Originally Posted by drewmandan
Racists cannot come out in the open because there's a de facto standard in law that beating up a racist isn't considered a crime. Or in other words, anti-racists have the effective legal right to initiate violence against racists. Of course, this only goes one way.
Now, you seem to be comparing capitalists to racists, which is a ridiculous comparison, considering racists are usually just violent people and capitalists* are usually brilliant, non-violent, proponents of societal integration, as you put it. But nevertheless, even a racist does have the right to his ideas. Moreover, he has the right to express those ideas to all that would listen. Speaking against the current status quo of society is not a crime. Otherwise, the law itself would be a crime, because at one time speaking of laws was heretical.
I was comparing paradigm shifts because you have the wrong idea of what I'm talking about. Obviously, instead of trying to use this example to understand me, you just decided to poke holes through the insignificant aspects that don't fit perfectly.
But to come back to capitalists, if you're comparing them to racists, then it sounds like you're saying that communists should have the effective legal right to initiate violence against them. And if I questioned you even further, I suspect you would admit that if a capitalist existed in such a society, then not only would the other members of that society be allowed to harass him at will, but the government itself (which there certainly must be, and on a massive scale) would also harass said capitalist. Is that right?
Brilliant use of a strawman there, you make the claim that the only reason racism isn't tolerated is because someone won't be punished for attacking a racist, then insinuate this is what I meant when I was comparing the paradigm shifts. Granted, this required you ignore all of history of what actually transpired and caused the transformation in society but what difference does that make?
To understand my point, all you really have to do is reread my argument, but you don't really care to understand what I'm saying, do you? Your only interest is to prove me wrong, even if you have absolutely no clue what I'm actually saying. How awesome of you.
I'll give you one more try. Currently, we have the technology to feed all of mankind, for free. We can give everyone shelter, food and clothing... for free. No man power is necessary, all of our needs can be automated. The only jobs left will be police officers, repairmen, engineers and city planners and what not. Currently, we also have a system of scarcity, meaning that the people who own all these products that could be free need to keep them scarce so there's still a demand on them, so that the owners of these products can maintain power and leverage. This is completely unnecessary, except to maintain these people in power, but it keeps people competing against each other for more hours and less pay so essentially we're all slaves to the monetary system.
What I'm saying is, once society comes around and starts providing everyone the necessities to life... for free, then they're free to pursue what they love. There's no anti-communism initiative possible save grumbling old people whsipering in darkened bar rooms about how much they wish the gold tooth stuck up their ass still gave them leverage. They'll have nothing to complain about, because food is free and shelter is free.
*Capitalists refers to those who support free, voluntary trade between individuals. I just wanted to preempt your inevitable tirade against the "evil corporations" by saying that the current corporations get their power from the governments, and so are not examples of capitalism at all.
Where are you quoting "evil corporations" from? Capitalism was a necessary step in social development, but it enables the exploitation of man by man. Some people own a product, a product which initially needed to be sold for social leverage in order to inspire competition and advance technology. Now, all the products that are still realistically "scarce" are purely meant for entertainment and everything necessary for life is in abundance far outweighing the demand. Herego, it's inevitable that we shift from that system, and I'm not talking about capitalism, I'm talking about money in the first place.
If I had a nickel for every time someone didn't know the meaning of "first world"...
One more piece of evidence that arguing with you is completely useless as you don't care at all what I have to say, as long as you can criticize some arbitrary detail to make yourself feel better. I wasn't even going to use that word, I just used it to highlight a point I was making about the transformation of civilization. But... whatever, I hope I made your day by allowing you to bicker over petty details to prove your internet superiority.
|
|
Bookmarks