I can't stand the american "dream".

[Archonsod]

Spot on and a realisation of the utmost importance; one which it pains me how precious few people, especially among the Left, make, pointlessly going on instead with pestering against "liberalism" and "free market", when what's in place is anything but liberal, but rather a monopolistic moloch.

It's the inevitable outcome of laissez faire economics. See the Industrial Revolution for example. The idea of a free market is as realistic as communism.

 

[tyrannicide]

Spot on and a realisation of the utmost importance; one which it pains me how precious few people, especially among the Left, make, pointlessly going on instead with pestering against "liberalism" and "free market", when what's in place is anything but liberal, but rather a monopolistic moloch.

It's the inevitable outcome of laissez faire economics. See the Industrial Revolution for example. The idea of a free market is as realistic as communism.

I'd even say is the inevitable outcome of capitalism, as capital inevitably concentrates. But can you point me to any Leftist political organisation which has integrated this fact?

 

[xenoargh]

It's the inevitable outcome of laissez faire economics.

That's one of the primary raison etres of government, in the post-industrial age, frankly- keeping capital from becoming so concentrated that it destroys capitalism by its natural tendency to reach monopoly. 

It's going to stay this way until human technology gets quite a bit better, I suspect.

It makes me wanna do a living human body recycling company.

Wanting to do violence to other people for being free and making free choices is the path of darkness, and it never works, because people don't want what you do. 

At best, you'll shoot enough of them that they'll pretend they want what you want, so long as you have enough guns pointed at them, while the people who agree with you will get corrupted and enslave them (communism), you'll shoot enough of them that the people who agree with you can take the dead's land and things and enslave the rest (nazism) or you'll get shot by the people who disagree with you, along with your friends and anybody who vaguely supports you, and your ideas will be extirpated (various flavors of counterrevolution).

If you really want to change things, you need to provide positive choices that are more attractive than the available alternatives. 

Violence is the weakest answer, because at best, it robs people's dignity and freedom without providing an answer to the core, which in this case is the human desire to have things- an urge that's hardwired into our DNA by millions of years of evolution, and without which we would no longer be human.

In short, if you want to cure "consumerism" and "suburbia", come up with technology that gives people what they want- things that improve their lives, like better televisions, nicer cars, a yard that provides space and a safe place for the kids to play- but meets your criteria. 

You aren't going to ever convince people that they should just not like things they like, though.  If all you have to offer is anger and violence, you will fail to achieve anything in life.

 

[rejenorst]

Im under the impression that as some of you have already mentioned similar to Marx, is that the Rich get richer and the poor get poorer if left unchecked, ultimately what then ends up happening is that the gap becomes so big that the poor end up enslaved in consumerism with rising prices, eventually rebelling when the system brakes down and killing the richest people and having a wealth distribution party or socialist change. Eventually that system will brake down too and we revert back to capitalism and restart the process.

Btw in answer to your hate of the American dream: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyHSjv9gxlE&p=186C1151D9444473&playnext=1

Lol This is NOT AMERICA!!! : sorry I just found whole bunch of sketches done by Stephen Fry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u0RQkj3Tic&NR=1

 

[Danath]

If you really want to change things, you need to provide positive choices that are more attractive than the available alternatives. 

Violence is the weakest answer, because at best, it robs people's dignity and freedom without providing an answer to the core, which in this case is the human desire to have things- an urge that's hardwired into our DNA by millions of years of evolution, and without which we would no longer be human.

In short, if you want to cure "consumerism" and "suburbia", come up with technology that gives people what they want- things that improve their lives, like better televisions, nicer cars, a yard that provides space and a safe place for the kids to play- but meets your criteria. 

You aren't going to ever convince people that they should just not like things they like, though.  If all you have to offer is anger and violence, you will fail to achieve anything in life.

So basically humankind is doomed because we are too selfish and short-minded to foresee the consequences of that life style that many people try to emulate

 

[xenoargh]

Not doomed, no. 

To survive, we need to find solutions that are compatible with human nature and don't destroy everything else we value. 

The problem with the idea that "everybody should just want what I say they should want" is that it's incompatible with human nature- nobody else wants what you want.

 

[rejenorst]

If we look through the history books though we just find human history repeating itself in different measures. Obviously the times have changed but the beat goes on ... hehe.

 

[xenoargh]

I disagree very highly with that (no offense intended). 

History doesn't actually repeat, and the cycle of events that even vaguely look like the past is less and less a good guide as technology changes what's possible.

What "repeats" is human nature.  The urge to take away others' freedoms so that they'll be "doing the right thing" according to whoever is making that judgement call is both ancient and pernicious, but we have to live with that, just as we have to live with people's desire to acquire things.

Since the 19th Century, human nature and what's possible have been in flux, driven largely by technological change.  I think it's fair to say that this trend will continue until technology makes it mainly a matter of preference.

 

[rejenorst]

What "repeats" is human nature.

I totally agree with that. To me it's precisely because human nature doesn't change that history repeats itself.

You can argue that it technically doesn't due to technological differences but I would argue its the same **** different smell type of affairs.

Obviously this is arguable which is why I say its just my opinion/impression.

 

[xenoargh]

Well, I guess that depends on how picky we're being about "repeats", yeah. 

If I accept your definition, it's the same crap, same causes, and frequently the same outcomes- I totally agree with that.

The only thing that keeps changing is the technical tools available to address the needs being met, whether we're talking about using violence  to achieve political goals or the general trend towards less and less human labor in manufacturing and agriculture.

 

[tyrannicide]

Im under the impression that as some of you have already mentioned similar to Marx, is that the Rich get richer and the poor get poorer if left unchecked, ultimately what then ends up happening is that the gap becomes so big that the poor end up enslaved in consumerism with rising prices, eventually rebelling when the system brakes down and killing the richest people and having a wealth distribution party or socialist change. Eventually that system will brake down too and we revert back to capitalism and restart the process.

That people can pick a mix of platitudes and nonsense and sell it as Marxism is one of the things that depresses me most about the Zeitgeist.

 

[NordArcher]

Good. People are driven by their human nature, so the best we can do is at least admit we're nothing more than animals. Then once we will have ****ed Earth till the last bit of nature, we'll blame it on our human nature. I can also predict with 99% certitude that there will be a massive world starvation because we won't stop breeding. This species is doomed by it's nature, that was working well before we actually invented industry.

EDIT: I said "world starvation". This is a proof of how deeply anthropocentrism is rooted in our brains and cultures. Even I who constantly contradict people who say "Where's the world going?" will come out with this kind of expressions.

 

[rejenorst]

Im under the impression that as some of you have already mentioned similar to Marx, is that the Rich get richer and the poor get poorer if left unchecked, ultimately what then ends up happening is that the gap becomes so big that the poor end up enslaved in consumerism with rising prices, eventually rebelling when the system brakes down and killing the richest people and having a wealth distribution party or socialist change. Eventually that system will brake down too and we revert back to capitalism and restart the process.

That people can pick a mix of platitudes and nonsense and sell it as Marxism is one of the things that depresses me most about the Zeitgeist.

Ive read his manifesto, the part about the gap between the rich and the poor getting wider until revolution brakes out is one of his predictions for the direction of capitalism.

Good. People are driven by their human nature, so the best we can do is at least admit we're nothing more than animals. Then once we will have ****ed Earth till the last bit of nature, we'll blame it on our human nature. I can also predict with 99% certitude that there will be a massive world starvation because we won't stop breeding. This species is doomed by it's nature, that was working well before we actually invented industry.

You forgot we are predisposed to a having war like tendencies. if there is so much as a hint of a food shortage the first thing that will happen is armed conflict. Ultimately the human race tends to self regulate it own numbers  

 

[tyrannicide]

Im under the impression that as some of you have already mentioned similar to Marx, is that the Rich get richer and the poor get poorer if left unchecked, ultimately what then ends up happening is that the gap becomes so big that the poor end up enslaved in consumerism with rising prices, eventually rebelling when the system brakes down and killing the richest people and having a wealth distribution party or socialist change. Eventually that system will brake down too and we revert back to capitalism and restart the process.

That people can pick a mix of platitudes and nonsense and sell it as Marxism is one of the things that depresses me most about the Zeitgeist.

Ive read his manifesto, the part about the gap between the rich and the poor getting wider until revolution brakes out is one of his predictions for the direction of capitalism.

And pray tell where in the Manifesto Marx&Engels speak of consumerism, rising prices, "wealth distribution" parties and ultimate reversal and restart of the process?

Good. People are driven by their human nature, so the best we can do is at least admit we're nothing more than animals. Then once we will have ****ed Earth till the last bit of nature, we'll blame it on our human nature. I can also predict with 99% certitude that there will be a massive world starvation because we won't stop breeding. This species is doomed by it's nature, that was working well before we actually invented industry.

"People are driven by their human nature"... no ****, Sherlock.

There already is massive starvation, but yes, it will become more. That "either humans will regulate their numbers, or nature will do it", as the quote goes, is evident.

If humanity does not cease to exist before (which I don't think is likely), measures to control our species' numbers will without a doubt be put in place. But the real question is: at what level? At the level of one bowl of rice and fifty grams of tofu a day, while living with five people in a 30 sqm appartment with no running water and working twelve hours a day; or at a level where we can afford to let everyone have a car, a 200 sqm house with garden, eat three rich meals and work only four hours a day.

If we let those who live off other people's work decide, it will invariably be the former.

 

[NordArcher]

Im under the impression that as some of you have already mentioned similar to Marx, is that the Rich get richer and the poor get poorer if left unchecked, ultimately what then ends up happening is that the gap becomes so big that the poor end up enslaved in consumerism with rising prices, eventually rebelling when the system brakes down and killing the richest people and having a wealth distribution party or socialist change. Eventually that system will brake down too and we revert back to capitalism and restart the process.

That people can pick a mix of platitudes and nonsense and sell it as Marxism is one of the things that depresses me most about the Zeitgeist.

Ive read his manifesto, the part about the gap between the rich and the poor getting wider until revolution brakes out is one of his predictions for the direction of capitalism.

And pray tell where in the Manifesto Marx&Engels speak of consumerism, rising prices, "wealth distribution" parties and ultimate reversal and restart of the process?

Good. People are driven by their human nature, so the best we can do is at least admit we're nothing more than animals. Then once we will have ****ed Earth till the last bit of nature, we'll blame it on our human nature. I can also predict with 99% certitude that there will be a massive world starvation because we won't stop breeding. This species is doomed by it's nature, that was working well before we actually invented industry.

"People are driven by their human nature"... no ****, Sherlock.

There already is massive starvation, but yes, it will become more. That "either humans will regulate their numbers, or nature will do it", as the quote goes, is evident.

If humanity does not cease to exist before (which I don't think is likely), measures to control our species' numbers will without a doubt be put in place. But the real question is: at what level? At the level of one bowl of rice and fifty grams of tofu a day, while living with five people in a 30 sqm appartment with no running water and working twelve hours a day; or at a level where we can afford to let everyone have a car, a 200 sqm house with garden, eat three rich meals and work only four hours a day.

If we let those who live off other people's work decide, it will invariably be the former.

You mean CEO's and ****?

 

[tyrannicide]

If we let those who live off other people's work decide, it will invariably be the former.

You mean CEO's and ****?

CEOs are often employees themselves, actually. Extremely well-endowed employees, but employees nonetheless. I'm talking about those who possess the means of production. Since possession can take many forms, depending on the legal system, those can be various types of people. But to give you an idea, it would rather be about shareholders, proprietors and perhaps a few despots here and there.

 

[Danath]

Not doomed, no. 

To survive, we need to find solutions that are compatible with human nature and don't destroy everything else we value. 

The problem with the idea that "everybody should just want what I say they should want" is that it's incompatible with human nature- nobody else wants what you want.

Human nature: I want to do and have whatever I want.
The idea is in one word: limits. You can't tell people what they should want (communism, dictatorship, theocrazy (that was intended)), but neither can you NOT tell them what they can't have nor do. But then we start discussing about how much freedom can you let people have. But freedom also depends on wealth/resources. In less than a century population raised a 100%!

Funny, solution number 3 is the topic
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html

Of course, for some "Teach better manners" will mean "socialist brainwashing" 

 

[Herr_Thomas]

raging euroguy?

yeah buddy, you are such an intelligent badass.

 

[rejenorst]

And pray tell where in the Manifesto Marx&Engels speak of consumerism, rising prices, "wealth distribution" parties and ultimate reversal and restart of the process?

The part I wildly exaggerated was 'Wealth distribution parties' for which I was being sarcastic in reference to attempts of violent reacquisition of wealth, or in other words riots/revolution of the proletariat which unless they destroy all trace of the systems that they where fighting are in danger of becoming the new Bourgeois and thereby are doomed to repeat the process of class struggle/differentiation. The haves and the Have nots taking turns so to speak. 

As for rising prices, karl Marx refers to decreasing wages as one of the main issues in class struggles within capitalism, rather than rising prices as being a major problem. 

In the case of consumerism karl Marx does not specifically tackle the subject in the manifesto but tackles it in some of his other writings:

"Excess and immoderation" becomes the economy's "true standard" as the "expansion of production and of needs becomes an ingenious and always calculating subservience to inhumane, depraved, unnatural, and imaginary appetites...(Every product is a bait by means of which the individual tries to entice the essence of the other person, his money. Every real or potential need is a weakness which will draw the bird into the line...)...The entrepeneur accedes to the most depraved fancies of his neighbor, plays the role of pander between him and his needs, awakens unhealthy appetites in him, and watches for every weakness in order, later, to claim the remuneration for this labor of love."
--Marx, The Economic and Philosophical Manual of 1844

If humanity does not cease to exist before (which I don't think is likely), measures to control our species' numbers will without a doubt be put in place. But the real question is: at what level?  At the level of one bowl of rice and fifty grams of tofu a day, while living with five people in a 30 sqm appartment with no running water and working twelve hours a day; or at a level where we can afford to let everyone have a car, a 200 sqm house with garden, eat three rich meals and work only four hours a day.

If we let those who live off other people's work decide, it will invariably be the former.

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.

 

[tyrannicide]

And pray tell where in the Manifesto Marx&Engels speak of consumerism, rising prices, "wealth distribution" parties and ultimate reversal and restart of the process?

"Excess and immoderation" becomes the economy's "true standard" as the "expansion of production and of needs becomes an ingenious and always calculating subservience to inhumane, depraved, unnatural, and imaginary appetites...(Every product is a bait by means of which the individual tries to entice the essence of the other person, his money. Every real or potential need is a weakness which will draw the bird into the line...)...The entrepeneur accedes to the most depraved fancies of his neighbor, plays the role of pander between him and his needs, awakens unhealthy appetites in him, and watches for every weakness in order, later, to claim the remuneration for this labor of love."
--Marx, The Economic and Philosophical Manual of 1844

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?

As for rising prices, karl Marx refers to decreasing wages as one of the main issues in class struggles within capitalism, rather than rising prices as being a major problem. 

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

The part I wildly exaggerated was 'Wealth distribution parties' for which I was being sarcastic in reference to attempts of violent reacquisition of wealth, or in other words riots/revolution of the proletariat which unless they destroy all trace of the systems that they where fighting are in danger of becoming the new Bourgeois and thereby are doomed to repeat the process of class struggle/differentiation. The haves and the Have nots taking turns so to speak. 

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'll have to pick that post of yours apart to make myself perfectly clear:

is that the Rich get richer and the poor get poorer if left unchecked

Uh-huh.

, ultimately what then ends up happening is that the gap becomes so big that the poor end up enslaved in consumerism with rising prices,

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? 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!

eventually rebelling when the system brakes down and killing the richest people and having a wealth distribution party or socialist change.

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.

Eventually that system will brake down too and we revert back to capitalism and restart the process.

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

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.