Yea, but I don't want to do that crap AT ALL. You can do it if you like--but picking up garbage or changing diapers isn't for me. After the Revolution my job will be interviewing supermodels.
Results 41 to 60 of 91
I don't really understand why this is such a common question.
In the United States, we have jury duty. Nobody likes it, but you do it anyways, at least if you can't figure a way out of it, and it gets done. People understand that it's necessary to make the system fair, at least in theory.
Now imagine if we had a labor lottery system. You take a few months out of the year, work maybe four hours a day, four days a week.
Sounds pretty cushy, right? At least if you're part of the majority who works eight hours a day at relatively un-specialized labor and can still barely keep food on the table.
In the U.S. alone, that would equate to 10 billion man-hours a year. Think of how much more we could accomplish, as a species, with a system like that. It's not just more fair - it's practically a necessity.
Yea, but I don't want to do that crap AT ALL. You can do it if you like--but picking up garbage or changing diapers isn't for me. After the Revolution my job will be interviewing supermodels.
in that Wage Slavery and menial labour by human beings will no longer be culturally acceptable in the same way that slavery is no longer acceptable today.
Good, we won't have to pick up your garbage then, enjoy your apartment full of diapers and garbage.
What makes you think they would want to talk to you?
Edit: Especially since you'll smell like garbage and old diapers.
Yeah, same goes for jury duty. No one wants to do it. But somehow, it still gets done.
Obviously, having specialized skills would put you in a different labor lottery. If you go through med school, you get put in the paramedic lottery, and so on.
There could be a lottery for that, too.Keep your fingers crossed.
Your own book? Sure.
They have little anarcho symbols in them, the cookies.
Exactly, let's just nuke communities everywhere.
They won't work if we nuke them all comrade.
That people like yourself are boring rejects, who aren't worth responding to in the first place.Yeah I own books.............( Shocking!)
Riveting.........
So long as we let a couple of survivors left.Exactly, let's just nuke communities everywhere.
Laughs.
Are you trying to hurt my feelings? ( Laughs.)
That people like yourself are boring rejects, who aren't worth responding to in the first place.
If you don't stop with your rudeness you might force me to grab the nearest box of tissues. ( Laughs.)
You won't respond to me because you know that you can't.
Philosophers and thinkers like you only regurgitate the same old populist accepted philosophies over and over again where when you come across somthing completely different you don't know how to respond.
( I understand your silence. It's ok.)
( I understand your own ineptitude.)
( No hard feelings taken.)
Life is a game, Life is a joke. I'm a peddler of doubt.
"The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual a crime." -Max Stirner
What is justice? What is justification?
I don't really believe in justifications so your question doesn't really make alot of sense to me.
In what way exactly?
What exactly are you trying to convey here? Your not making any sense to me.
Life is a game, Life is a joke. I'm a peddler of doubt.
"The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual a crime." -Max Stirner
You will need a assistant in interviewing supermodels after the revolution.
( Points to himself.)
Since this revolution is all about liberation and what not I figure afterwards you and I could pimp out these supermodels too.
( I have dibs on the red heads.)
Life is a game, Life is a joke. I'm a peddler of doubt.
"The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual a crime." -Max Stirner
Well there's a dream like feel good wishful statement but exactly how do you plan on doing that?
Talking about doing things is nice but actually doing what you speak of is a completely different story.
Look at it from my perspective. Human beings have talked about achieving a ideal state for several thousand years only to fall short at every interval of so called revolution where meanwhile amongst all of this every form of human malice, oppression, violence, and exploitation constantly prevails. ( It all began with Plato around 427 BC.)
( And then of course people's idealistic envisionment of the future do nothing in addressing or resolving the conflicts of the present.)
Last edited by SavagePostModern; 17th September 2009 at 14:37.
Life is a game, Life is a joke. I'm a peddler of doubt.
"The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual a crime." -Max Stirner
So your envisionment of society will look like a giant lottery or bingo contest,yes?Yeah, same goes for jury duty. No one wants to do it. But somehow, it still gets done.
Obviously, having specialized skills would put you in a different labor lottery. If you go through med school, you get put in the paramedic lottery, and so on.
There could be a lottery for that, too.
I can envision it now................
Life is a game, Life is a joke. I'm a peddler of doubt.
"The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual a crime." -Max Stirner
That or won't, pick whichever one you like.
You won't see much philosophical dribbling from me but whatever. It's pretty funny that you cry populist, when in fact a lot of people hold your irrational and petty idea of 'genuine anarchy' - in fact it seems underestimated, just how many people think it could work.
It's really a very weird and stupid idea which didn't work in somalia.
There's supposed to be no space before the first letters in those brackets.
Last edited by ls; 17th September 2009 at 19:59.
Historical and dialectical materialists would argue that mankind and civilization must pass through several stages of 'molting', so to speak, where each system produces conflicts, and then solves those conflicts through gradual change (or sudden revolution). Marx believed that capitalism (the greatest manifestation of exploitation) would by force of reason change into socialism. For Hegel, this socialist state is the achievement of the 'absolute rational system', where the master/slave dichotomy is finally dissolved.
So arguing with a Marxist about the fact that history has always claimed to be 'toward an ideal state' will be fruitless, since they will always argue that this ideal state is on its way. Avoid that argument.
I am of the opinion that the socialist state would of been possible had Platonic philosophy never been developed. I believe that history took a major 'detour' with Platonism....and is only now finally clearing the smoke of metaphysics. The Enlightenment was a big step in the revolution of science, analytical philosophy and its neighbor, positivism, are also saving graces.
The world intellect and economy is coming around- capitalism is collapsing itself, and the working classes are no longer fooled as easily by ruling class ideological hegemony. The meme is dying.
History is waayyyy less influenced by what some philosophers wrote than what you think, people writing philosophy are not the ones that dictate history and power structures.
Get your head out of your ass, your not as smart as you think you are.
Not at all.
Also, envisionment isn't a word.
Last edited by synthesis; 17th September 2009 at 22:07.
Avoiding the implications of causality, we might say that there is a reciprocal relationship between ideas and material circumstances, so that while material conditions have influence over how language develops, and therefore ideas, ideas also are a form of force in human activity.
There are countless Marxists, structuralists and post-structuralists who share this opinion. Gramsci, Lukacs, Baudrillard, and The Frankfurt School, to name a few.
You would be surprised to know just how influential even pre-socratic thinkers are in the modern world. But western philosophical culture and 'logocentrism' culminates in Plato....and this is terribly unfortunate.
Would you believe that polytheism/monotheism wouldn't even exist today had a few things said by a few ancient philosophers, not been said?
Philosophers talk about, justify and challenge social structures that exist, they usually arn't the ones driving what changes, usually its material conditions, and sometimes their ideas are used, but its not their ideas that drive change.
Plato??? No one cares about plato anymore, he had a great analysis, and was important in the HISTORY of philosophy, but he is not influencial among the general public, no one cares.
My good man, material conditions are arbitrary and meaningless without proper interpretation. For thousands of years societies existed in which the productive forces, the working classes, not only did not question the ruling class authorities which reigned over them, but were also quite content remaining subordinate to them. In such a case, the crude material conditions do not instigate any change in the social structures. What must do this is an interpretation of the structures....and these interpretations are popularized by the competing, contemporary philosophers of the time.
When we say that the scientific revolution revealed knowledge which was contrary to what the ruling class religious clergy had indoctrinated society to believe, not only are we pointing out that materialism was at work here against mysticism, but also that this new evidence and knowledge brought with it a shift in ethical/political beliefs- "what? You mean the Earth isn't the center of the solar system, god probably doesn't exist, and therefore these idiots that run society are in fact not sanctioned by a god to hold power over us!?"
These considerations are what influence change in social structures, not the raw data of scientific discovery itself. Materialism waits to be interpreted before it can be called a 'cause' for social revolution.
Yes. I agree here with Kronos. Data doesn't "cause" change it is the understanding of the data and its interpretation into a workable and usable framework that causes things to happen. It is the "philosophers" that do that job. Marx based his thoughts on Hegel and Hegel on Plato.
It was Plato that "invented" the dialectic (at least for the Western world) and FROM that the scientific method proceeded. One could even say that all of the scientific progress in the last 2500 years has been a footnote to Plato (actually it was A.N. Whitehead that said something similar.)
It may seem elitist, but that's just how things work. The masses nead a leader, it not politically than at least ideologically.
What your implying is that without plato the scientific method would not have come up, which is rediculous.
No, but he's the one that came up with it--or at least the ideas on which it was based. It probably would have been thought of sooner or later--but modern civilization would have taken that much longer to get where it is.
People have been trampling on the earth for hurdreds of thousands of years each generation not much different than the one before it--all doing the nuts and berries thing with an occasional meat main course. But not too long after Plato (in humanity's history) we landed on the moon.
He's the guy that set things into motion.
