nah man i’m trying to point you in the right direction so you can have fruitful studies. you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. it would be useless for me to try to explain something to you given the state of our relations. you would just be contrarian bc the hostilities we’be already exchanged. therefore the only thing i can do is try and point in the right direction.
that would be a great counterpoint if all i told you to do was to read theory vaguely, i’ve actually pointed to specific works or watering holes so to speak.
you don't understand what you're fucking saying ory ou'd be able to say it. i don't have to depend on other peoples interpretations of shit to talk to you. to me all you're saying is that you have a vague idea of someone smarter than you's ideology, but can't put it into words for yourself because you don't understand it.
edit: they may not even be smarter than you, but you've already subscribed to it, so i'm not talking to you at all, now i'm talking to someone else who isn't even here to argue the fucking merits of the argument they put out a long time ago before you even decided to use their argument against this conversation.
no man i’m saying that it would be a waste of both of our time if i tried to explain zizek to you when you could just go to the primary source itself and not have to deal with me. secondary sources are always going to be worse.
i didn’t employ their argument i employed their definition and when you asked me to prove that that was the proper definition i said no go read it for yourself because i’m tired of discussing with someone as contrarian as yourself. i wasn’t even trying to prove kant or zizek to you, i just was using their concepts in my parlance and you disagreed with the definitions. it’s not my duty to explain the critique of pure reason to anyone who questions my usage of the term perspective.
i can say hey i’m operating off a definition that has a proof in this book if you care enough to look at it. i didn’t log on today to write three book reports for people too lazy to read themselves.
you've had no real evidence to contradict anything i've said and put the fucking blame on philosophers, whose fucking pivots you can't even properly elaborate on.
my point wasn’t that your evidence was wrong, my point was that your evidence was unrelated to the point that you’re making. you said humans did climate change, yeah i agree. then you said that is evidence for the fact that humans are net negative, that i disagree with.
we aren’t disagreeing based on evidence, we disagree on whether or not the evidence could even be linked to the claim you’re making.
yeah we disagree on what criteria by which to evaluate human worth. i don’t think that our causation of climate change is the end all be all determinate factor in our species worth-as-species.
yeah and i don’t think that our causing of thousands of thousands of other species to die off is the end all be all to our species worth-as-species. can you say anything that isn’t poised for shock value to get me to change my mind?
yeah and i don’t think that our causing of thousands of thousands of other species to die off is the end all be all to our species worth-as-species.
so if we kill them all and have to sustain ourselves on cannibalisms, but still survive that won't effect our species worth-as-species to you. okay, well i guess our criteria is just vastly different.
admittedly that is poised for shock value, maybe you should take the exact declaration that i'm making many steps before that as a take on our worth as a species, but you've already admitted to your apathy of our effect on other life forms...
okay i’ll concede it is related to our species worth-as-species but it isn’t the end all be all. there are other factors entirely unrelated to our caused extinction that contribute to the value of our species.
and in your shock value example i would still stand my point. this is because it would have likely been the capitalist elite’s mode of production which caused the extinction, not our species as whole. and as such it is the capitalist mode of production to be condemned not the human species. i mean think about it, we existed in semi-harmony with nature for quite sometime until the market forces of capitalism started raping the earth. Humans existed before capitalism and capitalism is causing climate change not just ‘human nature’ as some would say.
only in the sense that we allow capitalism to continue yeah, but not because we are humans.
it isn’t the simple fact that we are humans that makes us complicit in climate change; it is literally our active complacency in capitalism that makes us thus complicit in climate change too.
we are guilty by virtue of being in capitalism and not stopping it, but we are not guilty by virtue of simply being human.
can you explain the contradiction there? i don’t quite see it. also i don’t know what you mean by solely capitalism’s fault. i said that if we are guilty as a species it is because our species is active in capitalism. i’m denying that we are guilty by virtue of being human. we are guilty by virtue of being a capitalist species.
therefore all greatness is human greatness. there isn’t anything outside the human perspective
it is factual that humans have superior capacity than the rest of the animals on the planet
the simple fact that we are humans that makes us complicit in climate change; it is literally our active complacency in capitalism that makes us thus complicit in climate change too.
but we are not guilty by virtue of simply being human.
so what is guilt if there is nothing outside the human perspective?
we have demonstrated the potential to build socialism and destroy capitalism. if it comes to pass that the human species cannot defeat capitalism, then you’ll find me right next to you on your side in this debate.
are you literally doing the socialism in what country shtick? my god are you just straight up a reactionary? i didn’t think i would have to straight up prove to you that socialism was possible. i guess assumed since we were both on this forum we would at least agree that capitalism isn’t that last stage of human development.
here goes nothing i guess, the country of vietnam demonstrates the possibility of 1) defeating the martial forces of capitalism in battle, and 2) the various possiblities of managing an anti-capitalist economy. this isn’t to say that they are a model state to follow. it is only to say that they demonstrated the potential and still are.
socialism might be possible, but we ain't ther eyet and it ain't a defense for mankind. capitalism might be the fucking last stage of human development if climate change fucking kills us all.
there's tons of potential for socialism, but just because a couple people are fucking cool doesn't fucking absolve us as a species. you coulda said cuba too, or the ussr in it's prime, or china under mao too, but as a whole most countries ain't doing okay.
okay so do you understand why i still see path forward ethically for our species through the potential development of socialism, even if it is a path of redemption from innumerable sins as you say
I mean capitalism was once considered an underdog mode of production compared to the power of the church and the feudal nobility. we have changed modes of production before and can do it again. in fact every change in the mode of production that has ever happened could be framed as “an underdog story.” this is because the dominant mode must fall before the incipient one comes about.
so you don’t think capitalism is a mode of production that acutely grew out of the mercantile economies of the early colonial powers? i mean obviously the system of private property has been there “the entire fucking time” as you say, but capitalism has certainly not been.
so what’s the difference between capitalism and feudalism then? you’re literally doing a “capitalism realism” right now wherein all economic systems and possibilities outside of capitalism are either not considered or just considered a different capitalism.
okay there is definitely a tangible difference between fuedal modes of production and capitalist modes of production. namely, the advent of wage labor and destruction of the guilds. also the commercialization of agriculture. google the enclosure movement from england. basically the landlords kicked the peasants off the land and now they had to come back as wage laborers in order to work the same land they previously lived on. it literally caused a civil war which resulted in the institutional power of the bourgeoisie over the royal aristocracy in england. same thing happens in france and russia roughly prior to their revolutions. the transition from fuedalism to capitalism has unbounded scholarly works attributed to it. in this case the evidence is on my side unless you refuse to change your definition of capitalism as that system which has rulers and ruled.
if capitalism and feudalism were the same then why did capitalists start revolutions against feudal powers? if they were the same then that would be nonsensical.
feudalism and capitalism can both be hierarchal without them having no tangible difference. here is some evidence i found quite quickly. can find more too if you want. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-349-17745-5_2
also a tangible difference you seem to care about is that capitalism has caused mass extinction and feudalism didnt
the difference between feudalism and capitalism and the effect on mass extinction is negligible when you incorporate modern technology and fossil fuels, which would inarguably occur similarly provided that there was a lower class to exploit and an upper class in charge of resources.
the incorporation of fossil fuels and modern technology is literally a result of capitalism what are you talking about. you can’t just say what if the feudal lords had access to the same things. they didn’t because they were not capitalist and had not invested in developing such tech to generate profit.
not at all dude. maybe the speed at which it occured, but you're giving way too much credit to capitalism.
the advent of technology is not an invention of capitalism, but of eventual progress. i shouldn't have to argue this point to someone trying to speak up for the moral existence of human beings.
tesla and einstein were fucking socialists. the shit didn't happen because they wanted to make a profit, it may have created a motif to drive it, but it would have happened, probably under b etter circumstances, eventually anyway.
i’m not saying technological development under capitalism is only done be capitalists. i’m saying that the specific technologies you are referring to that killed the planet were technologies developed and funded by capitalist firms trying to increase profit. and to say what if the fuedal lords had the same tech, that’s just literally nonsense. it’s a historical argument based on development of the forces of production, you can’t just transport technologies throughout history independent of the modes of production that produce them to make a point.
I’m not disagreeing that when you frame it that broadly the system didn’t change, that’s why we need communism. Specifically because the aspect you are talking about didn’t change. but various other important aspects did change from feudalism to capitalism and that’s why they are different modes of production. just like how slavery is a different mode of production from both feudalism and capitalism. these changes are notable and much scholarship has been written about them, like the one i linked you.
also on an unrelated note, i genuinely apologize for insulting you. it was wrong and completely unrelated to the ideas we were discussing. and as you continue to put effort into this conversation i feel more and more bad about the way in which i acted when it began. i respect your insistence on your point of view and your will to argue for it.
capitalism and slavery didn't really have 'different' modes of production, just different ways by which they decided the working class.
people making 7 dollars an hour, many still people of color and illegal immigrants in the usa, working two jobs to maintain a living are on par with slaves.
the system didn't change much it just made it more pc. anything that pretends it's not the same is liberal revisionism.
have you actually read marx? not trying to be an ass but this is like marxism 101. there exists different modes of production sorry to break it to you. i honestly feel like you’re just trolling me at this point or you just literally don’t know.
(hint those different ways they decide the working class literally are the different modes of production)
you’re literally willfully ignoring substantial differences between slavery feudalism and capitalism just so you can paint all of them as capitalism. if you wanted to say they all were the same you could say they all were hierarchal, but no you say they are all just capitalism. your mind has been poisoned by capitalist ideology so throughly that you can’t even recognize a mode of production distinct from it. from within the cave of the the capitalist ideology, everything outside just looks like capitalism too. it’s meant to make you feel like there’s no other alternative and that capitalism is the natural progression of human economics rather than the specific ideology of a ruling class that siezed state power in the 17th century
upvotes arent currency they are non-exchangeable and hold no monetary value bro
it's not about monetary value, value in itself is assigned by humans. what the fuck is the point of the fucking number then?
definitely not to exchange as a currency that’s for sure
oh wait does that make value a human concept then wink wink, maybe you do know some kant and wittgenstein
value as a fucking number.
you should research metaphysical materialism, you might find it more coherent than what ever your “ideology,” as you say, is now
"you should research" / "i can't put it into words."
nah man i’m trying to point you in the right direction so you can have fruitful studies. you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. it would be useless for me to try to explain something to you given the state of our relations. you would just be contrarian bc the hostilities we’be already exchanged. therefore the only thing i can do is try and point in the right direction.
you can't even lead a fucking horse to water if you all you've got is a sign that says " go to water. "
that would be a great counterpoint if all i told you to do was to read theory vaguely, i’ve actually pointed to specific works or watering holes so to speak.
you don't understand what you're fucking saying ory ou'd be able to say it. i don't have to depend on other peoples interpretations of shit to talk to you. to me all you're saying is that you have a vague idea of someone smarter than you's ideology, but can't put it into words for yourself because you don't understand it.
edit: they may not even be smarter than you, but you've already subscribed to it, so i'm not talking to you at all, now i'm talking to someone else who isn't even here to argue the fucking merits of the argument they put out a long time ago before you even decided to use their argument against this conversation.
no man i’m saying that it would be a waste of both of our time if i tried to explain zizek to you when you could just go to the primary source itself and not have to deal with me. secondary sources are always going to be worse.
secondary sources aren't equivalent to your implementation of an argument in a conversation.
i didn’t employ their argument i employed their definition and when you asked me to prove that that was the proper definition i said no go read it for yourself because i’m tired of discussing with someone as contrarian as yourself. i wasn’t even trying to prove kant or zizek to you, i just was using their concepts in my parlance and you disagreed with the definitions. it’s not my duty to explain the critique of pure reason to anyone who questions my usage of the term perspective.
i can say hey i’m operating off a definition that has a proof in this book if you care enough to look at it. i didn’t log on today to write three book reports for people too lazy to read themselves.
you've had no real evidence to contradict anything i've said and put the fucking blame on philosophers, whose fucking pivots you can't even properly elaborate on.
my point wasn’t that your evidence was wrong, my point was that your evidence was unrelated to the point that you’re making. you said humans did climate change, yeah i agree. then you said that is evidence for the fact that humans are net negative, that i disagree with.
we aren’t disagreeing based on evidence, we disagree on whether or not the evidence could even be linked to the claim you’re making.
mass extinction is somehow unrelated to "humans being the greatest thing ever" how exactly?
yeah we disagree on what criteria by which to evaluate human worth. i don’t think that our causation of climate change is the end all be all determinate factor in our species worth-as-species.
'climate change' is a nice umbrella term for global extinction of thousands and thousands of species. you could be a fucking political strategist.
yeah and i don’t think that our causing of thousands of thousands of other species to die off is the end all be all to our species worth-as-species. can you say anything that isn’t poised for shock value to get me to change my mind?
thanks btw im trying
so if we kill them all and have to sustain ourselves on cannibalisms, but still survive that won't effect our species worth-as-species to you. okay, well i guess our criteria is just vastly different.
admittedly that is poised for shock value, maybe you should take the exact declaration that i'm making many steps before that as a take on our worth as a species, but you've already admitted to your apathy of our effect on other life forms...
okay i’ll concede it is related to our species worth-as-species but it isn’t the end all be all. there are other factors entirely unrelated to our caused extinction that contribute to the value of our species.
and in your shock value example i would still stand my point. this is because it would have likely been the capitalist elite’s mode of production which caused the extinction, not our species as whole. and as such it is the capitalist mode of production to be condemned not the human species. i mean think about it, we existed in semi-harmony with nature for quite sometime until the market forces of capitalism started raping the earth. Humans existed before capitalism and capitalism is causing climate change not just ‘human nature’ as some would say.
we have a non zero percentage of fault despite the fact that capitalism is garbage.
only in the sense that we allow capitalism to continue yeah, but not because we are humans.
it isn’t the simple fact that we are humans that makes us complicit in climate change; it is literally our active complacency in capitalism that makes us thus complicit in climate change too.
we are guilty by virtue of being in capitalism and not stopping it, but we are not guilty by virtue of simply being human.
you just argued that concepts dont' exist without us becaust kant but now all of a sudden it's solely capitalisms fault... cmon mother fucker.
can you explain the contradiction there? i don’t quite see it. also i don’t know what you mean by solely capitalism’s fault. i said that if we are guilty as a species it is because our species is active in capitalism. i’m denying that we are guilty by virtue of being human. we are guilty by virtue of being a capitalist species.
so what is guilt if there is nothing outside the human perspective?
it’s a human emotion often abstracted out to mean responsible for an action.
well, we as a species are fucking absolutely responsible for it.
yeah i agree, i’m just saying that i don’t think that justifies the leap to saying that in general human species worth-as-species is negative.
okay, well... and you're gonna get a kick out of this, since you've been defending it the whole time... what have we done that's positive then?
we have demonstrated the potential to build socialism and destroy capitalism. if it comes to pass that the human species cannot defeat capitalism, then you’ll find me right next to you on your side in this debate.
oh really? and what socialist country do we have that demonstrates this?
are you literally doing the socialism in what country shtick? my god are you just straight up a reactionary? i didn’t think i would have to straight up prove to you that socialism was possible. i guess assumed since we were both on this forum we would at least agree that capitalism isn’t that last stage of human development.
here goes nothing i guess, the country of vietnam demonstrates the possibility of 1) defeating the martial forces of capitalism in battle, and 2) the various possiblities of managing an anti-capitalist economy. this isn’t to say that they are a model state to follow. it is only to say that they demonstrated the potential and still are.
socialism might be possible, but we ain't ther eyet and it ain't a defense for mankind. capitalism might be the fucking last stage of human development if climate change fucking kills us all.
there's tons of potential for socialism, but just because a couple people are fucking cool doesn't fucking absolve us as a species. you coulda said cuba too, or the ussr in it's prime, or china under mao too, but as a whole most countries ain't doing okay.
okay so do you understand why i still see path forward ethically for our species through the potential development of socialism, even if it is a path of redemption from innumerable sins as you say
yeah, because you've watched a lotta under dog stories.
I mean capitalism was once considered an underdog mode of production compared to the power of the church and the feudal nobility. we have changed modes of production before and can do it again. in fact every change in the mode of production that has ever happened could be framed as “an underdog story.” this is because the dominant mode must fall before the incipient one comes about.
dude capitalism is just an extension of a system of cruelty that has been there the entire fucking time.
so you don’t think capitalism is a mode of production that acutely grew out of the mercantile economies of the early colonial powers? i mean obviously the system of private property has been there “the entire fucking time” as you say, but capitalism has certainly not been.
no, as i said capitalism has been there the entire time. they change the name but it means a ruling class exploiting the poor.
so what’s the difference between capitalism and feudalism then? you’re literally doing a “capitalism realism” right now wherein all economic systems and possibilities outside of capitalism are either not considered or just considered a different capitalism.
there is no tangible difference. it's have nots being oppressed by a ruling class.
marxism, socialism, autonomy, and anarchy are theonly systems that sustain the people.
okay there is definitely a tangible difference between fuedal modes of production and capitalist modes of production. namely, the advent of wage labor and destruction of the guilds. also the commercialization of agriculture. google the enclosure movement from england. basically the landlords kicked the peasants off the land and now they had to come back as wage laborers in order to work the same land they previously lived on. it literally caused a civil war which resulted in the institutional power of the bourgeoisie over the royal aristocracy in england. same thing happens in france and russia roughly prior to their revolutions. the transition from fuedalism to capitalism has unbounded scholarly works attributed to it. in this case the evidence is on my side unless you refuse to change your definition of capitalism as that system which has rulers and ruled.
if capitalism and feudalism were the same then why did capitalists start revolutions against feudal powers? if they were the same then that would be nonsensical.
because they weren't the ruling class. if the 'revolution' still ends up with different classes of people it is fundamentally the same.
feudalism and capitalism can both be hierarchal without them having no tangible difference. here is some evidence i found quite quickly. can find more too if you want. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-349-17745-5_2
also a tangible difference you seem to care about is that capitalism has caused mass extinction and feudalism didnt
the difference between feudalism and capitalism and the effect on mass extinction is negligible when you incorporate modern technology and fossil fuels, which would inarguably occur similarly provided that there was a lower class to exploit and an upper class in charge of resources.
the incorporation of fossil fuels and modern technology is literally a result of capitalism what are you talking about. you can’t just say what if the feudal lords had access to the same things. they didn’t because they were not capitalist and had not invested in developing such tech to generate profit.
not at all dude. maybe the speed at which it occured, but you're giving way too much credit to capitalism.
the advent of technology is not an invention of capitalism, but of eventual progress. i shouldn't have to argue this point to someone trying to speak up for the moral existence of human beings.
tesla and einstein were fucking socialists. the shit didn't happen because they wanted to make a profit, it may have created a motif to drive it, but it would have happened, probably under b etter circumstances, eventually anyway.
i’m not saying technological development under capitalism is only done be capitalists. i’m saying that the specific technologies you are referring to that killed the planet were technologies developed and funded by capitalist firms trying to increase profit. and to say what if the fuedal lords had the same tech, that’s just literally nonsense. it’s a historical argument based on development of the forces of production, you can’t just transport technologies throughout history independent of the modes of production that produce them to make a point.
the systems remain the same. a small ruling class that exploits a larger class of workers to maintain their standard of living.
you've not presented anything that presents an argument against this.
I’m not disagreeing that when you frame it that broadly the system didn’t change, that’s why we need communism. Specifically because the aspect you are talking about didn’t change. but various other important aspects did change from feudalism to capitalism and that’s why they are different modes of production. just like how slavery is a different mode of production from both feudalism and capitalism. these changes are notable and much scholarship has been written about them, like the one i linked you.
also on an unrelated note, i genuinely apologize for insulting you. it was wrong and completely unrelated to the ideas we were discussing. and as you continue to put effort into this conversation i feel more and more bad about the way in which i acted when it began. i respect your insistence on your point of view and your will to argue for it.
capitalism and slavery didn't really have 'different' modes of production, just different ways by which they decided the working class.
people making 7 dollars an hour, many still people of color and illegal immigrants in the usa, working two jobs to maintain a living are on par with slaves.
the system didn't change much it just made it more pc. anything that pretends it's not the same is liberal revisionism.
have you actually read marx? not trying to be an ass but this is like marxism 101. there exists different modes of production sorry to break it to you. i honestly feel like you’re just trolling me at this point or you just literally don’t know.
(hint those different ways they decide the working class literally are the different modes of production)
functionally they're the same.
you’re literally willfully ignoring substantial differences between slavery feudalism and capitalism just so you can paint all of them as capitalism. if you wanted to say they all were the same you could say they all were hierarchal, but no you say they are all just capitalism. your mind has been poisoned by capitalist ideology so throughly that you can’t even recognize a mode of production distinct from it. from within the cave of the the capitalist ideology, everything outside just looks like capitalism too. it’s meant to make you feel like there’s no other alternative and that capitalism is the natural progression of human economics rather than the specific ideology of a ruling class that siezed state power in the 17th century
it's not a progression. it's a routine.
okay so you’re just a troll, noted.
your'e just a dumb stupid mother fucker.
the crowd disagrees
lol dfending majority rules haha. point proven.
Praise be, the spirit of Kirbyoto lives on.