Zeitgeist Movement (Resource Based Economy)

[CG51]

Interesting video. What are your thoughts? There are others that can be posted later.

http://www.youtube.com/v/WnK5mBCFTMg

[CG51]

http://www.thevenusproject.com/images/stories/a-designingthefuturee-book.pdf

^ PDF format: "Designing the Future"

[MR.9/06]

I'm fine with the current system, thanks though.

[MagnusTacitus]

I'm fine with the current system, thanks though.

Good joke

The current system is just sh*t

[CG51]

I thought it was interesting although I know that the “haves” would never give up their choke hold over the “have nots”. Money and/or dependence on the government are a great way to control the masses. I agree that the lust for money creates corruption and that will never change, just read the news daily.

I don’t believe we are quite there technologically but look at the past year and see the tremendous debt we racked up just trying to keep the economies afloat from the result of greed and corruption. Can we continue to operate with the huge debt that we have (with no end in sight) with the current system?

I know the video is long as well as the PDF document but if you have the time it’s worth a look. I am just interested in other people’s views because this forum has many members from other countries and diverse cultures.

[Kitsune]

The proposed idea here is essentially a sort of high-tech communism - a totally planned economy plus rational government is to replace the current inefficient and exploitative models, but this time it is supposed to be of absolute superior efficiency because all the decisions are to be made by highly advanced computers.

This would then ensure that the ressources of our planet are used as intelligently and - again that word - efficiently as possible and henceforth all human beings would live in great prosperity in an ecologically sound society. Naturally, once all scarcity is eliminated, little social problems such as "criminality" will automatically vanish as well. There will be no wars anymore, too.

To sum it up: the people behind this believe to have found the one big solution for all human problems. And if they now would gain enough influence to successfully enforce these ideas on the world or at least on one state (for the eventual greater good of everybody of course), we might have the first totalitarian ideology of the 21st century. A potentially rather unsavory totalitarian ideology at that, since one of its basic ideas is to keep human beings away from decision making as much as possible (that is indeed a new one, even the Nazis, for all their rascism and social darwinism saw at least the human being at the centre of all).

These people might aim at breaking the cycle of poverty and war once and for all, but in the end the actual consequence might be only that history repeats itself. The worst possible (and most ironic) outcome would be if the created hyperintelligent computer system, that runs the world of tomorrow in such an superbly efficient way, finally arrives at the conclusion that it could really maximize efficiency by getting rid of human beings altogether. That would then be the final solution of humankind's problems.

[CG51]

Not so much communism as it would be a Technocracy. People that have earned their position by their works for the betterment of mankind rather than those that have bought it are a core group that is assisted in making decisions by consulting highly advanced computers. Communism basically controls the masses by depravation and brute force. In theory, if all are equal in quality of life there would be no political system. This is a social or people model system vs. a profit generated (corrupted) system.

[Kitsune]

Communism basically controls the masses by depravation and brute force.
In theory not at all. "Communism" aims at fairly distributing ressources and products, for example through local or regional councils ("soviet" is the Russian word for council). This replaces the previous profit generated (corrupted) system (of capitalists or monarchists) and is supposed to be a far better, more just and also more efficient system, that will soon overtake the corrupt systems in all things, prosperity, technological advancement and stability included. In theory.

Practically there were various problems with implementing this better system, like resistance from the foreign world, of certain more conservative groups in society or even disagreements among various communist leaders how to proceed. This made it unfortunately necessary to shoot a few people, send a couple to certain containment camps, oppress the rest of society a bit, etc. All very sad, but there was no way around it. It had all to be done to make the far better and fairer socialist/communist system a reality.

Why are you so sure that this "technocratic" system here would fare any better? How will these "Zeitgeist" people implement their superior system should there be resistance from, let's say, more conventional thinking politicians and buisinessmen, wether foreign or domestic? Or what about this little core group of people who have earned their position "by their works for the betterment of mankind" (You? Me? Mr. Jacques Fresco? Who decides who is worthy for this position?) Who prevents them from abusing their station? What happens, if things do not work out as initially planned, because computers are not so good at decision making as thought? (Actually, they are no good at decision making at all, at least until today). Admit the mistake or just hope for the next generation of better computers, who surely must be able to do it right? And if that fails, the next after that? Of course, in the meantime some pesky critics must be silenced, unfortunately so, but there is no helping it.

Even in the case that the utopian society without scarcity should indeed be realised, what if crime does not vanish, beacuse they assumption that a human is just the product of the society he or she was brought up in, turns out to be wrong? (This picture of man is one of the typical leftist ideas, by the way.) What if it increases, because people are bored or feel helpless or useless? Perhaps then a bit of oppression is necessary, which should not be so difficult to do, since all resources, products and information will be controlled by this core group with their advanced computers. Don't you see that the way from here to an truly Orwellian scenario isn't far at all?

These people may claim not to have anything to do with communists, but the similiarities are definitely there. (Heck, they even claim to be "unpolitical", but want to change the whole political system). As I said before, it would be a joke if the end of the development would be a world entirely run by super bright computers, without any humans at all - assuming they ever became that good - who then decide, well, everything. (That system would then indeed deserve the name "technocracy"). One day, they might ask themselves the question why they are maintaining what amounts essentially to a huge wellfare system for mentally inferior and generally useless monkeys. Even worse, they may not find an answer to that question...

[KoTeMoRe]

In theory not at all. "Communism" aims at fairly distributing ressources and products, for example through local or regional councils ("soviet" is the Russian word for council). This replaces the previous profit generated (corrupted) system (of capitalists or monarchists) and is supposed to be a far better, more just and also more efficient system, that will soon overtake the corrupt systems in all things, prosperity, technological advancement and stability included. In theory.

Practically there were various problems with implementing this better system, like resistance from the outer world, of certain more conservative groups within society or even internal disagreement among various kinds of communists how to proceed. This made it unfortunately necessary to shoot a few people, send a couple to some cotainment camps, oppress the rest a bit, etc. All very sad, but there was no way around it. It had all to be done to make the far better and fairer socialist/communist system a reality.

Why are you sure that this technocratic system would fare any better? How will these "Zeitgeist" people implement their superior system should there be resistance from, let's say, more conventional thinking politicians and buisinessmen, wether foreign or domestic? Or what about this little core group of people who have earned their position "by their works for the betterment of mankind" (You? Me? Mr. Jacques Fresco? Who decides who is worthy for this position?) Who prevents them from abusing their station? What happens, if things do not work out as initially planned, because computers are not so good at decision making as thought? (Actually, they are no good at decision making at all, at least until today). Admit the mistake or just hope for the next generation of better computers, who surely must be able to do it right? And if that fails, the next after that? Of course, in the meantime some pesky critics must be silenced, unfortunately so, but there is no helping it.

Even in the case that the utopian society without scarcity should indeed be realised, what if crime does not vanish, beacuse they assumption that a human is just the product of the society he or she was brought up in, turns out to be wrong? (This picture of man is one of the typical leftist ideas, by the way.) What if it increases, because people are bored or feel helpless or useless? Perhaps then a bit of oppression is necessary, which should not be so difficult to do, since all resources, products and information will be controlled by this core group with their advanced computers. Don't you see that the way from here to an truly Orwellian scenario isn't far at all?

These people may claim not to have anything to do with communists, but the similiarities are definitely there. (Heck, they even claim to be "unpolitical", but want to change the whole political system). As I said before, it would be a joke if the end of the development would be a world entirely run by super bright computers, without any humans at all - assuming they ever became that good - who then decide, well, everything. (That system would then indeed deserve the name "technocracy"). One day, they might ask themselves the question why they are maintaining what amounts essentially to a huge wellfare system for mentally inferior and generally useless monkeys. Even worse, they may not find an answer to that question...

Underlined the conceptual issues with "your" communism. Oh and don't bring ever the word soviet in a "commune" debate.

As for the rest: In theory.

Communism is one of the final steps of the "natural" progress of the western society. This step comes "naturally" when capitalism reaches its systemic and statutory peak. These peaks are two different types of crisis.
One is the end of the "destructive creation" (the unfortunate habit of capitalism to destroy previous strutures in order to re-establish new ones), the other is the impossibility on the behalf of the ruling capitalists (be they bourgeois or nobility) to cover up by "statutory bribes" the inherent immorality of the first process.

Capitalism thus relies basically (hang on please because I'm being VERY schematic here) in a "differential" (read unfair) distribution of economical power and an "immoral" (in fact amoral) social system. These two pillars are what create the "superstructure" and the "infrastructure" of the capitalist system.

Infra: exploitation of Labour (L) in favour of Kapital (K).
Super: exploitation of Moral (M) in favour of Immoral (I).

This historicist, narrow, positivist, economicist point of view was what billions of people believed (or were forced to belive) during roughly 140 years! Peculiarly the work from wich this capitalist vision emerged was an half assed one, since the German barbudo and his mates had never made it to full industrialization of the economy.

Thus "primal communism" doesn't call for "soviets", since for "primal communism" Capitalism had to collapse, given the way early capitalism was bestial and arrogant. However Capitalism collapsed. But no one understood it. Because it was immediately replaced by itself plus some new rules. Rules that made it less trasparent, thus less brutal looking. Kulturkampf and general crisis provided some distraction until WW1.

As for the shootings. Most of it was done in specific periods and it did not regard communism, but the establishment of a new political power. If by chance you happen to know what "communism" was about then you can't have a political power when communism is established. General Will et caetera.

Shootings, purges, mass killings are a common sight in overnight power shifting (476 AD might serve as a starting point in complex powershifting).

A lot of what I say, looks like basic communist apologetic crap. I concur, my words, no matter how intelligible their sound is, are just cheap talk. People were shot, murdered, tortured, burnt, forgotten including in my homeland and in my own family "in the name of..."!

But for the fairness of the debate, they still stand. Communism has never killed anyone, people have killed millions...for immediate profit, not for a "fair society". This is true for all holistic doxas.

Edit: Kitsune but what the current system is marketed on, IS the inerent way of more immediate and better planning of ressource distribution relying on a "functionning market" fueled by "coherent individual will and merit". Bar the interfaces (market/elections/borders) because of higher technology allowing a faster and more flexible answer to T-time crisis and tadaa you're in communism without needing to name it.

[CG51]

In theory not at all. "Communism" aims at fairly distributing ressources and products, for example through local or regional councils ("soviet" is the Russian word for council). This replaces the previous profit generated (corrupted) system (of capitalists or monarchists) and is supposed to be a far better, more just and also more efficient system, that will soon overtake the corrupt systems in all things, prosperity, technological advancement and stability included. In theory.

Practically there were various problems with implementing this better system, like resistance from the foreign world, of certain more conservative groups in society or even disagreements among various communist leaders how to proceed. This made it unfortunately necessary to shoot a few people, send a couple to certain containment camps, oppress the rest of society a bit, etc. All very sad, but there was no way around it. It had all to be done to make the far better and fairer socialist/communist system a reality.

Why are you so sure that this "technocratic" system here would fare any better? How will these "Zeitgeist" people implement their superior system should there be resistance from, let's say, more conventional thinking politicians and buisinessmen, wether foreign or domestic? Or what about this little core group of people who have earned their position "by their works for the betterment of mankind" (You? Me? Mr. Jacques Fresco? Who decides who is worthy for this position?) Who prevents them from abusing their station? What happens, if things do not work out as initially planned, because computers are not so good at decision making as thought? (Actually, they are no good at decision making at all, at least until today). Admit the mistake or just hope for the next generation of better computers, who surely must be able to do it right? And if that fails, the next after that? Of course, in the meantime some pesky critics must be silenced, unfortunately so, but there is no helping it.

Even in the case that the utopian society without scarcity should indeed be realised, what if crime does not vanish, beacuse they assumption that a human is just the product of the society he or she was brought up in, turns out to be wrong? (This picture of man is one of the typical leftist ideas, by the way.) What if it increases, because people are bored or feel helpless or useless? Perhaps then a bit of oppression is necessary, which should not be so difficult to do, since all resources, products and information will be controlled by this core group with their advanced computers. Don't you see that the way from here to an truly Orwellian scenario isn't far at all?

These people may claim not to have anything to do with communists, but the similiarities are definitely there. (Heck, they even claim to be "unpolitical", but want to change the whole political system). As I said before, it would be a joke if the end of the development would be a world entirely run by super bright computers, without any humans at all - assuming they ever became that good - who then decide, well, everything. (That system would then indeed deserve the name "technocracy"). One day, they might ask themselves the question why they are maintaining what amounts essentially to a huge wellfare system for mentally inferior and generally useless monkeys. Even worse, they may not find an answer to that question...

You have some valid points. True communism or Marxism was envisioned to make all people equal and that was a good idea but it was implemented in a profit designed economic world. Whether it is communism, fascism or any other political entity, it will be corrupt. Money being in the equation is the root of the problems as party members were more focused on controlling the masses. The party took precedence and the luxuries that went with a hierarchy of power. The same is true with the capitalist system. Power brings corruption.

There are far more people in the world that live below the poverty standard than those that enjoy life of abundance. I am not convinced that the majority would present much resistance when their quality of life increases.

People that are in the position of making decisions would do so for the betterment of mankind. With nothing to gain in a non monetary system, why would they go the way of the soviets are any other failed system? As far as being lazy and not contributing to society, look at the amount of people on welfare in the states and I am sure you in Europe know it quite well; there is a certain percentage of the population that will do nothing, no matter what you do. As technology progresses, why would all peoples not have input to the system? Today the web, tomorrow, who knows what vehicle there will be for increasing knowledge and communication may come about? Could we not have huge assemblies in the city for all to convey their thoughts, ideas and emotions? Maybe as machines take over manual labor and most repetitive tasks, people will have more time to invent, create, produce art, compose music and the similar that can promote the wellbeing of the society.

Again, crime, what motivation is for the majority of crimes? Money. Maybe instead of two million in prison we may have a few thousand crimes of passion or that nature and that could be dealt with on a case by case basis. Seeing that the future will be highly urbanized, maybe banishing to the rural areas for them to fend for themselves will be punishment enough.

As far as computers running the show, who says that would be a bad thing. The human element will probably never be totally replaced by computers but seeing the all the problems in the world it is doubtful that they would do a worse job.

This is something that would not happen overnight of course but looking at the amount of debt that we as a people have generated with the current systems, something will need to change.

[KoTeMoRe]

You have some valid points. True communism or Marxism was envisioned to make all people equal and that was a good idea. Unfortunately it was implemented in a profit designed economic world. Whether it is communism, nazi-ism or any other political entity, it will be corrupt. Money being in the equation is the root of the problems as party members were more focused on controlling the masses. The party took precedence and the luxuries that went with a hierarchy of power. The same is true with the capitalist system. Power brings corruption.

There are far more people in the world that live below the poverty standard that those that enjoy life of abundance. I am not convinced that the majority would present much resistance when their quality of life increases.

People that are in the position of making decisions would do so for the betterment of mankind. With nothing to gain in a non monetary system, why would they go the way of the soviets are any other failed system? As far as being lazy and not contributing to society, look at the amount of people on welfare in the states and I am sure you in Europe know it quite well; there is a certain percentage of the population that will do nothing, no matter what you do. As technology progresses, why would all peoples not have input to the system? Today the web, tomorrow, who knows what vehicle there will be for increasing knowledge and communication may come about? Could we not have huge assemblies in the city for all to convey their thoughts, ideas and emotions? Maybe as machines take over manual labor and most repetitive tasks, people will have more time to invent, create, produce art, compose music and the similar that can promote the wellbeing of the society.

Again, crime, what motivation is for the majority of crimes? Money. Maybe instead of two million in prison we may have a few thousand crimes of passion or that nature and that could be dealt with on a case by case basis. Seeing that the future will be highly urbanized, maybe banishing to the rural areas for them to fend for themselves will be punishment enough.

As far as computers running the show, who says that would be a bad thing. The human element will probably never be totally replaced by computers but seeing the all the problems in the world it is doubtful that they would do a worse job.

This is something that would not happen overnight of course but looking at the amount of debt that we as a people have generated with the current systems, something will need to change.

Easy there, you're basically re-inventing the wheel. Kitsune told you, and I basically concur with him. Money is just a medium. You should have a look on what sociologists call individual Capital.

The issue is not money, but the basic structure. The issue with our system relies on the inalienable individual rights it has enshrined. In this vision, it is an autistic system. Individual I will always prevail but in a such a complex society, that aspect will be severly hampered. And the ego will take a shot.
Frustration, class nevrosis, ****** nevrosis will ultimately bring that society down.

In other words economy is just a part of our lives. You solve that, you're left with all the rest. And frankly all the rest is by far more difficult to bend.

[wagon]

Skynet anyone?

What happens if something goes wrong with the computers? Will society become lost? What happens if there are people of corrupt nature writing the software for the computers?

I would rather things stay much as they are now, government wise.

[KoTeMoRe]

Skynet anyone?

What happens if something goes wrong with the computers? Will society become lost? What happens if there are people of corrupt nature writing the software for the computers?

I would rather things stay much as they are now, government wise.

We've got Hollywood, thank you very much.p-)

[manberries]

Hey look! The same old Communist rhetoric, that never gets old. The USSR fell, and Europes move to socialism has been the bane of their collective economies (that is why the conservatives are winning more and more elections there). Time to get over the cold war kiddies, find a new economic system to tout that actually works or stop whining.

[KoTeMoRe]

Hey look! The same old Communist rhetoric, that never gets old. The USSR fell, and Europes move to socialism has been the bane of their collective economies (that is why the conservatives are winning more and more elections there). Time to get over the cold war kiddies, find a new economic system to tout that actually works or stop whining.

Key words: Elections/conservatism/decay. We tend to suffer from diseases we get from across the pond. How does that cope with our "socialist" issues?

[coltfan111]

Any system that is designed for humans yet fails to take our most basic natures into account is a hugely flawed system. And people can never be equal anyway, even if you got financial equality you will still have social, political and intellectual elitism.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Ugh, what a crock! The world economy goes into a tizzy and these utopian cockroaches come out to peddle their kool aid. I guess humanity will shoot for deaths into the billions to prove them wrong like the last 100 million were lost to the 20th’s collectivists idiots.

It never ceases to amaze me how some can see so many truths yet ultimatly fail with utterly wrong conclusions.

[RECON DOC]

Who the hell's gonna pay for all this?

[KoTeMoRe]

Ugh, what a crock! The world economy goes into a tizzy and these utopian cockroaches come out to peddle their kool aid. I guess humanity will shoot for deaths into the billions to prove them wrong like the last 100 million were lost to the 20th’s collectivists idiots.

It never ceases to amaze me how some can see so many truths yet ultimatly fail with utterly wrong conclusions.

Mh...yeah. I just laughed my arse over your rant. Great ****, no really. Great. I like the round and perfect 100 million. Like a Grand Lotto or something. And you dare to speak about lies?

[vryhpyammoadded]

Yes, I dare imply an opposing philosophy. Lies, give me a break. LOL, so what’s next; visiting the gulag, a visit to reeducation camp or maybe the inquisitional, showing me the little room and the implements then later burning the demons out of my flesh? Scientific method my ass!

Would the latest batch of utopian collectivist master wannabes like to go another round of genocide to later have their necks stretched after the tribunals? Oh wait, this go round they’ll be expert programs running databases. It’s too bad they won’t experience sorrow, regret and pain from deletion. Then again, the overly zealous, meat sack, robot wannabe minions will and that’s a pleasurable thought.

But wait, I’ll be reasonable and offer a counter proposal. You collectivists can take one half the world and we individualists will take the other with the assorted world population forced to move to their philosophically compatible government. Once we’re all sorted out, you mind your business and we’ll mind our own. No interfering with each other allowed.

Good luck in your ant colony future alone.

[MaverickCowboy]

Fine. ill Die defending my capital.

[MaverickCowboy]

Yes, I dare imply an opposing philosophy. Lies, give me a break. LOL, so what’s next; visiting the gulag, a visit to reeducation camp or maybe the inquisitional, showing me the little room and the implements then later burning the demons out of my flesh? Scientific method my ass!

Would the latest batch of utopian collectivist master wannabes like to go another round of genocide to later have their necks stretched after the tribunals? Oh wait, this go round they’ll be expert programs running databases. It’s too bad they won’t experience sorrow, regret and pain from deletion. Then again, the overly zealous, meat sack, robot wannabe minions will and that’s a pleasurable thought.

But wait, I’ll be reasonable and offer a counter proposal. You collectivists can take one half the world and we individualists will take the other with the assorted world population forced to move to their philosophically compatible government. Once we’re all sorted out, you mind your business and we’ll mind our own. No interfering with each other allowed.

Good luck in your ant colony future alone.

I agree.

Communism is strong in this thread.

Why wont they allow dissenters to be free from their own philosophy?

[MaverickCowboy]

Underlined the conceptual issues with "your" communism. Oh and don't bring ever the word soviet in a "commune" debate.

As for the rest: In theory.

Communism is one of the final steps of the "natural" progress of the western society. This step comes "naturally" when capitalism reaches its systemic and statutory peak. These peaks are two different types of crisis.
One is the end of the "destructive creation" (the unfortunate habit of capitalism to destroy previous strutures in order to re-establish new ones), the other is the impossibility on the behalf of the ruling capitalists (be they bourgeois or nobility) to cover up by "statutory bribes" the inherent immorality of the first process.

Capitalism thus relies basically (hang on please because I'm being VERY schematic here) in a "differential" (read unfair) distribution of economical power and an "immoral" (in fact amoral) social system. These two pillars are what create the "superstructure" and the "infrastructure" of the capitalist system.

Infra: exploitation of Labour (L) in favour of Kapital (K).
Super: exploitation of Moral (M) in favour of Immoral (I).

This historicist, narrow, positivist, economicist point of view was what billions of people believed (or were forced to belive) during roughly 140 years! Peculiarly the work from wich this capitalist vision emerged was an half assed one, since the German barbudo and his mates had never made it to full industrialization of the economy.

Thus "primal communism" doesn't call for "soviets", since for "primal communism" Capitalism had to collapse, given the way early capitalism was bestial and arrogant. However Capitalism collapsed. But no one understood it. Because it was immediately replaced by itself plus some new rules. Rules that made it less trasparent, thus less brutal looking. Kulturkampf and general crisis provided some distraction until WW1.

As for the shootings. Most of it was done in specific periods and it did not regard communism, but the establishment of a new political power. If by chance you happen to know what "communism" was about then you can't have a political power when communism is established. General Will et caetera.

Shootings, purges, mass killings are a common sight in overnight power shifting (476 AD might serve as a starting point in complex powershifting).

A lot of what I say, looks like basic communist apologetic crap. I concur, my words, no matter how intelligible their sound is, are just cheap talk. People were shot, murdered, tortured, burnt, forgotten including in my homeland and in my own family "in the name of..."!

But for the fairness of the debate, they still stand. Communism has never killed anyone, people have killed millions...for immediate profit, not for a "fair society". This is true for all holistic doxas.

Edit: Kitsune but what the current system is marketed on, IS the inerent way of more immediate and better planning of ressource distribution relying on a "functionning market" fueled by "coherent individual will and merit". Bar the interfaces (market/elections/borders) because of higher technology allowing a faster and more flexible answer to T-time crisis and tadaa you're in communism without needing to name it.
are you yourself a communist?

[[ KOOSHAB ]]

(that is why the conservatives are winning more and more elections there)

Do you have the numbers?
(Not advocating Communism or Capitalism btw)

[manberries]

Take a look at Germany quite specifically. The conservatives not only won, but grabbed a significant portion of the government. Austria's quasi conservative group is massively in control (They are a weird in between of conservatism and socialism though), Belgium had a conservative christian group win majority, Bulgaria's conservative group just eked out a victory, a moderate conservative group barely won in Czech Republic, Finland's conservative group gained 13 seats, the new French government is conservative (and destroyed the socialists in the elections), Hungary had a extreme right group win (Perhaps not such a good thing), Poland's conservative party gained points on polls, Romania's elections stil came out socialist but a big gain in conservative votes, and the UK labour party was taken to town by the conservatives (By this I mean the normal conservative party, not the BNP. Although, the BNP gained two seats as well.)

Some nations did swing socialist, such as Greece and Italy. However, most of the countries that remained the same or swung socialist are weaker members of the EU. Yet, analysts from both sides are calling this one of the biggest political spectrum swings to occur in a single voting period.

This is all open domain kind of stuff. The EU itself actually publishes such information that can be gained from a bit of google search.

[[ KOOSHAB ]]

I thought SDP controls Austria,
anyways I find it weird that Christian Democratic parties are gaining power.
- possibly a reaction to Islam?

[Daft Ego]

Corruption is human nature, and corruption is why the smart ones win. In a sense, the system we have now models nature itself, in that it favors the survival of the fittest (knowledge/power-wise). In a Utopian world, animals wouldn't have to tear each other's guts out to survive either.

Although the video does raise a lot of valid points about our current system, the solution they propose is not exactly fool-proof either.

[Kilgor]

Would the latest batch of utopian collectivist master wannabes like to go another round of genocide to later have their necks stretched after the tribunals? .

X2

people learn nothing from history.

This latest Utopia will end up just like the last, one viewpoint enforced with the gun and state propaganda machine.

[KoTeMoRe]

Yes, I dare imply an opposing philosophy. Lies, give me a break. LOL, so what’s next; visiting the gulag, a visit to reeducation camp or maybe the inquisitional, showing me the little room and the implements then later burning the demons out of my flesh? Scientific method my ass!

Would the latest batch of utopian collectivist master wannabes like to go another round of genocide to later have their necks stretched after the tribunals? Oh wait, this go round they’ll be expert programs running databases. It’s too bad they won’t experience sorrow, regret and pain from deletion. Then again, the overly zealous, meat sack, robot wannabe minions will and that’s a pleasurable thought.

But wait, I’ll be reasonable and offer a counter proposal. You collectivists can take one half the world and we individualists will take the other with the assorted world population forced to move to their philosophically compatible government. Once we’re all sorted out, you mind your business and we’ll mind our own. No interfering with each other allowed.

Good luck in your ant colony future alone.

Are you implying that Communism is genocidary/genocidal by nature? If so allow me to break the happy buddy atmosphere by stating that you are positively a moron. Next on line...what communism has to do with torture and execution methods that you folks of freedom experimented first and foremost...Are we to halve the world? We tried that remember? You folks got pretty angry and tried to kill the bolshevik take over on its birth. That contributed to the very criminal nature of the regime until it was too dizzy to keep whipping it's own population.

But we're still speaking about a regime. You know quite different from my griefs. That's the main issue. You can't imagine communism (neither can I) as something that would impose itself without a defensive instinct. However that's what communism is about. Another way to build on the rubble of the current system. Unfortunately Capitalism just showed its face once again. It needed a bailout (that btw will not work on the long run given who runs the bid'ness) with monkey cash to keep itself alive.

Last but not least. I'm not a collectivist, we both are...since we elect a body of people that form a government wich takes our money to spend on whatever the said bunch of folks that we elect vote on. See. You're ****ed anyway. Oh you choose, that's the difference...buttseks demands for lube I understand.

Oh Maverick...what difference would it make if I were communist (that I am not, but hey to you, a pinko, a commie same pit).

manberries: What you don't get is not that people choose conservatives, they choose the original version over the copies that most socialist parties have turned out to be after the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

Now I wouldn't even try to underline that in Europe conservatives tend to buy more votes by effectively targeting families (their main market) and the fear sentiment of the "middle class", but I will simply tell you to check out the programs. And the logic behind "people's choice" in Yurup.

Italy socialist? Yeah and Berlusconi is a hardcore Stalinian? You probably meant Spain, Portugal and Greece.

[MaverickCowboy]

Oh Maverick...what difference would it make if I were communist (that I am not, but hey to you, a pinko, a commie same pit).



I asked a question asshat. don't put words in my mouth.

[vryhpyammoadded]

No, I wasn’t talking just about Communism. “Collectivists” are genocidal by nature. Communism, Socialism, Capitalism are only words, concepts, excuses used by people to form a common culture.

These systems are all fine and dandy for temporary cultural bonding depending on several factors but ultimately they all fall prey to individual human nature to adapt and overcome rules for personal benefit. No amount of education, law, regulation or killing will ever stop someone or some group eventually inflicting tyranny on others enslaving all or a portion of their time and effort, therefore, my esthetic is to choose a more anarchic path of governance accepting that culture corrupts. The resource model is my philosophical antithesis and therefore, a grave threat to me.

Moron, LOL… I’ve been called worse and don’t give a fvck what people think of me, meanwhile you should ease up a little. I often use harsh, opinionated rhetoric but between the lines I am attempting communicating ideas, although maybe a bit too vague at times. Anyway…

I suggest rethinking what I wrote. But yes, I favor more towards the anarchy side of the scale which often puts me at odds with those leaning to the tyranny side. I understand your anger. At least you are more honest than most.

As for halving the world, I promise, I wasn’t lying. I’m a zero aggression principle guy (note, don’t confuse that with pacifism) I’m perfectly ok with whatever anyone wants to do with themselves as long as they don’t interfere with me or my allies, which by the way, places me at odds with all government including my own.

But, I agree with you on the second and third paragraphs only that I come to very different conclusions favoring even greater anarchy rather than order to carry humanity on to greater days.

[KoTeMoRe]

No, I wasn’t talking just about Communism. “Collectivists” are genocidal by nature. Communism, Socialism, Capitalism are only words, concepts, excuses used by people to form a common culture.

These systems are all fine and dandy for temporary cultural bonding depending on several factors but ultimately they all fall prey to individual human nature to adapt and overcome rules for personal benefit. No amount of education, law, regulation or killing will ever stop someone or some group eventually inflicting tyranny on others enslaving all or a portion of their time and effort, therefore, my esthetic is to choose a more anarchic path of governance accepting that culture corrupts. The resource model is my philosophical antithesis and therefore, a grave threat to me.

Moron, LOL… I’ve been called worse and don’t give a fvck what people think of me, meanwhile you should ease up a little. I often use harsh, opinionated rhetoric but between the lines I am attempting communicating ideas, although maybe a bit too vague at times. Anyway…

I suggest rethinking what I wrote. But yes, I favor more towards the anarchy side of the scale which often puts me at odds with those leaning to the tyranny side. I understand your anger. At least you are more honest than most.

As for halving the world, I promise, I wasn’t lying. I’m a zero aggression principle guy (note, don’t confuse that with pacifism) I’m perfectly ok with whatever anyone wants to do with themselves as long as they don’t interfere with me or my allies, which by the way, places me at odds with all government including my own.

But, I agree with you on the second and third paragraphs only that I come to very different conclusions favoring even greater anarchy rather than order to carry humanity on to greater days.

I went out of bounds by calling you a moron. Incidentally, I made myself one. Accept my apologies.

On the anarchy point, we don't differ that much. Just my pathos still kicking. Old habits die hard et caetera.


Maverick: Why would you like to know if I was a commie? Unless taking a stance on my rethorics...

[CG51]

http://www.youtube.com/v/i9GDplWLiEo&feature=player_profilepage

[shhfiles]

Not so much communism as it would be a Technocracy. People that have earned their position by their works for the betterment of mankind rather than those that have bought it are a core group that is assisted in making decisions by consulting highly advanced computers. Communism basically controls the masses by depravation and brute force. In theory, if all are equal in quality of life there would be no political system. This is a social or people model system vs. a profit generated (corrupted) system.

emphasis added by me..
http://www.technocracy.org/


Howard Scott
(Founder-Director-In Chief
Technocracy, Inc.)

So what is known about Howard Scott? This just gets more and more interesting....

[CG51]

Some interesting, some conspirisy parts.

http://www.youtube.com/v/_dmPchuXIXQ

http://www.youtube.com/v/lBZne09Gf5A&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/v/SjUrib_Gh0Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/v/rXZ4xYP53DY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/v/xSBU0rtt1Vg&feature=related