Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's Journal: "The market is the state. In fact that is true today."--Fustakrakich 28

Journal by smitty_one_each
I have said many times that the difference between capitalism and socialism is one of cardinality. Socialism is the singular corporation. Capitalism, if it be more than oligarchy, is a full-on multitude.

It has to happen if we are to shed our animal desires and become human.

Dude, don't bogart that joint. I want to know what magic definition of "human" you're operating under, who manages that definition, and the size of your kickback for being such a useful patsy.
Full disclosure: my definition is the liberty-conveying one found in the New Testament, and I'm not buying any of these variations on Marx. Karl, indeed, preached "The Kingdom of God, hold the God," with the corpse piles of the last 170 years to show for it.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"The market is the state. In fact that is true today."--Fustakrakich

Comments Filter:
  • Bla bla bla... If we're going to play with the theoretical, you shouldn't blame Marx for the people who corrupted his vision and turned it into capitalism for the sole benefit of the politburo... remember the ultimate goal in his case was the complete dissolution of the state, where humans can peacefully co-exist in a cooperative fashion. Capitalism is simply animal competition for dominance, a usurpation of all our rights to uncontaminated natural resources, which is very natural, of course, but humans wil

    • I know the Church once had the powers of government, but I can't find a single time in history where it held sway over the market, beyond personal virtue.

    • . . .you shouldn't blame Marx for the people who corrupted his vision and turned it into capitalism for the sole benefit of the politburo.

      That is a sweet study in 'daft'.

      Capitalism is simply animal competition for dominance, a usurpation of all our rights to uncontaminated natural resources, which is very natural, of course, but humans will at least make an attempt to transcend that.

      Why, why, why, a thousand whys, and again: explain the motive. There. Is. No. Internal. Driver. Whatsoever. to transcend.
      I can tell you why I strive to do so, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with my inner, natural thug.
      Restated: you can't have atheism without embracing a savage, materialistic, dust-to-dust existence.
      And I will continue to laugh at you, at length and in detail, for trying.

      • Motive? Cuz I feel like it... The internal driver is all there is, until you can show otherwise.. You either go with the flow, or you try to swim against the stream. You either believe, or you don't. That choice is purely internal.

        And I will continue to laugh at you...

        And I in return. It has all been very enlightening... to see the 19th Century is still alive

        • So all this is due to Smitty's inability give up his dependence on the great SkyDaddy?

          What a FUCKING disappointment. Between this and Jerry's gratuitous bloodbath, that's 2 for 2.

          It's 0930 on a Sunday, and yet I feel the strong desire for a double shot of Old No. 7 right about now.

          Ah well, it's a nice day, and I'm going out with Wisdom this arvo to play Grillmästare for some friends.

        • you can show otherwise

          Inviting the question, back to you other JE, just who is the fish in this equation?
          But let me be less obtuse: we both are, at a purely rational level.
          That is, if all we are is so much matter, what does it matter?
          I know how I tell the difference between Kermit Gosnell and a Nobel Prize winner. But we have to admit that they hold their elements in common, and have the same number of chromosomes.
          So, as the Smart Guy In The Room, I'm looking for you to show me more than a toss off of "SkyDaddy".

          • So, as the Smart Guy In The Room, I'm looking for you to show me more than a toss off of "SkyDaddy".

            Look in the mirror, boy...

            • I'm fallible, and mortal, and will be in great shape to last more than another five decades. How about something more lasting, then?
              • Sorry man, you're all there is. Take it or leave it. Being fallible and mortal is part of the show.

                • So say you. If that's REALLY the case, then why were we bothering with any of this noise, then?
                  • Because we're here. Make the best of it...

                    • How can you even evaluate 'best'? You materialists are TCP/IP, continually arguing against HTTP.
                    • How can you even evaluate 'best'?

                      Very easily. Why can't you? Can't you think for yourself? Or do you need to be spoon fed everything?

                    • Oh, I know precisely how I can. I'm merely wishing to observe your gyrations [youtube.com] as you try to simulate free will, while denying it.
                    • Just reminding you that you're biologically/culturally motivated. And your participation in the singalong is the evidence.

                    • So, think of being as a protocol stack. You've got DNA, the mind, and, if you will, the soul.
                      Putting perhaps to fine a point on the mind, my opinion is that, peradventure free will does not exist (that is, you could be 100% emulated in software), you still behave as if it exists. Therefore, it is practically useless to deny free will. Furthermore, my observation is that the intent of those who do deny free will tends to be nefarious.
                      Thus, all the H8ers can get stuffed.
    • by Arker (91948)

      I think you should blame Marx, because his theory was always about humans, and yet it flew in the face of human behavior. If a Marxist paradise could be made to work at all, it would require staffing the upper party with angels, not human beings. The outcome of implementing it with human beings was as predictable as it was tragic.

      If Marx had written a theory about how angels could organise themselves, and someone else had come along and decided to try it with human beings, then saying dont blame Marx would

      • All well and good, but it only confirms that we are still nothing but biological machines, with no particular attributes to separate us from any other life form. If we can't do any better, why even try, eh?

        • by Arker (91948)

          Show me another life form that gives voice to such thoughts?

          We may be more unusual than you realise, even if we are not angels.

          • They might all voice such thoughts. We're just not hearing it. We all express the same thing. Some more 'eloquently' than others.

            • by Arker (91948)

              They might all voice such thoughts.

              Ok. Granting for the moment the logical possibility that some of the more extreme Indian theologians are correct and even the rocks think, we still have the matter of probability.

              If we note that we have no reason to believe any other species we have yet met voices thoughts at all the probably minority position of sentience would seem properly framed, without any need for religious certainty.

              Anticipating you yelling 'dolphins' let me say I have the utmost respect for Dr. L

              • ...we are still the tiny minority of species on the planet...

                Our 'insignificance' is irrelevant. Biology still rules, no matter how much abstraction we try to pile on. Marx's (and all the other damn 'theorists') main problem is that they make no allowances for sex. They all want to lock people up in the factories, whether for the industrialist or for the state, which I shouldn't bother to distinguish since they are invariably the same thing. Biological beings want sex, and lots of it. Deny it to them, and t

Vitamin C deficiency is apauling.

Working...