Jump to content

The truth about your 'freedom'


Lenin
 Share

Recommended Posts

If u starve in America you are legit handicapped either mentally or physically or just not even trying

so our veterans that are homless aren't trying? You really need to wake up and truly see how fucked up the US is
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so our veterans that are homless aren't trying? You really need to wake up and truly see how fucked up the US is

Veterans that starve are actually most probably mentally handicapped or suffering from a psychological disorder. And if you don't like the US you can get out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Veterans that starve are actually most probably mentally handicapped or suffering from a psychological disorder. And if you don't like the US you can get out

I'm not going to argue with a person who thinks the US is so innocent lmao

if they aren't handicapped mentally or physically yeah

so you're telling me that the soldiers who fought for this country shouldn't be taken care of?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to argue with a person who thinks the US is so innocent lmao

so you're telling me that the soldiers who fought for this country shouldn't be taken care of?

Not on my dime you damn commie. Soon we will replace these meatbag cowards (wahhh PTSD) with Drones that shoot white phosphorous on enemy terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to argue with a person who thinks the US is so innocent lmaoso you're telling me that the soldiers who fought for this country shouldn't be taken care of?

are u ok? Ur taking what I'm saying out of context
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet you're a fucking Zizek fanboy, too? Don't get me wrong, I love the red-lefty ideal that we could somehow redistribute our resources equally across the world to solve all manner of problems. However, in reality, it isn't feasible [for many reasons]. Not now, at least. Whether you like it or not the component phantasm of freedom within capitalism isn't going away. I despise the way capitalism disregards the essential needs of humans, but underlying capitalism is a ruthlessly efficient system for distributing resources: the market economy. We're yet to match it in terms of efficiency; centralised systems were tried, and they failed.

 

We'll solve our issues eventually. Technological innovation will liberate us. 

Zizek is a joker most of the time but there are enlightening things that he says. You haven't explained/elaborated why these "red-lefty" ideals aren't feasible. You haven't explained/elaborated why the "phantasm of freedom" is staying. You haven't explained/elaborated how on earth Capitalism is an efficient system for distributing resources when in the core of the theory it promotes few individuals owning capital/necessities whilst others have to work tirelessly for them. The market economy can be feasible if it is controlled, or else it is doomed to collapse the economy. You will always have those who create oligarchies in the market ruthlessly eliminating all competition and forcing a few companies to own sectors. You will always have the more powerful companies increasing the pricing but still make more money than those who sell the same product for lower prices. You will always have the workers exploited even if they work harder and longer hours than the bosses/richer. When the economy fluctuates the Capitalists will not invest in businesses and therefor wealth will not be distributed across the economy (a major requirement for Capitalism to continue).

 

About the failing; here's a good question for you - does failed slave revolts mean abolition doesn't work? & there has never been a perfect or near-good example of a revolution. Many were close but the established revolution/society was attacked/manipulated by individuals.

 

Ofcourse we solve our issues, such as world-wide diseases, global warming, poverty, decreasing natural resources, greater psychological disorders etc. The reality is we're far from solving these issues as the wealth and resources required to repair or decrease negative aspects of Earth etc. are in the hands of those who will never share it with the rest of the world. The ironic thing is their wealth was gained through the exploitation, the enslavement and killing of those who are poor, and now that there is nothing left to take from them, you just let them rot? 600 years of slavery didn't end because humans got smarter/kinder or of technological advancements, it ended because great movements were established, because people started giving their lives to change the system, and thats what you're unaware of.

 

I like the cut of your jib @ but things like these defo go nowehre on sb

If I can aid a few people out of hundreds or thousands, it is still better than remaining quite and letting the world die like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not on my dime you damn commie. Soon we will replace these meatbag cowards (wahhh PTSD) with Drones that shoot white phosphorous on enemy terrorists.

You do know the US is basically a terrorist country right? You do know how the government has killed so many innocent civilians including women and children in the middle east? You do know that the US is ISIS. Stop being a sheep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zizek is a joker most of the time but there are enlightening things that he says. You haven't explained/elaborated why these "red-lefty" ideals aren't feasible. You haven't explained/elaborated why the "phantasm of freedom" is staying. You haven't explained/elaborated how on earth Capitalism is an efficient system for distributing resources when in the core of the theory it promotes few individuals owning capital/necessities whilst others have to work tirelessly for them. The market economy can be feasible if it is controlled, or else it is doomed to collapse the economy. You will always have those who create oligarchies in the market ruthlessly eliminating all competition and forcing a few companies to own sectors. You will always have the more powerful companies increasing the pricing but still make more money than those who sell the same product for lower prices. You will always have the workers exploited even if they work harder and longer hours than the bosses/richer. When the economy fluctuates the Capitalists will not invest in businesses and therefor wealth will not be distributed across the economy (a major requirement for Capitalism to continue).

 

About the failing; here's a good question for you - does failed slave revolts mean abolition doesn't work? & there has never been a perfect or near-good example of a revolution. Many were close but the established revolution/society was attacked/manipulated by individuals.

 

Ofcourse we solve our issues, such as world-wide diseases, global warming, poverty, decreasing natural resources, greater psychological disorders etc. The reality is we're far from solving these issues as the wealth and resources required to repair or decrease negative aspects of Earth etc. are in the hands of those who will never share it with the rest of the world. The ironic thing is their wealth was gained through the exploitation, the enslavement and killing of those who are poor, and now that there is nothing left to take from them, you just let them rot? 600 years of slavery didn't end because humans got smarter/kinder or of technological advancements, it ended because great movements were established, because people started giving their lives to change the system, and thats what you're unaware of.

 

If I can aid a few people out of hundreds or thousands, it is still better than remaining quite and letting the world die like this.

 

The problem with gommunism is that it has to use violence to re-distribute resources, discourages trade, profit and innovation, and is used by brown sticky stuffbag workers to justify stealing from stockholders. If you have the ability and brains to run a company then go find investors and start your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep that's why in America we have a McDonalds on every street

I love capitalism, that enabled the creation of user-friendly Internet, games like Runescape, gave peopel like you and me the means to buy computers and Internet access, and this fucking commie broccoli who started this topic just needs to accept that FUCK COMMUNISM AND FUCK KARL MARX.

Yep that's why in America we have a McDonalds on every street

I love capitalism, that enabled the creation of user-friendly Internet, games like Runescape, gave peopel like you and me the means to buy computers and Internet access, and this fucking commie broccoli who started this topic just needs to accept that FUCK COMMUNISM AND FUCK KARL MARX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with gommunism is that it has to use violence to re-distribute resources, discourages trade, profit and innovation, and is used by brown sticky stuffbag workers to justify stealing from stockholders. If you have the ability and brains to run a company then go find investors and start your own.

 

You are cauliflower and ignorant yes, but if you actually replied seriously I would respond properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are cauliflower and ignorant yes, but if you actually replied seriously I would respond properly.

Why are communists so envious of other people's wealth? How do you Commies have the audacity to complain about people working for too long or for income inequality when in Communist-countries there's massive famine (Soviet Union, China. etc.), extermination of educated/intelligentsia (China, Cambodia, Soviet Union), lack of access to basic human goods, a lack of infrastructure, lack of human rights etc?

 

Why is it, that people who have never lived under Communism, have rose-tinted glasses for it, whereas people who have lived under Communism rule can't bear to leave it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of implementing communism or socialism is too idealist for my taste, although I do agree with some aspects of it. I think in most first world countries we have come too far for much to change without a major shift of power through our "votes". In this day and age with the technology available (and especially when the government has access to resources citizens simply can't compete with) it would be next to impossible for this type of system to be established successfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't explained/elaborated why these "red-lefty" ideals aren't feasible. 

 

Feasibility: What's your plan? blank slate or forced redistribution [of resources]? The latter will require expounding the moral case for overriding an individual's property rights. Face it, people like their possessions. Moreover, how are you going to (1) obtain the necessary information to fully understand how those resources should be distributed [inefficiency beckons], and (2) Process that information [bounded reality is going to hit you like a fucking train]. I don't much like Capitalism either, the inequalities it engenders are reprehensible. However, the individual is always in the best position to know what he or she needs. The feasibility issue is simply that no centralised system [that we've devised so far] of resource distribution can handle the quantity of information in the way that markets can.

 

 

You haven't explained/elaborated why the "phantasm of freedom" is staying. 

 

This sort of follows from the above. Moreover, the illusion of freedom is something we live with for most of our lives in some form. Example: Metaphysics, determinism and free will. I always find it difficult to convincingly refute determinism, but I'm never willing to let go of the idea of free will. I may accept all manner of philosophical doctrines that lead me to the conclusion that nothing I do I really have control over; yet, when I'm stood in Starbucks deliberating over which beverage I'd like I always feel like I'm free to chose.

 

I'm quite willing to accept the illusion of choice that I feel day in day out because it's a functional idea. This, to me, can transfer over to political/economic freedom. It's part of the price we pay for a system that creates inequality, but also drives innovation. 

 

Also, note: by most (and a wide set of) measurements those with capitalist systems often rank highly in Happiness/Quality of Life indices. Admittedly, those with regulated, social democratic capitalist systems rank highest, e.g. Scandinavian countries. So, the whole, "your freedom is a lie" thing doesn't seem to be that big of a deal to most people. 

 

 

 You haven't explained/elaborated how on earth Capitalism is an efficient system for distributing resources when in the core of the theory it promotes few individuals owning capital/necessities whilst others have to work tirelessly for them. The market economy can be feasible if it is controlled, or else it is doomed to collapse the economy. You will always have those who create oligarchies in the market ruthlessly eliminating all competition and forcing a few companies to own sectors. You will always have the more powerful companies increasing the pricing but still make more money than those who sell the same product for lower prices. You will always have the workers exploited even if they work harder and longer hours than the bosses/richer. When the economy fluctuates the Capitalists will not invest in businesses and therefor wealth will not be distributed across the economy (a major requirement for Capitalism to continue).

 

Isn't capitalism's core premise private ownership and enterprise? Its core premise is that each person should be in a position to make their own economic decisions. Active agency, etc. There is a consequential asymmetry of ownership [and power] within capitalist systems for xyz reasons. Now, capitalism has serious issues as you outlined: predatory practises, manipulation of markets, exploiting, etc. Nevertheless, ref. (1): the individual agent is still in the best position to understand his/her needs and wants. Despite its flaws capitalism does provide an apparatus by which X individual can act in A, B, C ways to obtain his or her desired ends, i.e. earn munnies, buy goods. 

 

Anyway, the Communist ideal is not the solution. Pragmatic socialist policies that seek reform and regulation of markets are the best approach because they're a compromise between the two extremes. 

 
 

Ofcourse we solve our issues, such as world-wide diseases, global warming, poverty, decreasing natural resources, greater psychological disorders etc. The reality is we're far from solving these issues as the wealth and resources required to repair or decrease negative aspects of Earth etc. are in the hands of those who will never share it with the rest of the world. The ironic thing is their wealth was gained through the exploitation, the enslavement and killing of those who are poor, and now that there is nothing left to take from them, you just let them rot? 600 years of slavery didn't end because humans got smarter/kinder or of technological advancements, it ended because great movements were established, because people started giving their lives to change the system, and thats what you're unaware of.

 

tbh something like a Communist utopia is probably where we'll end up, but only once we've solved scarcity. When I say "technological innovation will liberate us" I have my eye on the potential of Nuclear Fusion to provide abundant clean energy; genetically modified crops to produce near-abundant food supplies. Look at the potential brown sticky stuffshow that automation of jobs could cause. It is not inconceivable that in 100, 200 years we may arrive at a point at which we can automate every production job - production of food, housing, etc blah blah - and quite literally give everyone whatever they want, thereby removing the need for a market economy to distribute goods [because scarcity is no longer an issue, you just have a huge centralised pile of everything and x person requires a good and gets it instantly].

 

also, innovation in capitalist markets is unrivalled. 

 

I almost get the feeling that your gripe isn't with capitalism and the markets, but more so the distribution of power in which political elites are able to change things in their favour. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@@cheshirecatv2

 

Feasibility: What's your plan? blank slate or forced redistribution [of resources]? The latter will require expounding the moral case for overriding an individual's property rights. Face it, people like their possessions. Moreover, how are you going to (1) obtain the necessary information to fully understand how those resources should be distributed [inefficiency beckons], and (2) Process that information [bounded reality is going to hit you like a fucking train]. I don't much like Capitalism either, the inequalities it engenders are reprehensible. However, the individual is always in the best position to know what he or she needs. The feasibility issue is simply that no centralised system [that we've devised so far] of resource distribution can handle the quantity of information in the way that markets can.

You don't know our plan but believe it isn't feasible? That is a very smart thing to do.

 

"MORAL CASE"? Are you actually serious? The very property and rights you talk about originated with violence, slavery, domination, and massacres over those who had very little from the rich. Majority of the western hemisphere's wealth was gained through slavery. There are only a few countries that the British haven't invaded and when they died the U.S picked up. You assume the existence of a human overrides everything in the universe and that somehow we can own a property that existed long before us.

 

(1) The necessary information will be gained through the workers of society - who, by working, already have the necessary information on redistribution. The level of resources going to different areas will be decided on various factors which will ultimately get voted at a council of workers/individuals living in that society such as time, importance etc.

 

(2) Already explained in (1)

 

Not really. Capitalism pushes for things in society that benefit it and vice versa. It doesn't push for things that are both healthy and important most of the time. Majority of the capitalist world is unaware/ignorant of global warming. You get so much useless products released to people that they do not need and barely use. I've never met a single person to use every single function in a phone or near to all of it. Most people use the same features but spend 2x more money everytime they buy a new phone - do they need it? No. Half of the things you own you've probably left at the side for a long time. Its simplistic desire which fades after minimal time.

 

Can you please define Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Capitalism etc. so I know what page you're on? Because right now you've taken something that isn't a criticism and jumbled it up to make it look like a criticism.

 

 

This sort of follows from the above. Moreover, the illusion of freedom is something we live with for most of our lives in some form. Example: Metaphysics, determinism and free will. I always find it difficult to convincingly refute determinism, but I'm never willing to let go of the idea of free will. I may accept all manner of philosophical doctrines that lead me to the conclusion that nothing I do I really have control over; yet, when I'm stood in Starbucks deliberating over which beverage I'd like I always feel like I'm free to chose.

 

I'm quite willing to accept the illusion of choice that I feel day in day out because it's a functional idea. This, to me, can transfer over to political/economic freedom. It's part of the price we pay for a system that creates inequality, but also drives innovation. 

 

Also, note: by most (and a wide set of) measurements those with capitalist systems often rank highly in Happiness/Quality of Life indices. Admittedly, those with regulated, social democratic capitalist systems rank highest, e.g. Scandinavian countries. So, the whole, "your freedom is a lie" thing doesn't seem to be that big of a deal to most people.

 

To your philosophical pov, its not accurate. Free-will is a delusion. When you go to that starbucks you're given the choices, you're given the pathway to walk to the stand, you're given the lighting and the table. The woman/man who chose that, was influenced by things from befor etc. etc. it all goes back in a spiral of events and factors. You again have the illusion of freedom, but you're ignorantly clinging onto it and not "willing to let go of the idea of free will".

 

Again though,
You haven't explained/elaborated why the "phantasm of freedom" is staying.
 

 

tbh something like a Communist utopia is probably where we'll end up, but only once we've solved scarcity. When I say "technological innovation will liberate us" I have my eye on the potential of Nuclear Fusion to provide abundant clean energy; genetically modified crops to produce near-abundant food supplies. Look at the potential brown sticky stuffshow that automation of jobs could cause. It is not inconceivable that in 100, 200 years we may arrive at a point at which we can automate every production job - production of food, housing, etc blah blah - and quite literally give everyone whatever they want, thereby removing the need for a market economy to distribute goods [because scarcity is no longer an issue, you just have a huge centralised pile of everything and x person requires a good and gets it instantly].

 

The Socialist Utopia* was a metaphoric concept of a society and is not a literal way of living. Scarcity will keep growing, and even if your eye is on nuclear fusion or modified crops, it still takes wealth and resources to get to those levels that the very rich will never give. Thats the point. That level will never be reached at this model of living. Before technological advancements you need to help the very poor who have never lived as you do, as you get up on your computer and reply back - they have no comprehension of this. Clean energy and genetically-modified crops (which is not a good way btw) is the least of many dangerous problems/issues.

Market economy doesn't distribute goods - I already explained that which you ignored & didn't reply to.
 

 

Isn't capitalism's core premise private ownership and enterprise? Its core premise is that each person should be in a position to make their own economic decisions. Active agency, etc. There is a consequential asymmetry of ownership [and power] within capitalist systems for xyz reasons. Now, capitalism has serious issues as you outlined: predatory practises, manipulation of markets, exploiting, etc. Nevertheless, ref. (1): the individual agent is still in the best position to understand his/her needs and wants. Despite its flaws capitalism does provide an apparatus by which X individual can act in A, B, C ways to obtain his or her desired ends, i.e. earn munnies, buy goods. 

 

Anyway, the Communist ideal is not the solution. Pragmatic socialist policies that seek reform and regulation of markets are the best approach because they're a compromise between the two extremes.

 

Private ownership over the means of production yes, enterprise not so much. Capitalism is an economic structure in which individuals can own private property and use it to gain property through wage-labour, with minimal interference of the state.

 

It seems illogical to make a statement then state "for xyz reasons".

 

How is the individual in the best position to understand his/her needs and wants? Expand on your point with elaboration, examples, evidence etc. Stop making blank statements.
 

Communism is not an extreme, you assume that due to your experiences with the dictatorships that evolved such as the Soviet Union and the Cuban revolution. Socialism is a mere step back from Communism, and you not knowing that tells me what I need to know about your political and economical knowledge.

 

Don't just jump in like this because I'm 99.9% sure you do not know what these theories mean. Like right now you're dodging majority of what I've written and gon' off on a tangent. Throughout this post you've made blank statements (& copy and pasted the same quotes/replies) and ignored my reply asking you to elaborate. Instead of trying to write paragraphs on a subject you're not so experienced in read a few books, watch a few arguments, watch a few documentaries etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...