Michael Moore unveils plans for next documentary - Polidicks

Michael Moore unveils plans for next documentary

284 replies, posted
In This Thread

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;15949894]Threads? [editline]07:52PM[/editline] Pretty sure it is, yeah. Assuming that's their job.[/QUOTE] Ever heard of a job without payment?

[QUOTE=Conscript;15949754]In addition, it's their hard labor that let's you live the way you do, I'm afraid.[/QUOTE] It's capital produced or bought through the capitalists labor that makes the laborer's laborer more efficient than a Middle-Ages blacksmith's. The final product of a firm is NOT entirely the product of workers' muscles. [QUOTE=drive_the_hive;15950001]Ever heard of a job without payment?[/QUOTE] Are you serious? Do you really think they don't pay the laborer's anything? People living in the Third World aren't that gullible. Corporations move into the Third World for production because the workers are willing to work for less, but no sane person will work if he gains nothing from it.

And you totally know what's going on over there.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;15950089]It's capital produced or bought through the capitalists labor that makes the laborer's laborer more efficient than a Middle-Ages blacksmith's. The final product of a firm is NOT entirely the product of workers' muscles. [/quote] Advancements in capital and the means of production are only part of man's constant gathering of knowledge and applying it to production. Is a worker now supposed to feel privileged because his employer now makes many times more profit then before? And it certainly is, I'm wondering what your reasoning is. If there is no laborer to use the capital to produce with, there will be no production. This relates to physics in the way that there is no such thing as perpetual motion. In this case, there needs to be labor added otherwise there can be no production! Also, who do you think designed, and constructed the capital? More often then not, a worker. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;15950089]Are you serious? Do you really think they don't pay the laborer's anything? People living in the Third World aren't that gullible. Corporations move into the Third World for production because the workers are willing to work for less, but no sane person will work if he gains nothing from it.[/QUOTE] Third world workers are willing to work for less because less is better then what they have, which is nothing. Business owners take advantage of this, [b]a lot[/b].

As Lankist said in his definition, the smallest price goes.

[QUOTE=Conscript;15949691]You've got to be kidding. Whatever class in power is what society revolves around. In slave societies, where the dominant relations of production were slaves-slavers, such as the Roman empire, the laws and the rest of the aspects of society revolved around this. For example, slavery was legal. Why? Because slavers were the dominant class, they were the ones that produced society's wealth and owned the means of production. How did this system come about? A combination of old hunter-gatherer societies discovering agriculture and enslaving their enemies and forcing them to do the labor work of production.[/quote] You're seriously going to compare capitalism to feudalism and slavers of centuries passed? Fine, you want to play that game, I'll compare your precious system of economy, little socialist, to totalitarianism. You see, when you start trying to define classes, telling people just how successful they can be for themselves and how much power they can wield out of their own volition, you start removing power from the general common man all together. You remove the potential of power to the people because you're afraid of people who have interests that do not align with yours. No, instead you'd rather pretend government as a whole is both willing and capable of regulating both economy and ethics for the sake and benefit of the common man. You seem to think that's any DIFFERENT than corruption in Capitalism when it isn't! You give a CEO massive power over millions, that's not any different than giving an armchair politician in charge of regulation that sort of power. You want to pretend capitalism is about slavery and socialist (totalitarian) government is not? Yet again that idea of "the common good" sprouts up. Working not for yourself but the advancement of everyone. But when you try to advance everyone, you advance no one. In totalitarianism, the incompetent leaders "elected," placed or inherited are the dominant class. You can pretend you want a classless society but when you actually try, you end up with two classes. Those with all of the power and those with none, and you're entrusting that power on the pretense that it will be used for the benefit of all. What happens when that melts away? When the interests of one group of citizens begins to trump another? What happens when the regulatory commissions decide the advancement of the whole relies more upon Citizen A than it does Citizen B? What precisely is to stop them from letting Citizen B starve to death? There is nothing to stop them. In a socialist society the dregs have no chance. You want to pretend it's good for all, but it's no better for the lower class than capitalism is. Instead of having a chance, however slight, of becoming an extremely powerful individual through your own work and volition, instead both your fate and welfare are in the hands of men who don't even know your name. You have no control over your life. Nay, those who keep you fed and clothed have not your interests in mind but their own. How could they possibly have your interests in mind, among hundreds of millions of others? They can't. Preferred parties begin to arise and the classes begin to re-form all over again. It's undeniable. [quote]So as feudal lords had created a new class with their societal reforms, capitalism did the same. They formed, what's called, the proletariat. A class of people that can do nothing else to live but sell their labor in exchange for a wage that is not the full value of what they labored to produce, what's called, exploitation. Capitalism later developed into imperialism, where capitalists use cheap and easily accessible third world resources and labor to produce and make even bigger profits, and at the same time, trump the competition.[/quote] Classes aren't created. You act like there were "feudal lords" somewhere who sat down one day and said "here's how this shit's going to work." Classes are unavoidable, it's part of human nature. There is no denying the advantage of one over the other in the human condition. Even if you try to eliminate all classes, make everyone equal, there will eventually rise a common value among a group of citizens. That common value, be that work ethic, morality, religion or mathematics and science, will unite a ruling class. The class everyone else will willingly depend upon for the things out of that reach. All socialism does is take that tiny class and call them government and regulation, and then hope and pray they have the interests of the whole in mind. But they don't. They can't. That isn't human nature. So then people start to starve in the northern reaches, where it's too expensive and difficult to grow or import food. Then you start getting riots, you start getting unrest. Even if their response is justly in the interests of the good of the whole, that response is the same. Quell the unrest. The unrestful become the LOWER class. So now you have all three classes. The unrestful, needy lower. The normal, mildly happy middle and the small and extremely powerful upper. [quote]Cecil Rhodes, an owner of a business giant in the UK (which was the epitome of capitalism at the time of the 19th century), puts surprisingly marxist perspective from, not only a non-marxist, but someone who would be deeply opposed to them![/quote] Whoo hoo. [quote]If even capitalists recognize class struggle, then what can we say about marxism other then we can conclude its analyses are true?[/quote] Capitalists are typically smart enough to realize the class struggle is an inherent part of humanity. There will always be those on top, those in the middle and those at bottom. It isn't pretty, it isn't fun or happy, but it just is. There are ways to improve that, such as taxing the poor less (i.e. I for one think we need to knock it off with the cigarette taxes and lottery bullshit. It's all a tax upon the poor and desperate.) [quote]So, you see, there is much more to Marxism then just what you think is some arbitrary idea of socialism or collectivism. It's a method of societal analysis and also an economic theory. And with it, Marx predicted that capitalism would end when one of its many contradictions caused its collapse by the hands of the lower class, the proletariat. A few hundred years ago, the capitalists did quite the same to their former lords, the kings, queens, the pope, or otherwise, feudal lords. In addition, if you are even remotely interested in physics, you may have heard of dialectics. Marx applied this physical theory to society when he asked himself why and how society has progressed. The result was the discovery of classes, or forces, that were absolutely opposed to eachother, like stars and planets, or electrons and protons, but were still absolutely needed, like what's needed for the formation of an atom or a solar system. In this case, society and its socio-economic system.[/quote] I'm not going to argue fucking Marxist physics with you. [quote]Are you being intentionally ignorant? Tell me, what was Iraq about then? Do you think defense contractors and oil companies just sitting around? What about the mass amount of foreign intervention that also included the US in the Russian Civil war? The supporting and forming of far right groups and dictators to fight the spread of socialism? The suspension of French and Italian autonomy because they were about to vote in communist parties after World War two? The intentional mismanagement of Colonial India to stop them from developing so British capitalists could exploit them and their resources without the worry of domestic competition? What about the institutionalized oppression of the labor movement and its activists so american capitalists could force their laborers to work in horrible conditions and miserable pay? What about the repression of the first red scare that was tied into socialists opposing the terrible first world war that was partly fought for economic gains over German capitalists? The smashing of the Paris commune? [b]What about leaving the majority of the world's population living like animals in the third world?[/b] I could go on for ages! I haven't even mentioned how capitalism has corrupted our democracy and made our freedom second priority after profits, or how we spend billions and billions of tax payer dollars (which are mostly derived from the short-handed pay of a laborer, and could be used to fund more people-oriented things, such as education!) to fund our gigantic military that only exists to enforce economic interests.[/quote] I already said what I thought the Iraq war was about. It's too easy to say it's conspiracy, it's capitalist evil or socialist meddling. What's difficult to admit is that, as much as I hate Bush, he isn't evil. He isn't menacing. He is incompetent. He did what he thought best, and he thought wrong. I don't like the war, I don't think we should have started it, but to call it conspiracy, to say it's institutionalized oppression and evil, to imply it's being fought to keep our prices down. That's insult to all of us. We're capable of mistakes, just like everyone. It may be difficult to admit that, but there is no excuse for coming up with nonsensical reasons for a simple mistake just so you can rationalize your particular point of view. On the subject of democracy, of course it's corrupted it. Our democratic system is an afterthought. That is a problem, a fixable one. It's no excuse to deviate toward the extreme. One thing most people don't realize is that democracy is not the cornerstone of the U.S. Our cornerstone is the constitution and the idea that the government shalt not meddle in the affairs of the people. The common good doesn't exist here. You make for yourself, you work for yourself. It's difficult, it's trying and it's dangerous, but that's what being in a free society is all about. Having things handed to you, that doesn't work. Eventually the handouts stop. What you can always rely on is yourself, and that's what you're supposed to rely on in a free society. That's why capitalism works for us, our entire doctrine is based around the idea that the individual trumps the whole. You act like capitalism is this big oppressive machine, but you forget that the consumer vastly outnumbers the machine. And the wrath of the consumer, well documented over the years, is unforgiving. Entire corporations have been toppled by simple ethical quandaries. Empires have been built on convenience and price, but only with the PERMISSION of the consumer. We do not work for the corporations, the corporations work for us. That is what capitalism is about. Competition is always open, there is always a choice in products, and even though it can take a while for capitalist reform, it happens. Not by the hands of the incompetent government regulatory systems, but by the hands, or more fittingly, feet of the consumer, walking away from the conglomerates that betray them. It's our culture, it's our lifestyle, and it works. There's plenty of things bad about the world. The more you try to fix them, the more bad things you cause. Live with what you have, that's the idea. [quote]Tell me, oh little libertarian, what is so great about capitalism in this light, and subsequently in reality? Honestly, this is what makes me proud to say socialism is about helping the common man, not the top wealthy 1% of the population.[/QUOTE] Tell me, oh little socialist, what is so great about socialism in this light, and subsequently in reality? Honestly, this is what makes me proud to be a Libertarian. It's about giving the power to the common man, not the government. Power to the people, even if we don't use it. [editline]08:13PM[/editline] Maybe you should WAIT five goddamn minutes while I write an essay rivaling yours. [editline]08:14PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;15949754]And here we see the heart (or lack of it) and mind of the typical Ayn Randist. Chippay sums up libertarianism and ayn rand pretty well, 'fuck you i got mine'. In addition, it's their hard labor that let's you live the way you do, I'm afraid. So, I'm guessing you have nothing to answer the rest of my argument with if you're stuck attacking this one tiny bit.[/QUOTE] If you can't earn yours, so be it. I earned mine. That's more accurate.

Oh jesus I knew it would come to this. I'm out of here. I have an evening to spend.

bush is actually evil (though I hate to use that term because it's so often used as an absolute in foreign policy) because he caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands out of personal ambition but hey the real crime is his incompetency and inability to successfully sell the war to the public :v:

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;15950286]bush is actually evil (though I hate to use that term because it's so often used as an absolute in foreign policy) because he caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands out of personal ambition but hey the real crime is his incompetency and inability to successfully sell the war to the public :v:[/QUOTE] Thanks for reading [editline]08:25PM[/editline] Also TL;DR Socialism only leads to a more powerful class struggle

[QUOTE=Lankist;15950208] You act like capitalism is this big oppressive machine, but you forget that the consumer vastly outnumbers the machine. And the wrath of the consumer, well documented over the years, is unforgiving. Entire corporations have been toppled by simple ethical quandaries. Empires have been built on convenience and price, but only with the PERMISSION of the consumer. We do not work for the corporations, the corporations work for us. That is what capitalism is about. Competition is always open, there is always a choice in products, and even though it can take a while for capitalist reform, it happens. Not by the hands of the incompetent government regulatory systems, but by the hands, or more fittingly, feet of the consumer, walking away from the conglomerates that betray them. .[/QUOTE] Wait, if you think that we, as the consumer, actually have a chance to manipulate corporations then... uh no, that's not how it works. If so, where's my electric car? I think GM had one but oh it disappeared. Right, Oil Industry interest. Why does my shit break every goddamn month/why is nothing I can afford built to last? Right, profit. Why is almost everything now imported from China? Right, the lowest price goes... Why do commercials try to suggest that whatever is on display is something I totally need? Right... Profit. Why is it, that I have to get pills for my illness that trigger bad side effects so I need even more pills? Profit. Why is it, that I never get what I actually want? Because I don't count. What counts is the mass and the profit that can be extracted from it.

Stop buying oil-powered cars. There are electric cars. Once the masses as a whole demand something, it will be accommodated. You can't call capitalism shit because it doesn't give you everything you want and a pony. To sit down and say "I have no power," you have nobody to blame for the failures of capitalism but yourself. Protest, lobby, be active. Sitting down and saying "shit sucks, we need a new system," makes you USELESS. Nobody will listen to a useless, whiny kid who does that kind of shit. If you want something, take it or make it. If there is no demand, make a demand. Nobody is going to stop you. It WILL cost you money, you WILL risk a lot. That's the fucking point. If an electric car isn't important enough for you to take a big risk, it isn't important enough to make. [editline]08:33PM[/editline] Welcome to reality, kid. Shit doesn't always go your way. Quit bitching about it and do something. Do you know how long it takes for reform? You need to dedicate your life to that shit. You won't get fuck all if you're lazy like that. And how the FUCK can we, the people, trust in your idea of government for the betterment of the whole if you're too fucking lazy to make a go for the betterment of one? What makes you think you can solve massive geopolitical problems if you can't even fucking try.

[QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]You're seriously going to compare capitalism to feudalism and slavers of centuries passed? [/quote] Apparently you didn't read my post. As I explained, capitalism is part of a natural development of society and socialism is simply the next step. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]You see, when you start trying to define classes, telling people just how successful they can be for themselves and how much power they can wield out of their own volition, you start removing power from the general common man all together.[/quote] False. When I 'define' classes, I show the machinery behind every aspect of society, and explain how and why it works the way it does. This bit of your post is just a bit of idealism. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]You remove the potential of power to the people because you're afraid of people who have interests that do not align with yours.[/quote] :dogout: [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]No, instead you'd rather pretend government as a whole is both willing and capable of regulating both economy and ethics for the sake and benefit of the common man.[/quote] No I don't. Socialists want to tear down the old society and construct a new one, not reform the current. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]You seem to think that's any DIFFERENT than corruption in Capitalism when it isn't! You give a CEO massive power over millions, that's not any different than giving an armchair politician in charge of regulation that sort of power. You want to pretend capitalism is about slavery and socialist (totalitarian) government is not?[/quote] So you admit that capitalism means inevitable corruption and practical slavery. At least you're getting somewhere. Socialism is only as totalitarian as the system before it, where one class rules another (in the case, the proletariat, the majority of the population who have been mistreated for a long time, rule the bourgeoisie, who are, and god forbid me for this idea, forced to work alongside other workers and produce their own wealth). In the end, socialists want a system where there are no classes, and therefore no contradictions in society. That would be, communism. You socialism = 1984 argument is one big fallacy. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]Yet again that idea of "the common good" sprouts up. Working not for yourself but the advancement of everyone. But when you try to advance everyone, you advance no one.[/quote] False. Working for the common good is one reason to labor (although I think it would be part of some socialist revolutionary spirit), there are many others, such as when you realize that [b]you absolutely rely on society to satisfy your needs[/b] and that in order to sustain that society you must help provide for everyone else, too. So, in a way, socialism warps self-interest to work for people, just like hunter-gather societies used to function, when it was in an individual's interest to work together with others to live. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]In totalitarianism, the incompetent leaders "elected," placed or inherited are the dominant class. You can pretend you want a classless society but when you actually try, you end up with two classes. Those with all of the power and those with none, and you're entrusting that power on the pretense that it will be used for the benefit of all. What happens when that melts away? When the interests of one group of citizens begins to trump another? What happens when the regulatory commissions decide the advancement of the whole relies more upon Citizen A than it does Citizen B? What precisely is to stop them from letting Citizen B starve to death?[/quote] This argument is a fallacy because of the abstract libertarian view that people are divided between the government and the people. As I've demonstrated, quite without the vast idealism you have, this is not true and it is very much something else. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]Classes aren't created. You act like there were "feudal lords" somewhere who sat down one day and said "here's how this shit's going to work."[/quote] They are, created from actions of people and interests of groups of people. Hunter-gatherer societies created classes when they enslaved captured prisoners and such to work their means of production (in this case, agriculture). If you think that's what I was saying, you're mistaken. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]Classes are unavoidable, it's part of human nature.[/quote] Explain to me why hunter-gatherer societies, which are classless and stateless (and are also called primitive communism), functioned so well for hundreds and hundreds of years. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]There is no denying the advantage of one over the other in the human condition. Even if you try to eliminate all classes, make everyone equal, there will eventually rise a common value among a group of citizens. That common value, be that work ethic, morality, religion or mathematics and science, will unite a ruling class. The class everyone else will willingly depend upon for the things out of that reach.[/quote] I am not trying to eliminate classes, I am arguing that there is a [b]natural development[/b] leading to a stateless, classless society. Marxists are not arbitrary gods, we are not the ones creating socialism and communism. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]Capitalists are typically smart enough to realize the class struggle[/quote] True. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]is an inherent part of humanity.[/quote] False. I would argue that this is simply an argument that simply exists just to justify capitalism. Again, explain to me how hunter-gatherer societies worked with a lack of class struggle. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]There will always be those on top, those in the middle and those at bottom. It isn't pretty, it isn't fun or happy, but it just is.[/quote] See above. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]I'm not going to argue fucking Marxist physics with you.[/quote] Which is why I'm more then happy to call you an idealist. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]I already said what I thought the Iraq war was about. It's too easy to say it's conspiracy, it's capitalist evil or socialist meddling. What's difficult to admit is that, as much as I hate Bush, he isn't evil. He isn't menacing. He is incompetent. He did what he thought best, and he thought wrong. I don't like the war, I don't think we should have started it, but to call it conspiracy, to say it's institutionalized oppression and evil, to imply it's being fought to keep our prices down. That's insult to all of us. We're capable of mistakes, just like everyone. It may be difficult to admit that, but there is no excuse for coming up with nonsensical reasons for a simple mistake just so you can rationalize your particular point of view.[/quote] This is ridiculous and is blatantly ignoring something quite obvious. Defense contractors and oil companies are very much big constituents of our economy (bush himself was a shareholder). To blatantly ignore evidence that the state and government act in the interest of the dominant class is to blatantly ignore history and science. I suppose it's just a coincidence that 64 of Iraq's 81 oil fields are now up for sale to foreign investors, and that defense contractors were busy making millions because of the Iraq war. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]On the subject of democracy, of course it's corrupted it. Our democratic system is an afterthought. That is a problem, a fixable one. It's no excuse to deviate toward the extreme. One thing most people don't realize is that democracy is not the cornerstone of the U.S. Our cornerstone is the constitution and the idea that the government shalt not meddle in the affairs of the people. The common good doesn't exist here. You make for yourself, you work for yourself. It's difficult, it's trying and it's dangerous, but that's what being in a free society is all about. Having things handed to you, that doesn't work. Eventually the handouts stop. What you can always rely on is yourself, and that's what you're supposed to rely on in a free society. That's why capitalism works for us, our entire doctrine is based around the idea that the individual trumps the whole.[/quote] So you admit capitalism had corrupted our democracy but then argue that our constitution, for some arbitrary reason, wouldn't be considered second priority either? I quote the [i]Washington Post[/i] on the repression of the socialists in the first red scare: [quote]There is no time to waste on hairsplitting over [the] infringement of liberty[/quote] [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]You act like capitalism is this big oppressive machine, but you forget that the consumer vastly outnumbers the machine. And the wrath of the consumer, well documented over the years, is unforgiving. Entire corporations have been toppled by simple ethical quandaries. Empires have been built on convenience and price, but only with the PERMISSION of the consumer. We do not work for the corporations, the corporations work for us. That is what capitalism is about. Competition is always open, there is always a choice in products, and even though it can take a while for capitalist reform, it happens. Not by the hands of the incompetent government regulatory systems, but by the hands, or more fittingly, feet of the consumer, walking away from the conglomerates that betray them.[/quote] What about the times where capitalists purposefully lowered production in alliance with others so they all could make insane profits from the rapid rise in prices? You say consumers hold power over corporations, let us not forget that most of them are also workers. If any significant consumer movement developed about say, green technology, it would be responded to with force probably means of firing any workers that take part in this movement or any other way. Consumers hold about as much power over corporations as corporations do over us. So we can conclude in this light that classes control society, not some arbitrary group of consumers. Your argument is filled to the brim with idealism. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]It's our culture, it's our lifestyle, and it works. There's plenty of things bad about the world. The more you try to fix them, the more bad things you cause. Live with what you have, that's the idea.[/quote] More idealism. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]Tell me, oh little socialist, what is so great about socialism in this light, and subsequently in reality?[/quote] You might actually want to try turning on the light. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]Honestly, this is what makes me proud to be a Libertarian. It's about giving the power to the common man, not the government. Power to the people, even if we don't use it.[/QUOTE] That statement is what makes me proud you call you an idealist and myself a realist.

Thanks for giving a series of 2 word replies to quotes taken out of context! What, are you incapable of writing another big essay on this shit? I expect a coherent point, not a series of fifty small ones. That hold no relevant counterpoint. [editline]08:43PM[/editline] Or are you just incapable of RESPONDING to one? [editline]08:45PM[/editline] [quote]More idealism.[/quote] Idealism? Ha! And the concept of "destroying the class barriers for the common man" ISN'T idealism.

[QUOTE=Lankist;15950604]Thanks for giving a series of 2 word replies to quotes taken out of context! What, are you incapable of writing another big essay on this shit? I expect a coherent point, not a series of fifty small ones. That hold no relevant counterpoint. [editline]08:43PM[/editline] Or are you just incapable of RESPONDING to one? [editline]08:45PM[/editline][/quote] I answered all of your points, even the minor ones. Come back to me when you actually want to debate. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]Idealism? Ha! And the concept of "destroying the class barriers for the common man" ISN'T idealism.[/QUOTE] Apparently not if humans have lived, and haven't biologically changed since then, in a classless, stateless society.

[QUOTE=Conscript;15950657]I answered all of your points, even the minor ones. Come back to me when you actually want to debate.[/QUOTE] Compile your points into a single, coherent essay like your first one and I will. I'm not going to quote you fifty goddamn times per post, nor am I going to address 50 sub-arguments. If you can't write more than a single sentence on a single point, you are a great disappointment after I got my hopes up and wrote that whole thing.

[QUOTE=Lankist;15950682]Compile your points into a single, coherent essay like your first one and I will. I'm not going to quote you fifty goddamn times per post, nor am I going to address 50 sub-arguments.[/QUOTE] Your big paragraphs were a bunch of points, some of which weren't even related to eachother, in a big mess. I split them up individually and rebutted them. Sorry I organized your big mess a little. If you don't even have the patience to read through someone arguments, that's your problem. I decided to bear with your idealism and read through your big mess of an essay then cleaned up and organized it. You could at least read my points. Maybe you shouldn't have gotten into politics if you don't have the patience to listen to the other side. That's kind of a big part of it I'm afraid. So remember to come back to me when you want to debate and not bitch.

[QUOTE=Lankist;15950441]Stop buying oil-powered cars. There are electric cars. Once the masses as a whole demand something, it will be accommodated. You can't call capitalism shit because it doesn't give you everything you want and a pony. To sit down and say "I have no power," you have nobody to blame for the failures of capitalism but yourself. Protest, lobby, be active. Sitting down and saying "shit sucks, we need a new system," makes you USELESS. Nobody will listen to a useless, whiny kid who does that kind of shit. If you want something, take it or make it. If there is no demand, make a demand. Nobody is going to stop you. It WILL cost you money, you WILL risk a lot. That's the fucking point. If an electric car isn't important enough for you to take a big risk, it isn't important enough to make.[/QUOTE] Wait just to set things straight. Aren't you supposed to talk me out of this since capitalism is TEH BEST EVOR!!1 ? How can I manifest my ideas if there are people like you who won't accept anything but the status quo? [QUOTE=Lankist;15950441]Welcome to reality, kid. Shit doesn't always go your way. Quit bitching about it and do something. Do you know how long it takes for reform? You need to dedicate your life to that shit. You won't get fuck all if you're lazy like that. And how the FUCK can we, the people, trust in your idea of government [/QUOTE] Well, YOU the people are already delusional enough to happily accept a system that grants mystical powers to paper with numbers on it so... [QUOTE=Lankist;15950441]for the betterment of the whole if you're too fucking lazy to make a go for the betterment of one? What makes you think you can solve massive geopolitical problems if you can't even fucking try.[/QUOTE] Um, I stated my ideas of a new system before. Go find them. And as I said, it will take centuries before anything moves into that direction. Or billions of years, if they're all thinking like you. Also how contradicting is this? You advertise how flexible Capitalism is to the consumers wish and now you tell me that well, if I want something but I don't receive it, it's tough luck?

[QUOTE=Conscript;15950712]Your big paragraphs were a bunch of points, some of which weren't even related to eachother, in a big mess. I split them up individually and rebutted them. Sorry I organized your big mess a little. If you don't even have the patience to read through someone arguments, that's your problem. I decided to bear with your idealism and read through your big mess of an essay then cleaned up and organized it. You could at least read my points. So remember to come back to me when you want to debate and not bitch.[/QUOTE] I've read them. Bullshit like pretending hunter-gatherer societies are an example of a successful classless society. Completely ignoring the fact that hunter-gatherer societies were NOT classless. They quickly evolved to host different classes of individuals, like the hunters who could eventually rise to the level of shaman, and the women who just sat there like cum dumpsters most of the time. Classes are inevitable. To prevent them is simple tyranny, and all you'll do is abuse all of the classes at once. You call me an idealist? Fucking please! You're citing HUNTER GATHERER SOCIETY as a success story for communism! I alone can prove this. I won't stand for the Classless Status Quo. I will do everything in my power to rise above you and all the rest. Go ahead, stop me. Under your system of government, what would be the punishment for the exceptional, charismatic or generally discontent minority, striving not for you but for themselves? The people not satisfied with your bullshit. What would you do to stop them? In addition to that, you ask me to explain why hunter-gatherer was successful, when it WASN'T. They don't exist anymore. Care to explain to me why? See, from what I can gather, it's because hunter-gatherer societies only support numbers in the dozens, possibly hundreds if you're lucky, before interest groups began sprouting up. You think you can "tear down the established order" and rebuild fucking HUNTER-GATHERER? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. FYI, the charismatic, talented individuals are what destroyed the Hunter Gatherer societies. [editline]08:59PM[/editline] [QUOTE=drive_the_hive;15950727]Wait just to set things straight. Aren't you supposed to talk me out of this since capitalism is TEH BEST EVOR!!1 ? How can I manifest my ideas if there are people like you who won't accept anything but the status quo? Well, YOU the people are already delusional enough to happily accept a system that grants mystical powers to paper with numbers on it so... Um, I stated my ideas of a new system before. Go find them. And as I said, it will take centuries before anything moves into that direction. Or billions of years, if they're all thinking like you.[/QUOTE] I said neither capitalism is the most efficient or the most likable. It is, however, the most fair in the sense of personal liberty and choice. You refuse to acknowledge your own laziness, instead preferring to go on these diatribes on moneyless society like Star Trek is fucking reality. Your ideas for a new system are both extremely lacking in foresight and hindsight. You're a child. You simply don't understand the systems with which you champion on the fucking internet. Riddle me this, what sort of education do you have that qualifies you for such a radical and poorly constructed suggestion?

[QUOTE=Lankist;15950750]I've read them. Bullshit like pretending hunter-gatherer societies are an example of a successful classless society. Completely ignoring the fact that hunter-gatherer societies were NOT classless. They quickly evolved to host different classes of individuals, like the hunters who could eventually rise to the level of shaman, and the women who just sat there like cum dumpsters most of the time.[/quote] Classes are distinguished based on their relation to the means of production. In the case of hunter-gatherer societies, that was the land. At the time, that was labor-intensive and not very productive, so it was very necessary for people to work together to survive. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]In addition to that, you ask me to explain why hunter-gatherer was successful, when it WASN'T. They don't exist anymore. Care to explain to me why? See, from what I can gather, it's because hunter-gatherer societies only support numbers in the dozens, possibly hundreds if you're lucky, before interest groups began sprouting up. You think you can "tear down the established order" and rebuild fucking HUNTER-GATHERER? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.[/QUOTE] Um, it obviously was if we're still here today and a society existed based on such features. Hunter-gatherer societies couldn't support many in a society because the lack of advanced means of production. Agriculture, an advancement in the means of production, solved that. You're not even addressing my argument anymore. When did I say I want hunter-gatherer societies? Have you run out of arguments? [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]FYI, the charismatic, talented individuals are what destroyed the Hunter-Gatherer societies.[/quote] That doesn't even make sense. Running out of arguments?

[QUOTE=Lankist;15950750]I've read them. Bullshit like pretending hunter-gatherer societies are an example of a successful classless society. Completely ignoring the fact that hunter-gatherer societies were NOT classless. They quickly evolved to host different classes of individuals, like the hunters who could eventually rise to the level of shaman, and the women who just sat there like cum dumpsters most of the time. Classes are inevitable. To prevent them is simple tyranny, and all you'll do is abuse all of the classes at once. You call me an idealist? Fucking please! You're citing HUNTER GATHERER SOCIETY as a success story for communism! I alone can prove this. I won't stand for the Classless Status Quo. I will do everything in my power to rise above you and all the rest. Go ahead, stop me. Under your system of government, what would be the punishment for the exceptional, charismatic or generally discontent minority, striving not for you but for themselves? The people not satisfied with your bullshit. What would you do to stop them? In addition to that, you ask me to explain why hunter-gatherer was successful, when it WASN'T. They don't exist anymore. Care to explain to me why? See, from what I can gather, it's because hunter-gatherer societies only support numbers in the dozens, possibly hundreds if you're lucky, before interest groups began sprouting up. You think you can "tear down the established order" and rebuild fucking HUNTER-GATHERER? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. FYI, the charismatic, talented individuals are what destroyed the Hunter Gatherer societies.[/QUOTE] Wait five minutes. If you aren't going to write charismatic, passionate diatribes, goddamnit I will! [editline]09:05PM[/editline] Both of those points have already been addressed. Hunter Gatherer society was destroyed from the inside out and replaced with class-based feudal society. That happened for a reason. There is no reversing it. The reason they disappeared back then is the same for why they would disappear now.

[QUOTE=Lankist;15950838] Both of those points have already been addressed. Hunter Gatherer society was destroyed from the inside out and replaced with class-based feudal society. That happened for a reason. There is no reversing it. The reason they disappeared back then is the same for why they would disappear now.[/QUOTE] So you're basically just ignoring the scientific reasons I put out for why they faded out and replacing them with your own. Good job. What do you have to say about Native American tribes? What about the Paris Commune? Both are examples of collectivism and egalitarianism in practice thousands of years after hunter-gatherer societies.

And they're all extinct. [editline]09:08PM[/editline] Gone. Replaced. For a reason. I'd like you to address that reason. [editline]09:09PM[/editline] Rate dumb all you want, you are still ignoring that.

[QUOTE=Lankist;15950881]And they're all extinct. [editline]09:08PM[/editline] Gone. Replaced. For a reason. I'd like you to address that reason.[/QUOTE] I already have. But you won't read them because you'd rather bitch about me making a long post. Face it, I tore your stupid arguments to pieces and now you're just in denial.

[QUOTE=Lankist;15950750] I said neither capitalism is the most efficient or the most likable. It is, however, the most fair in the sense of personal liberty and choice.[/QUOTE] It isn't. I get what I can pay for. Where's the choice in this? The choice is already laid out infront of me. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950750]You refuse to acknowledge your own laziness, instead preferring to go on these diatribes on moneyless society like Star Trek is fucking reality.[/QUOTE] What do you mean by laziness? You don't know anything about me. I just finished high school and I'm on my way to University in September. (Master in Law is my goal, if you want to know.) I'm in my holidays and I could say I damn well deserved the leisure but no, I have a 40 hours / week job and I work overtime to get the extra buck. I'm not lazy at all and I make quite a profit but if I look at the world then all I can see is a broken paradise full of manipulated wishes. I've read alto of books concerning Utopias and new systems and I've stumbled upon many well designed systems. You, however, don't know anything about them and instantly assume that I'm as uninformed about the subject as are you. Which I am not, mind you. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950750]Your ideas for a new system are both extremely lacking in foresight and hindsight. You're a child. [/QUOTE] My post was obviously small and quickly written to get my basic points across in a rapidly growing thread. Also the above and also I am not a child. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950750]You simply don't understand the systems with which you champion on the fucking internet. Riddle me this, what sort of education do you have that qualifies you for such a radical and poorly constructed suggestion?[/QUOTE] At this point I really lose the will to argue. If all you can do is talk your opponent down without raising valid points then I'm out of the debate.

[QUOTE=Conscript;15950907]I already have. But you won't read them because you'd rather bitch about me making a long post.[/QUOTE] I have read it. You didn't account for the exceptional and the exceptionally discontent. Those discontent enough with the established order to impose themselves and their will on both the government and the masses. How do you think the USSR came to be corrupt? Why do you think the Paris Commune and Native Tribes were eradicated? There was somebody bigger and better than them, doing bigger things for bigger purposes. It's all fun and nice to imagine living in a simpler world, but that's what fantasy novels are for. Citing the Paris Commune and the Native Tribes, THAT is idealism. Why? Because you ignore the fact that both the cited events ended in utter failure for that party. There will always be the exceptional and the exceptionally discontent. They are the source of both justice and corruption. All governments and systems are susceptible to corruption. You act like I'm pretending Capitalism isn't. It is. Then again, it's much more difficult to corrupt with its massive series of checks, balances and competitions. Much more difficult than, say, a fucking Hunter Gatherer society, living in equality and harmony. All it takes is one person, one person smarter, stronger or better to through that idealist little system out of balance. Harrison Bergeron comes to mind.

Drive_the_hive I wouldn't even bother. He'll bitch or insult you before he'll debate.

[QUOTE=Lankist;15950881]And they're all extinct. [editline]09:08PM[/editline] Gone. Replaced. For a reason. I'd like you to address that reason.[/QUOTE] White mans greed?

[QUOTE=drive_the_hive;15950950]It isn't. I get what I can pay for. Where's the choice in this? The choice is already laid out infront of me.[/quote] Uhh, that's socialism, not capitalism. Capitalism involves mass competition. It doesn't matter what product you want, there's always more than one provider. You can support your choice, or support none at all. The masses decide the sway of the economy. [quote]What do you mean by laziness? You don't know anything about me. I just finished high school and I'm on my way to University in September. (Master in Law is my goal, if you want to know.) I'm in my holidays and I could say I damn well deserved the leisure but no, I have an 40 hours / week job and I work overtime to get the extra buck. I'm not lazy at all and I make quite a profit but if I look at the world then all I can see is a broken paradise full of manipulated wishes. I've read alto of books concerning Utopias and new systems and I've stumbled upon many well designed systems. You, however, don't know anything about them and instantly assume that I'm as uninformed about the subject as are you. Which I am not, mind you.[/quote] Oooo, you're on your way to Law School! I've been through it. You're lazy in that instead of fighting for reform, you sit down on the internet and say reform is useless. This is fucking America. Stand the fuck up and fight against whatever injustice a specific corporation has committed against you or shut up about it. You have the right and the ability to protest, lobby and gather supporters. The fact that you DON'T, that's your fault. [quote]My post was obviously small and quickly written to get my basic points across in a rapidly growing thread. Also the above and also I am not a child. [/quote] Yes you are. [quote]At this point I really lose the will to argue. If all you can do is talk your opponent down without raising valid points then I'm out of the debate.[/QUOTE] I've raised a great many valid points you do not wish to acknowledge, not the least of which is what troubles most of you new-age anti-establishment types, personal responsibility. If you want something, take it. You're pissed at the system for not giving you all the shit you want and a pony. [editline]09:20PM[/editline] [QUOTE=drive_the_hive;15950982]White mans greed?[/QUOTE] White man didn't exist during Hunter Gatherer. It's exceptional individuals that destroy unexceptionable civilizations like classless Hunter Gatherer bullshit. It's exceptional individuals that build a society that goes to the fucking moon. [editline]09:21PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;15950977]Drive_the_hive I wouldn't even bother. He'll bitch or insult you before he'll debate.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lankist;15950971]I have read it. You didn't account for the exceptional and the exceptionally discontent. Those discontent enough with the established order to impose themselves and their will on both the government and the masses. How do you think the USSR came to be corrupt? Why do you think the Paris Commune and Native Tribes were eradicated? There was somebody bigger and better than them, doing bigger things for bigger purposes. It's all fun and nice to imagine living in a simpler world, but that's what fantasy novels are for. Citing the Paris Commune and the Native Tribes, THAT is idealism. Why? Because you ignore the fact that both the cited events ended in utter failure for that party. There will always be the exceptional and the exceptionally discontent. They are the source of both justice and corruption. All governments and systems are susceptible to corruption. You act like I'm pretending Capitalism isn't. It is. Then again, it's much more difficult to corrupt with its massive series of checks, balances and competitions. Much more difficult than, say, a fucking Hunter Gatherer society, living in equality and harmony. All it takes is one person, one person smarter, stronger or better to through that idealist little system out of balance. Harrison Bergeron comes to mind.[/QUOTE] Just like Chippay, when you reach a corner you turn around and start throwing personal insults instead of acknowledging the argument.

[QUOTE=Lankist;15950971]I have read it. You didn't account for the exceptional and the exceptionally discontent. Those discontent enough with the established order to impose themselves and their will on both the government and the masses. [/quote] This is why I call you an idealist. You cite fictitious traits of something abstract like 'charismatic individuals' and blatantly ignore fact about the scientific laws of society & societal advancement. It's a slap in the face. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]How do you think the USSR came to be corrupt?[/quote] Trying to build socialism in a feudal country. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]Why do you think the Paris Commune and Native Tribes were eradicated?[/quote] The former was smashed by the capitalist french state and the latter by territorial imperialism. So much for your abstract natural trait or the society can't be understood in depth argument. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]There was somebody bigger and better than them, doing bigger things for bigger purposes.[/quote] Haha. Pull another one out of your ass [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]It's all fun and nice to imagine living in a simpler world, but that's what fantasy novels are for. Citing the Paris Commune and the Native Tribes, THAT is idealism. Why? Because you ignore the fact that both the cited events ended in utter failure for that party.[/quote] No, it's idealism when you argue about abstract ideas of something 'bigger and better' that you can't even prove. This is why society can only be understood by a scientific approach, lest we fall into the realm of confusing and contradictory idealism. [QUOTE=Lankist;15950208]There will always be the exceptional and the exceptionally discontent. They are the source of both justice and corruption. All governments and systems are susceptible to corruption. You act like I'm pretending Capitalism isn't. It is. Then again, it's much more difficult to corrupt with its massive series of checks, balances and competitions. Much more difficult than, say, a fucking Hunter Gatherer society, living in equality and harmony. All it takes is one person, one person smarter, stronger or better to through that idealist little system out of balance.[/quote] You're completely ignoring my arguments in favor of more idealism. In case you were wondering, I call you an idealist because you don't try to debate scientific fact but instead delve into abstract ideas about 'the unknown' part of society and how we apparently can never understand that. Marxism begs to differ. Although you were rather ignore that.

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.