TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Capitalism
Pages (24): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 »

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I think you need to seize the means of earning right about now. you're coming across as a bizarre manchild that's angry becuase your life decisions have led you to borderline homelessness, and instead of fixing it, you want the entire world to change its economic policy to give a hand out. You're trying to gaslight the planet (and this forum) and being prick to anyone that points out your stupidity. Less memes, more paid work. Albeit macht frei Kenny. Is that communist enough for you?

Welcome to my ignore list!

I'm devastated

Poor little Kenny can't give as good as he gets.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the distinct lack of anything approaching a workable communist model in reality

There's just so much gold here, I can't believe you guys think I'm angry.

This guy never heard public schools and roads. Too funny.

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid There's just so much gold here,

Yet you're broke. Go figure.

I think Kenny is confused, under communism he would still have to work, you just get paid less. Instead of blaming himself for not holding a job he blames capitalism.

stfu igk, i blame you for being miserable psychopath who has no semblance of any real social life or anything useful at all
, fucking recipes, anything at all, to share with anyone on this forum except an extremely cringeworthy manner of trying to exert yourself in any kind of topic for the sake of finding any remnant of , i don't know friendship or whatever fucking thing, in this graveyard, that is all but gone out there in your real life. It is obvious to all the rest of us as you pretty much shit and vomit all over the place and try to get a dad joke in just so you can sleep soundly at night without jerking off to kiddie porn you sick pathetic fuck.

quote:

Originally posted by Zak McKracken Hey there watch it.... Scandinavistan is the true last commie land, our little capitalism is only for show and the fasade is about to fall, we seised the means of production

Right. So when does Ana in housekeeping get her share of Petter Stordalen's profits?

quote:

then overproduction which obviosly results in a very large reserve army of labour and of course the bourgeouse is satisfied with this now lowering salaries all over

Oh, so they're maximizing their profits at all costs. I thought we were living in communist Norway?

quote:

and increasing wellfare

Thanks to unions' and pro worker parties' continuous tug of war with capitalist interests. You know, the way social democracies always work?

quote:

Some key factors in the later scandianavistan*: - only two big mobile operators (the government dictates minimum two for "healthy" competition) - only two big TV operators (the government dictates minimum two for "healthy" competition) - only two big internet service providers (the government dictates minimum two for "healthy" competition) - only two big grocery / food conglomerates (the government dictates minimum two for "healthy" competition) - only two big electricity / power companies (the government dictates minimum two for "healthy" competition) - only two big electro gadget suppliers (the government dictates minimum two for "healthy" competition) - only two big furniture suppliers (the government dictates minimum two for "healthy" competition) - only two big clothes conglomerates (the government dictates minimum two for "healthy" competition) - only two big media conglomerates (the government dictates minimum two for "healthy" competition) - only two big bank and insurance companies (the government dictates minimum two for "healthy" competition) - only two big shopping mal conglomerates (the government dictates minimum two for "healthy" competition) - only two big hotel conglomerates (the government dictates minimum two for "healthy" competition)

Ah, government corporate advocates aid huge corporations in securing massive market shares, so that the shareholders will remain in power in order to keep on fueling the national economy. I wonder which economic principle it is that allows this to happen?

quote:

- finally: only one big semi-goverment-run oil company that basically generate all our tax wellfare by itself by exploiting the whole worlds natural resources and then invest it in global markets wisely (truly the seise the means of production model...)

Investing oil money in bonds from multinational corporations is now a communist idea? And this simply because our government decided to not blow our load for even more (on paper) profit as soon as we get the chance? Are you starting to see a pattern of who it is that really gets their hands on state profits?

quote:

socialist capitalism

Pick one.

quote:

we dont realy generate any real value

I agree that the petroleum industry dwarfs anything else that Norway brings to the global trade table, and I don't think Norway is a populous enough or arable enough country to compete with other major EU economies in terms of, say, IT/tech or agriculture. We definitely need ideas to boost our remaining GDP for a post-oil era. However, you're gonna have to present some rather compelling evidence if you want to convince me that burning through our oil fund is crucial in that endeavour. Especially when huge amounts of the money we will make in doing so will be stashed in tax havens.

looks like we need to add 'mixed economies' to the epically-long list of things kenny doesn't understand.

Maybe what Kenny means is Globalization? I mean, it's the less restrictive policies and practices necessary to allow the flow of goods, capital, labour, and services that facilitate the destruction of the environment and shatters livelihoods, non? Perhaps an oversimplification, but it comes down to that really. Globalization perpetuates capitalism, it's capitalism's best bud!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN looks like we need to add 'mixed economies' to the epically-long list of things kenny doesn't understand.

I understand you are a way bigger shameless idiot than Jack. Tell me again how communism has never worked, I have plenty more responses I wanna try.

quote:

Originally posted by Silky Johnson Maybe what Kenny means is Globalization?

Nah, I'm just talking strictly about the money and the exchange of services and goods. Globalization is a much more difficult phenomenon to assess, I think, since it is tied together to technology and human "advancement", time, in a much more fundamental way than the economic structure in place. It is in many ways inevitable that we become less nationalistic just like it is inevitable for capitalism to collapse in on itself.

quote:

Originally posted by Zak McKracken what im trying to say is that most of us work in big national companies protected by the government to block abroad competition making sure we have plenty of tax income to the country, while the real value comes from exploiting 3rd world either directly through oil&gas or indirectly through clever and immoral investements in other global exploiters.

This just sounds like a rehash of the old "not real capitalism" argument. I don't buy this idea that all we need is less regulation on capitalism in order to make sure people in less competitive economies won't suffer. Capitalism has no morals. It only cares about how much profit you can make, not what it does to the workers affected by said profit making. I would argue that this is partly why people support anarchism. Anarchists realize that it is an inevitability for a government-production synergy and all of its ills to affect a society as long as there is a nation state.

quote:

we sit in circles cutting each other hairs while our wealth grows. its a good commie model imo but not sustainable over time and it will hit us hard at some point. meanwhile we have the worst selection of products and services, just like in old soviet. i have no idea what the term is today but its not an open market with free competition and inovation.

Protectionism != communism (see Donald Trump's tariffs). Also, I don't agree with the idea that economies with large degrees of state intervention necessarily won't be innovative (see the Soviet Union's achievements during the Space Race). Sure, laissez-faire capitalism might innovate faster, but at what price? What good is rapid innovation when we are using up all of our finite natural resources in the process, speeding up the path to an all out resource war?

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper This just sounds like a rehash of the old "not real capitalism" argument. I don't buy this idea that all we need is less regulation on capitalism in order to make sure people in less competitive economies won't suffer. Capitalism has no morals. It only cares about how much profit you can make, not what it does to the workers affected by said profit making. I would argue that this is partly why people support anarchism. Anarchists realize that it is an inevitability for a government-production synergy and all of its ills to affect a society as long as there is a nation state.

Well, 'Capitalism' has no morals because it is not a being. It does not care about anything; it has no intentions, goals, or narratives.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper Protectionism != communism (see Donald Trump's tariffs). Also, I don't agree with the idea that economies with large degrees of state intervention necessarily won't be innovative (see the Soviet Union's achievements during the Space Race). Sure, laissez-faire capitalism might innovate faster, but at what price? What good is rapid innovation when we are using up all of our finite natural resources in the process, speeding up the path to an all out resource war?

I don't actually think it's necessarily impossible to have a highly innovative society and state intervention, look at South Korea and Taiwan, but the Soviet Union is probably not a good example.... Sure, they did well in the very early years of the Space Race, ergo Sputnik, although one could argue this was largely due to a combination of espionage and captive German scientists. Their innovations quickly declined, however, despite their impressive industrial-productive capabilities.

I suppose the hope is now that we will innovate our way out of the impending environmental disaster. Perhaps we will. But so long as the majority of humans are human, are motivated by material greed, that seems unlikely.

quote:

Originally posted by Zak McKracken im in no way claiming to be any expert of the topic im just saying that the norwegian model works for us because of luck. other countries cant copy it because they are A) too many people and B) too little resources, and C) in too much internal and external conflics. in norway we are all best friends with each other and we have no external enemies, of course it works - who cares what this small country do under the radar.

Scandinavia certainly benefits from a congruence of factors that are found separately elsewhere. The Scandinavian model would be extremely difficult to copy and implement in other places, unfortunately, due to how much it relies on cultural traits.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Well, 'Capitalism' has no morals because it is not a being. It does not care about anything; it has no intentions, goals, or narratives.

Man, you gotta be kidding me with this shit. So hilarious. Thanks sand leaper.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Well, 'Capitalism' has no morals because it is not a being. It does not care about anything; it has no intentions, goals, or narratives.

Exactly. That is why Profit �ber Alles isn't good enough if humans are to survive. We have to do better.

quote:

I suppose the hope is now that we will innovate our way out of the impending environmental disaster. Perhaps we will. But so long as the majority of humans are human, are motivated by material greed, that seems unlikely.

The human nature argument, eh? Why are you so convinced that humans HAVE TO be greedy and self-serving? Can we not learn to control and harness those impulses, the way we do with our other instincts so that a civilized society can actually work? Do you think not constantly being bombarded with incentives and opportunity to consume and produce could help in this regard? I like to give humans more credit than this, but I admit that it is a philosophical rabbit hole that someone more well read than me should tackle.

quote:

Originally posted by Zak McCracken Im in no way claiming to be any expert of the topic im just saying that the norwegian model works for us because of luck. other countries cant copy it because they are A) too many people and B) too little resources, and C) in too much internal and external conflics. in norway we are all best friends with each other and we have no external enemies, of course it works - who cares what this small country do under the radar. its an old hunter/gatherer, share society where we all concern about each other. the hunting/gathering part comes from the whole planet. try that in india.

It doesn't really matter. The Scandinavian model might be good for other smaller economies, but it's not good enough. Any reform within the existing capitalist framework will only delay the inevitable collapse, which will be followed by humans tearing each other to shreds over the last fresh water aquifers and the last patches of natural gas. The private ownership of the means of production solely for the purpose of profit must be replaced by a more sustainable idea. There is no other way around it. Hopefully, the innovation in the fields of cybernetics and automation will be fast enough to provide us with the right ideas before the shit hits the fan.

quote:

the true problem today is over population stimulated both by capitalism and socialism based on overproduction of natural resources.

Birth rates in the western world have dropped along with the rise of education levels and personal spending power. The greatest birth rates on the planet are still found in poor African nations, where poor education, poor access to birth control and grueling rural lifestyles are three of the main drivers of said rates. Do you think the concentration of global wealth in the hands of a select few people will be productive in the effort to reverse this trend?

The problem with the "bring the third world out of poverty and they'll stop breeding" argument is that it means dramatically increasing the environmental footprint of billions of people for quite a long window before their birth rate can be expected to drop below replacement rate. It just results in more consumption.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J The problem with the "bring the third world out of poverty and they'll stop breeding" argument is that it means dramatically increasing the environmental footprint of billions of people for quite a long window before their birth rate can be expected to drop below replacement rate. It just results in more consumption.

It does if we bring them out of poverty and into the same capitalist economy as the west, yes. Is that necessarily something that has to happen, though?

I feel like a lot of people in this thread are falling back on the same human nature argument that Lews just presented, and I don't find it that convincing.

They're all fucking cynical cowards. They bring up environmentalism when you bring up the ills of the system. Fucking pussies.

Just bomb everyone we don't like!

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper It does if we bring them out of poverty and into the same capitalist economy as the west, yes. Is that necessarily something that has to happen, though? I feel like a lot of people in this thread are falling back on the same human nature argument that Lews just presented, and I don't find it that convincing.

Well we're back to designing our hypothetical Communist paradise. As I've said in this thread, I can't see much inherent in Communism that sets a lifestyle limit on its population, beyond a vague notion of "need". Without the shift in attitude I mentioned earlier towards lifestyle and luxury, I can only see a Communist model being accepted if it guarantees a significantly more lavish lifestyle than the austere misery that previous regimes have provided. And that doesn't solve the problem.

And here we're being purely hypothetical. Realistically, wealth distribution isn't going to manifest as a sudden global shift to universal Communism. Which is why I think this is a blue-sky line of thinking towards the enormous environmental problem.

Realistically, we're just going to drive headlong into crisis until it forcefully remaps the world, the environment and the level and distribution of the human population. I can't see any way of avoiding that outcome with current global apathy and ignorance towards the subject. But I would target top-down population control and enforced carbon quotas for each Western citizen as the best practical solutions.

Anyway, my main point is that both Capitalism and Communism are equally fucked if humans don't collectively decide to surrender over-consumptive lifestyles. That attitude shift is the core challenge, and the economic system in which it occurs is a side-show. That's all I've been trying to get across in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Silky Johnson Just bomb everyone we don't like!

Well more like bomb poor people because they fucking get their shit together and they're slowing us down. Overpopulation uknow.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Anyway, my main point is that both Capitalism and Communism are equally fucked if humans don't collectively decide to surrender over-consumptive lifestyles. That attitude shift is the core challenge, and the economic system in which it occurs is a side-show. That's all I've been trying to get across in this thread.

I'm trying to be nice Jack, but you just don't wanna see the fallacies in your argument no matter how much they are pointed out to you. Humans as a whole cannot be collectively blamed for overconsumption as this a phenomenon of capitalism. How can you blame all humans for overconsuming when the vast majority of us live in porverty? 10 million people die of preventable causes, every year, and you wanna blame them. You are looking at the side show like it's the main show and missing the main show altogether. You need to have a more proactive, radical vision for the future because that is what the time and circumstances call for. We are all in agreement that we are all fucked if something doesn't change, but what you're proposing is just not good enough. There needs to be a more radical shift. It's not the time for pussyfooting.

Edit: I take that back, we are not ALL in a agreement obviously, but I thought it was understood.

i would force convicted felons to fight in the colosseums and reintroduce slavery

i would enslave the russians and portuguese

quote:

Originally posted by planetaryplayer i would force convicted felons to fight in the colosseums and reintroduce slavery i would enslave the russians and portuguese

We should just instate you as leader of the free world and all our problems will be dealt with. All hail the Scorpion King.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J We should just instate you as leader of the free world and all our problems will be dealt with. All hail the Scorpion King.

you can be secretary of the interior with that attitude

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.