I can't stand the american "dream".

Users who are viewing this thread

People are driven by their human nature, so the best we can do is at least admit we're nothing more than animals.
It's not intelligent to presume that human behaviors aren't largely based on the things that came from natural selection, and to deal with that as it is.

Then once we will have ****ed Earth till the last bit of nature, we'll blame it on our human nature.
I think that statement is rather unfair to your fellow human beings.

People don't want to trash the Earth.  Ask anybody on the street, and they'll agree with that. 

However, they also want to live in conditions better than poverty.  Whether that's the "American Dream", or a fancy flat in London is irrelevant- it's all the same thing.

In short, if you want to solve the problem, you have to solve both things, instead of telling people they're all doomed.  You've got to learn to focus your anger on doing something positive, and communicating in a positive way, or you won't get anywhere :smile:
 
I'm afraid I can't find that quote anywhere on this site. Could you please dig it out for me and provide the link?

EDIT: OK I found it. Its here:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Economic-Philosophic-Manuscripts-1844.pdf

The translation is different. if you looking for a direct quotation for Karl Marx remember that his words are translated into English meaning no two translations will ever be the same.

Excess and intemperance come to be its true norm.
Subjectively, this appears partly in the fact that the extension of products and needs becomes a contriving and ever-calculating subservience to inhuman, sophisticated, unnatural and imaginary appetites. Private property does not know how to change crude need into human need. Its idealism is fantasy, caprice and whim; and no eunuch flatters his despot more basely or uses more despicable means to stimulate his dulled capacity for pleasure in order to sneak a favor for
himself than does the industrial eunuch – the producer – in order to sneak for himself a few pieces of silver, in order to charm the golden birds out of the pockets of his dearly beloved neighbors in Christ. He puts himself at the service of the other’s most depraved fancies, plays the pimp between him and his need, excites in him morbid appetites, lies in wait for each of his weaknesses – all so that he can then demand the cash for this service of love.


Uh-huh. So why is it you spoke of the poor becoming "enslaved in consumerism with rising prices", then?

Because at the point where I inserted a comma after I stated that you guys made similar points to karl Marx, I began to rant on a parallel of a new slave / master class based system. Though I believe myself to be using a model similar to Karl Marx i do have to concede most of this is just my own opinion. 

Ie: With rising prices and lower wages and consumption no longer an option but a nessecity in order to maintain the economic system we are in it just feels like slavery of a different form. Let me point out though I did not state that this is what karl Marx believes rather that the concept seemed similar. Since as far as I know Karl Marx was into pointing out systems of slavery in reference to the way the proletariat is treated by the bourgeoisie.



The trouble, as far as I'm concerned, is not with what you may or may not have exaggerated, but rather with the fact that you presented a bunch badly patched together nonsense, with all due respect, and implied it had anything to do with Marx, who on the contrary made a habit of being stringent.

I am not Karl Marx nor am I aiming to replicate what he said in exact likeness, I was merely drawing on perceived similarities. What I probably did was throw in far to much personal ranting/feelings. As far as nonsense is concerned, in hindsight I don't really expect you to get what I said, I should also note i read Karl Marx's manifesto ages ago and found it quite interesting but time has probably warped my understanding of what it was I read because having just now gone back and looked at it, half the revelations I thought I got out of it during my political science course do not seem to be in there. I am actually wondering if I was using different material or perhaps other writings and I am actually wondering were the sentences are from which I drew half these conclusions. Hmmm...


How does the poor becoming thusly enslaved follow from the gap between rich and poor becoming wider? And if the poor are getting poorer, how can they be affected by consumerism, actually? Isn't it a hallmark of being poorer that you can't consume as much as if you're less poor?
I do see what your saying and your probably right but; Consumption regardless of whether your poor and rich is not an option. Though I have probably chosen badly in using consumerism as an example, I note that our society is so consumer focused its becoming overwhelming which is more a personal rant that anything.

On the contrary, if you disapproved of consumerism, you should rejoice that people became poorer: they can't afford all that useless junk and SUVs anymore! The lord be praised!

I guess it depends. I am not against the act of consuming. I am probably leaning against our consumer orientated society. Ie: Our societies focus or unhealthy obsession with consumption.

Eat to live don't live to eat.

http://www.demandmore.org/2006/09/19/consumerism-is-slavery/

If a majority of people being poor necessarily ended up in revolutions, we'd have noticed a long time ago. Hint: it doesn't. It leads to rebellions, yes. But rebellions are a thing altogether different from revolutions.
You mean revolutions are politically orientated whereas rebellion is just an act of defiance? Ok I see your point if that's what your trying to say. I did not differentiate between the two although both probably have political impact.


I'd really be flabbergasted if you could come up with a Mark quote that said anything even remotely resembling this.

Damn you Karl Marx.. why the **** won't you say what I want you to say!? haha :smile:



rejenorst said:
There have already been population curving strategies suggested by prominent elitists, Henry Kissinger  for one. He was a big fan of keeping the human population down through the use of engineered disasters such as war, or the manipulation of food to cause larger number of death rates in places such as the Philippines. See memorandum 200. Obama's health advisor I think was a big supporter of mass covert sterilization programs in a book he wrote back in the 70's, though I think he claims differently now.
Yeah, and Adolf Hitler liked dogs a lot, I hear.

And?
 
Oh this is going to goto the "Is the necessitous man, a free man?" Argument right? Cause the necessitous man isn't a free man.
 
tyrannicide said:
On that note, I would rather use the term "monopolistic" than "oligarchic", as the latter has a broader meaning ("domination of the rich").

But isn't that just it?

On another note, I think people get too tied up in political ideals and blind themselves to the issues at hand. The OP may be an example of this. Bipartisanship in America breeds this mentality. It's not party politics or revolution that we need, though it may happen, but to fix certain problems.

I think Louis XVI was an example of the hungry peasantry rising in such a manner. Though poverty doesn't necessarily necessitate revolution, it certainly doesn't stop it from happening.
 
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU PIEEEEEEEEEEEEEERCE ELLIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU PIEEEEEEEEEEEEEERCE ELLIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! x2
 
Pierce Elliot said:
Cause the necessitous man isn't a free man.
True. But then again the only unnecessitous man is a dead man.

Noddin said:
tyrannicide said:
On that note, I would rather use the term "monopolistic" than "oligarchic", as the latter has a broader meaning ("domination of the rich").
But isn't that just it?
It is it, but it is not just it. Capitalism and monopolism are both oligarchic forms of society, but although the latter is the inevitable follow-up to the former, they differ in how they shape society.

Noddin said:
On another note, I think people get too tied up in political ideals and blind themselves to the issues at hand. The OP may be an example of this. Bipartisanship in America breeds this mentality. It's not party politics or revolution that we need, though it may happen, but to fix certain problems.
As someone who is rather strongly "tied up" in political ideals, I cannot help but take that personally. And while I think I see what you mean, I would say that "politics", in its strictest sense, is the practice of shaping society. Hence by definition, shaping society differently is a political act; if we assume that society ought to be shaped differently, then everything we would do to that purpose would be political. Not the kind of politics that are practiced nowadays, which are either shady dealings of the inbred who hold power, or tragicomical soap-operas for the distraction of the public -- I'll readily grant you that. But politics nonetheless.

Noddin said:
I think Louis XVI was an example of the hungry peasantry rising in such a manner. Though poverty doesn't necessarily necessitate revolution, it certainly doesn't stop it from happening.
Not entirely inaccurate, but it misses the magical ingredient: the middle classes. It was the middle classes who wrestled the power from the monarchy. It certainly didn't hurt that they could use the disgruntled poor as shock troops. But those alone would not, I insist, not have managed it on their own. There have been countless rebellions of the peasantry in the Middle Ages. Not a single one of them has resulted in a revolution (not directly, at least). It takes a lot more than anger or goodwill to upturn a rule, to make a revolution: it takes the ability to run more efficient a system of society. This is one of the things historical materialism ("marxism") teaches.

And strictly speaking, while the poverty and misery of the masses did help the bourgeosie's access to power, they themselves weren't poor, and they wouldn't have managed it if they had been. 'Tis the wealth and strength of a class that makes it victorious, not its weakness and poverty. This might seem evident, but there are a lot of people who think that the current system will collapse because people are miserable. The opposite is the case, its overthrow is the less likely, the poorer the people are. Only if it manages to grow in power despite the establishment's oppression can a class ever hope to become the ruling one.
 
You don't seem the type to absolutely follow a political doctrine because you agree with a few of its principals and blindly trust to the wisdom of the other principals that you never really put enough thought into to say that you truly agree with them. I meant no offense. You said it yourself, "...tragicomical soap-operas for the distraction of the public..." Come on man, you know what I mean. Of course I'm just as tied up in political ideals, but I try to listen to people with different viewpoints so I can learn and alter my own ideals. A lot of people, too many, never do this because they make it too touchy of an issue. They blind themselves. People who are completely and utterly communist, socialist, capitalist or otherwise are going to make the mistakes inherit in their respective systems. Every system has its flaws. We should try to take the wisdom out of each.

That is a good point about the bourgeois. It's true that any revolution requires some monetary aid, and the poor will never have it that way. Perhaps if things become bad enough for the upper middle class to be effected there can be some changes along this avenue. What I'm talking about is almost a dissent into anarchy. Conditions where there are so many people with nothing to lose that they're waiting for the spark of revolution; someone to blame for the way they've had to live.

You said, "...grow in power despite the establishments oppression..." Can not power be weighed in numbers? Add a few people with a meager amount of money in light of those with an outrageous amount of money and you might have something. Organization is all that's required. That's it. Organization and the motivation to do so.
 
tyrannicide said:
Pierce Elliot said:
Cause the necessitous man isn't a free man.
True. But then again the only unnecessitous man is a dead man.

But someone who carries the means to fill their needs isn't really necessitous, or dead for that matter.

Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU PIEEEEEEEEEEEEEERCE ELLIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Familyguy1 said:
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU PIEEEEEEEEEEEEEERCE ELLIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! x2
What did I do? Though that's sig-worthy almost.

EDIT: No it's way too ****ing obnoxious. Quoted, sig'ed, and displayed.
 
Pierce Elliot said:
tyrannicide said:
Pierce Elliot said:
Cause the necessitous man isn't a free man.
True. But then again the only unnecessitous man is a dead man.

But someone who carries the means to fill their needs isn't really necessitous, or dead for that matter.

Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU PIEEEEEEEEEEEEEERCE ELLIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Familyguy1 said:
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU PIEEEEEEEEEEEEEERCE ELLIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! x2
What did I do? Though that's sig-worthy almost.

EDIT: No it's way too ****ing obnoxious. Quoted, sig'ed, and displayed.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Btw: HH, *highfive*
 
Noddin said:
I meant no offense. You said it yourself, "...tragicomical soap-operas for the distraction of the public..." Come on man, you know what I mean.
I took no offense. I merely intended to say that I was replying from a personal point of view. Yes, I know what you mean. And I agree with it. But I meant to explain why, although I know what you mean about politics and do agree with it, I still hold it that the solution is a political one.

Noddin said:
You don't seem the type to absolutely follow a political doctrine because you agree with a few of its principals and blindly trust to the wisdom of the other principals that you never really put enough thought into to say that you truly agree with them. Of course I'm just as tied up in political ideals, but I try to listen to people with different viewpoints so I can learn and alter my own ideals. A lot of people, too many, never do this because they make it too touchy of an issue. They blind themselves. People who are completely and utterly communist, socialist, capitalist or otherwise are going to make the mistakes inherit in their respective systems. Every system has its flaws. We should try to take the wisdom out of each.
Speaking again from a personal point of view, for me the answer to the problems you describe was to find a political ideology that didn't need me to trust any wisdom, not even mine, blindly. Of course, once I've acquired sufficient certainty that it is valid and made it mine, when confronted with contradicting ideologies, I would reject them, in the course of which I might appear dogmatic. But that's because a whole political system of thought is a lot more than can be fit into a few words.
And there's yet more to it. See, I don't quite agree when you say that every system has its flaws. Because a political ideology, just like the morals that are being discussed in a thread currently next to this one, is not something that, as a whole, can be right or wrong -- although it might make claims that are factually either accurate or inaccurate. But the point is that political ideologies represent interests, viz. class interests. For instance if I read bourgeois ideologies, I see a lot of ideas I would find great if I were actually a capitalist. Thing is, I'm not.

Now, ideologies as a whole are one thing, and what individual people have on their minds is, though not unrelated, another. But the way I see it there are only two possibilities: either the individual has a political ideology that fits their interests, or they don't. If they do, then even if that ideology is opposed to mine, I wouldn't say they're wrong. I'll still oppose them, but I'd recognise they're right from the point of view of their interests, and I'd grant them the respect I'd grant to anyone who's smart enough to reckon what's best for them.

Noddin said:
You said, "...grow in power despite the establishments oppression..." Can not power be weighed in numbers? Add a few people with a meager amount of money in light of those with an outrageous amount of money and you might have something. Organization is all that's required. That's it. Organization and the motivation to do so.
Ah, but organisation is the keyword here. The more people you have, the more difficult it becomes to organise them and to take common decisions. In a nutshell, it decreases the efficiency of horizontal communication. When all the banking tycoons of America come together, they are a dozen around a table. When all the people being bled dry by banks get together, you get a human flood. There is a certain minimum number of people you need, of course, but more isn't always better.

But yes, power isn't simply money. In the context of the current system, money generally is power, but power isn't always money. For instance, the proleteriat at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, although rather poor, held a lot of power: if they'd stop working, things would come to an absolute standstill. That's a form of power.
 
tyrannicide said:
But yes, power isn't simply money. In the context of the current system, money generally is power, but power isn't always money. For instance, the proleteriat at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, although rather poor, held a lot of power: if they'd stop working, things would come to an absolute standstill. That's a form of power.

I would like to point out that this doesn't work like that anymore as far as i can think. If i got it right, what was considered proletariat is now the middle class. The system has found a way to make people happy and not try to look farther than the closest mall. I don't think any rebelion could reach a significant state since most people would stay happy with their lives and follow "Ignorance is bliss" (yes, ecology again).
 
Back
Top Bottom