Fast Food Worker Strikes!

[MrJonno]

Scarily I agree with a lot that laklak says, capitalism cannot possible supply enough work for the majority of the population in the end. I think we have probably got a generation or two but even know a significant % of the population are not going to be capable of ever being economically productive from the second they are conceived

I don't think it's capitalism's fault.

It's overpopulation and dwindling resources.

It's human being being too clever for their own good, we have made ourselves obsolete

[MrJonno]

Scarily I agree with a lot that laklak says, capitalism cannot possible supply enough work for the majority of the population in the end. I think we have probably got a generation or two but even know a significant % of the population are not going to be capable of ever being economically productive from the second they are conceived

Our analysis of events is usually fairly close, mrjonno, our differences generally lie in how we would deal with the problems. You prefer to rely on the social and political infrastructure, I prefer to rely on myself. Different strokes.

I'm sure you see yourself up a mountain in a hut, hunting bear or whatever rural people do 99.9% of humanity its going to be cities of 5 , 10, 20, 100 million. Coruscant from Star Wars is the only real future whether we like it or not

[Collector1337]

Scarily I agree with a lot that laklak says, capitalism cannot possible supply enough work for the majority of the population in the end. I think we have probably got a generation or two but even know a significant % of the population are not going to be capable of ever being economically productive from the second they are conceived

I don't think it's capitalism's fault.

It's overpopulation and dwindling resources.

It's human being being too clever for their own good, we have made ourselves obsolete

Perhaps you are obsolete with your very narrow and small skill set, but I most certainly am not.

[MrJonno]

Perhaps you are obsolete with your very narrow and small skill set, but I most certainly am not.

You completely miss the point if we only employ 50% of the population whole of society will collapse whether you have a job or not. Your survival and that of the 'masses' is fundamentally linked

[Seth]

Better to be in a majority than a minority when trouble starts

That depends on whether the majority decides it wants to eat you for dinner now doesn't it?

[MrJonno]

Better to be in a majority than a minority when trouble starts

That depends on whether the majority decides it wants to eat you for dinner now doesn't it?

If the majority want you dead you are dead regardless, better to worry about psychopathic minorities

[Seth]

Perhaps you are obsolete with your very narrow and small skill set, but I most certainly am not.

You completely miss the point if we only employ 50% of the population whole of society will collapse whether you have a job or not. Your survival and that of the 'masses' is fundamentally linked

You seem incapable of understanding that you can't get something for nothing, which is what socialism is actually about.

This inability to understand the basic facts of physics, life and human behavior is why socialism always ends up in totalitarianism, despotism, misery, privation, starvation and death en masse.

Socialism's premise is that each person should be willing to work hard to contribute to society "according to his ability" and that this pool of wealth must be shared among everyone "according to his need."

It's a system based on false premises. First, human beings, like every other living creature on the planet, have a built-in genetic drive towards survival that manifests itself as "selfishness" (in the language of Marxism) in that the individual will always look first to his own needs, then the needs of his immediate family and children, and then his extended family, and only then to the collective in general. This is a well-known feature of human behavior.

Second, the false premise of entitlement inherent in socialism says that the individual is entitled to the support of the collective regardless of his ability or willingness to contribute to the needs of the collective.

When you combine these two things you inevitably end up with a large number of people who look first to their own comfort and safety and who feel entitled to be supported in that pursuit of happiness by others, and therefore they become dependent on the productive members of the collective for their well being.

The tenets of Marxism don't allow for this inherent selfishness and ordinary human behavior. Marxism insists that when the political and social systems are "perfected" then everybody will live in harmony and altruistic love and will spontaneously contribute their maximum effort towards serving the needs of others even when they themselves are unsatisfied with the attention to their own needs.

This of course is completely in opposition to actual human behavior, which is why all Marxist societies end up with a huge, idle, dissatisfied dependent class, a powerful and despotic totalitarian ruling class, and an enslaved and unhappy productive class being forced to support everybody, as has been proven in every single society that utilizes Marxist theory, including ALL forms of socialism, bar none.

The obvious cause of this stratification is that the dependent class claim support as an entitlement rather than a reward for hard work and the production of wealth, and the government fosters that dependency in order to maintain and enhance it's own power, control and privilege, and the productive class becomes rightfully concerned at being exploited and forced to labor on behalf of those who WILL NOT work (as opposed to those who CANNOT work) and soon enough they realize that they too can avoid being whipped around the grist mill by simply ceasing to be productive and claiming their own entitlement to support by the collective.

It should be perfectly obvious that without any incentive to work and create wealth that gives the worker a greater share of the rewards of that labor than it gives to others or the collective, there is no motivation to work at all. As a result, the ruling elite must use harsher and harsher methods to coerce the productive class to keep on producing so that the dependent class can be kept in control and the ruling elite can maintain their perk and power.

Eventually the productive class discovers that it can input as LITTLE labor as possible while avoiding the worst of the despotic and tyrannical machinations of the ruling class, but of course overall production declines sharply. The more production declines the more agitated the dependent class becomes in demanding their entitlement to unending support from the collective, and therefore the more despotic the ruling class must become to keep the seething proletarian dependent class in check and keep their own heads firmly on their shoulders.

And so the death-spiral spins its inevitable way down to State Socialism and the mass murders of the "undesirables" and "counterrevolutionaries" as seen in Russia under Stalin (and others), China under Mao (and others), and Cambodia under Pol Pot and the Khymer Rouge...and literally every other Marxist despot that's ever existed.

Denial of the basic biological facts of human behavior and need that denies and ignores the inherent drive of the individual to get more from his labor than he gives to others is the root cause of the failure of socialism in every form. It's just that some forms take longer than others to devolve into chaos and anarchy, mostly because some forms of Marxism try to prop up the fallacious foundation with tightly-controlled Capitalism because deep down inside, anyone with any intelligence at all knows that Capitalism is the only social model that can possibly induce the individual to work harder than the guy next to him in the onion field. It is competition for greater rewards fostered by greater, or more efficient labor that creates viable and growing economies.

All forms of socialism are inevitably self-destructive, sooner or later, because of the false premises upon which they are based that ignore evolution and basic biology as well as ordinary human behavior.

[Seth]

Better to be in a majority than a minority when trouble starts

That depends on whether the majority decides it wants to eat you for dinner now doesn't it?

If the majority want you dead you are dead regardless, better to worry about psychopathic minorities

Speak for yourself. I plan on taking out as many of the majority that attempt to eat me as I possibly can before I go down, thus reducing the size of the majority substantially in favor of the remaining minority individuals who actually deserve to survive.

Or better yet I plan on avoiding the starving proletarian dependent class long enough that they all eat each other and we few, we happy few, we band of brothers, prevail and become the majority.

That should take about 90 days to six months or so for the worst of it to pass as the helpless dependent majority starves and eats itself into oblivion.

[klr]

Is there any point even trying to respond to a ridiculous rant like that? Did you just sit down and compose that, or grab it from somewhere else?

Those who only interpret (or see) history through the lenses of their own extreme standpoint are doomed to failure ... or at least disappointment.

Better to be in a majority than a minority when trouble starts

That depends on whether the majority decides it wants to eat you for dinner now doesn't it?

If the majority want you dead you are dead regardless, better to worry about psychopathic minorities

Speak for yourself. I plan on taking out as many of the majority that attempt to eat me as I possibly can before I go down, thus reducing the size of the majority substantially in favor of the remaining minority individuals who actually deserve to survive.

Or better yet I plan on avoiding the starving proletarian dependent class long enough that they all eat each other and we few, we happy few, we band of brothers, prevail and become the majority.

That should take about 90 days to six months or so for the worst of it to pass as the helpless dependent majority starves and eats itself into oblivion.

Good grief. Do you really live your life thinking about this sort of thing?

[Seth]

Is there any point even trying to respond to a ridiculous rant like that? Did you just sit down and compose that, or grab it from somewhere else?

I compose absolutely everything I claim as original thinking. If it's a quote, I'll quote it.

And no, I doubt there's any point in your trying to respond to anything I write, since obviously it's far, far over your head. Just sit quietly and let your betters discuss. You might learn something...although I'm not hopeful at this late stage.

[klr]

...

I think about many things. It's a sign of intelligence to be able to entertain a wide variety of thoughts on diverse subjects. I also prepare for many eventualities, some more likely than others, which guides the level of both contemplation and preparedness. That's another sign of intelligence.

It's your assessment of likely eventualities that worries me.

[Seth]

...

I think about many things. It's a sign of intelligence to be able to entertain a wide variety of thoughts on diverse subjects. I also prepare for many eventualities, some more likely than others, which guides the level of both contemplation and preparedness. That's another sign of intelligence.

It's your assessment of likely eventualities that worries me.

You don't have the faintest idea of what my assessments are. You're making the gross mistake of assuming what you read here reflects any sort of reality at all. It might, it might not. You just never know.

[Collector1337]

Perhaps you are obsolete with your very narrow and small skill set, but I most certainly am not.

You completely miss the point if we only employ 50% of the population whole of society will collapse whether you have a job or not. Your survival and that of the 'masses' is fundamentally linked

Yes, society could collapse and then no one would have a job, but I most certainly would still survive.

All the zoo animals who stay in big cities however, probably won't.

[klr]

...

I think about many things. It's a sign of intelligence to be able to entertain a wide variety of thoughts on diverse subjects. I also prepare for many eventualities, some more likely than others, which guides the level of both contemplation and preparedness. That's another sign of intelligence.

It's your assessment of likely eventualities that worries me.

You don't have the faintest idea of what my assessments are. You're making the gross mistake of assuming what you read here reflects any sort of reality at all. It might, it might not. You just never know.

Of course I know what your assessments are. You come here and shout them from the rooftops at every available opportunity, letting everyone know exactly what concerns you and what your views are. You could not be more transparent.

[Collector1337]

Is there any point even trying to respond to a ridiculous rant like that? Did you just sit down and compose that, or grab it from somewhere else?

Those who only interpret (or see) history through the lenses of their own extreme standpoint are doomed to failure ... or at least disappointment.

Good grief. Do you really live your life thinking about this sort of thing?

Well, as someone who knows human nature pretty well, Seth is absolutely correct in his entire "rant."

Instead of just calling it "ridiculous" why don't you explain why and how Seth is wrong?

Because from where I am sitting, Seth is absolutely right about human nature and that's why socialism doesn't work.