AOL, They want to destroy the Internet as we know it

Money is nobody's only incentive. The things that come with money generally are.
 
Tell me why communism doesn't/wouldnt work?
 
Money isn't the incentive. What is the motivation to work hard when somebody doing next to nothing gets the same amound of money and benefits you do?
 
Kangy said:
You realise I hate you, right? AL has said it before, you're the king of double standards.
Click to expand...

*Donces*

HATEHATEHATEHATEHATEHATEHATE

-Angry Lawyer
 
Sulkdodds said:
1. Human beings are mean and greedy.
Click to expand...
And that's pretty much it.

Communism is a fine theory, a wonderful theory, but as pointed out, it's not good for morons who thrive only on getting paid more than the guys next to them--i.e., most of humanity.

But if you kill off all the stupid people, you don't need Communism anymore, because intellectuals are capable of living in a capitalistic society without becoming asshats. :)
 
Communism ISN'T A PERFECT THEORY.

Argh. Ok, got that off my chest:

It's based on a vision of the world where the workers are the main source of development of a country.

Manual labour/working-class labour isn't the main source of development of the economy. It's the support basis of the economy. Innovation and imagination is the drive behind economic development these days.

Communism in essence creates a closed society, where nothing is changing, things are stagnant, and as a result the society cannot compete with the rest of the world in terms of trade and suchlike, and no country is capable of being completely self-sufficiant, mostly due to geographical reasons.

There is no such thing as a perfect theory. To think in absolutes is a dangerous habit to get into.
Remember that if a theory fails to take into account basic human nature, then it fails, quite simply. You can't legislate human nature.

There are other reasons why (such as the proto-factory and verlagsystem eventually developing into capitalism ANYWAY ) but the questions is, will anyone respond to my post? :p
 
jondy said:
Yeah, but you're a lefty-pinko-commie.
Click to expand...
No such thing as left and right. Your views could be leftist or rightist... but in reality its all illusion.

I liked AOL's little commercials but I think they are taking it too far. It's not YES THE INTERNET IS GOOD ORWELL WAS WRONG!!!! or NO THE INTERNET IS BAD AND ORWELL IS RIGHT.


IMHO Orwell is right... internet is tracked, people can spy on you, and scam you. But I think the internet is a great thing!!! so many possibillities.
 
FFS, this thread about an AOL advert for net regulation is itself an advert for the old warning system. Some idiots spam lame insults and it turns into a thread about communism.

Isn't anyone else kind of sickened by the ad? Like someone said AOL are just seeking to snare technophobic Daily Mail readers and 'concerned parents' with a bunch of scaremongering. Like Solaris, I too have seen the 'Bad' ad 3 or 4 times now and the 'Good' ad not once. It masquerades as a succession of balanced and reasonable points, but in fact all it is is some leading suggestions and negative-association pictures selected to make people's moustaches bristle.

And whether it's the Good or the Bad advert airing, wtf - who cares; "Is the Internet Good or Bad?" what kind of question is that?! It's so retarded it stings. It isn't either, it's just a thing that is there and that people use, and it will be as good or bad as people themselves are, which is very. And twats who like to divide the world up into Good and Bad in order to get a buzz out of seeing if they come down on the Good side should just learn to cope with the fact that the internet isn't going away and most people would never settle for a sanitised version of it.

I agree with Solaris to an extent. This is a spurious debate that would never be set out in such ignorant terms if it was about another sector of the mass media like, say TV. If someone poses the questions "Is TV good or bad?" then it amounts to a bit of chuckling, 5 seconds worth of idle comment and people move on, because TV is just there, it does what it does, that's that. But ask the same question about the net then we're expected to take the debate seriously. Why is this? Because pose a question like this and you're implying that it's possible for the net to be an inherently bad thing, and those posing the question don't seem to mind having some people arrive at that conclusion.

I believe, like Solaris says, that some powerful people DO fear the net, and they're trying to make the public at large more receptive to the idea of stronger regulation of it.

The mechanics of it all do confuse me though. Why would AOL, an ISP, want to convey the impression that the very product they sell could be "Bad"? One thought I've had is that if governments do decide to further regulate the net in a big way in coming years, then it will eventually fall to ISPs like AOL to censor content from their users, monitor usage and so on. However, in order for that to work, and to be accepted by Joe Public then AOL et all need to first make people amenable to being regulated, watched, whatever - by telling them they're being saved from the Bad Stuff (tm). And ad campaigns like this are the groundwork. Just a thought. It is a weird campaign.

This post was sponsored by 4am bullshit syndrome
 
ComradeBadger said:
Communism ISN'T A PERFECT THEORY.

Argh. Ok, got that off my chest:

It's based on a vision of the world where the workers are the main source of development of a country.

Manual labour/working-class labour isn't the main source of development of the economy. It's the support basis of the economy. Innovation and imagination is the drive behind economic development these days.

Communism in essence creates a closed society, where nothing is changing, things are stagnant, and as a result the society cannot compete with the rest of the world in terms of trade and suchlike, and no country is capable of being completely self-sufficiant, mostly due to geographical reasons.

There is no such thing as a perfect theory. To think in absolutes is a dangerous habit to get into.
Remember that if a theory fails to take into account basic human nature, then it fails, quite simply. You can't legislate human nature.

There are other reasons why (such as the proto-factory and verlagsystem eventually developing into capitalism ANYWAY ) but the questions is, will anyone respond to my post? :p
Click to expand...

AHH! COMMUNISTIC FOREST ANIMAL!



Step 1: CCTVs in public areas
Step 2: Universal Identification and locator for all citizens
Step 3: Barcoding of all infants
Step 4. Total govermental control.


How does that sound? (It sounds good to me) IT COMEES WTHI AOL AND INTRENET 2 LOL BBQ!

(btw, that post was to say why we need to stop talking about communism and get a warning system)
 
The internet is great. I can learn all sorts of random crap, its more entertaining than tv, i can talk random crap with complete strangers or friends, and i play my games on it.

The internets sucks hard. For every relatively normal website, even some relatively normal porn sites, you have like 25 completely awful websites or horrendously disgusting fetish sites. Also the internet gave birth to furries, this alone is enough to make we want to carpet bomb the whole damn thing. Then there's those annoying godamn ads like "catch the frog" or "punch the robot" that only a complete retard would ever click on, but still marketers decide to plaster them everywhere.

As for Communism. A poor person living in a lean-to shack in mexico is better able to support their family than a Doctor in Cuba. What does that say for communism? I was talking to a family member who recently emmigrated from Cuba who had visited Mexico. He was a guest in the home of some dirt poor people who were happy to help him out, and they had little more than a fridge. But even they could keep their fridge full of food, which is more than anybody in Cuba can attest to. In Cuba, you can hardly keep guests cause of all the food rationing. To hell with your communism.
 
Ive been reading a book "As the future catches you" and its all about the economy and such and it does appear, that countries gain wealth through hi tech know how, patents and coming up with new ideas ect.

But thats only becuase of the competitiveness world capitalism has lead us too, sure our universities can generate wealth, but what will they eat without the workers.

If communism was a world movement, we could very happilly be stagmant, as there would be no need to advance and gain an advantage on the opposition. However, incentive to an inventor to invent could say be you get to retire early or something.
 
Problem: I don't think it's possible to generalise and just say 'the workers' anymore.
 
Sulkdodds said:
Problem: I don't think it's possible to generalise and just say 'the workers' anymore.
Click to expand...
People who make the material things and produces that we need to live and use in our lives.usually payed under 23k
 
Solaris said:
There volutary. The only thing that prevents a revolution is ignorance, taxes and benifits control the classes only if there willing to submit to them, if enough people stopped paying taxes and stopped reconising the state as an authority it would be powerless.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Taxes perfectly stunt peoples' revolutionary spirit, as it forces them to worry about things that, whilst being unfair, are of more immediate concern. Big Picture planning is far easier if you don't have to worry so much about the money. Taxes are not voluntary, they are of deep concern and diversion of thought. Your idea of a revolution in that sense is nonsensical and simply would not work.
No revolution in history has come into fruition through people saying:
"I do not like the state. I am cross with it and shall not pay my taxes. I do not respect the state."
As if that's gonna bring down the system. Revolutionary spirit comes from a far more fierce place than this disgruntled contempt you're peddling.

If you kick up a fire and FAIL you're f*cked. It is simply a fact - one you are loathe to recognise - that in most Western societies (ie: financially and politically secure) a violent revolution in the way you advocate will not work.

In the 158 years since Marx published The Communist Manifesto, the world has changed with a speed Marx was simply unable to fathom or predict.
I hate to break it to you, dear boy, but Marxism and the 21st century are not compatible.
 
el Chi said:
Nonsense. Taxes perfectly stunt peoples' revolutionary spirit, as it forces them to worry about things that, whilst being unfair, are of more immediate concern. Big Picture planning is far easier if you don't have to worry so much about the money. Taxes are not voluntary, they are of deep concern and diversion of thought. Your idea of a revolution in that sense is nonsensical and simply would not work.
No revolution in history has come into fruition through people saying:
"I do not like the state. I am cross with it and shall not pay my taxes. I do not respect the state."
As if that's gonna bring down the system. Revolutionary spirit comes from a far more fierce place than this disgruntled contempt you're peddling.

If you kick up a fire and FAIL you're f*cked. It is simply a fact - one you are loathe to recognise - that in most Western societies (ie: financially and politically secure) a violent revolution in the way you advocate will not work.

In the 158 years since Marx published The Communist Manifesto, the world has changed with a speed Marx was simply unable to fathom or predict.
I hate to break it to you, dear boy, but Marxism and the 21st century are not compatible.
Click to expand...

What I am saying is:
If everyone (par the elite) belived in Marxism and socialist theory and were willing to set up a new state and otherthrow this one, the ruilling elite would be powerless to stop it. They couldn't raise taxes as a punishment to the revolutionaries as no-one would pay them, nor even reconise the state as an authority. The strongest tool the elite have is the control of information.
 
Solaris said:
What I am saying is:
If everyone (par the elite) belived in Marxism and socialist theory and were willing to set up a new state and otherthrow this one, the ruilling elite would be powerless to stop it. They couldn't raise taxes as a punishment to the revolutionaries as no-one would pay them, nor even reconise the state as an authority. The strongest tool the elite have is the control of information.
Click to expand...

There is no control of information.
 
Solaris said:
What I am saying is:
If everyone (par the elite) belived in Marxism and socialist theory
Click to expand...
I say again: Marxism in the modern, Western world does not work. It is based on a society completely different to ours - 158 years is a long time in any age, but the world has changed so rapidly since his time it simply is not applicable.

Plus, "if" really is the keyword in that sentence.
Solaris said:
the ruilling elite would be powerless to stop it.
...
The strongest tool the elite have is the control of information.
Click to expand...
When you define "the elite" your arguments will hold more validity. Until then, you sound like you're referring to some secret behind-the-scenes Illuminati-esque fellowship of politicians and businessmen, etc. Is this ACTUALLY what you're referring to, because conspiracy theorising is not the best way to make your point.
Solaris said:
They couldn't raise taxes as a punishment to the revolutionaries as no-one would pay them, nor even reconise the state as an authority.
Click to expand...
I did not say that raising taxes etc would be a punishment. As a punishment, they could stove their heads in and fling 'em in jail.
As I have already said:
"Revolutionary spirit comes from a far more fierce place than this disgruntled contempt you're peddling."
 
ComradeBadger said:
Respond to my post, thanks.

:)
Click to expand...
I did, saying how ideas only generate wealth becuase of the competitaveness, the workers generate the material things we need to live and are the builders of anything material.

Edit:el chi, oh but the elite are the illuminati.
 
No, the illuminati were invented by the Vatican!

Erm, in western society the most low-paid jobs aren't the ones producing the things we need anymore. Much factory work is automated, farming is a completely different industry to what it was in Marx's time and we're living in the information age where communications are potentially as important as crops. I don't think we can divide society into a great big pyramid of wages anymore, with a broad base majority who produce what we need and a minority tip of people producing what we don't need anymore.
 
Sulkdodds said:
No, the illuminati were invented by the Vatican!

Erm, in western society the most low-paid jobs aren't the ones producing the things we need anymore. Much factory work is automated, farming is a completely different industry to what it was in Marx's time and we're living in the information age where communications are potentially as important as crops. I don't think we can divide society into a great big pyramid of wages anymore, with a broad base majority who produce what we need and a minority tip of people producing what we don't need anymore.
Click to expand...

Socialism is about everyone working together and sharing the sucess. Everyone will have the right to what others have produced as much as anyone else will. From each according to ability <- Thats esscentially what its about, everyone contributing as much as they can to society.
 
And? My point is that you can't really divide society into 'the workers' and 'the elite'. I'm not even sure if you could back during Marx's day - admittedly because I haven't studied that period of history in much detail but yeah. Even if there was a commie/socialist revolution (hell, why must it be a revolution at all?) I sincerely doubt it'd end up as utopian as you think it would be.
 
Solaris said:
Socialism is about everyone working together and sharing the sucess. Everyone will have the right to what others have produced as much as anyone else will. From each according to ability <- Thats esscentially what its about, everyone contributing as much as they can to society.
Click to expand...

But the inevitable social depreciation leads to stagnation of society. No innovation, no progress, shit quality of life. It's happened already, drop the baton and move on, marxism has (had?) no place in society.
 
there is no singular "elite"

there are various power blocks in many societies trying to push their agendas

to try and generalize it as "the elite" doesn't work.

Its especially ironic that you keep mentioning "the elites" as the force holding people down when its usually the some self proclaimed intellectual elites that advocate communism the most.

Also ironic is how you mention that the elites strongest tool is information control. Last i checked its been the communist countries who have held the firmest choke on information flow, not the capitalist ones.
 
BTW, Communism doesnt work, and the reason for this is so simple that anyone who cant agree is, basically, talking rubbish :x
 
Solaris said:
Edit:el chi, oh but the elite are the illuminati.
Click to expand...
Either you're joking, in which case I smile and say "Touche, sir" OR you're serious and I simply roll my eyes and walk away.

On the other hand, at least you took the slightest penguin step towards perhaps maybe describing "The Elite".
 
Solaris said:
Socialism is about everyone working together and sharing the sucess. Everyone will have the right to what others have produced as much as anyone else will. From each according to ability <- Thats esscentially what its about, everyone contributing as much as they can to society.
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with socialism in politics, Commuism in politics however, isn't good :)

'From each according to ability to each according to his need'

Eden, iirc :O
 
ComradeBadger said:
There is nothing wrong with socialism in politics, Commuism in politics however, isn't good :)

'From each according to ability to each according to his need'

Eden, iirc :O
Click to expand...
It makes perfect sense.

Why should anyone be expected to do more than they possibly can, they should just try there best, and no-one should get more than someone else who is of greater/equal need.
 
Yeah, but they wont will they? because they all get the same. If you work your best, you get £20,000 per year. I sit on my arse and put in 25% the effort you do. Im still going to get your paycheck.

Yeah, thats clever X;
 
You will probably find that after a while of Communist rule, greed and selfishness will have been abolished and everyone should be able to live in perfect harmony and equality...

This of course is the theory, but in practice it will never work... shame...
 
Nope, it wouldn't. The entire point of evolution is the the strongest survive. This is inprinted into society. The people that work hardest, or are the most ruthless, are the ones that get the power. Since we are assuming that everyone gets the same, then the only way to havea better life is to A) Not work as hard, but get the same despite lack of effort, or B) Cheat the system
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Lizardizzle
2019: The year of Half-Life SFX videos
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ennui
Ennui
TechnoHippyChic
If you post it, they will come...
2
Replies
63
Views
6K
TechnoHippyChic
TechnoHippyChic
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
The leaked maps of the Half-Life 2 episodes - Part 2
Replies
0
Views
9K
Barnz
B
Back
Top