False capitalist notions

[Karl Marx's Camel]

It seems capitalist-sympathisers like to claim that "Those who work hard will get rich", "those gifted will be rewarded", etc. But this seem to be a false notion. Even human beings who have not only worked hard, but also have been extremly gifted, have lived their entire life's through poverty.


For example, according to Wikipedia, one of the greatest inventors in history, Nikola Tesla, died impoverished and forgotten at the age of 86. If I recall correctly, Antonio Meucci suffered more or less the same fate. Could we not, at least to an extent, say the same about John Pemberton?

How can you even dare to claim this nonsense? As shown, even some of the greatest inventors in modern history have died as poor fuckers.

edit: the name of the thread should've been something along the lines of "false capitalist notions", not "nations" :)

[Pow R. Toc H.]

I believe marx lived his whole life in poverty as well as some other great philosophers. i fully agree with your statement, however, sometimes a think poverty is a choice.

[Demogorgon]

Aye, it is true. If capitalism was what it's defenders claimed it to be, it would not be so bad. I am not saying it would be good necessarilly, but certainly a lot better than it is now. However it quite blatantly is not a meritocracy. It is in fact a form of aristocracy. If you are born high up the social scale chances are you will die there regardless of merit and the same goes for those at the bottom of the rung.

I remember on some website a while ago somebody made a thread asking people who they thought the most intelligent person in history was, and you got all the usual answers like Einsteing and Da vinci before someody said that the most intelligent person ever was probably some poor downtrodden peasant who nobody has ever heard of due too the fact they never got the chance to prove themselves. That is so true.

[Sir_No_Sir]

thomas paine died unnapreciated and i think in poverty

[colonelguppy]

i like to believe that those who offer society the most value are rewarded the most, "hard work" may be a part of this but it is not alone required.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 04:31 pm
It seems capitalist-sympathisers like to claim that "Those who work hard will get rich", "those gifted will be rewarded", etc. But this seem to be a false notion. Even human beings who have not only worked hard, but also have been extremly gifted, have lived their entire life's through poverty.


For example, according to Wikipedia, one of the greatest inventors in history, Nikola Tesla, yadda yadda yadda.
Uh, you have to make smart decisions to do well in capitalism. Simply showing up and inventing stuff is not a guarantee.

Of course not everyone will get rich but that's not the goal. Pretty much everyone who is smart, makes smart decisions and works hard will be better off than they would in your system, which would be hungry, poor, and likely dead from a bullet to the back of the head.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Uh, you have to make smart decisions to do well in capitalism. Simply showing up and inventing stuff is not a guarantee.
So in capitalism, being a genius improving mankind through inventions making human life easier and better means shit, while marketing is everything.

Not only is that stupid, it is also counter productive to societal development; Because the otherwise genious man has to struggle to promote whatever he has invented, instead on focusing on what he is good at: inventing.

edit: mods fix the name of the thread please?

[colonelguppy]

if you invent something truly genious you don't need to be good at marketing to be hugely succesful.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

if you invent something truly genious you don't need to be good at marketing to be hugely succesful.

Antonio Meucci invented the telephone and developed a popular method of using electric shocks to treat illness. And as I have interpreted it, he died poor.

As mentioned, Nikola Tesla was a true genius, and he died impoverished. So your theory doesn't seem to hold... Tesla was a true genius, but died impoverished. Yet you say "if you invent something truly genious you don't need to be good at marketing to be hugely succesful". This doesn't add up.

As Wikipedia says:
"He is well known for his contributions to the discipline of electricity and magnetism in the late 19th and early 20th century. Tesla's patents and theoretical work form the basis of modern alternating current electric power (AC) systems, including the polyphase power distribution systems and the AC motor, with which he helped usher in the Second Industrial Revolution."

"Much of his early work pioneered modern electrical engineering and many of his discoveries were of groundbreaking importance. In 1943, the United States Supreme Court credited him as being the inventor of the radio. "

Yet he died a poor man; destroyed financially; impoverished.
There are many others also. These are only a few examples.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 09:27 pm

Uh, you have to make smart decisions to do well in capitalism. Simply showing up and inventing stuff is not a guarantee.
So in capitalism, being a genius improving mankind through inventions making human life easier and better means shit, while marketing is everything.

Not only is that stupid, it is also counter productive to societal development; Because the otherwise genious man has to struggle to promote whatever he has invented, instead on focusing on what he is good at: inventing.

edit: mods fix the name of the thread please?
thats why you need partners.



Antonio Meucci invented the telephone and developed a popular method of using electric shocks to treat illness. And as I have interpreted it, he died poor.

he didn't get credit for the telephone....most credit went to bell.


As mentioned, Nikola Tesla was a true genius, and he died impoverished. So your theory doesn't seem to hold... Tesla was a true genius, but died impoverished. Yet you say "if you invent something truly genious you don't need to be good at marketing to be hugely succesful". This doesn't add up.

As Wikipedia says:
"He is well known for his contributions to the discipline of electricity and magnetism in the late 19th and early 20th century. Tesla's patents and theoretical work form the basis of modern alternating current electric power (AC) systems, including the polyphase power distribution systems and the AC motor, with which he helped usher in the Second Industrial Revolution."

"Much of his early work pioneered modern electrical engineering and many of his discoveries were of groundbreaking importance. In 1943, the United States Supreme Court credited him as being the inventor of the radio. "

Yet he died a poor man; destroyed financially; impoverished.
There are many others also. These are only a few examples.


he died poor because he ahd a falling out with his bosses...

[Messiah]

In capitalism, marketing is all that matters. People have no choice but to consume, the only choice they have is who am I going to buy my "things" from? At the end of the day, it'll be those who make the best case for their merchendise being the best, regardless of reality. That is why some really shitty products, sell really, really well and some really good ones fall off the face of the Earth.

The inventors themselves, as well, are a good example. Edison was a brilliant guy, but he was an even better marketer and capitalist. Tesla was just pure genius, but not much of a buisnessman. And even though he was right in the AC v. DC debate that changed the modern world, he still died in a hotel room. While every child, almost the world over, knows about Edison and few, in comparison, know of Tesla.

So, it's a system that rewards lying and not getting caught, as opposed to true brilliance and contribution to society.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

he didn't get credit for the telephone....most credit went to bell.

From what I have heard, it was either Antonio Meucci or Elisha Gray that invented the telephone, not Alexander Graham Bell.


Point is, in capitalism, even if you are a gifted person, that doesn't mean you will be rich. It's often about who you know, not what you know.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 05:00 pm

if you invent something truly genious you don't need to be good at marketing to be hugely succesful.

Antonio Meucci invented the telephone and developed a popular method of using electric shocks to treat illness. And as I have interpreted it, he died poor.

As mentioned, Nikola Tesla was a true genius, and he died impoverished. So your theory doesn't seem to hold... Tesla was a true genius, but died impoverished. Yet you say "if you invent something truly genious you don't need to be good at marketing to be hugely succesful". This doesn't add up.

As Wikipedia says:
"He is well known for his contributions to the discipline of electricity and magnetism in the late 19th and early 20th century. Tesla's patents and theoretical work form the basis of modern alternating current electric power (AC) systems, including the polyphase power distribution systems and the AC motor, with which he helped usher in the Second Industrial Revolution."

"Much of his early work pioneered modern electrical engineering and many of his discoveries were of groundbreaking importance. In 1943, the United States Supreme Court credited him as being the inventor of the radio. "

Yet he died a poor man; destroyed financially; impoverished.
There are many others also. These are only a few examples.
yeah you're right two inventors die poor and suddenly my theory is shot to shit. regardless, while they did invent the concepts, other people actually put them into useful application (bell and the like), and they are the ones who without out exception do well.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 04:31 pm
It seems capitalist-sympathisers like to claim that "Those who work hard will get rich", "those gifted will be rewarded", etc. But this seem to be a false notion. Even human beings who have not only worked hard, but also have been extremly gifted, have lived their entire life's through poverty.


For example, according to Wikipedia, one of the greatest inventors in history, Nikola Tesla, died impoverished and forgotten at the age of 86.
Those have something to exchange which is sufficiently in demand may get rich.

Who said anything about hard work?

"According to wikipedia" don't make me laugh. Wikipedia claimed (in the not too distant past) that one of fifas top 100 footballers was a man called "snake derrick" from Northern Ireland. Can we stop citing wikipedia?

[England Expects]

Originally posted by The Crying [email protected] 17, 2006 04:47 pm
I believe marx lived his whole life in poverty as well as some other great philosophers. i fully agree with your statement, however, sometimes a think poverty is a choice.
Marx didn't have a choice. He never had anything of value to exchange for money.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 09:27 pm
Not only is that stupid, it is also counter productive to societal development; Because the otherwise genious man has to struggle to promote whatever he has invented, instead on focusing on what he is good at: inventing.
Actually he can focus on inventing.

He sets aside a budget to pay for a specialist to market(or whatever?) his invention. The specialist can perform this task more efficiently and cost effectively.

"uh duh, division of labour good?" (background sounds of communist scratching louse ridden scalp)

[red team]

Originally posted by NWOG
Yet he died a poor man; destroyed financially; impoverished.

Cheated by Westinghouse I believe. Westinghouse didn't know shit about electrical theory, but he was wealthy enough to finance inventors who he then turn around and stab in the back...


yeah you're right two inventors die poor and suddenly my theory is shot to shit. regardless, while they did invent the concepts, other people actually put them into useful application (bell and the like), and they are the ones who without out exception do well.

Let translate that marketing-speak into plain English: Take somebody else's work and put your name on it. Put the whole thing in a fancy package that doesn't add a damn thing to the original work's utility and promote yourself as the genius that came up with it. The stupid cows in the mass-consuming general public would never know how much of a stupid, lazy fuck you are, while you laugh all the way to the bank.

[colonelguppy]

um using a technologic concept and applying it to common day scenarios is not just "putting your name on someone elses work".

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 04:15 am
People have no choice but to consume,
Actually we are quite free to consume as little as we want. My wife and I make a lot of money and we drive used cars and save about 20% of our income.

Blanket statements like this make you look quite foolish.

[blueeyedboy]

You are saying that people are free to consume as little as they want. Ok then, if they do that they will die. We are forced to consume, that is a fact pure and simple. Consumerism is what capitalism is based on, as well as oppression and, well, you know the rest. If all of us consumed as little as possible, then surely capitalists would lose out on a hell of a lot of money. They need us to consume, or they will lose out, simple as that. If the capitalists were not bothered about losing out like this, then why the vigorous marketing schemes they pump crap loads of money into, to make us CONSUME thier damn products. Most of them are needless anyway, so they are wasting their money doing this. Who really really desparately needs the latest shampoo, which is like one hundred millionth of a percent different from the previous shampoo. Also, you say that capitalists pump out what is in demand. So these latest shampoos are in demand the world over then. I don't think so, to the majority of people the latest shampoos are the least of people's worries, don't you think? All capitalists do is guess at what people want, and pump out coercive advertising schemes that make people, usually working class people, part with thier hard earned money, which ironically are put towards these worthless adverts, to buy needless stupid products. Does anyone agree with me or was that a load of bullpoo? lol

[t_wolves_fan]

You are saying that people are free to consume as little as they want. Ok then, if they do that they will die. We are forced to consume, that is a fact pure and simple.

:o

Take things about .06% as literally as you do, ace.

Of course you have to consume food, water, and oxygen. But when it comes to a capitalist system, you are free to consume only relatively cheap foods or incredibly expensive foods up to what you can afford. Hell you can even grow your own damn food if you want to.


Consumerism is what capitalism is based on, as well as oppression and, well, you know the rest.

Not really, and to the degree it is (which is both minimal and debatable), it's still far less oppressive than what most folks on this board would institute.


If all of us consumed as little as possible, then surely capitalists would lose out on a hell of a lot of money. They need us to consume, or they will lose out, simple as that.

Not really, the only thing that would change is how they make their money. Instead of making money on consumer goods, they'd make money on financial services because there would be increased demand for investments. But either way, prices and supply of goods would find equilibrium.


If the capitalists were not bothered about losing out like this, then why the vigorous marketing schemes they pump crap loads of money into, to make us CONSUME thier damn products.

Because most people want stuff. That doesn't mean they're required to want stuff.


Most of them are needless anyway, so they are wasting their money doing this. Who really really desparately needs the latest shampoo, which is like one hundred millionth of a percent different from the previous shampoo.

I agree but I'm not arrogant enough to assume I know better than they do what they can or should purchase.


Also, you say that capitalists pump out what is in demand. So these latest shampoos are in demand the world over then.

Yes. You ever seen all the crap women keep in the bathroom?


I don't think so, to the majority of people the latest shampoos are the least of people's worries, don't you think?

That's up to them to decide, don't you think?


All capitalists do is guess at what people want, and pump out coercive advertising schemes that make people, usually working class people, part with thier hard earned money, which ironically are put towards these worthless adverts, to buy needless stupid products.

Advertisements make people purchase things? That's a new one.


Does anyone agree with me or was that a load of bullpoo? lol

Load of bullpoo. I think that you cannot fathom that people disagree with you, and so you have to assume that they must be controlled into doing so.

[pastradamus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 09:30 pm
Hell you can even grow your own damn food if you want to.

Yeah but in some countries you guys tend to tax that.


Because most people want stuff. That doesn't mean they're required to want stuff.

They dont have a choice in the matter, If I buy food for example, because I must as it is a humans nedd to do so. I got to the supermarket and buy a brand which profits a capitalist company as the supermarket is capitalist in the first place and interested in profit. Everything from bottled water to clothes are produced by capitalist companies exploting your human need.


Yes. You ever seen all the crap women keep in the bathroom?

Its in demand because advertising makes it look like you need it.


Advertisements make people purchase things? That's a new one.

Yes. I think so anyway. If I tell you that you need to buy the latest and greatest product everytime you look at a billboard, watch TV and listen to radio then subconsciously you tell yourself you need it, and then you go shopping and see it.


Load of bullpoo. I think that you cannot fathom that people disagree with you, and so you have to assume that they must be controlled into doing so.

Controlling people to do something is what you guys specialise at, not us.
pffft....

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 09:30 pm
Hell you can even grow your own damn food if you want to.

Yeah but in some countries you guys tend to tax that.

Beyond maybe sales taxes on the materials, I wouldn't support that.



Because most people want stuff. That doesn't mean they're required to want stuff.

They dont have a choice in the matter, If I buy food for example, because I must as it is a humans nedd to do so. I got to the supermarket and buy a brand which profits a capitalist company as the supermarket is capitalist in the first place and interested in profit. Everything from bottled water to clothes are produced by capitalist companies exploting your human need.

Then either grow your own or start your own company that does not make any profit. Drink only city water from the tap.

The choice is entirely yours. Don't sit here and ***** about your lack of choices, go out and start your own concern and run it the way you want.

Or are you under the impression that you're entitled to have your choice of foods delivered to you under circumstances that meet your personal approval?



Yes. You ever seen all the crap women keep in the bathroom?

Its in demand because advertising makes it look like you need it.

You don't know a lot about women do you.



Advertisements make people purchase things? That's a new one.

Yes. I think so anyway. If I tell you that you need to buy the latest and greatest product everytime you look at a billboard, watch TV and listen to radio then subconsciously you tell yourself you need it, and then you go shopping and see it.


I drove by a billboard advertising Fords and I did not stop and buy one. In fact I have no plans to do so at any point in the future.

Explain that.

I saw an ad for a car I thought was ugly. I didn't go out and buy it.

Explain that for me.




Load of bullpoo. I think that you cannot fathom that people disagree with you, and so you have to assume that they must be controlled into doing so.

Controlling people to do something is what you guys specialise at, not us.
pffft....

Well, considering you lack the willpower to avoid buying everything you see advertized, I guess I can see why you think that.

But no, your system that would prohibit certain opinions (like religion) or ban people from procuring too many material possessions doesn't control at all.

Yeah, that...uh...makes some kind of sense. I'm sure...

:wacko:

[manic expression]

You don't know a lot about women do you.

On the products women keep in bathrooms, you seem to be oblivious to what's happened over the years. As one example, back in the 60's or 70's, razor companies convinced women that they had to shave their armpits to be "beautiful", thus increasing the demand for their product. The ideas of "beauty" for women that are perpetuated through our society go hand-in-hand with marketing, as nothing can drive up demand like making girls think they need this and that to be pretty. It works.

I drove by a billboard advertising Fords and I did not stop and buy one. In fact I have no plans to do so at any point in the future.

Explain that.

I saw an ad for a car I thought was ugly. I didn't go out and buy it.

Explain that for me.

On your lack of interest in a Ford, you miss the point entirely. The point is that subconsciously, we are made to desire products through advertising. Not every commercial will make you buy something, but many will. There's a reason companies spend so much money on not only advertisments themselves, but researching how to manipulate people into wanting their product.

[Joby]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 08:09 pm
Uh, you have to make smart decisions to do well in capitalism. Simply showing up and inventing stuff is not a guarantee.

Of course not everyone will get rich but that's not the goal. Pretty much everyone who is smart, makes smart decisions and works hard will be better off than they would in your system, which would be hungry, poor, and likely dead from a bullet to the back of the head.
So cleverness is more important than brilliance?

I guess that can explain the state of things in the world today. DOW goes up because the amount of money needed to pay the worker goes down. How clever. One man made a bundle, hundreds lose more and more.

But I guess they're obviously stupid and idiotic if they're poor, right?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 17, 2006 08:09 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 17, 2006 08:09 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2006 04:31 pm
It seems capitalist-sympathisers like to claim that "Those who work hard will get rich", "those gifted will be rewarded", etc. But this seem to be a false notion. Even human beings who have not only worked hard, but also have been extremly gifted, have lived their entire life's through poverty.


For example, according to Wikipedia, one of the greatest inventors in history, Nikola Tesla, yadda yadda yadda.
Uh, you have to make smart decisions to do well in capitalism. Simply showing up and inventing stuff is not a guarantee.

Of course not everyone will get rich but that's not the goal. Pretty much everyone who is smart, makes smart decisions and works hard will be better off than they would in your system, which would be hungry, poor, and likely dead from a bullet to the back of the head. [/b]
How fucking condesending!

"everyone who is smart will get rich"

what bullshit. You can be a genius and die poor as NWOG pointed out. Also, people often don't have the opportunities or the wealth to rise by affording higher education or by investing. Workers in socialism live far better off than workers in their capitalist counterparts. Take Cuba and the Dominican Republic or Haiti or Jamaicia or Panama. All are resourceless islands (Panama not an island).

Percentage of undernourished: Cuba = 2%, Jamaica = 10%, Panama = 25% Dominican Republic = 27%, Haiti = 47% (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=566&crid=)

Proportion of Population using improved sanitation: Cuba = 98%, Jamaica = 80%, DR = 78%, Panama = 73% (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=668&crid=)

Literacy (population recieving basic education): Cuba = 100%, DR = 95%, Jamaica = 91%, Panama = 96%, Haiti = 54% (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=656&crid=)

The list goes on and only Cuba has had a major blockade against it.

[red team]

Uh, you have to make smart decisions to do well in capitalism. Simply showing up and inventing stuff is not a guarantee.

"smart" decisions as in... ? I&#39;ll just leave that to the imagination of the reader to figure out what that means. <_<

"inventing stuff is not a guarantee", translation: Coming up with inventions that benefit the general public is not valuable in Capitalism.

You see, the person who gets rewarded in Capitalism is the smartly dressed guy in the business suit, not the guy who is actually mentally smart who dresses in the lab coat.

You do certainly tell it like it is.


Of course not everyone will get rich but that&#39;s not the goal.

Of course. The very definition of "rich" means the opposite definition of "poor" must exist. Money is a relative quantity, not an absolute one.


Pretty much everyone who is smart, makes smart decisions and works hard will be better off

The very definition of a predatory society which operates on a predatory system. For every "winner" there must be a thousand (correction a million) "losers". Privilege and comfort is measured against deprivation and misery. It&#39;s the perfect system... NOT&#33;

Even with a relatively small three-to-one ratio a larger group of average individuals can out-produce an elite group and that&#39;s not even mentioning that most manual work nowadays are mechanized or have the potential to be making the whole point moot. As for routine "mental" work like bookkeeping, you&#39;re looking at the solution to that in which any average computer user can operate.


...your system, which would be hungry, poor, and likely dead from a bullet to the back of the head.

Hungry from what? Not being able to start a farm tractor or harvestor? Not being able to operate a computer to drive them by GPS remote control?

If any bullets were to fly they would have finished flying after the revolution. Reliance on repression would have meant that the material conditions were never ready for a new society anyway, so that it wasn&#39;t really a Communist revolution to begin with. More likely, if it was a genuine popular revolution in which material and social conditions were ready, the deposed masters would simply be laughed at and ignored by the (by then) more capable workers.

[t_wolves_fan]

I have generally tried to avoid discussions with you because you&#39;re clearly one of the most obtuse and intellectually dishonest posters on the web. Which is a real achievement.

But, I&#39;ll give it a shot:


"smart" decisions as in... ? I&#39;ll just leave that to the imagination of the reader to figure out what that means. <_<

Good idea, people are generally smart and capable of making good decisions.


"inventing stuff is not a guarantee", translation: Coming up with inventions that benefit the general public is not valuable in Capitalism.

Well, no. Actually, it would be more like, "Inventing things that people don&#39;t want or need is not a guarantee."


You see, the person who gets rewarded in Capitalism is the smartly dressed guy in the business suit, not the guy who is actually mentally smart who dresses in the lab coat.

Well no, actually, since it is probably the man in the business suit who takes the risk to market the invention and if it&#39;s successful hires the guys in the lab coats.

And guys in lab coats do alright, in case you didn&#39;t realize.


Of course. The very definition of "rich" means the opposite definition of "poor" must exist. Money is a relative quantity, not an absolute one.

Yes, poor must exist because poor probably will always exist. It&#39;s like rain or the moon or the cold virus that way.

The problem with your statement is that it represents a false dichotomy. There is not just a choice between "rich" or "poor" in a monetary sense. There is also middle class. There is also the probability that many people will be fine being borderline "poor" in a monetary sense because their priorities lie elsewhere or because material wealth doesn&#39;t float their boat.

I know this would mean that people don&#39;t value your righteous indignation on their behalf and that they have not accepted your enlightened vision of what their life should entail, which you probably cannot accept. But just kind of realize that it&#39;s out there...


The very definition of a predatory society which operates on a predatory system. For every "winner" there must be a thousand (correction a million) "losers". Privilege and comfort is measured against deprivation and misery. It&#39;s the perfect system... NOT&#33;

Not true in any way. Winning does not require that any other person lose. If a new product or service is created, or introduced into a market, an entrepeneur will hire people who either want or need a new job. Providing this service - get ready for it - may not actually require exploiting any third world labor and may not involve price dumping ala Wal Mart.

Just try to envision that happening for a moment - a new business opening in a town or a city that hires people and either gives them a higher salary or at the very least gives them a job they enjoy more (assume that this new business has not led to the closure of their previous employer) than their previous job. Their previous employer hires people to replace those who left, likely also at a higher wage than those people were previously earning.

Wait wait wat...just hang on a second. I know you don&#39;t accept that it happens. I know you believe that all of capitalism operates like Wal Mart. But just set aside those beliefs and those slogans for a minute and think about it. Imagine that it works that way...that people move up as new businesses are created...

Open your mind...

How&#39;d it feel? Good? I hope so, because that&#39;s actually how it works most of the time, ace.


Even with a relatively small three-to-one ratio a larger group of average individuals can out-produce an elite group and that&#39;s not even mentioning that most manual work nowadays are mechanized or have the potential to be making the whole point moot. As for routine "mental" work like bookkeeping, you&#39;re looking at the solution to that in which any average computer user can operate.

:lol:

There are several bookkeepers in cubes and offices next to me at this moment. I assure you they are actually quite busy, even with the latest technology that we employ.

It&#39;s obvious that you&#39;re not in the job market yourself so I&#39;m going to offer you a piece of advice: just because you proclaim it to be true, it may not actually be true.


Hungry from what? Not being able to start a farm tractor or harvestor? Not being able to operate a computer to drive them by GPS remote control?

Hungry because your technocracy is a pipedream. The resources do not exist to maximize production to the point that people could be satisfied materially at the level they are in the modern west today. Your opinion that it could be done right now is irrelevant. Your opinion that it could be done in the future is a hypothetical. Deal with it.

These things being true, your model system would overtax the environment resulting in massive agricultural problems. Then you&#39;d have to ration food which would result in theft, graft, and hording. When people riot, you&#39;d show them the revolutionary love by having them purged.


If any bullets were to fly they would have finished flying after the revolution. Reliance on repression would have meant that the material conditions were never ready for a new society anyway, so that it wasn&#39;t really a Communist revolution to begin with. More likely, if it was a genuine popular revolution in which material and social conditions were ready, the deposed masters would simply be laughed at and ignored by the (by then) more capable workers.

And then Tinkerbell would waft her magic fairy dust one last time and we&#39;d all live happily ever after.

The end.

[red team]

If any bullets were to fly they would have finished flying after the revolution. Reliance on repression would have meant that the material conditions were never ready for a new society anyway, so that it wasn&#39;t really a Communist revolution to begin with. More likely, if it was a genuine popular revolution in which material and social conditions were ready, the deposed masters would simply be laughed at and ignored by the (by then) more capable workers.


And then Tinkerbell would waft her magic fairy dust one last time and we&#39;d all live happily ever after.

The end.

Not too knowledgeable in history are you? How many monarch beheadings are there in western society now where the initial historical Capitalist revolutions took place? CEOs and venture capitalists in Britain screaming for the blood of the house of Windsor? :lol:

No, because if anybody in that inbred family living in that fantasy castle attempted to take on real power they&#39;ll be laughed out of it. Nobody would give it serious consideration. Not that they are even capable of mounting any serious opposition even if they do decide they want to play King Arthur and the knights of the round table again.

What makes you think Capitalists wouldn&#39;t be laughed out of power when some time in the future the time and conditions are ready to finally put an end to their system? After the initial bloody battles to remove their loyal attack dogs why would anybody take them seriously any longer? They are more capable of operating mechanized equipment or computers than the rest of the workers? :lol:

As for businesses being like Walmart. What&#39;s the biggest retail corporation in the world? What was that?

Again, the value money is measured against the lack of it. It&#39;s not an absolute measure of anything. Did you expect ordinary people to be as capable as the people running a huge operation like Walmart when lack of money means lack of means to purchase resources? Not that there aren&#39;t resources, but for those who want to start their own operations what do they use to purchase business assets with? There are many capable people who have their talents wasted not because they are lazy or stupid or whatever. All that is irrelevant in a monetary economy. The concentration of purchasing power that would inevitably occur in any monetary economy leads to the concentration of social power which means those with more money have more options open to them than those without money. The personal attributes of the bearer of these debt tokens are irrelevant.

[Tungsten]

Of course, going up to a man in the street, telling him to throw away all his "debt tokens" because they&#39;re a symbol of oppression and asking him to join you in taking over the world with robots will not get you laughed at.

Of course it won&#39;t.

[Tungsten]

red team

Take somebody else&#39;s work and put your name on it. Put the whole thing in a fancy package that doesn&#39;t add a damn thing to the original work&#39;s utility and promote yourself as the genius that came up with it. The stupid cows in the mass-consuming general public would never know how much of a stupid, lazy fuck you are, while you laugh all the way to the bank.Would this be the stupid general public you&#39;re going to be relying on to make your revolution work? Or will the philosopher kings, er, technocrats take over themselves and force everyone else to do their bidding?