get the fuck out, zeitgeist fag

>we have 2 options
reality isn't changed by your petty deception of it
also sage for troll

sagseefkasdhiu
sagw

sagw
sage

>>3832041

Self-appointed guardian of the status quo.

Why don't you just let Fox News do their own job?

im sure some of us would be able to live together in utopia without money, but most of the population is selfishfags.

Humans operate on a "selfish" logic system. Or maybe it's more properly called ego-centric. However when you say selfish, you mean specifically that they will try to take material things that belong to others or are claimed by no one for themselves. In which case I'd say, no, it's not innate, it's more of a tendency spurred on by limited resources.

i choose b

Man, those fucking humans, don't you hate them?

fuck off with your venus project shit no body loves you

>>3832067
Self-appointed guardian of batshit insane theories.

Why don't you let Peter Joseph do his own job.

in before self-styled Randian Supermen who genuinely think all the poor are poor because they're lazy.

The truth is that selfishness is just one part of our nature, just very dominant.

>>3832096
the poor ARE poor because they're lazy worthless drunks

OH MY GOD I LOVE FLOW CHARTS!

>>3832096
Being lazy is but one of many factors.

From what I've read, the Venus project is what the end-stage of communism is meant to be, right?

Hi, I'd like you to explain why humans aren't selfish. What makes you think that an individual can show unlimited altruism to people he has no kind of special bond with?

The flow chart is inaccurate, it puts too much emphasis on the so called military industrial complex. I believe it would be more accurate if it were more abstract with it's definitions of the major players in determining government policy.

>>3832119
Doesn't need to happen, for Communism to work people just have to agree to live without exploiting. The ones that don't- Gulag.

>>3832032
Innately selfish ? Doubtful
The only thing that seems to be innate is language skills - these can't be explained purely by behaviourism.. so I would argue selfishness is a learned behaviour...

which can be unlearned - be a nice guy...

>>3832128
it also needs more prison-industrial complex

The venus project will not succeed. Over the past 200 years the primary social driving force behind industrial revolution and the resultant improvement in the general wealth and well-being of all humanity has been greed. A resource based economy would be an extremely inefficient economic instrument, unable to judge what people really need and the feasibility of providing it, it would be unable to increase the value of resources as much as a free market. It would simply be communism 2.

communism fails because you amero bitches can't just do your buisness. no, you want to fight us.
now you gonna face the world by yourself.

>>3832194
I'm sure there are many complexes the chart leaves out.

>Invisbible Sky Magician
>Not a rant about China or Japan

What the fuck is going on here? Is it the apocalypse?

>>3832094
Poor ol' Ron. I voted for him.
Fuck Obama.

>>3832265
He also rants about religion from time to time.

>>3832287
You sir, are a populist retard.

"Bankers!!! SCARY!!!"

enjoy scapegoating instead of working towards real progress

>>3832298
And even then he fails to get his point across.

>>3832300

Actually, bankers and those CEOs are people I fear the most. Have you seen what they do? They practically can be said that they dont live in this world and they don't care. The only thing that drives them is their greed and selfishness.

>>3832321
Thats the only thing that ever drove anyone to do anything worthwhile.

ALSO, be thankful for bankers. If it wasn't for the banking system you would have never gotten the loan for your car, or your house, or the funds to start your business.

finance makes life better for everyone
you simply are fearing what you fail to understand

>>3832300
>OMG WHY DIDNT YOU VOTE FOR "THE ONE", YOU MUST BE STUPID
Because obama kool aid drinkers are any better? I literally heard this hysterical black woman screaming "HE LOOK LIKE US, HE LOOK LIKE US" the apartment below when the news came in that he won. I am reminded of her animalistic howling every time I hear an obamafag speak.

>>3832334
No, I never said Obama was great. I said Ron Paul and his supporters are excessively stupid. I will agree that most Obama supporters have no real idea of why they support him. But thats fine with me, as long as they support the same candidate as me, I appreciate the /b/lackup.

>>3832265

He got banned for a Japan appreciation thread on /jp/.

I think he's just pissed.

op is gay,you should go kill yourself. GAy post gay post gay post

>>3832383
are you insinuating that there is something wrong with being gay?
fuckhead.

>>3832333

If what you say is actually true, i feel even more disgusted with the average person who worships money like a fanatical follower but alas, i do see your point in some sense.

I do still feel that their selfishness and greed shits stuff up though.

I can tell by your eloquence and powerful grasp of the English language that you're a man of formidable intelligence whose ideas and convictions are clearly deeply rooted in logic and fact, and deserve to be heralded as the towering pinnacle of thought in this debate.

>>3832383
>op is gay,you should go kill yourself. GAy post gay post gay post

>>3832390
Of course. Gay people don't mate with the opposite gender, so they can't pass on their genes. There is something wrong with them, if there wasn't, they would be able to reproduce.

>>3832427

Protip: The world isn't underpopulated anymore.

Protip: Sex is used for other reasons besides reproduction.

Protip: GTFO christfag.

>>3832427
If they aren't able to reproduce, why are there so many of them

>>3832624
That may be evidence that it is not genetic. Or because not all gay people necessarily come out.

mootblox

ISM starts all these threads but only seems to reply to people who attempt to tarnish his self image. It seems his primary motivation for these issues is his own ego.

>>3832635
way to ruin my stolen comedic material you dick.

Too much stress from the mother while pregnant = FLAAAAAAMER

Mom, why didn't you chill the fuck out?

Everyone is selfish, and anyone who denies this is in self denial of their own selfishness and of others selfishness. A planned economy is impossible until we have an artificial intelligence smart enough to plan our economy for us, because humans sure aren't smart enough to do it. We don't need free market capitalism for society to work but we do need a sufficient amount of capitalism and the greed that it produces for a well off society.

>>3832658
what sort of factor produces trannies if stress produces fags

is it just being too awesome or what

i think humans are cool i would like 2 be frjiends with them and have sex w them

>>3832675
Capitalism doesn't produce greed, it merely accepts it exists. If you think communist societies are greed free utopias you have been fooled by their facade.

>>3832702
Do ho ho. This is what capitalists actually believe.

>Capitalism doesn't produce greed.

>>3832032
False dichotomies? lol!

One problem with your little flow chart ISM, no one 'controls' voters in the end. No group has absolute control over who people vote for. It's a secret ballot. Sure, there's a lot of lying and manipulation, but there's still free choice.

Also, you're a faggot.

>>3832832
>no one 'controls' voters in the end

Best joke today.

I like how the venus project is presented.
Then again maybe i watch too much star trek.
:(

Here's a third option for you:

I am not selfish.
I am a human being.
Therefore, other human beings out there might not be total shitheads.
The only way good people will get a chance to do good is if they are given a chance to be good (benefit of the doubt).
It is more important to foster good than to squash evil (constructive approach vs. destructive approach).
Therefore...I will be the best person I can be, and give everyone else a chance to be a good person, too.

Try it, it's ten times more uplifting than your simpleminded cynical bullshit.

>>3832977
This is practical only in the more comfortable civilized areas of civilization.

>>3832032

Yes humans are innately selfish, it is basic survival do do the most with the least amount of energy. Thus why Welfare and (pure) communist states have failed, and will continue to fail.

It was inherent to our survival that a person had to hunt and gather there food...instead of waiting for it to fall in to their mouth, in areas where population density was at or higher than what was sustainable, people will expel (Remove from the area, or kill) weaker people so that they and there offspring will survive. Same for the natural world at large. So it comes down to life means selfishness to continue living. The unselfish die off.

In regards to societies they can be viewed as analogies for natural organisms. Some will prey on the weaker, some will ignore as many encounters as they can etc. But there basic structures must be (as a nation) selfish to prosper. Humanitarian aid is a selfish method of pointing to others and saying "I'm better than you because I can GIVE away my products"...or "I am morale superior to you". They building up armies to protect there boarders from invasion, or develop agreements with stronger nations in return for improved trade.

So yes humans through evolution and society are selfish...to be otherwise would be a death sentence.

The human species survived because humans learned to work together. There are other social species in nature, like geese, for one, that can successfully migrate because they use teamwork to fly long distances.
In any case, it's amazing how some cannot see what a failure of a system capitalism is, since 1% of Humanity lives well while 99% lives in shit.
Social animals don't let the majority of the pack live in poverty while one or two among them gets all the food.
You people think yourselves as intelligent, animals have much more sense than any human, any day.

I would stop right there Invisble Sky Magician. Or you will anger the economy

sage for ISM threadasfasga

Well according to newer research humans may be naturally selfish but not copletely rational in their choices. That means that under certain circumstances an individium may choose to forsake an egoistical choice in favor of a generous/altruistic choice. According to this "fuzzy logic" research most of the rational choice theories have to be revised or dropped because they fail to decipt the actual actions of people faced with different choices.

>>3833332
shut the fuck up go hafve sex with atlas

Humans are selfish, and work together basically to serve their own needs.

This isn't that complicated, nor difficult to understand. We are social creatures AND competitive creatures. Just like ****everything else****

Communism sucks because it is inherently anti-freedom. That's why I am a socialist.

>>3832032

I really like how you constantly drop the word 'misanthrope.'

You even provide a fucking wikipedia like it's a fucking religion.

Fucking sickening. People like you need to get the fuck outside and think less, because nobody thinks you are deep and troubled and sophisticated. Wasting a whole lot of time.

ISM thread rule number 1: the S is for sage

fuck yea, yet another of ism's belated epiphanies.

To just now be realizing any of the shit you just now realize, you couldn't be a day over 16.

This thread needs more Zeitgeist Addendum.

I was just having a similar discussion with one of the gentleman from /v/. His argument? 'But i would rape and kill and steal shit'.

Anyway, surely we should all support an undogmatic symbiotic social system.

man has no nature. playing this game of "human nature" will simply lead you around in circles, as such a thing can never actually be fully comprehended.

that said, capitalism plays to a certain degree something that can be described as innate in ourselves, but the "naturality" of being selfish in a capitalist state is heavily modified by the system itself -- our greed is hyperactive BECAUSE it is played upon by the system. it is therefore impossible to say what amount of greed actually exists in our being, because it is so corrupted by the necessary functioning of capitalism. capitalism fails because it systematically induces in itself a set pattern of wastefulness that lends itself to its own destruction -- but it lends itself to its own perpetuation as people become tricked into accepting its functioning as is, without wondering of its effects on our character which it modifies to its own end.

this is not to say that communism itself works towards a functional human nature. any social system has its modifications on our behavior, as that in fact is its intended goal. but it is therefore invalid to use human nature as a justification for any such system, because the system itself is intended to work against human nature and not with it. capitalisms inherent modifications of human nature should therefore be seen in light of its practical effects, as capitalism, as is communism, will never reach its "ideal" status.

>>3835921 "Human nature" cannot be comprehended
Optimistic. To the point of delusion.

Communism isn't flawed because all humans are selfish. It's flawed because it's unjust. If someone works hard, they get the exact same amount as someone who does no work at all. Forget the way it actually pans out, which is as an economic fucking disaster, whenever communism is actually tried. It's simply unjust. There's nothing selfish about expecting to be paid fairly for the amount of productive work you do.

Now understand, I wouldn't call myself pro-capitalist... well not in the Ayn Rand "Capitalism is morally perfect" fantasy way. I don't think capitalism is good or bad. I don't think it's a system. It's just what happens.

They're not even comparable. Communism represents 100% control by the state - this is pretty fucking horrifying as an idea for many people who hate capitalism's effects. Corruption, gulags, state control of the press...

Capitalism, pure capitalism, on the other hand represents 0% control by the state. Not many people are actually for that, you know. Most people believe the state should intervene to some extent.

Governments need to have a series of checks and balances built in to prevent any one person or agency from gaining too much power. This was the basic idea of liberalism from the past - and it doesn't equate to pure capitalism. The starting point is - government in general should have a light hand, and must justify when they interfere with the people's liberty... the starting assumption is that government is a COST - which it is. But there are benefits stemming from it that can outweigh a certain level of governmental control.

Anyway, the downsides of 100% state control are not something that can be dismissed idly... and communism demands just that. It is not some idealistic utopia. Nor is pure capitalism, no matter what Ayn Rand chooses to write as adolescent fantasy fulfillment.

But you're making it sound like we have to choose between two moronic extremes.

No, you are incorrect.

Only the assholes think communism fails because people are greedy. That's part of the problem, but greed wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for scarcity.

The thing that capitalism and free-market exchange does really well is account for scarcity, since it treats every transaction like a mini-auction: whoever is willing to devote the most resources to acquiring something, gets it. So, if there's a shortage of rye one year but not wheat, the people who like rye bread the most will be willing to pay more for the limited amount of wheat products, whereas the people who don't have a strong preference will be fine with wheat bread. A free economy allocates the rye bread efficiently and in a utilitarian fashion, on the basis that people are essentially rational and the ones who will be made most happy by the difference end up paying the most money.

In a centrally-planned economy, that doesn't happen. If people are given a choice, whoever shows up first with a mild preference for rye bread will get it, while the people who, under a free economy, would be willing to pay more for it don't get it. These people are very dissatisfied, and the ones with a weak preference or no preference are only marginally happier (or even less happy) for ending up with the rye.

A truly communist society, even if it is not socialist, does with capital what a planned economy does with other goods. If the workers own the means of production, rather than the financiers who paid for them, they stand to suffer no particular loss if the firm is inefficient and becomes bankrupt. After all, they can get a job at another factory doing similar untrained labor for similar pay, or start a new factory.

>>3836152

any expedition into the nature of man would be guided by the illusion that we could do so objectively, without the effect of culture, history, or politics, when it is exactly those things that bring up what the nature of man is in the first place.

Humans are selfish, its the most efficient way of surviving. It doesnt matter who you've fucked over aslong as your alright, biologically.

>>3836212
The capitalist financier, on the other hand, must make sure the firm is run efficiently, because otherwise he will not get a return on his investment; he will lose money. Therefore he insists that the firm is well-run and the workers are not paid more than the firm can afford.

In other words, only if the provider of the capital (the financier) is on the hook for his investment is the capital going to be used efficiently.

If you think this is unfair, look at it this way. A 19th chinese coolie would get paid about the equivalent of a silver dollar ($4 in today's money) for carrying loads. Working by himself, or maybe with a stick across his shoulders, he could carry around 60lbs (27kg) for 39 miles (48km) in one day. That's about the limit of the work a human man could do.

OTOH, if he got a job in 2009 with UPS, he would be given a $70000 truck and linked into a $25 million IT network that would allow him to carry two tons or so of goods, up to 250 miles (400 km). He'd earn about $80/day, plus benefits, for it. That's roughly 617 times as much work. He only makes about 20 times as much as the coolie, but that's because he doesn't have to pay anything for the truck or the IT network (or even gas), which are the things that multiply the value of his work. The capitalist who pays for those things provides the worker's services at a much lower rate per pound-mile than the coolie did and pays the driver much more. After he pays for the overhead of the truck, the IT network, etc, he gets to keep the profits. After all, it's his money.

Peace is boring. We want to kill things in all sort of violent and horrific manners, it is in our savage blood, so kindly fuck off before my animalistic instincts decide to kick in.

>>3836212

>If the workers own the means of production, rather than the financiers who paid for them, they stand to suffer no particular loss if the firm is inefficient and becomes bankrupt. After all, they can get a job at another factory doing similar untrained labor for similar pay, or start a new factory.

this is a very limited view of what desires a worker might have. the effect of community involved within a worker controlled environment is much higher than one without one. i don't think its possible to shun that possibility so easily.

>The thing that capitalism and free-market exchange does really well is account for scarcity

speaking of desire, capitalism would make sense if people were entirely rational (in a very limited sense), but that's not exactly how it works. there's a motivation to create desires in a capitalism and there are in fact many institutions in place that are used for this (the education system, the psychiatric community). because desires are so easily played with it is not so simple as to have an understanding of scarcity, because so many factors go in to deciding what is desired and what becomes "scarce".

>>3836430
Actually the interesting thing about economics is that it allows us to measure the cost of irrationality.

Some people may be willing to pay money for something that provides them with no benefit (I'm not even talking about donating to charity, since that makes you feel good about yourself). But, every dollar you spend on something you don't get any use out of is a dollar you can't get any use from. The excess of dollars you spend on something you get no utility from is the cost of your irrationality, and as the cost of any particularly irrational act goes up, the frequency of that act goes down.

IOW, people may sometimes behave irrationally, but it's within certain limits or else they starve (and cease to be of economic or social importance after that).

I think this may be one of the only threads ISM has started that I've liked.

Scary, really...

>>3836430
To address your other comment, that's true, so far as it goes, but remember that the efficient supply of goods is often of social value itself, and sometimes that can outweigh any external benefit a worker-controlled firm might provide to the community (think what the availability of historically-unprecedented low food prices in the U.S. for the last 30 years has meant for poor people).

And also, we've seen what happens when workers are able to dictate terms to management/ownership of companies. Look at Ford. Unlike GM, its problems aren't due to mismanagement, but rather the trouble of maintaining all of its expensive agreements that require defined-benefit pensions, medical care for laid-off personnel, etc.

>>3836517

still, usefulness is a function of the cultural norms of the time and not "rational" or objective. the worker occupation movements in argentina, for example, holds itself to a culture of close-knit community, and as such what you called "impossible" (efficient worker controlled factories) occurred with great success during the economic crisis that occurred there during after the privatization of many industries during the Menem administration. it is therefore necessary to no longer think of the economy in terms of rationality/irrationality because economic transactions are functions of social norms and habits, not logic.

Mozi (China, IV a.C.) said (more or less):
people is like animals all they care about is eating and fucking, but through experience they learn that the maximum personal advantage is in the collective advantage.
that man was supposedly of merchant origins but he preached peace and social justice so hard that you couldn't list him as a capitalist in modern terms.

>>3836209
How fair is it for people to work hard and get NOTHING for their efforts. And don't give me that "didn't work hard enough" bullshit.

>>3836796

I'm not sure why you're upset. I said clearly that many people are disgusted by some of the outcomes of "pure capitalism". Me included.

What I don't believe is that communism is the solution. In fact, communism is a pile of steaming bullshit injustice - and is worse than capitalism for the simple reason that it's imposed, rather than what simply happens.

Yet you appear to be suggesting that the only choice is between communism and pure capitalism. And the whole point of my post was that that choice is the kind of adolescent "one of two extremes" bullshit that some teenager always insists on in any economic discussion.

>>3836859

i think capitalism is defintely imposed in some cases, look at the countries that were forced to privatize certain sectors because corrupt officials sold their country to IMF or the world bank. it's not really the natural state of at least some societies, it just has the force of history and people with a lot of wealth with an interest in keeping capitalism going that it can seem natural.

>>3836859
Capitalism was imposed as well. It nearly ruined the country then and it's ruining it now.
Saying that one is better than the other is simply an exercise in personal opinion.
The only logical point of view is a economically mixed society. If a system is not helping the largest majority of people then another one will have to take it's place.
And with the way the free economy has demonized itself..if someone stands up and says there is a better way .people. no matter how entrenched in their beliefs they are, will listen.

wow, this thread kicked into high fucking gear all of a sudden.

>>3836859
on thing I often classify as "another american kid" is the opinion that the countries of the free world can have an adjustable rate of 'capitalism' (meaning: liberism) while communism=gulag.

anyway modern times present the challenge to answer to socialist problems while preserving liberist freedoms. we all should just pass over... and the OP was talking about a different matter that USSR vs. USofA

You ever notice that ism threads are only successful when people far beyond ism's level get drawn into the thread?

>>a) Become a misanthrope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy). Fuck humans.
>>b) Become part of the top 5% to get the opportunity to exploit the stupid peasants.

Why not both?

>>3836634
No, usefulness is in the eye of the beholder. That's the point.

You and I might not enjoy the same level of utility from the same good; lord knows I derive no utility whatsoever from tampons but the females of the species value them as a way to save their clothes from being ruined. So I wouldn't be willing to pay anything for tampons, whereas a woman might be willing to pay up to the value of a pair of pants for one to protect her clothing.

I also disagree with your assessment of the general efficiency of worker-occupied factories. In some cases, they were efficient, but that's mostly because worker's collectives bought up the factories after they became bankrupt (i.e., the workers themselves became the capitalists). This indeed gave them the ownership stake that motivated them to worker harder.

In other cases the workers took control by force or by demonstration, with much less impressive results.

>>3836955
I'll take credit for that, thanks.

Genetics are selfish and we are products thereof.

lol ISM shitstorm

>>3837574
mootblcoks
>I also disagree with your assessment of the general efficiency of worker-occupied factories. In some cases, they were efficient.

I disagree. Look up State Owned Enterprises in the People's Republic of China. Then look at how efficient they became once the system collapsed in the 1990s.

>>3837668
go read Dawkins fag

>>3837736
i meant agree.

mistakesblocks
fuckyourobot

>>3836796
You don't get nothing, you get the prevailing wage for the type of labor you do. Normally, that's unskilled, and there are a hell of a lot more people out there looking for work than there are multi-millionaires looking for factories to invest capital in.

If you don't like it, you can try and raise money to open a factory for yourself, but I wouldn't quit your day job in the mean time.

>>3837751
>>3837736
Those are a special case, they weren't owned by the workers except in the most general sense. If you were assigned as a worker there, work was compulsory, and any benefits you accrued as a result of efficient production paled in comparison to what the Party higher-ups got out of it.

China now is a very interesting experiment, because it is effectively a capitalist state, but it is by no means a free market. Many companies have government-sanctioned monopolies, and dissident workers seeking better pay or benefits are jailed. Much of what goes on there is hardly distinguishable from slavery.

>>3837574

but we are still taught what it is we can desire and what we should desire. it is only because of our social norms that we are taught to cover ourselves up in the first place. the influences within a community are tantamount to who we are -- we cannot separate a self apart from a community, the individual itself is derived from the community, and therefore whatever constrains the community's thought constrains the individual as well. power as such is functions not simply repressively but creatively: one is not simply taught NOT to do things but very precisely in how to behave. desire, conceived in this power structure, is at the very least partly if not mostly communal and not individual. and the influences outside of the individual become exceedingly more important than the impulses within -- the deciding factor is essentially the system that structures the individual itself. it is impossible, therefore, to separate the individual in a capitalist economy from capitalism itself, as the ideology embedded in the creation of the individual and causing whatever desires he has.

this is a very important part of why we conceive of greed as being a natural state of being human, because it has been universalized through capitalism. at a much more tangible level, the goods we perceive as being useful are only such because that use is manufactured in US. that is not to say we can make you desire ANYTHING but those predispositions to certain objects are manipulated and carefully controlled -- not by any one person, mind you, but the society at large. it cannot, then, be thought that between people is a totally individualistic desire and the common desire becomes expressed in the form of goods in the market, but there is a play between the goods, inner impulses, the structure of the market, and the society at large.

>>3832032
why don't you just kill yourself already?

>>3837846
wow..
>dissident workers seeking better pay or benefits are jailed. Much of what goes on there is hardly distinguishable from slavery.

you know nothing about China, there are labor protests all the fucking time... stop talking about things you know nothing about

>>3838370
That's tl and I dr, but I'm assuming you're spouting some kind of watered-down Foucault crap here.

My point is that it doesn't matter. Greed is ultimately irrelevant in the free market, because altruistic action is still at the opportunity cost of selfish action (or other altruistic action). The point is that capitalism is efficient because inefficient firms, whether they are run by workers or by professional managers, are run out of business. Workers may be able to run a firm successfully, but capital financiers who last for more than a few years must do so in order to stay in business.

>>3838421
So what, Du Daobin is just a figment of the western imperialist dog media trying to hold back the progress of all forward thinking peoples?

Most of the 'protests' you revere so much are called 'riots' by Xinhua and are broken up by police.

>>3838528

if that is your point then i cannot disagree with you more. capitalism is extremely wasteful and i cannot see how you can see otherwise. that is not to say that state-run totalitarian communism is better (as you have said, it isn't efficient in terms of goods provided to those who want it) but that is not what i advocate. worker run factories within an otherwise free market (as in parecon) is, i think, the most viable economic system contemporary society can have.

>>3838582
the situation isn't perfect, but it is nowhere near as dire as you describe it.. go exaggerate elsewhere

Goddam false dichotomy. There is an instinctual part of every animal (man included) that once could consider selfish. It is also true that most people are capable of empathy, and thus, kindness.

So to answer, we are both, innately selfish and innately compassionate.

>>3838528
Then what about business models designed to profit off the inefficiency of other business models?

>>3838619
But where are workers going to come up with the funds to purchase capital? if they had the money, capitalism wouldn't have emerged in the first place. If they don't have the money, then either the state steps in and supplies it (in which case we're headed back to the USSR) or else they take it by force, which engenders a society with no respect for property, in which case there is no wealth whatsoever.

THE VENUS PROJECT WILL END UP BEING FULL OF BRAIN WASHED PSEUDO INTELLECTUALS WHOSE ONLY MEAN OF COMMUNICATION IS PHALLACIES.
OH, ALSO, 1984. YES, NOW THEY SAY FREEDOM DURR HURR, ETC. BUT YOU'LL SEE. OH YOU WILL.
/cruise control

>>3838658
They are creating a profit out of inefficiency, and so the system overall is efficient. Of course, once someone figures out that there's a guy out there exploiting his inefficiency and making a killing doing it, he can fix the inefficiency and run the other guy out of business.

That's basically how LTCM went under.

>>3838732

never said it would be easy. there would probably have to be a great change as to how property is defined, in such a way that would make as many people happy as possible, but somewhere along the line i can't see those who are the owners of capital now not getting screwed. how it is that we can convince everyone to do this voluntarily is probably the hardest part, since i don't think a violent revolution will actually cause anything to change.

but its not like there isn't hope.

All humans try to do what makes themselves happy. For most humans, this leads them to do mostly self-serving things. Other humans help others more than they help themselves. It's all just a matter of empathy, which varies person to person.

But even if humans are all selfish, they could still live in a stable, prosperous, communist nation.

A selfish person would have incentive to move to a communist country if the communist government was very good at controlling the economy and keeping everyone pretty happy. If a construction worker has a significantly higher standard of living in a commie country, he'll probably want to move there, all things being equal. It's just a matter of the government being competent enough to eliminate possibility of a depression, while minimizing human error, so that the majority of the population lives better.

it all depends on you definition of communism, too.

>>3838877
More post-modern bullshit. None of this will every happen. You cannot 'redefine' property without destroying the concept entirely. Either you have a presumption to exclusive use and control of things you acquire, or you don't.

I'll re-iterate: free market economics doesn't require selfishness in order to function, only scarcity. As long as there is scarcity of things, food, land, raw materials, labor, there needs to be a way for people to express their wants so they can acquire the things that make them happy. Free-market capitalism allows that to happen. Socialism, communism, etc, with their mantra of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" have failed historically to accomplish this using different models.

Look at it this way: if you aren't very materialistic and don't want to consume a lot of goods, under capitalism you just work part-time and enjoy your increased leisure. Under socialism, if you don't work all day, people will accuse you of being lazy and not working for the good of the community.

Selfish = bad
not-selfish = good

shellfish = good
shelfish not good if allegeric

Clearly we need to organize so that the reign of the good (shellfish and buttsex) can reign o'er the devilish self interested (shellfish allergic selfishes).

sage

>>3838995
Thus, torrents = communism

God this fucking makes me rage, op, no offense, but I cant believe you can believe this crap.

How the fuck will replacing a monetary economy with a resource based one fix things?
-people are the way they are because of instincts, this has science behind it, If you dont believe me, you probably didn't graduate 1st fucking grade.
-Recources just replace money, its like saying with no religion you wouldnt have war. People would just base it on something else, like race.

The fact of the matter is, the few actual identifiable "plans" wont work, and Ive seen the whole global warming/cooling thing debunked over 9000 times now, so that can go die in a ditch. This person has obviously not experienced life enough to actually know that these problems stem from not just human nature, but animalistic nature. We are predictable creatures, almost every function is meant to have evolutionary benefit, war, increase of tech, even destroying the environment are technically all efforts to help make the saturation point higher (Malthus theory)

Also tell me, the media today has a spin against: War, Big corporations, Capitalism
So how the fuck is that chart correct?
Ask the average person, do you think we should stay in Iraq? Theyll say no, because the media said so. Ask people if they think that unions should get more rights, most will say yes.
tl;dr YOUR WRONG

>>3838995

and you blame others for polarizing stances.

you're right, redefining property will change the concept entirely. of course it will. but just because there is resistance to it now doesn't mean it will forever. property in its modern form hasn't existed forever. a systemic change will change the form of property itself. but whereas the old socialist and communist ideas wanted to change things from the top down (change in the system -> change in the concept), the failures of the 20th century has shown us that a new strategy must be used. the new leftists are hard at work looking for such strategies. the leftist model is not at all a failure just because the strategies used in the past were the wrong ones.

it would be wrong to charge communism and socialism with its supposed failures without also charging capitalism for the very same. the 20th century has shown just as much how damaging capitalism actually is. one should not forget that.

>>3839185
>property in its modern form hasn't existed forever.
Pretty much, it actually has.

Even animals have "property", in the sense that a walrus has a harem, a bird has a nest, or a tiger has its territory. They REALLY don't like others nosing in on their stuff, and are prepared to defend it violently.

The only difference between that and our modern concept of property is that we've done away with the "seize it by force" option. I don't know of anyone who thinks that's really a bad thing.

>>3839284
>>3839284

>walrus has a harem, a bird has a nest, or a tiger has its territory.

Dear sir or madam,

I just wanted to say that the above phrases made me lol. They're goddamned clever. I will make them famous one day.

-anon.

Capitalism= Cartelism, Corruption and Greed
Socialism= Taxes out the ass being lost in webs of Bureaucracy
Communism= ???

All= Facism

You all should read Karl Polanyi's "The Great Transformation".
It says that this idea of humans being selfish is moronic, for they normally only take in account our modern society. More specifically the "contemporary age" of history, that started with the first establishment of a burgess state in France during the French Revolution.
He takes us back to the past, to show us that even thought Market already existed, it's great importance is truly a new fact in history.
One of his examples of how humanity CAN be rather selfless is given when he explains the Kula System, a trade system still in use in some Melanesia islands (Forgot which).
To make it short, it is a VERY complicated trading system, VERY COMPLEX, that has a higher goal the idea of "Who gives more is better than who gives less".
Meaning that you work as hard as you can, only to give your production to other people... why? This means that you are a good worker... a BETTER worker than the rest. You are more productive, and "Selfless".
This is just one of many system that are based on the idea of sharing.
All the systems, Capitalism and Socialism included, share the shame thing. Humans.
So... there has GOT to be something that shapes and supports their systems...
This thing is CULTURE.
What made us "Sellfish" and stuff is our culture that says that those things are inner characteristics in Human nature.
Now... you may say that the Melanesian are also selfish for they STILL want to be better than other people, and I will tell you that you are right.
It is inevitable.
What is possible is to shape our culture to turn us into beings capable of, even still being selfish, not turning other people lives miserable for our own pleasure.

Read Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation".

>>3839342
I was originally going to say "wolf pack" instead of tiger, but then I realized that might sound like an endorsement of socialism.

>>3839284

do you REALLY think that animals have in any way the sense of property that we have? that's pretty farfetched, especially considering things like intellectual property or property of other non-tangible things. even between humans, property has changed considerably over time. for example, we thought at one time that people could be properties of other beings, or that property was a right from God given only to a special few. only now do we consider property as a measure of a person's hard work (and only superficially so).

>>3839496
They clearly do. That's the point. The tiger has a sense of ownership about his territory, in that he attempts to keep other large predators from using it.

He does't have an idea of intellectual property, but that's because intellectual property doesn't really exist; it's a shorthand for a collection of government-granted monopoly rights for new and creative ideas.

Intangible property is just an outgrowth of the existence of intangible goods.