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.
Yeah, yeah, laugh if you want. I've heard it all before.
But look at how much better the quality of life is in socialist countries. In fact, it's remarkable that the more socialist a country is, the better their people live.
People are starting to wake up to these simple facts. I'm not sure what it's going to take to convince people like you, but the evidence is all around you. Open your eyes and get angry.
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!
Mock me if you must, but here's another data point for you. How often do socialist countries get attacked by terrorists? Why does it seem that the more socialist a country is, the less anger there is toward that country in the world?
Pretty funny how that works -- the more a country embraces policies of compassion and fairness, the more liked they are in the world.
But hey -- maybe you're right. It's all a coincidence.
Easier to mock me than it is to refute me, isn't it?
You can't even create good arguments. Please, go back to wearing black, and sitting at the book store smoking cigarettes and talking about how crappy things are. After that you will probably go home to your upper-middle class home and sleep well. Then, when you wake up, go to school and pay attention. They might teach you how to make an arguement that makes you sound less like a monkey on acid.
Don't sit here saying shit like "Why does it seem that the more socialist a country is, the less anger there is toward that country in the world?". This sort of statement just screams "adolescence". Like the statement previous, it asks a question that has no real answer and simply begs the reader to answer it for you. No one gives a shit about what you are saying (except people like me who enjoy pointing out 15 year olds trying to act adult), so, why not answer it? It's so common to see people utilizing questions, while attempting to make the simple act of questioning into some profoud action. Well, it's not. It never will be. Answer the fucking question in a logical way, and people will listen to you. Stop trying to act intelligent by challenging other people to do the thinking for you. Choosy moms chose Jif for you in your 6 figure home of capitalist oppression.
"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. You state it yourself. If you disagree with me, please define "compassion and fairness" to *refute* me.
Easier to be 15 and read childhood social/political philosophy than to accept reality, isn't it.
Go back to touching your privates and reading Sartre, you spoiled little bitch.
"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.
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:0, Troll)
Yeah, yeah, laugh if you want. I've heard it all before.
But look at how much better the quality of life is in socialist countries. In fact, it's remarkable that the more socialist a country is, the better their people live.
People are starting to wake up to these simple facts. I'm not sure what it's going to take to convince people like you, but the evidence is all around you. Open your eyes and get angry.
Re:+5 funny! (Score:2)
Re:+5 funny! (Score:0, Troll)
Mock me if you must, but here's another data point for you. How often do socialist countries get attacked by terrorists? Why does it seem that the more socialist a country is, the less anger there is toward that country in the world?
Pretty funny how that works -- the more a country embraces policies of compassion and fairness, the more liked they are in the world.
But hey -- maybe you're right. It's all a coincidence.
Easier to mock me than it is to refute me, isn't it?
+15 years old! (Score:0)
Don't sit here saying shit like "Why does it seem that the more socialist a country is, the less anger there is toward that country in the world?". This sort of statement just screams "adolescence". Like the statement previous, it asks a question that has no real answer and simply begs the reader to answer it for you. No one gives a shit about what you are saying (except people like me who enjoy pointing out 15 year olds trying to act adult), so, why not answer it? It's so common to see people utilizing questions, while attempting to make the simple act of questioning into some profoud action. Well, it's not. It never will be. Answer the fucking question in a logical way, and people will listen to you. Stop trying to act intelligent by challenging other people to do the thinking for you. Choosy moms chose Jif for you in your 6 figure home of capitalist oppression.
"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. You state it yourself. If you disagree with me, please define "compassion and fairness" to *refute* me.
Easier to be 15 and read childhood social/political philosophy than to accept reality, isn't it.
Go back to touching your privates and reading Sartre, you spoiled little bitch.
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)