Superheroes

Hold on, Zeal. Problems with the message system. not done yet.... Do you know why the scroll abr jumps up like ti does for me? I can't actually see what I'm tyrping, thus all the screwups, especially with the quote system, whic automatically jumps to the end, thus making it even more difficult..........


Okay, done. But seriously, does that ahppen to you with the scroll bar?

Quote :

he's culprit of the problems his community suffers in a far different way than Wayne.

If you're saying he's sjut as bad, how so? Clark's a proletariate. Hell, the sterotype is a farm hand. HE IS a farmboy!

Quote :

I wonder if he used any of his artifacts when battling them.... if so, all hail the workers of Wayne Enterprises!

Atrifacts? Huh? He's used ancient magical amulets and such, yeah.... I don't get what you mean. You mean his technology? If so, then yeah. And once more, I think most would be fully willing to help if they knew. But there's that pesky protecting your lvoed ones from the bad guys, thing. For the record though, he DOES praise them. I know you;ve said it deosn't matter, but the whole "All Hail the workers of Wayne Enterprises!" thing often happens.

Quote :

Being revengeful, arguably yes

This is, granted, something that he's often critisised about. WHICH is why he rarely goes into those diatribes, those kinds of cases I guess you could call them, anymore. Now he jut does things that the national guard would have to be called in for. Every other day. At least Gotham's not Marvel's New York.

Quote :

In the protection of the status quo, of course.

ALIENS.

Quote :

Aliens - Batman could fight them effectively thanks to his workers.

Once again, they'd likely love to help for free if they knew.

Quote :

Aliens - Batman could fight them effectively thanks to his workers.

Again, just crasy.

Quote :

And again, as far as I know the array of targets of his vigilante activity is broader than just aliens, Lex and the Joker.

Yeah. Greek Gods, zombies, socerers, rogue supers, and so forth.

Quote :

I could send it to you like I did to Black_Cross, but well, you are against piracy aren't you?

Yes, Yes I am. First off, as I think I;ve told you, I find it better to hold a phsyical copy. I jsust like that. Second, we DO live in a capitalist system, so breaking the law in that system won't help break the system itself, only break ME.

Quote :

I could send it to you like I did to Black_Cross, but well, you are against piracy aren't you?

I thnk HE pissed what I'm actuall arguing about, too.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Not an ad hominem. An Ad hominem is if I had said "If you're whining about if he minned the metal himself, then you're an idiot and fuck you." What I did was make you as my example/argument. NOT Ad hominem.

Ad hominem is not a synonim to "insult". Ad hominem is adressing the person instead of the arguement:

X: Bourgeoise is the one who exploits the proletariat.
Y: X is a Bourgeoise, therefore his point is nil.

X: People should marry with whoever they want.
Y: X is a homosexual making him unable to exert a valid point.

Y is engaging in ad hominem.

TK wrote:

Do you have an issue with alternate identies to protect your loved ones and bats?

I have a problem with lies overall, but that's another point.

I'm not criticizing the existance of his alter-ego. Check the quote in context.

TK wrote:

Two things. One, do you know what an antisemetic Jew is?

Seriously, what the fuck.

TK wrote:

And two, now THESE are real reasons! Unfortunately, you loose all credibility therein with your next point....

Let's prove you wrong then.

TK wrote:

Yeah,c an't be because he saves the worls, or anything.

And here we see clearly how you miss my point and why you think that I'm missing yours:

He doesn't save or infludes in saving it out of his intrinsic characteristics. Had it not been for his condition as a bourgeoise his prominence and overall prowess would be considerably diminished. His wealth product of his condition as a capitalist is a basic premise for his condition as a superhero, it's essential for "his abilities".

TK wrote:

So h's only a superhero because he bought his way in? Not because he saves the world?

My problem is that he's a superhero thanks to expploitation and his targets, 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."

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

TK wrote:

I guess socialists support the Joker, alien invaders, Lex Luthor, who is in no uncertain terms an evil capitalist, LITERALLY, Catwoman, Killer Croc, etc, so on, and so forth.

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

TK wrote:

See now, THESE are actual reasons for hating him! Actual philisophical ones based on his acurrment of wealth! While it's still debateable whether or not this is evil in and of itself, they're valid points to hate him!

All the reasons I've presented are entirely valid, you just missed the point.

And I never said he was evil, again you're missing entirely the point.

TK wrote:

Aliens, aliens, aliens, aliens, Lex Luthor, joker, aliens, Greek Gods, aliens, aliens, demons, aliens, psychotic killers, aliens, people who steal because it's thrilling and they like to, not for money purposes, aliens, Darkseid, aliens, Evil scientists, zombies, aliens, and oh yeah, aliens.

"by the spirits of my parents [I will] avenge their deaths by spending the rest of my life warring on all criminals."

Seems like a far broader array than what you posted. Notice how he's less specific than you.

TK wrote:

With the exception of some members of the Justice League and the government, who knows he's even rich?or his socital state?

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

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

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.

TK wrote:

Oh, and for the record, Batman payed for everythign the Justice League has.

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

TK wrote:

Batman destroys several of his own factories and tears apart labs and entire divisions of his own company. His company's wellfare is NOT the top thing on his mind.

The top assets are the human resources.

His entire premise is revenge upon a social class which is victim of the same system that gave Wayne the motives and capabilities to unleash his wrath.

TK wrote:

No, he'd still do it. He just wouldn't be able to do it as WELL.

Point adressed sufficiently above. Yet:

1. If he was not a bourgeoise he and his family most probably wouldn't have gone to the theatre where they were robbed thus depriving Batman of his purpose. This is moot though.

2. If he was not a bourgeoise his capabilities would be greatly limited, inmensely to the point he wouldn't be as prominent. He couldn't have gifted the League of Justice with expensive toys.

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.

TK wrote:

Quote :

X produces the Lead Linened suit for Superman. Superman in exchange provides with his super hero service protecting X from Y threat.

This differs from Bats how?

That Batman does it with resources got as product of the exploitation of workers? That his targets as per his own vow exist thanks to the system that makes him so wealthy?

TK wrote:

Quote :

It was not produced by someone who works for Clark Kent for Clark Kent to sell the product of that someone's work.

I didn't know Bruce wayne sold copies of the Batmobile! or his grapple hook. Or his other shit.....

Obviously I didn't even imply this.

Clark Kent doesn't have workers that provide him with profit while Bruce Wayne does.

If someone produces an article for Superman's use, it's a direct exchange between the producer and Superman.

In the case of Batman, batman produces his own artifacts with profit from workers' labour. The workers don't produce things for Batman as an exchange for teh security provided by Batman while not being exploited by batman, they work for Wayne's profit (are exploited by Batman) and Wayne uses that profit to produce things for his alter-ego.

TK wrote:

And his computer is, at the time, the most powerful on the planet, keeping the technology to HIMSELF, NOT to be sold.

Wayne Enterprises produces multicolor dildoes, washing machines and shoes. Workers produce these things for Wayne to sell them. He receives an ammount for selling them and he gives a fraction to the workers and stays with a bigger fraction himself. With that bigger fraction he finances his vigilante hobby.

TK wrote:

Tech he invented.

Because he got all his capabilities from scratch. Also, he invented them while using the resources the workers provide him with.

TK wrote:

Or got from other JL members by their own volition.

Cute, gifting.

TK wrote:

Or he payed for it.

With the profit given to him by thousands of workers.

TK wrote:

But that's fair, is it not? He payed for their work. not exploitation.

You still don't get the concept of exploitation do you?

He could pay them millions of dollars (given that he earned trillions), that's not the point. He profits from their work. He advances at their expense.

Wayne owns water, oil and the machinery to extract and process them.

People extract the oil and process it transforming it into bottles. Then they extract the water, process it and put into the bottles.

Wayne Enterprises sells the bottle at 2 dollars.

50 cents go to Wayne's pocket and 1.5 dollars are divided among the workers, lets say they're 10. 15 cents for each worker per bottle.

That's exploitation.

TK wrote:

Like Ray Palmer, aka Atom man. (Might be wrong on the name. If so, sorry.)

Another Batie without the "Bat" paraphernalia?

TK wrote:

And again, THIS is a fairly valid point. I still say he does a lot of work, and if you think about it and actually look at his finances he doens't make that mucch, ultimately, even before purchasing anything. Not important, or useful for my purposes, just saying.

He could do a lot of work that wouldn't make him any less exploitative or any less reliant on exploitation for the role that his alter-ego has.

TK wrote:

I would bet you most of those workers would be fully willing to work for bloody Batman if they knew.

If they knew it....

The equation could be entirely socialist if

1) Workers owned the means of production.
2) They knew who batman is, admired him and agreed with what he does therefore directly producing his artifacts for him, providing him with services and such at the exchange of his protection. Pretty much like my "sportsman/artist" equation.
3) If somehow batman's services were required.

TK wrote:

No, he's just fucking crasy. The Tim Burton movie made him a theif, but he's actually just fucking crasy.

I read something about him being a disgruntled chemical engineer with financial troubles who lost his wife who fell into a tank with some substance.

TK wrote:

Birth defect.

Caused by?

TK wrote:

And even if he was mutated, how would that be a product of material conditions, besides it haing to be physically done to him whether through pollution or an evil scientist, and how would that be keeping the status quo? He's called Killer Croc for a reason, you know.

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

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

TK wrote:

I THINK he's just a control freak. And besides, even if it's capitalism, how is that Wayne's fault?

It's Wayne's fault by him being a capitalist who fights to preserve capitalism.

TK wrote:

So when Catwoman steals yet another cat shapped peice of jewlery or feline teed jewel because she's a clepto, she's not a criminal?

Just wacky, not a threat to people.

TK wrote:

And yes, I know she' generally considered a hero because she stops the psychos, but she's still a theif there only because she likes cat themed treasures.

How mean of her! Actually she's got more merit than batman, she's not an exploiter and fights the dangerous wackos.

TK wrote:

Therapy might be her best bet, here. And medication.

Mhm and perhaps a rationalist economy.

TK wrote:

Again, not an ad hominem. A tatement, not an insult as my argument.

Ad hominem because it adresses the person, not the arguement.

TK wrote:

And again you loost the point. He would be a superhero either way, just not as good.

By now it should be too repetitive.

TK wrote:

Read my corrections of your villan references.

Read Batman's oath.

TK wrote:

You said he was without power and a wimp. I gave examples of those without power,. I hope by now you see what ecxactly I'm trying to argue here, dude.

I said his condition as superhero is dependant upon his condition as a bourgeoise since he couldn't be nearly as able if he was not a bourgeoise. And that's what makes him a wimp.

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

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

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

He's a fucking bourgeoise who has vowed to use all his wealth to beat the crap out of all criminals while using a bat themed leotard. That's what he is.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Nope but 1) he's far more deserving of the title "superhero" than Batman

Say who?

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

TK wrote:

Quote :

he's culprit of the problems his community suffers in a far different way than Wayne.

If you're saying he's sjut as bad, how so? Clark's a proletariate. Hell, the sterotype is a farm hand. HE IS a farmboy!

I didn't say he's just as bad. I just said he also causes some problems to his community in a different way and not even by his fault.

TK wrote:

Atrifacts? Huh? He's used ancient magical amulets and such, yeah.... I don't get what you mean. You mean his technology? If so, then yeah.

Aha. Then read above.

TK wrote:

And once more, I think most would be fully willing to help if they knew.

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

TK wrote:

But there's that pesky protecting your lvoed ones from the bad guys, thing.

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

TK wrote:

For the record though, he DOES praise them.

The workers? Good. What about he considers to stop exploiting them and use all his influence and economic power for the workers' emancipation. Ah heck, he most proably doesn't know how this works or worse yet he's aware and he considers it a legitimate condition.

TK wrote:

I know you;ve said it deosn't matter, but the whole "All Hail the workers of Wayne Enterprises!" thing often happens.

Good. Means that was it not for Capitalism Batman would be completely unexpendable as they're the basis of everything and the world is full with potential geniuses who can't develop because they're busy trying to get something to eat.


---- As for format and such ----

Well it does happen to me, but it jupsdirectly to the begining in my case... silly thing.

I also edited your post to correct several mistakes with the quotes (that were quite probably my fault as I myself had mistakes quoting in my post).

Also, I moved your explanation on Killer Croc in my reply. I was going to move it in your post but decided not to in order not to alter the order in which you posted your points.

Dude, why do you have such a grudge against bourgeoisie?

Since it's an economic factor, and most of the bourgeoisie, or the predecessor or bourgeoisie are self-made man, they didn't steal it in the first place, if the workers get exploited, it is, or was theyr fault. Anyone can become rich in the capitalist system. In some way, giving your money to your succesor, is a way to live on yourself. 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.

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

Jesus wrote:

Liche wrote:

Jesus wrote:

But John can give you cancer, and turn into a car, so he wins.

That is REALLY an understatement, these are just the side effects of what he dose.

]

Refering to the newgrounds animation, by happyharry

I know, at one point I watched it ten times a day.

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

Quote :

I have a problem with lies overall, but that's another point.

You do know WHY they have to do that, right?

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. Forget I said it.

Quote :

Had it not been for his condition as a bourgeoise his prominence and overall prowess would be considerably diminished. His wealth product of his condition as a capitalist is a basic premise for his condition as a superhero, it's essential for "his abilities".

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

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.

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.

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.

Quote :

All the reasons I've presented are entirely valid, you just missed the point.

No, you can't see past his station.

Quote :

And I never said he was evil, again you're missing entirely the point.

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

Quote :

Seems like a far broader array than what you posted. Notice how he's less specific than you.

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

Quote :

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

Okay, not you're being a smartass.

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.

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.)

Quote :

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

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

Quote :

The top assets are the human resources.

And he does so love tose resources.

Quote :

His entire premise is revenge upon a social class which is victim of the same system that gave Wayne the motives and capabilities to unleash his wrath.

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? 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.)

Quote :

2. If he was not a bourgeoise his capabilities would be greatly limited, inmensely to the point he wouldn't be as prominent. He couldn't have gifted the League of Justice with expensive toys.

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

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.

Quote :

That his targets as per his own vow exist thanks to the system that makes him so wealthy?

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

Quote :

That Batman does it with resources got as product of the exploitation of workers?

And where did Superman get the lead for that suit?

Quote :

The workers don't produce things for Batman as an exchange for teh security provided by Batman while not being exploited by batman, they work for Wayne's profit (are exploited by Batman) and Wayne uses that profit to produce things for his alter-ego.

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

Quote :

With that bigger fraction he finances his vigilante hobby.

And. Saves. Their. Collective. Asses.

Quote :

Because he got all his capabilities from scratch.

Yes he did.

Quote :

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

And then he saves them.

Quote :

Cute, gifting.

That's a problem?

Quote :

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

And his advancement save their lives.

Quote :

Wayne owns water, oil and the machinery to extract and process them.

People extract the oil and process it transforming it into bottles. Then they extract the water, process it and put into the bottles.

Wayne Enterprises sells the bottle at 2 dollars.

50 cents go to Wayne's pocket and 1.5 dollars are divided among the workers, lets say they're 10. 15 cents for each worker per bottle.

That's exploitation.

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. Now? Not at all, but for the lower lever thugs and such. Status quo? Talk to me about status quo ehen they stop killing and raping, THEN we can talk. 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. 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. You are unable to see the intent, the man, the desire and the good behind said position.

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.

Quote :

1) Workers owned the means of production.

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

Quote :

2) They knew who batman is, admired him and agreed with what he does therefore directly producing his artifacts for him, providing him with services and such at the exchange of his protection. Pretty much like my "sportsman/artist" equation.

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.

Quote :

3) If somehow batman's services were required.

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

Quote :

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

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.

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?

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?

Quote :

It's Wayne's fault by him being a capitalist who fights to preserve capitalism.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote :

And that's what makes him a wimp.

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

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.

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.

Quote :

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

Read above.

Quote :

He's a fucking bourgeoise who has vowed to use all his wealth to beat the crap out of all criminals while using a bat themed leotard. That's what he is.

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.

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. Youc an;'t even entertain the idea that someone in power could think of others and use that power for the good. He's in a capitalsit system and plays the game, but he also protects the people. NOT the system, the people.

Quote :

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

How?

Quote :

Aha. Then read above.

Where, exactly?

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.

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.

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. Besides, the governments know his idnetity,a nd he knows it. In addition, there ARE superheroes, many who HAVE powers, that liek capitalism. 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? more would get hurt if he did that, and he DOES NOT WANT THAT.

Quote :

Ah heck, he most proably doesn't know how this works or worse yet he's aware and he considers it a legitimate condition.

If you eman socialism, then likely yeah, or as I said above, blah blah blah, jsut read above.

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.

I like, how sometimes, communist seem to live in a dream, where only theyr vision is good and righteous, and the rest is trash. Ah anyways.

Jesus wrote:

if the workers get exploited, it is, or was theyr fault.

You sound just like a captialist.

Jesus wrote:

Anyone can become rich in the capitalist system.

Something's wrong with this quote, I best let zealot explain. Oh, and define "rich".

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.

But the heir may not have done anything to desirve it. Also, the heir has a headstart over others because of the wealth he enhireted. In no way is that fair.

comrade110397 wrote:

Jesus wrote:

if the workers get exploited, it is, or was theyr fault.

You sound just like a captialist.

Jesus wrote:

Anyone can become rich in the capitalist system.

Something's wrong with this quote, I best let zealot explain. Oh, and define "rich".

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.

But the heir may not have done anything to desirve it. Also, the heir has a headstart over others because of the wealth he enhireted. In no way is that fair.

First.
Btw the way the heir got his money, is by being smart, and the one being poor by being dumb, if both there succesor, criss-cross those attributes, i don't see how it couldn't reverse itself

Okay i don't care.

Second Your a troll so heh. And yes everyone can, did you know, one of the richest man in Canada, came to Canada with 10$ in his pockets?

3rd Get a fucking dictionary and find the word rich



4th did you read what i said about the continuation of the guy before him? Btw, if theyr ancestor First.
Btw the way the heir got his money, is by being smart, and the one being poor by being dumb, if both there succesor, criss-cross those attributes, i don't see how it couldn't reverse itself

Quote :

Anyone can become rich in the capitalist system.

Have to say that while it's true, in today's world this is most decidedly night iompossible to about 98% of the population.

Quote :

Btw the way the heir got his money, is by being smart, and the one being poor by being dumb, if both there succesor, criss-cross those attributes, i don't see how it couldn't reverse itself

This still woudns unfair.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

Anyone can become rich in the capitalist system.

Have to say that while it's true, in today's world this is most decidedly night iompossible to about 98% of the population.

If you're smart enough, everything is possible.

Microsoft started in a half basement with 12 dudes.

Look what it is now.

Jesus wrote:

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

Anyone can become rich in the capitalist system.

Have to say that while it's true, in today's world this is most decidedly night iompossible to about 98% of the population.

If you're smart enough, everything is possible.

Microsoft started in a half basement with 12 dudes.

Look what it is now.

Now. Now, if they happened to start up again today? not a chance. See, it's not even capitalism today. It's soproratism, which is the exact OPPOSITE of capitalism. I mean, also away from socialism.

But why amI arguing this? I didn't want to argue this in this thread! It's about fucking Batman being a goddamn hero, andZeal not wanting to see it!

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

Anyone can become rich in the capitalist system.

Have to say that while it's true, in today's world this is most decidedly night iompossible to about 98% of the population.

If you're smart enough, everything is possible.

Microsoft started in a half basement with 12 dudes.

Look what it is now.

Now. Now, if they happened to start up again today? not a chance. See, it's not even capitalism today. It's soproratism, which is the exact OPPOSITE of capitalism. I mean, also away from socialism.

But why amI arguing this? I didn't want to argue this in this thread! It's about fucking Batman being a goddamn hero, andZeal not wanting to see it!

Is it me or, the Communist, in the section of people with active political profiles, are actually the more closed minded to all other options? And tend to degrade an achievement, because it was perprated by someone that doesn't share theyr value, or achieve a goal, that's even if great, not in the communist ways. (Yes i'm refering to Batman there)

While the hardcore capitalists tend to be the same way.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

While the hardcore capitalists tend to be the same way.

That's why i asked if it was just me, guess i got my answer. Anyways.

Jesus wrote:

First.
Btw the way the heir got his money, is by being smart, and the one being poor by being dumb, if both there succesor, criss-cross those attributes, i don't see how it couldn't reverse itself

What are you trying to say?

jesus wrote:

Second Your a troll so heh. And yes everyone can, did you know, one of the richest man in Canada, came to Canada with 10$ in his pockets?

Then explain to me why most of the worlds wealth belong to a small minority and why people are still starving. If they could all become rich, then why arn't they? Equal oppertunity=/=Equal outcome.

jesus wrote:

3rd Get a fucking dictionary and find the word rich

That is your job.

Jesus wrote:

Dude, why do you have such a grudge against bourgeoisie?

Because their existence is simply illegitimate.

Quote :

Since it's an economic factor, and most of the bourgeoisie, or the predecessor or bourgeoisie are self-made man...

You say that as if it's a given, when obviously no one is a self-made man. Humans or social creatures who can't accomplish anything resembling the conditions we have now on their own. Your simplistic conception of reality makes me a sad panda.

Quote :

they didn't steal it in the first place...

So law is the be-all, end-all of what is right and wrong? Saaaad panda.

Quote :

if the workers get exploited, it is, or was theyr fault.

Obviously anyone born into lowly conditions should allow themselves to starve before they subject themselves to wage-slavery.

Quote :

Anyone can become rich in the capitalist system.

And?

Quote :

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

A legacy of exploitation... i wonder where that would lead this "successor".

Quote :

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

How was that his logic? You just pulled that outta your ass.

Regardless, what are the conditions that precipitate this 'exploitation' of the Chinese by American/Canadian workers? And who made that 'exploitation' possible, by exploiting Chinese labor? (of course, this is if we accept that buying products from China is anymore exploitation than buying products from America or Canada, which would, according to you, be workers of those respective countries exploiting themselves... )

comrade110397 wrote:

Equal oppertunity=/=Equal outcome.

What? I dont get this one, why should their be equal outcome? You do know, to become wealthy/rich and shit you take risks, the guy that took a ooppertunity or made himself one or invested in shit or whatever can just come out poor too.

CoolKidX wrote:

comrade110397 wrote:

Equal oppertunity=/=Equal outcome.

What? I dont get this one, why should their be equal outcome? You do know, to become wealthy/rich and shit you take risks, the guy that took a ooppertunity or made himself one or invested in shit or whatever can just come out poor too.

Yes, the guy that became rich, took a gamble in the first place, a thing the normal worker didn't do.

Jesus wrote:

Yes, the guy that became rich, took a gamble in the first place, a thing the normal worker didn't do.

Thing is a normal ass worker can do it to, take risks to be rich, for example aska loan to start a business, it can get him money, money to pay for the loan monthly and to private stuff, and mayeb start a 2nd business etc.

CoolKidX wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Yes, the guy that became rich, took a gamble in the first place, a thing the normal worker didn't do.

Thing is a normal ass worker can do it to, take risks to be rich, for example aska loan to start a business, it can get him money, money to pay for the loan monthly and to private stuff, and mayeb start a 2nd business etc.

Yes, and it's not like, in a Communist system no one has a head start, the intelligent guys always have a head start over the dumb ones.

^^ Do you have a fetish for your own ass?

Jesus wrote:

Yes, and it's not like, in a Communist system no one has a head start, the intelligent guys always have a head start over the dumb ones.

Well, there shouldnt be a head start, there should be a equal start, ofcourse a parent with money can support a kid more, sure. But saying a intelligent guy will have a start on a dumb one is really just a bad thing to say.

I mean on a daily basis like in a store a intellgient guy has to pay less then a regular guy. That's BS. Its just how the intellegent guy gonna spend his smartness, into a good payed job, a business etc.
A regular worker can to, a payed job and shit, get loans etc.

I almost feel like this thread is in need of a split.

CoolKidX wrote:

A regular worker can to, a payed job and shit, get loans etc.

Alrighty, ima address the whole identity of loans (as briefly as is possible), advanced capital, or more simply put, 'credit', because there is a notion floating about here that just because workers born into little or no money are able to get a loan (which may not even be the case, depending on circumstances), all things even out, or are fair. Going beyond the fact that getting a loan is basically selling yourself to a bank, credit in general is born out of the failures of the capitalist mode of production to be able to circulate products, or commodities as capitalism defines them, at a rate suitable to the population's needs (which is what an economy is all about).

To be brief, when money is hoarded (either by the bourgeoisie, capable of massive hoarding, or by misers or people who simply keep money from circulating by building themselves a little nest-egg), it disallows money to fulfill its social obligation -- so to speak -- that is the circulation of commodities. But hoarding doesn't make the circulation of commodities unnecessary, does it? So society finds another way to sustain its needs (or rather, the ruling economic class invents and imposes a way to sell their commodities while still hoarding, so as to prevent the people from taking their lives back into their own hands). From this we get credit, which takes the place of money hoarded, allowing those without money to continue consuming, despite their lack of means to purchase these commodities. Obviously this is an artificial market, and to compensate for the falling rate of profits -- natural in, and unique to, the capitalist mode of production (simply; technology becomes more prominent, and labor, that thing which creates profit, less prominent)-- credit must constantly expand, creating what's commonly known (uncommonly understood) as the credit bubble (hence the growing rate of debt accumulation since the mid 50's). So snake eats tail and the economy takes a dive for the sole purpose of preserving the interests of the smallest minority within the population. That's the essence of credit, loans, "capital advanced", or whatever you wanna call it.

EDIT: Oh ya, also... Batman (there, now this isn't spam).

Jesus wrote:

Dude, why do you have such a grudge against bourgeoisie?

You just don't get it do you?

I don't hate bourgeoise for being bourgeoise, I hate the condition that allows for the existance of this social class.

If someone is aware of how the condition as a bourgeoise is obtained, what it implies and is proud of it, thinks it is legitimate and struggles to defend his/her condition, then I can hate the person.

In the case of batman he boils down to a bourgeoise with a burglar-beating hobby that he finances with the profit he gets from exploiting workers.

Jesus wrote:

Since it's an economic factor, and most of the bourgeoisie, or the predecessor or bourgeoisie are self-made man, they didn't steal it in the first place, if the workers get exploited, it is, or was theyr fault.

1. The bourgeoise emerges enecesarily out of someone else's labor. The bourgeoise, by definition, has people producing value for him. In other words the bourgeoise is never "self-made".

2. You argue that the bourgeoise got enough money to buy his property, either by inheritance or by working and that thanks to this the bourgeoise is not stealing the property.

Private ownership of the means of production and land without an agreement of all those that need those means and land is theft by an individual or group of individuals from the community.

How does this theft work? Basically we have two entities involved in this theft: the State and the private owner.

The State is the first one to steal being it what determines to whom belongs the land. De facto the land belongs to the state and then the state determines the oficial ownership over a certain piece of land or property.

In a capitalist framework these properties tend to have a certain cost that shall be paid to the state in order to get them. They can be bought.

So, the state steals them from the community as a whole and then determines who is fit to get that property.

All capitalist nations are capitalist as product of a bourgeoise revolution against a monarchy. The bourgeoise revolution, lead by bourgeoise stablishes a bourgeoise state. This bourgeoise state lets the bourgeoise directly determine how ownership ought to work.

Those that were wealthy within the monarchy for whaatever the reasons are immediately granted by the state the possibilty to acquire property, leaving the masses aside.

To prepetuate and/or legitimize the system, just like their preceding rulers would do, they utilize something called cultural hegemony.

This cultural hegemony consists in controlling the legal framework, the educational framework, the informative framework and the laboural framework in order for the masses to acknowledge the condition of a certain class as ruling over the masses as legitimate.

In the middle ages religion and the church were the main institutions behind cultural hegemony. In capitalism, it is the State together with the bourgeoise and even to this day in some cases to a minor extent the church (certainly in Mexico it is) who establish this tool of populational control.

What did the monarchies and churches do in the middle ages? They controlled all influx of knowledge, they prosecuted critics of the status quo and critics of the premises over which the church was founded. They established the notion among population that god had chosen a certain man or a certain family to rule over them and that god's representatives were the members of the religious institution. When a certain group of people did not fall victim of this or when this was not enough to control the people, these rulers could always use the force provided by those who fell victims of their bullshit both to physically and abstractly subdue the rebels - they would set example by destroying a ceratin number of them, by humiliating them and by forcing them to do whatever the ruling class demanded or face death.

What were the implications of this? Overtly ignorant and docile and maleable masses whose that were prone to expoitation and that were actually exploited directly by the monarchies and more lately by the new class that was emerging, the bourgeoise who basically took great advantage of the massive ammount of human resources monarchies left them.

These masses had been deprived of knowledge, they had been inheriting the condition of serfdom for centuries, believed massive piles of bullshit and had their revolutionary spirits crushed by the fear of force. Eventually they began accepting that this condition was either natural or that god had chosen them to live under such conditions or both.

With the advent of the renaisance the church started losing its credibility and thus monarchies little by little started losing as well their grip. Knowledge flowed more freely while yet quite slowly. And the monarchies turned to Ilustrated Despotism.

The bourgeoise grew and grew in power at the consent of the monarchies making use of the same condition that let the monarchies rule in the first place - most people were ignorant and docile. And one day, it was not enough for the bourgeoise to be under a king's boot - they wanted to be the ones who ruled, they could and they would.

The bourgeoise rule offered better material conditions than monarchy and theoretically as well offered a mechanism through which people would be able to influde in the state.

Eventually this offer evolved into revolutions around the globe. The bourgeoise became the ruling class, a ruling class forged by the previous ruling class.

The bourgeoise, now in power, etablished their own political frameworks and within them, their own methods of cultural hegemony.

They sold the masses the idea that "anyone" could become part of the ruling class through "hard labour" without pointing out of course that 1) it necesarily had to always be a minority meaning that while "anyone" could (at least in theory) definitely not "everyone" could, 2) that the majority of those who made it would only achieve it with the proper conections and 3) that de facto those that alreday had the priviledged position of bourgeoise would be the ones to run the show and to determine who would be the ones to run it after they were there no more. (What is this reminiscent of...? ah yeah, the monarchs who inherited the throne. Actually several bourgeoise were noblemen themselves and many are descendants of noblemen. I'm an example just like my half-brother who is rotting in money. I'm descendant of Spanish noblemen and Russian petit-bourgeoise)

The conditions of the workers nonetheless were more and more precarious as technology advanced and, no more than 1 century after the bourgeoise had taken over several guys started realizing that the bourgeoise were as well ripping of the workers, just like it happened in monarchy and they came up with the notion that those who should be in charge were actually those that actually produced everything. Those that did all the work.

Some of those who realized this were bourgeoise themselves and they developed something called "Utopic Socialism". They postulated that since the human being is inherently good, if all bourgeose were conscious that they're exploiting the workers creating thus an instrinsic disparity with no legitimacy, then, all bourgeoise would do whatever required to give the workers direct control over the means of production. What many of them thought up first was to educate the workers and improve their conditions in order to prepare them to assume charge. Needless to say, these humanitarian efforts ended up in bankruptcy for too much money was invested into the non-profitable enterprise of preparing the workers for their emancipation.

After this some guys, this time from the workers' side of the spectrum, came up with the same realization as the utopists except that they believed the workers should actually be aware that theier condition is not natural nor legitimate and that they should get rid of it by all means possible. These guys formulated the idea that workers had to directly take over the control of the means of production themselves and organize through consensus and not wait for anyone to be benevolent and grant them this. These guys, to not be confused with the "utopic socialists" named themselves "communists" as they believed ownership of the means of production ought to be "common".