[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

no, not really-- i meant it. people from rich countries spew all manner of sanctimonious leftist dogma at the same time that their consumerism creates the very inequalities they decry-- then their armies go sweep up the mess. half of this board is into fashion (sweatshop central), another half is into their various electronic gadgets which require rare minerals from warn-torn africa, & so on & so forth, consumerism in one hand and a "down with the man" banner in the other.

And the answer is to obfuscate this ethical twinge with an unconvincing egotism?

To answer your questions, I have an ipod that I haven't used in about two years. I do not have an iphone. I haven't purchased music in months. I can only assume some shit of mine has been made in sweatshops. None of this is an implicit endorsement of the conditions that produce them.

Your message isn't to consume less, it's to quit whining and keep your head down. Shit, you're more down this rabbit hole of anti-consumerist self-contempt that I can imagine. I remember reading it in between your "The Secret" go-get-em amoralism that you coached when the crash was just starting to hurt and some here couldn't find work.

Capitalism is shit, I'm pessimistic that socialism is capable of providing anything superior. This isn't sanctimonious leftist dogma, its a spiritual catch-22.

[dale_gribble]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i'm not saying i support exploitation, but it looks like it's always going to be there-- of course, it's fun to decapitate aristocrats, but that only lasts for so long. there's always a new elite to supplant it. i guess if we keep killing them eventually they will thin out. good luck there.

i'd rather have a dictator or some other shit running this country as long as they didn't pretend they weren't doing it. that's what pisses me off the most, these douchebags are no better than nazi death camp operators and they act like they're helping to advance the human race positively. example iraq: no reason to invade at all so it should've never happened or iraq should've been conquered and made part of the u.s. instead those assclowns hade to fabricate some reason to "liberate" the iraqis.

[GeneticKiss]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

this is what i sort of think. i remember in about 1996 reading interviews with chuck d and he was saying that the internet was going to bring about the collapse of the music industry and i thought he was totally off his rocker, but lo and behold...

It's the record industry's own fault for spewing out disposable bubblegum while continually repackaging rock's glory days (the Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin, etc.) and letting truly talented, groundbreaking artists rot on the vine for years. If the music business had any sense of progress, there would've been an iTunes long before there was a Napster. The technology was there.

[knox]

well, then, mr.bradley, that's when we try to imagine a middle term with the lesser of evils.

and as for the record industry, they had plenty of time to reinvent and save themselves, they chose not to, so fuck them.

nobody is really complaining, except for lily allen.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by knox

well, then, mr.bradley, that's when we try to imagine a middle term with the lesser of evils.

You mean the ye olde Keynesian liberalism? Should I pick up Rawls again?

I doubt the existence of this middle with lesser evils.

[knox]

didn't your grandma say it gets to a point you gotta make do with what you have?

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by pbradley

And the answer is

I have grown to love you so..

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

When have you ever had a society in which the powerful do not draw their power from the less powerful?

kings, emperors, warlords, aristocrats, apparatchiks-- draining the blood of slaves, indentured servants, vassals, commoners, citizens-- time and again societies organize themselves as pyramids.

That's all perfectly true but then those who blindly attack capitalism as some all-evil political monster don't see it as a progression out of those earlier (with the exception of apparatchiks) modes. Marx, as you know, was a massive believer in the merits of Capitaliism, he just didn't see it as the historical end point that many of those on the Right seem to (Fukuyama's whole 'End of History' thing, for example). Whether Marx was right in suggesting that a full working through of capitalism was crucial to providing the conditions necessary to support a progression into socialism is, of course, massively debatable, and has indeed been debated not just within centrist politics or the Right but even factions within the Left itself.

The problem with things like the anti-capitalist movement seems to be that it has no real vision of anything that might replace capitalism beyond some half-digested anarchism or, more usually, some sort of 'friendlier' capitalism. It's as though the movement itself can't really envisage an end of capitalism so has had to reconcile itself merely with trying to restrain it - 'ye olde Keynesian liberalism', as PBradley mentions already.)

[floatingslowly]

I own both an iPhone and an iPod which I use frequently.

often, I dream of the day when the entire planet has been strip-mined so that all of gawd's chillun can experience my joy.

and if the "natives" complain, well, that's nothing that a neutron bomb can't fix.

[chicka]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

that's usually how the door is open to control by big business-- i'd like control in the hands of the citizens, thanks much.

no, really, libertarianism sounds nice & all but works only in theory-- how would libertarianism deal with exxon-valdez? or... katrina?

That right it sounds great and only works in theory because we don't have enough people ready to live that way. Less government is only at the federal level. I'm not sure how it would work with exxon-valdez or Katrina but could it be any worst than how the present folks handle it?

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

That's all perfectly true but then those who blindly attack capitalism as some all-evil political monster don't see it as a progression out of those earlier (with the exception of apparatchiks) modes. Marx, as you know, was a massive believer in the merits of Capitaliism, he just didn't see it as the historical end point that many of those on the Right seem to (Fukuyama's whole 'End of History' thing, for example). Whether Marx was right in suggesting that a full working through of capitalism was crucial to providing the conditions necessary to support a progression into socialism is, of course, massively debatable, and has indeed been debated not just within centrist politics or the Right but even factions within the Left itself.

The problem with things like the anti-capitalist movement seems to be that it has no real vision of anything that might replace capitalism beyond some half-digested anarchism or, more usually, some sort of 'friendlier' capitalism. It's as though the movement itself can't really envisage an end of capitalism so has had to reconcile itself merely with trying to restrain it - 'ye olde Keynesian liberalism', as PBradley mentions already.)

I'm not sure if it is true about things being worse pre-capitalism, from what this guy says, and he seems credible, the middle ages were much more fruitful for the average person than is commonly thought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOBWhVe68os

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

ha ha haaaa! i snorted.



no, not really-- i meant it. people from rich countries spew all manner of sanctimonious leftist dogma at the same time that their consumerism creates the very inequalities they decry-- then their armies go sweep up the mess. half of this board is into fashion (sweatshop central), another half is into their various electronic gadgets which require rare minerals from warn-torn africa, & so on & so forth, consumerism in one hand and a "down with the man" banner in the other.

people buy something and they are "congratulated" instead of receiving condolences on their newly acquired burdens. there's even a thread here where people tell "what they bough today." whatever...

personally, i'm actually trying to consume less & use less shit every day. not because i'm a hippie, but because owning too much crap is uncomfortable. but i did originally come to amerikkka to partake of the feast-- ha! even though i'm against it. what can i say. i'd rather not be killed.

anyway, check this out, it's funny:

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008...-corporations/



wait, wasn't feudalism doing that before there was capitalism? i'm pretty sure those castles weren't built by the lords that ruled them.

when have you ever had a society in which the powerful do not draw their power from the less powerful?

kings, emperors, warlords, aristocrats, apparatchiks-- draining the blood of slaves, indentured servants, vassals, commoners, citizens-- time and again societies organize themselves as pyramids. we're hierarchical beasts as far as our DNA is concerned (it's mostly DNA, rather than social programming, that builds the brain).

i'm not saying i support exploitation, but it looks like it's always going to be there-- of course, it's fun to decapitate aristocrats, but that only lasts for so long. there's always a new elite to supplant it. i guess if we keep killing them eventually they will thin out. good luck there.

all I can honestly say is AMEN! You know I sincerely said some Rosary prayers last night because I felt so guilty for accidently leaving the sprinkler for an hour wasting more water than a hundred people would drink in a day. Its not about destroying capitalism, its about become religiously conscious consumers. We need to know how much resources our products consume, we need to know how much people are exploited for our prices to be competitively low..

after all it has been written, "Be careful not to bite and eat one another, lest you be consumed by each other!" Apostle Paul

Originally Posted by dale_gribble

i'd rather have a dictator or some other shit running this country as long as they didn't pretend they weren't doing it..

Thats my point exactly. Its all the same facade year after year, Obama.. Bush.. Clinton.. Bush.. Reagon.. Carter.. what the fuck is all the difference? Obama's deficit is Bush's deficit.. Bush's military situation is Clinton's military situation.. It is a chain of mistakes, the names are only symbolic to keep historical reference, the individuals are powerless to control the forces at work.. If americans would get honest with themselves like other people in the world, and accept the myth of democracy to be rosy painted authoritarian system, perhaps we might stop depending on the big govt and focus on our tangible, local efforts instead of being so distracted, spun and brainwashed by politics.

Originally Posted by knox

well, then, mr.bradley, that's when we try to imagine a middle term with the lesser of evils.

and as for the record industry, they had plenty of time to reinvent and save themselves, they chose not to, so fuck them.

nobody is really complaining, except for lily allen.

Don't let the paranoia fool you, the record companies are not going anywhere. Sales may be down, but the record companies still make billions of dollars. Just because the pie is sliced more, does not make it smaller.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

That's all perfectly true but then those who blindly attack capitalism as some all-evil political monster don't see it as a progression out of those earlier (with the exception of apparatchiks) modes. Marx, as you know, was a massive believer in the merits of Capitaliism, he just didn't see it as the historical end point that many of those on the Right seem to (Fukuyama's whole 'End of History' thing, for example). Whether Marx was right in suggesting that a full working through of capitalism was crucial to providing the conditions necessary to support a progression into socialism is, of course, massively debatable, and has indeed been debated not just within centrist politics or the Right but even factions within the Left itself.

The problem with things like the anti-capitalist movement seems to be that it has no real vision of anything that might replace capitalism beyond some half-digested anarchism or, more usually, some sort of 'friendlier' capitalism. It's as though the movement itself can't really envisage an end of capitalism so has had to reconcile itself merely with trying to restrain it - 'ye olde Keynesian liberalism', as PBradley mentions already.)

The only reason the left has to be so extreme in its rhetoric is because the right is so frighteningly insensitive to helping each other out. Social services, welfare, even public education are constantly attacked by the Rightists of all political systems who believe that the poor should fend for themselves, failing to understand that if you let the problem fester, it will inevitably find its way to your country clubs and gated communities. Ironically, rightists want less government, public services even education, but seem quite comfortable expanding military, police and prisons, all strict tools and economy of authoratarianism and aspects of totalitarian states..

[knox]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

I'm not sure if it is true about things being worse pre-capitalism, from what this guy says, and he seems credible, the middle ages were much more fruitful for the average person than is commonly thought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOBWhVe68os

would you like to go back if you could?

[tesla69]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Is the Left now a spent force within mainstream politics? I don't mean any kind of Left represented by New Labour or even Obama but a socialist Left. Or should we all just learn to love capitalism and be done with it?

what is currently called capitalism is no more capitalism than socialism was actually socialism under the Soviets.

Its all about States controlling markets to the benefit of elites. profit is privatized, risk is socialized.

[EVOLghost]

There will be no politics when I am overlord of the Earth

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by tesla69

what is currently called capitalism is no more capitalism than socialism was actually socialism under the Soviets.

Its all about States controlling markets to the benefit of elites. profit is privatized, risk is socialized.

finally you speak some obvious and well-accepted truth. But its as Peter Tosh said my brother, "Suppose I tell some guys the truth (snaps fingers) guys drop dead seen?!"

[tesla69]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

the internet works without needing to sell or advertise anything.
companeis have made it the status quo that advertising is needed but it is not.

someone has to pay for the physical infrastructure of wire and rotors and switches behind the scenes, all powered by ELECTRICITY, which is not free. The internet is NOT "green" - its POWERED and most likely from nukes somewhere along the line. Accessing the net requires some kind of technological interface, and Steve Jobs can recycle all the plastic he wants but making chips is not "green"...

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by [B

Rob Instigator][/b]
the internet works without needing to sell or advertise anything.
companeis have made it the status quo that advertising is needed but it is not.

have you seen how much Google/Yahoo searches have been modified by advertising? The Top 100 searches used to be based upon momentarily popularity and now it is based on advertiser interest. If you search something, the vast majority of the first ten pages of results will be advertiser oriented and generally trying to sell you something in relation to the search or at least send you to site somehow connected there of.

[Genteel Death]

 

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by tesla69

what is currently called capitalism is no more capitalism than socialism was actually socialism under the Soviets.

Its all about States controlling markets to the benefit of elites. profit is privatized, risk is socialized.

That's very true. What both systems ultimately suggest aren't so much problems with either Communism or Capitalism as the problems that can arise when a theory (regardless of whether it's Marx's or Adam Smith's) is put into practice in such a way that forces it to use actual people instead of idealised social 'types'.