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.
Central thesis:
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.
You're a troll. I suggested nothing of the sort.
I agree that the idea is brutal, but recognizing its brutality does not recommend a workable replacement to me.
Millions are dying everyday.
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.
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.
You're starting to get it. Good for you.
Sorry, this got overlooked while Doer was trolling the thread.
I agree with the bolded.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.
You say it as if every successive generation were not post human to some extent.
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.
I thoroughly believe that too but to get there some obstacles will have to be........ Removed.
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.
So since greed can create a surplus, we should accept it and let them keep it, and continue to uphold it?
