Why We Don't Like You Anymore

The only thing I object is this: Capitalists dont argue with theoreticians. They simply outwit them and live the ideal. That is to say, Capitalism needs stronger arguments than argumenting. It needs Tesla, Microsoft, Disney, it needs dreams and billionaires, dreams made by people who could live their dreams as a result. Capitalism is like something that strikes a human being like an affliction, a mental state.
You cant stop someone like that very easily. It is a psychological condition rather than an economic model.

People who are unafflicted by it couldnt see it in any other way than as misplaced, wrongful, even people who are afflicted by it often make efforts to show others another way, a way out, a way of not having to go through the terrible thing called wealth they have to swim through each day trying to find some place not already filled with it.

One problem that is really a setup to a reconciliation of capitalist with capitalism; people who have spent all their imagination on a company that has made them eleven figure fortunes, have no imagination left to decide what to do with all that money. Virtually none of these remarkable geniuses has done anything very cool with a couple of dozen of billions. Whereas that should be very doable.

This is a sign Capitalism is still in an early stage. Were only just coming to the point where innocent wealth can feel itself free to exist, and to expend itself like health.

Wealth has to attain health - Communists have always pressed this point. If it is simply the challenge to capitalists that the Russians caused it to be for a good part of a century then this is enough to justify it ten fold. Took us to space. Showed us that God isnt all that obvious. It enhanced mankinds experience of power in ways Capitalism simply could never afford. It was the moment at which it took hold in Russia; it wasnt a premodern Anschluss of the peasant class to the bourgeoisie, but a deeply informed, radically uncompromising campaign on all fronts just at the moment when the state was ripe for industrialization. It was, in the end, an Enterprise on behalf of consciousness. About power. It showed what Capital could do if it was really challenged. It was, as it were, the shadow which appeared before the Sunlight to cast it. I dont know if thats already a metaphor.

Communism was, in short, also such an affliction. It was perhaps even more impressive what people pulled off on it. But Im not sure sure about the anger, it is also natural for a Communist to be working from a position of privilege in the more human, circumstantial, familiar sense. Happy people tend to make good leaders. And if one thing Communism conducts well it is leadership. Capitalism and leadership… mweh. This is its beauty. Enterpreneurship into the wild, so as to be free of leadership and live on ones own terms.

A captain isnt “leader” of the boat. That would be funny. He would have to be leader of the sea, to control what the boat does.
Not even in terms of nations; the US isnt “leader” of capitalism. Its the champion by most metrics. And the biggest loser by some others.
I think the Netherlands are sort of leading in the EU. The lack of ideology here has been conductive. Spinoza built a great system, where all things are infinite because there isnt anything in the exact same qualia that limits its existence. This works well for a small country. Also it gives understanding of why water, in qigong, follows metal in the proper order. And leads to Green, is the color of anga.
And the color of money.

I contend that Capitalists are more driven by rage than Communists. Rage. Communism is more a “No sorry. We’re standing here now.” and then a show of teeth.
Marx had one thing right and that is that people might be sheep at first but when they are together they turn to sharks.
Dictatorship of the proletariat, thats whats happening now. Thats Lil Wayne with Justin Beeber. Thats what poor people have desired into being.

Shark shark sharks
Marx Marx Marx
charm me this riddle
who plays the fiddle

So the best system hasnt been invented yet. People who are principled dont have much of a place in Capitalism yet. Or anymore. But really Id say yet. Because, globalism. Inevitably the world is becoming a whole, a “land” of sorts. Its not an ideology, it is a destiny. Weve got to prepare Capitalism for this destiny. It can not be at odds with the fundamental power of a man to stand in the way and run his mouth. Because that power will beat all other powers in the end. The last man standing will be a Communist. Capitalism cant thrive off of one man by his lonesome.

One thing Capital tends to do throughout time is to isolate the owner as his wealth increases. As perfectly explicable in terms of envy as this is, it shows that the true relaxation is only affordable in a state of shared wealth. Or shared poverty for that matter. But relaxation in luxury, thats tricky. Excitement in luxury is easy. To relax in it requires generations of training, and is what aristocracy has its codes and absurd games for.

Relax in that it doesnt make any sense, but is just, deep down, so nice that it is quite wicked.
There is no aristocratic tradition that hasnt distinguished itself in some especially pointless cruelty.
The aristocracy of the chosen Communists forms no exception. For if he was a simple man at birth, by his burial Lenin had become a pharaoh.

So this all in mind; what is the most relaxing way to own wealth? Like, if most people were wealthy, what … would… what kind of world would we have?
What would be going on?
How would it be if you stepped outside?
Would that be a thing people do?

Most people can’t be wealthy cuz. The sooner y’all commies accept this, the sooner we can avoid y’alls devolution into fascism. Which is inevitable in a communist that doesn’t have the hard fucking stone of a Russian or a Chinaman. The lack of ego that is not due to spiritual evolution, but having weathered enough bad weather.

Only few can be wealthy because relativity theory.

“you’re not going to not picture in your head a cooking utensil that dices onions because you live in a high-rise apartment in moscow in 1982.”

And yet nobody did.

Think about this, because this is the greatest fallacy standing between you and political enlightenment. If you are coming up with ideas just for the whatever drives a good idea and not cashmoney, congratulations, you are a philosopher. Only philosophy exists in that arena. And maybe science. Sure, science too. Psychology I guess… Anyway, nothing conducive to mass production.

And yes, communism is far more resilient than capitalism. It is made of older stuff.

This is not the argument against it.

I can’t post right now because my country is in a state of emergency. Miguel and Felipe are coming with plans to murder, rape, steal, sell drugs, and do landscaping under the table. Our security level has been upgraded to the highest level, defcon Juan, and all Americans have been instructed by executive order to travel to Texas and help hold the boarder. It might be a while before I can respond. My country needs my full attention right now.

Drama queen…

SigH.

AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO UNDERSTANDS COMMUNISM

yes of course i am.

Pansies.

Means Im the only one who understands Capitalism too.

WAR, assholes.

Learn to fucking deal with it.

Both are European inventions.
America is a European invention as well.
Venetian-Dutch, then English.

Without knowing roots you are capable of understanding absolutely nothing.

So, study Venice, study Amsterdam and Antwerp, then study London, then try again to say something valid about concentration of wealth.

The idea that Communism is about anger and poverty is an insult. Thats slave revolt. Slave revolt doesnt put people in space.
It is about conquest, and this is also what Capitalism is about.

Rap music isnt about self-expression, it is about conquest. So was the hippie-music era. None of all that is addressed with the proper understanding here, even though Morally it might all be very interesting.

The world is being conquered all the time, that is the point Nietzsche makes. We live in the glorious age where its first full scale conquest has become possible.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUosICAhI84[/youtube]

You think this guy was a peace-activist?

Stop moralizing.

If philosophical, um, dudes, and dudettes, werent such fucking moralizing pansies they could actually take a stake in this conquest.

Thats what has always frustrated me. All this time since 2006 Ive been on about getting something off the ground. But even when it works, people are like “uhhh like, this person is actually, um, doing something, what an asshole, lets gang up and make it absolutely clear that philosophy is really dumb and impotent”.

Phuckeurz.

One thing any conquest begins with is Loyalty.
That you have a bunch of people who have it in their hearts to not just be worried about how they look, to each other, from second to second.

People with Heart, who know they are winning no matter what they undertake. Then, they might lose here and there. But given as theyre so winning they actually take great lessons from any lost bout. And get back up and start winning again.
If youve got a bunch of such people together, you can get anywhere.

But… philosophy, apparently, is still only about vainglorious bonsai climbers who debate things like “parbleu but if I say this and then this have I really said the inverse-reverse of what you just said that I said?”

Lol no, I’ve given up on loyalty. But that’s another thing capitalism provides for. It gives solid things to replace it, the red-faced smiles of whisky chugging businessmen in country-clubs. You can’t call it loyalty, but it sure ain’t fragile.

In fact, loyalty is one of the things anti-capitalists crave for and cry about. They miss the old state of affairs where filiation was imposed by the sword and represented by a sigul. There is no “we have an understanding” in communism. Understanding itself is an enemy. Reasonableness is the enemy.

Money talks. That is the only law. That’s how a fourth generation descendant of slaves can be a magnate.

Capitalism is just a lot more fun, that’s the real argument for it.

Youve got the country club fellows wrong.
The country club stands for loyalty.

See, this is were it started. A few blokes deciding to be loyal to each other. Happened under a tree. The stockmarket was born.

That money talks isn’t the question or the explanation for how this dude GOT his money.

I guess fair enough to divide Communists up in American Communists and Eurasian ones. What you say would apply in America. Here, reason and Reasonableness is pretty much what Communism stood for. I.e. against fascism and against the premodern feudalism that then was Capitalism.

Shit is complex dogg-O.

This is how money started, currency. It took a few men of means deciding they’d honour some agreement between them. Only then could some economic mechanism appear and seduce less-loyal slobsabitches into the loop.

Shit mayne. Gotta think these things through to the first scheme.

Stands for loyalty? Watch one of them go broke, see how fast the others forget about him.

Under that tree, in New York I presume you mean, that was the exact opposite. The agreement that loyalty was both impossible and silly. That was what we call an understanding.

And, unless you mean the USSR was American communism, I do hope you are joking. And yes, prior to 1900 or so capitalism as we know it was still in its infancy, still very much attached to old ways of doing things. But the germs for the destruction of those ways was embedded, and people in charge were more aware of that than you might believe.

Only reason kings made use of capitalists, like the Dutch slave traders and public companies, or Italian adventurers, was the same reason capitalism was to prevail in the end: the devastating edge it gave them against other kings. They tried to keep as much of a leash on it as they could, but even then they knew it wouldn’t last. But it was preferable for them all to perish than for a rival to prevail.

And perish they did, son. Perish they did.

You’re spinning myhs. The Dutch King? Who might that have been?

And you mean watch them force government to bail out their bankrupted friends? I did watch.

Don’t cha know if one of them falls they all feel the cold breeze.

What prevailed was Science.

Capitalism as a means of subjugation backward hordes is just the long arm of science.

Just generally brighter and more ballsy people prevailed.

And when you say Eurasian, I hope you are not including the middle East.

Let’s look at the surviving USSR satellites: Iran and Siria. Let’s look at some of the Republican satellites: Egypt and Iraq. Well Iraq was later cannibalized by retarded Neocons, but was the absolute image of sanity and enlightenment when compared to Siria and Iran. Lybia is a weird outlier there. Communism did seem to suit it better than the alternative. But one wonders what might have happened if a staunch republican had taken over there.

As for the Islamist fascists, those are all nazis and by extention communists. Proletarian revolts against capitalism.

“Don’t cha know if one of them falls they all feel the cold breeze.”

Even though what you are describing here is a half-state half-business corporatist monster with a truly healthy dose of socialism injected before that collapse happened, that a cold breeze should have to be held as a reason to stick together already speaks of an understanding and against any such thing as loyalty.