Superheroes

Two very famous guys called Marx and Engels developed that very same notion in detail, with basis on history, with basis on the scientific study of the human development and with a logical and scientific analysis on how capitalism works. Marx came up with a multi-volume literary behemoth called "The Capital" where he explains how capitalism works in depth and as if its length and depth was not enough he wrote it in a very complex language.
These guys called their theory "Scientific Socialism" and, since the premise was identical to that of what the communists proposed and to dissociate themselves, like the communists did, from the Utopic Socialists they called themselves "Communist". That is, scientific socialism was then known as communism. When the utopic socialist movement withered away, socialism and communism were used interchangeably.

But there was by this time a general misconception on what the state was. The state was seen as a mechanism through which any of the classes could achieve control of the circumstances and was not seen as what it defacto is another class in itself.

That's why many so-called scientific socialists, including some early writtings by Marx (rejected by himself later on) speak of a "workers' state" or a "dictatorship of the proletariat". This derioved in the misconception that communism was statist, while it was not.

To distinguish themselves from this current of thought within socialism appeared the anarchists. The ones giving the most militant and radical impression of socialist.

They did not only address the bourgeoise, they put a lot of focus on the state and that's why many got the misconception than anarchism stood for anti-statism. When anarchism, in itself, is nothing but "communism with the 'no-state part' well underlined".

Another misconcetion is product of the disacknowledgement of the existance of the rural bourgeoisie and proletariat where the exploitation relationships between the landowners and their workers was identical to that of the urban working class.

These misconceptions would go as far as Bakunin, one of the most prominent anarchist theorists, calling Marx an "authoritarian" and later would even evolve into a total semantic distinction between communists and anarchists product of yet more and more misconceptions of both anarchy and socialism.

What do all these things mean? The working class was about to finally revolt. And it did happen.

Workers' movements started raising all over Europe. The workers were gaining consciousness of their condition and, after literally millenia of exploitation they'd rise to end the last division of classes.

Workers' movements arised all over Europe. The class that had dethroned the monarchy was now at the risk of facing the same fate.

The Paris Commune was established in 1871 and it was an example of how workers began to express their revolutionary organization. It didn't last much and not due to intrinsic factors. It represented a serious threat to the hegemony of the bourgeoise over the workers. They bourgeoise knew it and they hired an entire mercenary army to put it down.

Workers' movements were prosecuted by monarchs (Russia) and Bourgeoise alike.

An interesting phenomenon was taking place in the most prominent Monarchic state of continental Europe, Russia: A quite considerable amount of the most thriving bourgeoise practiced Judaism and belonged to the Jewish community - it was nearly a unified thriving community of bourgeoise. The Russian Monarchy, feeling threattened by this thriving bourgeoise started developing a link between bourgeoisie and judaism, a link that would be basic for modern antisemitism as many pseudoworkers' movements (like the Nazis in germany) would embrace the notion that the problem was not in the bourgeoisie but in jews.

Even Marx (of jewish descent himself) wrote a paper called "The Jewish question" where he expresses that Judaism is the perfect religion for the bourgeoise as the religious values of Judaism pretty much include egoism and principles of exploitation.

In the eyes of the monarchy the bourgeoise had another strong problem - they were where intellectuals developed from since their material conditions allowed them for better acquisition of knowledge and allowed the bourgeoise youth to assess with a more calm, better informed and observing posture than that of the worker in many cases. They were raised within the new machinery of exploitation from the point of view of the exploitator.

In other words, the very same bourgeoise was what gave birth to socialist revolutionaires.

The Russian monarchy was aware of this and even tried to mix Judaism, bourgeoisie and the socialist movement into a joint front against their "legitimate" rule. The Russian monarchy can be blamed for most of the basis of the "Jewish conspiracy to control the world", a notion that would be exploited a lot by Fascists and Capitalists alike as part of their cultural hegemony agendas.

The Russian monarchy feared two kinds of revolutions - a bourgeoise revolution and a workers' revolution. They had seen what appened in Europe and wished to prevent that in their own territory by strengthening repression and prosecution and by the aforementioned libel campaings.

Yet as we saw, these prosecutions were unsuccesful as a new kind of (utopic) socialist, this time partially scientific and statist was to take the lead in th workers' movement of Russia.

Lenin came up with the idea that Communism, to be reached, required workers to be prepared to take control and argued that in order for this to happen a context in which workers were already emancipated from their proletariat chains by the imposition of a "workers' state", the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in a stage he would call "Socialism". During this period, the state, controled by the workers, would grant the workers the means of production, would serve as a central coordination entity, would keep anti-revolutionary elements at bay and the state would create the educational, cultural and political framework to prepare the workers for the abolition of the state and thus for communism, anarchic, stateless in nature.

In other words, the state version of Utopic Socialism.

Needless to say this project went to hell as soon as the opportunists that transformed the soviet state into a capitalist state took over.


Then we got all the pseudoworkers' movements that formed like Fascism in Italy and the Nazi party in germany which diverted the origins of the problem from the bourgeoisie (who was preserved within their systems) to just a part of the bourgeoisie and emerging bourgeoisie singled out by their religious and/or ethnic, national and cultural backgrounds.

That way the workers were deluded into thinking that their precarious conditions were fault of, for example, the Jews, Gypsies and even Homosexuals. Pretty much Inquisition style.

Shortly after this, we get another prominent attempt at establishing socialism - the anarchist communes of Spain during the civil war.

They had achieved to establish economically functional communities without state or social classes. The workers owned directly the means of production there and managed them in accordance to their needs.

Needless to say, they were opposed to the Capitalist Statist Republicans and to the Fascist Franquists.

Within the Spanish Civil war these anarchist communes were attacked by all the parties that were directly and undirectly involved: Thy were attacked by the Republicans, supported by several international brigades and the USSR and they were attacked as well by the Franquists who were supported directly by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy and indirectly supported financially by Great Britain and France.

With extrinsic extremely hostile conditions and without economic autarchy, the Spanish Communes were crushed.

After this, the role of the emancipation of the working class was assumed by defacto exploiters, those aligned with the USSR or that believed in a variation of that system, like, more lately Maoism, Hoxhaism, Titoism and so on.

In those industrialized countries where the bourgeoise was still ruling, the 1st half of the XX century taught them that they had to do something about the rebellious workers at home and later even abroad.

To pacify the workers at home they had to provide them with awesome living standards or at least with the feasibile promise of getting them. If the workers at home were satisfied, dormant and unaware, they wouldn't have to fear revolution. This would be expensive for it would require being able to provide relatively good material conditions for the workers and even social welfare for the unemployed. A bouunty for the rich nation would be necesary.

The way to do it was the pacific version of Imperialism - neoimperialism and neoliberalism.

States and capitalists would start investing in less developed countries to exploit the workforce there, the cheap workforce. They would attract the states of those countries into accepting trade agreements, they'd set puppet governments militarily where necesary or would pose trade embargoes where they wouldn't have the commercial priviledges they needed making these countries crumble economically.

Eventually, the 1st world with its superior bellic proficience and industry began to dominate commercially and politically in a subtle way all countries they could from central and southern America, Africa and Asia.

They established hundreads of companies and trade agreements overseas from which they would profit bringing profit to their nation as a whole. This profit would allow them for greater material conditions for everyone in their countries than in most of the world. This would pacify the workers at home.

Where the people and/or state were reluctant to accept this, they would intervene militarily either directly (Korea, Vietnam) or indirectly (the whole middle east, Latin America and Africa). This was what the whole cold war was about. Countries resisting the neoliberal wave would join forces with USSR which itself sought for greater international diplomatic and comercial projection. A world without nations exploitable by the west meant victory for the USSR and the soviet leaders had a fair understanding of this which they mixed with their pseudosocialist workers' paraphernalia.

No serious workers' movement emerged within the XX century.

When the USSR collapsed, the greatest obstacle for neoliberalism, this system boomed. The NAFTA was signed, Eastern Europe and the former USSR became a fountain of cheap labour for Western Europe and the USA. China had to liberalize more and more providing massive ammounts of cheap labour and countries that were still reluctant to accept these changes were crushed ruthlessly like Yugoslavia whose pseudosocialist state capitalist system is regarded by many as the most succ esful and satisfying of all for its population (to the extent you will still listen several former Yugoslavs say "I'm one of Tito's partisans!" ).

Cuba and Vietnam had to eventually follow the same path as China an North Korea, that bizarre orwellian state, has resitsed by starving its people physically, mentally and emotionally.

And this is what we have today. Facing its first crisis and putting its hegemony in many countries, like Russia, under question. The G-7 realized that having the world in the hands of just 7 economies was too damn risky and they decided to invite another 13 partners to exploit the workforce of the world.

Neoliberalism with its culture of competitivity and individualism has launched the workers into a new level of accepting and being proud of breaking oneselve's back to make those who determine everything for everyone, rich.

All the above was mentioned to give context to the development of exploitation and the struggle against it.

The workers' fault? Not if you understand history and materialism.

The workers' fault for not being aware? What do you think socialism is all about? What do you think the paris commune and the spanish communes were about? What do you think the whole XX century, neoliberalism and the cold war were about?

It's been a fucking bloody, hard and long path towards the emancipation of the working class which reached its peak in a time where material, technological and informative conditions were far more limited than today.

We're striving for the new peak, the peak that will finally bring this whole system down. Expect the modern oscurantism to meet its end within the XXI century.

Jesus wrote:

Anyone can become rich in the capitalist system.

This is irrelevant as I'm not adressing wealth per say but the condition of bourgeoise.

If you define "rich" as someone with a lot of luxuries, that counts with the capability of receiving services from thousands of people and so on, this, for your big surprise is also possible in socialism with the difference that a person will have to really earn this condition and this ondition will be sustained so long as the workers want.

An example could be professional sportsmen or artists. I'll explain it to you in the same way as I did with my brother:

My brother is a fan of Cristiano Ronaldo who, as you know, is a professional footballer. He sustains that he has a considerable fanbase and that many girls go crazy over him due to his outstanding physical appeal.

He asked me "And what would happen to such a wonderful and skillful player as Cristiano Ronaldo in socialism? Would he lose his mansions, his ferraris and all his luxuries?"

The short reply to that question was "If the workers deemed him not deserving of such properties and services, then, yes he would most probably lose them".

However, this does not reveal the real complexity of what could happen with Cristiano Ronaldo (and other people of similar condition) within a socialist framework.

To explain this we have to part from the premise that Cristiano Ronaldo is an outstanding professional footballer who is admired by millions, by some in an overzealous way, due to his sportive proficience which has given him fame and due to his physical appeal which has become notable after his condition as outstanding footballer.

So well, let's say that socialism is already established and Cristiano Ronaldo has a 5 million people fanbase.

These 5 million fans are to some extent devoted to him because he plays in a way they consider to be extraordinary. These fans are all workers and, Cristiano, while not really contributing economically to society, he does work doing his hobby.

Cristiano deems necesary to have a certain mansion with pools, big gardens, luxurious finishings and so on, a certain collection of sportive cars, the possibility to travell all over the world if so he wishes and to party hard among slutty supermodels. To achieve all this Cristiano Ronaldo requires workers. Workers that build his mansion and cars, workers that provide him with food, water and electricity, workers that provide him with overseas transportation, workers that provide them with certain services etc.

If Cristiano Ronaldo's fanbase deem that he deserves all this, then they will do whatever they can to provide it to him.

In other words, Cristiano Ronaldo would be directly giving them the pleasure of his football style and game while they'll give him in exchange all the luxuries he wants, quite probably to even a greater proportion than that he achieved in capitalism.

But then again, so long as the fanbase deems him deserving of such. His wealth and luxury would be directly proportional to the will, capabilities, disposal and size of his fanbase.

He'd become direcly bond with his fans. Shall he lose his fanbase, he'd literally lose everything and would have to find work as something else.

There could be a complementary option. There could be entire workers' communities that fixed upon themselves the goal of economically sustaining the practice of professional football:

They'd build stadiums, they'd economically support the players and clubs (the clubs being owned directly by the football players and run in a quite similar form to syndicates) as a whole, they'd be the ones to provide with referees, with media broadcasting and so on. The practice of professional football would be entirely run by the workers the luxury of the sportsmen being completely determined by them. No one would exploit the workers and no one would exploit the football players.

New football players would emerge so long as this community deemed that juvenile members of clubs play well enough to be mantained and given luxuries to solely dedicate to this activity.

Nedless to say, this ecuation would repeat in every single sport. I mentioned Football soccer because it's probably, by far, the most popular sport in the world and because it's where I developed this example from.

So long as the economy-dedicated workers deem professional sport deserving of luxury, professional sportsmen will have luxury.

And this repeats with other non-economically-profiting activities where those that perform said activities will be rich as directly determined by their fans without having anyone exploiting either them or their fans.

Jesus wrote:

In some way, giving your money to your succesor, is a way to live on yourself.

Should I quote the holy scriptures of Buddhism?

Jesus wrote:

So, the fortune of someone inheriting from it, can be legit, because it was the will, of the self-made man, who worked hard before him.

"Of the self-made man" no man is self-made. Mind to speak properly?

And I know what you mean "of man who made the fortune himself". Did you know you have trace back for centuries in most cases to see where these fortunes came from and how they were achieved? This is what I did above.

The legitimacy of the inheritance is as legitimate as the fortune itself. If acquired through exploitation, it is ilegitimate. If preserved through exploitation, it is illegitimate.

But we're not even talking about wealth. We're talking about property. Did you know how property is obtained? Are you aware of how arbitrarily it is determined?

Jesus wrote:

Btw, the workers with there money, buy products from place like China and such. So they are exploiters themselves, choosing to buy goods, from place such as these.

Ah.... are your reading comprehension skills of the English language so limited or is it that you simply are silly? Hopefully not both.

You still don't understand the concept of exploitation.

I'll put it in the simplest way I can and hope that finally you understand:

A guy owns the means through which others have to suffice their needs. In other words, to exploit said means they have to subject themselves to the rules of the owner providing him with as much profit as he wants.

To exploit workers is to profit from their labour. To have them producing goods or providing services needed by other workers while owning the means to produce said goods and services and being you who receives the profit and manages the profit as you wish.

That is to exploit. In the very same fucking way as one would do with slaves. You have them working, you decide to which extent they can suffice their needs and you profit from the product of their labour.

The difference between outright slavery and capitalism is that capitalism is a hypocritic system that disguises the condition of slave through "wage labour", that slaves are owned in a communal way by the bourgeoise as human resources, that the slave can have the luck to escape slavery and become himself either an intermediary between masters and slaves (petit-bourgeoise) or a master himself and that exists the wage which disguises perfectly the exploitation intrinsic to this economic system as, it is a tool to indirectly determine the rations the slave is entitled to receive since the slave can 1) expect to increase it shall his work be more valuable or intense (in accordance to what the master dictates) 2) manage it in the way he wants as opposed to a material ration. Money itself is useful to increase economic alienation which allows for the workforce not to be unified and grasp more difficultly that they're being exploitaed.

If after this simple explanation you still don't get what exploitation consists of, then we demonstrates that your reading comprehension skills are quite limited and/or your intellect is.

Jesus wrote:

So according to your logic, Batman is legit, because if we replace thieve by exploiter ''An Exploiter, exploiting an exploiter, should be forgiven',

Nope, for Batman's fortune to be legitimate it would have to be directly determined by the workers as per the footballer example I gave you.

Batman would have to trade his extraordinary humanity-defense skillsfor the fortune bestowed upon him by the workforce.

"An exploiter exploiting an exploiter" this is an invalid paralellism to adress my example of "thief that steals from a thief".

Theft is rejected as it is an illegitimate way to obtain something.
Private property of the means of production as per a historically materialist assesment of society is illegtimate. It is illegitimate property, thus it is theft.

If the thief, deprived of property, steals from the thief with property, he can't be harshly criticized, specially by the original thief. It would be pure hypocrisy.

Also, and as I mentioned above, your premise that a worker that buys from an exploiter is also an exploiter is absolutely nil as it is not a relationship of exploitation by the worker to the other worker. It's a worker not having other option but sufficing his needs by trading his wage for the means to suffice his needs being the direct recepient of said wage the exploiter as opposed to the worker that produced the means to suffice hthe other workers' needs.

By now you should have at least a shallow understanding of the concept "exploitation of workers".

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And I wasn't insulting. I was using you as my explanation, not an insult. SO....

Point cleared in MSN.

Tyrong_Kojy wrote:

do know WHY they have to do that, right?

As I said, it's another topic. The reason for which they have to hide is the same reason for which they exist.

Tyrong_Kojy wrote:

Quote :

Seriously, what the fuck.

I said that because you're comaining abotu him being burgeiose, while you yourself are one. I had hopped you'd see that.

Obviously I'm not complaining about him being a bourgeoise, I'm complaining about it being the core of his powers and of it using it as a tool as per his original premise against those who do not follow the rules within the fucked up socioeconomic framework capitalism is.

Tyrong_Kojy wrote:

Forget I said it.

Fortunately, this mind doesn't forget.

Tyrong_Kojy wrote:

As I ahve said, he's still be there, but he wouldn't do it as well.

Tomato tomato.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

and let me quote him, are the victims of whata allows hi be a bourgeoise and thus a hero. "by the spirits of my parents [I will] avenge their deaths by spending the rest of my life warring on all criminals."

If he did say this, it's not refering to all. liekly only to the random crooks, not the actual supervillans. Penguin, not a super. Two face, scary, but not super. JOKER doesn't have powers, but he's so evil, hard to kill, and nuts that he's considered a supervillan.

He did say that and this is a basic premise of my point.

TK wrote:

Quote :

In other words he's nothing but a criminal beating bourgeoise.

I honestly don't see why that's bad. bourgeoise.
, sure, kinda, but if you seriously can't forgive him for that and can't look beyond it then I truly pity you, dude.

The bad thing is that I don't see what's so heroic about using your massive wealth to beat the crap out of guys who are crooks because of the same condition that allows you have that massive wealth in the first place.

TK wrote:

Quote :

So if we're not with him we're with his foes? Fallacy.

Not with him? What? No, if you;re a theif, invading alien force that wants to eat us, nut job crasy killer, mutant crasy killer, and evil businessman/senator/president of the US who is in no uncertaint erms a crminal and only gets off on technicalities, then yes, we're against him.

You said that if we were against Batan we surely liked the Joker and such.

TK wrote:

No, you can't see past his station.

As per his original premise, I don't have to.

TK wrote:

Okay,t rue here. But you have missed my point as well.

Nope, I always understood your apology of him and after our conversation in MSN even better. Still, and as I told you there, I am focusing on what Batman was originally intended to represent. One of my premises is his quote.

TK wrote:

I thought I was pretty broad. But this part is jst nitpicking about one line.

What array could be broader than one that includes "all"?

TK wrote:

Quote :

Hmmm... all of those who have read his comic?

Okay, not you're being a smartass.

Nope. Originally I wasn't even adressing the people within Batman's universe but rather those readers of his comics who consider him admirable.

If it ever seemed otherwise to you, I apologize.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Within his universe the perspective is different. People may admire him for the same reason people may admire cops and bourgeoise.

Because they are foten good people! See, "I: can see past one's position, quite unlike yourself, it seems.

With his universe the way to assess him is entirely identical to the one of a worker that admires the guy that exploits him for "being so successful" without having the slightest notion of how that guy and others alike managed to get that position in the first place.

TK wrote:

Quote :

I'm asessing his condition as a superhero as product of his condition as a bourgeoise - his incentive is indirectly linked while his capabilities are directly product of it.

And once again, I doubt many would stop being exploited by him if they knew the truth, BECAUSE he's Batman, because he's good, just, and saves their collective asses. Using the labour of others to SVAVE those others isn't bad! in fact, it's NOT exploitation, it's a fair trade! "Yeah, make this stuff, and I'll help save you the next time a New God is killed. (Inifnite Crisis sucked.)

We already covered this point in MSN, but I'll broaden a bit on it.

From a perspective within his universe, there muts be a lot of people that admire Bruce Wayne for "his deeds". This is the typical reaction of people without understanding history and the workings of social classes. If the guy, asides from that risks his life and fortune to save people from aliens, well he could have the "moral athority" to become the only bourgeoise, owner of all means of production. But again, this is from the perspective of people without understanding of historical materialism.

As I said, Batman could also exist in an exploitation-less framework in which case he would be far from a wimp. The modern Batman in a socialist framework would really be a hero.

But again, I'm addressing his original premises.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Rich cop provides the rest of the unit with fancy equipment.

That's what I said, isn't it?

Exactly. And what's the use of cops?

TK wrote:

Quote :

The top assets are the human resources.

And he does so love tose resources.

Cappies can't be cappies without workers. A man can't be master of slaves in a desert Island.

TK wrote:

So are you saying that he should have let the murder of his family go, given all his money away, and become a factory worker or somesuch?

Did he stop the muderer of his family?

How would the murder of his parents be in any way improved if he beats a guy that steals some bread from the supermarket?

How are his parents in any way less dead by him breaking the arm of a guy that steals medicines from a drugstore?

As per his oath, that's what he'd do.

I'd understand him if he had sworn to get who murdered his parents and make him pay. Not justifiable but understandable.

But promising to leave no standing burglar by using all his wealth just because one of them murered his parents (For reasons that can be broadly analysed)? I don't think so.

And again, this is his original premise.

TK wrote:

I hope you like being enslaved by Hawkgirl/Hawkman's species. (Actually I have NO idea what's up with their stories, so forgive me if they're actually human. I don;t know anymore.)

I have to wonder if they'd at least be more merciful masters than [normal] humans.

TK wrote:

And we'd all be dead, so be grateful that he was and did.

Not as per his original premise. For that matter, I wouldn't give a shit unless it was within a socialist framework where he'd actually be worth my respect.

TK wrote:

Quote :

3. If he wasn't a bourgeoise he'd be slightly more acceptable in my view, he'd be just one more deluded worker, like a cop. He wouldn't have any responsability in regards to the prevalence of capitalism.

And also mor boring as a character.

If it was in a socialist framework he'd be just as fun, just without the exploitation part.

TK wrote:

When DID he say that, anyway? And again, not all his vilalns were created by any systems.

He had sworn to beat all criminals so...

TK wrote:

And where did Superman get the lead for that suit?

Since my only information regarding to that suit comes from you and it consists in that someone produced it and gave it to Superman, it was a relationship of mutual aid, not exploitation.

If worker A built the suit at the orders of Bourgeoise C and Superman got it from Bourgeoise C, then, the suit was produced through exploitation but Superman just got it as aid from the Bourgeoise.

TK wrote:

Which in turn saves and protects them. Sounds like the same system to me, jsut with more steps.

Those "steps" are called "exploitation". It could perfectly be a relationship of mutual aid between Batman and the workers like the Superman example, but it isn't.

TK wrote:

Quote :

With that bigger fraction he finances his vigilante hobby.

And. Saves. Their. Collective. Asses.

By. Screwing. Their. Collective. Asses. Unlike superman.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Because he got all his capabilities from scratch.

Yes he did.

So no worker was involved in the creation and growth of Wayne Entrerprises? I was sure it was otherwise... then he has the superpower of selfreplication I guess. Or for that matter also teh power of spawning like a mushroom.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Also, he invented them while using the resources the workers provide him with.

And then he saves them.

While screwing them. Unlike Superman.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Cute, gifting.

That's a problem?

Since when is "cute" a pejorative adjective?

TK wrote:

Quote :

He profits from their work. He advances at their expense.

And his advancement save their lives.

While screwing them. The same equation, without the "screwing them" part occurs with several other superheroes.

TK wrote:

Dude, you are SERIOUSLY reading WAY too fucking much in DC fucking comics. The man is a hero who saves the asses of everyone. Does he do it for revenge? At first.

And I'm adressing his original premise in which he's nothing but a burglar beating bourgeoise.

TK wrote:

Now? Not at all, but for the lower lever thugs and such.

Isn't the lower level thugs and such what I'm adressing?

TK wrote:

Status quo? Talk to me about status quo ehen they stop killing and raping, THEN we can talk.

Deprive the man of coercion and he won't have to coerce others. Deprie society of hostility and individualism and you'll see those abuses on people greatly diminished. Focus the security efforts of the community into identifying those prone of developing mental illnesses and their treatment and you'll see murder and rape decrease dramatically.

Even in the USSR, being the state capitalist disfunctional economy it was, it had some of the lowest crime rates in all the world. Comparatively today in average Russia has a murder and rape incidence 50-100 times greater than that of USSR.

In a less hostile and materially better framework those numbers could just drop to the lowest number possible, and even so, it wouldn't be zero.

The status quo is the genus of all social problems, and this is not atter of opinion. It's a scientifically proven fact.

TK wrote:

My entire fucking point has been that you can't see the man behind the postioin, you can';t see the intent, or even the use of the power.

I don't have to if adressing the original premise.

TK wrote:

There will always be someone in some kind of power, even in your preferect socialist system, even if not officially recognised, likely in a leadership position.

Explained broadly above how the influence of individuals over masses could happen in a socialist society. Certainly, what wouldn't exist in socialism is hierarchy and exploitation.

TK wrote:

You are unable to see the intent, the man, the desire and the good behind said position.

Because, as per the original premise, there's nothing good about him.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Another Batie without the "Bat" paraphernalia

No, just a scientist. I meant Bats payed HIM Atom man/atomic man, I can't remember his name, grows and shrinks. Allows him to make since very good micro chips.

So Atom man works for Batman, right?

TK wrote:

Quote :

1) Workers owned the means of production.

I am not making commentary on these thigns, inc ase you have yet to cucking notice.

Sure, but they're essential for my point.

TK wrote:

And if they knew, then the super villans would know. if they knew, then they would go after batman's freinds and family. If they did that, bats might make mistakes when saving them. Or they might be outright killed just to hurt him.

1. True, doesn't justify the exploitation though.
2. The more recent Batman, what sucks there is the exploitation thing.
3. I'm adressing the original premises of Batman.

TK wrote:

Quote :

3) If somehow batman's services were required.

Mother-cock-fucking-peice-of-fucking-shit-aliens, demons, and psycho gods.

In a socialist framework, he'd be kickass. Capitalism, unavoidable in his context, spoils him.

TK wrote:

its' possibel that was one of his orignins. But the accepted in Earth Prime, our Earth, is he's a nutjob.

Nice.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Caused by?

Um.... random mutation in the DNA? It's an actual condition where your skin gets scaly. As for his teeth and claws, well, he's nuts.

Is it explained that way in the comic?

There are several birth defects that are product of the mothers' malnourishment, bad habits or both which are product of material conditions in most cases.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Yeah, product of material conditions a victim of a disfucntional society. Just a wacko.

Improperly disposed of toxic waste is societie's fault? You knwo society hates inmproperly sidposed of toxic wast,e right?

I'd have to check better the story and the conditions under which said disposal took place.

TK wrote:

Quote :

About the status quo, check his oath and take a look at his economic activities. That should be enough.

How many times do I have to say Gods, aliens, zombies and psychos?

How many times do I have to say "As per the original premise"?

TK wrote:

Where the hell do you get that he's fighting t preserve capitalism? He's fighting to keep people from being KILLED.

As per his original premise he beats those that do not follow the Capitalist State's rules, in other words, "all criminals".

His oath wasn't anything like "I swear to protect people's lives even if I have to give my own!".

TK wrote:

Quote :

Just wacky, not a threat to people.

And theft is a crime, so he occasionally goes after her. But notice he generally doesn;t caare TOO mucha bout her? And beleive it or not, it;s not only the sex appeal. He often does that tohe r theives. Just not the ones who kill.

What is underlined is part of his original premise. The Batman you describe in this parragraph is more likely the more modern one, which is not who I'm focusing in.

TK wrote:

Quote :

How mean of her!

You steal from little old ladies who live in a dive and hold onto said jewlery for sentimental reasons too?

Nah, but doesn't seem like it's worth of being in the FBI top 10.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Actually she's got more merit than batman, she's not an exploiter and fights the dangerous wackos.

It's not exploitation to in exchange for their work that you payt hem AD TSAVE THEIR LIVES.

I explained broadly what exploitation is. They're not engaging in a mutual aid relationship with Batman, they're working for Bruce Wayne who exploits them and uses those profits to save them. Exploitiation, even though as disguise, is still exploitation. This is, I have to admit though, more loable than Batman's original premise which is what I'm adressing here.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Mhm and perhaps a rationalist economy.

Once more, not commenting on this kind of thing. I really hope you start realising this, because you truly do not seem liek youa re.

Don't expect you to comment, they're an essential part of my assessment. You're free to reply as you wish so long as you don't quote me out of context.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Mhm and perhaps a rationalist economy.

If my argument adresses the person it's only an ad hominem idf it's an insult, not if I simply use you.

Nope. It's an ad hominem so long as you appeal to a characteristic of the one you're arguing with. It doesn't have to be an insult, just appealing to the person or any of its characteristics. Actually an ad hominem can also be positive for the target while still a fallacy, like appeal to Authority which is a kind of inverse ad hominem.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Read Batman's oath.

Really, if you could provide when he said that. I don;t doubt you, I'm jsut curious, and alread adressed it. Besides, sounds like something he's say early on. You know, before he knew about magic and other life.

It's early indeed. Detective Comics #33.

TK wrote:

Quote :

And that's what makes him a wimp.

Then you have no idea what true strength is.THAT is an ad moninem.

Nope, it's not an ad hominem. It's a comment, a personal view product of my non ad hominem arguement.

TK wrote:

Quote :

He's not a poor worker who inspite of his limitations has done great efforts to protect his community from extraordinary threats.

There's a reason he's one of the DC Gods.

Yeah, that most people do not assess things from the perspective of historical materialism.

TK wrote:

Quote :

He's not an indestructible mutant that spits fire and flies who defends the Earth from extraterrestrials.

And here's another. ALSO it shows a strenghth that yous eem unable to awknowledge or even see.

It's the intangible force of exploitation making batman have such prowess. Not intrinsic to batman.

TK wrote:

Quote :

He's not an alien that teleports and has telekynesia and has chosen to protect the earthlings...

Read above.

You too.

TK wrote:

And this is abd why?The abt things' odd, yeah, but it scares them,a nd scared people make mistakes.Which is useful to the man with no powers. He shows that one doesn;t need powers, or nay even wealth when you get right down to it, to do what he does. It helps, yeah, but anyone can do it. He doesn;t SUGEGST t, because people die, and that's what he wants to stop, but still.

It shows that he needs to screw poor people to gain power so he can beat other poor people.

As per his original premise, again.

TK wrote:

Quote :

This specific part is about my opinion and I have presented already the arguements behind my opinion.

No, all you've said is that the poor are more deserving, that those with no power are more deservng.

Nope. I've said that Batman's premise is to beat victims of material conditions using other victims of material conditions as his intruments to gain power to strike down the former.

Again, original premise.

TK wrote:

Youc an;'t even entertain the idea that someone in power could think of others and use that power for the good.

For sure. Utopic Socialists and Leninists are examples of this.

TK wrote:

He's in a capitalsit system and plays the game, but he also protects the people. NOT the system, the people.

A criminal, by definition, is the one who breaks the rules of the game. Batman, as per his original premise, has vowed to fight all of those who break the rules of the game.

He, as per his original premise, either by intending to do so or not, fights to protect the system, to enforce its rules.

TK wrote:

Quote :

I just said he also causes some problems to his community in a different way and not even by his fault.

How?

Unless I'm twisting too much the storyline, as far as I know, Smallvile is target of threats due to superman being there.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Read where I talk about the "socialist equation", above.

And they would all be inf ar more danger than they are already. Nice job there, dude.

How? If it was a relationship of mutual aid, he'd actually have at his disposal the entire workforce of the Earth, increasing his prowess exponentially.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Too bad. Still he exploits workers and that's my point.

And my point, now at least, is you;re blinded by your ahte of the class.

It's not "hate of class" as you call it. I simply consider that a burglar beater that exploits wokers so he can beat burglars with hi-tech gadgets and afford himself a secret identity is not particularily heroic or even extraordinary, specially compared to say, Superman.

TK wrote:

Quote :

What about he considers to stop exploiting them and use all his influence and economic power for the workers' emancipation.

He's not THAT powerful.

If nearly starving guys that lived on the incomes printing newspapers gave to them could serve as the basis for massive werkers' movements in Europe that ended up in civil wars.... I can just wonder what someone with so much influcence as Bruce "Batman" Wayne could do.

TK wrote:

Besides, the governments know his idnetity,a nd he knows it. In addition, there ARE superheroes, many who HAVE powers, that liek capitalism.

Hmmm too bad, superpowerful coppers.

TK wrote:

Let's just say he wouldn't go too far. And likely he doesn;t care either way, like myself, andnever even thoguht about it, or is too disillusioned to think it would work anyway,s o what's the point?

Which brings him back to my previous point.

TK wrote:

more would get hurt if he did that, and he DOES NOT WANT THAT.

Being so smart as he is he could figure something out. Couldn't he?

TK wrote:

Quote :

and the world is full with potential geniuses who can't develop because they're busy trying to get something to eat.

Not in DC. Wayne employs many. The rest are generally working on the Justice League's bases. or hired by Lex Luthor and later killed when they learn too much. But that' what Bats wats to stop.

"Working" doesn't mean "develop to full potential" does it?

About 2 pages of this topic is off topic

Quote :

Exactly. And what's the use of cops?

DOn't get intot hat status quo shit, dude. Going after murderers and rapists are not status quo.

Quote :

Did he stop the muderer of his family?

He was a kid.

Quote :

How would the murder of his parents be in any way improved if he beats a guy that steals some bread from the supermarket?

You think he goes after people like that?

Quote :

How are his parents in any way less dead by him breaking the arm of a guy that steals medicines from a drugstore?

ONly reason he'd go after them is because dude's going to turn around and sell said drugs to kids. And yes, perscription drugs are harmful.

Quote :

As per his oath, that's what he'd do.

Doesn't mean he'd ACTUALLY go after ALL. Batman, as I told you, understands the issues in the system. Even if he went after the bread guy to save face as Batman, as Wayne he'd do all he could to help that guy, including giving him a nice paying job. And don't denounce that, he does still have toi livbe in the cappie framework. As you can see,I'm not arguing, jsut clearing up some misconeptions you still have about the character.

Quote :

But promising to leave no standing burglar

Again, oath or no he's never relaly taken it to the absolute letter literally.

Quote :

I have to wonder if they'd at least be more merciful masters than [normal] humans.

They weren't. It was REAL enslavement. And yes, tere's a difference between cappy system and what they had planned.

Quote :

If worker A built the suit at the orders of Bourgeoise C and Superman got it from Bourgeoise C, then, the suit was produced through exploitation but Superman just got it as aid from the Bourgeoise.

And if Sups WAS that Bourgeoise?

Quote :

And. Saves. Their. Collective. Asses.


By. Screwing. Their. Collective. Asses. Unlike superman.

Which I think is entirely justifiable and right. Sorry, said I wasn't going to argue this anymore....

Quote :

Because he got all his capabilities from scratch.
Yes he did.


So no worker was involved in the creation and growth of Wayne Entrerprises? I was sure it was otherwise... then he has the superpower of selfreplication I guess. Or for that matter also teh power of spawning like a mushroom.

I thought you meant capabilities as in his intilect and his ability t build the stuff, like his batmobile. 'm pretty sure the original was an old scrapheap that Wayne fixed up and suped up.

Quote :

And then he saves them.


While screwing them. Unlike Superman.

Sometimes it's nesesarry to screw in order to save.

Quote :

Since when is "cute" a pejorative adjective?

Huh?

Quote :

The same equation, without the "screwing them" part occurs with several other superheroes.

He works with what he's got. Few that don't have powers have the capabilities of Bats. t in the systemd, and said it before, is that in the system we live in and Bats has to live in,he uses what's at his disposal. With no powers he doesn't have a choise, otherwise he wouldn't be as effective, and that's unacceptable. As I've told you, he knows the issues with the system, and like me sees the exploitation as a nessessary evil in order to save lives.And money is at his disposal. So he sues it. To get that money, he uses workers. I'm arguing it again, aren't I? Fuck....

Quote :

there's nothing good about him.

As I;ve said before, you don;'t understand the man.

So Atom man works for Batman, right?

Quote :

No, just a scientist.

Quote :

1. True, doesn't justify the exploitation though.

I think it does. Ends justify the means.

Quote :

TK wrote:
its' possibel that was one of his orignins. But the accepted in Earth Prime, our Earth, is he's a nutjob.


Nice.

In one Joker's actualyl a GOOD guy.

Quote :

Is it explained that way in the comic?

Yes.

Quote :

There are several birth defects that are product of the mothers' malnourishment, bad habits or both which are product of material conditions in most cases.

True, but not this one. I can't recallt he name, but look it up. it exists. The teeth thing and his temperment is that he's simply nuts.

Quote :

I'd have to check better the story and the conditions under which said disposal took place.

If it was an older one, then society liekly wouldn't care either way. Thus the change of he times. But now, well, yeah. People hate it.

Quote :

How many times do I have to say "As per the original premise"?

Which if you haven't noticed isn't relevant any onger.

Quote :

His oath wasn't anything like "I swear to protect people's lives even if I have to give my own!".

Because saying all criminals is easier to understand in the minds of 30s youth.

Quote :

The Batman you describe in this parragraph is more likely the more modern one, which is not who I'm focusing in.

h is ALSO the only one that should be relevant. By your notion, All those problematic things i the Communist Manifesto that you;ve said many times aren't relavant because it's outof date and noone suses it anymore shoudl still be relavent.

Quote :

Nah, but doesn't seem like it's worth of being in the FBI top 10.

Quote :

It's worth it to her. She likes the thrill.

It's early indeed. Detective Comics #33.

Quote :

And thus it's no longer actually relavnt. e's grown beyond that premise.

Yeah, that most people do not assess things from the perspective of historical materialism.

Quote :

You're right. Mostly they decide on who does more to save humanity's ass. Superman, batman, and Wonder WOman are thoset hree. Plus being the biggest in terms of their cultural impact.

It shows that he needs to screw poor people to gain power so he can beat other poor people.

As per his original premise, again.

Quote :

SCrew original annything. It shouldn't be relavant. it's grown.I admit, kinda sucked, but he was also rascist back then. Doesn't mean the character is, it means the wrioters were. Like Walt Dizney.

He, as per his original premise, either by intending to do so or not, fights to protect the system, to enforce its rules.

Quote :

Which was viewd back then as the only possibility. It was the 30s. People were dumb, and most had never even HEARD of communism.

Unless I'm twisting too much the storyline, as far as I know, Smallvile is target of threats due to superman being there.

Quote :

If you mean that Smallville SHOW, the town in that, that show spits on the story of Superman so much it's ridiculous. This might be considerd one of the other Earths, but is generally ignored for the actualy story. No one knows where Sups came from.

How? If it was a relationship of mutual aid, he'd actually have at his disposal the entire workforce of the Earth, increasing his prowess exponentially.

Quote :

One, it's Wayne Enterprises. He pretty much does. He,h e,h e. Two, do all the other supers and the multi national workfore on all the JL's facilities count?

Hmmm too bad, superpowerful coppers.

Quote :

Andrandom snipers. He's been shot before.

Being so smart as he is he could figure something out. Couldn't he?

Quote :

That's like me saying why did they not think of AC in cars before it was presentaed to them. They just didn't, that's all. And yes, cars were arounf for some time before AC.

"Working" doesn't mean "develop to full potential" does it?

Quote :

No, but it des allow, wit the proper skills, thought and luck, the potential.

About 2 pages of this topic is off topic
[quote]No it's not, we're, mostly, talking about Batman.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

Exactly. And what's the use of cops?

DOn't get intot hat status quo shit, dude. Going after murderers and rapists are not status quo.

Like it or not, they're there to preserve the status quo. Their objective is to enforce the laws determined by the state. You make it seem like they're just there to protect people from rapists and murderers when sometimes they're themselves

TK wrote:

Quote :

Did he stop the muderer of his family?

He was a kid.

I know so why did you mention anything about stoping those who murdered his family?

TK wrote:

Quote :

How would the murder of his parents be in any way improved if he beats a guy that steals some bread from the supermarket?

You think he goes after people like that?

People like that are criminals and he had sworn to fight them all, so yeah I think he does.

TK wrote:

Quote :

How are his parents in any way less dead by him breaking the arm of a guy that steals medicines from a drugstore?

ONly reason he'd go after them is because dude's going to turn around and sell said drugs to kids. And yes, perscription drugs are harmful.

I don't know about Canada but here in Mexico it's a common happening that people steal medicines because they can't afford them and they need them. Either way, that's a criminal and Batman's oath is to fight them all.

TK wrote:

Quote :

As per his oath, that's what he'd do.

Doesn't mean he'd ACTUALLY go after ALL. Batman, as I told you, understands the issues in the system. Even if he went after the bread guy to save face as Batman, as Wayne he'd do all he could to help that guy, including giving him a nice paying job. And don't denounce that, he does still have toi livbe in the cappie framework. As you can see,I'm not arguing, jsut clearing up some misconeptions you still have about the character.

I'm just attaching to his oath, and his original premises, that's all. It seems like the character has undergone some positive evolution but the original premise remains unchanged and that is what I'm adressing.

TK wrote:

Quote :

But promising to leave no standing burglar

Again, oath or no he's never relaly taken it to the absolute letter literally.

At this point it'd be too redundant for any of us to keep arguing over this.

TK wrote:

Quote :

I have to wonder if they'd at least be more merciful masters than [normal] humans.

They weren't. It was REAL enslavement. And yes, tere's a difference between cappy system and what they had planned.

Probably the difference being, aside from the taxonomy of the masters, a more cynical kind of slavery which is better just for being cynical.

TK wrote:

Quote :

If worker A built the suit at the orders of Bourgeoise C and Superman got it from Bourgeoise C, then, the suit was produced through exploitation but Superman just got it as aid from the Bourgeoise.

And if Sups WAS that Bourgeoise?

Then it'd be the same equation as Batman's.

TK wrote:

Which I think is entirely justifiable and right. Sorry, said I wasn't going to argue this anymore....

Then you concede that I'm right and you just say it's ok to screw people.

Quote :

I thought you meant capabilities as in his intilect and his ability t build the stuff, like his batmobile. 'm pretty sure the original was an old scrapheap that Wayne fixed up and suped up.

Even his abilities to build stuff wouldn't be acquired by him from scratch. We all acquire our knowledges and develop intellectually thanks to the collective and the collective to a great enough extent forges our identity. Batman wouldn't exist if it wasn't for a collective that gave him the reason to exist.

TK wrote:

Quote :

And then he saves them.


While screwing them. Unlike Superman.

Sometimes it's nesesarry to screw in order to save.

We don't want no fox killing our cows.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Since when is "cute" a pejorative adjective?

Huh?

You thought that when I said "cute, gifting" I was being sarcastic or soemthing, like if I was negatively criticizing Batman's desire to gift his pals with gadgets. I wasn't.

Quote :

The same equation, without the "screwing them" part occurs with several other superheroes.

He works with what he's got. Few that don't have powers have the capabilities of Bats. t in the systemd, and said it before, is that in the system we live in and Bats has to live in,he uses what's at his disposal. With no powers he doesn't have a choise, otherwise he wouldn't be as effective, and that's unacceptable. As I've told you, he knows the issues with the system, and like me sees the exploitation as a nessessary evil in order to save lives.And money is at his disposal. So he sues it. To get that money, he uses workers. I'm arguing it again, aren't I? Fuck....[/quote]

I guess I leave you no choice but to keep arguing it, isn't it so?

It's simple: necesary or not, that's what gives him that effectiveness and that's what by contrast in my view puts him at disadvantage with other superheroes that rely merely on intrinsic characteristics.

TK wrote:

Quote :

there's nothing good about him.

As I;ve said before, you don;'t understand the man.

As per orginal premises, there's nothing good about him. I understand him, as per original premises, and I don't see any good in it.

TK wrote:

Quote :

So Atom man works for Batman, right?

No, just a scientist.

But, he builds stuff for Batman, doesn't he?

TK wrote:

Quote :

1. True, doesn't justify the exploitation though.

I think it does. Ends justify the means.

I guess we're now falling into the grounds of subjectivities. If you agree that we're entering these grounds you'll also agree with me that it's ridiculous to argue subjective things. Logically all "red is prettier than blue" discussions should be avoided.

I have to mention though that the worst moments of human history are plagued with "lesser evils".

TK wrote:

Quote :

TK wrote:
its' possibel that was one of his orignins. But the accepted in Earth Prime, our Earth, is he's a nutjob.


Nice.

In one Joker's actualyl a GOOD guy.

A friend of mine told me something about Batman and the Joker and an anecdote of two men that are in a mental health facility. One of these men tells the other "I'll make a path of light with the flashlight and you'll walk over it to escape the facility" and the other replies "How can I trust you? How would I know you won't turn off the light as I'm walking over it?" and then that Batman and Joker start laughing together. Do you know anything about this? (just curious as you know more about these comics than me)

TK wrote:

Quote :

Is it explained that way in the comic?

Yes.

Ok then. As they'd say in court: "Withdrawn".

TK wrote:

True, but not this one. I can't recallt he name, but look it up. it exists. The teeth thing and his temperment is that he's simply nuts.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I forgot the name as well. But yeah, fair enough.

TK wrote:

Quote :

How many times do I have to say "As per the original premise"?

Which if you haven't noticed isn't relevant any onger.

Since it's the genus of Batman, I consider it to be relevant enough.

TK wrote:

Quote :

His oath wasn't anything like "I swear to protect people's lives even if I have to give my own!".

Because saying all criminals is easier to understand in the minds of 30s youth.

And doesn't lose its meaning 70 years later.

TK wrote:

Quote :

The Batman you describe in this parragraph is more likely the more modern one, which is not who I'm focusing in.

h is ALSO the only one that should be relevant. By your notion, All those problematic things i the Communist Manifesto that you;ve said many times aren't relavant because it's outof date and noone suses it anymore shoudl still be relavent.

Adressing your paralelism, it was the very same author who denounced his own previous work and whose later works conflicted directly with it.

Batman's origin is a burglar beating bourgeoise, the modern Batman has put that into a lower priority, that's all. The communist manifesto is diametrically opposed to several later notions of Marx.

TK wrote:

It's early indeed. Detective Comics #33.

Quote :

And thus it's no longer actually relavnt. e's grown beyond that premise.

I'd have to see how far beyond he has grown.

TK wrote:

Yeah, that most people do not assess things from the perspective of historical materialism.

Quote :

You're right. Mostly they decide on who does more to save humanity's ass. Superman, batman, and Wonder WOman are thoset hree. Plus being the biggest in terms of their cultural impact.

Mhm. My point broadened. If they assessed the methods even without it being through historical materialism....

TK wrote:

Quote :

It shows that he needs to screw poor people to gain power so he can beat other poor people.

As per his original premise, again.

SCrew original annything. It shouldn't be relavant. it's grown.I admit, kinda sucked, but he was also rascist back then. Doesn't mean the character is, it means the wrioters were. Like Walt Dizney.

The original premise is his foundation though.

Ah, I don't like Disney!

TK wrote:

Quote :

He, as per his original premise, either by intending to do so or not, fights to protect the system, to enforce its rules.

Which was viewd back then as the only possibility. It was the 30s. People were dumb, and most had never even HEARD of communism.

Actually it was during the Red Scare when communists or self-proclaimed communists were prosecuted in USA.

And that's what I'm addressing what Batman originally was. And still even the modern Batman relies on exploitation to achieve his goals. Justified or not? That's subjective. The reality is that he relies on that.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Unless I'm twisting too much the storyline, as far as I know, Smallvile is target of threats due to superman being there.

If you mean that Smallville SHOW, the town in that, that show spits on the story of Superman so much it's ridiculous. This might be considerd one of the other Earths, but is generally ignored for the actualy story. No one knows where Sups came from.

Not even Lex Luthor?

TK wrote:

Quote :

How? If it was a relationship of mutual aid, he'd actually have at his disposal the entire workforce of the Earth, increasing his prowess exponentially.

One, it's Wayne Enterprises. He pretty much does. He,h e,h e. Two, do all the other supers and the multi national workfore on all the JL's facilities count?

In a socialist framework, considering he'd (or they for that matter) be striving to save humanity, then every single worker in the world would contribute to their cause directly.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Hmmm too bad, superpowerful coppers.

Andrandom snipers. He's been shot before.

Huh? I lost the track a little bit here.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Being so smart as he is he could figure something out. Couldn't he?

That's like me saying why did they not think of AC in cars before it was presentaed to them. They just didn't, that's all. And yes, cars were arounf for some time before AC.

Unlike an invention such as AC, he wouldn't require developments in other fields of science or knowledge overall to come up with some good idea of a condition he deals with everyday with fuill awareness.

TK wrote:

Quote :

"Working" doesn't mean "develop to full potential" does it?

No, but it des allow, wit the proper skills, thought and luck, the potential.

Luck, a series of factors that do not depend onself that influde in te life of oneself. Given a hostile economic context like that, where too much time has to be spent sufficing the needs of the masters, one can hardly expect to develop fully.

TK wrote:

Quote :

About 2 pages of this topic is off topic

No it's not, we're, mostly, talking about Batman.

Indeed. Plus every topic treated here spawned from the discussion about Batman. And actually, who started a bit the diversion from the superheroes' topic was Jesus.

Holy historical materialism Zealot!!! You deserve a pat on the back for all that.

Quote :

About 2 pages of this topic is off topic

Hence my suggestion for a split; this thread however, is all sorts of jumbled because people leapt swiftly to defend capitalism and the bourgeoisie after ZK critiqued Batman's material roots (as if those people have any stake in the capitalist mode of production or the bourgies who run it).

Quote :

I know so why did you mention anything about stoping those who murdered his family?

Misspoke, sorry.

Quote :

People like that are criminals and he had sworn to fight them all, so yeah I think he does.

No he doesn't.

Quote :

I don't know about Canada but here in Mexico it's a common happening that people steal medicines because they can't afford them and they need them. Either way, that's a criminal and Batman's oath is to fight them all.

Not here. Here, people steal perscription drugs to sell for the few extra, not caring how it can fuck someon up, because it's a nice way to get high. A few might actually need the, but I'll bet most just want to get high. So bummer for you.

Quote :

Probably the difference being, aside from the taxonomy of the masters, a more cynical kind of slavery which is better just for being cynical

So you prefer being whipped and not payed? It's that kind of slavery.

Quote :

Then you concede that I'm right and you just say it's ok to screw people.

As batman does? Yes, it is.

Quote :

Even his abilities to build stuff wouldn't be acquired by him from scratch. We all acquire our knowledges and develop intellectually thanks to the collective and the collective to a great enough extent forges our identity. Batman wouldn't exist if it wasn't for a collective that gave him the reason to exist.

Okay? What's your point?

Quote :

We don't want no fox killing our cows.

Buh?

Quote :

You thought that when I said "cute, gifting" I was being sarcastic or soemthing, like if I was negatively criticizing Batman's desire to gift his pals with gadgets. I wasn't.

Ah. but before I had said HE got gifts, but yeah, he gave, too. Uh.... Whatever. Too confusing now.

Quote :

It's simple: necesary or not, that's what gives him that effectiveness and that's what by contrast in my view puts him at disadvantage with other superheroes that rely merely on intrinsic characteristics.

That's what makes him a stronger person to me. The others have all these powers that make them nigh invincibel. batman is actually risking his life FAR more often. He can't fly. He overcomes. He's not super strong. He overcomes. He's overcome all the weakneses of the human species on his own, with out powers. He's not invincible. Yeah., I know he exploited others, so not actually o his own, but you know what I meean. And it's partially THIS reason that he's so loved.

Quote :

But, he builds stuff for Batman, doesn't he?

Justice League, actually, but Batman generally makes the most use out of the stuff. But atom man makes a lot. Bats funded the construction of the computers, but Atom MADE the things.

Quote :

A friend of mine told me something about Batman and the Joker and an anecdote of two men that are in a mental health facility. One of these men tells the other "I'll make a path of light with the flashlight and you'll walk over it to escape the facility" and the other replies "How can I trust you? How would I know you won't turn off the light as I'm walking over it?" and then that Batman and Joker start laughing together. Do you know anything about this? (just curious as you know more about these comics than me)

Never heard of this, but if you're saying they'd never trust each toher, they actually have. It happens at least once in every series, and every little while int he comics.

Quote :

Adressing your paralelism, it was the very same author who denounced his own previous work and whose later works conflicted directly with it.

So simply because the authors of the original haven't mentioned it means it's bad,s o to speak? I don't think so.

Quote :

Batman's origin is a burglar beating bourgeoise, the modern Batman has put that into a lower priority, that's all. The communist manifesto is diametrically opposed to several later notions of Marx.

It's not a lower priority, it's simply he doesn't go after the food stealers (Unless that food is going to be used for something bad, like taking over the world somehow) and such. In fact, he rarely goes after any simply theif anymore. And msot people aren't theives anymore, now they're usually stealing something for a reason, liek wolrd domination or something. Or to fund their world dominating/destroying operations. So it's basically the same thing.

Quote :

Ah, I don't like Disney!

I only mentioned him because he was rascist.

Quote :

Actually it was during the Red Scare when communists or self-proclaimed communists were prosecuted in USA.

HTat was the 50s. Batman was made in the 30s. Maybe 20s.

Quote :

Not even Lex Luthor?

Don't think so, no. I know all the times he DOES find out he gets mid wiped somehow. Happened o Joker with Bats. Happened to most everyone. It's a common storyline. He might know now, but I can't tel you for sure. I know that in one of the TV series he made a deal witht he Watchers (I THINK watchers. I could be wrongs. It was one of those all knowing races that's always watching and gathering information about the universe, that know everything.) Anyway, he got their power and used it to stop Braniac/Darkseid, and I guess he knew everything, but then he vanished in a flas of light and I don't know what happened after that. I don't think he's evil anymore.

Quote :

Huh? I lost the track a little bit here.

IYou said he should do more. I said he can't, partially because the governemnt has supers under their control that would kill him. You said super powerful cops, and then I said that no, likely they'd start with sendong random snipers to take him dopwn. I then said e's been shot before, saying that he is not invicible and many have come close to taking batman out.

Quote :

Unlike an invention such as AC, he wouldn't require developments in other fields of science or knowledge overall to come up with some good idea of a condition he deals with everyday with fuill awareness.

All I ahve to say is; He hasn't thought of it.

Quote :

Luck, a series of factors that do not depend onself that influde in te life of oneself. Given a hostile economic context like that, where too much time has to be spent sufficing the needs of the masters, one can hardly expect to develop fully.
I

ee, but the potential is there. HOWEVER if one were to bet on sucess, the safe bet would certainly be to bet AGAINST ther person.

TK wrote:

ZK wrote:

Even his abilities to build stuff wouldn't be acquired by him from scratch. We all acquire our knowledges and develop intellectually thanks to the collective and the collective to a great enough extent forges our identity. Batman wouldn't exist if it wasn't for a collective that gave him the reason to exist.

Okay? What's your point?

Oh come on man, his point hasn't changed this entire time you two have been engaged in this fight to the death.

From page one of this topic:

ZK wrote:

His powers ... rely entirely on the exploitation of ... workers

...And to this point you have made no counter-point (maybe you know it's the truth [and i use that word purposefully], or maybe you just can't think of anything clever enough to change the subject).

Normally i wouldn't have interjected in such a lengthy debate, but at this point, the debate has obviously lost its centre if you can't even recall Zealot's starting point from which this entire debate evolved.

Black_Cross wrote:

TK wrote:

ZK wrote:

Even his abilities to build stuff wouldn't be acquired by him from scratch. We all acquire our knowledges and develop intellectually thanks to the collective and the collective to a great enough extent forges our identity. Batman wouldn't exist if it wasn't for a collective that gave him the reason to exist.

Okay? What's your point?

Oh come on man, his point hasn't changed this entire time you two have been engaged in this fight to the death.

From page one of this topic:

ZK wrote:

His powers ... rely entirely on the exploitation of ... workers

...And to this point you have made no counter-point (maybe you know it's the truth [and i use that word purposefully], or maybe you just can't think of anything clever enough to change the subject).

Normally i wouldn't have interjected in such a lengthy debate, but at this point, the debate has obviously lost its centre if you can't even recall Zealot's starting point from which this entire debate evolved.

No, I got his original isse to be that batman exploits to have his "powers". That didn't have much to do with that. That what you quoted had to do with his aquistion of knowledge. mayeb I misunderstood.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

People like that are criminals and he had sworn to fight them all, so yeah I think he does.

No he doesn't.

You can't blame me for not assuming Batman wouldn't be congrous with his oaths.

TK wrote:

Not here. Here, people steal perscription drugs to sell for the few extra, not caring how it can fuck someon up, because it's a nice way to get high. A few might actually need the, but I'll bet most just want to get high. So bummer for you.

Since the material conditions of Gotham City are not clearly and in detail explained within the comics, there's no way to know for certain what amount of people would be unable to acquire a certain medicine they needed through lawfully acquired incomes.

The material conditions of Gotham City should somewhat resemble those of the major cities within the United States which means good quality healthcare should be extremely expensive and/or hard to get forcing those who may need it to acquire it unlawfully or through unlawfully acquired incomes.

Since those who break the law are criminals and Batman had sworn to fight all criminals, I'd have to assume, as per his original premise (subjectivelly irrelevant to you), that he would go after those who have broken the law for the system has forced them to in order to suffice their needs.

[quote="TK"]So you prefer being whipped and not payed? It's that kind of slavery./quote]

At least it's cynical and thus more visible. Wage is also a tool of slavery, just subtle and that creats delusional slaves.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Then you concede that I'm right and you just say it's ok to screw people.

As batman does? Yes, it is.

Then, as I mentioned in a previous post, there's no point in discussing subjectivities.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Even his abilities to build stuff wouldn't be acquired by him from scratch. We all acquire our knowledges and develop intellectually thanks to the collective and the collective to a great enough extent forges our identity. Batman wouldn't exist if it wasn't for a collective that gave him the reason to exist.

Okay? What's your point?

That his entire capabilities come from the exploitation of workers including his individual diverse proficiences which were granted to him by his favorable material conditions, again, product of the exploitation of workers by his parents.

TK wrote:

Quote :

We don't want no fox killing our cows.

Buh?

If you have a ranch and you have cattle, cattle is a source of subsistance. If there are predators that threatten to kill your cattle, you'll go after these predators so you can have a safe cattle.

TK wrote:

Quote :

It's simple: necesary or not, that's what gives him that effectiveness and that's what by contrast in my view puts him at disadvantage with other superheroes that rely merely on intrinsic characteristics.

That's what makes him a stronger person to me. The others have all these powers that make them nigh invincibel. batman is actually risking his life FAR more often. He can't fly. He overcomes. He's not super strong. He overcomes.

Thanks to a bunch of exploited workers.

TK wrote:

He's overcome all the weakneses of the human species on his own, with out powers. He's not invincible. Yeah., I know he exploited others, so not actually o his own, but you know what I meean. And it's partially THIS reason that he's so loved.

Not only he exploited others. Even in a socialist framework where he wouldn't actually exploit anyone, he wouldn't overcome anything by his own as he's, like any other human, product of the collective and sustained by the collective.

The power of Batman is not Batman's, is his workforce's.

TK wrote:

Justice League, actually, but Batman generally makes the most use out of the stuff. But atom man makes a lot. Bats funded the construction of the computers, but Atom MADE the things.

Ah I see. In that case Atom Man is not engaging in a relationship of exploitation but rather of mutual aid.

TK wrote:

Never heard of this, but if you're saying they'd never trust each toher, they actually have. It happens at least once in every series, and every little while int he comics.

I think that it actually would refer more to the fact that they actually contemplate trusting each other which I had known they have.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Adressing your paralelism, it was the very same author who denounced his own previous work and whose later works conflicted directly with it.

So simply because the authors of the original haven't mentioned it means it's bad,s o to speak? I don't think so.

Nope, it means that bringing the Communist Manifesto is out of place.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Batman's origin is a burglar beating bourgeoise, the modern Batman has put that into a lower priority, that's all. The communist manifesto is diametrically opposed to several later notions of Marx.

It's not a lower priority, it's simply he doesn't go after the food stealers (Unless that food is going to be used for something bad, like taking over the world somehow) and such. In fact, he rarely goes after any simply theif anymore. And msot people aren't theives anymore, now they're usually stealing something for a reason, liek wolrd domination or something. Or to fund their world dominating/destroying operations. So it's basically the same thing.

Or maybe those "petty thieves" just are not mentioned anymore due to their lak of prominence and appeal.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Ah, I don't like Disney!

I only mentioned him because he was rascist.

And I just said that I don't like him.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Actually it was during the Red Scare when communists or self-proclaimed communists were prosecuted in USA.

HTat was the 50s. Batman was made in the 30s. Maybe 20s.

There were two Red Scares, one from 1917 to 1920 and one from 1947-1957.

However, I brought the Red Scare in order to demonstrate that people did actually have some knowledge on the existance of Communism or at least Pseudo socialism.

Socialist and pseudosocialist organizations within the USA did have lots of members in the first 10th of the XX century, meaning people already had some knowledge and awareness on socialism and/or pseudosocialism's existance in USA even prior to Batman's existance.

Batman was most probably created during what is known as "The Red Decade" which occured in the 30's and when lots of people were somehow interested in or leaning politcally towards, mostly Stalinism.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Not even Lex Luthor?

Don't think so, no. I know all the times he DOES find out he gets mid wiped somehow. Happened o Joker with Bats. Happened to most everyone. It's a common storyline. He might know now, but I can't tel you for sure. I know that in one of the TV series he made a deal witht he Watchers (I THINK watchers. I could be wrongs. It was one of those all knowing races that's always watching and gathering information about the universe, that know everything.) Anyway, he got their power and used it to stop Braniac/Darkseid, and I guess he knew everything, but then he vanished in a flas of light and I don't know what happened after that. I don't think he's evil anymore.

Ok. Dismissed.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Huh? I lost the track a little bit here.

IYou said he should do more. I said he can't, partially because the governemnt has supers under their control that would kill him. You said super powerful cops, and then I said that no, likely they'd start with sendong random snipers to take him dopwn. I then said e's been shot before, saying that he is not invicible and many have come close to taking batman out.

Ok. Yet, he seems to have all the time at his disposal to figure something out.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Luck, a series of factors that do not depend onself that influde in te life of oneself. Given a hostile economic context like that, where too much time has to be spent sufficing the needs of the masters, one can hardly expect to develop fully.
I

ee, but the potential is there. HOWEVER if one were to bet on sucess, the safe bet would certainly be to bet AGAINST ther person.

That's my point, there's the potential and it can't be exploited properly.

Quote :

You can't blame me for not assuming Batman wouldn't be congrous with his oaths.

True. But still.

Quote :

Since the material conditions of Gotham City are not clearly and in detail explained within the comics, there's no way to know for certain what amount of people would be unable to acquire a certain medicine they needed through lawfully acquired incomes.

Indeed. But that would drag the thing on way too long. And most artists aren't allowed to do that. GOtta love censors.

Quote :

The material conditions of Gotham City should somewhat resemble those of the major cities within the United States which means good quality healthcare should be extremely expensive and/or hard to get forcing those who may need it to acquire it unlawfully or through unlawfully acquired incomes.

Don't know about Mexico, but 90% of all perscription drugs stolen are used to get high up here.

Quote :

At least it's cynical and thus more visible. Wage is also a tool of slavery, just subtle and that creats delusional slaves.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me. but seriously, who is better off? Us now or the blacks enslaved in the 170s?

Quote :

Even his abilities to build stuff wouldn't be acquired by him from scratch. We all acquire our knowledges and develop intellectually thanks to the collective and the collective to a great enough extent forges our identity. Batman wouldn't exist if it wasn't for a collective that gave him the reason to exist.

Okay? What's your point?


That his entire capabilities come from the exploitation of workers including his individual diverse proficiences which were granted to him by his favorable material conditions, again, product of the exploitation of workers by his parents.

I thought here we were discussing where he got he knowledge.... Let's jsut forget this part, ebcause i'm lost on this one, now.

Quote :

If you have a ranch and you have cattle, cattle is a source of subsistance. If there are predators that threatten to kill your cattle, you'll go after these predators so you can have a safe cattle.

If you're saying the he loves off cattle, and cattle are the people he exploits, I don't disagree. However, as I've said, in my opinion, the ends justify the means in the system we have. Whether or not the system makes criminals, people are still getting hurt by them, and he wants to stop that. Or wanted. Still wants, but as I;ve said, less on the scale at this point.

Quote :

Thanks to a bunch of exploited workers.

Yo miss the point that only comes from the whole point.

Quote :

The power of Batman is not Batman's, is his workforce's.

The pepel are still not overcoming. HE is. They ,may make the stuff, contribute willingly and freely in a cooperative environment, but theya re stills cared and weak. HE is strong.

Quote :

Ah I see. In that case Atom Man is not engaging in a relationship of exploitation but rather of mutual aid.
Bingo

e sells some computer systems and other shit on the market, yes. He does have to eat, and the JL doesn't pay, but as FOR the JL? All free, las tI checked. Bats may fund, but parts cost money int he cappy system.

Quote :

Or maybe those "petty thieves" just are not mentioned anymore due to their lak of prominence and appeal.

No, he's let the food stealers go before. Maybe not at first, but the authors then were general douches anyway. Since the first iteration s, well, yeah. Like Ive said, he even tries to help them in various ways sometimes. Problem is, that's not the main kind of crime Gotham has. Or DC in general, really. At least not in the super patrolled cities.

Quote :

Batman was most probably created during what is known as "The Red Decade" which occured in the 30's and when lots of people were somehow interested in or leaning politcally towards, mostly Stalinism.

I didn't know there were two red scares. Huh. Well I've said it before, ahting the character now shouldn't be based on his origins.

Quote :

Ok. Yet, he seems to have all the time at his disposal to figure something out.

What do you think he does in that batcave all day?

Quote :

That's my point, there's the potential and it can't be exploited properly.

Indeed, and I've mentioned in many posts before this one I agree. Potential IS still there, however. The problem, really, isn't captalism in rpreventing the potential, it's coporatism, whic is most decidedly NOT capitalism, whic relies on competition. Corporatism denys that. Oy, completely other topic/issue. Ignore this. not fighting the faulty scroll to delete this.

This debate is as exciting and useful than an Canadian Senate debate... -_-.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Indeed. But that would drag the thing on way too long. And most artists aren't allowed to do that. GOtta love censors.

This makes me be really glad for Alan Moore. He even quoted Bakunin in V for Vendetta!

TK wrote:

Don't know about Mexico, but 90% of all perscription drugs stolen are used to get high up here.

As well in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles? I'm pretty sure things are different in Canada.

TK wrote:

Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me. but seriously, who is better off? Us now or the blacks enslaved in the 170s?

Millions of people live as screwed up as them and many even more. It's just that the bulk of them are outside of the 1st world thanks to something called Imperialism.

TK wrote:

I thought here we were discussing where he got he knowledge.... Let's jsut forget this part, ebcause i'm lost on this one, now.

Ok. However, as for knowledges, we all acquire them from the collective and it is our material conditions what determines our access and to what extent we can acquire, exploit and develop them.

TK wrote:

If you're saying the he loves off cattle, and cattle are the people he exploits, I don't disagree. However, as I've said, in my opinion, the ends justify the means in the system we have. Whether or not the system makes criminals, people are still getting hurt by them, and he wants to stop that. Or wanted. Still wants, but as I;ve said, less on the scale at this point.

That's precisely the problem. The system makes criminals. Criminals are victims themselves. Fighting off criminals is like fightig dhiarrea solely with toilet paper.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Thanks to a bunch of exploited workers.

Yo miss the point that only comes from the whole point.

Subjectivities are not to be debated.

TK wrote:

Quote :

The power of Batman is not Batman's, is his workforce's.

The pepel are still not overcoming. HE is. They ,may make the stuff, contribute willingly and freely in a cooperative environment, but theya re stills cared and weak. HE is strong.

Rethorically speaking, he's the representation of the human power against supervillians. In the new comic. Originally he's a bat themed bourgeoise cop.

TK wrote:

He sells some computer systems and other shit on the market, yes.

If he produces them all by himself, then, he's a petit bourgeoise who exploits no one and is exploited by no one.

TK wrote:

He does have to eat, and the JL doesn't pay, but as FOR the JL? All free, las tI checked. Bats may fund, but parts cost money int he cappy system.

His relationship with the JL is of mutual aid then.

TK wrote:

No, he's let the food stealers go before. Maybe not at first, but the authors then were general douches anyway. Since the first iteration s, well, yeah. Like Ive said, he even tries to help them in various ways sometimes. Problem is, that's not the main kind of crime Gotham has. Or DC in general, really. At least not in the super patrolled cities.

Ok. Probably those who need to steal food are just too scared to do it in such a hyper patrolled city.

TK wrote:

I didn't know there were two red scares. Huh. Well I've said it before, ahting the character now shouldn't be based on his origins.

At this point I should say or clarify that I hate the premise of a burglar beating bourgeoise, not Batman itself. Taking solely this premise into account, I could have not guessed that he had the evolution you mention.

TK wrote:

What do you think he does in that batcave all day?

Playing chess with Alfred? Enjoying some gymnastics' performances by Dick under special conditions?

Jk.

TK wrote:

Indeed, and I've mentioned in many posts before this one I agree. Potential IS still there, however. The problem, really, isn't captalism in rpreventing the potential, it's coporatism, whic is most decidedly NOT capitalism, whic relies on competition. Corporatism denys that. Oy, completely other topic/issue. Ignore this. not fighting the faulty scroll to delete this.

I'm sorry but I can't resist... you tempted me!

Capitalism intrinsicly creates poor material conditions for the exploited classes. It's an invariable characteristic of capitalism. These precarious material conditions limit the individual's potential.

As for capitalism, corporatism is actually a form of it no matter how much they want to twist the notion of capitalism. Fascists, and I mean those that agree with the fascist theory, call themselves "corporatists". They'll engage in so staunch discussions about this, just to end up having to admit that they're a twisted version of capitalism..

What some like to call capitalism as a free market without state where everyone trades their own labour is not capitalism but anarcho-mutualism and it definitely is not based on social classes. But well, that's another broader topic.

Jesus wrote:

This debate is as exciting and useful than an Canadian Senate debate... -_-.

There's a reason for which 2 year olds don't often enjoy RTS games online.

honestly comrade zealot, i seriously racked my brain trying to think of a witty, yet legitimate response, and i couldnt, you deserve a medal of the highest honor <3

Jesus wrote:

This debate is as exciting and useful than an Canadian Senate debate... -_-.

I love debates between TK and ZK, cuz their all so epic.

ZK wrote:

TK wrote:

Indeed, and I've mentioned in many posts before this one I agree. Potential IS still there, however. The problem, really, isn't captalism in rpreventing the potential, it's coporatism, whic is most decidedly NOT capitalism, whic relies on competition. Corporatism denys that. Oy, completely other topic/issue. Ignore this. not fighting the faulty scroll to delete this.

Capitalism intrinsicly creates poor material conditions for the exploited classes. It's an invariable characteristic of capitalism. These precarious material conditions limit the individual's potential.

As for capitalism, corporatism is actually a form of it no matter how much they want to twist the notion of capitalism. Fascists, and I mean those that agree with the fascist theory, call themselves "corporatists". They'll engage in so staunch discussions about this, just to end up having to admit that they're a twisted version of capitalism..

I'd like to add to this also the fact that capital, by its very nature, is always attempting to valorize itself, so corporatism is a natural progression of capitalism based on the hoarding of money. There's a material basis for all developments within an economy; capitalism provides that basis for corporatism.

CoolKidX wrote:

Jesus wrote:

This debate is as exciting and useful than an Canadian Senate debate... -_-.

I love debates between TK and ZK, cuz their all so epic.

Yeah they seriously could post to be in the Canadian Senate. Debating for 2-3 days about if Batman should be recognized as a super Hero by the Canadian Governement. And know what? They would actually earn 100% they paychecks, cause that's what these guys are paid for lol .

FUCKING SHIT! I just had the post, pressed the wrong button....here goes again....

Quote :

As well in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles? I'm pretty sure things are different in Canada.

Likely. Here people generally steal them to get high.

Quote :

Millions of people live as screwed up as them and many even more. It's just that the bulk of them are outside of the 1st world thanks to something called Imperialism.

The goal by most is to fix that, to make more first worlds, or at the least make lives more comfortable. Under the aliens, we'd be worked to the bone til we die, little food, no pay, little rest, and then likely exterminated afterwards. in fact, blacks probably aren't a good example. Jews are.

Quote :

Ok. However, as for knowledges, we all acquire them from the collective and it is our material conditions what determines our access and to what extent we can acquire, exploit and develop them.

I can't really tell what point you or I are trying to make here. Like, Okay?Especially when it comes t learning, one still has to work, themselves, and with no help from others. He might be able to afford betterteachers, but that doesn't ultimately help him when it reactually comes to the schooling.

Quote :

That's precisely the problem. The system makes criminals. Criminals are victims themselves.

And these victims are hurting many.

Quote :

Fighting off criminals is like fightig dhiarrea solely with toilet paper.

Truthfully I've never actually taken medication for ths.

Quote :

Subjectivities are not to be debated.

It's not subjective. By removing that part of the paragraph, you pmissthe point of the entire paragraph.

Quote :

If he produces them all by himself, then, he's a petit bourgeoise who exploits no one and is exploited by no one.

Woot, woot?

Quote :

His relationship with the JL is of mutual aid then.

Indeed.

Quote :

Ok. Probably those who need to steal food are just too scared to do it in such a hyper patrolled city.

Not really. They simply jump right up to gassing a whole room of people, stealing the jewlery, and then kidnapping the youngest still alive girl and raping her. Or threateing to until batman gets there. He USUALLY gets there in time. In DC, and even america, at least here in Canada, food theives are not the biggest issue out there.

Quote :

At this point I should say or clarify that I hate the premise of a burglar beating bourgeoise, not Batman itself. Taking solely this premise into account, I could have not guessed that he had the evolution you mention

ut I bet that doesn't effect your opinion.

Quote :

Playing chess with Alfred? Enjoying some gymnastics' performances by Dick under special conditions?

Jk.

Yes, yes, w all know batman's a homosexual pedophile. Heh, e,h e. Actually, in the earlier comics, and this isn't anything against you r your argument, but spanked Dick Robin several times. And kinda seem to like it. Um, yeah..... Nowadays theose scenes take on a rather different meaning. HE,h eh, e. And it also explains, hint hint, why he always takes on young kids as sidekicks Barbara, Dick, Tim, the girl, and whoever the fourth Robin is. But in all seriousness, the fact htat he hasn't thought of a way to overthrow the government without leading to many, many deaths shouldn't be blamed on him. He just ahsn't thoguht of anything yet. He smart, yeah, but....

Quote :

As for capitalism, corporatism is actually a form of it no matter how much they want to twist the notion of capitalism.

Corporatism is to capitalism like socialism is to communism. Wants to be each other, but are not quite.

Quote :

Fascists, and I mean those that agree with the fascist theory, call themselves "corporatists".

Which is the America we live in. Well, they, but you know what mean.

Quote :

This debate is as exciting and useful than an Canadian Senate debate... -_-.

Hey! Okay, you're right..... NO, you're not! It's still more useful than that. My governemnt sucks.....

Quote :

I love debates between TK and ZK, cuz their all so epic.

Neither of us give up. Pisses people off in my life. He,h e,h e.

Quote :

o corporatism is a natural progression of capitalism based on the hoarding of money

Corporatism seeks to remove an intrisic part of capitalism, which is the comptition.

Quote :

Yeah they seriously could post to be in the Canadian Senate. Debating for 2-3 days about if Batman should be recognized as a super Hero by the Canadian Governement. And know what? They would actually earn 100% they paychecks, cause that's what these guys are paid for lol .

And it would still be more important than most of thedebates. My government sucks....

Quote :

This debate is as exciting and useful than an Canadian Senate debate... -_-.

Hey! Okay, you're right..... NO, you're not! It's still more useful than that. My governemnt sucks.....

Tyrong_Kojy wrote:

Quote :

Yeah they seriously could post to be in the Canadian Senate. Debating for 2-3 days about if Batman should be recognized as a super Hero by the Canadian Governement. And know what? They would actually earn 100% they paychecks, cause that's what these guys are paid for lol .

And it would still be more important than most of thedebates. My government sucks....

Sad part is that it's true, one time, a senator was living 365 days a year in florida, never actually came to the senate, and he was paid lol.