Move along Paulo's boss. Nothing to see here.
http://www.reeelapse.com/
Seems to me that no distribution of wealth is better than moving wealth from citizens to government officials and their corporate allies?Phritz wrote: i realized, that there is no distribution of wealth in anarchism (duh!)
KRB already said something and: Government works by force too bro.and it's basically just a euphemism for the "right of the force".
Helene:Bored, Esq. wrote:Gonna get raped.Hell-haine wrote:My company is cutting a bunch of people's hours, going from FT to 15 hours a week and no benefits.
Obviously, they are all pissed off and depressed. What's worse to me is that for some reason, they thought they were gonna go through the net because most of them have been with the company for over 15 years.
Obviously they are now being replaced with kids who will do PT work for $8/hour.
I went to break with a bunch of the seniors the other day, a couple managers were there and gave me the evil eye when I talked about France's workers protection and loss of employment's notice (3 months vs 2 weeks in in FL). Then I added "If we were in France right now, everybody would be on strike to protest, but of course we're uuuh... Communists like you guys say..."
Seriously, one might chalk things like this up to the stupidity of workers here in the US...but it's simply a matter of education. Their education and sentiments are lacking, they don't know what they're doing or what they're feeling. The socialist revolution was halted in the US due to FDR's reforms and the work of Capital. Most other places in the world went through all of this stuff 60 years ago...the US was an abortion. Will it be corrected a generation+ later? Hopefully. It's going to be painful, though...
Imagine NOT feeling like you could lose your job at any moment and you have to fight wholesale against everyone else in life in order to "get ahead." Imagine actually having some dignity...
Right. Ineffective education. Read what you wrote again.father of lies wrote: Ineffective education? I don't think so. We were taught quite a bit about the original labor movement and the importance of unions, Triangle-Shirtwaist, and so on, but most average people I knew in school and shortly after I graduated that that stomped out by the CONSTANT repetition of what amounts to Reagan's campaign speeches and anti-Soviet insanity. In the same textbook. I don't think it's ineffective, I think it's doing a HELL of a job of making sure the average Joe in this society is a fucking retard.
Yeah, some sleazy assholes are really good at convincing people to spend money on shit they don't need to and/or can't afford to spend money on. None of this is news to me. People swindle and get swindled, and not just stupid people, either. And a lot of us (shit, me) have to learn our lessons the hard way. I just don't see an apocalypse on the way here or a conspiracy at work.Glass Asshole wrote: Joking? Right, so the mixing of psychology and propaganda techniques in marketing is just what, a waste of time? Granted conspicuous consumption has existed for a long time, but back in the day that was a rich mans game. The game for the poor is a little more askew then you would like to admit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
Know what? I've talked about and defended my point of view from the same lines of attack so many times at this point that I'm actually going to say that I don't owe you an explanation for anything I believe and if you want to put me in the same category as him, go the fuck ahead.Kurt Russell's Beard wrote:I never noticed it before but you're right. Torsion? What the fuck man? How do you reconcile this stance? Say something halfway human before I put you in the BattleTweeter box.VueeeuVueeeeuV wrote:They differ on defense and offer the same view of a brutal, mercilessly right wing America that exists to get as much work out of its human property as necessary.
Ah it's a little complex.Bored, Esq. wrote:Other than your husband is there any reason you're staying in the US?Hell-haine wrote:If I move in another state, this time I'll be sure to pick one that is not under the "right to work" law...
I can't believe I was too stupid 5 years ago not to know how Florida worked.
Yeah. PMing...Hell-haine wrote: I plan on going back to Europe or maybe Canada.
yeah, i didn't research very far. i've read bits by kropotkin and bakunin. i don't think i've heard of "libertarian socialism" before, only of the "libertarianism" of the Nozick school.Kurt Russell's Beard wrote:How deep did you research? It is a contradiction in tenets, libertarian socialism--how many authors are loathe to dilute the prime "no rule" credo with the actual workings of wealth and service distribution; however, that is supposed to be part of it. And you can find many proposed models. You just have to look deeper than Proudhon and Kropotkin groundwork stuff. It's not right of the force. Its object is one of humaneness and fairness, to a damning fault. Regardless if it's sustainable, and that it might be purely utopian or ultimately futile, what I'm saying is that our system in the U.S. is too exploitive to support or "fix." I can't fucking support it any longer. It's wretched. I need something more socialist.Phritz wrote:i always had a somewhat childish admiration for anarchism. but one day, i realized, that there is no distribution of wealth in anarchism (duh!) and it's basically just a euphemism for the "right of the force".
That's the entire history of the late 19th-20th century...Phritz wrote: i somewhat lost faith in the objectivity and rationality of the human mind.
and did we solve the problem? did i miss something?Bored, Esq. wrote:That's the entire history of the late 19th-20th century...Phritz wrote: i somewhat lost faith in the objectivity and rationality of the human mind.
No, we didn't solve the problem.Phritz wrote:and did we solve the problem? did i miss something?Bored, Esq. wrote:That's the entire history of the late 19th-20th century...Phritz wrote: i somewhat lost faith in the objectivity and rationality of the human mind.
i always tend to think it started to get into popular thought after the nazis and/or the invention of psychoanalysis.
i think most of the people on this board believe that the whole of humanity when left to decide for itself chooses bad instead of good. i know its a tireless dichotomy, but that is what rational arguments always boil down to, good/evil. i want to believe that humanity will chose what is right even though empirical evidence in my lifetime has proven the opposite, but i have hope. cause i mean seriously, what else is there? if humanity consistantly chooses evil then why not just do away with the whole of society. is the world really a better place without humans? if so then we should all just kill ourselves. i think that any system is going to be better than the current system, and if its not then try again. there is no easy answer to right the ills of society, but the best we can do is make our lives and the lives of others easier by helping out and giving to the people close to you.Phritz wrote:yeah, i didn't research very far. i've read bits by kropotkin and bakunin. i don't think i've heard of "libertarian socialism" before, only of the "libertarianism" of the Nozick school.Kurt Russell's Beard wrote:How deep did you research? It is a contradiction in tenets, libertarian socialism--how many authors are loathe to dilute the prime "no rule" credo with the actual workings of wealth and service distribution; however, that is supposed to be part of it. And you can find many proposed models. You just have to look deeper than Proudhon and Kropotkin groundwork stuff. It's not right of the force. Its object is one of humaneness and fairness, to a damning fault. Regardless if it's sustainable, and that it might be purely utopian or ultimately futile, what I'm saying is that our system in the U.S. is too exploitive to support or "fix." I can't fucking support it any longer. It's wretched. I need something more socialist.Phritz wrote:i always had a somewhat childish admiration for anarchism. but one day, i realized, that there is no distribution of wealth in anarchism (duh!) and it's basically just a euphemism for the "right of the force".
on one hand, i admire people who strive for a self-suffiecent, autarkic lives, governed only by their own will. but on the other hand i distrust people who seem to confident in their own mind. maybe it's jealousy. i'm completely the opposite: i'm always way over my head into doubs, which leads to me avoiding decisions at all.
i somewhat lost faith in the objectivity and rationality of the human mind. someone who feels entitled to something or threatened by something (be it real or not) can be a real beast. and if i look at the average people around me and what they think that is right and just, i'd rather be governed by a certain set of rules (cooked up by tradition and smart people to their best knowledge), which are later mindlessly enforced. jealousy, fear and projection are way too big forces in the mind. i very much distrust everything that is based on the good will of men.
Objectivity is a mental shortcut that enables industry and science. It works within certain given paradigms, as long as those are rigidly controlled. It has its place. As usual the problem is...people abstracting objective methods of definition and then applying that methodology to areas outside science's demesne and the empirical possibilities of science's determinations. The problem is not with the thought technology, it's humanity's ability to switch between different thought patterns. We will solve this problem in the future...John Jr. wrote:i'm halfway to believing in any pretense of objectivity as being "truth" is so ridiculous as to be classified as a mental disorder.
first rule of quantum physics, if there is a human present it changes the outcome of the experiment. there is not such thing as objectivity except in theory.Bored, Esq. wrote:Objectivity is a mental shortcut that enables industry and science. It works within certain given paradigms, as long as those are rigidly controlled. It has its place. As usual the problem is...people abstracting objective methods of definition and then applying that methodology to areas outside science's demesne and the empirical possibilities of science's determinations. The problem is not with the thought technology, it's humanity's ability to switch between different thought patterns. We will solve this problem in the future...John Jr. wrote:i'm halfway to believing in any pretense of objectivity as being "truth" is so ridiculous as to be classified as a mental disorder.