Random Thoughts, strictly Text

D

david starling

Well-known member
Gemini888 said:
The reason I asked is because I feel that beside the emotional capacity, Pisces and Cancer don't seem to have much in common. Cancer is more grounded in the material world while Pisces is more spiritual. Cancer can be very kind thanks to their connection to the real world, while Pisces can become really cruel if they think the real world is not worth their time.


How about Scorpio? Do you feel anything during a Scorpio transit?
Click to expand...

I pretty much feel all the Signs.
In 12/12, there's a "catalytic" pattern for each Element. For Water, :cancer: is catalytic for :pisces:, which is catalytic for :scorpio:, which is catalytic for :cancer:.
So, within each Element group, Cardinal is catalytic for Mutable, which is catalytic for Fixed, which is catalytic for Cardinal:
Aries is catalytic for Sagittarius, which is catalytic for Leo, which is catalytic for Aries. Gemini is catalytic for Aquarius, which is catalytic for Libra, which is catalytic for Gemini. Taurus is catalytic for Capricorn, which is catalytic for Virgo, which is catalytic for Taurus.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
The symbol for :leo: looks like a sperm cell!
Click to expand...

It's a tail. But check the following information.

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ear...glyphs-from-googlecom-1-638.jpg?cb=1393817958

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ear...glyphs-from-googlecom-2-638.jpg?cb=1393817958

The symbol for the MC seems to me to be a combination of rho and mu for mesouranima (Midheaven), just as the ASC should be horoskopos (Hour-Marker). Taurus was Capricorn in the 10th century, and Capricorn was Ceres :surprised:
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
Cap said:
Bosses are also peasants but most of them don't realize that, being blinded by small privileges.
Click to expand...

They're extremely aware of the pecking-order in the new aristocracy of capitalism. Another Capitalistic similarity to Feudalism is the concept of "Divine Right".
Notice the words "Annuit Coeptis" on the Great Seal which is on the dollar bill. It means "God favored our Enterprise".
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
Cap said:
Bosses are also peasants but most of them don't realize that, being blinded by small privileges.
Click to expand...

Another analogy is that of the Plantations in the Old South. The workers are the slaves, lower level managers are the overseers, cracking the whip, and the owners are the aristocracy, reaping the rewards, as God intended.
 
Last edited:
Cap

Cap

Well-known member
My point is, by performing the function of "overseer" one is certainly not advancing into the circles of "aristocracy" nor he/she is ever viewed as "one of us" by the aristocracy. Real overseers from those days, just as today's managers, merely exchanged one form of slavery for another.

Chattel Slavery vs. Wage Slavery (Orestes A. Brownson), Boston Quarterly Review 3 (1840): 368-370.

In regard to labor, two systems obtain: one that of slave labor, the other that of free labor. Of the two, the first is, in our judgment, except so far as the feelings are concerned, decidedly the least oppressive. If the slave has never been a free man, we think, as a general rule, his sufferings are less than those of the free laborer at wages. As to actual freedom, one has just about as much as the other. The laborer at wages has all the disadvantages of freedom and none of its blessings, while the slave, if denied the blessings, is freed from the disadvantages.

We are no advocates of slavery. We are as heartily opposed to it as any modern abolitionist can be. But we say frankly that, if there must always be a laboring population distinct from proprietors and employers, we regard the slave system as decidedly preferable to the system at wages.

http://www.bluecerealeducation.com/chattel-slavery-vs-wage-slavery
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
Yeah, but Capitalist wage-slaves can quit and find another, more acceptable job. They can go into business for themselves, and even get wealthy enough to join the aristocracy. They can move from place to place, and choose who to marry, unlike chattel slaves. And, my reference to overseers "cracking the whip" was metaphorical for wage-slaves, but not for chattel-slaves.
However, it is time to advance beyond wage-slavery, to a non-slave economic system. One step at a time.
 
Last edited:
Cap

Cap

Well-known member
david starling said:
Yeah, but Capitalist wage-slaves can quit and find another, more acceptable job. They can go into business for themselves, and even get wealthy enough to join the aristocracy. They can move from place to place, and choose who to marry, unlike chattel slaves. And, my reference to overseers "cracking the whip" was metaphorical for wage-slaves, but not for chattel-slaves. But, it is time to advance beyond wage-slavery, to a non-slave economic system. One step at a time.
Click to expand...

All of that would be true in a hypothetical capitalist society where there is no unemployment. However, capitalism as a system requires some levels of unemployment to function and is always carefully balanced by the capitalists themselves (who are always in control politically) to contain certain levels of unemployment. It's simple logic, more there is unemployment, greater competition for the jobs, peasants will accept lower wages, more profits for the capitalists. However, if there is too much unemployment the system could crash so it needs subtle balancing.

The critique from 1840 just brings up the truth that wage-slaves of those times couldn't really exercise their freedoms (freedom to travel for example) because their wages merely covered only basic survival (and there is really not much difference today) and unemployed ones didn't have even that. The theoretical possibility of one climbing into "aristocracy circles" is just that - theoretical. It happens so rarely that it is mathematically negligible.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
Cap said:
All of that would be true in a hypothetical capitalist society where there is no unemployment. However, capitalism as a system requires some levels of unemployment to function and is always carefully balanced by the capitalists themselves (who are always in control politically) to contain certain levels of unemployment. It's simple logic, more there is unemployment, greater competition for the jobs, peasants will accept lower wages, more profits for the capitalists. However, if there is too much unemployment the system could crash so it needs subtle balancing.

The critique from 1840 just brings up the truth that wage-slaves of those times couldn't really exercise their freedoms (freedom to travel for example) because their wages merely covered only basic survival (and there is really not much difference today) and unemployed ones didn't have even that. The theoretical possibility of one climbing into "aristocracy circles" is just that - theoretical. It happens so rarely that it is mathematically negligible.
Click to expand...

You're doing good, pointing out the tragic flaws of the current economic system, which most take for granted as a "fact of life", and "the best of all possible worlds". We can add in the Capitalist necessity for a war economy and a police-state culture.
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
Cap said:
All of that would be true in a hypothetical capitalist society where there is no unemployment. However, capitalism as a system requires some levels of unemployment to function and is always carefully balanced by the capitalists themselves (who are always in control politically) to contain certain levels of unemployment. It's simple logic, more there is unemployment, greater competition for the jobs, peasants will accept lower wages, more profits for the capitalists. However, if there is too much unemployment the system could crash so it needs subtle balancing.

The critique from 1840 just brings up the truth that wage-slaves of those times couldn't really exercise their freedoms (freedom to travel for example) because their wages merely covered only basic survival (and there is really not much difference today) and unemployed ones didn't have even that. The theoretical possibility of one climbing into "aristocracy circles" is just that - theoretical. It happens so rarely that it is mathematically negligible.
Click to expand...

Not really true. If unemployment is low, then by logic there is a growing expanding economy. The same pattern of competition among potential employees repeats itself in the market, thus while wages may be lower, so are the costs of living and prices of goods. In any case, capitalism reduces unemployment almost to non-existant number, and it is the only system that can achieve that.

The value of money itself doesn't really matter, but what that money can buy, and that is determined by a huge number of factors. So saying "wages are low" is a relative concept to the conversation, but not a proper unit of measure on whether an economy is performing good or bad.
 
Last edited:
Cap

Cap

Well-known member
Dirius said:
Not really true. If unemployment is low, then by logic there is a growing expanding economy. The same pattern of competition among potential employees repeats itself in the market, thus while wages may be lower, so are the costs of living and prices of goods. In any case, capitalism reduces unemployment almost to non-existant number, and it is the only system that can achieve that.

The value of money itself doesn't really matter, but what that money can buy, and that is determined by a huge number of factors. So saying "wages are low" is a relative concept to the conversation, but not a proper unit of measure on whether an economy is performing good or bad.
Click to expand...

Beware, almost anywhere in the world today the unemployment rate is calculated "the American way", which is outright deceiving.

To be counted as unemployed, you must be over 16 and have been available to work full-time during the past four weeks. Most importantly, you must have actively looked for work during that same period.

The real numbers give us a completely different story. Let's take the US, for example.

Nearly 102 Million Americans Do Not Have A Job Right Now – Worse Than At Any Point During The Last Recession

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...e-than-at-any-point-during-the-last-recession

While I agree that full employment is technically achievable in capitalism, although maybe not sustainable in the long run, there is another side to it.

You are forgetting that the current socio-economic system is not just about acquiring wealth. Striving for power is an equally important component of this competition based society (money = power, power = more money). There is no political incentive for the people who run the show to hand out their power into the hands of the working class and achieving zero unemployment would do just that. It would give a lot more "bargaining chips" to the employees, thus undermining employers authority both on the smaller scale (in companies they own) as well as on the big political scene. In that case scenario, workers would not have to put up with various blackmails and injustices and having the 3rd alternative to usual "either accept these job terms or die of starvation", they would become very choosy.

That's why full employment will never happen (in capitalism).
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
Cap said:
Beware, almost anywhere in the world today the unemployment rate is calculated "the American way", which is outright deceiving.

To be counted as unemployed, you must be over 16 and have been available to work full-time during the past four weeks. Most importantly, you must have actively looked for work during that same period.

The real numbers give us a completely different story. Let's take the US, for example.

Nearly 102 Million Americans Do Not Have A Job Right Now – Worse Than At Any Point During The Last Recession

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...e-than-at-any-point-during-the-last-recession

While I agree that full employment is technically achievable in capitalism, although maybe not sustainable in the long run, there is another side to it.

You are forgetting that the current socio-economic system is not just about acquiring wealth. Striving for power is an equally important component of this competition based society (money = power, power = more money). There is no political incentive for the people who run the show to hand out their power into the hands of the working class and achieving zero unemployment would do just that. It would give a lot more "bargaining chips" to the employees, thus undermining employers authority both on the smaller scale (in companies they own) as well as on the big political scene. In that case scenario, workers would not have to put up with various blackmails and injustices and having the 3rd alternative to usual "either accept these job terms or die of starvation", they would become very choosy.

That's why full employment will never happen (in capitalism).
Click to expand...

There are almost 44 million people who are retired in the U.S. and currently recieving social security, which accounts for almost half of that number. Then there are highschool and university students dependant on their parents, people on disability charges, and people that perform non-legal jobs, etc. While obviously the indicator is not perfect, it is quite good, and shows whether the working population is doing well.

I also disagree with the "power struggle" between classes. If people have no jobs, then they have no money, and thus can't purchase goods (which is the reason the rich become rich in the first place). The more people employed, the bigger the market. In capitalism the actual power is held by the consumer, not the entrepeneur. Many companies go bankrupt and dissapear because consumers don't want to purchase their products. Also, many people under this system go from poor to millionaire, a good example being professional athletes, actors, musicians, etc. Truth is anyone can become rich if they strive for it.

People who tend to blame capitalism for all the wrongs in the world, usually do so because they either lack actual knowledge on how capitalism works (usually regurgitating what they hear from those critical of it), or due to their own shortcomings and failed expectations under the system.
 
Last edited:
M

moonkat235

Well-known member
@Dirius

What do you think about net neutrality? Don't you think that capitalism will fail if net neutrality isn't a thing? Like, if consumers cannot self-educate (assuming the average consumer actually cares to research and stay up to date) then corrupt organizations and businesses can do harm and the consumer will not act in their best individual or collective interest as a result of ignorance.

Capitalism that is completely unchecked and unregulated by the government probably leads to the end of net neutrality imo.

Wouldn't the power be in the hands of the capitalist rather than the consumer without net neutrality? Shouldn't the governments of the world step in?

I also question whether consumers are really that motivated to educate themselves on products.
 
Top