Sticking around as an act of rebellion lol!

[Final Escape]

One reason I have not took myself out is because of that quote I once read about existing as act of rebellion. Living like your very existence is an act of rebellion. It helps because once u understand the system u live under and how unfair it is. I mean blatantly unfair not like the unfairness where u weren't born attractive or being born with disability or something. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the way that this system is purposely set up to further disadvantage someone already starting out disadvantaged. Instead what u would want in a moral society would be to ameliorate as much unfairness to give everyone the best possible shot at quality lives. You would want to level the playing field as much as possible so that any initial disadvantage doesn't permanently destroy your ability to live a life worth living.

 

[DepressionsAHo]

Couldn't be me

 

[Sensei]

Well, there's an old political slogan which I think should govern every civilized society: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

 

[TAW122]

I think that quote/phrase sounds familiar. I don't remember where it was from but I did hear it come from others before. I suppose it could work with certain kinds of people that has some sort of personality to prove people wrong. It could even be some sort of lifefuel for the individual, motivation to see the reactions of the ones who have judged said person incorrectly, treated said person inappropriately. I guess the closest thing it resembles is vengeance.

Personally, while I am a rebel in my own ways and in different circumstances, in regards to living or dying, I would not stick around just for the sake of sticking around to prove people wrong. If life sucks enough for me and I've reached my limit (or more), then it's over for me and I just want permanent nothingness than to wake up and experience suffering and living another day in this life. In fact, I view suicide as an act of rebellion myself but I digress a bit.

 

[Final Escape]

Well, there's an old political slogan which I think should govern every civilized society: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

That's a terrible idea in practice though, and why society has become decivilized more and more over the decades. The lie of Karl Marx, and the ideology of the ruling class.

 

[Sensei]

That's a terrible idea in practice though, and why society has become decivilized more and more over the decades. The lie of Karl Marx, and the ideology of the ruling class.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense in any respect. You can't blame socialism for decivilizing society, for there hasn't ever really been any, especially not in the Western world. (If you think that liberalism and socialism are the same thing, you have to read up on basic, and I really mean basic, political theory. If you claim that social democracy and socialism are the same thing, you have to present arguments.) Karl Marx didn't coin that slogan and I'm not even sure he ever used it. The "ideology of the ruling class"? Any basic encyclopedia will tell you that socialism is about equality. Are you saying that the ruling class wants equality? I've never noticed any such tendencies whatsoever, to put it mildly.

I need to ask, what's the policy on discussing politics in this forum? I've spent around 15 years discussing politics online, with anarchists, conservatives, communists, social liberals, totalitarians, anarcho-capitalists, Juche adherents, social democrats, neo-liberals, libertarians, social conservatives, tribalists, and what have you, so I'm always up for a debate. However, discussing politics can, just like religion, lead to conflicts. All of us are after all in difficult situations and we definitely don't need in-fitghting. Or am I overreacting?

 

[Csmith8827]

I don't know but one of my favorite characters from one of my favorite games has a quote or motto...its: "Our redemption is to live."

The character is Siegfried from Soul Calibur (or caliber?) He's Supposed to be "Righteous" or royal or something.

 

[Final Escape]

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense in any respect. You can't blame socialism for decivilizing society, for there hasn't ever really been any, especially not in the Western world. (If you think that liberalism and socialism are the same thing, you have to read up on basic, and I really mean basic, political theory. If you claim that social democracy and socialism are the same thing, you have to present arguments.) Karl Marx didn't coin that slogan and I'm not even sure he ever used it. The "ideology of the ruling class"? Any basic encyclopedia will tell you that socialism is about equality. Are you saying that the ruling class wants equality? I've never noticed any such tendencies whatsoever, to put it mildly.

I need to ask, what's the policy on discussing politics in this forum? I've spent around 15 years discussing politics online, with anarchists, conservatives, communists, social liberals, totalitarians, anarcho-capitalists, Juche adherents, social democrats, neo-liberals, libertarians, social conservatives, tribalists, and what have you, so I'm always up for a debate. However, discussing politics can, just like religion, lead to conflicts. All of us are after all in difficult situations and we definitely don't need in-fitghting. Or am I overreacting?

It's ok to disagree, I thought it was Marx who came up with that but I can be wrong. But we are already socialist in the US in many ways. Central banking is a tenet of communism and we have that. Welfare state is socialism, that's been around since the 60's. It was Marx I looked it up.

 

[Sensei]

It's ok to disagree, I thought it was Marx who came up with that but I can be wrong.

The important thing to remember is that Marxism and Socialism aren't one and the same thing.

But we are already socialist in the US in many ways. Central banking is a tenet of communism and we have that. Welfare state is socialism, that's been around since the 60's. It was Marx I looked it up.

All capitalist countries have central banks and have no plans of abolishing them. Without them, the current economic system wouldn't be able to function properly. The first welfare system was introduced by the ultra-concervative chancellor Otto von Bismarck in Germany in the 1800s in order to prevent unrest and the introduction of socialism. All capitalist states have had some kind of welfare systems since than and only the most batshit insane neo-liberals want to abolish them. Besides, some basic welfare functions existed hundreds of years before Marx was even born. Again, if you don't know the difference between socialism and liberalism, you need to read up on basic political theory.

I'm bewildered by your thinking. You complain about your situation but defend the system. I must be honest and say that it's very difficult to have sympathy for you.

 

[WhyIsLife56]

I think suicide is the ultimate act of rebellion

 

[Wayfaerer]

Non-existence is an act of Rebellion. The dead can't work. The dead can't consume. The dead can't pay taxes.

 

[Jean Améry]

Well, there's an old political slogan which I think should govern every civilized society: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

I agree. In a fair and just society that should be the norm. Unfortunately given the inherent greed/egotism of humanity it seems a form of economic inequality must exist in society in order for the economy to function (if there is no reward for taking risks it's likely almost no-one will still take risks and progress will cease) but of course that doesn't justify poverty and legal and social inequality.

Given that both communism and capitalism in their pure form failed rather spectacularly it seems to me the hybrid form that exists in (western)European countries is the best option. Those who exert themselves should be able to reap the fruits of their labour yet those who for various reasons cannot keep up with society should be helped and provided with a decent standard of living.

If there is too much economic inequality in a society this will lead to all sorts of problems that will not be beneficial to anyone: a rising crime-rate, social and political upheaval... People are usually slow to anger and learn at a snail's pace but once the people are roused the rich upper classes will not be able to keep their position for very long. History is clear on this.

 

[Sensei]

I agree. In a fair and just society that should be the norm. Unfortunately given the inherent greed/egotism of humanity it seems a form of economic inequality must exist in society in order for the economy to function (if there is no reward for taking risks it's likely almost no-one will still take risks and progress will cease) but of course that doesn't justify poverty and legal and social inequality.

Hm, I'm not sure I agree completely. There are many other incitaments than money. Otherwise, there would be no police officers, nurses, teachers, fire fighters, scientists, and so on. Money can definitely be a driving force behind progress sometimes, but let's not forget that computers, satellites, blood banks, jet engines, the Internet, penicillin, and many other inventions and discoveries we take for granted today were not private initiatives driven by profit.

Given that both communism and capitalism in their pure form failed rather spectacularly it seems to me the hybrid form that exists in (western)European countries is the best option. Those who exert themselves should be able to reap the fruits of their labour yet those who for various reasons cannot keep up with society should be helped and provided with a decent standard of living.

Indeed, if we don't help the weakest among us, can we really call ourselves civilized then? Even some animals are capable of that.

If there is too much economic inequality in a society this will lead to all sorts of problems that will not be beneficial to anyone: a rising crime-rate, social and political upheaval... People are usually slow to anger and learn at a snail's pace but once the people are roused the rich upper classes will not be able to keep their position for very long. History is clear on this.

It's seldom mentioned in debates, but economic inequality is something that characterizes Third World countries. First World countries usually have a higher degree of equality. I've become a bit disillusioned in recent years, but I think you're right: people will eventually rise against the system.

 

[Jean Améry]

Hm, I'm not sure I agree completely. There are many other incitaments than money. Otherwise, there would be no police officers, nurses, teachers, fire fighters, scientists, and so on. Money can definitely be a driving force behind progress sometimes, but let's not forget that computers, satellites, blood banks, jet engines, the Internet, penicillin, and many other inventions and discoveries we take for granted today were not private initiatives driven by profit.

Why would anyone start a business of their own, invest in a company or undertake a long and ardous study if the rewards will not be equal to the risk taken/investment of time and effort? These things are major driving forces of inequality: a succesful business owner will usually be richer than an employee, the same for savy investors and highly educated individuals like MD's, engineers, lawyers... I'm pretty sure scientists are paid quite a lot more than common, unskilled labourers so that in itself is already an inequality.

Like it or not but most people are largely motivated by money. There are people who choose a certain profession out of sheer idealism sure and they fulfill vital roles in society but without private initiative and enterprise motivated by the desire for profit the economy will not flourish. The idea of people working for the common good is a noble one but I don't see it working in practice. Certainly not on the level of modern societies.

In my mind the key is to ensure that the economy does well so there will be enough wealth in society to take care of the sick and the poor. If a country is poor how will it ever be able to take care of those who can't care of themselves?

That certain inventions were made by individuals without a motive for profit or on government initiative (which is indirectly made possible by a capitalist economy) does not mean the wealthy and technologically advanced societies we have today came about solely by altruistic private initiative or government initiative. Without private companies we would not have PC's, be able to fly where-ever we want to go and so on.

Without industrialization and capitalism we would still be in the dark ages. Which isn't to say that a society that operates solely on the principle of private initiative and profit would not be cruel and inhumane. The 19th century provides ample proof of that. Not to mention highly unstable. If people no longer can feed their children or provide them with a decent future all hell will break loose and widespread violence will follow.

 

[Sensei]

Why would anyone start a business of their own, invest in a company or undertake a long and ardous study if the rewards will not be equal to the risk taken/investment of time and effort? These things are major driving forces of inequality: a succesful business owner will usually be richer than an employee, the same for savy investors and highly educated individuals like MD's, engineers, lawyers...

If I look at the people I know who have started up their own companies, money has been one of many incitaments and in no case the main one. They have done it because they want to achive something, think it's fun, want to be their own bosses, decide their own working hours, and so on. A friend of mine who started up his own company has become a millionaire and he could have retired many years ago, but he still works evenings and weekends just because he thinks it's fun.

Are you perchance American?

I'm pretty sure scientists are paid quite a lot more than common, unskilled labourers so that in itself is already an inequality.

Indeed, they are better paid, but many choose to work in the public sector instead of the private sector even though it may mean lower wages.

Like it or not but most people are largely motivated by money. There are people who choose a certain profession out of sheer idealism sure and they fulfill vital roles in society but without private initiative and enterprise motivated by the desire for profit the economy will not flourish. The idea of people working for the common good is a noble one but I don't see it working in practice. Certainly not on the level of modern societies.

Many people are motived by idealism when they choose their line of work, all of the ones I mentioned and several others. They do of course want to get paid for their work, but they actively choose jobs which are more fulfilling, but less well paid.

In my mind the key is to ensure that the economy does well so there will be enough wealth in society to take care of the sick and the poor. If a country is poor how will it ever be able to take care of those who can't care of themselves?

There are many ways an economy can function. I believe it's a mistake to only think in terms of wealth. Resources don't disappear just because virtual money isn't generated. For instance, the financial sector may be at an all-time high, but it won't help the healthcare sector if there aren't enough educated nurses available.

That certain inventions were made by individuals without a motive for profit or on government initiative (which is indirectly made possible by a capitalist economy) does not mean the wealthy and technologically advanced societies we have today came about solely by altruistic private initiative or government initiative. Without private companies we would not have PC's, be able to fly where-ever we want to go and so on.

Even a dysfunctional and totalitarian society like the USSR managed to come up with several revolutionary invetions without capitalism. I'm not saying that the incitaments must be altruistic, just that capitalism isn't a prerequisite. Also, notice that a government could have developed the personal computer. It's usually a matter of choice.

Without industrialization and capitalism we would still be in the dark ages. Which isn't to say that a society that operates solely on the principle of private initiative and profit would not be cruel and inhumane. The 19th century provides ample proof of that. Not to mention highly unstable. If people no longer can feed their children or provide them with a decent future all hell will break loose and widespread violence will follow.

Without feudalism, we would also still be in the dark ages. In fact, without slavery there would perhaps not have been any civilization as we know it. Societies evolve.