Time to reject the Malthusian notion that our lives must be justified by drudgery.

[abandonconflict]

Apologies but imo that deserves a "you just went full retard" meme. Consider a Paleolithic man, hardly encumbered by material possessions. He typically had two possessions, listed in order of importance.
1) spear
2) garment
Neither (as a good spear has a knapped-stone point) grows on a tree.

To extrapolate, a sustainable/agrarian society has abandoned the skies to the ancestral gods. Don't counsel retreat; that can only lead to extinction. cn

I stand fast to what I said. There is enough of everything required to sustain humanity to go around, but not enough work to go around to make it possible for said species to employ all in order to empower them to buy everything required to sustain...humanity.

 

[abandonconflict]

I can't comment since I'm just not getting a grip on how you mean it originally. I thought a central plank of your thesis was that justification is to be decoupled from reward, like pay. cn

Central thesis:

"If you can't buy food, you don't deserve to eat" = old, bad idea, forget that way of thinking.

 

[Doer]

I stand fast to what I said. There is enough of everything required to sustain humanity to go around, but not enough work to go around to make it possible for said species to employ all in order to empower them to buy everything required to sustain...humanity.

But, you are proposing homogenize sustenance level for all. Why would anyone work without hope of attaining something of value for their families? It has been every so. If a man won't hunt, he won't get fed. This reality seems to irk you. You want to go back to subsistance? You won't get fed if you don't work, even with that.
And you may become a BNW Beta slave, on this slope.

If it is all supposed to go to a grass hovel for all, you are on the wrong planet. Warlords will have better hovels.

And the Pigs stand next to the AC being more equal than the other Animals on the Farm. Impossible and not a dream. A nightmare.

 

[abandonconflict]

But, you are proposing homogenize sustenance level for all. Why would anyone work without hope of attaining something of value for their families.

If it is all supposed to go to a grass hovel for all, you are on the wrong planet. Warlords will have better hovels.

And the Pigs stand next to the AC being more equal rofl than the other Animals on the Farm. Impossible and not a dream. A nightmare.

You're a troll. I suggested nothing of the sort.

 

[cannabineer]

Central thesis:

"If you can't buy food, you don't deserve to eat" = old, bad idea, forget that way of thinking.

I agree that the idea is brutal, but recognizing its brutality does not recommend a workable replacement to me.

And I also maintain that that isn't a matter of justification. It's more of a practical question to me: "if you can't buy food, how will you eat?" And it serves as a goad to do or die. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

I agree that the idea is brutal, but recognizing its brutality does not recommend a workable replacement to me.

And I also maintain that that isn't a matter of justification. It's more of a practical question to me: "if you can't buy food, how will you eat?" And it serves as a goad to do or die. cn

Millions are dying everyday.

 

[Doer]

Good for you. You're starting to get it.

You can't teach Grandma to suck eggs, sonny boy! Besides you make these cruel and unusual assumptions that no one gets it but you.

And I'm not saying it is a justification of my Life or the other nonsense. It is self justification, of not leaving the trash there. I can't justify the lack of action on my part. That is it. I'm certainly not trying to justify my existence. Our existence is a fact.

Very practical. No theory involved..

 

[Doer]

You're a troll. I suggested nothing of the sort.

I know you are not suggesting and I didn't say you were. You love the out of context attack. I refer to books, future shock stuff, on the outcomes of wishful thinking. Reality occurs. And there is plenty of history, as well.

 

[abandonconflict]

I'm certainly not trying to justify my existence. Our existence is a fact.

You're starting to get it. Good for you.

 

[Doer]

Oh I get it alright, turd bowl.

 

[abandonconflict]

turd bowl.

You're starting to get it, good for you.

 

[abandonconflict]

I'm missing something. How did we sidestep "from everybody/to everybody"? Are you agreeing or disagreeing? If disagreeing, what are you identifying as Marxism's central mistake? cn

Sorry, this got overlooked while Doer was trolling the thread.

In simple terms, Marx sought to create surplus in order to go on a problem solving binge. Essentially, problems were not solved or surplus was not generated. People continued to up hold the system. It was as corrupt as our false capitalism (better described as corporatism). However in our corrupt system, there is excess generated, but it is spent on war and lining the pockets of the opulent.

Now is where we reach our impasse, where we admit all systems are susceptible to corruption. That the very inherent flaw is in the heart of man. People must rise themselves, out of the mess. Each and every single human being, since society consists of individuals, must evolve, in order for the society to move forward. One practical example is purchase. Purchase is more effective against bad policy than voting. Boycotts are as effective as worker strikes. People need to constantly question and challenge the validity of authority. Or they can just stay home, be safe, and say, I've got mine, and befriend people who've got theirs, and send their kids off to war for the flag. Let's not think about the barefoot hungry Muslim teenagers.

Sooner or later this dumb fucking species will be replaced by post human people capable of running things with out the constant threat of population bottlenecks.

This is how I see our society.

 

[abandonconflict]

I believe we can and will rise to the challenge and solve our problems.

 

[cannabineer]

Sorry, this got overlooked while Doer was trolling the thread.

In simple terms, Marx sought to create surplus in order to go on a problem solving binge. Essentially, problems were not solved or surplus was not generated. People continued to up hold the system. It was as corrupt as our false capitalism (better described as corporatism). However in our corrupt system, there is excess generated, but it is spent on war and lining the pockets of the opulent.

Now is where we reach our impasse, where we admit all systems are susceptible to corruption. That the very inherent flaw is in the heart of man. People must rise themselves, out of the mess. Each and every single human being, since society consists of individuals, must evolve, in order for the society to move forward. One practical example is purchase. Purchase is more effective against bad policy than voting. Boycotts are as effective as worker strikes. People need to constantly question and challenge the validity of authority. Or they can just stay home, be safe, and say, I've got mine, and befriend people who've got theirs, and send their kids off to war for the flag. Let's not think about the barefoot hungry Muslim teenagers.

Sooner or later this dumb fucking species will be replaced by post human people capable of running things with out the constant threat of population bottlenecks.

This is how I see our society.

I agree with the bolded.
I was unaware that Marx' strategy was to create a surplus. (I am left to muse about how he would have done so. Handing over the means of production to the workers didn't quite have the bracing effect he anticipated.) But the real question is, how would this surplus have been useful in solving the biggest problem of all ... greed? Greed is the ultimate double-edged sword. it is the only durable motive for enterprise, and it is also the source of economic inequality. However I think greed is bred deep into our bones, and even if 99+% of people were somehow de-greeded, the residue would rejoice at the target-rich environment handed to them on the proverbial silver platter. This imo scuttles your idea of individuals successfully claiming a greedless society. It defies human nature, and the remaining natural humans would spoil the game for all. The Prisoner's Dilemma variant of the Nash equilibrium is a good schematized model for this.

So yes. A better society requires posthumans. Leninist ideologues admitted as much when they had to invent the New Soviet man, who reflexively chooses the weaker "cooperate" side of the Prisoner's matrix. Only by eradicating "matrix defectors" can such a society be held together. And at that point, anarcho[fill in the blank] suddenly becomes a practical alternative.
But it requires posthuman individuals. You hit that one in the X-ring imo. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

I agree with the bolded.
I was unaware that Marx' strategy was to create a surplus. (I am left to muse about how he would have done so. Handing over the means of production to the workers didn't quite have the bracing effect he anticipated.) But the real question is, how would this surplus have been useful in solving the biggest problem of all ... greed? Greed is the ultimate double-edged sword. it is the only durable motive for enterprise, and it is also the source of economic inequality. However I think greed is bred deep into our bones, and even if 99+% of people were somehow de-greeded, the residue would rejoice at the target-rich environment handed to them on the proverbial silver platter. This imo scuttles your idea of individuals successfully claiming a greedless society. It defies human nature, and the remaining natural humans would spoil the game for all. The Prisoner's Dilemma variant of the Nash equilibrium is a good schematized model for this.

So yes. A better society requires posthumans. Leninist ideologues admitted as much when they had to invent the New Soviet man, who reflexively chooses the weaker "cooperate" side of the Prisoner's matrix. Only by eradicating "matrix defectors" can such a society be held together. And at that point, anarcho[fill in the blank] suddenly becomes a practical alternative.
But it requires posthuman individuals. You hit that one in the X-ring imo. cn

You say it as if every successive generation were not post human to some extent.

Yes Marx sought to create surplus, but the workers never really took control, a vanguard party did, then they became the state.

 

[cannabineer]

You say it as if every successive generation were not post human to some extent.

Yes Marx sought to create surplus, but the workers never really took control, a vanguard party did, then they became the state.

Every successive generation has been as human as the last. "Posthuman" has a nonhuman component to it, implying either natural divergence (speciation) or unnatural, e.g. reengineering ourselves. My money is on option B. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

Every successive generation has been as human as the last. "Posthuman" has a nonhuman component to it, implying either natural divergence (speciation) or unnatural, e.g. reengineering ourselves. My money is on option B. cn

Well, in order to do that, we need to certainly let go of some old ideas.

 

[echelon1k1]

I believe we can and will rise to the challenge and solve our problems.

I thoroughly believe that too but to get there some obstacles will have to be........ Removed.

 

[Doer]

II was unaware that Marx' strategy was to create a surplus. (I am left to muse about how he would have done so. Handing over the means of production to the workers didn't quite have the bracing effect he anticipated.) But the real question is, how would this surplus have been useful in solving the biggest problem of all ... greed? cn

You know that Keynes was suggesting this very Marxism. The core stupidly is exactly this. Govt can't create and maintain the surplus because of greed. All theses theories are just pap, a form of conspiracy theory. Conspiracy wishes there were a higher power. Religion is a conspiracy theory.

Nothing is that easy, We wish there was a model that would work, be stable, fulfill the emotional needs of everyone as well sustainable, plus, (we forget) attainment. Personal attainment is a very basic need. Self interest is everything.

All theories forget about attainment. That is what drives us. To try to jack us out of that with social tinkering and emotion tampering is not going to work. It is proven, already.

 

[abandonconflict]

You know that Keynes was suggesting this very Marxism. The core stupidly is exactly this. Govt can't create and maintain the surplus because of greed. All theses theories are just pap, a form of conspiracy theory. Conspiracy wishes there were a higher power. Religion is a conspiracy theory.

Nothing is that easy, We wish there was a model that would work, be stable, fulfill the emotional needs of everyone as well sustainable, plus, (we forget) attainment. Personal attainment is a very basic need. Self interest is everything.

All theories forget about attainment. That is what drives us. To try to jack us out of that with social tinkering and emotion tampering is not going to work. It is proven, already.

So since greed can create a surplus, we should accept it and let them keep it, and continue to uphold it?

Why even create any surplus? Fuck John Locke.