Karl Marx
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-09-2010, 10:36 AM
RE: Karl Marx
I was thinking about Godwins law myself. Figures.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2010, 12:16 PM
 
RE: Karl Marx
(06-09-2010 09:33 AM)Ghost Wrote:  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

Interestingly, global population may actually peak around 2050 at 9 billion and then begin to plummet because of lower fertility rates. This probably isn't soon enough to prevent irreparable damage to our preferred living conditions (which is all saving the planet is about- what we like, not the planet itself).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1...ntent;col1

And, I don't think Godwin's law applies to discussions about propaganda, and I think it is very easy, and in fact appropriate to compare advertising to propaganda.
Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2010, 02:07 PM
RE: Karl Marx
Godwins Law applies to all internet forum threads. Topic is irrelevant. Also (speaking for myself here of course) whether it's appropriate to bring up Hitler/Nazis/propeganda or not, I can't help remembering Godwins Law whenever it comes up.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2010, 03:31 PM
RE: Karl Marx
Hey, Truth Addict.

There are some reports (including the one from the UN I believe) that place the 2050 population at 9 billion. There are other less conservative reports that place it at 12 billion. The people claiming 9, the UN included, have also said that it will probably level out because of fertility rates. I don't think that's the case. Currently, the Western industrialised countries almost universally have negative birth rates (below 2.1) while most third world countries have positive birth rates (in areas of India [not the national average] it's as high as 6). The current drive is to industrialise the Third World (I think it's fair to call it a Neo-Conservative drive associated with the Globalisation movement). Many people site Singapore as an example of what can happen when this is done. The problem is that the First World cannot exist without the Third World (for many more reasons than I'll state here). Currently, the US adds some one million people annually from immigration. This is how the population of the US can continue to rise despite its negative birth rate. If the Third World is industrialised, they will likely go into negative birth rates. If this happens, they will no longer be able to feed First World population increases with immigrants. In short order, there will be more people leaving the economy as producers and consumers than are entering. This will result in the collapse of the economy, more likely than not on a global scale. So if the population levels out due to birth rates, we're in trouble. If the Third World is not industrialised and the global population continues to double (the time between doublings continues to shrink) then we're in trouble. Regardless of which scenario will occur, both scenarios are driven by continuing the trend of pursuing growth unlimitedly.

You make a very good point about saving what we like rather than saving the planet. Well said.

Oh hey, I clicked on that article after I wrote this response. Good piece. Thanks for that. Well worth the read for anyone.

BnW...

Quote:So, you compare corporations to the Nazi's and then love with "peace and love and empathy". Brilliant.

First of all, what the hell does that even mean? Like I'm not even joking. The second half of that sentence is nonsensical to me. Second, I in no way shape or form compared corporations to Nazis. Saying group A learned something from group B is not a comparison. There was no comparison and no analogy.

My thesis had absolutely nothing to do with Nazis. Nothing. When I mentioned them I was dismissing the primacy of the argument that corporations were evil and want you to sleep and want you to consume and that they learned techniques from the Nazis and used it in advertising (which is simply stating a historical fact) because corporations aren't the problem. It was an off hand remark, but you manage to latch onto it and sail right past my actual thesis, consumption isn't the problem, production is.

Reached the stupid threshold? Continue ranting? Wow. The sad thing is, I don't think you really understand how insulting you can be.

And for the last fucking time, and this goes for everyone, THE WAY IN WHICH I WISH YOU WELL HAS NOT A SINGLE FUCKING THING TO DO WITH ANY PART OF ANY ARGUMENT I MAKE SO STOP FUCKING THROWING IT IN MY FACE OR I'LL START SIGNING OFF WITH FUCK OFF AND DIE!

Now, I will sign off the way I always do because despite how angry you make me, I don't wish people ill. I wish you well.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2010, 03:48 PM
 
RE: Karl Marx
(06-09-2010 03:31 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Now, I will sign off the way I always do because despite how angry you make me, I don't wish people ill. I wish you well.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Maybe you should just add it to the signature section of your profile. then it is obviously automatic and people can stop reading things you don't intend into your signature. Isn't that what the signature section is for?
Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2010, 04:03 PM
RE: Karl Marx
(06-09-2010 03:48 PM)Soldieringon Wrote:  Maybe you should just add it to the signature section of your profile. then it is obviously automatic and people can stop reading things you don't intend into your signature. Isn't that what the signature section is for?

Ghost actually addressed his reason for typing it every time in another thread. He does so to prevent the sentiment from becoming disingenuous. By typing it every time, it holds more meaning both for him and to the person to which he is wishing well.


(...and you thought I wasn't listening! lol)

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2010, 04:05 PM
 
RE: Karl Marx
(06-09-2010 04:03 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(06-09-2010 03:48 PM)Soldieringon Wrote:  Maybe you should just add it to the signature section of your profile. then it is obviously automatic and people can stop reading things you don't intend into your signature. Isn't that what the signature section is for?

Ghost actually addressed his reason for typing it every time in another thread. He does so to prevent the sentiment from becoming disingenuous. By typing it every time, it holds more meaning both for him and to the person to which he is wishing well.


(...and you thought I wasn't listening! lol)

But his meaning is being skewed. (Yes, ghost, I am talking about you like you're not here)

@ Ghost: your meaning is being skewed.
Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2010, 04:08 PM
RE: Karl Marx
(06-09-2010 04:05 PM)Soldieringon Wrote:  
(06-09-2010 04:03 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(06-09-2010 03:48 PM)Soldieringon Wrote:  Maybe you should just add it to the signature section of your profile. then it is obviously automatic and people can stop reading things you don't intend into your signature. Isn't that what the signature section is for?

Ghost actually addressed his reason for typing it every time in another thread. He does so to prevent the sentiment from becoming disingenuous. By typing it every time, it holds more meaning both for him and to the person to which he is wishing well.


(...and you thought I wasn't listening! lol)

But his meaning is being skewed. (Yes, ghost, I am talking about you like you're not here)

@ Ghost: your meaning is being skewed.

Granted, but the misinterpretation is by others, not Ghost himself. He's made it clear on more than one occasion that the sentiment is genuine, so it's really not his problem to fix. If others are taking it wrong then that's their cross to bear. (Any excuse to use a religous pun, eh?)

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2010, 04:16 PM
 
RE: Karl Marx
(06-09-2010 04:08 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(06-09-2010 04:05 PM)Soldieringon Wrote:  
(06-09-2010 04:03 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(06-09-2010 03:48 PM)Soldieringon Wrote:  Maybe you should just add it to the signature section of your profile. then it is obviously automatic and people can stop reading things you don't intend into your signature. Isn't that what the signature section is for?

Ghost actually addressed his reason for typing it every time in another thread. He does so to prevent the sentiment from becoming disingenuous. By typing it every time, it holds more meaning both for him and to the person to which he is wishing well.


(...and you thought I wasn't listening! lol)

But his meaning is being skewed. (Yes, ghost, I am talking about you like you're not here)

@ Ghost: your meaning is being skewed.

Granted, but the misinterpretation is by others, not Ghost himself. He's made it clear on more than one occasion that the sentiment is genuine, so it's really not his problem to fix. If others are taking it wrong then that's their cross to bear. (Any excuse to use a religous pun, eh?)

Fair enough. I know I'm not going to sweat it.
Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2011, 12:12 AM
 
RE: Karl Marx
(26-08-2010 11:33 AM)Kikko Wrote:  Oh, so what was meant was economical materialism. In that case, I cant lingerie sexy really say anything about it, all it would be would be useless speculation about a subject I dont know anything about.
TruthAddict Wrote:I don't know how the situation is in the country where you live, but I have to prevent myself from throwing up every time I enter that temple of consumerism and witness these blind, ignorant people wandering its halls, paying too much for clothing made in sweatshops, needlessly posturing and strutting, engaging in the act of hoarding, and eating that disgusting mall food sexy adult costumes as they walk around with their over sized frames and their useless brains.
I dont know if theres that kind of consuming-culture in my country, because I rarely visit malls, or any other stores larger than a normal grocery store.
I hate when I have to go buy something. Especially when I gotta buy new clothes, the smell of new clothing, annoying radio pop-music, the huge -XX% signs, advertisements stalking me behind every corner... I prefer my fathers Angel costume and my big brothers old clothes, theyre cool and they dont have any stupid texts or pictures in them.
Technically, economic materialism is nothing more than saying that material goods are important.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: