Capitalism .V. Socialism

[Alchemyst]

You originally said this:

. . . part of us is influenced to be selfish, and another part, altruistic, but only with respect to groups we identify with.

If you'd said mostly instead of only then I'd have had no point to make.

[ForgedinHell]

You originally said this:

. . . part of us is influenced to be selfish, and another part, altruistic, but only with respect to groups we identify with.

If you'd said mostly instead of only then I'd have had no point to make.

I stand by what I wrote.

[Satyr]

The liberal turds in this thread might find it difficult to comprehend how socialism is the christian ethos in a secular form.
The animosity of Communism to the christian faith is explained as an animosity between two different versions of the same philosophy; the same slavishness.

Capitalism succeeded because unlike Socialism it proposed a system more natural to the human species: one of selfishness, exploitation and heartlessness and so more natural for man.
The only divergence of capitalism from natural methods was in its inheritance principles which produced the myth of ownership.

Communism, on the other hand, was the Jewish ethos applied in a secular form...no accident that both Jesus and Marx were Jewish.
This is why they failed and they continue to fail...but currently the development of more sophisticated methods of indoctrination and after centuries of social engineering some success can be found in socialist principles applied in the real world.

The primary reason for this, and mostly overlooked, is the rise in world populations and the absence of accessible frontiers.

[info]

The liberal turds in this thread might find it difficult to comprehend how socialism is the christian ethos in a secular form.
The animosity of Communism to the christian faith is explained as an animosity between two different versions of the same philosophy; the same slavishness.

Capitalism succeeded because unlike Socialism it proposed a system more natural to the human species: one of selfishness, exploitation and heartlessness and so more natural for man.
The only divergence of capitalism from natural methods was in its inheritance principles which produced the myth of ownership.

Communism, on the other hand, was the Jewish ethos applied in a secular form...no accident that both Jesus and Marx were Jewish.
This is why they failed and they continue to fail...but currently the development of more sophisticated methods of indoctrination and after centuries of social engineering some success can be found in socialist principles applied in the real world.

The primary reason for this, and mostly overlooked, is the rise in world populations and the absence of accessible frontiers.

What is right-leftism (aka left-rightism)?

What view of politics is common to Epicurus, Wilhelm Reich, and Eckhart Tolle?



Happy Birthday Autumn Miller! <3 <3

[Satyr]

You are trying too hard, pedophile.

I would not expect you to be anything but a liberal, since you are the continuance of the same logic that makes homosexuality a viable lifestyle option in the Modern world. But how many of these turds would see you as such?
They are suffering from compartmentalization...they cannot even flow through with the very ideals they espouse.

But you and I know that you are the...next step towards total uniformity, no freak?
Every mutation which does not unbalance the system eventually becomes incorporated into the system of mutants....just as long as they hold in common the basic ideals of anti-nature, defense of the meek and the weak, and a slow but steady rejection of any order which inhibits the decline towards uniform nothingness.
In the last case not even you can follow through with your own "logic" now can you pedophile?

All you know is that you were born with certain needs, particular predispositions, glaring deficiencies which you've managed to flip into proficiencies, calling them higher states of enlightenment...and that outside of the system that makes your disease viable, you risk death or worse.

So, you have common ground with the homos and the females who are always on your side though they might reject the very insinuation of it.

[info]

higher states of enlightenment...

Getting off the Via Dolorosa,
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9417 <---



( http://youtu.be/q7m2jul9-vM , http://youtu.be/QiA9FO15kMA )

[Satyr]

Ha!!!

Nature is such a bitch, pedophile.
A cadaver looks sexy to one of your kind. He too feels liberated from death...or so he tells himself.
He feels like he's bridging a gap between the living and the dead.

We both know what you are, filth.
Hide it, rename it, perfume it prance and dance around it...
WOOP!!!
There it is!

[Arising_uk]

...

Marx was just generally confused, which is the general state of socialists the world over. ...

A few of the quotes showing that Marx did not believe in human nature: "Circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances." "It is not the consciousness of men that determine their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." The creepy Marx didn't even believe that people were real: "Individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class interests."

Care to say where from your extensive 'library' you got these quotes? Or is it, as I suspect, from your extensive goggle.

Just to help you, the latter quote was from his Das Capital so the context of the quote is in reference to that not as you imply some general assertion about human nature. Over to you.

I think Marx's basic view of human nature is that we are productive or purposeful producers, the tool-making animal, socail beings and as such we change and are changed by the circumstances we find ourselves in.

Completely overlooked by Marx is about 4 billion years of evolution, and the realization that billions of years of evolution will create a human nature.

No, it won't. There is no purpose in Evolution such that it will produce a 'human nature'. You are implying that there is an unbroken chain but the evidence is that the 'chain' has pretty much been broken many times and we are just the result of the last break. If a big enough catastrophe occurs again you think humans and their 'nature' will be re-created? Don't think I don't understand what you meant but you've not said what this 'human nature' is so I thought I'd point out the errors in your thinking about '4 billion years of evolution'.

In fact, you revealed that evolutionary nature when you insulted me for being an "American." We evolved largely through group selection, so it is within your nature to classify people into groups. Whereas if you used your reason, you would realize that I only repesent myself, and not America, or any other American.

Oh! The irony! Do you even see the contradiction in the latter two sentences? If there is 'group selection' in your evolution then the classifications exist and as such you represent such a group! I did not insult you for being an American, I insulted you for being a Yank and you thinking that an American was being insulted is exactly why you are a Yank. And its because of my cultural experience upon this forum that I call you such and not due to this 'evolutionary nature' that you yak about. You sound much like Satyr with your ideas.

[ForgedinHell]

...

Marx was just generally confused, which is the general state of socialists the world over. ...

A few of the quotes showing that Marx did not believe in human nature: "Circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances." "It is not the consciousness of men that determine their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." The creepy Marx didn't even believe that people were real: "Individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class interests."

Care to say where from your extensive 'library' you got these quotes? Or is it, as I suspect, from your extensive goggle.

Just to help you, the latter quote was from his Das Capital so the context of the quote is in reference to that not as you imply some general assertion about human nature. Over to you.

I think Marx's basic view of human nature is that we are productive or purposeful producers, the tool-making animal, socail beings and as such we change and are changed by the circumstances we find ourselves in.

Completely overlooked by Marx is about 4 billion years of evolution, and the realization that billions of years of evolution will create a human nature.

No, it won't. There is no purpose in Evolution such that it will produce a 'human nature'. You are implying that there is an unbroken chain but the evidence is that the 'chain' has pretty much been broken many times and we are just the result of the last break. If a big enough catastrophe occurs again you think humans and their 'nature' will be re-created? Don't think I don't understand what you meant but you've not said what this 'human nature' is so I thought I'd point out the errors in your thinking about '4 billion years of evolution'.

In fact, you revealed that evolutionary nature when you insulted me for being an "American." We evolved largely through group selection, so it is within your nature to classify people into groups. Whereas if you used your reason, you would realize that I only repesent myself, and not America, or any other American.

Oh! The irony! Do you even see the contradiction in the latter two sentences? If there is 'group selection' in your evolution then the classifications exist and as such you represent such a group! I did not insult you for being an American, I insulted you for being a Yank and you thinking that an American was being insulted is exactly why you are a Yank. And its because of my cultural experience upon this forum that I call you such and not due to this 'evolutionary nature' that you yak about. You sound much like Satyr with your ideas.

The irony? You don't even know how to reason worth a damn. No wonder you study philosophy, physics would leave you whimpering. You think insulting me for being an American somehow proves what? That you are smarter than I am? That it somehow refutes anything I have written here? All it does is reveal how pathetically stupid you are. If you had half a brain you would know that Americans consist of all sorts of different people with all sorts of different ideas. Calling someone a "yank" because they are an American is imbecilic at best.

[Arising_uk]

...
The irony? You don't even know how to reason worth a damn. No wonder you study philosophy, physics would leave you whimpering. You think insulting me for being an American somehow proves what? That you are smarter than I am? That it somehow refutes anything I have written here? All it does is reveal how pathetically stupid you are. If you had half a brain you would know that Americans consist of all sorts of different people with all sorts of different ideas. Calling someone a "yank" because they are an American is imbecilic at best.

Its why I don't dipshit. I call a certain type of American a Yank and you're it.

Physics is not my thing but my MSc in Advanced Information Technology says I can play in both fields, Arts and Sciences. Whereas I'm beginning to doubt you've been in any.

I note that once again you prefer to ignore any of the issues I raised, Yank.

[bobevenson]

Physics is not my thing but my MSc in Advanced Information Technology says I can play in both fields, Arts and Sciences.

Unfortunately, you're not able to demonstrate this expertise in a simple game of Ouzo. Maybe you should ask for your money back.

[ForgedinHell]

...
The irony? You don't even know how to reason worth a damn. No wonder you study philosophy, physics would leave you whimpering. You think insulting me for being an American somehow proves what? That you are smarter than I am? That it somehow refutes anything I have written here? All it does is reveal how pathetically stupid you are. If you had half a brain you would know that Americans consist of all sorts of different people with all sorts of different ideas. Calling someone a "yank" because they are an American is imbecilic at best.

Its why I don't dipshit. I call a certain type of American a Yank and you're it.

Physics is not my thing but my MSc in Advanced Information Technology says I can play in both fields, Arts and Sciences. Whereas I'm beginning to doubt you've been in any.

I note that once again you prefer to ignore any of the issues I raised, Yank.

That's hilarious. "Information technology"? You can probably get a degree in putting computer pieces together without even taking a class in physics, or even anything remotely involving advanced math. No, you can't play in either field, that's your problem.

[stsoc]

According to a strict interpretation of labor theory of property, capitalism is illegitimate, which means that so is state capitalism (which people mistakeingly call "socialism"), so socialism (which people call "libertartarian socialism") is then the correct option.