"equality" is a joke and you know it

[CopperGoat]

When will you commies and socialists realize that this phoney balogney system is terribly inaccurate and wrong. marx himself was probably laughing. people aren't "equal" okay? some are more confident, smarter, stronger, prettier, motivated, creative. and so on and so on. to say that everyone is equal is rubbish, rubbish, trash.

to each according to his ability to each according to his need? what the HELL does that mean?? the whole point of capitalism is that it rewards exceptional individuals, it allows smart people to pursue research and innovation because they have more money than less smarter people. communism kills all exceptionality and superiority.

You think that there are people who want to be janitors, garbage men, soldiers fighting immoral wars (which doesn't have to happen in a regulated capitalism anyway), and any other occupation that no ones likes doing??/ No they dont want to do it but they have to because they can't do anything else, that's what you morons can't understand.

if we allow everyone to do what they want, the whole system would collapse, cause no one would want to do that. that's why there's an INCENTIVE to do more harder and intellectually enjoyable things. without that incentive we make shoddy products, and generally everyone suffers including ones that could be doing better things.

money is not evil, it seperates the individual from the state, its gives you INDEPENDANCE AND LIBERTY something that COMMUNISM cannot allow you to have DUH. it allows you to pursue important things, if everyone is dummed down to "equality" we would all be messed up.

AND USSR? that's what happens in communism dont make that excuse that they werent doing it "right" they tried it and it degenerated into that and it always will. it "industrialized" due to the famine and enslavement of millions of people, sure anyone can do that.

yes the cuban revolution was something different, it was victory against american imperialism, it triumphed over government corruption which the USSR was as well. But you can have capitalism without imperialism, and that's the ideal, US isin't gonna be doing that anytime soon, but that's the ideal for the future and now.

[Cryotank Screams]

superiority

Is a myth, and illogical.


what the HELL does that mean??

It is quite obvious, but maybe your to obtuse and idiotic to understand this?


people aren't "equal" okay?

Yes, they pretty much are, it’s proven by science.


to say that everyone is equal is rubbish, rubbish, trash.

No, it's not and it's amazing how those who claim to be superior and shit, are often times severely idiotic, and far less intellectual than people like myself, and others who praise and fight for equality for all.


No they dont want to do it but they have to because they can't do anything else, that's what you morons can't understand.

You don't understand politics, economics, or philosophy, so shut the hell up.


that's why there's an INCENTIVE to do more harder and intellectually enjoyable things. without that incentive we make shoddy products, and generally everyone suffers including ones that could be doing better things.

Typical bourgeoisie argument and coattail criticism.


you INDEPENDANCE AND LIBERTY

It gives you oppression, strife, wars, starvation, violence, slavery, exploitation, and other various societal cancers, for what? Bits of cheap metal, and inked paper!

You know nothing of Leftist politics, economics, history or philosophy, and you certainly do not have the faintest idea, of politics in general, and you just come across as a complete dumbass.

So kindly, shut the fuck up? ;)

[MrDoom]

*Sighs*


When will you commies and socialists realize that this phoney balogney system is terribly inaccurate and wrong. marx himself was probably laughing. people aren't "equal" okay? some are more confident, smarter, stronger, prettier, motivated, creative. and so on and so on. to say that everyone is equal is rubbish, rubbish, trash.
We're not talking about personal equality. We want material, economic and social equality.


to each according to his ability to each according to his need? what the HELL does that mean??
Is it that difficult? A person contributes according to his personal ability, and recieves in reciprocal. All voluntarily, naturally.


the whole point of capitalism is that it rewards exceptional individuals, it allows smart people to pursue research and innovation because they have more money than less smarter people.
There are as many rich morons as there are poor geniuses.


communism kills all exceptionality and superiority.
Precisely the intent. We contend that no one should lord over any other as their "superior".


You think that there are people who want to be janitors, garbage men, soldiers fighting immoral wars (which doesn't have to happen in a regulated capitalism anyway), and any other occupation that no ones likes doing??/ No they dont want to do it but they have to because they can't do anything else, that's what you morons can't understand.
You're right. They can't do anything else. Capitalism has cheated these individuals of their potential.


if we allow everyone to do what they want, the whole system would collapse, cause no one would want to do that.
No, we automate what we can, distribute some to prisoners, and provide incentive to the rest for the willing, in the form of social praise and higher priority on what few rationed/queued commodites exist at the time.


that's why there's an INCENTIVE to do more harder and intellectually enjoyable things. without that incentive we make shoddy products, and generally everyone suffers including ones that could be doing better things.
How intellectually elitist.


money is not evil, it seperates the individual from the state, its gives you INDEPENDANCE AND LIBERTY something that COMMUNISM cannot allow you to have DUH.
Well, it's all well and good that communism has no state, isn't it? And why would you need money in communist society anyways? It'd be a huge waste of metal that could go to other, more constructive purposes.


it allows you to pursue important things, if everyone is dummed down to "equality" we would all be messed up.
Consumer fetishism isn't very important, and not worth saving.


AND USSR? that's what happens in communism dont make that excuse that they werent doing it "right" they tried it and it degenerated into that and it always will. it "industrialized" due to the famine and enslavement of millions of people, sure anyone can do that.
It wasn't communism in the first place, understand?


yes the cuban revolution was something different, it was victory against american imperialism, it triumphed over government corruption which the USSR was as well. But you can have capitalism without imperialism, and that's the ideal, US isin't gonna be doing that anytime soon, but that's the ideal for the future and now.
Capitalism inevitably leads to imperialism. It's like a monopoly game: once all the property deeds are taken players have to go to war against each other to gain more capital.

[colonelguppy]

not that i disagree with you, but stop making me look bad by association.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 10:54 pm
not that i disagree with you, but stop making me look bad by association.
You look bad regardless, it's just a matter of degrees, :D .

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 08, 2006 09:56 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 08, 2006 09:56 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2006 10:54 pm
not that i disagree with you, but stop making me look bad by association.
You look bad regardless, it's just a matter of degrees, :D . [/b]
thanks sugar

[CopperGoat]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 08, 2006 09:50 pm

superiority

Is a myth, and illogical.


what the HELL does that mean??

It is quite obvious, but maybe your to obtuse and idiotic to understand this?


people aren't "equal" okay?

Yes, they pretty much are, it’s proven by science.


to say that everyone is equal is rubbish, rubbish, trash.

No, it's not and it's amazing how those who claim to be superior and shit, are often times severely idiotic, and far less intellectual than people like myself, and others who praise and fight for equality for all.


No they dont want to do it but they have to because they can't do anything else, that's what you morons can't understand.

You don't understand politics, economics, or philosophy, so shut the hell up.


that's why there's an INCENTIVE to do more harder and intellectually enjoyable things. without that incentive we make shoddy products, and generally everyone suffers including ones that could be doing better things.

Typical bourgeoisie argument and coattail criticism.


you INDEPENDANCE AND LIBERTY

It gives you oppression, strife, wars, starvation, violence, slavery, exploitation, and other various societal cancers, for what? Bits of cheap metal, and inked paper!

You know nothing of Leftist politics, economics, history or philosophy, and you certainly do not have the faintest idea, of politics in general, and you just come across as a complete dumbass.

So kindly, shut the fuck up? ;)
How the HELL is equality proven by science?? please tell me. certainly it can prove that some people are stronger than others, or have higher IQ's, which btw is a valid measurement, for measuring analytical thinking skills and other skills.

having equality for all it makes no sense. some people are smarter than others and know how to get things done whereas others are jealous stupid and envious. Who are far less intellectual like yourself?? AHAHA that sounds intellectually elitist too.

yes i don't understand politics, philosphy or economics to know that the people who are doing those jobs are somehow 'made' to do it by slavery and because only rich people can ever acquire money... no they are doing it because they are either foreigners who have been cheated and lied to by our governments, or because they didn't have an incentive to do something better.

wars, strife, starvation, violence, slavery, exploitation??? no idiot, money gives you research and an ability to pursue other important intellectual activities other than just working your ass off like stupid commiest think is cool. there's no dignity in labour if you don't get that ur a brainwashed commie!! yes lets have the people working cause its dignifying while the 'communist' state and party has all the benefits!! AHAHAH!

Leftist politics?? ahaha, just envious and insecure people who can't stand it that some people are more efficient, smarter, motivated, and so on and so on..

[colonelguppy]

yeah, supierority isn't a myth. its definately a fact that peyton manning is much better a quarter back than i, and that beethoven was a much better composer than i will ever be. even if i had all the oppurtunity in the world to learn, i bet i still couldn't be as good as either of them.

[Everyday Anarchy]

When will you commies and socialists realize that this phoney balogney system is terribly inaccurate and wrong. marx himself was probably laughing. people aren't "equal" okay? some are more confident, smarter, stronger, prettier, motivated, creative. and so on and so on. to say that everyone is equal is rubbish, rubbish, trash.Equality in the sense that we use it in does not mean sameness.
Yes, some people are smarter, stronger, prettier, more creative, etc. and those people will excel in fields that they are good in. Those fields would actually come pretty naturally to them


Imagine this... you're the smartest kid anyone in your neighborhood has ever met. You could probably learn how to engineer a space ship. However, let's say that your neighborhood is a ghetto. Did you choose to be born here? No, but shit happens. So you go to a poor ass school with horrible textbooks and teachers. Going a couple years down the road, you graduate from high school (still living in the ghetto). Where do you see yourself going?
Your family needs money badly to buy food and clothes that they NEED (they're very lives are at the mercy of money). So to get this money, you'll have to get a shitty job probably something like a janitor. College is completely out of the question. You don't have the money to afford college and your family needs your income now, not in 4 years.

So here we have a young rocket scientist trapped in a poor neighborhood for the rest of his life. Who's to blame for this loss?
You? You never did anything wrong. You were simply another victim to capitalism.

Without money, your family could've gotten what they needed without you slaving away. You could have gone to college to further your knowledge. Maybe someday you could have even helped work on a greater space ship.

[La Comédie Noire]

When will you commies and socialists realize that this phoney balogney system is terribly inaccurate and wrong. marx himself was probably laughing. people aren't "equal" okay? some are more confident, smarter, stronger, prettier, motivated, creative. and so on and so on. to say that everyone is equal is rubbish, rubbish, trash.

Okay first, we know people are diffrent we just purpose we have a society where everyone is giventhe means to live because of their rights to human inheritance.


to each according to his ability to each according to his need? what the HELL does that mean?? the whole point of capitalism is that it rewards exceptional individuals, it allows smart people to pursue research and innovation because they have more money than less smarter people. communism kills all exceptionality and superiority.

I would think some smarter people, very broad there, would work out of a desire to persue knowledge in their respective field and for the betterment of man kind. I'm justc razy but I myself as well as other people do not like book work much however physical labour i do not mind. Superiority is a myth as stated a thousand times before, the notion of superiority is a classist attitude, when classes are abolished so is superiority.

I would think a society that allows a person to persue science unhindered by politics and money would be a better breeding ground for knowledge then the bull shit you have stated.


to each according to his ability to each according to his need?

It means give to society what you can and society will provide for you because you are in need. There is no god, there are no divine kings, all we have as human beings is eachother and the material situations we create. So I would hope it was a good situation and we were logical as people.


You think that there are people who want to be janitors, garbage men, soldiers fighting immoral wars (which doesn't have to happen in a regulated capitalism anyway), and any other occupation that no ones likes doing??/ No they dont want to do it but they have to because they can't do anything else, that's what you morons can't understand.

As I stated before there are people who would not mind physical labour, especially when you live in a society that dosen't degrate you for it. Soldiers fighting immoral wars? Tell me what war would there be to fight in a world where there are no borders and the means of production are centralized thus making conquest obsolete? I think you should explain yourself. The highest function of a capitalist state is imperialism, It's full potential is war.


but they have to because they can't do anything else, that's what you morons can't understand.

Again Each according to his abilityto each according to his need.


if we allow everyone to do what they want, the whole system would collapse, cause no one would want to do that. that's why there's an INCENTIVE to do more harder and intellectually enjoyable things. without that incentive we make shoddy products, and generally everyone suffers including ones that could be doing better things.

The current system would collapse if we did this, which we kind of ya know...want. Excuse me but incentive comes from more than the want for material objects. I think the goals of fast, short term profit lead to shoddier products more than anything.


money is not evil, it seperates the individual from the state, its gives you INDEPENDANCE AND LIBERTY something that COMMUNISM cannot allow you to have DUH. it allows you to pursue important things, if everyone is dummed down to "equality" we would all be messed up.

We never said money was "evil". Money doe's no such thing! We are forced to participate in society because the capitlaist own all the means of production. We are forced to work for the capitalist or starve. Money, just like the slave master's rations, is only allotted at the bare minimum to keep us alive. Alienation from the emans of production is his gun, the current system his chains. This isn't independence, this isn't freedom, it's slavery.


But you can have capitalism without imperialism, and that's the ideal, US isin't gonna be doing that anytime soon, but that's the ideal for the future and now.

I agree the U.S isn't going to be doing that anytime soon.

[Cryotank Screams]

How the HELL is equality proven by science??

The majority of humanity is on a completely equal playing ground.


having equality for all it makes no sense.

Maybe, not to you, but again your a dumbass; theoretically speaking it makes perfect sense.


some people are smarter than others and know how to get things done whereas others are jealous stupid and envious

Social average intelligence is a complex subject, don't discuss it, if you are not up to the challenge.


that sounds intellectually elitist too.

No, your just a dumbass.


no idiot, money gives you research and an ability to pursue other important intellectual activities other than just working your ass off like stupid commiest think is cool.

No, research is conducted by scientists indepent of currency, and is often times restricted and hindered due to lack of funding, or in the other words because of currency, and also the whole point of Communism and Anarchism is to improve working coniditions, and lower the average working hours, hence there would be no extreme working hours, and truly the reason there is extreme working hours is due to capitalism, in attempts to extract more money from the workers, it is the capitalists who are work obssesed because it increases their capital, and income.

Idiot.

Also, I am an Anarchist, I don't believe in states and parties; I seek to destroy them, so you can't use your USSR scapegoating tricks on me, ;).


just envious and insecure people who can't stand it that some people are more efficient, smarter, motivated, and so on and so on..

Again, your not fully understanding what you are saying, or the subject to which you are discussing.


yes i don't understand politics, philosphy or economics

See said it yourself!

Wage Slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery)

Also social darwinism, has been disproven, try reading Mutual Aid: Theory of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin.

[CopperGoat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 09:51 pm

We're not talking about personal equality. We want material, economic and social equality.

wtf are you talking about personal equality, how can a person be 'personally' equal with himself? Social and economic equality sounds a load of tyrannical bullock.



Is it that difficult? A person contributes according to his personal ability, and recieves in reciprocal. All voluntarily, naturally.

WHAT? personal ability yes that's the point of capitalism. ANYONE can be a garbage man, janitor, grocery clerk, and so on and so on.. voluntarily, naturally? you're being so childish. no one wants to do those jobs, and if they do well then hey they can in capitalism. but no one is gonna be doing them in communism cause it has nothing to do with ability and is the worse jobs anyone can do, idiot.



There are as many rich morons as there are poor geniuses.

That is true, but communism isn't going to reward geniuses either. As 'genius' automatically implies a degree of superiority.


Precisely the intent. We contend that no one should lord over any other as their "superior".

if you believe in the word, "genius" you're contradicting yourself here.


You're right. They can't do anything else. Capitalism has cheated these individuals of their potential.


how has it cheated them please tell me? I know that there is unrecognized high ability, but it doesn't mean that the average ones couldn't have worked for something else.


No, we automate what we can, distribute some to prisoners, and provide incentive to the rest for the willing, in the form of social praise and higher priority on what few rationed/queued commodites exist at the time.

AHAHAH typical leftist idealist trash right here. prisoners? since when is communism supposed to have prisoners, i thought there would be no crime? provide incentive hmm? In the form of social praise and higher priority based on queued commodities? WHAT ahaha. see the problem with communism is that the state initially CONTROLS all the resources, that's nothing but tyranny simple as that.



Well, it's all well and good that communism has no state, isn't it? And why would you need money in communist society anyways? It'd be a huge waste of metal that could go to other, more constructive purposes.

you seem to not notice that capitalism doesn't need a state either!! that's the beauty of it, it relies on money which really is the number one independant factor that increases one's liberty and atleast a person has control over, whereas communism is total workingclass slavery.


Consumer fetishism isn't very important, and not worth saving.

hmm? Communism is a MATERIALISM system wtf you talking about. it's probably more materialist and reductionist than capitalism.



It wasn't communism in the first place, understand?

yes because it never can be communsim in the first place. you're telling me that lenin was wrong and made mistakes, but at the same time you praise him as honest and trustworthy. he had the NEP which allowed a small market capitalism cause it worked!! AHAH. Marx was wrong saying that communism will develop in industrialized countries ahah!! Those countries are the ones that need it least!! socialism is needed in poor and agricultural societies ie. Russia so it can industrialize, THEN it should become capitalist since its started itself up. but communism in the West? ahahah no.


Capitalism inevitably leads to imperialism. It's like a monopoly game: once all the property deeds are taken players have to go to war against each other to gain more capital.

it won't lead into it if you regulate it, and if all the third world countries bumped up their standards, if they ALL do it then the companies will either put up with it, or go back to their own countries. monopoly can and should also be regulated.


We're not talking about personal equality. We want material, economic and social equality.

wtf are you talking about personal equality, how can a person be 'personally' equal with himself? Social and economic equality sounds a load of tyrannical bullock.



Is it that difficult? A person contributes according to his personal ability, and recieves in reciprocal. All voluntarily, naturally.

WHAT? personal ability yes that's the point of capitalism. ANYONE can be a garbage man, janitor, grocery clerk, and so on and so on.. voluntarily, naturally? you're being so childish. no one wants to do those jobs, and if they do well then hey they can in capitalism. but no one is gonna be doing them in communism cause it has nothing to do with ability and is the worse jobs anyone can do, idiot.



There are as many rich morons as there are poor geniuses.

That is true, but communism isn't going to reward geniuses either. As 'genius' automatically implies a degree of superiority.


Precisely the intent. We contend that no one should lord over any other as their "superior".

if you believe in the word, "genius" you're contradicting yourself here.


You're right. They can't do anything else. Capitalism has cheated these individuals of their potential.


how has it cheated them please tell me? I know that there is unrecognized high ability, but it doesn't mean that the average ones couldn't have worked for something else.


No, we automate what we can, distribute some to prisoners, and provide incentive to the rest for the willing, in the form of social praise and higher priority on what few rationed/queued commodites exist at the time.

AHAHAH typical leftist idealist trash right here. prisoners? since when is communism supposed to have prisoners, i thought there would be no crime? provide incentive hmm? In the form of social praise and higher priority based on queued commodities? WHAT ahaha. see the problem with communism is that the state initially CONTROLS all the resources, that's nothing but tyranny simple as that.



Well, it's all well and good that communism has no state, isn't it? And why would you need money in communist society anyways? It'd be a huge waste of metal that could go to other, more constructive purposes.

you seem to not notice that capitalism doesn't need a state either!! that's the beauty of it, it relies on money which really is the number one independant factor that increases one's liberty and atleast a person has control over, whereas communism is total workingclass slavery.


Consumer fetishism isn't very important, and not worth saving.

hmm? Communism is a MATERIALISM system wtf you talking about. it's probably more materialist and reductionist than capitalism.



It wasn't communism in the first place, understand?

yes because it never can be communsim in the first place. you're telling me that lenin was wrong and made mistakes, but at the same time you praise him as honest and trustworthy. he had the NEP which allowed a small market capitalism cause it worked!! AHAH. Marx was wrong saying that communism will develop in industrialized countries ahah!! Those countries are the ones that need it least!! socialism is needed in poor and agricultural societies ie. Russia so it can industrialize, THEN it should become capitalist since its started itself up. but communism in the West? ahahah no.


Capitalism inevitably leads to imperialism. It's like a monopoly game: once all the property deeds are taken players have to go to war against each other to gain more capital.

it won't lead into it if you regulate it, and if all the third world countries bumped up their standards, if they ALL do it then the companies will either put up with it, or go back to their own countries. monopoly can and should also be regulated.

[RedSabine]

Just because someone is better at a certain skill doesn't mean they should be basically enslaved by a system which inevitably leads the majority of the populus being poor, therefore more uneducated, therefore skills they could have had never develop. IQ shouldn't define ones place in a society. Communism wouldn't stifle those individuals, look at our basic doctrine "From each his according to his ability, to each according to his need" Those individuals would give what they can, and what they can give is their intelligence. A man who is stupid yet strong would give according to his ability, which is his strength. From the society that they both gave to according to their needs, they would be reembursed according to their needs. They have different strenghts and weaknesses, but are still equal in society.

[MrDoom]

How the HELL is equality proven by science?? please tell me. certainly it can prove that some people are stronger than others, or have higher IQ's, which btw is a valid measurement, for measuring analytical thinking skills and other skills.
If you had bothered to read any of the posted arguments, you'd know we do not advocate that kind of "sameness". We want economic and material equality for all.


having equality for all it makes no sense. some people are smarter than others and know how to get things done whereas others are jealous stupid and envious. Who are far less intellectual like yourself?? AHAHA that sounds intellectually elitist too.
Again, material equality, not "sameness".


yes i don't understand politics, philosphy or economics to know that the people who are doing those jobs are somehow 'made' to do it by slavery and because only rich people can ever acquire money... no they are doing it because they are either foreigners who have been cheated and lied to by our governments, or because they didn't have an incentive to do something better.
Are you over the age of 15 by any chance? You give the impression that you've little understanding of anything regarding the left wing at all.


wars, strife, starvation, violence, slavery, exploitation??? no idiot, money gives you research and an ability to pursue other important intellectual activities other than just working your ass off like stupid commiest think is cool.
Money performs no critical function in any research or intellectual activities.


there's no dignity in labour if you don't get that ur a brainwashed commie!!
There is no dignity because it is labor within a BOURGEOIS system. If you don't get that, you're a brainwashed cappie troll.


yes lets have the people working cause its dignifying while the 'communist' state and party has all the benefits!! AHAHAH!
'Communist state' is an oxymoron, you troll. :rolleyes:

[CopperGoat]

yes i don't understand politics, philosophy or economics

for some reason it didn't show all of what i said. One only needs to read Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, or HL Mencken to realize how capitalism makes much more sense, than say, the HEGELIAN DIALECT :rolleyes: if you consider HEGEL and his rubbish jargon as philosophy, that Marx used to come up with his system.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 12:15 am
One only needs to read Nietzsche
You don't understand Nietzsche, don't even try to fucking debate me on this one, I have studied Nietzsche for years, and come from a Nietzschean philosophical standpoint, don't even come to me with your misinterpretations, nazi misunderstandings and bastardizations, and falsehoods, and insult one of my favorite philosophers.

Nietzsche was not involved in politics, he never even commented on anything of a political nature, outside from his essays against anti-semitism, and anti-german patriotism/nationalism comments, therefore you can not claim that Nietzsche supported capitalism.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 04:04 am




We're not talking about personal equality. We want material, economic and social equality.

wtf are you talking about personal equality, how can a person be 'personally' equal with himself? Social and economic equality sounds a load of tyrannical bullock.
I didn't say "personally equal with himself"; I meant that we are not concerned with personal qualities such as intelligence, strength, etc. We are concerned with economic conditions.



Is it that difficult? A person contributes according to his personal ability, and recieves in reciprocal. All voluntarily, naturally.

WHAT? personal ability yes that's the point of capitalism. ANYONE can be a garbage man, janitor, grocery clerk, and so on and so on.. voluntarily, naturally? you're being so childish. no one wants to do those jobs, and if they do well then hey they can in capitalism. but no one is gonna be doing them in communism cause it has nothing to do with ability and is the worse jobs anyone can do, idiot.
1: I have concluded that you are in fact the child/preteen, from your word choice and posting paradigm.
2: There a a fair number of worse jobs than 'garbageman'.



There are as many rich morons as there are poor geniuses.

That is true, but communism isn't going to reward geniuses either. As 'genius' automatically implies a degree of superiority.
Again with this intellectual elitism.

It DOES reward innovation, if you've cared to read anything remotely Marxist.



Precisely the intent. We contend that no one should lord over any other as their "superior".

if you believe in the word, "genius" you're contradicting yourself here.
:huh:



You're right. They can't do anything else. Capitalism has cheated these individuals of their potential.


how has it cheated them please tell me? I know that there is unrecognized high ability, but it doesn't mean that the average ones couldn't have worked for something else.
My comrades have already posted several scenarios. I shall not repeat them.



No, we automate what we can, distribute some to prisoners, and provide incentive to the rest for the willing, in the form of social praise and higher priority on what few rationed/queued commodites exist at the time.

AHAHAH typical leftist idealist trash right here. prisoners? since when is communism supposed to have prisoners, i thought there would be no crime?
You thought wrong. Economic crime will be drastically reduced, however, having no basis for existence.


provide incentive hmm? In the form of social praise and higher priority based on queued commodities? WHAT ahaha. see the problem with communism is that the state initially CONTROLS all the resources, that's nothing but tyranny simple as that.
There is no state in communism, troll.



Well, it's all well and good that communism has no state, isn't it? And why would you need money in communist society anyways? It'd be a huge waste of metal that could go to other, more constructive purposes.

you seem to not notice that capitalism doesn't need a state either!! that's the beauty of it, it relies on money which really is the number one independant factor that increases one's liberty and atleast a person has control over, whereas communism is total workingclass slavery.
You've some Bizarro logic there.

Capitalism requires a state because of class antagonisms, the conflict between workers and capitalists.

Money is slavery. Those few with have all the liberty they can afford, the rest go without.



Consumer fetishism isn't very important, and not worth saving.

hmm? Communism is a MATERIALISM system wtf you talking about. it's probably more materialist and reductionist than capitalism.
You've just demonstrated a COMPLETE misunderstanding of the word "materialism". Materialism is not the coveting of goods. It is a metaphysical viewpoint that only matter and energy exist, and that all natural phenomena are products of material forces.



It wasn't communism in the first place, understand?

yes because it never can be communsim in the first place. you're telling me that lenin was wrong and made mistakes, but at the same time you praise him as honest and trustworthy. he had the NEP which allowed a small market capitalism cause it worked!! AHAH.
He implemented it because Russia started out as a backwards agrarian feudalism. A slight boost in productive forces was neccessary, and limited market reform provided it.


Marx was wrong saying that communism will develop in industrialized countries ahah!! Those countries are the ones that need it least!! socialism is needed in poor and agricultural societies ie. Russia so it can industrialize, THEN it should become capitalist since its started itself up. but communism in the West? ahahah no.

Has anyone ever told you that your "laughing" within your typing style is childish and annoying, troll?



Capitalism inevitably leads to imperialism. It's like a monopoly game: once all the property deeds are taken players have to go to war against each other to gain more capital.

it won't lead into it if you regulate it, and if all the third world countries bumped up their standards, if they ALL do it then the companies will either put up with it, or go back to their own countries. monopoly can and should also be regulated.
Have you ever heard of a little time period called 'World War I'?


Amusing, troll, but foolish.

[CopperGoat]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 08, 2006 11:21 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 08, 2006 11:21 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2006 12:15 am
One only needs to read Nietzsche
You don't understand Nietzsche, don't even try to fucking debate me on this one, I have studied Nietzsche for years, and come from a Nietzschean philosophical standpoint, don't even come to me with your misinterpretations, nazi misunderstandings and bastardizations, and falsehoods, and insult one of my favorite philosophers.

Nietzsche was not involved in politics, he never even commented on anything of a political nature, outside from his anti-anti-semitism essays, and anti-german patriotism/nationalism comments, therefore you can not claim that Nietzsche supported capitalism. [/b]
AHAHA how childish you are. Don't even try to fucking debate with me on this one?? Only a childish attitude speaks so arrogantly.

yes Nietzsche was widely misinterpreted, including by you!

Nietzsche didn't have to be involved with politics to talk about economics they're different. he believed in ARISTOCRACY you imbecile. If you know this then don't take offense, but if you didn't you've REALLY misinterpreted him.

Nietzsche DESPISED socialism, he wanted capitalism because he knew some people are better than others. this has nothing to do with nationalism or anti-semitism!! Therefore you're being idiotic by linking those with capitalism, which has no link whatsoever.

If you never knew that Nietzsche supported aristocracy then you're the most misinterpreted one I know!!

[Cryotank Screams]

Only a childish attitude speaks so arrogantly.

I have debated this before, and have defended my interpretations of Nietzsche firmly, and the people I debated with on this board were a lot more intellectual than you, and made serious debate, and I know for a fact that you don't know jack shit about him or his work.

Also, your claims and arguments regarding him annoy me.


yes Nietzsche was widely misinterpreted, including by you!

Doubt it.


he believed in ARISTOCRACY you imbecile.

No, he did not, infact he was opposed and disgusted with "western decadence," and was opposed to a lot of the general concepts associated, embraced, and celebrated with and by the aristocrats of the time, so I highly doubt he would support an aristocracy, also do you have any proof of your claim?

I highly doubt you do.


Nietzsche DESPISED socialism, he wanted capitalism because he knew some people are better than others.

You don't know what he liked or disliked because you were not him, nor did you know him personally, therefore do not try to speak with authority on this subject as if you had a personal relationship with him, and know his views; like I said before Nietzsche wasn't involved with politics, and infact was more concerned with art, theology, the fundamentals of life, and of society, than anything else, considering that is what his works focus on primarily.


has nothing to do with nationalism or anti-semitism!!

Those were the only two subjects remotely political that he adressed you twit.


Therefore you're being idiotic by linking those with capitalism, which has no link whatsoever.

I wasn't trying to, how about you learn how to read?


If you never knew that Nietzsche supported aristocracy then you're the most misinterpreted one I know!!

See above comments, and again I ask for tangiable, and logical proof, not your bogus reading errors, nazi claims, and coattail arguments.

I doubt you even read one book by Nietzsche!

[CopperGoat]

Originally posted by MrDoom+December 08, 2006 11:26 pm--> (MrDoom @ December 08, 2006 11:26 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2006 04:04 am




We're not talking about personal equality. We want material, economic and social equality.

wtf are you talking about personal equality, how can a person be 'personally' equal with himself? Social and economic equality sounds a load of tyrannical bullock.
I didn't say "personally equal with himself"; I meant that we are not concerned with personal qualities such as intelligence, strength, etc. We are concerned with economic conditions.



Is it that difficult? A person contributes according to his personal ability, and recieves in reciprocal. All voluntarily, naturally.

WHAT? personal ability yes that's the point of capitalism. ANYONE can be a garbage man, janitor, grocery clerk, and so on and so on.. voluntarily, naturally? you're being so childish. no one wants to do those jobs, and if they do well then hey they can in capitalism. but no one is gonna be doing them in communism cause it has nothing to do with ability and is the worse jobs anyone can do, idiot.
1: I have concluded that you are in fact the child/preteen, from your word choice and posting paradigm.
2: There a a fair number of worse jobs than 'garbageman'.



There are as many rich morons as there are poor geniuses.

That is true, but communism isn't going to reward geniuses either. As 'genius' automatically implies a degree of superiority.
Again with this intellectual elitism.

It DOES reward innovation, if you've cared to read anything remotely Marxist.



Precisely the intent. We contend that no one should lord over any other as their "superior".

if you believe in the word, "genius" you're contradicting yourself here.
:huh:



You're right. They can't do anything else. Capitalism has cheated these individuals of their potential.


how has it cheated them please tell me? I know that there is unrecognized high ability, but it doesn't mean that the average ones couldn't have worked for something else.
My comrades have already posted several scenarios. I shall not repeat them.



No, we automate what we can, distribute some to prisoners, and provide incentive to the rest for the willing, in the form of social praise and higher priority on what few rationed/queued commodites exist at the time.

AHAHAH typical leftist idealist trash right here. prisoners? since when is communism supposed to have prisoners, i thought there would be no crime?
You thought wrong. Economic crime will be drastically reduced, however, having no basis for existence.


provide incentive hmm? In the form of social praise and higher priority based on queued commodities? WHAT ahaha. see the problem with communism is that the state initially CONTROLS all the resources, that's nothing but tyranny simple as that.[/

you seem to not notice that capitalism doesn't need a state either!! that's the beauty of it, it relies on money which really is the number one independant factor that increases one's liberty and atleast a person has control over, whereas communism is total workingclass slavery.
You've some Bizarro logic there.

Capitalism requires a state because of class antagonisms, the conflict between workers and capitalists.

Money is slavery. Those few with have all the liberty they can afford, the rest go without.



Consumer fetishism isn't very important, and not worth saving.

hmm? Communism is a MATERIALISM system wtf you talking about. it's probably more materialist and reductionist than capitalism.
You've just demonstrated a COMPLETE misunderstanding of the word "materialism". Materialism is not the coveting of goods. It is a metaphysical viewpoint that only matter and energy exist, and that all natural phenomena are products of material forces.



It wasn't communism in the first place, understand?

yes because it never can be communsim in the first place. you're telling me that lenin was wrong and made mistakes, but at the same time you praise him as honest and trustworthy. he had the NEP which allowed a small market capitalism cause it worked!! AHAH.
He implemented it because Russia started out as a backwards agrarian feudalism. A slight boost in productive forces was neccessary, and limited market reform provided it.


Marx was wrong saying that communism will develop in industrialized countries ahah!! Those countries are the ones that need it least!! socialism is needed in poor and agricultural societies ie. Russia so it can industrialize, THEN it should become capitalist since its started itself up. but communism in the West? ahahah no.

Has anyone ever told you that your "laughing" within your typing style is childish and annoying, troll?



Capitalism inevitably leads to imperialism. It's like a monopoly game: once all the property deeds are taken players have to go to war against each other to gain more capital.

it won't lead into it if you regulate it, and if all the third world countries bumped up their standards, if they ALL do it then the companies will either put up with it, or go back to their own countries. monopoly can and should also be regulated.
Have you ever heard of a little time period called 'World War I'?


Amusing, troll, but foolish. [/b]

Capitalism requires a state because of class antagonisms, the conflict between workers and capitalists.

Money is slavery. Those few with have all the liberty they can afford, the rest go without.

hahah no capitalism requires no state, only lots of money to be spread out. Class antagonisms?? Ahaha you're reading too much rubbish HEGELIAN DIALECT. you think capitalists aren't workers? You think a poor person can't make any money in the stock market?


Materialism is not the coveting of goods. It is a metaphysical viewpoint that only matter and energy exist, and that all natural phenomena are products of material forces.

wow that's horribly regressively reductionist.


Have you ever heard of a little time period called 'World War I'?

have you heard of Vietnam war, Hungarian/Polish/Czech revolutions? And that was the past doesn't mean we'll have those imperialist wars today, through something called conscientous objection. Those soldiers in WW1 were brainwashed primarily, they had low intelligence.

[CopperGoat]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 08, 2006 11:37 pm

Only a childish attitude speaks so arrogantly.

I have debated this before, and have defended my interpretations of Nietzsche firmly, and the people I debated with on this board were a lot more intellectual than you, and made serious debate, and I know for a fact that you don't know jack shit about him or his work.

Also, your claims and arguments regarding him annoy me.


yes Nietzsche was widely misinterpreted, including by you!

Doubt it.


he believed in ARISTOCRACY you imbecile.

No, he did not, infact he was opposed and disgusted with "western decadence," and was opposed to a lot of the general concepts associated, embraced, and celebrated with and by the aristocrats of the time, so I highly doubt he would support an aristocracy, also do you have any proof of your claim?

I highly doubt you do.


Nietzsche DESPISED socialism, he wanted capitalism because he knew some people are better than others.

You don't know what he liked or disliked because you were not him, nor did you know him personally, therefore do not try to speak with authority on this subject as if you had a personal relationship with him, and know his views; like I said before Nietzsche wasn't involved with politics, and infact was more concerned with art, theology, the fundamentals of life, and of society, than anything else, considering that is what his works focus on primarily.


has nothing to do with nationalism or anti-semitism!!

Those were the only two subjects remotely political that he adressed you twit.


Therefore you're being idiotic by linking those with capitalism, which has no link whatsoever.

I wasn't trying to, how about you learn how to read?


If you never knew that Nietzsche supported aristocracy then you're the most misinterpreted one I know!!

See above comments, and again I ask for tangiable, and logical proof, not your bogus reading errors, nazi claims, and coattail arguments.

I doubt you even read one book by Nietzsche!
Oh my god I'm going to SO enjoy proving to you that Nietzsche supported aristocracy. HOLY CRAP I don't know how you missed that one. just because he didn't like the decadance doesn't mean he didn't support the aristocratic system.

First of though, Nietzsche was not right all the time. He had many contradictions, and was very irresponsible as he supported violence, war, and cruelty. one of his quotes, "all forms of cruelty leads to higher culture" is a joke when you see him falling into a nervous breakdown after hugging a horse who was being flogged by its owner. So yes, Nietzsche was very irresponsible and had alot of BOSH in him, which is natural.

from BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL

257. EVERY elevation of the type "man," has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be--a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other. Without the PATHOS OF DISTANCE, such as grows out of the incarnated difference of classes, out of the constant out-looking and down-looking of the ruling caste on subordinates and instruments, and out of their equally constant practice of obeying and commanding, of keeping down and keeping at a distance--that other more mysterious pathos could never have arisen, the longing for an ever new widening of distance within the soul itself, the formation of ever higher, rarer, further, more extended, more comprehensive states, in short, just the elevation of the type "man," the continued "self-surmounting of man," to use a moral formula in a supermoral sense. To be sure, one must not resign oneself to any humanitarian illusions about the history of the origin of an aristocratic society (that is to say, of the preliminary condition for the elevation of the type "man"): the truth is hard. Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has ORIGINATED! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power--they were more COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as "more complete beasts").

http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/bgept9.htm

Nietzsche believed in 'master-slave' morality saying that only the ones that could have rights are the ones that given it to themselves. Obviously Nietzsche had many contradictions when he criticized social-darwinism as being 'viscious' but then one reads him and his stuff on cruelty and is like :huh:

Have you read ON THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS? How can you say that doesn't involve aristocracy?

[Cryotank Screams]

EVERY elevation of the type "man," has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be--a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other.

Seems more like a critic than a praise, he seems to be speaking against the ranks and classifications, and the worth tags placed upon man, and saying that the progression existing through out history had slavery in some form.

Hardly a praise of aristocracy.


Without the PATHOS OF DISTANCE, such as grows out of the incarnated difference of classes, out of the constant out-looking and down-looking of the ruling caste on subordinates and instruments, and out of their equally constant practice of obeying and commanding, of keeping down and keeping at a distance--

Again it seems as though he his speaking against rather than praising aristocracy, class, and the slave-master system, and the hint is in his writing style.


that other more mysterious pathos could never have arisen, the longing for an ever new widening of distance within the soul itself, the formation of ever higher, rarer, further, more extended, more comprehensive states, in short, just the elevation of the type "man," the continued "self-surmounting of man," to use a moral formula in a supermoral sense.

In this quote it could be interpreted as that though the system exist, man always arises with a new and better plan, to surmount the problems of the old system with a new, a always new and improving man, which also can be seen throughout history, man takes and oppressive system, and then makes a new and better system.

Hardly a praise of aristocracy!


the truth is hard. Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has ORIGINATED! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity.

Here again is another attack on how the aristocratic society was born.


At the commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power--they were more COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as "more complete beasts").

Following the other quote it is clear that he sees the ruling class as blood soaked barbarians, archaic, more like beasts than actual men, who prey upon the more peaceful, moral, and intellectual of men.


Nietzsche believed in 'master-slave' morality saying that only the ones that could have rights are the ones that given it to themselves.

Bullshit, again, you have to look out how he wrote things, and emotional context of which he was writing, what you see as praise, is in actuality, attacks on what you think is being praised, and is in a horridly negative context.


Have you read ON THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS?

Yes.


Oh my god I'm going to SO enjoy proving to you that Nietzsche supported aristocracy

You didn't prove anything, I totally refuted your "evidence," and really you just leech of others who didn't understand what he wrote either, that wasn't you proving me wrong, that was someone else trying to, and both of you FAILED.

[encephalon]

...what the hell is wrong with you people? For fuck's sake, either debate something with a little less "you're dumb, no you are" or go find something better to do.

[CopperGoat]

WHAT in the name of FUCK are you talking about? Those quotes are NOT criticisms AT ALL. Holy shit.

please refute me, "every type of cruelty leads to forms of higher culture." certainly he was PRAISING there.

There's no hint in his writing system at all, if he was implying this he would have said it clearly. AHAHAH oh my god I can't believe I'm discussing this.

Genealogy of Morals??? He HATES CHRISTIANITY, he hates the LOW and MEEK people.

he is PRAISING higher MAN that's for sure. and he's saying the reasons for it which he isn't disagreeing with at all.

"Twofold kind of equality.— The craving for equality can be expressed either by the wish to draw all others down to one's level (by belittling, excluding, tripping them up) or by the wish to draw oneself up with everyone else (by appreciating, helping, taking pleasure in others' success)." Human All too human.


"The infuriating thing about an individual way of living.— People are always angry at anyone who chooses very individual standards for his life; because of the extraordinary treatment which that man grants to himself, they feel degraded, like ordinary beings." Human All Too Human

Last quote, here we go this is THE BIG ONE, i mean the SMOKING GUN to disprove your weirddddd I don't know WHERE IN HELL you got theory of Nietzsche's anti-aristocracy....

from, BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL

"Refraining mutually from injury, violence, and exploitation and placing one’s will on a par with that of someone else—this may become, in a certain rough sense, good manners among individuals if the appropriate conditions are present (namely, if these men are actually similar in strength and value standards and belong together in one body). But as soon as this principle is extended, and possibly even accepted as the fundamental principle of society, it immediately proves to be what it really is—a will to the denial of life, a principle of disintegration and decay. Here we must beware of superficiality and get to the bottom of the matter, resisting all sentimental weakness: life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of what is alien and weaker; suppression, hardness, imposition of one’s own forms, incorporation and at least, at its mildest, exploitation—but why should one always use those words in which a slanderous intent has been imprinted for ages? Even the body within which individuals treat each other as equals, as suggested before—and this happens in every healthy aristocracy—if it is a living and not a dying body, has to do to other bodies what the individuals within it refrain from doing to each other: it will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant—not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power. But there is no point on which the ordinary consciousness of Europeans resists instruction as on this: everywhere people are now raving, even under scientific disguises, about coming conditions of society in which “the exploitative aspect” will be removed—which sounds to me as if they promised to invent a way of life that would dispense with all organic functions. “Exploitation” does not belong to a corrupt or imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will of life.— If this should be an innovation as a theory—as a reality it is the original fact of all history: people ought to be honest with themselves at least that far. —"

[Cryotank Screams]

WHAT in the name of FUCK are you talking about? Those quotes are NOT criticisms AT ALL. Holy shit.

Yes, they were, and or very well could be, I mean the negative context should have given that off right away.

Oh shit! :D


"every type of cruelty leads to forms of higher culture."

Every type of cruel behavior of man leads man to improve himself, thus attaining higher forms of culture, and civility.


There's no hint in his writing system at all, if he was implying this he would have said it clearly.

His writing style gives hints to his true meaning, and is really what I would call a smoke and mirrors writing style, because you have to really study, and think about what he wrote, he was not a straight forward writer/philosopher, hence all the mass confusion about his work.


He HATES CHRISTIANITY, he hates the LOW and MEEK people.

No, he is against, the conceptual idea of institutionalized altruism, and not on helping others, and such in general, and he also hates christianity in general, and not jesus the figure, (like another member here said), Nietzsche makes it quite clear of the differences.

He never said he hated the low and the meek.


he is PRAISING higher MAN that's for sure.

Where? If you are referring to der Übermensch theory, that to is a misinterpretation.


"Twofold kind of equality.— The craving for equality can be expressed either by the wish to draw all others down to one's level (by belittling, excluding, tripping them up) or by the wish to draw oneself up with everyone else (by appreciating, helping, taking pleasure in others' success)."

What? He was talking about pseudo-equality and true equality, the first one being the false, and the second one being the true, and the characteristics of each form.


"The infuriating thing about an individual way of living.— People are always angry at anyone who chooses very individual standards for his life; because of the extraordinary treatment which that man grants to himself, they feel degraded, like ordinary beings.

He discusses that people are always (from a socio-religious point of view), angry and bitter towards people who choose their own morals, life rules, for themselves, instead of following the same archaic memes, and myths of society.


i mean the SMOKING GUN to disprove your weirddddd I don't know WHERE IN HELL you got theory of Nietzsche's anti-aristocracy

What? You mean I actually read Nietzsche's work, and make my on conclusions, and don't argue bullshit espoused by idiots who follow idiots, who never understood, for shammmmeee.


"Refraining mutually from injury, violence, and exploitation and placing one’s will on a par with that of someone else—this may become, in a certain rough sense, good manners among individuals if the appropriate conditions are present.

He said that helping the general public from injury, violence and exploitation, can be seen as good manners given the right conditions, which to me says, that this mutual aid is pure, and not a falsehood, like religious altruism, which is hypocritical.


But as soon as this principle is extended, and possibly even accepted as the fundamental principle of society, it immediately proves to be what it really is—a will to the denial of life, a principle of disintegration and decay. Here we must beware of superficiality and get to the bottom of the matter, resisting all sentimental weakness:

Clearly talking about institutionalized and religious altruism.


life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of what is alien and weaker; suppression, hardness, imposition of one’s own forms, incorporation and at least, at its mildest, exploitation—but why should one always use those words in which a slanderous intent has been imprinted for ages?

Who said the overcoming of hardships is a material/physical one, this could be referring to psychology, and psychological progression of the individual.


But there is no point on which the ordinary consciousness of Europeans resists instruction as on this: everywhere people are now raving, even under scientific disguises, about coming conditions of society in which “the exploitative aspect” will be removed—which sounds to me as if they promised to invent a way of life that would dispense with all organic functions.

Clearly talking about idealists, and he seems pessimistic in the sense that he does not think that they will be able to fully remove the exploitive aspect within the society, due to conditioning, and circumstance, and said exploitation does not automatically mean he is talking about physical/biological exploitation he could very well be talking about the mental exploitation of the masses; at any rate he is clearly taking a negative stance upon the exploitive aspect, and not praising it.


it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will of life.— If this should be an innovation as a theory—as a reality it is the original fact of all history: people ought to be honest with themselves at least that far. —"

The will to power can be seen as the will to psychological power and expansion of one’s own personal opinion, and self mastery, and self progression.

“My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (—its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on.”-Fredrich Nietzsche.

Also, he could be talking about mental exploitation as well.

[Ol' Dirty]

When will you commies and socialists realize that this phoney balogney system is terribly inaccurate and wrong.

You are complete imbosile for even begining to assert that political ideologies are defined in black and white, as they are not.

A political ideology is a person's stance on life; just because they don't adhere to your norm does not mean that they are "wrong". And believe me, we are most certainly not joking.

There is no "wrong" ideology, you conformist clit. The political spectra are not so simple as to be placed as right and wrong! Don't demonize us, you fucking bootlick.


marx himself was probably laughing.

You find the idea of a society in which people are not starved and dessimated as laudable? You must kill babies for kicks.

I mean, really, do you enjoy watching children in Africa, prcticaly your genetic flesh and blood in the grand scheme of things, starve to death?

You are a fletcher for the capitalists, you know that? Please, by all means, take a long drink in a bathtub with a gag in your mouth. Put a fan in there, while you're at it. Take some syonide too.


people aren't "equal" okay?

Give me one shred of evidence that I am inherently worse than anyone else. One.

How does on go wbout measuring the "goodness" of an individual over another? One doesn't, plain and fucking simple.


some are more confident, smarter, stronger, prettier, motivated, creative.

So they should get more than the people who aren't as "good"? Should a 90 year old grandmother with alzheimers, who has contributed her work, her love, her genetic stock to the world, get less than some good ole boy cappie that hasn't work a day in his life get nothing in return for her work?

Fuck you.


to each according to his ability to each according to his need? what the HELL does that mean??

You are an anal parasite, less than black matter.

To hyperbolyze; do you have no brain?


the whole point of capitalism is that it rewards exceptional individuals,

...and let the rest of the world rot.


it allows smart people to pursue research and innovation because they have more money than less smarter people.

All people being equal, shouldn't those who are less intelligent get the same opportunities that the superintelligent do? They should, hands down.

And please, don't give me that "people are unnequal" horseshit. They are.


communism kills all exceptionality and superiority.

Prove it.


You think that there are people who want to be janitors, garbage men, soldiers fighting immoral wars

Of course not. They simply don't have a choice due to capitalism.


(which doesn't have to happen in a regulated capitalism anyway),

:lol:

Any examples of "regulated capitalism"?


No they dont want to do it but they have to because they can't do anything else,

And why don't they do anything else? 1) Because capitalism did not give them a proper education 2) they may either do these things or die. And when people are given the choice between working and dying, they work, no matter what the ramifications their work may have.

And that's what you morons refuse understand.


if we allow everyone to do what they want, the whole system would collapse, cause no one would want to do that.

I never said I would do that. :mellow:


that's why there's an INCENTIVE to do more harder and intellectually enjoyable things.

You just lost any fucking shred of credibility you have with me by putting "more harder" and "intelectual" in the same sentence.


without that incentive we make shoddy products, and generally everyone suffers including ones that could be doing better things.

You are a fucking douche. Really, you are.

If everything is collectivized, then if you help the group, you help yourself. Case closed.


money is not evil, it seperates the individual from the state, its gives you INDEPENDANCE AND LIBERTY something that COMMUNISM cannot allow you to have DUH.

Then I suppose it is good that there is no state in a communist society.

[CopperGoat]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 09, 2006 01:45 am

WHAT in the name of FUCK are you talking about? Those quotes are NOT criticisms AT ALL. Holy shit.

Yes, they were, and or very well could be, I mean the negative context should have given that off right away.

Oh shit! :D


"every type of cruelty leads to forms of higher culture."

Every type of cruel behavior of man leads man to improve himself, thus attaining higher forms of culture, and civility.


There's no hint in his writing system at all, if he was implying this he would have said it clearly.

His writing style gives hints to his true meaning, and is really what I would call a smoke and mirrors writing style, because you have to really study, and think about what he wrote, he was not a straight forward writer/philosopher, hence all the mass confusion about his work.


He HATES CHRISTIANITY, he hates the LOW and MEEK people.

No, he is against, the conceptual idea of institutionalized altruism, and not on helping others, and such in general, and he also hates christianity in general, and not jesus the figure, (like another member here said), Nietzsche makes it quite clear of the differences.

He never said he hated the low and the meek.


he is PRAISING higher MAN that's for sure.

Where? If you are referring to der Übermensch theory, that to is a misinterpretation.


"Twofold kind of equality.— The craving for equality can be expressed either by the wish to draw all others down to one's level (by belittling, excluding, tripping them up) or by the wish to draw oneself up with everyone else (by appreciating, helping, taking pleasure in others' success)."

What? He was talking about pseudo-equality and true equality, the first one being the false, and the second one being the true, and the characteristics of each form.


"The infuriating thing about an individual way of living.— People are always angry at anyone who chooses very individual standards for his life; because of the extraordinary treatment which that man grants to himself, they feel degraded, like ordinary beings.

He discusses that people are always (from a socio-religious point of view), angry and bitter towards people who choose their own morals, life rules, for themselves, instead of following the same archaic memes, and myths of society.


i mean the SMOKING GUN to disprove your weirddddd I don't know WHERE IN HELL you got theory of Nietzsche's anti-aristocracy

What? You mean I actually read Nietzsche's work, and make my on conclusions, and don't argue bullshit espoused by idiots who follow idiots, who never understood, for shammmmeee.


"Refraining mutually from injury, violence, and exploitation and placing one’s will on a par with that of someone else—this may become, in a certain rough sense, good manners among individuals if the appropriate conditions are present.

He said that helping the general public from injury, violence and exploitation, can be seen as good manners given the right conditions, which to me says, that this mutual aid is pure, and not a falsehood, like religious altruism, which is hypocritical.


But as soon as this principle is extended, and possibly even accepted as the fundamental principle of society, it immediately proves to be what it really is—a will to the denial of life, a principle of disintegration and decay. Here we must beware of superficiality and get to the bottom of the matter, resisting all sentimental weakness:

Clearly talking about institutionalized and religious altruism.


life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of what is alien and weaker; suppression, hardness, imposition of one’s own forms, incorporation and at least, at its mildest, exploitation—but why should one always use those words in which a slanderous intent has been imprinted for ages?

Who said the overcoming of hardships is a material/physical one, this could be referring to psychology, and psychological progression of the individual.


But there is no point on which the ordinary consciousness of Europeans resists instruction as on this: everywhere people are now raving, even under scientific disguises, about coming conditions of society in which “the exploitative aspect” will be removed—which sounds to me as if they promised to invent a way of life that would dispense with all organic functions.

Clearly talking about idealists, and he seems pessimistic in the sense that he does not think that they will be able to fully remove the exploitive aspect within the society, due to conditioning, and circumstance, and said exploitation does not automatically mean he is talking about physical/biological exploitation he could very well be talking about the mental exploitation of the masses; at any rate he is clearly taking a negative stance upon the exploitive aspect, and not praising it.


it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will of life.— If this should be an innovation as a theory—as a reality it is the original fact of all history: people ought to be honest with themselves at least that far. —"

The will to power can be seen as the will to psychological power and expansion of one’s own personal opinion, and self mastery, and self progression.

“My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (—its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on.”-Fredrich Nietzsche.

Also, he could be talking about mental exploitation as well.
since when does Marxism endorse cruelty of any sort?? effective cruelty automatically creates a second class. what you think Nietzsche is really saying is also an interpretation made to fit your leftist scheme.


you also repeated what i said about him hating christianity in general, and yes he did hate the meek christian people because he knew they were trying to compensate. One only needs to read GENEALOGY OF MORALS to get that.

By higher man he's referring to ubermensch and aristocratic people. he's saying that only aristocratic people have contributed to the development of higher man, which is not necessarily true anyway.


he's talking about how 'equality' is only for those that feel inadequate. that one might do it by belitting others, or by raising himself up, none of those cases imply true equality because if it did the person wouldn't do either in the first place.


He discusses that people are always (from a socio-religious point of view), angry and bitter towards people who choose their own morals, life rules, for themselves, instead of following the same archaic memes, and myths of society.

yes, and hence why they are inferior.



Clearly talking about institutionalized and religious altruism.

um what.. nowhere does he mention in that quote about institutionalized religion, he was strictly talking about honest help which you admitted it. so CLEARLY you just contradicted yourself.


who said the overcoming of hardships WASN'T about material/phsysical circumstances? Again it only COULD be referring to psychological factors. but it's probably both.


Clearly talking about idealists, and he seems pessimistic in the sense that he does not think that they will be able to fully remove the exploitive aspect within the society, due to conditioning, and circumstance, and said exploitation does not automatically mean he is talking about physical/biological exploitation he could very well be talking about the mental exploitation of the masses; at any rate he is clearly taking a negative stance upon the exploitive aspect, and not praising it.

yes idealists such as Marxists who want to remove the 'exploitative' aspect which CLEARLY he said would be the DENIAL OF LIFE and the DISPENSING OF ORGANIC FUNCTIONS. Listen DENIAL OF LIFE is most definitely a praise of exploitation not a condemnation.

Yes the masses of 'Europeans that want to remove it' i.e. socialists.


The will to power can be seen as the will to psychological power and expansion of one’s own personal opinion, and self mastery, and self progression.

this i would presume goes against all marxist ideology, that of 'expanding one's opinion.'

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 12:52 am
since when does Marxism endorse cruelty of any sort??
I am not a Marxist nor did I give an endorsement to cruelty, I meant by every cruel and negative thing man does, he see's that and then seeks to better himself, and change.


you also repeated what i said about him hating christianity in general, and yes he did hate the meek christian people because he knew they were trying to compensate.

When I said he hated christianity, I meant the religion not the people, dumbfuck.


One only needs to read GENEALOGY OF MORALS to get that.

One really should remove his head from his ass, meaning you, because you obviously don't get it.


By higher man he's referring to ubermensch

Der Übermensch does not mean a superior man, but a man that overcomes, der Übermensch translates to the Overman.


he's talking about how 'equality' is only for those that feel inadequate

No, he is definately not, he is talking about lowering or rasing the people up to one's own personal level in order have true equality, I think I misread it the last time, it was late, my apologies.


yes, and hence why they are inferior.

He never said that, and really if he equated the aristocrats with beasts, and civil man, with good manners, and intellectualism, which do you think he preffered the most?


um what.. nowhere does he mention in that quote about institutionalized religion, he was strictly talking about honest help which you admitted it. so CLEARLY you just contradicted yourself.

I said altruism, not religion, how bout you read what I wrote.


yes idealists such as Marxists

Marxism is based in Materialism and not idealism.


who want to remove the 'exploitative' aspect which CLEARLY he said would be the DENIAL OF LIFE and the DISPENSING OF ORGANIC FUNCTIONS. Listen DENIAL OF LIFE is most definitely a praise of exploitation not a condemnation.

He could have been talking about christianity, idealism, and or altruism and that it would led to the denial of life, and not talking about Marxism or Socialism, nor did he praise exploitation and other such nonsense.


Yes the masses of 'Europeans that want to remove it' i.e. socialists.

He did not mention, imply, nor reffer to Socialists.


this i would presume goes against all marxist ideology, that of 'expanding one's opinion

Not necessarily, if you for example expanding your opinion of Marxist-Leninism to others, that certainly wouldn't be against Marxist ideology, and it is only natural for one to think his opinion is the superior opinion and want to spread it, if he didn't then he wouldn't have that opinion.

[CopperGoat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 07:28 pm
You find the idea of a society in which people are not starved and dessimated as laudable? You must kill babies for kicks.

I mean, really, do you enjoy watching children in Africa, prcticaly your genetic flesh and blood in the grand scheme of things, starve to death?

How does on go wbout measuring the "goodness" of an individual over another? One doesn't, plain and fucking simple.

So they should get more than the people who aren't as good? Should a 90 year old grandmother with alzheimers, who has contributed her work, her love, her genetic stock to the world, get less than some good ole boy cappie that hasn't work a day in his life get nothing in return for her work?

Fuck you.


the whole point of capitalism is that it rewards exceptional individuals,

...and let the rest of the world rot.


that's why there's an INCENTIVE to do more harder and intellectually enjoyable things.

You just lost any fucking shred of credibility you have with me by putting "more harder" and "intelectual" in the ame sentence.


without that incentive we make shoddy products, and generally everyone suffers including ones that could be doing better things.

You are a fucking douche. Really, you are.

If everything is collectivized, then if you help the group, you help yourself. Case closed.


money is not evil, it seperates the individual from the state, its gives you INDEPENDANCE AND LIBERTY something that COMMUNISM cannot allow you to have DUH.

Then I suppose it is good that there is no state in a communist society.
Who said that people have to starve in capitalism?? it's called food banks and social welfare.

You think marxism in the first world is going to solve Africa's problem?? Africa's problem has alot to do with civil wars, arid regions, disease, etc... i don't know how a marxist system in the first world would even be capable of helping them since it would have to constantly help itself if there's no money.

there are individuals that are more honest, loving, and trustworthy than other people that's how some people are better than others. Take your Hegelian Borg Dialect somewhere else. Hegel, that pathetic wretch of a philosoper that destroys all individuality and places GOD over everything, then Marx the retard takes that and uses it, it all makes sense..

Since when did a 90 year old grandmother not enjoy her life and get what she wanted when she was young?? Also you're thinking that what i'm saying by 'better' doesn't imply that they should get more money just because they're pretty or whatever, just that 'equality' doesn't exist in these cases.


alot of the world's problems are caused by them too you know? i don't advocate imperialism at all, but i can't unite all thirdworld countries and increase their standards either, that's what they should learn but they haven't...

you saying people being equal, then mentioning less intelligent with more intelligent is a contradiction.

communism kills superiority because the best way to have happiness for everyone is not to let anyone have anything worth having. how can communism work if some jobs are not as good as doing others?? you can't MAKE someone being the garbage man, janitor, etc...implying that they would have a choice in communism implies that NO ONE is going to do it even though it has to be done..

well being a professor etc... is harder than doing other things..

i used to be hardcore communist but after a while of experiencing life and the jealousy of other people i dismissed it. i was reading a thread where this guy was saying how a computer programmer would also work in the computer factory, so then wouldn't we need a factory of every kind in almost every city? how do people get vacations or travel, who sets the standard for that?

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 05:16 am
i used to be hardcore communist
You don't understand a shred of Marxism, don't give us that drivel! :lol:

[CopperGoat]

That's why Nietzsche ENDORSES cruelty holy shit.

hating the religion not the people?? Are you stupid? They're the SAME FUCKING THING there's no point in hating a religion if no one believes in it, holy shit.

When I read Genealogy of Morals, any person with sense realizes that Nietzsche is endorsing the 'masters' who 'create their own values' and not the 'slaves' that have 'resentment.' stop skewing and trying to manipulate his work to fit your scheme, is there anyone here that fucking has read Nietzsche will bother to tell this guy how badly he's distorting his work???? Like honestly You think everytime he talks about EXPLOITATON you think he's only talking about religion or 'altruism' WTF you talkin about, he's talkin about EVERYTHING, don't try to limit it so you cannot think uncomfortable thoughts about your favourite philosopher not endorsing communism.

I KNOW what UBERMENSCH MEANS. And if you look at almost all his works, he ALWAYS mentions 'superior' and 'inferior.'

You cannot lower or raise people up to one's personal level to have TRUE equality it's not HARD TO GET. if they were TRULY EQUAL to begin with, YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO DO THAT. He's talking about how people do this so that other people don't feel bad about themselves holy shit.

He said aristocrats had INTELLECTUAL MANNERS ahahah. he mentioned how they were the creation of 'higher men' ie culture. And YES he did want the beast, this quote even proves it...

No act of violence, rape, exploitation, destruction, is intrinsically "unjust," since life itself is violent, rapacious, exploitative, and destructive and cannot be conceived otherwise. Even more disturbingly, we have to admit that from the biological [i.e. Darwinian] point of view legal conditions are necessarily exceptional conditions, since they limit the radical life-will bent on power and must finally subserve, as means, life's collective purpose, which is to create greater power constellations. To accept any legal system as sovereign and universal -- to accept it, not merely as an instrument in the struggle of power complexes, but as a weapon against struggle (in the sense of Dühring's communist cliché that every will must regard every other will as its equal) -- is an anti-vital principle which can only bring about man's utter demoralization and, indirectly, a reign of nothingness. [p.208, beyond good and evil]

your pathetic attemps at dishonestly and poorly manipulating his work to serve your leftist scheme is astonishing.

These carriers of the leveling and retributive instincts, these descendants of every European and extra-European slave-dom, and especially of the pre-Aryan populations, represent human retrogression most flagrantly. Such "instruments of culture" are a disgrace to man and might make one suspicious of culture altogether. One might be justified in fearing the wild beast lurking within all noble races and in being on one's guard against it, but who would not a thousand times prefer fear when it is accompanied with admiration to security accompanied by the loathsome sight of perversion, dwarfishness, degeneracy? And is not the latter our predicament today? [p.176]

Stop fucking manipulating his talk of exploitaton. he's most definitely praising it. He DID not say how Christianity was so EXPLOITATIVE, or any such nonsense you mentioned, he clearly said it was DENIAL OF LIFE because it DIDN'T EXPLOIT.

And wtf is different with authentic christianity and altruism with SOCIALISM?? AHAH. you just said that those things deny life, so how can socialism not deny life if it didn't exploit.

here's a direct quote about socialism

Socialism in respect to its means. Socialism is the visionary younger brother of an almost decrepit despotism, whose heir it wants to be. Thus its efforts are reactionary in the deepest sense. For it desires a wealth of executive power, as only despotism had it; indeed, it outdoes everything in the past by striving for the downright destruction of the individual, which it sees as an unjustified luxury of nature, and which it intends to improve into an expedient organ of the community. Socialism crops up in the vicinity of all excessive displays of power because of its relation to it, like the typical old socialist Plato, at the court of the Sicilian tyrant; it desires (and in certain circumstances, furthers) the Caesarean power state of this century, because, as we said, it would like to be its heir. But even this inheritance would not suffice for its purposes; it needs the most submissive subjugation of all citizens to the absolute state, the like of which has never existed. And since it cannot even count any longer on the old religious piety towards the state, having rather always to work automatically to eliminate piety (because it works on the elimination of all existing states), it can only hope to exist here and there for short periods of time by means of the most extreme terrorism. Therefore, it secretly prepares for reigns of terror, and drives the word "justice" like a nail into the heads of the semieducated masses, to rob them completely of their reason (after this reason has already suffered a great deal from its semieducation), and to give them a good conscience for the evil game that they are supposed to play. (emphasis mine) Socialism can serve as a rather brutal and forceful way to teach the danger of all accumulations of state power, and to that extent instill one with distrust of the state itself. When its rough voice chimes in with the battle cry "As much state as possible," it will at first make the cry noisier than ever; but soon the opposite cry will be heard with strength the greater: "As little state as possible."

Human, All Too Human (1878)

Although there's no STATE in your utopic communism, nevertheless socialism does have to go through a government process, which really is the deciding factor whether it would work and surpass the government or not.

[colonelguppy]

communists always say that historical attempts at communism were never actually communist, but i've always found it kind of telling that the attempts always ended the same way.

[Chocobo]

(This is to coppergoat. When you type "hahaha" and insult a lot it just shows your arrogance and stupidity. Right about now you look like an immature fool who is blinded by conviction. So yah, in your terms, "haha, your an idiot".)

I'm not gonna jump into this debate because, as stated, it seems this is based on conviction. Coppergoat fails to give any real arguments, and all of the replys given are in a reactionary/arrogant manner. No point really in this.

[Cryotank Screams]

Just because you are trying force nazi misinterpretations, doesn't mean what your saying has any intellectual weight whatsoever, and in actuality the manner in which you are trying to debate me is absolutely childish, I mean honestly can you not do any better? I feel as though I am debating a four year old.

"What [x] fucking blah blah it means [x] you COMMIE BASTARD AND BLAH BLAH BLAH."

That is how you are arguing, and it shows that you are getting frustrated because I provided alternate and in my opinion a closer example of what Nietzsche probably meant, than your typical nazi interpretations.


I KNOW what UBERMENSCH MEANS.

Do you think the utilization of capitalization makes your point any less idiotic? Also you don't have the slightest clue, and it's obvious because you refer, to der Übermensch as the higher man, instead of the Overman.


And if you look at almost all his works, he ALWAYS mentions 'superior' and 'inferior.'

No, it talks about a man whom overcomes, it is all about psychological overcoming, and not of this great nazi messiah like your probably thinking.


An overman as described by Zarathustra, the main character in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, is the one who is willing to risk all for the sake of enhancement of humanity. In contrary to the “last man” whose sole desire is his own comfort and is incapable of creating anything beyond oneself in any form. This should suggest that an overman is someone who can establish his own values as the world in which others live their lives, often unaware that they are not pregiven. This means an overman can affect and influence the lives of others. In other words, an overman has his own values, independent of others, which affects and dominates others’ lives that may not have predetermined values but only herd instinct. An overman is then someone who has a life which is not merely to live each day with no meanings when nothing in the past and future is more important than the present, or more precisely, the pleasure and happiness in the present, but with the purpose for humanity.


You cannot lower or raise people up to one's personal level to have TRUE equality

Yea, you can, it's called revolution, horizontalism, and communalism.


if they were TRULY EQUAL to begin with, YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO DO THAT.

So the rich fool, is superior to the poor genius? No, equality exists without the confinds of society, politics, and economics, and this really is where a lot of confusion tends to occur, in that the proletariat is often called the weak, while the bourgeoisie is consider superior, however who was more intelligent, Karl Marx or Paris Hilton? Obviously Marx, and that is only one example, thus it can be concluded that people are naturally equal regardless of class positioning, so really it only makes sense to have material, and economic equality, simplifying the argument of course.


He's talking about how people do this so that other people don't feel bad about themselves holy shit.

HAHAHAHAHAHA No He DiD nOt, HoLy ShIt HAHAHA

Sorry couldn't resist to debate like you, it seemed funny, anyway, he certainly did not.


He said aristocrats had INTELLECTUAL MANNERS ahahah

No, he compared them to beasts, and blood-soaked that preyed upon to common good mannered and intellectual man.


No act of violence, rape, exploitation, destruction, is intrinsically "unjust," since life itself is violent, rapacious, exploitative, and destructive and cannot be conceived otherwise.

An attack on morality, and he is saying that nothing is inherently evil, or in this case "unjust," because outside of the human experience, society, and such, nature is just a cruel, and brutish affair; really this point is nothing new, hand loads of philosophers have talked about this.


Even more disturbingly, we have to admit that from the biological [i.e. Darwinian] point of view legal conditions are necessarily exceptional conditions

Attack on social Darwinism.


To accept any legal system as sovereign and universal -- to accept it, not merely as an instrument in the struggle of power complexes, but as a weapon against struggle

Could be an attack on universalist laws and such.


your pathetic attemps at dishonestly and poorly manipulating his work to serve your leftist scheme is astonishing.

Awww, poor baby, the big bad Leftist man, is giving more accurate interpretations than your nazi influenced bullshit, that require more observation and thought over your skimming eyes.

I am not manipulating anything, I am giving you my interpretations of the quotes that you have provided, I am not trying to fit Nietzsche into Leftist politics, I am trying to keep him neutral as he truly was, to give him justice, and to defend him from pathetic idiots like yourself.


These carriers of the leveling and retributive instincts, these descendants of every European and extra-European slave-dom, and especially of the pre-Aryan populations, represent human retrogression most flagrantly

Clear attack on the decadent and aristocratic people.


Such "instruments of culture" are a disgrace to man and might make one suspicious of culture altogether.

Oh no, he just attacked you "cultured," beasts, :o , will your head explode?


Stop fucking manipulating his talk of exploitaton

I'm not, you clearly are.


he's most definitely praising it.

No, he wasn't.


trying to manipulate his work to fit your scheme

I am not, I am trying to save his work from misrepresentation, and fools like you.


is there anyone here that fucking has read Nietzsche will bother to tell this guy how badly he's distorting his work????

I have studied Nietzsche and his work, and you can NOT take his work at face value, which is what you are doing, his work requires that you look at deeply, carefully, and have to examine it, he did not write in a straight forward manner.


don't try to limit it so you cannot think uncomfortable thoughts about your favourite philosopher not endorsing communism.

I am not, and if you knew anything about me, no thoughts shock me, or make me uncomfortable, I mean I was the one who said that enlightenment can be better found and taught by beggars, the perverse, madmen and rebels, than holy men, and scholars; it's safe to say I don't run away from thoughts.

Also I am not trying to fit Nietzsche into any political direction, infact I am trying to do the opposite, and keep him neutral, because that is what he was.


hating the religion not the people?? Are you stupid? They're the SAME FUCKING THING there's no point in hating a religion if no one believes in it, holy shit.

Religion is the theoretical and textual, whereas, people are the ones being exploited by it, and follow it, there is a very clear and distinct division and seperation between the two, hence why Nietzsche attacked the religion, and not the people outright, and also if he hated christian people, why did he list jesus fucking christ as one of the figures he admired?


In short, Nietzsche respects and admires Jesus of Nazareth, "but denies that he has any meaning for our age"Nietzsche believes the Jewish contention that Jesus is not the Messiah and that the Messiah has not yet appeared in history. Even so, Nietzsche reveres Jesus as no other character in history, particularly because he came to know Jesus as the very opposite of Christianity. Nietzsche writes as a philologist, "The word 'Christianity' is already a misunderstanding in reality there has only been one Christian, and he died on the Cross." While leaving such an impact on the world is admirable (and a good characteristic of an Übermensch), Nietzsche "could know Jesus as the greatest and truest revolutionary in history," despite the sour legacy he left.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 06:58 am
No point really in this.
Exactly, ultimately, I guess we are going to have to come to terms, and say that is your intepretation, and this is mine, and agree to disgree, sort of thing.

[red team]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+--> (Cryotank Screams)So the rich fool, is superior to the poor genius? No, equality exists without the confinds of society, politics, and economics, and this really is where a lot of confusion tends to occur, in that the proletariat is often called the weak, while the bourgeoisie is consider superior, however who was more intelligent, Karl Marx or Paris Hilton?[/b]


CopperGoat
He said aristocrats had INTELLECTUAL MANNERS ahahah. he mentioned how they were the creation of 'higher men' ie culture. And YES he did want the beast, this quote even proves it...

No act of violence, rape, exploitation, destruction, is intrinsically "unjust," since life itself is violent, rapacious, exploitative, and destructive and cannot be conceived otherwise. Even more disturbingly, we have to admit that from the biological [i.e. Darwinian] point of view legal conditions are necessarily exceptional conditions, since they limit the radical life-will bent on power and must finally subserve, as means, life's collective purpose, which is to create greater power constellations. To accept any legal system as sovereign and universal -- to accept it, not merely as an instrument in the struggle of power complexes, but as a weapon against struggle (in the sense of Dühring's communist cliché that every will must regard every other will as its equal) -- is an anti-vital principle which can only bring about man's utter demoralization and, indirectly, a reign of nothingness. [p.208, beyond good and evil]

I think CopperGoat should be Paris Hilton's personal philosopher and teach her that she's a superior genius to all of us unwashed masses. :lol:

That would be so tragically, comically funny.

Not to mention, George Bush Jr. who has an MBA from Yale. An MBA from Yale :o I'm speechless. Knees getting weaker, mouth agape, eyes opened and staring unblinkingly, must... fight... this... urge... to bow down.... in awe and worship... to this ... superior intellect. :lol:

[colonelguppy]

i don't know why people talk about paris hilton as though she was the rule, rather than the exception.

[encephalon]

i don't know why people talk about paris hilton as though she was the rule, rather than the exception.

Precisely because she is the rule.

[mikelepore]

If objective observers from another planet were to arrive here, they would think it's absurd that the people who say " the whole point of capitalism is that it rewards exceptional individuals" are the same people who insist that the system absolutely must allow descendants to inherit an unlimited quantity of stocks, bonds, and real estate from their dead ancestors. Such a statement amounts to: "We know that X is definitely true, therefore let's prove every moment of every day that X is definitely false!"

Mike Lepore - http://www.deleonism.org/

[mikelepore]

if we allow everyone to do what they want, the whole system would collapse, cause no one would want to do that. that's why there's an INCENTIVE to do more harder and intellectually enjoyable things. without that incentive we make shoddy products, and generally everyone suffers including ones that could be doing better things.

An interesting claim for capitalism, a system in which the capitalist's themselves insist on the rule that workers shall receive flat hourly wages which are not in any way linked to the product's quantity or quality.

That means that socialism couldn't possibly do any worse than capitalism even if it merely paid workers to show up and wait for the clock, as capitalism does.

Then, of course, we can consider all the reasons why socialism would do much better, such as the incentive that would accompany all workers being full partners in the ownership and management of their workplaces.

[Marukusu]

I think CopperGoatfucker needs a hug.

[mikelepore]

AND USSR? that's what happens in communism dont make that excuse that they werent doing it "right" they tried it and it degenerated into that and it always will.

I hope you at least concede that there is sometimes such a thing as people not doing something "right". For example, you may say that a republic is good form of government, but then you could be called upon to explain why the state in ancient Rome, known for corruption as well as slavery, was said to be a republic. You might then reply that calling it a republic isn't enough, if people don't "do it right." And if that pattern of reasoning goes for some things, then why wouldn't it go for socialism?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 04:55 am

i don't know why people talk about paris hilton as though she was the rule, rather than the exception.

Precisely because she is the rule.
no not really, she represents such a small demographic that its hardly even worth mentioning. although to be fair she has made alot of her own money in the entertainement/fashion industry.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 08:34 pm
i don't know why people talk about paris hilton as though she was the rule, rather than the exception.
I used her because she is one of the biggest parasites in pop culture and is as dumb as a box of hammers, and is the perfect example to show how rich people are not superior demi-gods, which coppergoat, and capitalists try to make it seem.

[colonelguppy]

well no ones a demi-god, but to pretend like paris hilton is the best figure to characterize a whole class is just... well you get the idea.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 11, 2006 09:48 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 11, 2006 09:48 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2006 08:34 pm
i don't know why people talk about paris hilton as though she was the rule, rather than the exception.
I used her because she is one of the biggest parasites in pop culture and is as dumb as a box of hammers, and is the perfect example to show how rich people are not superior demi-gods, which coppergoat, and capitalists try to make it seem. [/b]
I'm a capitalist and I think her fame is misbegotten and a sad comment on our society, so what does that mean?

Well, it means that unlike you, despite my disagreement with how other people spend their time and money, I'm not arrogant enough to demand a system that makes them act like I want them to act.

[CopperGoat]

I never said that rich people are the only smart and intelligent people. I know that there are 'poor geniuses' but that's a problem of capitalism too, caused by jealous capitalists, and jealous poor people.

everyone is reactionary, arrogant, and blinded by their conviction socialists and capitalists, so whoever who said this should keep that in mind. and you not jumping in the debate shows your blind conviction, that my argument is 'based on conviction' ahah everything is based on conviction, even uncertainty.

i'm not trying to force nazi misinterpretations, these are all his own quotes that clearly show what they are, an endorsement of aristocracy. you saying that what you think nietzsche meant is also biased..

also, if you didn't blindly accept what the capitalists and zionists told you, there's alot of evidence against the holocaust, but your zionist/soviet sentiments will probably be furious at that. just search 'holohoax' on the internet and prepare to go on a major historical review. this has nothing to do with nazis its to do with zionism which Stalin, who was a jew btw, inadvertently aided by engineering allied propaganda for the 'genocide.'


like the great nazi messiah WTF you talking about I never thought that at all, crazy.

you cannot deny that nietzsche ACTUALLY SAYS superior and inferior, he uses those terms, in Genealogy of morals, in almost everything. how can you deny this??? sure it may not necessarily be 'economical' but it's certainly not equal..

horizontalism? what are you talking about, Nietzsche considered the overman to be superior, because it WAS cause it had values, meaning. etc.... again not economical but not equal either..

of course he said that to show how people didn't want to feel bad about themselves. it's so basic, he says it right there, people hate an indivual's extraordinary treatment of himself and so other people feel DEGRADED LIKE ORDINARY BEINGS. it's basic and straightforward right there, he's talking about insecurity, self-esteem and so on and so on...


he WANTED the beast, he already said that all higher men were from aristocratic people, which isn't necessarily true either..

yes an attack on morality!! hence the beasts! because nature isin't 'unjust' so aren't humans...... here he says this:

When one speaks of humanity, the idea is fundamental that this is something which separates and distinguishes man from nature. In reality, however, there is no such separation: "natural" qualities and those called truly "human" are inseparably grown together. Man, in his highest and noblest capacities, is wholly nature and embodies its uncanny dual character. Those of his abilities which are terrifying and considered inhuman may even be the fertile soil out of which alone all humanity can grow in impulse, deed, and work.

Thus the Greeks, the most humane men of ancient times, have a trait of cruelty, a tigerish lust to annihilate—a trait that is also very distinct in that grotesquely enlarged mirror image of the Hellenes, in Alexander the Great, but that really must strike fear into our hearts throughout their whole history and mythology, if we approach them with the flabby concept of modern "humanity." When Alexander has the feet of Batis, the brave defender of Gaza, pierced, and ties him, alive, to his carriage, to drag him about while his soldiers mock, that is a revolting caricature of Achilles, who maltreats Hector's corpse in a similar fashion at night; and even this trait is offensive to us and makes us shudder. Here we look into the abyss of hatred. With the same feeling we may also observe the mutual laceration, bloody and insatiable, of two Greek parties, for example, in the Corcyrean revolution. When the victor in a fight among the cities executes the entire male citizenry in accordance with the laws of war, and sells all the women and children into slavery, we see in the sanction of such a law that the Greeks considered it an earnest necessity to let their hatred flow forth fully; in such moments crowded and swollen feeling relieved itself: the tiger leaped out, voluptuous cruelty in his terrible eyes. Why must the Greek sculptor give form again and again to war and combat in innumerable repetitions: distended human bodies, their sinews tense with hatred or with the arrogance of triumph; writhing bodies, wounded; dying bodies, expiring? Why did the whole Greek world exult over the combat scenes in the Iliad? I fear that we do not understand these in a sufficiently "Greek" manner; indeed, that we should shudder if we were ever to understand them "in Greek."
HOMER'S CONTEST

of course Nietzsche was playing the devil's advocate many times, and because of this there was alot of bosh in him..but he's definitely not wholly condemning the beast of man either, but at times praising it indeed.

"To accept any legal system as sovereign and universal -- to accept it, not merely as an instrument in the struggle of power complexes, but as a weapon against struggle (in the sense of Dühring's communist cliché that every will must regard every other will as its equal) -- is an anti-vital principle which can only bring about man's utter demoralization and, indirectly, a reign of nothingness."

Yes an attack on universalistic laws, ie communism, he also says it right there mentioning Duhring, but I see you immaturely removed it from the quote..he actually is not attacking Darwin at all, and saying that the struggle for existence is vital..

"These carriers of the leveling and retributive instincts, these descendants of every European and extra-European slave-dom, and especially of the pre-Aryan populations, represent human retrogression most flagrantly"

Yes 'slave-dom' means aristocracy... :o

And to the person that said capitalists should inherit unlimited stocks etc.. you know poor people get rich from capitalism through stocks too you know? And that's strictly taking it from capitalist hands, it doesn't take money from people's personal savings.. and there's a quote from Nietzsche that DIRECTLY defends aristocratic economic inheritance so that the 'noble' can continue on..

the problem with you is that you fail to see that nietzsche had alot of bosh in him. one minute he talks about praising the beast and of not having, GENIUNE christian sympathy because it's 'anti life' the next he's hugging a flogged horse and falling into a nervous breakdown.

the reason for this breakdown was that he really couldn't decide what morality he should have, simply cause he wanted to get rid of all morality, but also wanted to have it as well.. he was immature and irresponsible, and he like the quote above, didn't like socialism or communism, perhaps he failed to look into it and failed to see the many disadvantages of aristocracy..

social darwinism also, has been misinterpreted by you, including Herbert Spencer. ppl like you probably think Spencer was a nazi, that he wanted the poor to die etc etc.. but actually he is very humane, he talked about 'positive beneficience' saw the toilings of the working class and the hypocrisies of pompous aristocracy, and believed in charity not enforced by the state.

the problem with communism is that there still isn't enough freedom because it's so collective. for how long will people travel or go on vacation? who will decide that? what if no one wanted to be the garbage man or whatever? if people should work in factories that make what they work with, wouldn't we need a factory of almost every kind in almost every city?

you have a negative image of me because you think i want poor people to die. infact i'm poor myself, but through my strengths i'm striving to be successful and to get a decent amount of money to have enough time to make things of my own.. no one in capitalism should starve, which i guess the state is needed for that or the poor will steal from the rich, and a non-aristocratic capitalism like the US will help not to keep exceptional poor people down..

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 07:14 am
just search 'holohoax' on the internet and prepare to go on a major historical review. this has nothing to do with nazis its to do with zionism which Stalin, who was a jew btw, inadvertently aided by engineering allied propaganda for the 'genocide.'



:wacko:

I can go online and go on a major historical review of how the government was behind 9/11 as well, but that doesn't mean I'll learn anything accurate.




Aw jeez, I didn't open up a 9/11 can of worms did I?

[CopperGoat]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 13, 2006 01:01 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 13, 2006 01:01 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2006 07:14 am
just search 'holohoax' on the internet and prepare to go on a major historical review. this has nothing to do with nazis its to do with zionism which Stalin, who was a jew btw, inadvertently aided by engineering allied propaganda for the 'genocide.'



:wacko:

I can go online and go on a major historical review of how the government was behind 9/11 as well, but that doesn't mean I'll learn anything accurate.




Aw jeez, I didn't open up a 9/11 can of worms did I? [/b]
You're being childish.. and you looking up 9/11 will actually make it more accurate. I was a fervent believer with emotional conviction that the holocaust was this horrible genocide that happened and that is the end of it and should never be looked into, much less even GASP *think* that some things were not realistic..

[Cryotank Screams]

i'm not trying to force nazi misinterpretations
Yes, you are, and I do believe you are a nazi.

you saying that what you think nietzsche meant is also biased..

To put it very broadly and mildly yes, however my only motive is to save the integrity and intellectualism of Nietzsche, whereas you are trying to corrupt and twist his work for your own gain, I have nothing to gain from this except the satisfaction of saving one of histories most misunderstood visionaries.


like the great nazi messiah WTF you talking about I never thought that at all, crazy.
Bullshit, your talk of der Übermensch sounds very relative to what the nazis said about him, don't play the dumb innocent card.


you cannot deny that nietzsche ACTUALLY SAYS superior and inferior

Who said that they meant how the are classically defined as? Hmm? Those two words can and oft times do mean a variety of things.


horizontalism? what are you talking about, Nietzsche considered the overman to be superior

You said how can equality ever be achieve and I told you, also your concept of der Übermensch is again a nazi distortion.


he WANTED the beast, he already said that all higher men were from aristocratic people, which isn't necessarily true either..

Debatable, and more than likely fictious.


yes an attack on morality!!

An attack meaning an intellectual critic, not on some bullshit with beasts, and truly beast was just a derogatory term to denote primitive, archaic, and stupid behavior, as expressed and performed by your precious aristocracy.

The adjective the beast has been used by many and could be interpreted in a variety of different ways, however in the Nietzschean sense it represents the above.


Thus the Greeks, the most humane men of ancient times, have a trait of cruelty, a tigerish lust to annihilate—

Bullshit, the traits you just listed are more a product of the times, and of memetic engineering than actual and factual provable traits.


Alexander the Great

Was macedonian and not greek, also he was not a representative of the greek intellectuals nor the greek people at large.


Here we look into the abyss of hatred.

No, just into imperialism, and all the traits and events contained therein.


but he's definitely not wholly condemning the beast of man either, but at times praising it indeed.

The beast adjective can mean a variety of different.


Yes an attack on universalistic laws, ie communism, he also says it right there mentioning Duhring, but I see you immaturely removed it from the quote..

No, it wasn't, Communism doesn’t imply universal laws, granted there is common traits within the laws imposed in Communist nations, but generally and in a philosophical sense Communism doesn’t hold and universalist laws and I removed nothing.


actually is not attacking Darwin at all

Nietzsche was primarily anti-Darwin, hence he probably was attacking Darwin, or at least the concepts of social darwinism.


"These carriers of the leveling and retributive instincts, these descendants of every European and extra-European slave-dom, and especially of the pre-Aryan populations, represent human retrogression most flagrantly"

Again an attack on aristocracy you bloody idiot.


and there's a quote from Nietzsche that DIRECTLY defends aristocratic economic inheritance so that the 'noble' can continue on..

No, there is not.


the problem with you is that you fail to see that nietzsche had alot of bosh in him.

No, the problem with you is that you fail to understand the writing style and general philosophy of Nietzsche.


social darwinism also, has been misinterpreted by you

No, I have studied and no that is actually based upon nothing factual, and has been refuted quite adequately by Kropotkin in his work Mutual Aid: Theory of Evolution.


didn't like socialism or communism,

Highly debatable.


you have a negative image of me because you think i want poor people to die.

No, I have a negative image of you, because you are degrading one of my favorite philosophers for own selfish ideological reasons, you promote, holocaust denial, social Darwinism and capitalism, and really I find you to be a crypto-nazi.