you know, i'm probably misinformed about the suicide. i think it was depression and alcoholism i was thinking of. Still 2nd hand information, and the guy's girlfriend was Norwegian, not Swedish.

and capitalism, is she soft slavery? For me, I'd like to think no, but maybe for others. It's so implicit, it's hard to say. She certainly rewards greed.

And she's certainly crap.

gio wrote:you know, i'm probably misinformed about the suicide. i think it was depression and alcoholism i was thinking of. Still 2nd hand information, and the guy's girlfriend was Norwegian, not Swedish.

This is an illness which has the second most pathetic name ever: SAD, which stands for Seasonal Affective Disorder.

http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Book ... sorder.htm

SAD is second only to dyslexia in terms of shitty names for illnesses.

"Why so glum, my Alaskan friend?"
"*Sniff*! I've got SAD!"

This is an illness which has the second most pathetic name ever: SAD, which stands for Seasonal Affective Disorder

.

Yeah, I've read about the SAD. People in Chicago use it as an excuse not to get out of bed in the winter. Weak.

Such attitudes will never topple capitalism!!

GuyMercier wrote:yes, that's what Marx said a hundred years ago
and we're still waiting

I did not mean it that way, as a blanket statement to cover the ideology of Capitalism in general. It means if you take an example of a capitalist system (i.e. the United States) you can track it's progress, rise and fall in a relatively short period of time. It will exhaust itself quickly as it cannot perpetuate itself like a socialist or democratic fiscal system.

I'm rambling now...

Cheers,

It will exhaust itself quickly as it cannot perpetuate itself like a socialist or democratic fiscal system.

Explain what you mean by a 'democratic' fiscal system. i think most people would think that's what we have unless you clarify.

also, i'm not seeing how a socialist fiscal system can perpetuate itself either. all fiscal systems (excluding pure capitalism) require regulation, and regulation involves laws which indicates power - a power not shared by everyone. you lose accountability, thereby losing regulation. so the system fails from the get-go. capitalism is similar, just insert "corporations" where government would be.

just ask yourself this - can you completely trust any 1 person or group with your complete rights, your money, and your safety? if your answer is the same as mine, then guess what - no system of any kind will completely work.

actually, this argument is sort of pointless. sorry for continuing it-

TheMilford wrote:

GuyMercier wrote:yes, that's what Marx said a hundred years ago
and we're still waiting

I did not mean it that way, as a blanket statement to cover the ideology of Capitalism in general. It means if you take an example of a capitalist system (i.e. the United States) you can track it's progress, rise and fall in a relatively short period of time. It will exhaust itself quickly as it cannot perpetuate itself like a socialist or democratic fiscal system.

I'm rambling now...

Cheers,

I don’t really buy into (heh, language) this kind of deterministic, Hegelian argument (and let’s leave Marx’s reworking of Hegel out of this for now shall we).

It’s all up for grabs. ‘It all’ being reality, consciousness, power, art, nutrition, tube amps, denim, language, you invoke it.

There’s probably nothing your or I can do about it just like there’s nothing you or I can do about the current American administration’s power, policies, and popularity, Thing is, some people do do a lot about it. Capitalism is the ideological ground of almost everything that’s wrong (and highly effective) about American/western global hegemony. Hence, it ain’t no minnow to drop in the frying pan.

But if people don’t in the end make history -- and this a point which capitalism itself works to put to rest, again very effectively – what’s the point of giving a shit about anything?

unarmedman wrote:

It will exhaust itself quickly as it cannot perpetuate itself like a socialist or democratic fiscal system.

Explain what you mean by a 'democratic' fiscal system. i think most people would think that's what we have unless you clarify.

also, i'm not seeing how a socialist fiscal system can perpetuate itself either. all fiscal systems (excluding pure capitalism) require regulation, and regulation involves laws which indicates power - a power not shared by everyone. you lose accountability, thereby losing regulation. so the system fails from the get-go. capitalism is similar, just insert "corporations" where government would be.

just ask yourself this - can you completely trust any 1 person or group with your complete rights, your money, and your safety? if your answer is the same as mine, then guess what - no system of any kind will completely work.

actually, this argument is sort of pointless. sorry for continuing it-

Sorry, I was at a loss for words, but you have pretty much described what I was trying to get at... by 'democratic fiscal system' I meant a fiscal system void of the "corporation". Basically a system where the 'people' are held accountable, not any 'one' entity. What would one call a economic model of this nature? I dunno. probably somewhere of the socialist/anarchist ideology. Maybe I should have tried to graduate high school...Maybe I read too much Chomsky....

For a long time the rich have controlled the poor. This could be considered capitalism as well, no? I know that John Adams warned against a kind of "state capitalism" before it really existed... but I could not find the source of this statement. I will research this tonight.

I ask myself if I can trust any one entity every day. Apparently the rest of the sheep do. I do not.

This is a interesting discussion.

cheers,

TheMilford wrote:I ask myself if I can trust any one entity every day. Apparently the rest of the sheep do. I do not.

This is a interesting discussion.

sure but let's not get too confused

capitalism is not a kind of government it's the system above and beyond that. capitalists are those who own the means of production, on the other hand you have the proletarians who don't own them and have to sell what is known as their work power to the capitalists, in return they get the money with which they can buy the stuff that they have transformed from nothing to product all by themselves but with the means of their capitalist employers.

the government in capitalist regimes just make sure that the proles stick to work and the capitalists reap the profits; be it a monarchy, a democracy of any kind, a dictatorship or whatever doesn't change the nature of capitalism which is simply based on the notion of exploitation of the masses work by a very small subset of economic and financial rulers.

last, to keep this short and forum friendly, nowadays we are in the age of globalization and governments are losing any varnish they previously had of actually being able to steer in one way or another. capitalism has no borders

I am only slightly confused

Yes, there is a distinction between government and the economic system that it operates in. Currently there is a fine line between our government and the capitalists that are in power. This is true globally, as you pointed out.

We live in a 'republic' not a true 'democracy' and the elected minority in control of the proletarians have to protect their capitalist system to keep the wheels in motion and keep their lifestyles intact. Basically a bunch of rich guys want to stay that way and subvert the government to their own ends.

So yes, I'm all in favor of more government control, to take the power out of the hands of the few and displace it to the many. If this requires a 'regulation' on capitalism that can only be a good thing.

Please let's continue this discussion...

TheMilford wrote:We live in a 'republic' not a true 'democracy'

ah, I've never really understood what republic is supposed to mean. it seems to be very vague whereas democracy seems to be about people voting to get represented by other people, which I find unsufficient if not insignificant.

Please let's continue this discussion...

alas I think we agree!