Everyone can be rich?

[The Teacher]

A few months ago I was heavily "debating" a bunch of right wing trolls on the Occupy website. One thing that they kept vomitting back up was the idea that "everyone can be rich." The problem with that is, if you have to scrub your own toilet, you aren't rich. If you scrub toilets for a living, you aren't rich. You cannot be rich unless someone else is poor. That is what class division is all about.

Another argument I kept hearing is that people choose to be working class because they are too stupid and lazy to do the "real work" of sitting in an air conditioned office and looking at stock reports. I didn't much reply to that one except to say that the working people are the ones who create value, but they do not receive any of that value.

Also, if you aren't willing to work for $1 an hour, you are racist. Because the Chinese do it and it you won't its because you think your better than other people.

One guy actually suggested that the US minimum wage be lowered to $2 an hour. Which somehow "creates jobs." When I challenged him on how a family is supposed to survive on $76 a week (152 if two incomes), his reply was govt paid for group housing, food stamps, and bus passes.

[RGacky3]

Not everyone can be "rich" in capitalism because capitalism RELIES on constantly growing profits which RELIES on pushing down wages and making less people work more for less, which causes poverty.


Another argument I kept hearing is that people choose to be working class because they are too stupid and lazy to do the "real work" of sitting in an air conditioned office and looking at stock reports.

Thats not an argument, ask for evidence for ANY of the premises, there is none, there is, however evidence for the opposite.


Also, if you aren't willing to work for $1 an hour, you are racist. Because the Chinese do it and it you won't its because you think your better than other people.

..... Did the person that wrote that REALLY mean that?


One guy actually suggested that the US minimum wage be lowered to $2 an hour. Which somehow "creates jobs." When I challenged him on how a family is supposed to survive on $76 a week (152 if two incomes), his reply was govt paid for group housing, food stamps, and bus passes.

THat might be the case, but it just shows how shitty Capitalism is. With so much wealth, and so much social need, the only way to create jobs is somehow extreme poverty??? Just proves the first argument false.

None of these areguments are intelligable at all.

[The Teacher]

I agree that the arguments fall apart quickly, but it is the right wing side of the argument. Why can't people see through the BS?

[Night Ripper]

The problem with that is, if you have to scrub your own toilet, you aren't rich. If you scrub toilets for a living, you aren't rich. You cannot be rich unless someone else is poor.

You are ignoring the possibility that we could all have toilet scrubbing robots. Your logic is deeply flawed.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I agree that the arguments fall apart quickly, but it is the right wing side of the argument. Why can't people see through the BS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

I've given up on arguing (because it's hardly debate at that point) because it goes nowhere ... the only time I talk politics with people is if I can tell they'll be receptive beforehand.

[Rafiq]

You are ignoring the possibility that we could all have toilet scrubbing robots. Your logic is deeply flawed.

If we had robots do everything, what the fuck is the point in working at all? Owning property would no longer be necessary, either.

OOPs forgot, the fucker ignored me.


Someone quote this for that piece of shit

[Veovis]

If we had robots do everything, what the fuck is the point in working at all? Owning property would no longer be necessary, either.

OOPs forgot, the fucker ignored me.


Someone quote this for that piece of shit

Quoted for truth. :thumbup1:

ETA: And it all depends on who makes and controls the robots. If they're produced and sold by private corporations, you can be sure it would be business as usual.

[CommunityBeliever]

A few months ago I was heavily "debating" a bunch of right wing trolls on the Occupy website. One thing that they kept vomitting back up was the idea that "everyone can be rich."

That is nonsense. Most people are poor and they have no chance of becoming rich because the extent that class mobility exists in capitalism is minimal.

As for the claim that everyone can be rich at the same time, that won't work for two reasons: capitalists requires exploitation and underemployment to maintain profits and capitalism is too chaotic and destruction to create the technological prerequisites necessary to satisfy everyones needs.


Another argument I kept hearing is that people choose to be working class because they are too stupid and lazy to do the "real work" of sitting in an air conditioned office and looking at stock reports.The troll "capitalism is good" actually said that the real division in our society is been moochers and producers lol. I guess they we aren't really workers but rather we are "moochers", because laboring away for 10 hours a day is actually mooching.


Also, if you aren't willing to work for $1 an hour, you are racist. Because the Chinese do it and it you won't its because you think your better than other people.Is it even possible to take stupidity like this seriously?


You are ignoring the possibility that we could all have toilet scrubbing robots. Your logic is deeply flawed.

Capitalism is so inefficient that it will take a very long time to create effective toilet scrubbing robots. However, assuming hypothetically that toilet scrubbing robots have been developed, they won't be given to everybody because an inherent property of capitalism is the uneven distribution of goods. Most toilet scrubbing robots will be put in place in the capitalist's mansions, well much of the poor community will completely lack access to them.

[Night Ripper]

Just like all flat screen TV's are in mansions? Oh wait.... Everyone gets to play eventually, even if you don't get the latest toys for Christmas.

[runequester]

A few months ago I was heavily "debating" a bunch of right wing trolls on the Occupy website. One thing that they kept vomitting back up was the idea that "everyone can be rich." The problem with that is, if you have to scrub your own toilet, you aren't rich. If you scrub toilets for a living, you aren't rich. You cannot be rich unless someone else is poor. That is what class division is all about.

So why aren't they rich?



Also, if you aren't willing to work for $1 an hour, you are racist. Because the Chinese do it and it you won't its because you think your better than other people.


Offer them to clean your backyard for a dollar an hour.


One guy actually suggested that the US minimum wage be lowered to $2 an hour. Which somehow "creates jobs." When I challenged him on how a family is supposed to survive on $76 a week (152 if two incomes), his reply was govt paid for group housing, food stamps, and bus passes.

Working for a large corporation that works for another large corporation I can safely say, nobody is going to add additional administrative expense to hire and maintain another person if their job is only worth 2 dollars. They'll just assign it to another person already working there, and give him a 50 cent raise.

[Night Ripper]

What if the job requires you to be there for 8 hours but each hour you only spend 5 minutes working? The other 55 minutes, you can do whatever you want, sleep, play video games, etc. Is that still a bad deal at $2 an hour?

[CommunityBeliever]

Just like all flat screen TV's are in mansions? Oh wait.... Everyone gets to play eventually, even if you don't get the latest toys for Christmas.Some mansions are integrated with million dollar computer systems well millions of people in the world live without electricity.

[runequester]

What if the job requires you to be there for 8 hours but each hour you only spend 5 minutes working? The other 55 minutes, you can do whatever you want, sleep, play video games, etc. Is that still a bad deal at $2 an hour?

16 dollars a day. After medical bills, my wife's student loans, rent and raising a kid. Yeah, not so much.

[Klaatu]

In theory, the strongest possible economic system is where every one is paid exactly the same amount. This would maximize demand, and therefore maximize consumption. However, where there is a wide disparity of wealth ownership, the economic system (as a whole) weakens, because aggregate demand drops: the wealthiest can only consume so much food, fuel, etc. Their excess wealth is inflated in upward-bid prices of real estate, consumer goods and services... as if the rich live in a high-price "bubble" so to speak... and everyone else (the 99%) gets the crumbs. Look to poor Latin American countries which capitalism has destroyed, as such, by the enormous wealth gap. This process of economic cannibalism is occuring in the United States as we speak.

But if you define "rich" as my above description of the strongest possible economic system, (which is actually Communism) then, it is true: everyone can be rich. Rich as compared to everyone else. Go and congratulate your opponents on their inadvertent advocating of Communism.

And then watch their heads explode :lol:

[RGacky3]

What if the job requires you to be there for 8 hours but each hour you only spend 5 minutes working? The other 55 minutes, you can do whatever you want, sleep, play video games, etc. Is that still a bad deal at $2 an hour?


Plus you destroy the consumer economy, internally, which ends up having bad consequences of either relying on exports, or having to lower cost. Its a purpetual cycle that capitalism CANNOT fix.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree that the arguments fall apart quickly, but it is the right wing side of the argument. Why can't people see through the BS?

Because if you don't believe that a better world is possible, likely, or even desirable, it's easier to hope to be part of an existing 1% than to be part of a hypothetical 100%.

This is why people are normally not revolutionary in times of relative calm. This is also why in revolutionary periods or times of sharp crisis, people radicalize in huge numbers very rapidly. If there is a crisis and people feel it's "all or nothing" they will be more willing to push further - Egypt would be an example, at a certain point in the struggle people knew that there was no retuning to the status quo and if the protests didn't force Mubarak to resign they'd face massive repression as movements in the recent past have. Or if class consciousness and confidence are high, people could radicalize because the working class revolutionary movement is making gains and so the possibility of a real revolution seems much less distant. After May 68, people in the US thought that revolution was around the corner, they lacked organization and meaningful roots in the working class (sometimes didn't even want to), but the sense that revolution was coming convinced many people that a better alternative to US capitalism and imperialism was possible. On the other hand, in revolutions when people start to think they won't win and will have to start figuring out how to go back to their jobs and bosses and pay rent, then things can go downhill fast.

[Night Ripper]

Some mansions are integrated with million dollar computer systems well millions of people in the world live without electricity.

Yet the majority of people have electricity, don't they? In quasi-capitalist America, almost everyone has electricity. It's not something just for the rich elite, neither are flat screen TV's, neither will most other forms of technology that are developed in the future. Like I said, your logic is deeply flawed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yet the majority of people have electricity, don't they? In quasi-capitalist America, almost everyone has electricity. It's not something just for the rich elite, neither are flat screen TV's, neither will most other forms of technology that are developed in the future. Like I said, your logic is deeply flawed.Um, you do know that most Americans have electricity because of Federal Government programs though, right? Before the Rural Electrification Administration 90% of rural homes didn't have electricity.

[RGacky3]

Yet the majority of people have electricity, don't they? In quasi-capitalist America, almost everyone has electricity. It's not something just for the rich elite, neither are flat screen TV's, neither will most other forms of technology that are developed in the future. Like I said, your logic is deeply flawed.

The United States is the RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, the super powre of the world, given the wealth of the country it should have much much less poverty and much better living standards and healthcare, not 20% of children being in poverty.

[Night Ripper]

Um, you do know that most Americans have electricity because of Federal Government programs though, right?

Which proves what exactly? Nothing. The fact that "government currently does X" says nothing about what would happen in the absence of government.

[manic expression]

Which proves what exactly? Nothing. The fact that "oxygen currently does X" says nothing about what would happen in the absence of air.
Fixed that for you.

[Night Ripper]

Fixed that for you.

Atoms and molecules don't have agency. Making human interactions out to be as lockstep and deterministic as physical and chemical interactions makes absolutely no sense.

[manic expression]

Atoms and molecules don't have agency. Making human interactions out to be as lockstep and deterministic as physical and chemical interactions makes absolutely no sense.
That does little to invalidate the allusion, as your logic is similarly flawed. You expect the absence of governments to produce the same results as that of governments while failing to explain the discrepancy that is obvious to all. If you remove the root of a thing we cannot assume that the thing will remain, and yet your would-be revelatory line of reasoning would have us consider the root inconsequential. How and why is what you have neglected.

As for your objection to my "determinism", perish the thought we endeavor to look at the world in a scientific manner, and not in the ill-defined abstract terms you have set out.

[Night Ripper]

You expect the absence of governments to produce the same results as that of governments while failing to explain the discrepancy that is obvious to all.

I said no such thing. Read my post carefully. Here's my point: the mere fact that government has given us electricity says nothing about what would happen if it hadn't done that. If you disagree with that, you're wrong.


As for your objection to my "determinism", perish the thought we endeavor to look at the world in a scientific manner, and not in the ill-defined abstract terms you have set out.

There's nothing scientific about ignoring human agency. I'd call that pseudo-science.

[manic expression]

I said no such thing. Read my post carefully. Here's my point: the mere fact that government has given us electricity says nothing about what would happen if it hadn't done that. If you disagree with that, you're wrong.
Yes, it says quite a bit. Most glaringly, it says that a government did what a "market" didn't. Most conclusively, it says that without a government, that improvement would not have occurred when it did.

Your logic, again, is like claiming that without oxygen, everything might have ended up the same anyway. Your protestations over human agency only betray your misunderstanding of the agency you oppose.


There's nothing scientific about ignoring human agency. I'd call that pseudo-science.
Interesting idea. If that be the case, then how should we term your apparent faith in the market as the solution to humanity's problems? Perhaps "pseudo-science" would be too gracious.

[Night Ripper]

Most glaringly, it says that a government did what a "market" didn't. Most conclusively, it says that without a government, that improvement would not have occurred when it did.


There's a hole in your logic big enough to drive a truck through and it's called "overdeterminism".


Interesting idea. If that be the case, then how should we term your apparent faith in the market as the solution to humanity's problems?

I'd term it a strawman. The market isn't perfect but it's voluntary and therefore moral for me to engage in. Theft is immoral so I'll have no part in it.

[manic expression]

There's a hole in your logic big enough to drive a truck through and it's called "overdeterminism".
Not at all. In this case, objectively, a government did what a market didn't.

That, simply put, is an indisputable fact. You can drive your truck through whatever you like, it won't change that cold, hard fact.


I'd term it a strawman. The market isn't perfect but it's voluntary and therefore moral for me to engage in. Theft is immoral so I'll have no part in it.
Ah, but you see, for the thief, the act of theft is a voluntary one, and thus it forms the foundation of your market.

[Night Ripper]

Not at all. In this case, objectively, a government did what a market didn't.

That's true but also tells us nothing beyond that. It doesn't tell us that had the government not been there, it wouldn't have gotten done. It tells us absolutely nothing about the necessity of government. It does absolutely nothing for your case.


Ah, but you see, for the thief, the act of theft is a voluntary one, and thus it forms the foundation of your market.

In cases where we disagree on what constitutes theft, we can debate it or we can resort to violence. I prefer debate.

[Comrade Auldnik]

It's confusing how individualists can make a great big fuss about the "theft" of socialism while capitalists swipe money right out of their hands.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Which proves what exactly? Nothing. The fact that "government currently does X" says nothing about what would happen in the absence of government.Well you said that the free market is the reason that people have a technology that was brought to a large chunk of the population by interventions by the capitalist government. Just thought it was ironic since you said that in capitalism electricity isn't just for the rich elite when it was for the rich elite in rural areas until "big government" reforms which were actively opposed by the energy companies.


That's true but also tells us nothing beyond that. It doesn't tell us that had the government not been there, it wouldn't have gotten done. It tells us absolutely nothing about the necessity of government. It does absolutely nothing for your case.
"Sure you did my laundry for me mom, but it doesn't tell us had you not done them it wouldn't have gotten done by me"

"People are too quick to condemn the NAZIs, had they not been there who knows how many more people would have died in concentration camps?":rolleyes:

And FYI even though this was a big government program, it wasn't socialist - it was capitalist, the capitalist government acting in the interests of the system despite crossing a specific sector of the economy (even thought the energy companies didn't plan on bringing electricity out to rural areas because it wasn't profitable at that point). Don't fret though because in the end the government built the infrastructure that I'm sure energy companies profit from now.

[manic expression]

That's true but also tells us nothing beyond that. It doesn't tell us that had the government not been there, it wouldn't have gotten done. It tells us absolutely nothing about the necessity of government. It does absolutely nothing for your case.
That, in and of itself, is enough to know that governments are capable of instituting policies beneficial to the many.


In cases where we disagree on what constitutes theft, we can debate it or we can resort to violence. I prefer debate.
Then I suggest you start debating.

[CommunityBeliever]

Your logic, again, is like claiming that without oxygen, everything might have ended up the same anyway.

In the early Earth many organisms persisted on sulfur, which like oxygen, is a chalcogen. The evolution of photosynthesis led some early organisms to emit O₂ as a waste product which partially oxygenated the atmosphere. Then around 2.4 billion years ago, the great oxygenation event radically transformed the Earth's atmosphere, exterminating many of these early organisms in the process.


The fact that "government currently does X" says nothing about what would happen in the absence of government.

During early capitalism, there was no state, but eventually as society progressed, states arose. Just as our atmosphere eventually got oxygenated, stateless capitalism will inevitably become statist.

[Klaatu]

It's confusing how individualists can make a great big fuss about the "theft" of socialism while capitalists swipe money right out of their hands.

This is known as "trickle-up" economics. All wealth is created by the worker. The rich create no wealth. They just live as parasites on the working class. There is no such thing as "trickle-DOWN" economics, and never was. Trickle-down is just an illusion. It does not happen.

American presidential candidate Mitt Romney even lives off of dead companies (which he himself had raped and pillaged as "Bain Capital.") Romney makes millions off of these conquests. Romney is therefore like a saprophyte (metaphor for a plant that lives off of dead organic matter) Romney is like a fungus that lives upon society. A growing, menacing fungus, slowly devouring all that it touches. :eek:

[Night Ripper]

That, in and of itself, is enough to know that governments are capable of instituting policies beneficial to the many.

That was never disputed. If I were to harvest your organs and donate them to 5 different dying patients, I would be "instituting policies beneficial to the many" but you'd also be dead and I'd also be a murderer. So much for that idea.

[Comrade Auldnik]

That was never disputed. If I were to harvest your organs and donate them to 5 different dying patients, I would be "instituting policies beneficial to the many" but you'd also be dead and I'd also be a murderer. So much for that idea.

Except you wouldn't be acting in a way that is beneficial to many. You'd be opening up the whole population to coercive organ harvesting, which is a detriment to the collective.

Let's say some civil worker steals your toothbrush to clean urinals. The clean urinals immediately benefit more people than a sanitary toothbrush does. But this doesn't mean that it is ultimately beneficial to the collective, as this kind of action opens up the individuals that compose the collective to violations of personal affects.

[MotherCossack]

Yet the majority of people have electricity, don't they? In quasi-capitalist America, almost everyone has electricity. It's not something just for the rich elite, neither are flat screen TV's, neither will most other forms of technology that are developed in the future. Like I said, your logic is deeply flawed.

i just wanted to mention that , something like 5% of the world lives in america.
yet it produces 30% of the crap/rubbish.
oh that is fair? that is great, isnt it?....
ok... so... lets say we asll love USA. lets all copy them.....

have the same tvs... the same soda bottles ... the exact same consumer durables.....
lets see... the earth will have to accommodate... how much trash?

ANSWER: SHITLOADS!!!!!!!

my maths is shit.... what do you expect... i am nowt but a peasant....


Which proves what exactly? Nothing. The fact that "government currently does X" says nothing about what would happen in the absence of government.

are you an anarchist then?

[dodger]

Can you imagine working for a company that only has a little more than 635 employees, but, has the following employee statistics..

29 have been accused of spouse abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
9 have been accused of writing bad cheques
17 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year

and collectively, this year alone, they have cost the British tax payer £92,993,748 in expenses!!!

Which organisation is this?

It's the 635 members of the House of Commons.

The same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

What a bunch of [email protected]#$%^s we have running our country - it says it all...

And just to top all that they probably have the best 'corporate' pension scheme in the country!!


We are in safe hands.....they tell us.

[Night Ripper]

are you an anarchist then?

Yes.

[manic expression]

That was never disputed. If I were to harvest your organs and donate them to 5 different dying patients, I would be "instituting policies beneficial to the many" but you'd also be dead and I'd also be a murderer. So much for that idea.
5 people are not the many, but regardless, that is quite unrelated to what we are discussing so it's hardly an applicable comparison.

[Veovis]

Yes.

That's interesting. How do you propose capitalism could work without the state?

[Night Ripper]

That's interesting. How do you propose capitalism could work without the state?

Instead of one legal jurisdiction that forces you to be a part of it, there will be several overlapping legal jurisdictions that people can choose from (or choose none). What happens when there are disputes across jurisdictions that can't be agreed on by either jurisdiction? The two jurisdictions need to have some protocol in place to defer to another neutral third party.

[Veovis]

Instead of one legal jurisdiction that forces you to be a part of it, there will be several overlapping legal jurisdictions that people can choose from (or choose none). What happens when there are disputes across jurisdictions that can't be agreed on by either jurisdiction? The two jurisdictions need to have some protocol in place to defer to another neutral third party.

So... capitalism will work without a state by... having a state? :bored:

[Bostana]

Not in a Capitalist system.
Those who are rich in Capitalist system make that promise so that way they can still have people working for them instead of protesting them.
Then they pay congress to pass laws in their favor so that way people could do nothing about the Rich people screwing them over.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Night Ripper, I like how you're now conveniently ignoring my posts. :rolleyes:

[ColonelCossack]

Yes.

what about the rest of her post? You're ignoring it.


Also, the little post you did make is false.

[ColonelCossack]

Also how da fok would capitalism function if all work was done by robots? Robots, I think, count as constant capital, and thus (because of the labour theory of value), if all labour was done automatically, the capitalists would make 0 profits.

Someone else can probably provide a more apt explanation of this than mois...

[RGacky3]

You don't even need the labor theory of value, you'd simply have no demand.

[Night Ripper]

So... capitalism will work without a state by... having a state? :bored:

If you think states are voluntary and allow you to secede at will then yes. However that's never been the case. Am I supposed to care?

[Revolution starts with U]

I can leave Ohio, and join any other state, anytime I want.

[RGacky3]

Instead of one legal jurisdiction that forces you to be a part of it, there will be several overlapping legal jurisdictions that people can choose from (or choose none). What happens when there are disputes across jurisdictions that can't be agreed on by either jurisdiction? The two jurisdictions need to have some protocol in place to defer to another neutral third party.

So basically you have countries :P, and a United Nations.

[Veovis]

If you think states are voluntary and allow you to secede at will then yes. However that's never been the case. Am I supposed to care?

OK, so one of these 'jurisdictions' manages to convince everyone else to abandon their own voluntary jurisdictions and join up until it's the only one with power and influence, eclipsing the others and then we're back to square one. How is this concept different from the traditional state apparatus?

[RGacky3]

Who enforces the voluntary nature?

[ColonelCossack]

You don't even need the labor theory of value, you'd simply have no demand.

Exactly.

[Night Ripper]

I can leave Ohio, and join any other state, anytime I want.

Emmigration is not secession.


OK, so one of these 'jurisdictions' manages to convince everyone else to abandon their own voluntary jurisdictions and join up until it's the only one with power and influence, eclipsing the others and then we're back to square one. How is this concept different from the traditional state apparatus?

1. Everyone that's under that jurisdiction is there because they want to be, not because they were forced at gunpoint.

2. Anyone that wants to quit can do so and start a new jurisdiction without moving or leaving their property.

[RGacky3]

Emmigration is not secession.

Do you know what secession is?


apparatus? 1. Everyone that's under that jurisdiction is there because they want to be, not because they were forced at gunpoint.

Or because they were born there, or because they need to be there economically.

You can say the exact same thing about countries.


2. Anyone that wants to quit can do so and start a new jurisdiction without moving or leaving their property.

And thus you destroy the notion of justice, if you don't like something, just ignore it. I get charged with rape, then I quit hte juristiction and my new jurisdiction makes it ok for me to rape.

[Night Ripper]

Do you know what secession is?

Yes, do you?


Or because they were born there, or because they need to be there economically.

You clearly haven't been following the discussion. If you don't want to be part of a legal jurisdiction, you just tear up your membership card. You don't have to move. Nobody is forced to leave their property just to change jurisdictions.


And thus you destroy the notion of justice, if you don't like something, just ignore it. I get charged with rape, then I quit hte juristiction and my new jurisdiction makes it ok for me to rape.

You will still be pursued and if your new jurisdiction tries to stop another jurisdiction from bringing you to justice, it will be attacked just the same as if they were aiding and abetting.

[RGacky3]

You will still be pursued and if your new jurisdiction tries to stop another jurisdiction from bringing you to justice, it will be attacked just the same as if they were aiding and abetting.

Does'nt mean shit, you need an extradition treaty for that, otherwise its just arbitrary.

Basically all your left with is arbitary violence. I.e. might is right.


If you don't want to be part of a legal jurisdiction, you just tear up your membership card. You don't have to move. Nobody is forced to leave their property just to change jurisdictions.

Then why would anyone be in a jurasdiction? WHy wouldnt someone just leave everytime they are in trouble?

What your basically saying here is justice for hire, whoever is richer, or has more guns.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

I agree that the arguments fall apart quickly, but it is the right wing side of the argument. Why can't people see through the BS?

People come online to argue politics for one reason: to win and spread their ideology. They've heard all the logical arguments a dozen times before. Trying to argue with right wingers too much is just begging for anger issues and a heart attack.

If you want to make progress you have to trick people who couldn't care less into talking about how messed up the system is. Chat them up about music, drugs, whatever your interests, and once they know that you're a sane person whose opinions are worth while they are likely to hear you out.

To answer your question though: it took me months of arguing with a very patient old anarchist before I finally accepted the basic critiques of capitalism. Then it took me about a year to really accept Marx. I'm here because of luck, not because of some superior logical skills. If I hadn't met that sage online, and if he hadn't been the kindest, most mature, person I had met in my entire life, I'd probably be a democrat right now.

People have been told that Marxists are evil their entire lives. The purpose of their education is to hide history from them, to make them puerile drones. Marx' ideas are completely foreign to them. You shouldn't expect to be able to shatter someone's world view and rebuild it in a way that actually makes sense in twenty minutes online.

And that's really the crux of it, is the power of their world view. It is reinforced every time they turn on the TV, pick up a magazine, go to twitter, or talk to someone. People crave coherence, they drive themselves crazy making everything fit together. To make this insane world view make sense, they start thinking like the capitalists, ie, false consciousness. Even when no one is watching, their will is the master's will.

I still feel it tugging at me. It will manifest itself as depression - knowing that everyone around me would hate me if I said what I really wanted to say - or anxiety - thinking maybe I'm the crazy abnormal one like everyone says. But at the end of the day I have dignity, depth, and reasons to be happy out the wazoo, so I continue being myself.

[MotherCossack]

i just wanted to mention that , something like 5% of the world lives in america.
yet it produces 30% of the crap/rubbish.
oh that is fair? that is great, isnt it?....
ok... so... lets say we asll love USA. lets all copy them.....

have the same tvs... the same soda bottles ... the exact same consumer durables.....
lets see... the earth will have to accommodate... how much trash?

ANSWER: SHITLOADS!!!!!!!

my maths is shit.... what do you expect... i am nowt but a peasant....



are you an anarchist then?

so a maths teacher i came across, at an open evening last week, was happy to consider this question.
He confirmed what i had calculated to be the answer...
if the whole world took on the USA'S level of garbage production we would be wrestling with .......
SIX TIMES THE CURRENT LEVELS OF JUNK.

And, if estimates are anywhere close to the truth, about the floating island of trash in the pacific... presently twice the size of texas...and we multiply that by six.......

THE GREAT PACIFIC GARBAGE PATCH would grow to 12 times the size of texas!!!!!!!

So.... next question is ... how big is the pacific? or more to the point ... how many texas's are there in the pacific?

Cos, by my reckoning..... WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF OCEAN!
not to mention the stink!

[Night Ripper]

Does'nt mean shit, you need an extradition treaty for that, otherwise its just arbitrary.

Basically all your left with is arbitary violence. I.e. might is right.

Why?


Then why would anyone be in a jurasdiction? WHy wouldnt someone just leave everytime they are in trouble?

You are missing the point. You aren't picking a jurisdiction as if you could pick one that would allow you to do anything you want to anyone. You pick a jurisdiction so that you can get justice, if someone rips you off, steals your car, etc.


What your basically saying here is justice for hire, whoever is richer, or has more guns.

Justice is for hire but not on a one-off basis but a market basis. Most people aren't going to want to deal with a jurisdiction that allows rape. Most people are going to want to deal with a jurisdiction where murder and rape are illegal, therefore, it's illegal. You can't just plop down a million dollars because the jurisdiction that's in place isn't going to accept bribes.

[Revolution starts with U]

Why not?

[Night Ripper]

Why not?

The same reason why food with rat feces isn't common. Nobody's buying it.

[RGacky3]

The same reason why food with rat feces isn't common. Nobody's buying it.

You should see what the FDA finds sometimes. If no one knows about the rat feces no harm done, obviously hard done down the line, the the people eating it, but not to the company, the stomache sickness down the line is an externality.


Why?


Because otherwise its just arbitrary.


You are missing the point. You aren't picking a jurisdiction as if you could pick one that would allow you to do anything you want to anyone. You pick a jurisdiction so that you can get justice, if someone rips you off, steals your car, etc.


Your assuming everyone values justice all the time, no people have self interest. Also who says jurisdictions would'nt just play to the highest biddger?


Justice is for hire but not on a one-off basis but a market basis. Most people aren't going to want to deal with a jurisdiction that allows rape.

A market basis is a one off basis if it wants to be.


You can't just plop down a million dollars because the jurisdiction that's in place isn't going to accept bribes.

Says who??? The whole thing is based on bribes, you can't bribe anyone in a market situation becuase bribes are juts called transactions.

Your whole thing is so confused.

Jurisdictions are voluntary? That means enforcement is voluntary, that means that ONLY people that are part of the jurisdiction can be punished, yet people can leave any time they want, oh and you pay, (but somehow that won't change justice in favor of the rich, somehow), Oh and people can just not recognize jurisdictions of they want, and the rich don't need jurisdictions because they can have private armies, and what poor jurisdiciton would have autohrity over a rich guy with a private army???? So the rich guy could do what ever the hell he wants to poor people, because he does't recognize the jurisdiction.

Oh and why would poor people pay a jurisdiciton? If other people arn't part of it? Also why would'nt a jurisdiction just turn into an extortion racket? I.e. a protection racket???

Your htinking is so idealistic and confused.

[MotherCossack]

if we all get rich... who is gonna do all the crap jobs.
aaah robots! you say
so we can all have everything and robots will serve us and do everything poor people do, now?
where will we learn gratitude, respect, loyalty, honour, committment, determination..and all the other things that are hard to acheive but are born out of struggle.
a world full of ... obnoxious, spoilt, pampered, arrogant, self-centred, selfish, thoughtless, inconsiderate, over-indulged and probably blinkered and uncooked little people.

NAAH!!!! dont fancy that much anyway!!

[Night Ripper]

if we all get rich... who is gonna do all the crap jobs.
aaah robots! you say
so we can all have everything and robots will serve us and do everything poor people do, now?
where will we learn gratitude, respect, loyalty, honour, committment, determination..and all the other things that are hard to acheive but are born out of struggle.
a world full of ... obnoxious, spoilt, pampered, arrogant, self-centred, selfish, thoughtless, inconsiderate, over-indulged and probably blinkered and uncooked little people.

NAAH!!!! dont fancy that much anyway!!

Luddite

[danyboy27]

The same reason why food with rat feces isn't common. Nobody's buying it.

buisness will do bad thing if they think they can get away with it and work verry hard to cover their track with paperwork and laywer.

[MotherCossack]

i'm a luddite
and i dont care
cos i am right
that you dont care.


if you dont use care
and will go anywhere
mouth open eyes shut
with a willy, nilly strut

and still no care
for the bad ness there
who knows
what flows
and grows

it might be in us
it might be after us
or waiting for us
or just us

[MotherCossack]

The same reason why food with rat feces isn't common. Nobody's buying it.


says who?
if they are much like mice droppings [rat shit is probably more akin to droppings than faeces, i would think.... ]
then... well.... nice plate of wild rice you got right there.