# Its time for the END of capitalism! No poor, no rich, just sharing resources...



## professorjpj

As long as we have "money", we will ALWAYS have rich and extravagant living, and then the poor, starving, destitute and homeless... The ONLY way to eliminate this is to ELIMINATE money itself, the whole system.. Where ALL men are truly "equal", and no man has more then another.. It could be done... In fact, this may be the only country and landmass in the world where it would be feasible.. Ive seen the effects of greed, and out of control capitalism, and its as evil as it can get.. We need something better... Otherwise, we are truly LOST!! Thoughts?


----------



## raaya79

Hummmmm. Im not a fan of capitalism either, but generally speaking human beings are still in the monkey brain phase of evolution so im not sure what system would suffice. . There have been some really beautiful ideals and systems thought up in the 19th and 20th centurys only to be hoodwinked and destroyed by the monkey brain minset mentioned before.. Equality is a tough one. Unfortunately no one is born equal, we are all born with certain predetermined qualities. ...


----------



## Matt Derrick

i'm a self-described anarchist, but i just can't see the world without some form of currency exchange while having a large scale populace.


----------



## Skit

End wealth, not poverty.


----------



## Ristoncor

I mean, currency only has value when people acknowledge it does. I remember hearing about some sort of Pacific Islanders who's currency was rocks. And the larger the rock, the more it was worth. I suppose we could move back to the barter system, it would make us more "equal," in a way I suppose, though it would be more cumbersome. I guess the question is then: should we sacrifice convenience for equality? But even in a barter system, people wouldn't necessarily be equal; just think of disabled people or people with mental/physical handicaps who's labors provide mediocre returns. So, I guess my answer is: I'm not quite sure.


----------



## raaya79

I think the question ultimately comes down to human nature. The human mind has a amazing ability to adapt to its environment. So i think we could have a much more equal socety ' as far as income inequality goes' but i dont think a perfect world is possible considering the deeply ingrained propensity towards power and control in the human psych. ..


----------



## Ristoncor

> but i dont think a perfect world is possible considering the deeply ingrained propensity towards power and control in the human psych


^This. Someone was applying this to things like paying taxes to get Medicare later on and stuff like that. People are going to have to give up some "comfort" if they want to be more free. But the question is: will they?


----------



## raaya79

Ristoncor said:


> ^This. Someone was applying this to things like paying taxes to get Medicare later on and stuff like that. People are going to have to give up some "comfort" if they want to be more free. But the question is: will they?


I think it all depends on the morals of said society. Human beings are capable of doing many things... Do i think the people around me would cheat the system if they could, yes, no doubt about it. They have no faith in the institutions that rule them, but, in the same breath, they wouldnt risk their security and well being to challenge that same system that they have no faith in..Most people are more concerned with food and self preservation than really changing the outlining system that enslave them.. Plus, the propaganda system in this country is exquisite. ..


----------



## Kim Chee

Make money illegal? That would be Un-American...and it is my God given right to have money. I pay taxes, dammit!
Haha...seriously.

Money (or the lack of surely divides us).

There is also another thing that divides us: willingness to work. 

If greed weren't so prevalent, there would be more to go around. 

Yep. Greed. There's your problem, it isn't money.


----------



## Rover

I think that money, and capitalism are symptoms of the problem, rather than the cause.


----------



## Thrasymachus

You guys need to read Debt the First 5000 years by anarchist anthropologist David Graeber. My favorite podcast even turned it into a free audiobook:
http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/Debt,_The_First_5000_Years

Before money according to Graeber no one really went around bartering and say trading 20 chickens for a certain amount of bread, as Adam Smith supposed out of his ass. Infact according to the research of historian Dr Craig Muldrew who has done primary research on this time period, even during the time of Smith, a very, very tiny and wealthy minority of British used money instead of the dominant local credit systems for their daily needs. Smith knew this, he just invented the myth of barter exchange, but Graeber says that anthropologists always knew that economists were full of it on this, because they never found examples of barter being used to circulate goods on a large scale, the way we use money. What societies before money was used is local credit systems. Money and coinage arose according to historical evidence where large numbers of soldiers, especially mercenaries were. To field and provision 10,000 soldiers you would need just as many or more people on the back-end producing their gear, their tents/shelter, farming their food, transporting it all, etc. In pre-modern times, remember, it was not like today where only 1% of the population is actually engaged in agriculture by trade, they didn't have the manpower to spare to have a huge standing army and just as many or more, supporting this army full-time. Rulers learned the best way to provision their armies, was to circulate a currency and demand that everyone in their state pay back a certain portion as taxes, that way essentially everyone is doing their small part to help keep the army maintained. Graeber points out that in one podcast or talk that it would not have been a good idea to use the traditional method of extending local credit to anywhere large number of heavily armed soldiers are temporarily staying. How could the local merchants, shop-keepers or farmer enforce that they stick to the credit arrangement and pay it back, before they left?

More on why money is a negative force in the world, unlike some above naively suppose:


Charles Eisenstein said:


> *Suppose I have twelve loaves of bread, and you are hungry. I cannot eat so much bread before it goes stale, so I am happy to lend some of it to you.* “Here, take these six loaves,” I say, “and when you have bread in the future, you can give me six loaves back again.” I give you six fresh loaves now, and you give me six fresh loaves sometime in the future.
> 
> *In a world where the things we need and use go bad, sharing comes naturally. The hoarder ends up sitting alone atop a pile of stale bread, rusty tools, and spoiled fruit, and no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one. Money today, however, is not like bread, fruit, or indeed any natural object. It is the lone exception to nature’s law of return, the law of life, death, and rebirth, which says that all things ultimately return to their source. Money does not decay over time, but in its abstraction from physicality, it remains changeless or even grows with time, exponentially, thanks to the power of interest.*
> 
> source:
> Sacred Economics: Chapter 12, Negative-Interest Economics



The only reason why people can dumpster dive reliably is because live in a money based society and so in the United States almost 50% of food is wasted somehow or other before being eaten. Often times when riding my bicycle, I will snoop into the local electronics recycling trailers of my town or neighboring municipalities. Often you can find perfectly good laptops, GPSs, video game systems, mice, etc. Why? Because our society only really values money over and against everything else. In a society that had other values the scale of waste we think is normal would be morally repugnant. But things in themselves are not valuable, even the environment or human life, in a money based society -- only money is truly valorized at the expense of everything else. And it is not just worth it monetarily for stores to not waste food they cannot turn into money, just like it is not worth it monetarily for many middle class families to rehome the obsolete but often otherwise working and functional electronics instead of chucking it.

The structure and goal of a capitalist society is to liquidate everything: the lived environment, the living eco-system, and even human life as expressed in wage hours, which are in the process de-valued, into a fetishized representative of itself. We call this ghostly, and deadly symbol -- money.


----------



## mumblz

I think equality based on 'stuff' is superficial at best. Equality is based on relative perceptions... imo we need a cultural overhaul and an economy that is reflective of that.


----------



## TWTP

"Love is knowing I am everything. Wisdom is knowing I am nothing. My life moves between the two."

If most humans beings got on board with this idea I don't think it would much matter what economic system you contextualized their actions in, capitalist or collectivist. Ultimately both those systems are based on the same religion, which is "individualism", or the idea that human beings are objects of a type similar to things like chairs, computers, or even concepts like "blue" or "stupid", and that we can play with them in the same ways we can play with these objects, with predictable results.

These objects can be considered as a block (collectivism) or separately (Austrian school capitalism), but the idea that there are such objects to be considering at all, that there is any SUBSTANCE to identity, is the assumption behind both. Human beings are not types of objects, they are processes that can be described in various ways, and if we're serious about a notion like species preservation (I'm no moralist; I'm not saying we SHOULD be concerned with preserving ourselves) then we should deliberately make space for ALL, and I mean all, of these competing methods of description. The crippling hypocrisy of modern "liberalism" when it calls for an end to oppression by means of ideological and economic COERCION proves that many do not understand these ideas; tolerance applies on a meta-level that few "liberals" seem to be aware of.

Identity is always a BECOMING; every noun is really a verb. Any ideology therefore concerned with the identity of individuals is always a sleazy underhanded attempt to CONTROL others, to make them stay the same, and be described ONE way over another way, because identities are, in reality, always in flux (this is the Achilles heel of otherwise laudable programs like feminism, or any other "ism" that seeks to describe some object, in this case "females" or "the feminine", without ever examining the premise whether there indeed IS any such object in the first place. To be fair some feminists have noticed this, i.e. the smart ones, and have written about it). And if you're not convinced that literally no human being, ever, anywhere, should HAVE this control over others, for any reason, then I don't think you've internalized enough world history.

Economics is still the slave of ontology. Fix the broken individualist ontology of the west, and you won't even need to fix its economies. If you want to point a finger for the mistake, blame Judaism, Christianity, and all other dualistic western ontologies, including Kant and his intellectual descendants like John Rawls etc.

For the sources of these ideas, check out Alexander Bard, Nietzsche, Nagarjuna, Heidegger, the Vedas, Joseph Campbell, and probably many other thinkers I haven't read or forget about. Long live the enemies of dualism, enemies by extension of capitalism and collectivism alike!


----------



## Tumbleweed

TWTP, have you considered that the kind of philosophy you are espousing (ontology, the duality of mind, object/subject discussions) can be used as a method of societal control that works for economic injustice not against it? Where do you find published philosophers? In positions of authority at academic institutions, in the employment of the wealthy as members of "think tanks" or as theory specialists, or employed by governments to work on "the big issues", i.e., economics, social justice and the allotment of wealth. Additionally many of the names that you mentioned write in a style that is unintelligible to the vast majority of the people on this planet (including myself, and I have studied philosophy in college) which to me is the best demonstration of why their ideas shouldn't be trusted; only a very elite group can claim any ownership over these ideas and we have to trust this elite to translate these high ideas into common concepts for the 99% of the population that can't understand them without help. So metaphysical speculation becomes another hierarchical system.


----------



## Tumbleweed

mmmmmmmichael said:


> Make money illegal? That would be Un-American...and it is my God given right to have money. I pay taxes, dammit!
> Haha...seriously.
> 
> Money (or the lack of surely divides us).
> 
> There is also another thing that divides us: willingness to work.
> 
> If greed weren't so prevalent, there would be more to go around.
> 
> Yep. Greed. There's your problem, it isn't money.


Thank you for pointing out the inequity that results from varying degrees of willingness to work. That's one side of this discussion that's rarely talked about outside of libertarian message boards, and corporate board rooms I guess (anything said there is a self-serving lie::cigar::!). Modern capitalism and our money systems definitely suck but eliminating money won't make us all free. Fair rates of exchange for goods and services would be a good start but then we have the issue of how to deal with the inequality that will result from one person working more than another and accumulating more as a result. Is that unequal accumulation greed on the part of one who labors more? Maybe...communism says so, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", but history shows that communist/socialist societies haven't found solutions to these problems and seem to result in the same kinds of wealth/power accumulation that we see here in the west. 

Maybe the solution is to ignore the problem and make do with what we can accumulate through labor and theft?


----------



## TWTP

Tumbleweed said:


> TWTP, have you considered that the kind of philosophy you are espousing (ontology, the duality of mind, object/subject discussions)



Hold on a second: you're using that parenthetical list as if all the things in it belong together. Ontology just means the "study of what is", which may or may not include the mind, duality of mind, or discussion of the subject/object division. We want to get rid of bad ontology, and keep a good one. I don't espouse "ontology" generally, I espouse a particular one.

I don't like dualism as an ontology because it sets up a division between the world and "you", and thus writes people a blank check for talking about the "real" vs. the unreal world. I, by contrast, think that a notion of what "you" are as distinct from your world is entirely incoherent, and that therefore talking about yourself, or others, as if they were these static little objects that receive and transmit information through a medium called physical reality, is not only a gross distortion of our actual experience, but actively hinders what the "individual" COULD BE if it was real in the first place, which we don't have any evidence of.



Tumbleweed said:


> can be used as a method of societal control that works for economic injustice not against it?



Yes, of course philosophy can be used for these purposes, and I have thought about it. The way I see it working in this society is this (and please do let me know what you think of this; it's a model I've developed primarily for explaining the origins of consumerism and if you have any ideas or feedback I'd like to hear it): individualism is the assumption that there are two basic, distinct ontological objects: the self, and the world. Ultimately this induces alienation of the self from the world, and this alienation can then be leveraged by those in power, because all "they" (those around who have resources, including both governments and just manipulative people generally) have to do is convince you that some object x (which they have access to) is the end to the alienation you've been suffering from. Hence the consumerist anticulture of the US, where money and physical possessions are pursued as an end in themselves. This of course works out for the state, because the more stuff you buy, the more you will work to get money, and the more of that income they can tax for wars, etc.!

This notion that there is any reason to acquire physical objects at all comes from the idea that the self is in some significant way very different from the physical world, so that we need to GET what is different from us, because it's something we LACK. But this premise of the state, that we all LACK something, fundamentally, is one of the most insidious lies ever told, and it comes from having a dualistic ontology. The Christian idea of "original sin" is very much similar to this.

If you want to enslave a population, make them enslave themselves. Dictators and men with guns and whips can be overthrown, but it is much harder to overthrow an INTERNAL tyrant. To get someone to enslave themself, convince them they are deficient; give them dualism!



Tumbleweed said:


> Where do you find published philosophers? In positions of authority at academic institutions, in the employment of the wealthy as members of "think tanks" or as theory specialists, or employed by governments to work on "the big issues", i.e., economics, social justice and the allotment of wealth. Additionally many of the names that you mentioned write in a style that is unintelligible to the vast majority of the people on this planet (including myself, and I have studied philosophy in college) which to me is the best demonstration of why their ideas shouldn't be trusted; only a very elite group can claim any ownership over these ideas and we have to trust this elite to translate these high ideas into common concepts for the 99% of the population that can't understand them without help. So metaphysical speculation becomes another hierarchical system.



Do you fully understand the way in which your computer is operating right now to show you these words? Does your knowledge of it functioning have any impact on it functioning? Is philosophy not just another type of technology like the computer? Does the fact that most cannot understand it bear at all on the question of its usefulness?

Also, why do you think hierarchies are bad?


----------



## Kim Chee

professorjpj said:


> In fact, this may be the only country and landmass in the world where it would be feasible..



Why do you think this country different from any other? By "this" I'm assuming you are referring to the u.s. 
This country has a huge military, infrastructure, manufacturing and trade all fueled by money. If anying this country is so dependent on the flow of cash that it would probably quickly go up in flames. Do you think this country would fare any better than Tahiti?


----------



## ausbos

Language (as a system) itself is a method of control. Imagine a world without it!


----------



## drewski

In my opinion, no one is equal on this planet. People have advantages and disadvantages that they're born with that determine whether they will survive and keep breeding or die off. We're no different than any other animal in that respect. As far as capitalism and money, humans will always be greedy whether money exists or not. Some people have good hearts and good intentions, others don't give a shit about anyone else but themselves. That's just the way it is and it's part of the human experience. And I think we are waaaaaay too far into industrial society to eliminate currency and go back to barter and trade. The only way that could possibly happen is the day everything breaks down, the economy is no longer in existance, and we're thrown back into barbaric times.


----------



## Matt Dawg

I think money is more convenient than anything else... I mean, having cash isn't really a far shot away from bartering your goods for someone else's goods.

Let's say we did live in a cashless society, what am I going to do if I want a loaf of bread? As it was mentioned earlier, we're still rockin a primate brain; people will never be so generous as to give me bread whenever I ask for it. So what would I do? Well, obviously I would work for it. I would do some mundane chore and in exchange I would get bread. How is that any different than what I'm doing now? All I have to do is get a job, work for a while, then I can go and buy all the bread I want with the money I earned...

Sure some people have a lot more money and even more people have a lot less; but that spectrum will always exist. The only point in history where there weren't any rich or poor people was way back in the days of the caveman when the population was extremely low and the resources were seemingly never ending. Those people never had to worry because feeding and housing a tribe of 50+ people really isn't that difficult...

I can think of a couple things holding back society that I would much rather try to destroy rather than to waste my time trying to topple an economy....


----------



## Art101

Any system can be found oppressive.Someone always wants to take from those that have.Its the nature of things.Can it be changed ,who knows.


----------



## Preacher

IMHO, a lot of what everyone has said are all valid points. But the system we currently have is top-heavy and has been written by the rich, for the rich. It is weighted for them. Hate to quote the Matrix, but "they are the gatekeepers. They are guarding all the doors, they are holding all the keys. Which means that sooner or later, someone is going to have to fight them." And they do it by proxy via the local police, the FBI, NSA, Homeland Security, and on and on and on. They have rigged the system so we cannot win. They have dangled the hope to Joe sixpack that he can be rich if he just works hard enough. Tries hard enough. And follows the rules. Their rules. But guess what? They DON'T WANT YOU AND I TO BE WHERE THEY ARE. They are the elite. If anybody could get there then it's not quite so elite anymore.

And they have the majority of the population so put to sleep that they gladly accept their freedoms chipped away in the name of freedom. What difference is it if you are enslaved by a terrorist or your government? Slavery is slavery. Freedom of expression is down to a specified box at some locations. You can't make a phone call anymore with any expectation of privacy. You can't fly with any expectation of bodily or property privacy. Hell, you can't even drive anymore with the way they are doing drivers license check points and immigration checkpoints 50miles inside the border. People have been arrested for saying the wrong thing on Facebook. Things that are stupid, yes, but are not illegal. And yet the sheeple continue to wave the flag and scream about how wonderful this country is.

Don't get me wrong. I cry for this country. I love this country. But this country is going to hell in a handbasket. As I said in another post, this is not the country that I grew up in, nor is it the country that I learned to love.

Ug, back to what to do. Not quite sure because as others have well pointed out you have the human factor and just a few selfish, greedy people ruin it for everyone. And they 'lure others to the dark side' with them. So many political systems have been tried that were 'for the people' that always ended up with an elite, pampered or ruling class and those at the bottom with bubkiss. I guess ours is just taking a lot longer than the others to fade away or (as I think it's going to end) in armed insurrection.


----------



## drewski

Preacher said:


> IMHO, a lot of what everyone has said are all valid points. But the system we currently have is top-heavy and has been written by the rich, for the rich. It is weighted for them. Hate to quote the Matrix, but "they are the gatekeepers. They are guarding all the doors, they are holding all the keys. Which means that sooner or later, someone is going to have to fight them." And they do it by proxy via the local police, the FBI, NSA, Homeland Security, and on and on and on. They have rigged the system so we cannot win. They have dangled the hope to Joe sixpack that he can be rich if he just works hard enough. Tries hard enough. And follows the rules. Their rules. But guess what? They DON'T WANT YOU AND I TO BE WHERE THEY ARE. They are the elite. If anybody could get there then it's not quite so elite anymore.
> 
> And they have the majority of the population so put to sleep that they gladly accept their freedoms chipped away in the name of freedom. What difference is it if you are enslaved by a terrorist or your government? Slavery is slavery. Freedom of expression is down to a specified box at some locations. You can't make a phone call anymore with any expectation of privacy. You can't fly with any expectation of bodily or property privacy. Hell, you can't even drive anymore with the way they are doing drivers license check points and immigration checkpoints 50miles inside the border. People have been arrested for saying the wrong thing on Facebook. Things that are stupid, yes, but are not illegal. And yet the sheeple continue to wave the flag and scream about how wonderful this country is.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I cry for this country. I love this country. But this country is going to hell in a handbasket. As I said in another post, this is not the country that I grew up in, nor is it the country that I learned to love.
> 
> Ug, back to what to do. Not quite sure because as others have well pointed out you have the human factor and just a few selfish, greedy people ruin it for everyone. And they 'lure others to the dark side' with them. So many political systems have been tried that were 'for the people' that always ended up with an elite, pampered or ruling class and those at the bottom with bubkiss. I guess ours is just taking a lot longer than the others to fade away or (as I think it's going to end) in armed insurrection.


----------



## Jaguwar

Stewart, spoken like a true proletariat! Money isn't the problem, silly, that's just a system humans have come up with to assign a value to our goods and services. If we were paid in bread, some would still have more because either their service or, more importantly, their product is more highly valued. 

I can think of other systems that need to go; capitalism is definitely not one of them.


----------



## lone wolf

Jaguwar said:


> ...Money isn't the problem...


the real problem is how money is created.


----------



## Jaguwar

No, it's about entities that we have empowered to steal our money, and entrusted to use it "wisely".


----------



## Matt Dawg

Jaguwar said:


> No, it's about entities that we have empowered to steal our money, and entrusted to use it "wisely".


Of all the arguments I've read I agree with this the most.


----------



## lone wolf

Jaguwar said:


> No, it's about entities that we have empowered to steal our money, and entrusted to use it "wisely".


that is the problem everyone sees... dig deeper. "how is money created and who has that power"? they don't need to steal anything when they have an endless bank account and the power to charge interest on newly created money.


----------



## Jaguwar

Actually, I was being brief, because I don't really want to have a full conversation about this here.
When you say "they" you're talking about corporations. I'm not. You dig deeper and look higher.


----------



## creature

there *is* a way to change it, & peacefully, too..


----------



## Odin

creature said:


> there *is* a way to change it, & peacefully, too..



Now that is a conversation I look forward too...


----------



## drewski

creature said:


> there *is* a way to change it, & peacefully, too..


I disagree, but if you'd like to elaborate I'll hear you out.


----------



## Odin

Okay... One scenario... Technology will out pace (by many factors of speed... exponentially I believe is the term...) the control of the aristocracy and empower the proletariat. 
Therefore creating a revolution in economic paradigm. 

Look up Technocracy... Dyson sphere... and Kardeshev scale. 

I would wager... that by the time you reach a type II or III civilization monetary systems become archaic and irrelevant.


----------



## creature

The issue is *how* our economy was created.. the advent of money was a transitional phenomena.. 

(BTW, check out this pretty interesting link.. it's sums up quite a bit of what i've often barked at folks about.. hunter gatherers work *much* less than developed cultures: Was the Agricultural Revolution a Massive Fraud?
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/03/the_agricultural_revolution_historys_biggest_fraud.html )

Given that humans are technical by nature.. 3 million fucking years of hominid tool use & development... it's a genetic impossibility that we can leave that aspect of our consciousnesses behind.. (although if i had to choose between this planet being healthy, with technical beings absent or this planet becoming the shithole we are driving it into, while they delve further & further for comfort & material positivism, i would choose the former, without any hesitation at all, if those were the only two possible options..) it is the advent of technical *industry* which established the overwhelming concentrations of wealth which are the basis of the cancer that humanity has become.

The question, for me then, is how do we use **technical industry** to change the economies which it is so clearly able to create?

The most fundamental technological industry, even before weapons and agriculture is transportation.
Humanity's second greatest tool, even before agriculture, is the domestication of animals.
First the dog, then agriculture. I may be wrong, but I believe dogs were used as beasts of burden before agriculture. There is possible proof in this when looking at Inuit dog sledding, so i will rest my point, there.

If you then look at the industrial revolution, the three main drivers of economic development were steam engines, steam ships and then automobiles.

I am not saying that description is at all complete, since it does not weigh slavery, agriculture, or military 'advances', but powered transport is the first fundamental non-manual labor multiplying technology which developed.
Levers, pulleys, edged tools, etc. are all *manual* tools. Even boats are externally powered when current or wind driven.

The way to change the economy is to change it the same way that railroad barons, shipping tycoons & henry ford changed it..

produce a superior & revolutionary form of transport, but instead of gearing the industry and the distribution of its profits to owner of the production facilities, gear that industry to redistribute the profits to the *producers* of the item..


it's not a pipe dream, either..

there is a way to do it.


----------



## Odin

Hell yea creature spot on... transportation. The ability to be mobile is one of the biggest if not largest factors in propelling development. (lol pun intended)

Agriculture and animal domestication takes you only so far. After that you need to be able to move to survive. Move to greener pastures... move your crops and stock. For trade and development...
So you need transportation... And that is an extraction of technocratic development. After all the freedom of unlimited mobility is only enabled through the development of tools... tools are technology.

(Small edit: even looking at civilizations of antiquity... the power held by kings and emperors was in effect the power of force through militarization. And militarization requires mobility. The tools and technology... (be it wagon or chariot or even the knowledge to pickle and preserve food) these tools allowed for mobility of force and the more force/military you can mobilize and effectively project the more likely your kingdom was on top... eh?) tl'rl mobility is transportation is technology... now give everyone that power?

So following the Kardeshev scale... if we are to develop our planets resources to they're fullest potential... (with the foresight to preserve the ecosystem) then we need efficient clean energy to develop transport globally... next... the solar system. Right.... so once again... our monkey brains need to develop efficient fast transport for space. Then we can utilize the resources of the solar system... solar, asteroid belt/hydrogen fuel mining, mineral, rare mineral... exct... )

THE KEY IS... we will not diminish or eliminate the monetary system... until we develop overabundance of basic necessities and opportunities for everyone through technology.

Now... that may be far far in the future. Even in a space faring race we may not reach that point.
In all practicality it all depends on the energy/technology availability to the demand and social structure of the population using it.

If the energy and technology are super abundant... and there is no reason to deny anyone then all shall prosper...

In that case... monetary systems will surly be obsolete.

And as in an episode of DR WHO that I watched today... only barter of ... "significantly sentimental" items may be in effect... lol


----------



## creature

mmm..

i agree.

but..

i am talking something that can be done today..

one of uncle johnny's little trade secrets that .. well..

unfortunately life is sometimes just a series of "fuck you, fuck you, fuck you..."

or "hey.. what you want & what you believe are not necessarily what are best for you or true"..

in which case i can only hope that i am truly being fucked over by the incomprehensible principles of existence for my own fucking good

rather than actually having failed..

so..


i want to get a boat

& Get The Fuck Out...


because if i can't do what i hoped i could do

then i don't have any hope hope trying to do it any longer..

& i just need to get as far away from this fucking civilization as i can, before it actually goes Entirely To Hell...


----------



## creature

btw, odin..

thanks for yer considerations of my rants..


i owes ya : )


----------



## Odin

Friend you don't owe me a thing. 
As a matter of fact I'd like to buy you a beer. ::drinkingbuddy::
It's a pleasure to read and then respond.
I don't often post a comprehensive post nowadays. But often when we elaborate on a discussion I find memories of intellect I have shunted to a dormant part of me. A part thats not so intoxicated with self pity, hesitation, and confusion.
As far as something that can be done today.
I would not completely despair. From the perspective of advancements in technology uplifting the human race... well exponential development if ignited I would suppose would come to fruition in our life times. After all if an AI for example that would improve all life on this planet were to come into existence its development would be insanely rapid to say the least. If you double something in every iteration... then you soon approach something perhaps that if is not... then feels like infinity.






also from wiki:


> According to an old legend, vizier Sissa Ben Dahir presented an Indian King Sharim with a beautiful, hand-made chessboard. The king asked what he would like in return for his gift and the courtier surprised the king by asking for one grain of rice on the first square, two grains on the second, four grains on the third etc. The king readily agreed and asked for the rice to be brought. All went well at first, but the requirement for 2 _n_ − 1 grains on the _n_th square demanded over a million grains on the 21st square, more than a million million (aka trillion) on the 41st and there simply was not enough rice in the whole world for the final squares. (From Swirski, 2006)



Now this advancement also must be presumed to be benificial to the human race... otherwise... meh...

BUT even if we can't change the world in one lifetime...

We can still get on that boat... and we can still search for a place to belong... with people and community that keep the dream alive.

Thats why. STP... It's a Mobile Island. In a chaotic sea.::cigar::


----------



## drewski

There are so many special interests shared between all sorts of powerful entities in this world. People that have the power and money to get anything done by the snap of their finger. They have a massive global surveillance system in their pocket and they can use it to eliminate anyone who is serious about taking power or money from under them (NSA, CIA, INTERPOL, etc). The connecting web of political influence and the tactics used to pull these strings is beyond comprehension. To think that we would be able to peacefully overthrow the world, let alone just this country alone is ridiculous. It would take an extremely large amount of ex-special forces operatives to train and equip groups of people who were willing to go underground and basically assasinate those who have the power. 

And even if that was accomplished, you have millions of other people around the world who would love nothing more for our military industrial complex to implode so they can nuke the fuck out of us and destroy the very country that has wreaked havoc all over the world for decades. Only after us as a species destroys ourselves will this world be at peace. Until then, we have the choice to live it out as peaceful as possible within ourselves and with others and just try to create the kind of life we want, but I certainly don't expect 100% peace because that's just not the reality we live in.


----------



## creature

well.. of course, if you say you cannot, then you cannot..

but..look at b.gates, musk, jobs, not to mention some much younger super wealthy...

those fortunes were started in *garages*.. so.. albeit 20 & 30 years ago, has the system really changed *that* much, that your basic, motivated, garage floor tinkerer *cannot*.. 
i would disagree..
what they got a hold of did not happen by magic..
much happened by theft & unfairness, BUT... they *did not* have it *given* to them..

as corrupt or foolish as they are, they did *not* say "cannot".

there are uber-wealthy in the makings, right now, who *do not* and *did not* have it given to them.

the only good thing about those fuckers is that they are all paranoid of *each other*...

& frankly?

i don't give a fuck what they think.

you can damn well bet that if there is an uprising, they will kill to put it down..

but..

stopping a good idea is a whole 'nother thing..

i dun mean to be a prick, but just being pissed off does nothing.

if you call the idea ridiculous, you've already given up..

& if you haven't given up, then just make sure you own up to why you aren't participating in what may be the only other viable alternative for securing freedom among those who are the stumps & bloody grist of this fucking machinery that the hell-whores all bless in the name of God..

you & i both know what i mean.

& so i would rather flee or try & do something constructive, because when the time comes that people who do not know how to feed themselves are no longer fed *by the very state they curse*, they had better know how to make the state do what they want...

fuck zombie wars..

when the cities go, my friend, the first thing on the menu are other people & the corpses of those whom have died from thirst.

so you had better *hope* somebody at least *tries* their ridiculous fucking ideas, unless you have something better than hand wringing..


----------



## creature

& i admit, the reason the meek will inherit the earth
is because the violent will kill each other off...

& *maybe* that is the point of human evolution, if it has anything at all to do with us actually *meaning* anything to begin with..


----------



## drewski

I call the idea of a peaceful revolution ridiculous because it has already failed. The hippies failed. Setting up a police blockade during a protest locking arms and holding up peace signs accomplishes nothing. Getting the shit beat out of you and pepper sprayed, and then proceeding to "make peace" with an officer and "forgiving" him/her because "we're all brothers and sisters" is completely idiotic.

Feeding, clothing, housing each other and treating each other with respect is the mission, but there always comes a time when violence/self defense has its place. That's all I'm saying. I'm not angry every day when I wake up, nor have I "given up" on anything. I just firmly disagree with the notion of a peaceful revolution.


----------



## Preacher

drewski said:


> I just firmly disagree with the notion of a peaceful revolution.


In this country, I agree. Because the status quo will not be changed by peaceful means. See my first post. Look at Occupy. They were tolerated until the cameras turned off (not like there were many to begin with) and they got lock-stepped out Zuccotti. The park went on lock-down. A public space became a para-military zone. They were squashed. I remember picking up my son a couple of days after the park was shut down. I was circling the park trying to find him. The amount of cops and the look on their faces. They were giving me the stink eye like they were daring me to even pull over. I guarantee you If I had stopped AT the park I would have ended up in jail for 24 hours. That is their reaction to a 'peaceful protest'.


----------



## drewski

Preacher said:


> In this country, I agree. Because the status quo will not be changed by peaceful means. See my first post. Look at Occupy. They were tolerated until the cameras turned off (not like there were many to begin with) and they got lock-stepped out Zuccotti. The park went on lock-down. A public space became a para-military zone. They were squashed. I remember picking up my son a couple of days after the park was shut down. I was circling the park trying to find him. The amount of cops and the look on their faces. They were giving me the stink eye like they were daring me to even pull over. I guarantee you If I had stopped AT the park I would have ended up in jail for 24 hours. That is their reaction to a 'peaceful protest'.


Exactly. And they're always dressed in full SWAT team riot armor which I find hilarious. Don't worry officers, the people here aren't that pissed off yet. But Egypt...Those are some pissed off people. The cops there are definitely busting out the Bauer pads ::joyful::


----------



## drewski

Just found this LOL


----------



## Preacher

@drewski I didn't used to fully understand the Black Bloc until that night. Till I almost felt like I was in downtown Berlin during WW2 than in modern day New York. Then it really hit me. And the more I watched other Occupy protests and saw 2 or 3 dozen cops back down 500 people on the bridges the more I saw where they were coming from. You gotta break some eggs to make an omelet.


----------



## creature

think of how much worse it would be if we hadn't...
what if we had let fucking joe mcarthy just do his thing in the 50's?

there is a whole fucking cultural war going on, & people who *do* shit, actually *do* make a fucking difference..

& you *are*, apparently, to angry to read a post in its clear & original context..

you said _"I disagree, but if you'd like to elaborate I'll hear you out."_

i never mentioned anything about forgiving corn-fed bullies..

i mentioned an *economic* method.
huge difference.

BTW.. the hippies *didn't* fail.. like it or not, they were the first mainstream counter-culture, & every single fucking crusty owes their existence to them.

the were humans & mortal. i'll grow old & die (or at least die), & so will you & every other human.

think about it..
if the counter culture of the 60's hadn't prevailed in a significant fashion, where the fuck would we *really* be?

no, they didn't bring jesus back.

no, ghandi didn't stop war.

yes, the racist shits that succeed in brainwashing their children into racists still create racism..

no, you can't make miracles by loving people, even if your love is fucking infinite.

no, there is no walking on water, there is no angelic intervention, there is no efficacy of prayer & there is no way to make people good, just because you are good to them (*especially* if they are just fucks to begin with...)

i will give you all of that.

& i don't think i mentioned a fucking thing that indicated i did.

if you **read** my post, instead of just disagreeing because i used the word "peacefully" relating to "change the world" and the only context i used the word "revolutionary" in was regarding a possible application of transportation technology.

you said _"Feeding, clothing, housing each other and treating each other with respect is the mission".._

well... guess what?
we are not going to.

not until all the fucking bad people are dead.

when they are dead, & only good people are left, then our little fantasy hope may come true.

in the mean time, the way to accomplish *anything* is by appropriate economics.

the first rule of appropriate economics is "to be fair".

you can damn well bet that that won't happen, so what you have to do, if you (as an individual or a small group) want to make a *change* is go big..

go *huge*..

if you go huge enough, ***AND*** if you are successfull, then things *do* change, even if only for the short term..

no miracles, no evolutionary genetic shift..
just people having the opportunity to teach their children to be fair..


----------



## drewski

creature said:


> think of how much worse it would be if we hadn't...
> what if we had let fucking joe mcarthy just do his thing in the 50's?
> 
> there is a whole fucking cultural war going on, & people who *do* shit, actually *do* make a fucking difference..
> 
> & you *are*, apparently, to angry to read a post in its clear & original context..
> 
> you said _"I disagree, but if you'd like to elaborate I'll hear you out."_
> 
> i never mentioned anything about forgiving corn-fed bullies..
> 
> i mentioned an *economic* method.
> huge difference.
> 
> BTW.. the hippies *didn't* fail.. like it or not, they were the first mainstream counter-culture, & every single fucking crusty owes their existence to them.
> 
> the were humans & mortal. i'll grow old & die (or at least die), & so will you & every other human.
> 
> think about it..
> if the counter culture of the 60's hadn't prevailed in a significant fashion, where the fuck would we *really* be?
> 
> no, they didn't bring jesus back.
> 
> no, ghandi didn't stop war.
> 
> yes, the racist shits that succeed in brainwashing their children into racists still create racism..
> 
> no, you can't make miracles by loving people, even if your love is fucking infinite.
> 
> no, there is no walking on water, there is no angelic intervention, there is no efficacy of prayer & there is no way to make people good, just because you are good to them (*especially* if they are just fucks to begin with...)
> 
> i will give you all of that.
> 
> & i don't think i mentioned a fucking thing that indicated i did.
> 
> if you **read** my post, instead of just disagreeing because i used the word "peacefully" relating to "change the world" and the only context i used the word "revolutionary" in was regarding a possible application of transportation technology.
> 
> you said _"Feeding, clothing, housing each other and treating each other with respect is the mission".._
> 
> well... guess what?
> we are not going to.
> 
> not until all the fucking bad people are dead.
> 
> when they are dead, & only good people are left, then our little fantasy hope may come true.
> 
> in the mean time, the way to accomplish *anything* is by appropriate economics.
> 
> the first rule of appropriate economics is "to be fair".
> 
> you can damn well bet that that won't happen, so what you have to do, if you (as an individual or a small group) want to make a *change* is go big..
> 
> go *huge*..
> 
> if you go huge enough, ***AND*** if you are successfull, then things *do* change, even if only for the short term..
> 
> no miracles, no evolutionary genetic shift..
> just people having the opportunity to teach their children to be fair..


I think we're on the same page here for the most part. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, nor was I trying to make you angry which it seems like you are. And as painful as it was to read your unnecessarily elongated posts consisting of bad paragraph structure, I still did. You shared your opinion, and I shared mine.


----------



## creature

my elongated posts & bad paragraph structure are what are nominally referred to as "prose", since we aren't academicians..


----------

