Post Reply  Post Thread 
Pages (3): « First < Previous 1 2 [3] Last »

Chavez is dead? RIP

Author Message
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #21
RE: Chavez is dead? RIP

Well-being? Do you hear yourself?
Here's how reality was and still is. The corporate owners are drowning in surplus, while the bulk of the population is drowning in poverty. The former is in huge surplus at the expense of the rest of the people. Therefore, you take the ownership of the means of production from those elite few, who are already swimming in wealth, and you use those means to create wealth or rather, distribute it to the rest of the people.
The profits produced in a country should be reinvested in that country.
And it's funny that you don't consider the process in which less that 0,001% of people came to own so much wealth, compared to all the other people on earth. You don't ask yourself why the aristocracy had so much, while the serfs had almost nothing.
Property belongs to he who uses it best. Using property for the benefit of the general welfare of society is the BEST way to use property. If someone's using the riches of a country to repatriate it somewhere else, while keeping the people poor, and promoting only selective national investments, which cause more social injustice, wealth gap, poverty, and unequal opportunities. Well, that's not fairness, now is it?
For good or worse, Chavez used the petrodollars to combat abject poverty, to create infrastructure, to make education and health care affordable for all. The smiling oilmen were neither kidnapped, nor killed. They're pie share just got smaller in Venezuela, period. There's a difference between private property and personal property.
And there's no chaos to be had by sharing common land and wealth. Tribal societies were the most equal and had the lowest crime rates; more so than any other form of organization. The indians didn't believe in owning land. They believed in the common good, in sharing, in fairness. Why can't we put such principles in practice? Why do people have to be poor and others so fucking rich? Why do people have to die of hunger, drought, and disease, while others live the purest of luxury and excess? Answer: There's no lawful justification as to why things should be the way they are.
The powerful don't want to share power, because thus, they cease to be powerful, and those over which they rule cease to be powerless.
But if you consider such goals as dangerous, continue to worship the neoliberal/neoclassicist myths. I'm sure austerity will inevitably lead to a postscarcity society.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 07.03.2013 21:36 by Helsworth.

07.03.2013 19:39
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rising Phoenix
Unregistered


Post: #22
RE: Chavez is dead? RIP

Why freaking heck people are still talking about labour in the 21th century? Noplan

We need to consider terms in their energic -- physical -- costs. Not in outdated philosophies that do not work with the high-energy society we live in.

Titian Wrote:
The key to understanding these things and their common feature is "well-being". In all these cases the well-being of one person is taken away in order to unrightfully and unethically increase the well-being of a second or third party.

I agree completely. That is why we need to abandon the trash systems of capitalism and communism, and instead engange in Technocracy.

Today's scarcity is enforced. We do not have actual scarcity. Social and individual well-being would increase dramatically if we abandoned these outdated folkways. I agree -- the present opinionated/political government system has no right to take the rightful and ethical place of the Technocratic system.

Titian Wrote:
It is important to keep in mind that many things are in essence the same, despite of variations in size.
A stone is a stone no matter whether it weighs 50g, 1kg or 5'000 tons. People might call the first a pebble, the second a "stone" and the third a rock but they are stones nonetheless.

I agree. Now, you will probably acknowledge the inefficiency and lack of precise measurements in a price system? Money is made up of subjetives, such as 'value' (which, in itself, has no clear definition).

Titian Wrote:
Allow me to give you another example through a joke I recently heard somewhere

I can't remember who Wrote:
A very wealthy but not-so-handsome man walks up to an attractive woman he has, by then, known for some time:

Man: Would you sleep with me for $1'000'000?
Woman: $1m? Are you serious?! Of course I would!
Man: Excellent! How about $2 then?
Woman: $2?! What do you think I am?!
Man: We have allready established what you are. All that is left now is to haggle about the price

Have a system in which dog-eats-dog, and you will see the most efficient cannibals emerging. Have a system in which money is not needed and you will see humans not acting like monkeys.

Simple facts.

07.03.2013 19:47
Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #23
RE: Chavez is dead? RIP

There are plenty of labor intensive jobs needed, like those in education and in medical care. Wink


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache
07.03.2013 21:00
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BaktoMakhno
Looter
*


Posts: 1,058
Words count: 245,068
Group: Basic
Joined: Mar2011
Status: Offline
Reputation: 39
Experience: 496
Glory Points: 10
Medals: 1

Post: #24
RE: Chavez is dead? RIP

OK Titian, I'll wait.

I want to make a few points on your discussion with Helsworth however.

1. Practically no-one accepts your set of ethics. Thus if you want to convince people to accept your politics by appealing to said ethics, first you need to convince us of them.

2. You are obsessed with ethics in a way that most people are not. Most people do not reduce politics to the legalistic application of ethics. Your approach is characteristic of the liberal tradition, but neither of the left nor of conservatism, and is an extreme form of ivory tower idealism.

In contrast pretty much everyone who has ever had any influence on politics has been a pragmatist. The important question in evaluating policy is not whether or not something conforms to ethics in the abstract, but what the consequences are. Most admirable people who have been involved in politics have seen their engagement as a battle against a small group with a disproportionate amount of power and interests contrary to those of most of the human race. To prove that this isnt just true of my ideology I'll quote adam smith:

Wealth of Nations, book 3, Chapter 4 Wrote:
what all the violence of the feudal institutions could never have effected, the silent and insensible operation of foreign commerce and manufactures gradually brought about. These gradually furnished the great proprietors with something for which they could exchange the whole surplus produce of their lands, and which they could consume themselves without sharing it either with tenants or retainers. All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons. For a pair of diamond buckles, perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless, they exchanged the maintenance, or what is the same thing, the price of the maintenance of a thousand men for a year, and with it the whole weight and authority which it could give them.


Military metaphors are very apt when talking about how to construct political study and theory. Politics is, after all, war by other means. Those who assess threats by legalistically applying some obtuse and abstract ethical code, and develop responses by doing the same do not win battles. Those who put their effort into understanding the situation, and who prioritises altering the balance of power in all its multifarious forms will succeed.

Know your enemy, that's how you win. Machiavelli would have laughed till his sides burst at the childish and detached character of liberal theory, its utter ineptitude at understanding what drives tyranny. Of course furnishing people with a political philosophy which makes them impotent is the true purpose of liberalism.


"The beauty of free trade is that 1 and 1 can be 3" - Titian

"There is no conversation more boring than one where Globaltom speaks" - Triniterias

This post was last modified: 07.03.2013 21:22 by BaktoMakhno.

07.03.2013 21:08
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rising Phoenix
Unregistered


Post: #25
RE: Chavez is dead? RIP

Helsworth Wrote:
There are plenty of labor intensive jobs needed, like those in education and in medical care. Wink

Because we cannot automate those... Yet. Hehe

07.03.2013 22:08
Quote this message in a reply
Burz
fiend-smiting sraosha


Posts: 98
Words count: 3,288
Group: Banned
Joined: Mar2013
Status: Offline
Experience: 0
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #26
RE: Chavez is dead? RIP

Titian Wrote:
The key to understanding these things and their common feature is "well-being". In all these cases the well-being of one person is taken away in order to unrightfully and unethically increase the well-being of a second or third party.

You do not exist and ethics does not exist.

08.03.2013 07:18
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pages (3): « First < Previous 1 2 [3] Last »
Post Reply  Post Thread 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Fidel is dead Helsworth 22 4,904 06.12.2016 06:11
Last Post: adder
  Jacques Vergès, Defender of Terrorists And War Criminals, Is Dead at 88 StatlerNWaldorf 0 1,436 17.08.2013 15:50
Last Post: StatlerNWaldorf
  Hugo Chavez; A Painfully Average Man StatlerNWaldorf 56 7,795 12.06.2013 06:19
Last Post: Rising Phoenix
  Hugo Chavez vs. the United States StatlerNWaldorf 6 1,525 11.03.2013 05:32
Last Post: Burz
  Andrew Breitbart Dead at 43 GeneralMangi 31 6,765 09.03.2012 12:50
Last Post: GadTheHero
  breaking news: god is dead Triniteras 0 1,485 20.05.2011 05:30
Last Post: Triniteras
  Breaking News:Usama Bin Laden is Dead!!! GeneralMangi 97 30,710 14.05.2011 20:10
Last Post: DRLHyper
  Breaking News:GOD IS DEAD, SERIOUSLY Triniteras 15 3,577 04.05.2011 11:58
Last Post: Globaltom

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: