FrisianDude
Archduke
Didn't he mention he was American?Herr_Thomas said:raging euroguy?
yeah buddy, you are such an intelligent badass.
Didn't he mention he was American?Herr_Thomas said:raging euroguy?
yeah buddy, you are such an intelligent badass.
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.People are driven by their human nature, so the best we can do is at least admit we're nothing more than animals.
I think that statement is rather unfair to your fellow human beings.Then once we will have ****ed Earth till the last bit of nature, we'll blame it on our human nature.
Herr_Thomas said:He did?
IF so i tl;dr'd so my bad. :S
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?
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?
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 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.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!
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.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.
I'd really be flabbergasted if you could come up with a Mark quote that said anything even remotely resembling this.
Yeah, and Adolf Hitler liked dogs a lot, I hear.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.
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").
True. But then again the only unnecessitous man is a dead man.Pierce Elliot said:Cause the necessitous man isn't a free man.
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:But isn't that just it?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").
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: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.
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.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.
tyrannicide said:True. But then again the only unnecessitous man is a dead man.Pierce Elliot said:Cause the necessitous man isn't a free man.
Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU PIEEEEEEEEEEEEEERCE ELLIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What did I do? Though that's sig-worthy almost.Familyguy1 said:DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU PIEEEEEEEEEEEEEERCE ELLIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! x2
Pierce Elliot said:tyrannicide said:True. But then again the only unnecessitous man is a dead man.Pierce Elliot said:Cause the necessitous man isn't a free 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!What did I do? Though that's sig-worthy almost.Familyguy1 said:DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU PIEEEEEEEEEEEEEERCE ELLIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! x2
EDIT: No it's way too ****ing obnoxious. Quoted, sig'ed, and displayed.
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: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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.