Karl Marx has already explained exactly where money is going to go... into the ash-heap of history.
We're already starting to see it. How much anger are you seeing over corporatism and capitalism in general? Everyone is fed up: THE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK. Everyone knows it, but so many people are afraid to face it. They're afraid of what might replace it. "Better the devil you know, than the devil you don't".
But there is a better way! Do your research. Look at some of the alternative political parties.
The future is a moneyless society where everyone shares everything equally. We all do the jobs that we are best at, not the ones that you HAVE to do to "make a living". Everyone contributes to the public trust, and everyone shares in the public trust. No money needed!
There are so many people afraid right now, but I see that as a sign of hope. Finally everyone is seeing the absolute black soul of capitalism and are searching for something better. Soon we will be tearing down the walls of corporations, and the whole idea of "ownership" in general. Just like music and software shouldn't be owned, neither should physical resources, either. Everything should be publically owned. And no ownership means no need for money.
All of this was predicted over a hundred years ago. Read about it and learn.
I wish I had mod points (what happened to that system, anyway... they only give mod opints to people they like now?). I'd give this one a +5 Funny! I almost wet myself when I read this I was laughing so hard.
Oh shit, that was just too funny. Hey, do you write for the Onion, by any chance? I think I saw something similar in the Onion a while back. Again, wiping the tears from my eyes on that one. Keep 'em coming!
In case you haven't noticed, the terrorists are generally from those fucked up third world countries, and they attack the modern world because of jealousy and ignorance. Who the hell would want to attack Cuba? There's nothing left to attack! What about North Korea. What are they gonna get, a few bundles of sticks? And China? Shit, you chew gum the wrong way in China and the gov't locks you up forever and throws away they key. Oh yeah, all really good terrorist targets.
And if you lie your life by how much you're liked by other people, then you have a pretty fucked up self-image. Get some psychological help.
Yeah, and Vietnam when it was attacked by those terrorists from somewhere in Northern America because they were... what was it? Starting to become one of those socialist countries which everybody loves.
We were defending South Vietnam from North Vietnam, and lost. The south Vietnamese were happy we were defending them. Comparing us to terrorists for defending a sovereign nation just sounds stupid to anyone who can reason. Just because police and terrorists both carry guns, doesn't mean there is no way to tell the difference between the two.
Jealousy and ignorance? Modern world? You don't really believe that do you? Several people kill themselves because of jealousy and ignorance. America is modern because of what?
That itself is an ignorant statement. (cults notwithstanding)
America and Europe are modern because they understand that the job of govt. is to protect the rights of individuals, instead of enslaving individuals for their own goals. The statements are not ignorant. Terrorists' actions are based on faith, fear, ignorance, and jealosy, rather than reason and respect for other individuals as free beings.
Actually the Terrorists gave specific reasons for why they did what they did. They usually do. I prefer not to ignore their reasoning wether true or not. It at least deserves thought if one is true about his intention to protect the people. When terrorists scream that they did X because of Y, then my protector ignores what they say and says they did it because of some other reason, I question his ability and his desire to protect me.
In case you haven't noticed, the terrorists are generally from those fucked up third world countries, and they attack the modern world because of jealousy and ignorance.
They tend to be from fucked up countries because people from those countries are angry at cunts like you fucking with them - for example Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama/Colombia, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea...
Who the hell would want to attack Cuba? There's nothing left to attack!
Because all you Spetic Tanks fucked their economy via a completely unnecessary blockade for the last few decade
"Pretty funny how that works -- the more a country embraces policies of compassion and fairness, the more liked they are in the world." Pretty funny how impotent the "liked" socialist nations are. They are powerless. Do you understand the idea of power? Other countries will decimate a weak populace, and socialism breeds weakness.
Whoever said that socialist countries should not have a defensive military? Not me. But you pull out all these cliched statements that you ascribe to me without thinking anything through.
A thought experiment: What if every country on earth was socialist/communist? With democratically elected leaders? With STABLE democracies? How many wars of agression are started by stable democracies? Almost none (although there are certain exceptions, but almost always civil wars of aggression like Croatia).
You can only believe that socialism breeds weakness if you believe that compassion is weakness. A compassionate society is one that cares about ALL its members, not just the rich ones. When you eliminate money completely, then all class distinctions will be eliminated (by definition), and thus all will be treated equally. That is one definition of a compassionate society. It's hard for me to understand how you would see that as weak.
Easier to be 15 and read childhood social/political philosophy than to accept reality, isn't it.
Easier to spout insults rather than engage in honest debate, isn't it? But just for the record, I'm 38, married, two kids. I make a good income, live a modest lifestyle, and most of my money goes to helping those less fortunate. How much of YOUR income goes to helping people, or does your "understanding of power" preclude any sort of compassion?
You can only believe that socialism breeds weakness if you believe that compassion is weakness. A compassionate society is one that cares about ALL its members, not just the rich ones. When you eliminate money completely, then all class distinctions will be eliminated (by definition), and thus all will be treated equally. That is one definition of a compassionate society. It's hard for me to understand how you would see that as weak.
I don't want to be treated equally. I think that equal sucks. I work harder than most people, so I want a lifestyle that is better than "equal". That's where your pretty little philosophy goes down the shitter. The world is not a fucking Christmastime Coca-Cola ad, kid.
so I want a lifestyle that is better than "equal".
Ah HA! That's where your philosophy breaks down, and you don't even know it. Note that you're not asking for a lifestyle that is satisfying to you, you're asking for a lifestyle BETTER THAN OTHERS. What difference does it make how someone else is living? Wouldn't it be more rational to worry about your own lifestyle? And ask whether it is satisfying or not?
Now ask yourself: why if EVERYONE could have a satisfying lifestyle? Forget questions of money and luxury; it's only an immature society that craves decadent luxury. Is it really necessary that someone lives in a house of gold? Wouldn't it be a better world if everyone was guaranteed a healthy, productive, fulfilling lifestyle that was primarily concerned with personal growth?
Yes, I understand that your response will be something like "screw personal growth, I want houses of gold". And that's why the world isn't ready for true communism. But someday, we will grow out of our adolescent "I WANT CANDY CANDY CANDY NOW NOW NOW" lifestyles. The fact is, it doesn't cost that much money to give everyone fulfilling lifestyles.
It's not your decision, fuckwad, to determine what a fulfilling life for me is. I decide that. I have decided that a fulfilling life is to own at least one Ferrari. Either tell me what society gives each of its members a Ferrari, or get the hell out of my way, because I'm busy earning one. That's my philosophy.
It's not your decision, fuckwad, to determine what a fulfilling life for me is.
Ah, but it is. My (meaning society's) role is to tell you EXACTLY what you can and can't do. For example, we don't allow you to find a fulfilling life by being a mass murderer.
Either tell me what society gives each of its members a Ferrari, or get the hell out of my way, because I'm busy earning one.
In other words, you want the house of gold. But your response will be "wanting a Ferrari doesn't infringe on other's rights like being a mass murderer". But doesn't it?
For the price of that Ferrari, society can feed hundreds of people. Put 5-10 people through college for a year. Produce thousands of volumes for a library. You damage society by owning a Ferrari, and for what? So you can prove your dick is bigger.
On the other hand, there IS room in society for art and sport. Maybe your passion lies in building cars for art. Maybe your passion lies in road racing. A communist society doesn't have to be bland, dull and gray -- just fulfilling for all its members. There is room for Ferraris in a communist society, but it needs to be done for the right reasons: art or sport, and it needs to be participatory. There is room for Ferraris for the right reasons.
"Pretty funny how that works -- the more a country embraces policies of compassion and fairness, the more liked they are in the world."
Been to North Korea lately? That hell-hole is a product of decdes of communism. Plenty of REASONABLE people are pissed-off at them too. People attacking the US, on the other hand, are basing it on faith, fear, and jealosy.
Snicker... Marxists/communists/etc. are the last people on earth who should be telling people that their "system doesn't work". They can't even understand human nature.
The main thing people don't understand about "human nature" is that there's no such thing as human nature.
Humans have evolved to be flexible; in fact, human bodies and brains evolved in concert with human societies. That's why people can adapt to live in a highly socialist system, or a highly capitalist one, or any of a million other alternatives.
What you seem to be calling human nature is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Create an economic system that depends entirely on the pursuit of self-interest, and people will behave in self-interested ways. Create one where people work together, and they'll work together. Pretty obvious really.
Socialist systems have all sorts of problems, but exploitation by the selfish or lazy rather notably isn't one of them, precisely because that sort of behaviour isn't fostered. Capitalist systems have a whole other set of problems, many of which are related to selfish behaviour, because that's the basis of the whole system.
There's ample room for criticism of any system, but to think you can live immersed in one world and be able to reasonably comment on the people and workings in another is absurd. Go live in Sweden for a few years and your point of view might be worth listening to. You'll certainly have a better conception of "human nature".
Have to agree mostly but disagree that socialism does not experience problems with greed. Its more often from socialist governments whereas in US its from corporations AND the government.
Greed is not a problem for a corporation, since they are governed by laws that channel that greed into productive behavior. A greedy govt. is a problem, however, since they have the option of using force to get whatever they want. A socialist govt. is in charge of deciding who needs what, and how much of anything anyone should get. This is way too much power for a group to have that relies on force to dictate their terms. Capitalsim under a govt. that protects the rights of individuals is a better system since trade allows productive individuals the opportunity to obtain the things they want, rather than depending who they know in the govt. to get these things.
People need to work to live. Food, clothing and shelter don't appear out of thin air. This basic tenet dictates human nature. Even in modern society, the cost of these essential itens still accounts for the majority of the time spent by the average worker. Most people don't enjoy work, and would prefer to work less if they could do so and earn the same wage. Therefore, if a person does not get compensated for the worth of his work, but instead is given what society thinks he NEEDS, his incentive to do worthwhile work is diminished. Productivity suffers, and even the most basic necessities become scarce. In summary, although people have free will, they are bound necessities in order to survive. Since a person is an individual, he is governed by self-interest. You cannot remove that. IF he feels his work isn't benefitting him personally, he will invest his effort in other things more fulfilling for himself, which will not necessarily be productive to the society that he's being charged with supporting. Read Ayn Rand forn a more thorough, eloquent arguement.
The future is a moneyless society where everyone shares everything equally. We all do the jobs that we are best at, not the ones that you HAVE to do to "make a living". Everyone contributes to the public trust, and everyone shares in the public trust. No money needed!
The grand experiment failed. Your assumption that all people are equal, with equal needs and abilities, has been proven wrong time and again.
OK, This post deservedly got a lot of laughs, but the point that there is a lot of anger over the current direction of corporatism and capitalism. The rising gap between rich and poor in so many countries is significant - in the past it has always preceded civil unrest and eventually revolution.
Communism is a failed experiment, but what people forget is that the problems it was trying to solve were real. And they're still with us.
Communism is a failed experiment, but what people forget is that the problems it was trying to solve were real. And they're still with us.
If the trucks bearing the US flag rolled up to crowds of people to deliver global welfare direct to individuals were accepted, would the problems still exist?
It wasn't just that communism failed to solve these problems - it made them worse and added new ones. The dictatorship of the proletariat never materialized, just dictatorships. Draconian, murderous, thought-policing dictatorships. It's a sociopolitical theory that has failed time and again in the real world, but never lacks for proponents thanks to its ideological purity that offers answers to all problems and looks good on paper.
Of course, the notion of purity and perfection being equivalent to good is complete bullshit, but I digress.
Every system is going to have problems and weaknesses to go with its positive aspects and strengths. Some systems are inherently better or worse than others (communism having proved itself absolutely horrible). What makes a system good is its ability to adapt to changes and deliver on its promises without imposing onerous burdens.
Certainly there a problems with the current capitalist/corporatist/democratic situation. The chief warning signs being, in my book, the decline of the middle class, increasing corruption in the media, and erosion of previously guaranteed and active rights respectively. The correct course of action under these situations is for people, individually and collectively, to attempt to remedy conditions like these within the existing system, WHICH IT WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR. Revolution would be massive overkill of very dubious merit.
Umm.. I hope you don't think I was advocating revolution, as I was holding that up as a possible penalty for *not* addressing these problems now. I'm interested in your assertion that the 'existing system' 'was specifically designed' to solve these problems however. Capitalism (as defined by Adam Smith) wasn't designed, it's a product of human nature and and a free market. Corporatism is more of an emergent phenomenon than a system. I'm guessing the system your referring to is democracy, which is the only system you have mentioned that was defined. I would like to posit, however, that democracy has manifestly not prevented massive economic injustices in many times and places, and is due for examination as a political system. Just because we've failed to come up with a better system so far doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying.
Karl Marx has already explained exactly where money is going to go... into the ash-heap of history.
You're quite right, although the [singinst.org] singularity [singinst.org] will be what causes it.
Nanotechnology [foresight.org] will [singinst.org] play a big part in this. What it boils down to is, once we can replicate materials (like in Star Trek) we won't need to exchange pieces of paper in order to obtain goods. Services, perhaps, but the machines will be able to perform most services and you can replicate the machines.
This should all happen within our lifetimes. Perhaps in less than a generation (~20 years).
Most people only work in order to survive. You tell them they will be provided for whether or not they work, and they'll stop working. Productivity goes to hell. Your country goes bankrupt. Don't believe me. Look at the former Soviet Union and North Korea for good examples of society under communism.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
We already know (Score:1, Troll)
(one again putting on my flame-retardant suit)
Karl Marx has already explained exactly where money is going to go... into the ash-heap of history.
We're already starting to see it. How much anger are you seeing over corporatism and capitalism in general? Everyone is fed up: THE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK. Everyone knows it, but so many people are afraid to face it. They're afraid of what might replace it. "Better the devil you know, than the devil you don't".
But there is a better way! Do your research. Look at some of the alternative political parties.
The future is a moneyless society where everyone shares everything equally. We all do the jobs that we are best at, not the ones that you HAVE to do to "make a living". Everyone contributes to the public trust, and everyone shares in the public trust. No money needed!
There are so many people afraid right now, but I see that as a sign of hope. Finally everyone is seeing the absolute black soul of capitalism and are searching for something better. Soon we will be tearing down the walls of corporations, and the whole idea of "ownership" in general. Just like music and software shouldn't be owned, neither should physical resources, either. Everything should be publically owned. And no ownership means no need for money.
All of this was predicted over a hundred years ago. Read about it and learn.
+5 funny! (Score:2)
Re:+5 funny! (Score:2)
Re:+5 funny! (Score:2)
In case you haven't noticed, the terrorists are generally from those fucked up third world countries, and they attack the modern world because of jealousy and ignorance. Who the hell would want to attack Cuba? There's nothing left to attack! What about North Korea. What are they gonna get, a few bundles of sticks? And China? Shit, you chew gum the wrong way in China and the gov't locks you up forever and throws away they key. Oh yeah, all really good terrorist targets.
And if you lie your life by how much you're liked by other people, then you have a pretty fucked up self-image. Get some psychological help.
Re:+5 funny! (Score:2)
Hmm....
Re:+5 funny! (Score:2)
Re:+5 funny! (Score:2)
That itself is an ignorant statement. (cults notwithstanding)
Re:+5 funny! (Score:2)
Re:+5 funny! (Score:2)
Re:+5 funny! (Score:1)
In case you haven't noticed, the terrorists are generally from those fucked up third world countries, and they attack the modern world because of jealousy and ignorance.
They tend to be from fucked up countries because people from those countries are angry at cunts like you fucking with them - for example Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama/Colombia, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea...
Who the hell would want to attack Cuba? There's nothing left to attack!
Because all you Spetic Tanks fucked their economy via a completely unnecessary blockade for the last few decade
Re:+15 years old! (Score:1)
"Pretty funny how that works -- the more a country embraces policies of compassion and fairness, the more liked they are in the world." Pretty funny how impotent the "liked" socialist nations are. They are powerless. Do you understand the idea of power? Other countries will decimate a weak populace, and socialism breeds weakness.
Whoever said that socialist countries should not have a defensive military? Not me. But you pull out all these cliched statements that you ascribe to me without thinking anything through.
A thought experiment: What if every country on earth was socialist/communist? With democratically elected leaders? With STABLE democracies? How many wars of agression are started by stable democracies? Almost none (although there are certain exceptions, but almost always civil wars of aggression like Croatia).
You can only believe that socialism breeds weakness if you believe that compassion is weakness. A compassionate society is one that cares about ALL its members, not just the rich ones. When you eliminate money completely, then all class distinctions will be eliminated (by definition), and thus all will be treated equally. That is one definition of a compassionate society. It's hard for me to understand how you would see that as weak.
Easier to be 15 and read childhood social/political philosophy than to accept reality, isn't it.
Easier to spout insults rather than engage in honest debate, isn't it? But just for the record, I'm 38, married, two kids. I make a good income, live a modest lifestyle, and most of my money goes to helping those less fortunate. How much of YOUR income goes to helping people, or does your "understanding of power" preclude any sort of compassion?
Re:+15 years old! (Score:2)
I don't want to be treated equally. I think that equal sucks. I work harder than most people, so I want a lifestyle that is better than "equal". That's where your pretty little philosophy goes down the shitter. The world is not a fucking Christmastime Coca-Cola ad, kid.
Re:+15 years old! (Score:1)
so I want a lifestyle that is better than "equal".
Ah HA! That's where your philosophy breaks down, and you don't even know it. Note that you're not asking for a lifestyle that is satisfying to you, you're asking for a lifestyle BETTER THAN OTHERS. What difference does it make how someone else is living? Wouldn't it be more rational to worry about your own lifestyle? And ask whether it is satisfying or not?
Now ask yourself: why if EVERYONE could have a satisfying lifestyle? Forget questions of money and luxury; it's only an immature society that craves decadent luxury. Is it really necessary that someone lives in a house of gold? Wouldn't it be a better world if everyone was guaranteed a healthy, productive, fulfilling lifestyle that was primarily concerned with personal growth?
Yes, I understand that your response will be something like "screw personal growth, I want houses of gold". And that's why the world isn't ready for true communism. But someday, we will grow out of our adolescent "I WANT CANDY CANDY CANDY NOW NOW NOW" lifestyles. The fact is, it doesn't cost that much money to give everyone fulfilling lifestyles.
Re:+15 years old! (Score:2)
Re:+15 years old! (Score:1)
It's not your decision, fuckwad, to determine what a fulfilling life for me is.
Ah, but it is. My (meaning society's) role is to tell you EXACTLY what you can and can't do. For example, we don't allow you to find a fulfilling life by being a mass murderer.
Either tell me what society gives each of its members a Ferrari, or get the hell out of my way, because I'm busy earning one.
In other words, you want the house of gold. But your response will be "wanting a Ferrari doesn't infringe on other's rights like being a mass murderer". But doesn't it?
For the price of that Ferrari, society can feed hundreds of people. Put 5-10 people through college for a year. Produce thousands of volumes for a library. You damage society by owning a Ferrari, and for what? So you can prove your dick is bigger.
On the other hand, there IS room in society for art and sport. Maybe your passion lies in building cars for art. Maybe your passion lies in road racing. A communist society doesn't have to be bland, dull and gray -- just fulfilling for all its members. There is room for Ferraris in a communist society, but it needs to be done for the right reasons: art or sport, and it needs to be participatory. There is room for Ferraris for the right reasons.
Re:+15 years old! (Score:2)
Re:+5 funny! (Score:2)
Been to North Korea lately? That hell-hole is a product of decdes of communism. Plenty of REASONABLE people are pissed-off at them too. People attacking the US, on the other hand, are basing it on faith, fear, and jealosy.
Mod parent up - Funny! (Score:2)
Re:Mod parent up - Funny! (Score:3, Insightful)
Humans have evolved to be flexible; in fact, human bodies and brains evolved in concert with human societies. That's why people can adapt to live in a highly socialist system, or a highly capitalist one, or any of a million other alternatives.
What you seem to be calling human nature is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Create an economic system that depends entirely on the pursuit of self-interest, and people will behave in self-interested ways. Create one where people work together, and they'll work together. Pretty obvious really.
Socialist systems have all sorts of problems, but exploitation by the selfish or lazy rather notably isn't one of them, precisely because that sort of behaviour isn't fostered. Capitalist systems have a whole other set of problems, many of which are related to selfish behaviour, because that's the basis of the whole system.
There's ample room for criticism of any system, but to think you can live immersed in one world and be able to reasonably comment on the people and workings in another is absurd. Go live in Sweden for a few years and your point of view might be worth listening to. You'll certainly have a better conception of "human nature".
Re:Mod parent up - Funny! (Score:2)
Re:Mod parent up - Funny! (Score:2)
Re:Mod parent up - Funny! (Score:2)
Re:We already know (Score:2)
Time to move on, dude.
Re:We already know (Score:2)
The rising gap between rich and poor in so many countries is significant - in the past it has always preceded civil unrest and eventually revolution.
Communism is a failed experiment, but what people forget is that the problems it was trying to solve were real. And they're still with us.
Re:We already know (Score:2)
Communism is a failed experiment, but what people forget is that the problems it was trying to solve were real. And they're still with us.
If the trucks bearing the US flag rolled up to crowds of people to deliver global welfare direct to individuals were accepted, would the problems still exist?
Re:We already know (Score:2)
Of course, the notion of purity and perfection being equivalent to good is complete bullshit, but I digress.
Every system is going to have problems and weaknesses to go with its positive aspects and strengths. Some systems are inherently better or worse than others (communism having proved itself absolutely horrible). What makes a system good is its ability to adapt to changes and deliver on its promises without imposing onerous burdens.
Certainly there a problems with the current capitalist/corporatist/democratic situation. The chief warning signs being, in my book, the decline of the middle class, increasing corruption in the media, and erosion of previously guaranteed and active rights respectively. The correct course of action under these situations is for people, individually and collectively, to attempt to remedy conditions like these within the existing system, WHICH IT WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR. Revolution would be massive overkill of very dubious merit.
Re:We already know (Score:2)
I'm interested in your assertion that the 'existing system' 'was specifically designed' to solve these problems however.
Capitalism (as defined by Adam Smith) wasn't designed, it's a product of human nature and and a free market. Corporatism is more of an emergent phenomenon than a system.
I'm guessing the system your referring to is democracy, which is the only system you have mentioned that was defined.
I would like to posit, however, that democracy has manifestly not prevented massive economic injustices in many times and places, and is due for examination as a political system.
Just because we've failed to come up with a better system so far doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying.
Obligatory Simpsons quote (Score:1)
Re:We already know (Score:2)
You're quite right, although the [singinst.org] singularity [singinst.org] will be what causes it.
Nanotechnology [foresight.org] will [singinst.org] play a big part in this. What it boils down to is, once we can replicate materials (like in Star Trek) we won't need to exchange pieces of paper in order to obtain goods. Services, perhaps, but the machines will be able to perform most services and you can replicate the machines.
This should all happen within our lifetimes. Perhaps in less than a generation (~20 years).
Re:We already know (Score:2)