[QUOTE=Conscript;15951073]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]
Hitler. Not fictional. Did just that. Arose to power through charisma, ironically on the label of socialist, and built the foundation for an empire. You can argue his ethics, but you can't argue his success. He's the perfect example of exceptional discontents as a destructive force.
[quote]Trying to build socialism in a feudal country.[/quote]
Eh, wrong. Between incompetence and the inability to fucking farm, special interests quickly took over both law and politics, amounting in nothing better than Capitalism in the form of ideas, rather than money, and the government's domination over those ideas.
Next you're going to tell be the USSR was both ethical and gave a shit about its people.
[quote]The former was smashed by the capitalist paris state and the latter by territorial imperialism. So much for your abstract natural trait argument.[/quote]
Yes. They were destroyed by a more successful system. What the fuck makes you think that wouldn't happen again?
[quote]Haha. Pull another one out of your ass[/quote]
If the "capitalist paris state and territorial imperialism" weren't bigger and better, why the fuck did they win?
[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]
All of a sudden you're throwing the word "science" around. Do explain where this came from. SCIENTIFICALLY, all of your citations are civilizations that are now extinct, destroyed by larger, more successful opponents. To deny this is fairly unscientific.
[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.[/QUOTE]
You keep throwing around the word "idealism" as though it invalidates anything I've said. Then you go on to say shit like "Marxism begs to differ." Yeah, because it has such a great track record. Stop saying "Idealism" and start saying why it's fucking wrong.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951025]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.[/QUOTE]
And that is a problem. In the battle for low prices and sales, morals and quality are left behind.
Something I don't want.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951025]You can support your choice, or support none at all. The masses decide the sway of the economy.[/QUOTE]
The mass can't afford any extravagant wishes at the moment so shit keeps getting shittier. And as we can see, the economy a tool that is too powerful to hand it out to the masses. So we overcome economy. I'm not gonna cite any Utopias because you wouldn't read them anyway.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951025]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]
See, there you go and categorize me again. I'm not in America and at this moment neither do I have the time nor the energy to fight against Capitalism because I need all of it to survive in it. And if it involves fighting against dimwits like you then I'd rather swallow the bitter pill.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951025]Yes you are.[/QUOTE]
Well, Hurf durf. If you can't defeat me in a debate and I'm a child then the joke's on you.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951025]I've raised a great many valid points you do not wish to acknowledge, [/QUOTE]
Welcome to the club.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951025]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.[/QUOTE]
I'm not pissed at the system because it's unable to fulfill my wishes. I just happen know that there are better alternatives than Capitalism and I'm slightly irritated that I'm being called out for mentioning them.
[QUOTE=drive_the_hive;15951274]And that is a problem. In the battle for low prices and sales, morals and quality are left behind.
Something I don't want.
You can support your choice, or support none at all. The masses decide the sway of the economy.
The mass can't afford any extravagant wishes at the moment so shit keeps getting shittier.[/QUOTE]
If you don't like the quality, shell out a few more bucks for the higher quality product.
You want MORALITY in legislation? Please. That's the first step toward genocide.
[editline]09:37PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=drive_the_hive;15951274]I'm not pissed at the system because it's unable to fulfill my wishes. I just happen know that there are better alternatives than Capitalism and I'm slightly irritated that I'm being called out for mentioning them.[/QUOTE]
And yet your only suggestion is "NO MORE MONEY" with no current successes to cite, and no presented reason to believe a system of bartering would just resurface.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951139]Hitler. Not fictional. Did just that.[/quote]
Hitler was not delivered by god and suddenly had all of the german's support. There is an in depth reason why he came to power, and that all starts with the loss of power of the german bourgeoisie because of the Versailles treaty. There's a reason why Lenin called fascism 'capitalism in crisis'.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951139]Eh, wrong. Between incompetence and the inability to fucking farm, special interests quickly took over both law and politics, amounting in nothing better than Capitalism in the form of ideas, rather than money, and the government's domination over those ideas.[/quote]
Half right. The Bolsheviks took on the responsibility of finishing the capitalist revolution in russia and industrializing it. It started with the NEP, and when that failed, the Soviet State took on the responsibility of playing the role of the capitalist. This was state capitalism, not socialism. The Bolshevik party, leader of the state since no workers' democracy could be developed in an agrarian economy, quickly became lost to political careerists and bureaucrats. The end result was that yet another government succumbed to capital interests and capitalism.
That big fallacy in your argument is that you're trying to imagine an individual under capitalism thinking and acting similar in the other system we've been discussing. This is wrong, as people and human nature are products of the environment.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951139]Yes. They were destroyed by a more successful system. What the fuck makes you think that wouldn't happen again?[/quote]
How are we defining successful now? How well it enslaves and oppresses others? Well then I guess a dictatorship is the most successful system. You're a terrific libertarian.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951139]If the "capitalist paris state and territorial imperialism" weren't bigger and better, why the fuck did they win?[/quote]
Read above.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951139]All of a sudden you're throwing the word "science" around. Do explain where this came from. SCIENTIFICALLY, all of your citations are civilizations that are now extinct, destroyed by larger, more successful opponents. To deny this is fairly unscientific.[/quote]
It's not all of a sudden, I've been saying this for a while. Read up on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism]Dialectical materialism[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism]Historical Materialism[/url]. Both of these are the scientific methods that marx and engels used to analyze how and why we've progressed from one system to another. It revealed many general scientific laws of progression, similar to laws in other sciences.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951139]You keep throwing around the word "idealism" as though it invalidates anything I've said. Then you go on to say shit like "Marxism begs to differ." Yeah, because it has such a great track record.[/QUOTE]
If you don't think being an idealist (especially when you're arguing against someone who looks at society in a scientific point of view) doesn't invalidate what you say, then you either don't know what idealism is or you really don't care about this. I'm figuring the latter based on the quality of your posts.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951292]If you don't like the quality, shell out a few more bucks for the higher quality product.
You want MORALITY in legislation? Please. That's the first step toward genocide.
[editline]09:37PM[/editline]
And yet your only suggestion is "NO MORE MONEY" with no current successes to cite, and no presented reason to believe a system of bartering would just resurface.[/QUOTE]
No, not even bartering. Jesus. NO ECONOMY AT ALL. No trade, no barter, no money.
You get what you want and need but you don't mess up.
It wouldn't work today or in a hundred years because we cannot live in a system like this because we're still primitive.
Should we ever overcome greed, we can establish a system far better than Capitalism. A system, designed to last. A system, which won't trip on itself every now and then and leave everyone in its ruins.
Don't even counterargue because I[I] know [/I]that you think it is impossible because you are the non-plus-ultra primitive capitalist.
[editline]03:47AM[/editline]
I will go into details if you wish. Ask me about it.
[QUOTE=Conscript;15951326]Hitler was not delivered by god and suddenly had all of the german's support. There is an in depth reason why he came to power, and that all starts with the loss of power of the german bourgeoisie because of the Versailles treaty. There's a reason why Lenin called fascism 'capitalism in crisis'.[/quote]
That doesn't negate the fact that he, an exceptionally intelligent discontent, destroyed an entire established order and shaped a new one in his image.
[quote]Half right. The Bolsheviks took on the responsibility of finishing the capitalist revolution in russia and industrializing it. It started with the NEP, and when that failed, the Soviet State took on the responsibility of playing the role of the capitalist. This was state capitalism, not socialism. The Bolshevik party, leader of the state since no workers' democracy could be developed in an agrarian economy, quickly became lost to political careerists and bureaucrats. The end result was that yet another government succumbed to capital interests and capitalism. [/quote]
I don't agree with the "half right" but we'll go with it. Let's assume it's only half right. That still demonstrates the inherent vulnerability and instability in a socialist regime. It takes one single event to take it down and rebuild another society.
From a purely pragmatic view. No philosophy, no morality: How do you think a socialist society could possibly survive?
Not even China is socialist anymore. They're Capitalists, closet capitalists but capitalists all the same, and they were the ones who got pissed at Russia for straying away from Marxism! It seems Marx got his evolution backwards.
[quote]That big fallacy in your argument is that you're trying to imagine an individual under capitalism thinking and acting similar in the other system we've been discussing. This is wrong, as people and human nature are products of the environment.[/quote]
It doesn't matter what environment you put a human in, there are always some undeniable traits. Violence, war, revolution and classes are among them. Humans will always inherently shuffle themselves in to groups based on pragmatic usefulness. There is no way to prevent this short of totalitarian reign and genocide.
[quote]How are we defining successful now? How well it enslaves and oppresses others? Well then I guess a dictatorship is the most successful system. You're a terrific libertarian.[/quote]
We're defining successful as not-extinct.
[quote]If you don't think being an idealist (especially when you're arguing against someone who looks at society in a scientific point of view) doesn't invalidate what you say, then you either don't know what idealism is or you really don't care about this. I'm figuring the latter based on the quality of your posts.[/QUOTE]
This is politics and philosophy. You're calling me an idealist, and yet your entire argument centers around ending the capitalist oppression and equality for all individuals in a classless society.
This isn't a science. Politics are a philosophy. Capitalism and Socialism, they are not tangible, observable entities. It can be argued Socialism has NEVER existed, and the same can be argued for Capitalism. This is all philosophy, there is no better system. If you want to look at it from a rational point of view, look at it like this:
Capitalism currently dominates the geopolitical spectrum, ESPECIALLY between former-enemies now-allies such as Russia and America, Britain and America, Britain and France, China and Everyone, Japan and the West, Saudi Arabia and the West, all pseudo-friendships and states of peace between former enemies. Why? Trade! Capitalism! Working together for individual gain. It isn't terrible, it works.
For me, pragmatism isn't enough. I'd rather live in the most corporate-run country with the most advertisements and useless products in the WORLD if it ensured the greatest personal freedom, that is to say no fear of persecution from the corporations or the government. And like it or not, that's true right now in the U.S. Nobody likes corporations, but it's a mutual relationship. We give them our work, they get their personal facade of an empire. The reality is, the workers hold much more sway than the empire does, even if the workers don't realize it.
[editline]09:51PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=drive_the_hive;15951420]No, not even bartering. Jesus. NO ECONOMY AT ALL. No trade, no barter, no money.[/QUOTE]
Even socialism has an economy. Economy is simply the production, use and trade of RESOURCES, not currency.
If it doesn't have an economy it doesn't exist. This is why children like you do not run the world. You don't even know what an economy is.
Also:
GO GO HIVEMIND
[editline]09:52PM[/editline]
Fightin the hive
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951528]Even socialism has an economy. Economy is simply the production, use and trade of RESOURCES, not currency.[/QUOTE]
What I'm not even talking about socialism.
Yes but the trade involves currency. And in many good utopias, it DOESN'T. Just ASK ME ABOUT THEM because I don't want to write down everyhting in detail only to get a "lol ure a childe" reply.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951528]If it doesn't have an economy it doesn't exist. This is why children like you do not run the world. You don't even know what an economy is.[/QUOTE]
And you don't know what the hell I'm talking about. My offer to go into detail still stands. Ask me about them.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951528]
Also:
GO GO HIVEMIND[/QUOTE]
Funny. Could use this against you aswell.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951528]Fightin the hive[/QUOTE]
You're not fighting. You're just barely reading my posts then typing in one of your textbook sample replies and call it a day.
Trade does not involve currency.
Fine. Go into detail about your magic ban on economy.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;15945706]Why does he have a gun, i thought he was anti-gun.[/QUOTE]
When has [I]anything[/I] Michael Moore [I]ever[/I] did made sense?
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951752]Trade does not involve currency.
Fine. Go into detail about your magic ban on economy.[/QUOTE]
I found an essay (since you love them so much) that perfectly reflects my ideas.
A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.
Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.
A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.
Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.
In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.
We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.
Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.
At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary.
A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.
Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.
A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.
What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.
As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.
With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.
If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.
Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.
[url]www.thevenusproject.com[/url]
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951528]Even socialism has an economy. Economy is simply the production, use and trade of RESOURCES, not currency.
If it doesn't have an economy it doesn't exist. This is why children like you do not run the world. You don't even know what an economy is.[/QUOTE]
The unit of trade in Capitalism is Currency. The unit of trade in a (real, as in they don't follow the "people's republic of <insert fascist nation in disguise here>" fad) true socialist society is Labor. Your worth is based on labor, not wealth. That's why Socialism doesn't work, people want wealth, and are inherently lazy.
I'm not reading some other moron's essay. I want you to elaborate on your ideas in your own words. If I wanted to read about the stupid fucking Venus Project I would have read about it.
That's a fucking copout.
Jesus fuck you guys.
You've been arguing for hours
Lankist has never heard of the word political science.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;15951974]Lankist has never heard of the word political science.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the input!
[QUOTE=Strider_07;15951908]The unit of trade in Capitalism is Currency. The unit of trade in a (real, as in they don't follow the "people's republic of <insert fascist nation in disguise here>" fad) true socialist society is Labor. Your worth is based on labor, not wealth. That's why Socialism doesn't work, people want wealth, and are inherently lazy.[/QUOTE]
How does Socialism promote labor for wealth and Capitalism dose not?
[QUOTE=Sexy_Guy;15951964]Jesus fuck you guys.
You've been arguing for hours[/QUOTE]
When you're compiling a map five times an hour you've got a lot of time to spare.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951926]I'm not reading some other moron's essay. I want you to elaborate on your ideas in your own words. If I wanted to read about the stupid fucking Venus Project I would have read about it.
That's a fucking copout.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that's right. Back off if you can't fight it. Like we haven't seen that move before.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951025]
Just like Chippay, when you reach a corner you turn around and start throwing personal insults instead of acknowledging the argument.[/QUOTE]
btw there's no corner because as i stated and you lovingly pointed out i wasn't debating with you
tbh i was just insulting you and telling you to go outside because you don't get enough social contact and therefore don't value a human life
[QUOTE=drive_the_hive;15952009]Yeah that's right. Back off if you can't fight it. Like we haven't seen that move before.[/QUOTE]
If you want I could copy and paste a rebuttal against the Venus Project and Zeitgeist in general that somebody else wrote.
[editline]10:17PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chippay;15952021]btw there's no corner because as i stated and you lovingly pointed out i wasn't debating with you
tbh i was just insulting you and telling you to go outside because you don't get enough social contact and therefore don't value a human life[/QUOTE]
Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah. If I don't know the value of life, you don't know the value of work.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951292]
You want MORALITY in legislation? Please. That's the first step toward genocide.
.[/QUOTE]
bahahahaha
hahahahahaha
hahahaha
haahah
ha
..
ha
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951528]That doesn't negate the fact that he, an exceptionally intelligent discontent, destroyed an entire established order and shaped a new one in his image. [/quote]
That doesn't negate the fact that he wouldn't have been able to do anything with that was it not for the general bourgeois discontent with the versailles treaty that was cutting into their profits and limiting their advancement. It, in fact, was very reminiscent of a feudal lord-early capitalist relationship.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951528]I don't agree with the "half right" but we'll go with it. Let's assume it's only half right. That still demonstrates the inherent vulnerability and instability in a socialist regime. It takes one single event to take it down and rebuild another society.[/quote]
Um, no. That only supports the marxist scientific view that you can't build socialism in feudalism just as much as you can't build capitalism in slave or hunter-gatherer societies. By saying it was inherent, you're just again ignoring my points.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951528]From a purely pragmatic view. No philosophy, no morality: How do you think a socialist society could possibly survive?[/quote]
What do you mean? There is a philosophy behind the advancement of socialism, detailing that there must be a workers' democracy and the former ruling class must be liquidated, as a class. It follows the same example set by previous revolutions sparked by class struggle in other systems.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951528]Not even China is socialist anymore. They're Capitalists, closet capitalists but capitalists all the same, and they were the ones who got pissed at Russia for straying away from Marxism! It seems Marx got his evolution backwards.[/quote]
Good job on ignoring me again. I said, in my first post even I believe, that Chinese communists encountered same conditions as the Bolsheviks. China followed the same path down the way to bureaucracy and eventually, just like the USSR in 1991, fell to counter-revolution with people like Deng Xiaoping.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951528]It doesn't matter what environment you put a human in, there are always some undeniable traits. Violence, war, revolution and classes are among them. Humans will always inherently shuffle themselves in to groups based on pragmatic usefulness. There is no way to prevent this short of totalitarian reign and genocide.[/quote]
You're again ignoring me. Sometimes people act in self-interest, others they do not. What about collective spirits that sprung in wars, changing society, and grass root movements? For example, in every war there has been some sort of collective spirit on at least one side. It was at a point where people didn't really see 'themselves' as individuals but as part of something bigger, more important, and more complex. During the industrialization of the USSR in the 30's there was some spirit initiated by people being able to directly take part in changing their society from a semi-feudal economy to an industrial powerhouse.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951528]We're defining successful as not-extinct.[/quote]
That's pretty shitty definition considering that when times when native american tribes existed alongside capitalism apparently means that both systems were successful. The paris commune overthrew and maintained itself alongside capitalism. Apparently that must've been successful too.
In fact if we lived back in feudal times you could probably have used this argument as a justification for feudalism. It fell to pieces anyway. Why? Because of class struggle, the backdoor machinery of society everything stems from, from culture to our government. I call you an idealist because you ignore this blatantly.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951528]This is politics and philosophy. You're calling me an idealist, and yet your entire argument centers around ending the capitalist oppression and equality for all individuals in a classless society.[/quote]
I'm appalled that you think this is what I've been arguing because it shows how much you've been paying attention. This is starting to become a chore.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951528]This isn't a science. Politics are a philosophy. Capitalism and Socialism, they are not tangible, observable entities. It can be argued Socialism has NEVER existed, and the same can be argued for Capitalism. This is all philosophy, there is no better system. If you want to look at it from a rational point of view, look at it like this:[/quote]
I'm sorry, but I don't think you're the authority to determine what is a science and what is not. I do not view capitalism or socialism as better then one another, I view them as steps of progression of human society caused by a machinery that is class struggle, the same class struggle that shapes us in almost every way. Quite simply, I think capitalism is out-dated. It did its job of industrialization and creating the proletariat, now, like the capitalists did long ago, it is time for the proletariat to negate the class that rules them.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951528]Capitalism currently dominates the geopolitical spectrum, ESPECIALLY between former-enemies now-allies such as Russia and America, Britain and America, Britain and France, China and Everyone, Japan and the West, Saudi Arabia and the West, all pseudo-friendships and states of peace between former enemies. Why? Trade! Capitalism! Working together for individual gain. It isn't terrible, it works.[/quote]
Capitalism is not about individual gain, that's just a load of idealist shit. It isn't really about anything besides the accumulation of capital. Hence, capitalism?
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951528]For me, pragmatism isn't enough. I'd rather live in the most corporate-run country with the most advertisements and useless products in the WORLD if it ensured the greatest personal freedom, that is to say no fear of persecution from the corporations or the government. And like it or not, that's true right now in the U.S. Nobody likes corporations, but it's a mutual relationship. We give them our work, they get their personal facade of an empire. The reality is, the workers hold much more sway than the empire does, even if the workers don't realize it.[/QUOTE]
Well then I would have to say your personal freedom bit is going to come down like a ton of bricks when one of capitalism's inherent contradications causes a crisis and you want change, and they stop talking less about [i]freedom and democracy[/i] and more about [i]it's not time to split hairs over the infringement of liberty![/i].
This debate is starting to get very stale because you are ignoring literally all of my points. Do you want to just agree to disagree?
[QUOTE=Lankist;15952042]
Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah. If I don't know the value of life, you don't know the value of work.[/QUOTE]
really? that's all you got?
please, tell me what i've said that suggests that I don't know the value of work
You want to see a fucking copout?
[QUOTE=Lankist;15951926]I want you to elaborate on your ideas in your own words.[/QUOTE]
There you have one. Brilliant example, I must say.
[QUOTE=Chippay;15952073]really? that's all you got?
please, tell me what i've said that suggests that I don't know the value of work[/QUOTE]
Please tell me what I've said that suggest I don't know the value of life.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15952042]If you want I could copy and paste a rebuttal against the Venus Project and Zeitgeist in general that somebody else wrote.[/QUOTE]
The essay was written by the founding father of the project and I agree with it a 100%. There is nothing I could add or hide plus I don't really feel like wasting my time carefully explaining what I'm talking about to you again and again to just receive an awful reply that's desperately trying to be witty but carries nothing of value with it.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15952103]Please tell me what I've said that suggest I don't know the value of life.[/QUOTE]
gladly
[QUOTE=Lankist;15946221]There is no right to NOT die from Cancer. My Chemo Money is being saved for if and when I get cancer. I earned it, my name is on it, Tiny Tim can suck Jesus' cock. [/QUOTE]
now please, explain your non-existent claim before you launch into another tirade with conscript in which you ignore all his points
[editline]02:23AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=drive_the_hive;15952136] I don't really feel like wasting my time carefully explaining what I'm talking about to you again and again to just receive an awful reply that's desperately trying to be witty but carries nothing of value with it.[/QUOTE]
you're replying to the wrong person then, champ
[QUOTE=Conscript;15952066]That doesn't negate the fact that he wouldn't have been able to do anything with that was it not for the general bourgeois discontent with the versailles treaty that was cutting into their profits and limiting their advancement. It, in fact, was very reminiscent of a feudal lord-early capitalist relationship.[/quote]
And what is stopping a kind of discontent like that from building in your easily toppled Socialist system?
[quote]Um, no. That only supports the marxist scientific view that you can't build socialism in feudalism just as much as you can't build capitalism in slave or hunter-gatherer societies. By saying it was inherent, you're just again ignoring my points.[/quote]
It's funny how you keep throwing the word science into your [i]opinion.[/i] This is philosophy, not science, and you still refuse to answer what keeps a socialist society from collapsing under the weight of discontent.
[quote]What do you mean? There is a philosophy behind the advancement of socialism[/quote]
I thought it was a science.
[quote]Good job on ignoring me again. I said, in my first post even I believe, that Chinese communists encountered same conditions as the Bolsheviks. China followed the same path down the way to bureaucracy and eventually, just like the USSR in 1991, fell to counter-revolution with people like Deng Xiaoping.[/quote]
And what is stopping a kind of discontent like that from building in your easily toppled Socialist system?
[quote]You're again ignoring me. Sometimes people act in self-interest, others they do not. What about collective spirits that sprung in wars, changing society, and grass root movements? For example, in every war there has been some sort of collective spirit on at least one side. It was at a point where people didn't really see 'themselves' as individuals but as part of something bigger, more important, and more complex. During the industrialization of the USSR in the 30's there was some spirit initiated by people being able to directly take part in changing their society from a semi-feudal economy to an industrial powerhouse.[/quote]
Yet again you ignore the question.
[quote]That's pretty shitty definition considering that when times when native american tribes existed alongside capitalism apparently means that both systems were successful. The paris commune overthrew and maintained itself alongside capitalism. Apparently that must've been successful too. [/quote]
Yeah and the dodo was a successful species when it wasn't extinct.
[quote]In fact if we lived back in feudal times you could probably have used this argument as a justification for feudalism. It fell to pieces anyway. Why? Because of class struggle, the backdoor machinery of society everything stems from, from culture to our government. I call you an idealist because you ignore this blatantly.[/quote]
And yet the class struggle came AFTER the extinction of the Hunter-Gatherer society you love to reference.
You've yet to acknowledge WHY.
[quote]I'm appalled that you think this is what I've been arguing because it shows how much you've been paying attention. This is starting to become a chore.[/quote]
Then how about you quit repeating yourself and address the points I present.
[quote]I'm sorry, but I don't think you're the authority to determine what is a science and what is not. I do not view capitalism or socialism as better then one another, I view them as steps of progression of human society caused by a machinery that is class struggle, the same class struggle that shapes us in almost every way. Quite simply, I think capitalism is out-dated. It did its job of industrialization and creating the proletariat, now, like the capitalists did long ago, it is time for the proletariat to negate the class that rules them.[/quote]
It's funny, one second you call it science, the other you call it philosophy. It's as though not even you understand what you're talking about.
Oh, and capitalism is out-dated but Hunter Gatherer is the WAY TO GO.
[quote]Capitalism is not about individual gain, that's just a load of idealist shit. It isn't really about anything besides the accumulation of capital. Hence, capitalism?[/quote]
And that capital just sits there and nobody uses it.
[quote]Well then I would have to say your personal freedom bit is going to come down like a ton of bricks when one of capitalism's inherent contradications causes a crisis and you want change, and they stop talking less about [i]freedom and democracy[/i] and more about [i]it's not time to split hairs over the infringement of liberty![/i].[/quote]
I'm going to split all the goddamn hairs over infringement of liberty that I want. That's the entire point of this goddamn country. And the best part is the government can't do a goddamn thing about it.
You're veering into some serious police state thought control shit now.
[quote]This debate is starting to get very stale because you are ignoring literally all of my points. Do you want to just agree to disagree?[/QUOTE]
No. You're wrong and you refuse to acknowledge the points, and now you're trying to find an out. If you want to quit, admit defeat and quit.
[editline]10:30PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chippay;15952141]gladly
now please, explain your non-existent claim before you launch into another tirade with conscript in which you ignore all his points[/QUOTE]
Hold on there, tiger. That demonstrates a PREFERENCE in human life, my own over others. It doesn't demonstrate a lack of understanding in the inherent value. For instance, I don't care how many rats die, I think we should continue medical advancements for the sake of human life. That quote demonstrates the fact that I value MY OWN life above the life of a person I don't know.
You need better evidence than that.
Furthermore, the fact that you don't have a job and can't even name the job you're "going into soon" demonstrates absolutely no work experience.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15952233].[/QUOTE]
[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.
[/QUOTE]
hypocrisy at it's finest
[QUOTE=drive_the_hive;15952136]The essay was written by the founding father of the project and I agree with it a 100%. There is nothing I could add or hide plus I don't really feel like wasting my time carefully explaining what I'm talking about to you again and again to just receive an awful reply that's desperately trying to be witty but carries nothing of value with it.[/QUOTE]
The Venus project also operates on a RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY.
An ECONOMY.
Resource-based economy
See also:Resource-based economy
The Venus Project was founded on the idea that poverty is caused by the stifling of progress in technology, which itself is caused by the present world's profit-driven economic system. The progression of technology, if it were carried on independent of its profitability, Fresco theorizes, would make more resources available to more people. This new-found abundance of resources would reduce the human tendency toward independence, corruption, and greed, and instead rely on people helping each other.[7][8] Fresco believes his ideas would maximally benefit the greatest number of people and he states some of his ideas stem from his formative years during the Great Depression.[9]
Fundamental to the project is the elimination of the current money-based economy in favor of a resource-based economy.[4]
Which means it is inconsistent with your claims.
Furthermore, if I'm going to debate the fucking Venus Project, I'll debate it with the idiots who came up with it, not through you as a proxy. Make your own argument or leave.
[editline]10:32PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chippay;15952283]hypocrisy at it's finest[/QUOTE]
He's the one who insisted I follow in his footsteps.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
