Page 4 of 6
Re: Lao Tzu Vs. Communism
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 6:00 pm
by Steve Ballmer
So you admit that you're knowingly not using the word "nature" in the same way that I am, which renders your critique entirely OT. Congratulations, you're a fantastic douche.
Re: Lao Tzu Vs. Communism
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:05 pm
by Steve Ballmer
Funk N. Furter wrote:Animals aren't all bad, MW. Some have been known to rescue humans or other species, completely on their own initiative. Many form life-long bonds with partners or friends. Few of them have anything like our intelligence of course. Anyway, human evolution was all about co-operation. That's how and why we developed language. That's how we survived the last glaciation when harsh conditions killed off the Neanderthals, even though they were more physically suited to live in cold places than we were.
However capitalism is making us stupid. It is distorting everything, to such extremes that new we are blithely wrecking the ecosystem, while the right whingers place a finger in each ear and whistle. Millions starve despite no lack of food. More is spent on weapons than is needed to end poverty and save hundreds of millions of lives.
So yes, Stevie boy of course it's stupid for workers to vote for the right. But on the other hand I would never condemn workers as stupid. As Marx said, the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class. The capitalists control the media, the politicians mostly, the governments, the economy, much of academia. This is how they managed to bring down the world economy.
Wrong thread genius.
Having said that, I'd like to know why you believe that "the capitalists"—who you and Lenin both admit know "how to run shit"—are intentionally destroying the world economy. If their only motivation is money and they know how to make it, why would they be intentionally sabotaging their efforts?
Re: Lao Tzu Vs. Communism
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:12 pm
by Machinesworking
Steve Ballmer wrote:So you admit that you're knowingly not using the word "nature" in the same way that I am, which renders your critique entirely OT. Congratulations, you're a fantastic douche.
Again you're willingly being obtuse. It's a debate tactic that works OK in spoken debates, you hope that eventually I say something that you can use as a wedge to get in a last attempt at making sense of your own talking points, but in the printed form you're not looking so good. In fact this last little nugget of unrestrained anger and frustration is pretty much an admission of failure.
Let me explain it as simply and in as grade school form as I can for you. When you, Lao, the 60's hippies and anyone else for that matter uses the term "nature" to try to exemplify some ideological higher ground, they aren't "using it in a different way", they are simply misusing a term, period. It's as vapid and misused of a talking point in politics as 'god', and it's been used as often to commit atrocities.
Re: Lao Tzu Vs. Communism
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:19 pm
by Machinesworking
Funk N. Furter wrote:Animals aren't all bad, MW. Some have been known to rescue humans or other species, completely on their own initiative. Many form life-long bonds with partners or friends.
Not the point, animals aren't all bad for sure, but the social interactions of animals aren't to be emulated. It's primitive violent fascism for the most part.
Most all animal packs are as base as it gets.
One dolphin saving a human in no way takes away from the fact that 10,000 sharks have eaten that human in similar situations. Nature is a Fascist, not a Taoist, or a Communist.
Re: Lao Tzu Vs. Communism
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:20 pm
by Steve Ballmer
Well we could turn this into a linguistic debate... OR we could remain on topic and discuss the quote as it was intended. Maybe I'm just being naive, but I didn't start this thread to discuss why you disapprove of Lao's choice of vocabulary
Re: Lao Tzu Vs. Communism
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:24 pm
by Steve Ballmer
Machinesworking wrote:Funk N. Furter wrote:Animals aren't all bad, MW. Some have been known to rescue humans or other species, completely on their own initiative. Many form life-long bonds with partners or friends.
Not the point, animals aren't all bad for sure, but the social interactions of animals aren't to be emulated. It's primitive violent fascism for the most part.
Most all animal packs are as base as it gets.
One dolphin saving a human in no way takes away from the fact that 10,000 sharks have eaten that human in similar situations. Nature is a Fascist, not a Taoist, or a Communist.
And who exactly here is arguing that we should be "emulating the social interactions of animals"?
Re: Lao Tzu Vs. Communism
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:47 pm
by beats me
Steve Ballmer wrote:we could remain on topic
BAN HAMMER!
Re: Lao Tzu Vs. Communism
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:34 pm
by Styles Bitchly
MENLO PARK, CA — According to recent agricultrual output statistics, gross domestic output of Eggplant crop is 237.6 million metric tons annually with the predominant bulk of output originating from the Compton-Sacramento region. Primary export destination includes India, Ghana and Hong Kong which according to Austin Milbarge, Secretary of Agriculture, "
accounts for why those regions smell so fucking rotten".
Re: Lao Tzu Vs. Communism
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:13 pm
by Machinesworking
Steve Ballmer wrote:Well we could turn this into a linguistic debate... OR we could remain on topic and discuss the quote as it was intended. Maybe I'm just being naive, but I didn't start this thread to discuss why you disapprove of Lao's choice of vocabulary
The onus is on you to actually have a topic in the first place, when you state that your interpretation of "nature" as a talking point in terms of civilization is different than actual animal social interactions, then it's up to you to fill in the rest of us on your teenage/eastern mystic reinterpretation of a commonly misused word.
To be clear here, I get what you're trying to accomplish, but you're wrong, deeply wrong. Nature as a talking point, as an 'aligned with the universe' etc. concept, has never, and will never, be a positive force in politics. For all the reasons I've mentioned, and more.
You're doing the same tired and boring debate tactic you always do when one of your talking points is flattened, desperately evading the actual lack of any real credible substance to your original point. You aligned yourself with a quote, a quote that was intentionally vague thousands of years ago. Then proceed to skip around the fact that it never was and never will be a good talking point for a discussion on politics. That fukenfurter fell for it is not a sign of it's validity.
Re: Lao Tzu Vs. Communism
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:03 am
by Steve Ballmer
Funk N. Furter wrote:I am arguing against Stevie boy's assertion that it's natural for humans to be selfish, so therefore capitalism is the only option that could ever work.
Which I say where in this thread? Nobody in this thread except you has even used the word selfish. If this is your point, you're OT. Like a bitch.
Re: Lao Tzu Vs. Communism
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:11 am
by Steve Ballmer
@Machinesworking
If you actually skip back a few pages, you'll actually see that YOU "fell for it" well before the venerable sausage, when you chose to randomly compare Lao to Hitler. But if by making such a comparison you feel that you've "flattened" the talking point, then bully for you—it's curious that you seem to take such delight in killing threads. Meanwhile, I think that the Chinaman has a lot to contribute to philosophy, which can't be refuted with a simple "sharks is scary", as you seem to believe.
So far, this thread can be summed up as:
Steve: Quote
Styles: "She tastes like cigarettes"
Machines: Intentionally OT eggplant
Funk: Randomly OT eggplant
Steve: Facepalm
Machines: Random agression
Funk: Random agression
Mention "nature" and everyone loses their shit.
Re: Lao Tzu Vs. Communism
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:56 am
by Steve Ballmer
Funk wrote:Let me give you another example. A capitalist will pay his employees as little as he can get away with, so as to maximise his profit and competitiveness. However the fact that they all do this means the employees don't have enough money to buy the stuff that they make, so the capitalists can't sell their shit, and this is what causes recessions.
So according to you and 12 year olds, the 2008 crash happened because salaries were too low?
Re: Lao Tzu Vs. Communism
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:39 am
by Steve Ballmer
Funk N. Furter wrote:Steve Ballmer wrote:Funk N. Furter wrote:I am arguing against Stevie boy's assertion that it's natural for humans to be selfish, so therefore capitalism is the only option that could ever work.
Which I say where in this thread? Nobody in this thread except you has even used the word selfish. If this is your point, you're OT. Like a bitch.
Oh, so you
don't think that capitalism is the natural option for humans, because humans are selfish?
If this form of reasoning is valid, then by your logic, you admit you wish for all of humanity to starve, as such is the logical conclusion of the policies you propose. By your own logic, you're a monster.
Re: Lao Tzu Vs. Communism
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:51 am
by Steve Ballmer
Funk N. Furter wrote:Steve Ballmer wrote:Funk wrote:Let me give you another example. A capitalist will pay his employees as little as he can get away with, so as to maximise his profit and competitiveness. However the fact that they all do this means the employees don't have enough money to buy the stuff that they make, so the capitalists can't sell their shit, and this is what causes recessions.
So according to you and 12 year olds, the 2008 crash happened because salaries were too low?
Duh.
Yes, of course. It's basic ABC. Low wages and rising inequality are the root cause of the crash. As I explained. As Marx predicted. As reality proved.
It's flaming obvious. Over the last 30 years the rich got richer and the poor did not, and the Marxists warned that it would end in a massive crash, which it did. Some of the leading capitalist commentators/economists also understand this. You cannot have your cake and eat it. If you cut wages, which they did (relatively and arguably in real terms for the poor) you cut your markets. If you cut your markets people can't afford to buy stuff.
Why do you thing interest rates were around 0% in 2001-5? Because nobody could afford anything, and the capitalist class were desperate for Americans to SPEND SPEND SPEND.
The inevitable result was the bubble bursting.
You're off by a mile. Sure there was a "bubble", but not in the sense you suggest. Learning a few economic terms here and there and then slipping them into a conversation does not an economist make. Here's a hint: it has something to do with market distortion.
Incidentally, just because you predict a crash that then takes place doesn't mean that you have predicted it for the
right reasons. If your logic isn't sound (and in your case it isn't), then at best you've succeeded in clouding the issue. If your claims that you have a degree in science are at all founded in reality, then you should already know this. Maybe you got your degree from a capitalist university who wants to see the world burn?
Re: Lao Tzu Vs. Communism
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:35 pm
by Steve Ballmer
Funk N. Furter wrote:Steve Ballmer wrote:Funk N. Furter wrote:
Oh, so you don't think that capitalism is the natural option for humans, because humans are selfish?
If this form of reasoning is valid, then by your logic, you admit you wish for all of humanity to starve, as such is the logical conclusion of the policies you propose. By your own logic, you're a monster.
No is not. What are you talking about? We are talking about your views not mine. I am asking you a question, that's why the sentence ends in a question mark. Most people on the right argue this point and I would be very surprised if you don't. In fact I thought it was the whole purpose of the thread. If you do differ from most right wingers on this please state so and why, and what the thread is about if it's not that. Was there a point to the OP?
Of course it is. You're making assumptions about my beliefs based on your preconceptions. In other words, you've been arguing against a straw man this entire thread, and only now that I've called you out on it are you hastily backpeddling and actually enquiring about my position. You even admit in your defense that you've been blindly lumping me in with "the majority of right wingers", which, given your polarizing political views, is ridiculously simplistic.