Karl Marx
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-09-2010, 09:03 PM
RE: Karl Marx
Hey, 2buckchuck.

I lead off with a Ferris Bueller joke and you think I'm taking it too seriously?

As for your empathy and peace line, if I signed off "have a nice day" would you be like "despite your posturing about nice days and possessing them..."? What my well wishes have to do with my argument are beyond me.

And just for the record, you tell me that we're going to learn by disagreeing and in the next breath you tell me you're done with me because you can't convince me of anything?

<twists mustache> Now if you'll excuse me if have to retire to the angry dome so I can purge myself of anything I have learned here and plan my next irrational, mean-spirited, comedy free and pig-headed rant. Mwahahahahahaha <adjusts monocle>.

Despite any doubts you might have about it, I wish you:

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2010, 09:06 PM
RE: Karl Marx
Getting off track has never really seemed to be a problem here. To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a complaint about it here before. One of the things I like about this group of misfits. They seem to accept, and dare I say, embrace, the "evolution" of conversation.
I think it comes with being a self moderated forum. Noone to complain to but your peers if you don't like the direction of a thread.

Everyone give yourselves a pat on the back. LOL.....

Now get back on topic dammit!

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2010, 09:22 PM
RE: Karl Marx
This reminds me of my favorite childhood nursery rhyme:

Roses are red
violets are blue
I'm ADHD and
... hey, look, something shiny! Cool!

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2010, 07:26 AM
 
RE: Karl Marx
(03-09-2010 09:03 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, 2buckchuck.

I lead off with a Ferris Bueller joke and you think I'm taking it too seriously?

...
Despite any doubts you might have about it, I wish you:

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
I just decided I don't have time for this ... I'm under a certain amount of stress from the prospect of imminent overseas travel, which I always dread no matter what the destination. Internet communication of intent is notoriously inaccurate, so perhaps we have crossed wires unintentionally.
Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2010, 06:39 AM
RE: Karl Marx
Hey, 2buckchuck.

Cool, cool and cool.

Have fun traveling!

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2010, 03:53 PM
RE: Karl Marx
(26-08-2010 12:35 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(26-08-2010 11:03 AM)TruthAddict Wrote:  Materialism is assigning too much importance, cherishing too much, and obsessing over material goods and objects.

Technically, economic materialism is nothing more than saying that material goods are important. All economic cultures necessarily think this. Otherwise, their subscribers would starve to death (food is a material good too, you know). What you describe is greed, not materialism.



Seriously, though, if these people have the means and the desire to live their life that way, let 'em. It may be stupid, but it does you no harm.

The main problem with run away consumerism is run away enviornmental damage. It would be OK if they weren't ruining the systems that make this a good world to live on. I would like to see a lid put on excess consumerism. Our children's children will be living in the mess that we create.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2010, 03:59 PM
 
RE: Karl Marx
(05-09-2010 03:53 PM)No J. Wrote:  
(26-08-2010 12:35 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(26-08-2010 11:03 AM)TruthAddict Wrote:  Materialism is assigning too much importance, cherishing too much, and obsessing over material goods and objects.

Technically, economic materialism is nothing more than saying that material goods are important. All economic cultures necessarily think this. Otherwise, their subscribers would starve to death (food is a material good too, you know). What you describe is greed, not materialism.



Seriously, though, if these people have the means and the desire to live their life that way, let 'em. It may be stupid, but it does you no harm.

The main problem with run away consumerism is run away enviornmental damage. It would be OK if they weren't ruining the systems that make this a good world to live on. I would like to see a lid put on excess consumerism. Our children's children will be living in the mess that we create.

This is exactly my problem with it. I also don't like multinational corporations manipulating people into a lullaby. I don't know if this is valid, but I feel as if there is a link between political ignorance and materialistic bliss.
Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2010, 03:59 PM
 
RE: Karl Marx
No J. Wrote:The main problem with run away consumerism is run away enviornmental damage. It would be OK if they weren't ruining the systems that make this a good world to live on. I would like to see a lid put on excess consumerism. Our children's children will be living in the mess that we create.

I disagree.

I think that you can have rampant consumerism and still be ecologically responsible. The problem is not how much we purchase, but how those products are made. The greener a product gets, the more responsible the manufacture of that product is. This concept has nothing to do with economics, which is a wholly separate subject.

If you were to plant a grove of trees for every edition of a book printed (for example) you could offset the amount of paper used, and fight the pollution caused in the manufacture and distribution of said book edition. Additionally, e-books are another great example of rampant consumerism that is not ecologically unfriendly. To be clear there, I am referring to the books themselves, and not the readers.
Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2010, 09:33 AM
RE: Karl Marx
Most environmentalists target the problem as consumption. For instance, the argument raised by the ecological footprint movement is that if everyone had the same footprint as Westerners, we'd need 4-5 planets of resources to support it. On a more basic level there's the Fight Clubbian, "We're working jobs we hate to buy shit we don't need," argument.

But the problem isn't consumption.

The problem is production.

We have a system based on unlimited growth. Every time we try to address a problem we try to address it with products. "Don't use that product, use this green product." But all that is happening is that producers are moving their capitol from one sector to another. The same level of production is occurring and more to the point, increasing.

Not only is "vote with your money" utterly undemocratic (because it's vastly different from one person, one vote) but it's ineffective. Supply creates it's own demand. As long as people are producing, there will be a market for that product. Who the fuck actually needs a rubber chicken? And if that sector does start losing revenue, the producers will simply move their capitol. The invisible hand of the marketplace doing its job.

Plus, while asking corporations to put up money for environmental relief or to plant forests is laudable, they never will because creating redundancies makes corporations less competitive as it increases overhead and more to the point, it is literally illegal for a corporation to spend profits on anything that doesn't directly benefit the corporation and increase the bottom line (and according to the late Nobel-in-economics-winning Milton Friedman, it's unethical for a CEO to do so).

Our system is not only based on unlimited growth (and when I say our system, capitalism, corporatism, communism, feudal and slave economies are all based on this imperative) but it can only collapse not just when production goes into decline, but when it slows! A recession is not negative growth, it's slowed growth.

If you reduce production, consumption cannot help but go down. To keep consumption up in the face of this you must reduce population. If we reduce production we reduce consumption, waste and population as a matter of course: the three biggest problems we face today (accepting that creating circular production in place of linear production would solve a lot of problems too, but also accepting that the competitive nature of capitalism/corporatism deincentivises circular production). But go to any mom and pop store, any corporation, any government and say, "let's start thinking about reducing production," and they will look at you like you're stone retarded and even like you're dangerous.

So yes, corporations learned propaganda from the Nazis and have been using it since the 40s to mainline products into our veins, but that's just them trying to gain market share and grow their business. Production is the real enemy of the planet. But as long as we have a class-based mode of production, it will never change. We're on a runaway freight train headed straight for the secondary and primary limits to growth.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2010, 09:43 AM
RE: Karl Marx
So, you compare corporations to the Nazi's and then love with "peace and love and empathy". Brilliant.

Anyway, now that Godwin's law has been proven yet again, I'd say this particular thread just reached the "stupid" threshold. Feel free to continue the rant, though.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: