviously. Infrastructure for a lot of essentials aren't in place in a huge amount of the world. But then again, to some extent it is that easy if people were willing to give up their luxuries. Most people would not voluntarily do so however, and it's understandable. But some of what you call a need is not necessarily a need. We don't all need to have a car for example. We could live closer to our work, we could rent cars for vacations or build train systems to the places people liked to go the most. The possibilities are endless.

As for myself, since you asked I have been trending towards minimalism. I am selling off a lot of what I consider to be non-essentials (video games, TV, etc.) I am quitting a very good paying job in order to go back to school to educate myself on a variety of issues in the liberal arts that will hopefully give me the tools to make a positive difference in the world somehow, someday. Selling off my car. Leaving the condo I live in.

"would you like to give up everything you have right now if a nutjob named Marx jr. came along and told you he can give EVERYONE on this planet the basics, the catch is that everybody would have to live on ONLY the basics?"

Yeah, I would do that. Of course I consider education a basic need, so I would want access to libraries. And the internet I think is quickly becoming something that everyone should have. But it's still possible with the resources we have right now if most were contributing.

[Incinerator]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Jun 9 2005, 09:23 PM
It's not a simple issue obviously. Infrastructure for a lot of essentials aren't in place in a huge amount of the world. But then again, to some extent it is that easy if people were willing to give up their luxuries. Most people would not voluntarily do so however, and it's understandable. But some of what you call a need is not necessarily a need. We don't all need to have a car for example. We could live closer to our work, we could rent cars for vacations or build train systems to the places people liked to go the most. The possibilities are endless.

As for myself, since you asked I have been trending towards minimalism. I am selling off a lot of what I consider to be non-essentials (video games, TV, etc.) I am quitting a very good paying job in order to go back to school to educate myself on a variety of issues in the liberal arts that will hopefully give me the tools to make a positive difference in the world somehow, someday. Selling off my car. Leaving the condo I live in.

"would you like to give up everything you have right now if a nutjob named Marx jr. came along and told you he can give EVERYONE on this planet the basics, the catch is that everybody would have to live on ONLY the basics?"

Yeah, I would do that. Of course I consider education a basic need, so I would want access to libraries. And the internet I think is quickly becoming something that everyone should have. But it's still possible with the resources we have right now if most were contributing.

Hey I respect you for being able to say that you would make those sacrifices, and I'll even respect you more if you actually went through with it.

Now as for giving up cars, I'd love to give up the POS I drive if I can afford to live right next to work AND school, which is impossible in many cases since work and school and everywhere else is not in the same spot. That's the problem with our world, there are so many problems interrelated that simply throwing money at them is not the answer. (Transportation-->Infrastructure-->Availability for housing-->location of housing....just this one example alone, it's endless.)

As for you quitting a well-paying job to go back to school, according to your beliefs, would it not have been better if you kept the job and gave to charities with all the $$ you saved from living a minimalistic lifestyle?

But even if you did that, how much could that have helped? Internationally, foreign aid that goes up to trillions did not solve the third world problem, so what will? Money is a band-aid solution, and often land in the wrong hands. I could go on for days and weeks about the problem in this world that cannot be fixed for the foreseeable future (read: centuries), let alone in our lifetime.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Incinerator@Jun 9 2005, 09:32 PM
As for you quitting a well-paying job to go back to school, according to your beliefs, would it not have been better if you kept the job and gave to charities with all the $$ you saved from living a minimalistic lifestyle?

Well that money would be a raindrop in the ocean as you well know.

I believe that I can make a bigger and better difference through politics, education, activism or something along those lines. I've decided the first step is to go back to school for a few reasons. I want the actual education to improve my knowledge and communication skills, plus the degree usually confers some measure of respect and expertise in our society. So that would obviously help in becoming a professor, a politician and lend some credibility if I wanted to write books, articles or what have you.

Not to mention I'm absolutely sick of my job and my field. I'm currently a software developer in the oil and gas industry and it holds no appeal anymore. I can't do this job any more. I'm not making a positive difference, I consider it a waste of time and it's not enhancing the skills I want nor teaching me the things I want to learn. I don't want to be a cog in this capitalist machine any longer, I don't want to make my bosses richer. I think working in an office, sitting in front of my computer for 7 or 8 hours a day is a pathetic existence and I never want to be doing it again.

And in addition I think I will find the social aspects of school quite fun after basically being holed up every work day for the past 5 years. And that will teach me better social skills as well which will help in whatever area I choose to enter in the future.

So those are all my reasons for going back

[Incinerator]

I would love to trade places with you, a job in the cubicle 9 to 5 raking in the $$ being a cog in the capitalist machine is exactly what I need right now. Instead I have everything that you're looking for, a minimalist lifestyle and an liberal-arts education that doesn't get me and my future family anywhere in the caplitalist's world.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Incinerator@Jun 9 2005, 10:03 PM
I would love to trade places with you, a job in the cubicle 9 to 5 raking in the $$ being a cog in the capitalist machine is exactly what I need right now.

Heh. Well you might find it's not everything it's cracked up to be. Of course it'll probably be fine for a few years but then it starts to drag. The monotony. The irrelevancies. The pointlessness of it all.

If your job doesn't fulfill you, you're going to start wondering how you can get more time to do the things that do fufill you. It's a trade off.

I'd suggest to aim higher. Working for someone else isn't a high enough goal IMO. If we're going to live in this capitalistic society and have to play by it's rules then we might as well exploit the system. Find a good business idea and start your own business. Have employees making YOU money. Heh. Come up with a good idea, that'll make you far more money than "a hard day's work". Or maybe I've been reading too many inspirational books like Think and Grow Rich lately...

[Incinerator]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+Jun 9 2005, 10:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ Jun 9 2005, 10:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Incinerator@Jun 9 2005, 10:03 PM
I would love to trade places with you, a job in the cubicle 9 to 5 raking in the $$ being a cog in the capitalist machine is exactly what I need right now.

Heh. Well you might find it's not everything it's cracked up to be. Of course it'll probably be fine for a few years but then it starts to drag. The monotony. The irrelevancies. The pointlessness of it all.

If your job doesn't fulfill you, you're going to start wondering how you can get more time to do the things that do fufill you. It's a trade off... [/b][/quote]
Oh I know what you mean, I kinda like my job right now but the pay is miserable, same thing with my last job which really wasn't a job at all. I'm past the stage where I can just do what I want as a living. I have one more year at school then I gotta start catching up or else I'd end up just like every other unemployed liberal-arts grad flipping burgers lol...

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Incinerator@Jun 9 2005, 10:09 PM
Oh I know what you mean, I kinda like my job right now but the pay is miserable, same thing with my last job which really wasn't a job at all. I'm past the stage where I can just do what I want as a living. I have one more year at school then I gotta start catching up or else I'd end up just like every other unemployed liberal-arts grad flipping burgers lol...

See my edit B-)

[Incinerator]

haha, I'm not exactly a Donald type, which explains why I didn't go to Haskayne thanks for the idea though, maybe I'll come to my business senses one day

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by "Flames Draft Watcher"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Flames Draft Watcher")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yeah and you were schooled then and probably will be again.[/b]

Schooled? By who? You? Please.

Originally posted by "Flames Draft Watcher"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Flames Draft Watcher")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>CEO's currently make about 400 to 500 times the average worker. Is that fair? If a company needs to help the bottom line, have they cut back CEO wages or is it the bottom eschelon of workers that get cut back? Do shareholders ever take a hit to make sure the workers are getting good wages? Typically only when unions are involved and they are forced to. If unions didn't exist, exploitation of workers would be far worse than it already is.[/b]

Do you know why CEO`s make more money that the average worker? Have you ever heard of supply and demand? How many people can work as CEO`s of big companies? Not too many. How many people can work as a kitchen hand? Virtually everyone can. Therefore if you have a large supply of low skilled labor, the wages are going to be driven down. Also take productivity into account and you will quickly see why are some people making less money than others.


<!--QuoteBegin-"Flames Draft Watcher"@
You obviously need to look at some actual case studies in the real world. Your "theories" don't amount to much when reality is proving them nonsensical all the time.[/quote]
You have proven nothing. You have put forward your ideals of egalitarian society.


<!--QuoteBegin-"Flames Draft Watcher"
You think taking jobs away from North Americans and then giving the same job to a person in the 3rd world country for wages that they can barely live on working 12 hours a day is not exploitation? How on earth could you believe that? Enlighten us, please.[/quote]
Taking away jobs? What on earth does that mean? You have a job because your employers is employing you. If he decides that some guy in a 3rd world county will do your job better/cheaper, is he taking your job away? Are you for real? You need two parties to dance. If one party decides to take its business elsewhere, they are not taking anything away from you. If I used to purchase Coke and then switched to Pepsi, did I take anything away from Coke? Was Coke entitled to my money no matter if I change my preferences? Are you entitled to your job even if your employer changes his preferences? What would you prefer? Would you prefer your employer to be forced to keep you employed? How is that different from being forced to work for someone, ie from being a slave?

FDW, you make it sound like I am not living in reality, but honestly…its you who has dreamed up a fairly tale egalitarian world.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by "Flames Draft Watcher"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Flames Draft Watcher")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I see exploitation when the choice is between starving to death and barely surviving working every day for 12 hours a day. That's not a choice, that's like having a gun to your head and being forced to "agree" as you term it.[/b]

Actually there is a world of difference between these two. Don’t you see the difference between objective condition of the world (ie one will starve if he does not eat, one does not eat if he doesn’t buy food, one doesn’t buy food if he doesn’t earn money, one doesn’t earn money if he doesn’t work) and purposeful act of aggression?

If you are “forced” to breathe, is the nature holding a gun to your head? Natural causes are not comparable to acts of aggression. How can you not see that?


<!--QuoteBegin-"Flames Draft Watcher"
Obviously you aren't very informed about sweatshops, about 3rd world labour. Your theories are nice but you haven't spent enough time looking at reality and what's actually going on in the world.[/quote]

Nice assumption, but wrong one. You may be surprised but I don’t pronounce strong statements on topics I know nothing about. To this day, you have not proven that my theories are not connected with reality. All my economic theories are based on one fact – humans act in a world of scarce resources. That’s it. Period. Everything else logically leads from that. How is that removed from reality, I don’t know. Maybe you will enlighten me?

Sweat show labor is paid peanuts because of:

- High socialization of the countries they work in
- High supply of low skilled labor
- Relative low demand for this labor (yet you still keep thinking that Nike and the like should pull out, this lowering demand even more)
- High barriers to international trade, ie protectionism in the US, Canada, the EU, Australia etc. that cripples comparative advantage of low skilled workers in 3rd world countries
- Low productivity of sweat shop labor (careful, it doesn’t mean they don’t work hard, as an example, you can work your ass off an a farm in desert but you will not grow anything) combined with lack of eductation, specialized skills etc.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Jun 9 2005, 09:48 PM
Well don't you think there are other choices? Where 80% of the world's wealth doesn't sit in an extremely small percentage of the world's population?

Shouldn't we be striving for EVERYBODY to have a decent life? Is that too much to ask?

...

How can you believe it's a myth? And how can you leave it at that? This is probably the most fundamental issue in the world today. Providing food, water, shelter, etc for everyone on the planet.

Think of how much you need to live (food, water, shelter). Now think of how much extra you have that you don't NEED to live. Now think of all the rich countries and how many people live in them. Then think about all the poor countries and how much they have, how many people they have and how much they would need to be able to get water, food and shelter.

The average Canadian, American, Western European, etc makes easily over twice what they need to live if not much, much higher.

Saying that we don't have enough resources to feed, clothe and shelter everyone in the world, now that's the myth. And I can't believe anyone could believe it. What's your argument? How are you thinking that's possible?

...

You don't have to offer people things they want. You can trick them into thinking they need the things you provide through advertising. Do we really need 80% of the things we buy? Of course not. Do our kids really need that latest toy to be fulfilled and happy or do we just buy it so they'll stop nagging us?

You could get them addicted to a harmful substance you provide (cigarettes for example.)

And of course as has been pointed out numerous times in this conversation, providing the things you make at the lowest possible cost usually means minimizing labour costs. Which is basically disregarding the interest of your workers. It's in their best interest to make good wages. It's in your best interest to have them making the worst wages they could make.

Don't you see the conflict?

If you can't see that being a capitalist pig is the exact definition of selfishness then you're blind.

...

Giving to charities is great. Helping the poor is great. But all that does is slightly offset the exploitation that currently exists. We need systemic change. We need to change how the world operates. We have to grow up at some point and realize we need to look after the best interest of humanity, not just ourselves. We need to work together at some point for the good of everyone, not just the good of ourselves.

Obviously it's a monumental task. And obviously the current systems in place will resist change. Some will say it's an impossible task, I don't think that's the case. And if we don't change things, I believe change will be forced upon us at some point. I don't think we can repress the majority of the world in poverty forever, at some point they are going to rise against that.

...

Well it all comes to back to selfishness doesn't it. Why should it be the rich people's problem that the poor people are starving? Why not employ them as slaves to our corporations so they can at least scrape by? That's ideal isn't it?

I know we're propagandized to believe our system (capitalism) is good but take off the blinders man. If people are concerned about the good of humanity then we should be worried about sweatshops, about our current political and economic systems. If all you are concerned about is how good your own life is then feel free to tune it all out and hope you don't have to meet these starving people face to face at some point.

We have it good in capitalism because we're relatively in the upper eschelon. But that doesn't mean the system isn't flawed, because it is. And that doesn't mean we aren't exploiting the 3rd world, because we are.

Western society consumes more because it produces more. If you are not OK with it, you are free to sell all excess you own and send the money to poor people in 3rd world countries.

The western world has gotten rich thanks to capitalism. It has gotten rich because capitalism allocates resources most efficiently. It accumulates capital that is used to create additional capital, instead of wasting it. It gives all people the best shot at improving their life. It allows people to maximize their utility (utility does not have to be expressed in monetary terms, feeling good from helping others is utility too). The western world hasn’t gotten rich at the expense of 3rd world countries, although I will not deny than colonial empires such as British Empire were getting rich off their colonies, but that was before the industrial revolution, before the dawn of capitalism as we know it. If anything, colonization is argument against the state, not against capitalism.

This isn’t about wealth transfer. It is about wealth creation. 3rd world does not need your charity gifts as much as it needsfree economic environment. Only then those people will be able to produce their own food, build their shelter, in short – improve their lives. You know the saying, give the poor man a fish; you will feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish; you will feed him for the rest of his life.

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by moon@Jun 9 2005, 01:28 PM
http://www.shell.ca/code/values/soci...r_society.html

Shell?

Woof.

Bad example.



The fact is, the problem with a lot of Flame of Liberty's arguments is he fails to see that an unrestricted private sector is very, very bad for the world. The evidence is overwhelming and staggering that when corporations have no accountability, they will act completely unethically as the only answers they have to provide are, "how is my bottom line looking?" and "are my shareholders happy?"

I daresay that the reason corporations can act so unethically is because the larger and larger an entity gets, the more and more it gets swept along by its own momentum and even though individuals within that entity may be ethical, the whole of the machine tends to operate with a voracious kind of self-interest that drowns whatever voices of outcry there may be coming from within (or without). In fact, the Holocaust is the perfect example (given the content of the thread) as we all know it is unfair to say that every German who fought for Hitler was anti-Semitic, hateful, and had genocidal tendencies. The larger and more convoluted the chain of command, the less and less responsibility individuals feel within it for what the end-product turns out to be. Consequently, corporations brutalize the environment and exploit their labour force because the blame is never laid on any one person within that corporation; and, the shareholders are really happy.

I know it might hurt you physically to pick up such a leftist book, but I really think you should read the "No Jobs" chapter of Naomi Klein's book "No Logo". It deals extensively with third-world labour in Export Processing Zones in south east Asia, as well as the marginalization of average jobs in America into minimum wage "experience jobs". All this driven by corporate self interest.

The biggest problem with capitalism I see is that competition doesn't benefit the consumer since the advent of the large corporation. Corporations these days are inherently anti-competitive (see: mergers, corporate lobbying, deregulation) so there's no competition to begin with to benefit the consumer. Futhermore, given the lack of real choice we have (do I want to buy Reebok, Nike, or Adidas runners?), we cannot vote with our dollar so to speak to protest human rights abuses by not buying a company's product. Furthermore, we are so affluent and apathetic that a very large majority of the north American population simply doesn't care about what Nike is or isn't doing in other parts of the world.

Wake up man, capitalism is not utopia. I think the idea that a competitive system is best for everyone involved is really, really contradictory.

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jun 10 2005, 01:58 AM
This isn’t about wealth transfer. It is about wealth creation. 3rd world does not need your charity gifts as much as it needsfree economic environment. Only then those people will be able to produce their own food, build their shelter, in short – improve their lives. You know the saying, give the poor man a fish; you will feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish; you will feed him for the rest of his life.

Sure, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a life time. That may have been true four hundred years ago. Now, it's a little more complicated, and in general, it's not convincing to argue using cliches.

Besides, we aren't teaching the third world how to fish. We're lending them a fishing pole, giving them 12 cents an hour, and saying, fish, and give us what you catch. We're not teaching them how to fish. It's not in our interest to teach them how to fish, because we want their fish.

Capitalism always acts in its own best interest. There is no interest in capitalism to stimulate third-world markets, there is interest to EXPLOIT them and take the resources for its own good. If we help Vietnam develop its own industries and resources, how does that help us? It doesn't. Consequently, because they are so poor we can give them the "choice" of starving or working for pennies a day and then reap the benefits of their labor.

Not acknowledging these facts is just stubborn adherence to dogma.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jun 10 2005, 08:58 AM
You know the saying, give the poor man a fish; you will feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish; you will feed him for the rest of his life.

Lol hilarious. That's the thoery anyway.

The reality is, 'Don't give the man a fish. Teach a man to fish, loan him a boat, and take all his fish as pay for the boat'. If the 'man' is lucky, he'll have some pay to buy one or two of the fish to eat.

The 'teach a man to fish' phrase is out of touch with reality. No corporation has this ideal as one of it's mandates. Not surprising to see this from you.

edit: looks like Five-hole and I are of a mind, above post.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally posted by MrMastodonFarm+Jun 8 2005, 02:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MrMastodonFarm @ Jun 8 2005, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flames Draft Watcher@Jun 8 2005, 01:03 PM
4. The Kinsey Report
by Alfred Kinsey

Larf, #####ing Christian Converatives. I am now going to go out and buy all the books on this list.. anyone got an e-mail address to the writer of this list? [/b][/quote]
Who said they were *Christian* Conservatives?
Secular conservativists, neo-conservatives (who are liberals) would agree with this list.

The Kinsey Report was incredibly damaging to the social framework of society. Sure, I'm all for free sex (lol) but this book actually promoted sex with minors as beneficial.