|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
posted February 11, 2009 03:52 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Most animals, except for dogs and perhaps cats, are incapable of respect towards humans anyway. So we're not going to command respect - just command. Just like one commands a hammer, so should we control nature.
And I'm not a Catholic.
Baklava:
I was referring to the Abrahamic religions. Native American spiritualism and the others would mostly be content the way they'd be living for thousands of years. That is unacceptable. It is humanity's destiny to climb out of the cave and rise from the swamp to the stars - progress to paradise.
And the Nazis hated the Jews. I don't hate anybody except the oppressors of the proletariat. Certainly I don't hate nature any more than I hate computers or fire extinguishers or hammers.
Quote:
Besides, how can you support religious theories when Marx said that religion is an "opium for the masses"?
It often is. Which is why I am not a follower of any organized religion - merely spiritual.
Quote:
If there is an International which dominates the Earth, then surely its leaders aren't really equal to other people?
The International seeks to include all people into itself. No more bourgeoisie - just the International.
Quote:
I think that after the entire 20th century of repression, starvation and mass murders in dozens of countries which tried communism, we can safely assume that communism indeed cannot work and stop trying to impose it on everyone.
The Soviet experiment failed because the people failed to realize that class struggle has to continue throughout the socialist stage - or the revolution may simply result in a "degenerated workers' state" - one that replaces private tyranny with public tyranny. The Soviet people rested on their laurels, and before they knew it Stalin took over, and consolidated his power, and that was that. In the Eastern bloc, fake socialism was imposed by force. In China, Mao became too fond of being a dictator, and tried all kinds of crazy stuff. And North Korea simply became a totalitarian state masquerading as communist.
mvassilev:
People deserve equality of outcome because all human life has equal value. People deserve equality simply because they are alive. Productivity is irrelevant. The welfare queen with 20 children and Bill Gates deserve equality, as they are both humans and thus their lives are equal.
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 04:04 PM |
|
|
Well.
I'm pretty sure that a fully egalitarian system will not be compatible with your aim of dominating nature and rise to the stars. If you intend to bury capitalism and switch to communism you'll have to replace the motive of material egoism that fuels the necessary advancement with something else - for example a quasi-religious ideology about the destiny of man to go forth and rule the stars for the glory of, err, the proletariat.
Because otherwise, if it would indeed work, stagnation would be the logical consequence and even a wishful consequence to keep the balance one it is reached.
So how would that ideology look? Who would be its priests? Or its prophets or preachers or whichever you may call them?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 04:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Most animals, except for dogs and perhaps cats, are incapable of respect towards humans anyway. So we're not going to command respect - just command. Just like one commands a hammer, so should we control nature.
That is exactly what I was talking about. If you want to earn respect, act like a parent, not like a master-slave. Some children don't respect their parents either. This doesn't mean we have to act like masters and treat them as slaves. Earning respect is irrelevant whether someone else says it up front or not, the important thing is WITHIN YOU (like most religions teach anyway) not what others think (like animals who are 'innocent' so to speak, like a kid).
As for the hammer, suffice to say that we can't use it for any purpose we want -- like smashing someone else's head 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 04:09 PM |
|
Edited by Totoro at 16:13, 11 Feb 2009.
|
If you're claiming that either capitalism or socialism is the best system, you're telling that x + y = xy.
No goals will be achieved by arguing about it. They both suck. But that's everything we have, damn it!
I'll tell you how to get a perfect world:
Kill or at least sterilize every person with genes that cause such society-harmful features as laziness, selfishness, greed etc.
Then make new humans and insert only good genes in them and let only them breed.
That's the harsh truth, lads 
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 09:07 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 21:10, 11 Feb 2009.
|
@MVass
Why are opportunities to rise hampered in social democratic countries?
People making their lives much better isn't fascism, but people making their lives better over the backs of other people is, at least, unfair. Of course, capitalists like to ease their conscience by telling themselves that people who immigrated also have a better life, but then again, they only allow them to live as good as it keeps them in a constant flow of immigration. Any sort of better life is... unprofitable. And that's what concerns me, and that's why things will not become radically better for those people as long as people on top are concerned.
"There's room for improvement" is exactly what I'm talking about. There's also "room for improvement" with communism. The idea is to improve, not to make room for improvement.
@DeadMan
If native Americans would be content the way they lived for thousands of years, who are you to tell them that's "unacceptable"? You're not a part of their world. You do not understand their civilization, their philosophy, their thought. Why wouldn't they be happy the way they want to be happy? Why force the revolution on the unwilling? Who gives you the right to violently replace other worlds with your own? Marx? And who is HE to give you that right?
Oh and by the way you'd be surprised if you knew how much the native American society reminded of what socialism was supposed to be. But that's not it, is it? You'd like us to climb to the stars and fulfill our "destiny" through utter repression of everyone who thinks differently than the almighty International, and through dozens and dozens of bloody civil wars across the entire Earth?
I refuse my destiny to be to slaughter my own brother just because he has a different opinion than I do. And that's exactly what the "great global revolution" is talking about.
Nazis hated the Jews as they saw them as opposition to their ideas. Communists hate everyone who isn't a communist as they see them as opposition to their ideas.
Nazis were oppressive and authoritarian. Communists were oppressive and authoritarian.
Nazis sent Jews to concentration camps. Communists sent their enemies to concentration camps.
Nazis propagate taking over the world. Communists propagate taking over the world.
The only real difference is that Nazism is bad to other peoples, and communism is worst toward its own.
You're telling us that the Soviet experiment failed because they stopped to rest a bit and didn't try to... what? Take over the planet?
And what then? What when the entire planet becomes a degenerated workers' state? And someone like Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Castro takes over it?
No matter how lovely words like "class struggle" and "equality" sound, I'm still not sure if I'd like more and more rivers of blood to run because one German dude with a funny beard said it might be a good idea.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 09:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Kill or at least sterilize every person with genes that cause such society-harmful features as laziness, selfishness, greed etc.
Then make new humans and insert only good genes in them and let only them breed.
That's the harsh truth, lads
Simpler ideas:
1) genetic reprogram people and eliminate everything in them that isn't "productive"
2) just be more aware in AIs and get Terminators already! then let ourselves wipe out, they will do better
@bak: communism was far more... 'rational' than Nazism, because it didn't care about ethnicity (much anyway). An enemy is an enemy after all. What? Even evil can be rational
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 10:45 PM |
|
|
DeadMan:
Have you ever heard of the concept of adverse incentives? If you punish the productive, then they will be less productive - thus making everybody worse off.
And I've heard North Korea is nice this time of year. Try their famous Oppressed People's Soup - the Glorious Leader's favorite!
Totoro:
Except that selfishness isn't bad.
Bak:
Opportunities to rise are hampered because of high taxes. The most productive would be more penalized for their productivity than they should be, and thus the incentive to become productive would be decreased. Thus, productivity would drop, making everyone worse off.
And as long as the immigrants' lives are better, it's good. Or are you suggesting that someone who give a beggar $5 is evil for not giving him $10?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 11:27 PM |
|
|
Lalalala *whistles innocently*
*whistles a bit more*
Translated by google from tek.no forum:
Quote:
It has been very much discussed in the media about this so-called katstrofen. But I have never found out what really is behind the financial crisis, or in other words, what is the reason. What I also wonder what are the consequences this brings the future if not powers do something with it.
Some clever minds out there who can give me a good answer for this?
Awser1:
Quote:
I think I had with me how this happened. Shoot me if I'm wrong!
Very short, in the past, in the USA, there was something called the credit value. They had to have a certain credit value to be able to borrow Såså much money. But some smart banker found that if they offer people loans without guarantee, they would serve on it in length.
This worked fine to begin with, greater spending among people, less interest rates and a credit boom without equal. In other words, a charwoman could take up millionlån and buy the house and car and altmulig. Which brought money to the next paragraph osvosv. This created over the years a sharp imbalance in the system because it was more money in the flow than it actually was of real value. Because people really did not have money to pay back all the money.
Then it is clear that this must go beyond one or more terms in the global process. What happened was that there were some banks that had smell, which led to bankruptcy. Which had ripple effects on other banks and companies and not least, the stock exchange. And thus was all the import and export directly affected, which again brought the issue forward to the rest of the world. When the crisis was a global fact.
Awser2:
Quote:
Do not all year, etc., but this is a general inføring.
The U.S. government has always seen it to own their own housing as a social good, why was it fjærnet some regulations regarding who they could and could not give loans to. So-called subprime morgages was thus accepted, and a number of tax deductions were granted to people who had mortgages. Freddie Mac and Fannie May banks were also exempt from any state control that they had been under since ... can not remember.
Anyways banks found that they could earn money to give out loans to poor people in stable jobs, so-called working poor. This was seen as a good investment that almost guaranteed return. In some cases, were given so-called predatory loans, ie, bank officers knocked on the door to people who were not able to understand what they talked about the items. Mexican immigrants with poor English skills and older people.
Gradually, certain banks decided to sell these loans further, some as torpedo business, to other banks and companies as so-called securities. Banks gained in this way capital to issue more and more loans. Finally lost Monday simply an overview of who owned what.
When it then turned out that many could not pay this debt (for whatever reason from outsourcing to the disease), it became a part of chaos, to say the least. People lost their jobs and suddenly did even less to serve their loans ... and we are in a vicious spiral.
Because. that states are trying to bag money into the banks (after having given the regulations) and public projects to get loans to real businesses and create temporary jobs. The theory is that this will get us out of kneika. This was also done during the market crash of 29 (?). No one knows whether this is going to work or if it was ww2 (due death and workplaces) that got us out of it for the first time.
Hope it was not for the complicated
Any comments?
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 12, 2009 12:52 AM |
|
|
Ah, MVass, but if you give a beggar 5 bucks, you don't expect him to work full time at your sweatshop, do you?
Charity is one thing, but please don't go around comparing toiling 70 hours per week at some glass factory or doing some other health-hazardous job with begging. That insults both those honest working people and our intelligence. 
And I thought there were taxes in capitalism too... and that they're, in fact, quite a problem for more... productive folks (from Al Capone to Coca Cola ).
Maybe I got it all wrong, but taxes aren't a socialist invention, are they? They're needed to keep any system rolling, except anarchy (which is more the lack of one, and which we all agree couldn't really work).
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2009 01:12 AM |
|
|
del_diablo:
Quote:
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=281761
What, exactly, is this graph measuring?
Quote:
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=281767
Yes, the US savings rate sucks. So?
And please, if you're going to post an argument, don't use Google Translate. Some key points are rather garbled.
Bak:
Quote:
Ah, MVass, but if you give a beggar 5 bucks, you don't expect him to work full time at your sweatshop, do you?
Look, capitalism is making their lives much better. I give the worker a choice - either work and get paid better than you get paid, or stay at your old job, if you have one. And he accepts, because my offer is much better than what he has now. And you object! Would it be better if I hadn't offered him the job in the first place?
And taxes are a necessary evil. They should be kept as low as possible - just enough to keep the government functioning without making it borrow.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted February 12, 2009 01:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Except that selfishness isn't bad.
Not for an individual but for society it is.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2009 02:25 PM |
|
|
It's good for society too, because if individuals are selfish, they will work hard to get what they want, thus generating stuff for everybody else.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
|
posted February 12, 2009 04:06 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker:
Socialism will replace material self-interest with the well-being of the community. And, if humanity's well-being is improved by climbing to the stars, then so be it. We won't stop just because some environmentalist egotist tells us to.
TheDeath:
You don't understand. No matter what we do, animals won't respect us, because they're incapable of doing so. So it's pointless to even try. You don't try to earn your hammer's respect, do you?
And we won't be using nature to smash anyone's head (after we're done smashing the bourgeoisie, of course). Nature will be used for the benefit of all of humanity, not to fulfill private greed.
Totoro:
Socialism>capitalism. Socialism will abolish selfishness, while [qcapitalism rewards it.
Baklava:
You do not understand dialectical materialism. Marx wrote about "religious socialism", and it was (and is) merely an attempt by the feudalists to dominate the proletariat. The poor Native Americans were not exposed to any alternative.
Quote:
I refuse my destiny to be to slaughter my own brother just because he has a different opinion than I do.
We're not going to slaughter any proletarians unless they try to fight the revolution. We're going to make the lives of all proletarians better, not just those who happen to be socialists. And the bourgeois are not our brothers.
The Nazis hated the Jews because the Aryan capitalists were jealous of (or felt threatened by) the Jews, and thus created Fascism - as a bonus, it oppressed the proletariat. The proletarians oppose their oppressors - the bourgeoisie. Completely different.
Quote:
You're telling us that the Soviet experiment failed because they stopped to rest a bit and didn't try to... what? Take over the planet?
Socialism in one country could work. The Soviet experiment failed because the Soviet people failed to realize that when they overthrow the bourgeoisie, a new class arose - the people within the government. They failed to keep an eye on them - and Stalin came to power.
mvassilev:
That's only because people are corrupted by capitalist selfishness.
And North Korea is hardly a workers' state.
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted February 12, 2009 04:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You don't understand. No matter what we do, animals won't respect us, because they're incapable of doing so. So it's pointless to even try. You don't try to earn your hammer's respect, do you?
And we won't be using nature to smash anyone's head (after we're done smashing the bourgeoisie, of course). Nature will be used for the benefit of all of humanity, not to fulfill private greed.
So basically you're selfish like the capitalists only that instead of selfishness for an individual, you have selfishness for the entire human society, with no respect for other life forms at all. Hmm...
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2009 04:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JollyJoker:
Socialism will replace material self-interest with the well-being of the community. And, if humanity's well-being is improved by climbing to the stars, then so be it. We won't stop just because some environmentalist egotist tells us to.
One is as wrong as the other, since humans are in-between: Neither are their pure egomanic individuals like most predators nor are they community beings like insect hives. That's why the truth quite obviously lies in the middle: you have to find a way to combine the self-interest of the individual with the well-being of the community.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 12, 2009 04:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You don't understand. No matter what we do, animals won't respect us, because they're incapable of doing so. So it's pointless to even try. You don't try to earn your hammer's respect, do you?
And we won't be using nature to smash anyone's head (after we're done smashing the bourgeoisie, of course). Nature will be used for the benefit of all of humanity, not to fulfill private greed.
That's not the point. It doesn't matter what they do or won't do, because we are not going to be judged by what they do. It matters what we do, regardless if someone is "there" to judge us or not.
If we only say "heck, let's do it, no one is gonna blame us (well not animals anyway)" then what do you think that means? That's like being devious. Worse than selfish because you don't even try to acknowledge it.
I'm not talking about earning respect from the animals or from the hammer. Heck it doesn't matter what someone ELSE says. It matters what we say about ourselves. And surely abusing stuff, especially living, which are also 'innocent' (since they cannot reason/choose), means we're tyrants. It doesn't matter what THEY think, it matters what we DO -- and know all too well, look at my post. Or if you prefer, earn "my" respect, so to speak, or those who take it from this universal angle and POV
Remember that aliens could consider us too dumb and animals as well, what do you make of that? Surely, they cannot be "loving" if they go and enslave us (from their viewpoint, we are 'animals'), so why would we?
Gaining respect must be done WITHOUT thinking of anyone else, it shouldn't even be relevant. You are still doing X regardless of whether someone hears (or sees) you or not. Be true to yourself, your earned respect is universal, not what others think of you. For example, even if someone laughs at you for not doing a 'bad' thing it doesn't mean you "didn't gain" any respect (they laugh) because you ARE different than them, even if they (because they're "bad") don't respect that. If animals (i.e "someone else") don't, then it shouldn't even be your motivation -- because you should focus on what you DO to earn it (it is 'universal' so to speak), not on what someone else views you as.
Who cares what a psycho thinks of you? You're still different and 'better' (in the case of universal respect) by yourself, you don't need someone else (the psycho in this case) to tell you that. Replace that with animals.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted February 12, 2009 06:11 PM |
|
Edited by Totoro at 18:26, 12 Feb 2009.
|
Quote:
It's good for society too, because if individuals are selfish, they will work hard to get what they want, thus generating stuff for everybody else.
Such benefit is meaningless; If everyone was selfless we would have no exploitation, no crimes, no corruption, and people would still be ready to work hard for the benefit of the society.
Quote:
Socialism>capitalism. Socialism will abolish selfishness, while capitalism rewards it.
What if I lived in socialistic state and decided that I don't feel like working anymore, I'll let others do my job and sustain me, I would perhaps brake my leg on purpose or just play too stupid to understand anything. Selfishness prospers.
Quote:
animals won't respect us
That's false statement, a pet respects a human which it recognizes íts master.
And also, fear gives birth to respect. Animals of the forest are afraid to come to residental zone ---> They respect humans.
And whatever we do, we should respect nature because it gives us everything we have, everything! Wouldn't you respect a person who gives you a blanket if you're cold?
____________
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 12, 2009 08:05 PM |
|
|
mvass:
Quote:
And please, if you're going to post an argument, don't use Google Translate. Some key points are rather garbled.
Then what am i going to use to translate? Its more than readable for the most part, and i think it fitted the tread.
And why do you not want to respond to it? Its relevant to the finacial crisis that is roaming at the moment to some degree, and that is eqonomi right?
The 2 links are somewhat random but are they relevant to this tread? To be discussed or buried atleast.
____________
|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
|
posted February 12, 2009 08:42 PM |
|
|
Asheera:
Selfishness for society is an oxymoron. Selfishness can only be for the self. That's why it's called selfishness.
JollyJoker:
People are naturally collectivistic (just look at tribal societies) but the destructive impulses of right-wing capitalism have destroyed people's social conscience.
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2009 10:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JollyJoker:
People are naturally collectivistic (just look at tribal societies) but the destructive impulses of right-wing capitalism have destroyed people's social conscience.
Only in small communities. The bigger the community the less collectivistic the people are.
You'll have to destroy the big cities as well.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
