chris i <3 you

[QUOTE=cobert;17703157]new old thought: [I]Out of Step[/I] is absolutely perfect.

MR PRESIDENT
GO AWAY
COME AND FU[size=2]C[/size]K WITH US ANOTHER DAY

MR FEELINGS
RUN AND HIDE
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO WHAT YOU FEEL INSIDE

MOTHERF[size=2]U[/size]CKERS
QUICK TO KISS
TALK YOUR S[size=2]H[/size]IT, DON'T F[size=2]U[/size]CK WITH THIS[/QUOTE]

so good

[QUOTE=whiteminority;17703770]chris i <3 you[/QUOTE]
\mm/

[quote=cbmartinez;17703590]the reason i think socialism can work is because I believe that inherently human nature is one of communal spirit, as exhibited through the millions of people that live within rural, communal systems in India and China and other areas of the world. Rather, it is capitalism and materialism amongst other things that has bred this idea that humans are self-interested and self-serving. So when people like Mr. Ron and other idiot capitalists say things like 'look at history bro! humans r mean lol,' stop pretending like this is factual because its not and therefore is not any sort of legitimate response to any sort of pro-socialist rhetoric. So you read Nietzsche, cool dude.

The fact that people have differences should reinforce ideas of state socialism, not invalidate it. For capitalism and libertarian ideas that value more individual freedom = betterment of the group have done nothing but promote a divide in which the well-endowed (genetically, fiscally, educationally, whatever) have exploited and enslaved those deemed unequal.

Look at the environment. Everyone lauds capitalism because it has promoted such rapid technological increases, which perhaps competition does do. But look at us now? Technology and the promethean, idiotic self-interested principles of capitalism have led to resource depletion and general biological and environmental havoc.[/quote]
Sure, people may be communal in nature, however you're forgetting that different people want different things.


Also, don't fool yourself. Prehistoric tribes acted in self interest when getting food for their own tribe and forgetting about others along with plenty of other things. Same can be said about ancient civilizations like China, Greece, Rome and the fractured regions of old Europe. There were leaders, and then there were followers. No one is truly equal. Once you get enough people together who want different things, you won't be able to be entirely "communal". All things will not be, and cannot be shared. There will be people that have to lead. There will arise economies that, *GASP!*, demand services and goods that private individuals can offer to people at a competitive price. I know, its ****ing crazy. I won't deny that capitalism has its cons and downsides. I'll be the first in line to say that I absolutely despise materialism. Just don't get the dream-land idea that materialism will die off if you have a worker's revolution tomorrow where the means of production are put into the worker's hands. There would still be materialism, just gotten through a different means.


The fact that some people are superior than others in certain aspects means that socialism that wants to "level the playing field" and "share what you have with everyone" is incredibly dangerous. Some people are smarter, some people are healthier, [B]put those people in charge. [/B]This doesn't mean that less fortunate people have to suffer, however, if you think that making everything "equal" for everyone is the solution, you'll have it blow up in your face. Making an equal playing field only lowers the bar to the least common denominator. You reward greatness, not punish it to feel a warm, fuzzy feeling inside.



I consider myself an conversationalist, and I agree that modernity has laid waste to a lot of our natural resources. However, you're only thinking too narrowly when you lump all the blame on capitalism. Technology would have continued to increase in both number, complexity, and range no matter what economic system you found yourself under. Its not like Communist scientists and engineers just stop inventing and improving technology just because they were under a far-left socialist/communistic government. Hell, look at the most socialistic countries over in Europe, they are number 1 in a lot of technologies and advancements.



I do think that we are being weakened by certain technologies and our reliance on them.




Plus, who really wants MORE government and bureaucratic red tape in their lives? Tons of silly regulation where it doesn't belong? Seriously?

I hate how sometimes people on the left deny that 'human nature' exists.

I don't want to level the playing field by "punishing" superiority, I want to level the playing field by removing any privileges given to a person by their society. A person shouldn't have a better shot at a job because their a rich white man, they should have a better shot because they're actually more capable. Leaders should rise because they are most fit rather than from being born in the right place.

I seriously question whether demand for products really comes before supply. Unless the product is a necessity, I feel like the product exists before people want it.

Socialist isn't really quanitifiable, I don't think it's fair to say "most socialist." Soviet scientists developed technology to compete with the United States. Capitalism, in it's quest for extraction of labor power from everyone under it's reign, develops technologies at a much higher rate than any other economic system developed thus far.

I'm the most socialist muh-****a u'll ever meet, I put people who prove me wrong on my ignore list!

edit: Sweet, got a birthday card from my grandma almost a month after my birthday, and she lives in town. :lol:

[quote=cobert;17704690]I hate how sometimes people on the left deny that 'human nature' exists.

I don't want to level the playing field by "punishing" superiority, I want to level the playing field by removing any privileges given to a person by their society. A person shouldn't have a better shot at a job because their a rich white man, they should have a better shot because they're actually more capable. Leaders should rise because they are most fit rather than from being born in the right place.

I seriously question whether demand for products really comes before supply. Unless the product is a necessity, I feel like the product exists before people want it.

Socialist isn't really quanitifiable, I don't think it's fair to say "most socialist." Soviet scientists developed technology to compete with the United States. Capitalism, [B]in it's quest for extraction of labor power from everyone under it's reign[/B], develops technologies at a much higher rate than any other economic system developed thus far.[/quote]
Again, socialism applied to today's world wouldn't stop this.

Capitalism is a pretty natural concept.

"human nature" is just as lazy an argument as "it's a disease" lol

and why would capitalism be natural rofl

word, Mr. Ron you're actually a lot more intelligent than i gave you credit for (and a lot more intelligent than the other idiots on here). i guess we just have to agree to disagree about the whole superiority chain of command idea being less dangerous than equality

[quote=cbmartinez;17704769]word, Mr. Ron you're actually a lot more intelligent than i gave you credit for (and a lot more intelligent than the other idiots on here). i guess we just have to agree to disagree about the whole superiority chain of command idea being less dangerous than equality[/quote]
I'm not here to insult anyone or call them idiots, I just think that people are mislead.


I could go on, but I don't want to clog the thread up too much.

i dont know much about politics but i do know that we're just a minor threat

i mean you're still a dumb capitalist and i will enjoy shooting you in the face when the revolution happens but for now, good work

yeah let's pop those ****ing Capitalists **** yeah hardcore nigga

[quote=cbmartinez;17704794]i mean you're still a dumb capitalist and i will enjoy shooting you in the face when the revolution happens but for now, good work[/quote]
Not before I crush you with my iron will and free you of your childish delusions, leftist swine. :cool:

omg you said leftist nooooooooooooooooooooooooo

yah do u even kno wut leftist means??

means you are RIGHT

[quote=mr. Ron;17704800]not before i crush you with my iron will and free you of your childish delusions, leftist swine. :cool:[/quote]

<3333

[QUOTE=Mr. Ron;17704800]Not before I crush you with my iron will and free you of your childish delusions, leftist swine. :cool:[/QUOTE]

This is why Ron is ****ing king.

[QUOTE=Ron]Again, socialism applied to today's world wouldn't stop this.
[/QUOTE]

I think it would though. Much technological advancement happens in industry because it saves the capitalist money, and in a system where human need drives production instead of profit you wouldn't see the same sorts of technologies being developed.

The least I want is for most industries to be nationalized (things like healthcare and prisons shouldn't aim to make money, but I don't give a **** if the furby plant is privately owned), and what I would ideally want would be anarchy. I often wonder if 'evolution' would work at all, because I doubt a revolutionary system could develop from institutions that exist to support capitalism.

[QUOTE=chris]i mean you're still a dumb capitalist and i will enjoy shooting you in the face when the revolution happens but for now, good work
[/QUOTE]

i love saying stuff like this, hahaha. Bourgeoisie swine is my preferred term.

also the first few tracks on Lineage Situation by Neil Perry are some of the best screamo songs.

[QUOTE=witchxrapist;17704732]Capitalism is a pretty natural concept.[/QUOTE]

Capitalism is a system with private property where labor and commodities are exchanged in a market. These ideas didn't fall together until a few hundred years ago. I don't see how something so "natural" could have taken so many thousands of years to develop in human society. These things are the results of historical processes.

The idea that capitalism is natural goes back to what chris said: people think capitalism and greed are natural because the world they come up in is one that is greedy and capitalistic.

The world has been greedy and capitalistic forever, people have always done what's right for the leader of a group, and MAYBE for the people for as long as people have been around.

And maybe not modern capitalism, but people definitely have bartered with goods and money in a greedy fashion for well over a few hundred years.

uh you're wrong. where are your sources for your theories? I don't think any historians will agree. j/s brah.

People never bartered before 200 years ago.

Markets didn't exist until the '50s.

[QUOTE=witchxrapist;17705004]The world has been greedy and capitalistic forever, people have always done what's right for the leader of a group, and MAYBE for the people for as long as people have been around.[/quote]

Capitalism hasn't existed forever, so....we haven't been capitalistic forever. Doing what's right for the leader isn't capitalism. Neither is bartering.

Blergh you guise

yo community

nobody uses the internet over breaks from school, proof that it only exists as a diversion from real work

I normally go on the internet when I get home from drinking.

I'm catching up on all of the "Good" movies from 2008.

How the **** did anyone think Slumdog Millionaire was worthy of all that praise? Absolutely mediocre movie. It felt poorly made, the casting was shallow, and I simply didn't buy that Jamal was in love with that girl. And The Curious Case of Benjamin Button wasn't worthy of praise either. I'd go as far as to call it [i]bad[/i], actually. The idea of aging backwards is nothing but a gimmick because they didn't really use it to add to the drama. Revolutionary Road was good, and does a good job of showing people turning cold and falling into a trap they both promised they would never be a part of. The Wrestler has the most heart of any of them and is probably the most well acted. I almost teared up in the final scenes. It didn't blow me away, but I don't see how so many people looked over this and ran out to see Slumdog Millionaire. Both are about persistence for love, but Slumdog's love seems manufactured while the love in The Wrestler is heartbreaking and humble. Wrestling is all Randy has, and it's slipping away with age. The Dark Knight deserves a nod, but I felt like it was too long and The Joker, as a character, isn't really as complex as everyone thinks he is (people that love this movie will shout me down and say "no, he's all about calculated chaos!" or "he lies to create confusion!" but I'm convinced it's just poor writing and a weak character with a good performance attached).

I still need to see Doubt, The Reader, Frost/Nixon, and whatever other bullpoop I didn't see yet.

i didn't like doubt much

i think i enjoyed milk more than any other movie i saw that year (cause im gay), though no country was great.

No Country For Old Men is more enjoyable to watch than about 90-95% of movies.

Oooh, forgot about Milk. I need to see that one too. I really want to see Doubt because I love Philip Seymour Hoffman.

No Country For Old Men was 2007.

No Country For Old Men rivals Mulholland Dr. as my favorite movie. It's absolutely perfect.

Yeah, I was gonna use a higher percentage, like 95-98%, because that's definitely more accurate. Didn't wanna make it sounds like I can't appreciate a flick though.

No country for old men was epic.


Read the book sometime, its just as good and has parts in it that the movie didn't show.

milk was awesome

to cob:

and i thought the same thing about doubt because i love PSH, but i just wasn't feeling the whole setting of the movie, i dunno it just bothered me and i didn't like it.

but if you haven't seen synecdoche, new york, do that.

[QUOTE=Mr. Ron;17713419]Read the book sometime, its just as good and has parts in it that the movie didn't show.[/QUOTE]

I just can't pick up fiction.

But related to reading: I just started Lies My Teachers Told Me. Great book, it's like A People's History of the United States, except the motivation for writing isn't political. Where Howard Zinn used [i]A People's History[/i] as a means to show the dark side of America and speak up for the oppressed, James Loewen uses revision to explain how high school history textbooks are frequently incorrect, and how whitewashing history doesn't just make people blind to social realities, but it actually makes history both boring and dishonest. American History class isn't used to teach history, it's used to instill values. I read the first 60 pages last night, I can tell this is going to be a good read.

[quote=spence]and i thought the same thing about doubt because i love PSH, but i just wasn't feeling the whole setting of the movie, i dunno it just bothered me and i didn't like it.[/quote]

Bummer.

[QUOTE]but if you haven't seen synecdoche, new york, do that. [/QUOTE]

It's on my long list of movies to watch.