News Why Do People Criticize Capitalism?

[Smurf]

Do you even have a job

Why would I want a job?

 

[jimmie]

the only thing threatening Anarchism is outside, pre-existing governments.

Smurf, let's go out on a limb and say that the current governments promote anarchy by competing with each other and reeking havoc on the planet, and that prior to the current governments, is an outside, pre-existing government.

What then?

 

[Smurf]

Smurf, let's go out on a limb and say that the current governments promote anarchy by competing with each other and reeking havoc on the planet, and that prior to the current governments, is an outside, pre-existing government.
What then?

1. I don't see how governments promote anarchy any more than christianity was promoting atheism by crusading against islam.

2. What on Earth are you talking about "prior to the current governments, is an outside, pre-existing government.". Prior to what? outside what? If ít's pre-existing why doens't it exist now? if it does why can't you just say what it's called.

In short: what are you talking about?

 

[russ_watters]

And I disagree. I don't see equality as limiting freedom at all. It's a matter of definition.

Well whatever - either way, you want to change what we consider freedom today. And that's the point: I submit that the principle of equality of outcome is diametrically opposed to the idea of freedom as defined today. You're talking about switching the definitions of "round" and "flat" - but that isn't going to change the fact that flying south makes the sun rise higher in the sky. It isn't going to change the fact that never in human history has a people revolted based on the principle of equality of outcome (contrary to Marx's prediction). But people do, all the time, revolt based on the current principle of freedom and equality of opportunity.

It's already been fathomed by countless people before us and among us. Right now it's a matter of culture and society evolving enough to allow it to be implimented.

"Fathoming" is what writers of fiction do. Just because you can fathom it does not mean it is possible. But that's kinda a moot point, isn't it? Either way, it doesn't work and never has and as a result cannot be implimented today.

 

[Smurf]

I'm not a marxist. I havn't said a thing about "equality of outcome". In fact I havn't said the word "outcome" once in this entire thread. I'm talking about equal power and anarchism. I've listed anachist colonies before and I'll list them again if you want, but despite any feelings you have about Marxist, anarchism is very possible and has been proven so on small scales worldwide. And I don't really care if you think it can be implimented, I believe it will inevitably be implimented on a large scale too (unless capitalism kills us all first).

 

[Pengwuino]

Why would I want a job?

Wow, for someone with no job, you make a lot of comments about economics

 

[russ_watters]

then I am a lesser man, sorry Russ.. but so are you! And it is pure arrogance that makes you think that your ideals are not BASED on your predecessors

Huh? What are you talking about?? I never said my ideas were not based on my predicessors. They most certainly are! My idea of a good government and good economic system comes from the US Constitution its bases in political theory (Locke, Rousseau, etc.).

I can't think of any man in science that hasnt used what humans have learned to build there own ideas

That's true and I never said otherwise! Its like your own point went over your head!

 

[Smurf]

Wow, for someone with no job, you make a lot of comments about economics

I never said I didn't have a job.

P.S. Ad hominem

 

[Pengwuino]

I never said I didn't have a job.
P.S. Ad hominem

Only idiots don't answer questions, get a job

 

[Smurf]

Only idiots don't answer questions, get a job

Only dumbasses make assumptions, get a girlfriend

 

[jimmie]

What on earth

"I" am not talking about "on" earth.

"I" am talking about that which connects the planet, bodies, with all other planets, bodies.

"I" am talking about "God in the flesh", living amongst you.

"I" am talking about a once-in-history event that is bigger than any particular individual or government.

That is what "I" am talking about. That is what "I" always talk about.

And I don't like talking.

Too much information?

 

[Pengwuino]

Only dumbasses make assumptions, get a girlfriend

Get a job sony!

 

[Smurf]

Too much information?

Oh yeah. Waay to much. In fact right now I'm being overwhelmed by mind-bogging clarity and insight. I don't know how much more of this I can take.

... make it stop...

... make it stop...

 

[russ_watters]

I don't really see how someone can believe that. Why would a society want to live in horrendous conditions? I believe humanity will always try to pick itself up. If it can not do that, it is because someone is pushing it down. And if someone has power enough to push it down, they are not equal. This argument is flawed.

Since when is what you want automatically a reality? See, that's the problem with Marxists - they think that they can make something a reality simply by wishing it. No, people don't want to be poor - in your mind, everyone being equal means everyone is prosperous, but every time that has been tried it has resulted in equality of poverty. In North Korea, for example, everyone not directly involved in the government had a very high level of equality - and the result was a relatively uniform chance of dying of starvation over the past 10 years (roughly 10%).

Again (loseyourname's point), why can't you have inequality where everyone is prosperous? If on a scale of 1 to 10, poverty is below a 2 and everyone is distributed between 3 and 10, then no one is poor, but there is great inequality.

I think this is a common misconception among westerners is to equate equality with what happened in the USSR and Maoist China. Equality can not be imposed, because to impose is to destroy equality.

Perhaps, then, you should tell us what you think equality is, instead of just what it isn't. At face value, "equality" seems to mean that everyone is equal in financial, political, and economic status.

 

[Smurf]

Get a job sony!

Get laid oldy

 

[jimmie]

... make it stop...

... make it stop...

You awe huuumawiss.

You make me waaaff.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not a marxist. I havn't said a thing about "equality of outcome". In fact I havn't said the word "outcome" once in this entire thread.

You are looking for equality of state/status. Status is outcome.

Regardless of whether or not you are a strict Marxist, you share a lot of ideas. Marx theorized that people would revolt because of the lack of equality of status.

I'm talking about equal power and anarchism. I've listed anachist colonies before and I'll list them again if you want, but despite any feelings you have about Marxist, anarchism is very possible and has been proven so on small scales worldwide.

Small scales, yes. Any system can work if the people involved agree in advance to the conditions of it. Again, that's a basic problem with your ideas. You said it yourself: you will never get a large group of people to agree unless the nature of what it means to be human "evolves" to something that it is not today. You do know that evolution requires many, many generations to happen - and even then, you can't be sure evolution is going to proceed the way you hope it will.

And I don't really care if you think it can be implimented, I believe it will inevitably be implimented on a large scale too (unless capitalism kills us all first).

I know you don't care, and that saddens me. Fighting against a system you can't change is self-destructive.

 

[Smurf]

Since when is what you want automatically a reality? See, that's the problem with Marxists - they think that they can make something a reality simply by wishing it. No, people don't want to be poor - in your mind, everyone being equal means everyone is prosperous, but every time that has been tried it has resulted in equality of poverty. In North Korea, for example, everyone not directly involved in the government had a very high level of equality - and the result was a relatively uniform chance of dying of starvation over the past 10 years (roughly 10%).

1. An-ar-ch-ist

2. Every time it has actually been tried (in my definitions (anarchism), not korea's (dictatorship)), it has resulted in great happiness, and varying degrees of prosperity. Like I said, equality can not be imposed. Because to impose something you must first have greater power over the person you're imposing on. Therefore, you will not be equal.

Again (loseyourname's point), why can't you have inequality where everyone is prosperous? If on a scale of 1 to 10, poverty is below a 2 and everyone is distributed between 3 and 10, then no one is poor, but there is great inequality.

If I ever said you couldn't, I retract that statement. Prosperity, in the definition that it is above "2" is quite possible with inequality. Prosperity only does so much though. The inequality would still lead to large conflicts and thus, the society would be less healthy and less happy than a society with more equality.

Perhaps, then, you should tell us what you think equality is, instead of just what it isn't. At face value, "equality" seems to mean that everyone is equal in financial, political, and economic status.

I don't want to explain it again, I really don't like having to come up with different ways to say everything.

Russ, I honestly believe that I've written everything I need to for you to understand what I mean. I don't think you're trying to understand. So me saying it again won't help. If you have any questions please ask and by all means make counter-arguments, but don't ask me to re state the entire thread again.

 

[jimmie]

Fighting against a system you can't change is self-destructive.

Believing that the "system" was illusion and placing my faith in me to 'perfect' my character to become a "true" humble human being was constructive, because I am no longer affected by the "system".

However, it is possible that "I" will affect the "system".

Catalyst.

 

[Smurf]

You are looking for equality of state/status. Status is outcome.
Regardless of whether or not you are a strict Marxist, you share a lot of ideas. Marx theorized that people would revolt because of the lack of equality of status.

Marx said it would happen through imposed government. I argue it can only happen with the complete overthrow of government. Direct confrontation. Me and Marx don't agree as often as you think.

Small scales, yes. Any system can work if the people involved agree in advance to the conditions of it. Again, that's a basic problem with your ideas. You said it yourself: you will never get a large group of people to agree unless the nature of what it means to be human "evolves" to something that it is not today. You do know that evolution requires many, many generations to happen - and even then, you can't be sure evolution is going to proceed the way you hope it will

Not genetic evolution, silly. Society evolving. It's like a couple hundred years ago democracy was a pretty far out idea. Now? It's the most common types of government (with varying degrees of success) in the world. This wasn't caused because people developed a 'democracy' gene. This happened because society evolved to the point people decided they wanted more control over their government. Societal evolution. Argue the terminology if you want, I'll use whatever word for it you want me to use.

I know you don't care, and that saddens me. Fighting against a system you can't change is self-destructive

Me? Fighting? God no. I don't think humanity is anywhere near a point where we're ready for anarchism. Maybe when I'm old and grey colonies will be more common, but I don't expect any major revolutions in my life time.

 

[jimmie]

but I don't expect any major revolutions in my life time.

You are witnessing the greatest revolution of human history, and it has not yet come full-circle.

You are IN it.

Birth-pangs.

 

[Smurf]

You are witnessing the greatest revolution of human history, and it has not yet come full-circle.
You are IN it.
Birth-pangs.

how do you mean?

 

[jimmie]

I believe that there is a prevailing feeling worldwide that something "BIG" is about to happen.

There have been many signs, natural and otherwise.

No one is sure what, or when, but deep down they know something has to "give".

Let's face it, the world can't go on forever the way it is. The scientists say it is not possible.

I believe them.

 

[Smurf]

I believe that there is a prevailing feeling worldwide that something "BIG" is about to happen.
There have been many signs, natural and otherwise.
No one is sure what, or when, but deep down they know something has to "give".
Let's face it, the world can't go on forever the way it is. The scientists say it is not possible.
I believe them.

That's a nice thought. Maybe I'm just too cynical.

 

[jimmie]

Yes it was; maybe you're just cynical.

 

[Pengwuino]

I believe that there is a prevailing feeling worldwide that something "BIG" is about to happen.

Every generation feels there is something "BIG" about to happen. Rarely are they ever right.

Pff, scientists. Who are the scientists and what EXACTLY are they saying. You're probably watching too much CNN. I mean wasnt Yellowstone suppose to blow up and kill everyone? Of course not, the media got something up their butt and decided to go wild off of some report that's probably not much above normal. We always have a meteor or asteroid or something ready to destroy us as well...

And find out what they are actually saying. Some scientist might say "There is a 0.000005% chance of X meteor whiping out mankind" and the news might say "Theres a chance this meteor will kill us all! Say your prayers!". Ya know, crap like that.

 

[Smurf]

Or an alkadian death cruiser?

 

[Pengwuino]

Or an alkadian death cruiser?

Theres a 0.0035% chance...

 

[jimmie]

Every generation feels there is something "BIG" about to happen. Rarely are they ever right.

I believe that statement is correct.

However, when I say something "BIG", I am not referring to 'natural events'. I am referring to the appearance of a particular individual that many individuals expect to appear: the biblical messiah.

That long-awaited event may or may not materialize as soon as expected, but, so long as the Presidential Inauguration includes the President swearing on a stack of bibles, the hope that he acknowledges with that oath is real.

 

[loseyourname]

Believing that the "system" was illusion and placing my faith in me to 'perfect' my character to become a "true" humble human being was constructive, because I am no longer affected by the "system".
However, it is possible that "I" will affect the "system".
Catalyst.

I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure what you mean (ever, not just here), but I think I agree. As far as I'm concerned, no government, and no system, can ever take away from me my freedom to self-realize. That is, I can realize my spiritual potential (and I don't mean anything religious or dualistic by this) and be a happy person with everything that I need and everything that I want, whether I'm living in a world that calls itself capitalistic, socialistic, anarchistic, or whatever.

Nonetheless, we are holding an academic discussion here, with the idea simply being to ask what consequences would result given the system we institute.