Do you Want This Country to Be a Socialist Country?????

http://www.youtube.com/user/AforP#p/a/u/1/Wkw7n9Qagu8

---

This was supposed to be the Liberal Progressive Movement's Answer to Glenn Beck's Rally.

This is what the far left wants, and obama loves it. Time to take out the trash in November! :thumbsup:

Love it. Americans for prosperity ... at someone else's expense. What they fail to recognize is there is a fundamental law in evolution. It's called survival of the fitest. Socialism has no survival value and will always end up being selected against. Do you see socialism practice anywhere else among the plant or animal kingdom. No. Like the abarrent offshots in evolution, socialism is headed towards extinction.

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Love it. Americans for prosperity ... at someone else's expense. What they fail to recognize is there is a fundamental law in evolution. It's called survival of the fitest. Socialism has no survival value and will always end up being selected against. Do you see socialism practice anywhere else among the plant or animal kingdom. No. Like the abarrent offshots in evolution, socialism is headed towards extinction.

In a sense a biome is an example. You can point to the fact that the swallow eats the fly but taken as a whole the biological community depends upon all of its members to persist. We tend to look at evolution one organism at a time. In our time we observe extinctions and the fast track toward extinction by loss of habitat as often as we se it because of over hunting or over fishing.

There are quite a few democracies which utilize communal support for the welfare of their citizens. Some of them are doing better than we are. The phrase "survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer after Charles Darwin's "natural Selection." Spencer was an economist and was applying his economic theories to Darwin's findings. Many scholars believe that the concept was in part fostered in context of 19th century European militarism. The concept is no longer applied to understanding contemporary biological communities. In paleontology we now refer to "niche." What is a niche? It is a set of biological, physical and chemical conditions which support any single organism within that set. Another term for this is "mutualism."

Too often western corporations become so big and powerful that they become parasites. That is not what happens in the type of capitalism that Adam Smith wrote about. In nature, in Rocky Mountain biomes, we see what is happening with the pine bark beetle, Russian thistle and knapweed. They out compete other organisms in a habitat and destroy the niche for every one else.

There are places in a capitalist state to apply socialist principles. This does not advocate displacing capitalism with socialism.

Our problem is that we take too many principles out of context. Socialism, capitalism, survival of the fittest and so on. We turn to Adam Smith and quote only what he says to promote what we do. Take another look at Adam Smith, he says more than what we practice.

Adam Smith

NEMESIS wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Love it. Americans for prosperity ... at someone else's expense. What they fail to recognize is there is a fundamental law in evolution. It's called survival of the fitest. Socialism has no survival value and will always end up being selected against. Do you see socialism practice anywhere else among the plant or animal kingdom. No. Like the abarrent offshots in evolution, socialism is headed towards extinction.

In a sense a biome is an example. You can point to the fact that the swallow eats the fly but taken as a whole the biological community depends upon all of its members to persist. We tend to look at evolution one organism at a time. In our time we observe extinctions and the fast track toward extinction by loss of habitat as often as we se it because of over hunting or over fishing.

There are quite a few democracies which utilize communal support for the welfare of their citizens. Some of them are doing better than we are. The phrase "survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer after Charles Darwin's "natural Selection." Spencer was an economist and was applying his economic theories to Darwin's findings. Many scholars believe that the concept was in part fostered in context of 19th century European militarism. The concept is no longer applied to understanding contemporary biological communities. In paleontology we now refer to "niche." What is a niche? It is a set of biological, physical and chemical conditions which support any single organism within that set. Another term for this is "mutualism."

Too often western corporations become so big and powerful that they become parasites. That is not what happens in the type of capitalism that Adam Smith wrote about. In nature, in Rocky Mountain biomes, we see what is happening with the pine bark beetle, Russian thistle and knapweed. They out compete other organisms in a habitat and destroy the niche for every one else.

There are places in a capitalist state to apply socialist principles. This does not advocate displacing capitalism with socialism.

Our problem is that we take too many principles out of context. Socialism, capitalism, survival of the fittest and so on. We turn to Adam Smith and quote only what he says to promote what we do. Take another look at Adam Smith, he says more than what we practice.

Adam Smith

A most interesting and appreciated response. Niche is well defined but I fail to see how mutualism equates to niche unless there is considerable niche overlap. From my understanding of how mutualism was defined originally, it equated to an interaction between two different species or organism in a way that that was beneficial to both. Hence I have a problem equating niche with mutualism. Then again my paleontology and ecology studies in graduate school were a long time ago. If I look at mutualism as originally defined, I see little relationship to Socialism. It is not a relationship that is mutually beneficial. Rather it is more like parasitism where on species benefits at the expense of another i.e. mistletoe comes to mind.

Your example of Rocky mountain biomes being destroyed by superior competitors is something quite different from corporations, just to be nit picky. While superior competitors exclude inferior competitors, they alter the biome in doing so not destroy it. In affect, they are a biological disturbance on a local scale. While disturbance tends to reduce species diversity locally, it enhances species diversity on a larger scale by opening up the community to opportunistic species. Even superior competitors are vulnerable to disturbances and this is one way nature keeps things in check. A good example of this occurs in Pacific reef communities in which one coral outcompetes others. Their demise comes from intense storms. Similarly, we now see grasses and a variety of less competitive species colonizing former Lodge pole pine forests. In essence, the pine beetle has reset the biome to one that supports greater species diversity. I suppose we could discuss corporations or capitalism within that framework. We can also see that our justice system is in affect a form of disturbance that wipes out greed-driven corporate executives.

Principles taken out of context help to overstate points, on this we agree whole heartedly. That, in fact, was my purpose. Even so, principles become identified because there are repetitive patterns not just in one field but observable across a variety of disciplines. This coherence is what gives principles their strength. Invoking ecologic and paleontologic principles to examine human society development appears appropriate as we are part of the animal kingdom and we continue to evolve.

We are closer than folks think.

Nemesis:

I only want to point out what I see as a flaw, and that is that you state that there are Democracies that have shown Socialism to be working. Let me point out that the USA is not a Democracy. It is a Republic. There is a very distinct difference between the two.

Not knowing enough about what you try to divert the subject to, since I am not a scholar in the biological field that you refer to, I will not try to debate any other nuances.

I don't see Capitalism being practiced in the animal kingdom either - but then, I don't think we allow animals to use debit cards.

Cat Crap Hill wrote: I don't see Capitalism being practiced in the animal kingdom either - but then, I don't think we allow animals to use debit cards.

I take it you do not belong to the animal kingdom?? Last I knew that is where humans belonged lol