What's more depressing is that you feel the need to resort to personal insults that are completely irrelevant with the debate, but fine, I can play the game to if you want. What fun, let's again see who can come up with the best insults while we're having this debate.

And you are a heavy reductionist who thinks that problems can be solved through abstract constructions that suffer a datchment from what's real in this world. All existence is one system and all problems within it are related. Your failure to synthesize multiple fields of study into a coherant worldview keeps our debates extremely one demensional. Reducing things to economics creates political problems, social problems, individual psychological problems, educational problems. Therefore all things that effect each other must be integrated to form a coherant whole. I don't know how many times I have mentioned holism.

I need to take an economics class? You need to take philosophy class, sociology class, psychology class, anthropology class, and an ethics class.

Capitalism is a "grow-or-die" system which cannot help destroy the environment while the state is a centralized system which destroys the freedom and participation required to interact with eco-systems. The root causes for our ecological problems lie in social problems. Bookchin uses the terms "first nature" and "second nature" to express this idea. First nature is the environment while second nature is humanity. The latter can shape and influence the former, for the worse or for the better. How it does so depends on how it treats itself. A decent, sane and egalitarian society will treat the environment it inhabits in a decent, sane and respective way. A society marked by inequality, hierarchies and exploitation will trend its environment as its members treat each other. Thus "all our notions of dominating nature stem from the very real domination of human by human." The "domination of human by human preceded the notion of dominating nature. Indeed, human domination of human gave rise to the very idea of dominating nature." This means, obviously, that "it is not until we eliminate domination in all its forms . . . that we will really create a rational, ecological society."

Firstly, I've already explained how capitalism and private property does not destroy the environment and backed it up with evidence. If anyone here wants to challenge it then go back to the "anarcho-capitalism gaining steam" thread and read my posts regarding the subject. Secondly, I_Guy, sometimes you have to look at things separately to find the holes and inconsistencies. Take the venus project for example, at first glance everything sounds like it would work out and be very beneficial to the human race if we adapt to the system they were preaching about. However, when I decided to look at things closely I realized that the economics behind it was completely flawed and so was some of the logic behind government. If I didn't look at things separately then we wouldn't have come to the conclusion that the venus project is irrational and most likely wasteful of our natural resources. If economic policies can affect poverty, the standard of living, overall happiness, technology, resources, plus more, then I would think that economics is an important topic if you are going to discuss what should be done with society. Frankly, I'm starting to feel that I shouldn't be taking you so seriously if you feel that economics is unimportant to society.

But that's besides the point. If you still think I'm wrong then you can respond to the rebuttals I made against your original argument.

However never before have establishments been able to profit, exploit, and control the masses with falsities.

Switzerland
"The major water issue in Switzerland is water pollution from the increased use of agricultural fertilizers as well as hydrocarbon pollution from transport and industry.[5] While improvements have been made, there are still issues with eutrophication (an increase in nitrogen and phosphates) in many lakes in the Swiss Plateau." -wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Switzerland#Environment

The government provides incentives to corporations to limit pollution because they have the tax dollars to do so. They're clever at this, and they are way ahead of the U.S. If it was left up to the corporations the environment would go to shit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

Just because these countries have free-markets and low pollution does not mean anything. You are only making an assertion. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

And yeah their environmental treatment is among the best in the world and better than the U.S. But they still are having their problems. There seems to be such a difference because the U.S. is ridiculous when it comes to pollution.

But it's not necessarily simply more play and less work. It's a problem when we overdose on play and push out education. Work addicts develop high levels of stress and resort to the degradation of their health to keep up with the work. This work also stands in the way of education because they are always trying to make a buck to stay ahead (or maybe even catch up). But the sad thing is all of this is unnecessary human constructions that have no connection to human development.

That's why you laughed at Zeitgeist Addendum, because it emphasizes everything, and you didn't care to connect the dots. You weren't seeing how it was trying to pull all aspects of human life into a tight fabric.

Economic necessity drives decisions in the "free" market (given a choice between clean air and water and having a job, many people would choose the latter simply because they have to in order to survive). These factors can only be ignored which means that environmental values cannot be treated like commodities and market prices cannot accurately reflect environmental values. The key thing to remember is that the market does not meet demand, it meets effective demand (i.e. demands backed up with money). Yet people want endangered species and eco-systems protected even if there is no effective demand for them on the market (nor could be). Environmental issues are usually externalities .

And by the way J Breakz all Nordic countries are mixed economies . That's why the US conservatives called them "socialist" . Both Norway and Sweden are MIXED ECONOMIES.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway

Take that article for example. "The latest effort by the world's largest restaurant chain to combat criticism of its food and business." Because the people began demanding better quality food.

Is capitalism suddenly synonymous with technology? Let's get to the root of your argument (or at least what I think is the root) and quickly explain how this is incorrect: we already explained, using facts to back it up, that the progress in an anarcho-syndicalist society is equal to, if not greater than that of a capitalist society. Read Gaston Leval's account of the collectives of the Spanish Revolution. And don't even attempt to debunk my source claiming that he is biased because you can't use that to argue against the facts that he presents unless you present facts to counter his. Technology is a result of progress. It is true that technology helps make education more accessible, but by no means is technology a result of capitalism and capitalism alone, and it could be argued that anarcho-syndicalism is actually superior as a means to progress.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Instead we have different degrees of anorexia and bigorexia plaguing young people. And we have plastic surgery in which people feel the need to change what they are. Or they think its cool to sag their pants and toat gats, and say fuck education. We now have addictions to video games that rot people's lives and brains. Instead, we have a smoke, drink, and party culture, because that's just what's fucking cool.

As far as we know, the earliest beauty to be recognized culturally was the Greeks. Their conception was different however. They saw bodily beauty as evidence of the presence of divine earth and the inspiration for the search for all other beauties. The encounter of something beautiful was the life out of the mundane. Beauty to them were things that created wonder and awe in the mind. The Greeks had limits and stressed moderation. Human and earthly beauty could only offer a glimpse into divine perfection. They thought it was hubris to attempt to transcend into the divine perfection. The Greeks saw it as a failure of the will to lose control of one's desires. That's why they stressed moderation. But our culture is without limits, moderation, or a conception of hubris.

But most of all, the Greeks truly appreciated inner beauty and love. And all of this was purely a cultural development. There were no private industries to poison, dilute, and derail interpersonal culture. The Greeks didn't have a world full of the millions of distractions that we have today. So as a culture and a social consciousness, they had time to find insight that tied them to the subjective meaning of their existence. They didn't only introspect as individuals, they introspected as a culture. That's why ancient Greece is a wonder. They reached an intellectual standard far more sophisticated and insightful then their science or technology.

But further on, up until about the 1300s male and female dress was essentially the same, "uni-sexual." As dress became more sophisticated in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, clothes for both sexes became more tight and exposing, but drifting in slightly different directions for each. Men's clothes became more natural, less restrictive, tailored, and simple, while women's clothes became more stiff, tightly fitted, and decorative. Into the 1600s fashionable men wore silk, lace, don powder, and wigs in public. Much of this was due to the rise of mercantilism and merchant-ism (precursors to capitalism). But the division of sexes began to take place as men and women found different places in fashion. But a shift occurred in the 1800s and a great divide appeared. The Industrial Revolution gave rise to the working class, and this creates gender oriented jobs based on perceived abilities. Herein masculine and feminine distinctions arose. And from there on, male and female oriented beauty began to evolve. By the 1950's it was concrete. In the last couple decades we have began to experience a reversal shift again, but I won't go into that. But the point is industries now sell these artificial distinctions as appeals to beauty. Different industries had been selling them and developing them, all along. And if you don't believe me, I can offer a modern solid case in which an industry changed the desires of the masses. And virtually one man was behind it. But only if you're interested. Wouldn't want to bore you.

We all know the deal with smoking, alcohol, and medical drugs. They're all addictive. People don't get addicted to video games? Or watching TV? Research is done to figure out what it takes to keep people coming back. For instance, TV shows have realized not to hold a shot for more than 5 seconds, because if they do people will gradually lose interest. These industries are hijacking the nature of our biology and psychology. Plain and simple.

capitalism is not the only way to focus on economics and economics also isn't by any means the only factor, or even the biggest factor in the progression of technology.

oh really? then what do you have to say about the Paris commune? the kibbutzen? so the Spanish Revolution was crushed by force.... and? that means that all movements of this kind will be crushed by force? the Spanish Revolution was dissolved under extreme circumstances. it wasn't even expected to last because the anarchist movement took over while the two big dogs -- fascism and state communism -- were warring over the land. anarchism was like the little kid that picked up the video game controller while the two big kids were fighting over it and once one of the kids one he ripped the control from the hands of the little kid and sent him packing.

that is such a weak argument it is ridiculous. i don't even know where to begin debunking this. Menace has more facts then i do on this though so, Menace, take it away lol

let's see, the majority of drugs are productive and we've actually seen a major increase in recreational drug use since the advent of capitalism (ie: MDMA, LSD, the use of cocaine and heroin for non-medicinal purposes, etc.) so we can wipe that off the list, sex isn't a distraction because it actually is productive (after all, how does life come about in the first place?) so that is gone, sports, board games and card games can be combined into one category of games and i would argue that the majority of games prior to capitalism taught people how to strategize among other things, making them actually productive, but i'll be nice and let you have games, and religion is often very productive, though it is in all likelihood fallacious, especially when you consider that almost every humanitarian movement has been headed by a religious faction. so in essence, the only distraction that predates capitalism that you can actually claim is games, which i even said was a bit iffy because there are still positive things gained from games (though many games since capitalism's inception have been pointless and mind-numbing).

why do you assume that these standards are unrealistic? i believe we've more than met our burden of proof that such a change is not unrealistic. in fact assuming that any change that doesn't defy natural laws is unrealistic i feel is an unfounded assumption.

anyone who expects people to subordinate themselves to working for them that lives in a society where the values have been set and the opportunities are there for subordination not to exist and people are more than able to work without being employed by a boss is, in my opinion, not evil, but probably selfish and unhappy because he/she would have to have been unsuccessfully trying for years to find employees but they simply can't because that isn't how things would work in that type of society.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0