Elon Musk Named Time's Person of the Year 2021
Category: News & Politics
Via: john-russell • 3 years ago • 36 commentsBy: Rick Clough (Bloomberg. com)
Elon Musk was named Time magazine's "Person of the Year," capping a run during which the head of Tesla Inc. solidified his standing as the world's richest person and turned his onetime electric-vehicle startup into a $1 trillion company.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Elon Musk was named Time magazine's "Person of the Year," capping a run during which the head of Tesla Inc. solidified his standing as the world's richest person and turned his onetime electric-vehicle startup into a $1 trillion company.
"Few individuals have had more influence than Musk on life on Earth, and potentially life off Earth too," Time said in an article explaining its choice of the groundbreaking and often controversial executive. "He sees his mission as solving the globe's most intractable challenges, along the way disrupting multiple industries."
Tags
Who is online
67 visitors
Let's let the rich run the world. Its worked out so well over the centuries.
There are much worse things ......
Tell that to the "peoples" socialists and communists that have slaughtered hundreds of millions over the years.
More people have died in "Holy Wars".
Your invisible friend once killed the entire world's population (except Moses and his family).
BTW, Hitler was a fascist not a "socialist".
You clearly don't believe in him so how can you make such an outrageous claim.
Did i mention Hitler? .... your corollary to Godwins Law i suppose .....
Yes, it's totally outrageous. It's documented in the fucking Bible.
I suspect you mean Noah instead of Moses.
Yes, I suffer from Biblical dyslexia.
Thanx for the correction.
Ahh, Adolf himself categorized himself and his movement as a socialist movement... It is European socialists who have tried to distance themselves from his roots.. (and have pretty much succeeded) Yes, Facists are socialists... they just differ from communists on how they maintain control once they get it...
European socialists today consider any governmental organization that has a single ultimate leader as the ultimate authority as conservative... This came about in Europe after the end of WWII, socialism HAD to distance itself from Nazism otherwise they would be outlawed.. That was their answer... and forever more it seems Fascism is now attributed to the right side of the political spectrum in Europe.. The democrats trying to be like their European & Russian brothers cause they are internationalists are trying to attach that term to the political "Right" here in America... the political right in America doesn't have the history of statism behind them to make it stick... The political party with the history of federalism and stateism (the all powerful central government) is the democrat party... Why I left the Republican party 40 some odd years ago? cause with the rise of Newt, the republican party began believing in the all powerful central government just as their democrat brethern do...
That's the effect of all those democrat christian evangelicals being invited into the party by Ronald Reagan cause he just didn't know better... Of course RR was a democrat before he was a republican as was I... He believed in the "Big Tent"
That was his biggest mistake....
As is the custom here, especially on this topic, prove it.
Sorry, I meant Noah and his family, not Moses.
Bible Gateway Genesis 7 :: NIV
oh yeah, setting sail on the SS incest...
People actually believe that fairy-tale.
He just used the name. He overpowered the actual socialists early in his career. One of many sources:
That is just wrong if you are using 'socialist' as in that defined by Marx. Fascism is based on national control of industry, etc. Socialism (per Marx) is democratic economic control of industry (and more) by the people (the workers) themselves. Fascists are ideological enemies of socialism (as defined by Marx). Fascism is based on authoritarian military rule; socialism is based on democracy.
Your statement could be somewhat correct if you define socialism as 'authoritarian rule' or more specifically if you define socialism as: 'the system of the USSR'. The USSR also simply used the name 'socialism' as a beard for a brutal authoritarian military regime.
gee, I thought humping liz taylor when she was 15 was his biggest mistake...
Oh Tig we've had this old and tired discussion before... I really don't want to reiterate it here... WE both know how socialism is desperately trying to get away from it's Marxist roots and direct attachment to Communism... we also both know how European socialism views conservatism...
FASCISM IS socialist authoritarian rule... Communism is associated with brutal authoritarian rule as well, Communism hates Facism because of the two philosophies approach to world domination that is all... Communism uses wealth hate, Nazism uses race hate.... Communism could care less about race and their point is all races worldwide should be subjugated in any manner possible, Nazism believes in one race and all others should be eliminated worldwide....
Same philosophy different method of execution resulting in the same thing...
Both hold the same tenents, the world should be subjugated.....
Somewhat correct? Marx himself characterized communism as socialism that has reached it's highest form... Lenin pointed out that the dictatorship of the proletariat will never work on a large scale without absolute control... Stalin brought brutal force into the equation...
Do you really want to go thru all that again? I know from our previous discussions that your a democratic socialist, and you think we should have a society that mirrors the scandinavian type of social democracy... I'm the opposite, The Enlightenments individual freedom coupled to capitalism created the most powerful and wealthiest nation the world has ever seen.... (which of course invites the socialists to come in and take over since socialism doesn't create anything, just wants to control creation)
Socialism doesn't work, there isn't any proletariat utopia.. every attempt to create one has failed when it reached a size larger than a small hamlet... Large scale socialism to function needs a capitalist way of generating wealth and a strong central government to hold the people in check within a wealth system.. (think china) the Scandinavian nations have elected to have a strong central government that acts as a nanny state, that is their free choice. more power to them... I don't think most Americans will accept such...
IE. as a socialist you have to separate socialism from it's grisly past... And that just doesn't stand up to the truth.... The real danger today is socialism has incorporated both wealth hate and race hate into it's mantra.. It thinks it has separated itself from it's violent history but antifa shows us differently, and we all know the party of wealth envy/high taxes, and racial division and hate...BLM, CRT, et al... A combination of the finer points of both communism and nazism... with the violence around the country, socialism is serving notice that it's authoritarianism isn't far behind....
You can't have freedom AND socialism they are inapposite of each other...
as a social butterfly/movie star yes it was... he really wasn't a social butterfly...
You are aware that they are doing a biopic of Liz...
"will be portrayed by Lindsay Lohan in the upcoming Lifetime biopic "Liz & Dick,"
Highly appropriate title if you ask me... (if you believe her salacious biographers)
I know about the tell-all book from her biographers, this person said this to this person that personally said that to this person and said that and on and on...
They also say she had a threesome with JFK and Robert Stack, affairs with most of Hollywood's leading men some of them affairs in which she would have had to been 12 years old when it happened..... That she tried to trap Frankie into marriage with a false pregnancy claim...
Keeping in mind that all this is revealed 11 years after her death...
Typical unfounded speculative crap by people who are only interested in making money off her name and fame...
Ummm didn't they do that is 2012 already?
(1) liz znd dick - Search (bing.com)
That movie came out many years ago.
yes a decade ago.... {hilarious isn't it?) didn't make a big splash back then and isn't worth repeating as justification for anything today....
{chuckle}
Yes Jim they did, the point of the way I posted it was to draw out the fact that he was reaching into old crap to try and make an irrelevant point...
Well played my friend. Well played.
We all know that good definition of insanity.
Repeatedly doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I have a new one.
Using something you don't believe in, as proof to prove a point.
Classic!
People continue to redefine socialism. The Marxist roots define a system controlled by the workers (the proletariat), not by the State. The Communism you think is Marxism is simply an authoritarian system (State control, not control by the people).
The words socialism and communism are so overloaded with contradictory meaning as to make them both meaningless. If someone talks about these terms and wishes to engage in honest discourse, they would qualify their words:
Marxism (socialism/communism per Marx) — the democratic control of the socio-economic system by the people (expressly NOT by the state)
Leninism (socialism per Lenin) — state authoritarian rule with an intent to build a capitalist industrial base and later transform into socialism per Marx
Stalinism (socialism/communism per Stalin) — brutal state authoritarian military rule focused on building a world class military machine
USA Socialism (basically social democracy) — benevolent "Big Government" state taxing a capitalist system to provide social programs to the people
You are inventing a definition. The meaning of socialism (per Marx) directly contradicts fascism. Socialism is control by the people whereas fascism is control by the state. Fascism is concerned with the good of the nation whereas socialism is concerned with the good of the people.
Clearly you have no clue. I am not a democratic socialist but I certainly support notions such as workplace democracy, stronger economic control by the people, equal opportunity with unequal results, more people taking responsibility for their livelihoods, etc. I am a capitalist; quite successful at that. My criticism of capitalism focuses on the consolidation of economic (and thus political and sociological) power that occurs when capitalism grows too successful. I am a strong supporter of capitalism (except in the large) because in today's world that is the best practical choice available. Progress, today, is based on leadership and risk taking and that requires sufficient motivation. Socialism (per Marx) is NOT something that could realistically occur in today's world because the people themselves are not culturally ready for the responsibility. If it does occur, it will be evolutionary (we see early stages today with cooperatives) but none of us will live to see it.
As with most, you presume too much. My objection to the 'socialism' discussions deals with ontology; it is not defending 'my' system.
I'm very happy for you... Yep, I don't care too much about what people say they are, I watch what they post when no one else is looking.. if what you post here is true (and I have no reason to think otherwise) they you have changed your position from the last time we debated this... That's good, growth comes in small pieces... At least your not stale and posting the same drivel over and over... I don't believe that social democracy will ever work here in the wealthiest nation on the planet cause there is too much wealth to lose.. and those people that control it won't give up that control... not without a lot of dead bodies...
But that doesn't explain the support of the leftists
The capitalist system is the most powerful social driver history has ever seen, I sincerely doubt that any all powerful government will be able to take it over...
Then you did not comprehend what I have written on this subject. My objection has always been ontological. But to know that one must objectively read what was written rather than presume based on superficial, bias-laden reading.
If a powerful government took over capitalism, that would NOT be socialism (per Marx). It would likely be social democracy (capitalist engine funding social programs) but it could also be fascism or state capitalism. There is no socialism per Marx except by the collective will of the people, not the state. If you have a scenario in which the state is in control, then you absolutely do NOT have socialism per Marx.
There's the old Tig...
An ontological objection...ok...
The ontological basis of ethics is the unity of the real and the ideal, and the psychological and actual basis of the ethical process is the tendency of reason and nature to unite in the form of the complete organization of the latter by the former.
So in essence, your saying that reason trumps nature or better put reason will control nature.... So your objecting to any characterizing of socialism as a method of control... Socialism is the Reasoning, Capitalism is the nature to be controlled... But nature is wild uncontrollable requires force to be controlled, so ontologically, what your saying is that reason will always dictate over nature...
Very metaphysical of you.. You want to take the abstract concepts of Marx and prove that they are real, viable in a free context and superior to any other ideal of a society... When all the historical evidence and facts clearly show that the ideals of Marx are clearly inferior cause they require outside motivation (force) to get nature to comply...
Reason isn't enough to make the utopia real... If it was we would already be in utopia... ALL the evidence throughout history points to the truth of this...
Biased laden reading? {chuckle} if you say so, but I submit the reading is biased on both sides...
There is a reason that socialism as envisioned by Marx and attempted in several places was a complete failure in all of the attempts to demonstrate it... What was that failure? People and their desire to be free, people are born and raised and grow individually not in hive .. (or collective) they have the creators given right to make individual choices that usually do not coincide with the collective...
That is the problem with Marx's ideals one group has different issues/needs than another... One group's ideals are different than another's...
The main failing of socialism in any form is it's need for the people to think in one mind... More like the borg in Startrek the hive is most important to survival... The collective mind is more intelligent than the individual mind....
And, the final nail in the coffin of such arguments is the need for control.. Even your ontological view requires control....
And mankind, of nature, isn't going to give such control up.... He's not built that way...
There is no difference. My position has been consistent for decades.
You would do better reading what I wrote instead of engaging in wild extrapolation. My point is easily understood: socialism (per Marx) is a system wherein the people (in particular, the workers) —not the state— democratically control their socio-economic system. Alternatively, if you have a system wherein the state has control (not the people) you, by definition, do NOT have socialism/communism per Marx.
So how would you describe it? Ontological results in the same thing as Lenin effected in Russia.... Anyone tries to get a handle on what you really believe and your all over the map claiming the other is using wild speculations?
You used ontological, I guess you really didn't understand what it actually means? I doubt that strongly.... And the problem with your position is the Workers don't control anything, never have and never will... There will always be a government, and we know that a government cannot stand except by the choice of the people being governed in any situation...
The closest mankind has come to a government of the people is the one we currently have...
There are simply too many people to have direct government of the people, and that was tried as well btw...(failed miserably, just ask all those people with their heads in baskets)
I guess you will settle for a government like China's an overarching all powerful government with the people as sheep to be used...
Is that really what your advocating?
Read my posts. I have described socialism in very simple terms multiple times now. Repeating again is pointless.
That is just incoherent.
Consider the possibility that the problem lies with you:
Ontological ( Oxford ): " Showing the relations between the concepts and categories in a subject area or domain."
No shit. Amazing how you missed the fact that I effectively made the same statement.
Well of course direct democracy cannot possibly work. Who said anything about direct democracy? Democracy comes in two major forms: direct and indirect. Ours is actually a hybrid; predominantly indirect democracy with some direct (e.g. referendums). The people being in democratic control of their socio-economic system does not mean that everyone votes on every issue. You again incorrectly presume.
Clearly not. What is also clear is that you continue to simply troll. I have no expectation that you engage me to have a thoughtful discussion but rather to simply make obnoxious comments. Your continued pretense of missing every point I make is simply proof of it.
This last comment by you is crystal clear proof of low-grade trolling. I have stated explicitly that socialism per Marx is the exact opposite of what you described and also stated that I am not advocating anything. Yet you come back with a closing that ignores pretty much every point I have made.
[Deleted]
Yes, it's worked out well for the rich but the working people get screwed.
One of his distribution centers was demolished by tornadoes with eight employees so far dead. Mr. Trillionaire pledges a measly one million to help. He is cheapskate of the year and that is what the cover of Time Magazine should say.
I hadn't heard any of that. What state and what distribution center was demolished?
Perhaps I am wrong, but maybe you have let your dislike of millionaires lead you to identifying the wrong person in this instance?
[deleted]
Lot of childish envy at work here.
Them that has the gold and the power...rule.
It's always been thus.