Animalism, Earthism

the thing is, when arguing with a capitalist, you aren’t arguing against any air-tight logic or line of reasoning which would unconditionally defend the position. even adam smith is full of holes which are easily spotted. the problem is that you are arguing against an instinct that’s embedded in the very genome of homo sapien; a hedonistic species that always seeks out the path of least resistance. translated: get somebody else to do the work so you can sit around on your lazy ass and tell yourself how fantastic you are. this is the crux of the biscuit, gentlemen, the non plus ultra of our problem. it requires a higher type of being to spiritualize the pride of effort, labor and work, and share a requited respect for others who do the same.

as long as you are confronted with capitalist who is comfortable in his appropriated wealth, his arguments will always be a means to maintaining that end… and he’ll do whatever he has to, unconsciously or not, to produce justifications for himself and his place. only very rarely do we find an enlightened capitalist capable of disinterested reason and rationale (e.g., serendipper) who recognizes that crude, base, animal instinct and transcends himself to reach a greater height. purging the ape from the man is a difficult task, and many won’t survive the procedure.

Haha.
Maybe I should learn to stop worrying about the bizarre species of silliness that emerge on the left and just see it as a botanical garden of endearing error.

Promethean - it is rather the socialist who cant think about anything besides his money.

As I explained before, capitalism is about creation.

No socialist was ever witnessed talking about anything besides how to get more money from other people. Capitalists tend to be grounded in the desire to produce great things and benefit from that.

To the socialist, there is no such thing as creation; all the world is theft. It makes them feel comfortable; there is no pressure to have merit to either self or others.

you’re a bright fellow (when you aren’t rambling), but i can’t for the life of me figure out why you continuously fail to grasp the simplest, most incremental fact that distinguishes the two systems in material terms.

human beings are, first and foremost, before they are labeled ‘capitalist’ or ‘socialist’, material creatures that produce and consume in their environment. they do not become one or the other - capitalist or socialist - until they are put into a particular social arrangement in which these processes take place. what they are all doing is being ‘concerned with creation and product’ (call it commodities, money, credit, or fucking bullion cubes… doesn’t matter), and where they differ is how they proceed to enter into this discourse of production and exchange. the only fundamental and essential characteristic distinguishing one from the other is the role they play in this discourse. there is nothing else ‘different’ about them. same species, same desires, same capacities. it isn’t that one ‘values money’ and the other ‘values creation’. this is poetry. we aren’t doing poetry… were doing science. when a person derives their means of sustenance from another’s labor, they are categorically different from the laborer, and being such, they don’t actually ‘create’ anything… because one cannot create without laboring. i keep telling you over, and over and over again; the capitalist does nothing in the chain of production. nothing. and he does so much nothing, you’d notice no difference in anything - not production or distribution - if he were absent. both of these functions are a form of labor and performed by the worker, not the capitalist.

now it may be the case that the capitalist likes to think of himself as an artist, or a creator, or an innovator, or a genius, or a pioneer, or whatever else floats his boat… but none of this can be actually realized without labor… and if he isn’t doing the labor, he has no part in the transformation of ideas into material substance. he will of course profit from the creation of such, but he takes no part in making it happen. that’s the beef worker’s have with the capitalist. either get your hands dirty like everyone else, or fuck off. you ain’t gettin’ a free ride. what the fuck do i look like… the social security office?

“the thing is, when arguing with a capitalist, you aren’t arguing against any air-tight logic or line of reasoning which would unconditionally defend the position”

Right, we’re not fanatics.

that! that right there. it’s comments like that, that i don’t know what to do with. is this guy kidding? he’s got to be. he’s got it so perfectly backwards, it’s got to be contrived… part of a joke… he’s pulling my leg. shirley he is. he can’t be THAT stupid. i refuse to believe it, so i’ve got to humor him. yes, that’s what i must do.

Capitalism simply breeds better human beings.
They are logically required to be more productive, more resourceful, keener in observation and interpretation, more talented, more prone to mean something to others, and simply more resilient to the actual conditions of nature.

A socialist can only emerge in a bourgeoise environment.

" you’d notice no difference in anything - not production or distribution - if he were absent."

Yes, I’m sure they would all spontaneously coalesce in that particular formation and organization structure anyways. “Ah!” you say, “but we don’t need the filthy capitalists anyway… The state can do it!”

Ok, so now we are arguing about who takes that role, not if the role exists or is productive.

One possibly good question here for ya: was it the state or capitalists who initially figured out and continue to figure out more productive and powerful ways to organize labour?

Is the capitalist a parasite of the worker, that genious of production engineer that he is, or is the state bureaucrat the parasite of the capitalist’s ideas (such as we see in China there)?

They are arguing against life itself.
Life is more than just air tight logic alone, of course capitalist logic is airtight. If you are inside, it has produced every single thing youre seeing. It is a way of really existing. But the socialist is so cosmically dumb that, it has been proven to me the past years, that even the smallest logic step is too much for him to take. Capitalism isnt given the chance to argue to the socialist, because the socialist is completely hostile to any order of statements than: there is happiness - it is experienced by others - I want it - raaaaah!
Of course most these statements are somewhat disguised, but not too well.

The correct statements in the socialist discourse are: there is happiness made out of wealth, and I want this happiness.
The capitalist also states these things.

The capitalist then uses his brain to figure out a way to create something for which others will pile wealth onto him.
He spends some years in a basement working for nothing and then, if he has the quality, he succeeds.

The socialist uses his gut and runs around arguing that he ought to also have the wealth. It doesnt occur to him to start a production process.
Initiative is not something the socialist will ever take. Historical necessity, the whole Idea of class struggle as an absolute which must and will be obeyed is a sublimated compulsive neuroticism. It is no coincidence that Afghanistan was the hallmark of Socialism and then switched to what it is now.

This, as clean as this is, is completely out of the socialists reach.
To my astonishment, I must say. It has taken the past two or three years to drive that fact home to me.

Promethean - you could not bear knowing how absolute the proof of the socialists myopic greed is which has been given in the past two years. You would literally break down and cry, lie sobbing on the floor - in joy. Because seeing it would mean your liberation from it.

I hate to need to point out the obvious… but what’s this profit incentive then (which founds Capitalism and socialists find markedly suspect)?

If it wasn’t about money for Capitalists and if Socialists only cared about money, why not give it to them?

Except Socialists care less about money than Capitalists - they care about the whole project, the whole team including the leader but not just the leader, they care about the creative ones who are made financially impotent but would otherwise be able to join the creative ones, and they care about the non-creative ones who do have the money who operate solely to maintain their position even at the cost of the project and the team.

Keep telling yourself that lies are true and the truth is a lie, but it won’t make it any more the case in reality.

He quite clearly is kidding and baiting, and I’m having as fun of a time as he is.

It provides quite the convenient counterpoint to explain things in the wake of stupidity and misunderstanding - he’s just giving more ammo to the better cause, so I say keep up the good work, Jakob.

Even in the consideration that someone so obviously trolling was serious, I like the intent to invert understanding even if it amounts to nonsense in practice - it’s always paramount to keep your senses sharpened to the possibility that you are wrong.

A liberation into thought.

But - power sets goals.
Liberation is such a goal - it is only set by sufficient power.

it’s human nature to invent ways to produce more abundantly and efficiently, and there is nothing exclusive to a ‘capitalist’ that gives him some special ability to figure shit like that out, that workers can’t figure out themselves. in fact, the workers would sooner figure it out because it’s their labor and time that’s at stake.

as far as organizing and managing production, workers are perfectly capable of doing so. the soviets are an example of this. democratically run syndicates in which people collectively determine the best way to organize production based on the circumstances.

what you aren’t realizing is that a capitalist doesn’t have some magical talent which gives him the ability to modify or enhance some mode of production. it doesn’t take a capitalist to figure out an assembly line would greatly increase the yield of product, or that a fuel produced from corn might be more efficient and cost effective. of course the capitalist is trying to figure shit like this out because he wants to increase his profits… but the point is, a capitalist ISN"T REQUIRED to figure this shit out.

the massive explosion of productivity that characterized the industrial revolution is not something that wouldn’t have happened had there been no capitalists around.

i dunno man… it’s like you have this celebrity image of the capitalist in your head like he’s a fucking superhero or something. i haven’t seen hysteria like this since ayn rand came to 'merica and wrote the fountainhead. jesus man. is this what those rap videos are doing to you? it’s the gold chains and triple fat gooses, right? they gotcha. i know they did. they put a spell on you, mang.

Silhouette, go back and reread my posts, read them aloud a few times.

It is hard to believe you are honest in your debilitatingly bad reading.
BUT THAT IS SOCIALISM.

The neocortex eroded revealing the amygdalal stump.

That’s the info Marx was never privy to and I can only imagine his laughter if science had sufficiently evolved to offer him the last piece tying all his ideas together.

More likely too many aluminum teapots. Or maybe frying pans after slowly consuming all the teflon.

:confusion-scratchheadyellow:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY9QkQHosJI[/youtube]

I mean :confusion-shrug:

Are you referring to Wall Street or sweat shops?

im referring to the musical instruments used by Frank Zappa and all of his studio equipment.
Promethean, are you truly that hollow?
Do you truly not value your own values?

-why being and not rather nonbeing?
-because capitalism.

I don’t buy it. He’s no different than 13 years ago. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=153476

That’s a good thread btw.

He’s an absolutist/objectivist/Nietzschean fundamentalist/whatever you wanna call it. Always has been and apparently always will be.