Join the new world

KICK HIM UP THE ARSE!

Can't speak for ILP heretics since they keep declining my salvation attempt on them.

But when Sweet speaks about keeping lower class poor he probably thinks of himself and his orc buddies since CLerics demand transparency of State money which would mean the end of regular and a massive thefts Sweet and his orc buddies performing for years now.

So Sweet is right Clerics do try to keep morally lower class as Sweet and his Orcs are away from their prosperity on account of State money.

Remember 7000 golds we earned on that weekly tournament got stolen only days later and recent "lost" of 2.5 million cc by Nogin on her first day on work...

And lets not forget Sweet's days as MoF when he managed to steal more money then all thefts that happened later combine....

A reason why he still refuse to show any data from his work even after all this time they are not security risk as Orcs often falsely justify lack of any data of state finances.....


In short..i wish ILP have courage Sweet is actually talking about here and make a stand against thieves and traitors Sweet is representing now...

As for freedom....isn't ILP's demands for referendum of any kind of voting about that rental deal are demands of freedom of choice?

Isn't decision made by majority votes of irish people in fact one of symbols of freedom?

Remember Ireland all this bitching by Sweet and his Orcs came after ILP asked that giving one region to macedonians should be approved by voting of either irish congressmen or even better a referendum of all irish people?

Isn't Sweet and his Orcs giving irish teritory without approval of irish congress or irish people a strong sign
of dictatorship?

And dictatorship is to freedom...how?

And it was all for nothing really Vik. In the end eIreland sold them all off in an auction. I picked up Wexford for the price of round.

joke auction run as fun by ministry of community.

And you bought it with money you stole from ireland so Wexford is technically still irish and not yours...

How about that finance report of yours Sweet?

I still wait from you to prove me wrong....

So, article 2 reported?

You know me so well Sweet.....


You disappointed me Sweet....after i gave you a lesson from clean language you keep spreading filth.

You know, bitching can be done without profanities....look how i can...

Having to silence your opponent is admission of defeat poor Kurgy.
You lose.
You know you lose.
Everyone else knows you lost.
Filled all the comment section you desire below, nobody can hear the slithering of snakes.

Dear Sweet no one will complain if you repost your article but without profanities...

I have no problem you attacking ILP leadership.

They backstabbed Clerics remember?

Clerics who defended them for years from you orcs and who saved their party from PTO you orcs did....

So go for it Sweet...

I do not wanna silence you....The Silence that will take my place after i leave this game will do that....

You have been silent about finance report from your mof days for too long.....

shh shh shh. You lost this match. Don't worry, there will be other matches for you to participate in, but your foot went outside the circle on this one.

Little Sweet....there is no match....

I am not fighting you...i am trying to help you to beat that evil inside you.

I will not give up on your wretched soul as much i will never give up from damned ILP heretics...

Repent Sweet...confess your sins and Heavens will look upon you kindly...

maybe next round.
Till then Kurgan o7

too small to read well..

I'll make the effort cause I think it's really interesting how pliable labels really are. Regardless of your stance on ingame things

http://i.imgur.com/YzUCHsI.png

i appreciate thx

[removed]

indeed (for france) the bourgois initiated the revolution in order to replace the nobles in power. they did a great disaster, using low poeple to rebel and then continue to use small class to be richer and richer, the monarchy gone.

the bourgeoisie made capitalism, they put money as the new privilege and master

that's why this term is not a good term now (in france)

thx again, was interesting indeed

But think of what you're saying.
They had a system with 2 classes. One ruling over the other entirely -divine right and shit.
Then some of the lower class managed improve their lot in life.
AND EVERYONE HATES THEM FOR IT
These people are called the 'nouveau riche'. The aristocrats felt it distasteful that peasants aspire to be anything more than servants.
While those who had not escaped the horrible conditions of the lower class despised them for being able to enjoy life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality
despite the fact that the bourgeois were earning the lower class more rights also.

Did they do everything right? No, who the hell does?
Do they deserve for their entire legacy to become a euphemism for the class structure their very existence was in opposition of? What kind of crazy shit is that?

If Socialism does not stand for raising the lower class to a bourgeois level (able to pursue their own interests), then it is quite simply shit and should be thrown out.

Sorta Marxist-inspired Socialism in a way what you are saying with the last comment at the end. The belief that the lower working class will rise to be the ruling class. However this rising is a clash of power and very violent, and will only result in the new lower class rising in the future to throw out the once-was working class.

The process essentially repeats until the workers are treated fairly enough to no longer need any form of liberation. They believe that the national cause of working is great enough motivation to enjoy work intrinsically. That would be the final stage of Marx's communism.

Marx was an intellectual no doubt but many of his ideas are no longer valuable in the modern day world.

Of course, socialism isn't about the individual pursuing one's own interests ever. Nationalization vs privatization would be a reasonable broad comparison to socialism vs capitalism. Why nationalize ANYTHING if it takes away personal freedom in the market? There are good reasons to though. Socialism is about sustainability of the working class and the planet IN THEORY (of course)

Socialism should be just an authoritative way to enforce communism as I see it. Many call certain forms of anarchism "libertarian communism" as opposed to socialist communism. Socialism in action never contained an ounce of communism though and can be seen as just an Authoritative govt. who claims they strive for more equality and sustainability. Re-branded capitalism.

I wont argue in favour for socialism unless the only alternative is capitalism, which is not the case. If you'd like to learn about a REAL workers movement look up the history of Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War.

Raven I don't understand why there always has to be "classes" "ruling" "(someone)ist" all the time. Why is socialism about sustaining the working class? Did anyone bother to ask them if they WANTED to be sustained?
We want to own houses and cars and washing machines.
We want to own our own time....
Do you have a model where I still get to open my own online store selling bio-luminescent Christmas trees from a concept home I built?

The bourgeois were people who saw ways to improve life, not just for themselves but, for the community at large and worked together to do so. Unfortunately their system relied upon the labour of a peasant class as much as the system they replaced, but with the technology of the time that's not surprising. At least they cracked the class/poverty barrier.
They should be a model of progressive thinking for that.

If in the end they became la grande, it does not change the virtues of la petite

In real life socialism doesn't necessarily have to adhere to a "class" theory. The real measure of these systems is who has ownership of the means of production (and most importantly the commanding heights of the economy aka. economy steering industries). Socialism is really any system where the means of production are not in the hands of private individuals - that's the broadest, simplest, and most accurate summation.

Sweet when I talk about sustainability I'm not talking about the sustainability of the working class. One day the working class will be almost entirely non-existent, a thing of the past. I'm talking about the sustainability of human life; of civilization. That includes the sustainability our planets habitability.

If a government in RL is to exist, it should be one with a long-termed mindset, one that is not focused on self-preservation, not primarily focused on income, profit and taxation. One that is focused on reversing the damages that our currently flawed system has been doing for centuries. One that wants to minimize the mess our grandchildren will have to clean up, should they even make it to adulthood.

You just won't get that sort of government in today's day in age with a capitalist republic. You could get it with a socialist government...

But history has proven those governments do not stand by their intended principles and turn into the same self-centered, self-preserving organizations as we have today.

As far as recovery to a more fair and balanced RL economy, I think major governments should take Buffet's advice and raise the taxes on the rich. 5% from a millionaire means nothing. 5% from someone who makes 25k a year is far more impacting. But the wealthy see taxation almost as a penalty. Why should they be penalized for winning at the game?

Well if that's the mentality, I say we start playing a new game. Once you start forcing wealth redistribution you know longer have capitalism in the first place.

When you assume ownership of the 'means of production' you run into 2 problems straight away.

A) If you tell me 3d printing workshops belong to everybody, you are not telling me I own a 3d printing workshops. You're telling me I'm not allowed to own a 3d printing workshop. I can go work at a 3d workshop, but I will never have creative direction of what it produces.

😎 This term 'means of production' seeks to isolate workers from infrastructure. This works fine when lives are cheap. How would aristocrats tell one uneducated peasant from another? Shovels do not have a serious learning curve. But we're trying to educate everyone to above the level of 'peasant'. Technicians usually cost more than infrastructure. Technicians ARE the infrastructure.
Humans are 'the means of production' and we want to own ourselves.

^ That depends on whether the system in place views labour as an expense, as we would in neo-classical economics, or as an end to itself, as we might in market socialism.

The means of production needn't be owned by the state, it could also be under the management of co-operatives as Vanek proposes. Under this model co-operatives would independently exercise democratic decision making in collective creative control over the means of production, and would even retain a market function for allocation.

I point this out to demonstrate that socialism needn't necessarily take the form that we're familiar with from the USSR case study. In a model such as Jaroslav Vanek proposed, workers would not simply be another expense to be minimized, but would effectively assume meaningful ownership.

Ian, labour is an expense no matter what government system presides.
Your time is the inescapable currency every system operates on.
The price of society is literally people's lives.

The object of the game is to get people as much access to resources, for as little demand on their time, as possible. Any society that doesn't strive to do that simply isn't worth adopting.

I meant to refer to our accounting treatment there Sweet. We can talk about marxist labour theory which actually tries to measure the value of labour in terms of time rather than cash, but I think there's already some theory killing limits in that approach.

To continue with the same example, in a worker co-op operating under ICA principles (not the same ICA we usually might talk about), you're going to end up with an accounting treatment (and therefore a management treatment) that looks at workers more like we would view shareholders. That means that a lot of things we would treat as externalities under a neo-classical model (if we would acknowledge their existence at all), are internalized by management in terms of their members (who would otherwise be employees).

This is just an example of an alternative model. I think the more you explore something like this, the more it challenges our ideas on capitalism/socialism and economics in general.

The ICA system blossomed inside erep's CAPITALIST devised economy.

That's because capitalism isn't exclusive towards socialism. Where did Smith say we couldn't 'group up' on beneficial projects?
There are certainly capitalist people hostile to socialism, but that is misrepresentation of the theory. It shouldn't be any of their business how you financially align yourself with others.

On the other side of the coin, I don't understand why so many socialists are so hostile to free-market economics.
FME has no anti-democratic fundamental.
It functions on the opinion of the populace.
FME has no anti-environmental fundamental.
Where does it say the government can't protect Snowy Owls?
Or that we can't rate gasoline a regulated toxin like chlorine, forcing the automotive industry into a new power source?

*Trying to figure when "Businessmen" came to mean "Laborer" and failing*

It's too late and I'm too stoned after working a full day today. I have tomorrow off and I am not too busy I will write a very neat reply.

But before I go through the trouble, come on Sweet - are you that unfamiliar with Marx/Marxist philosophy and terminology?

I've no education is this field Mike. Any knowledge of mine is derived from practical experience or independent study. The terms (and pejoratives) commonly thrown about in discussions like these are meaningless to me, and usually when I research them, their own histories prove them pretty meaningless as well.
You've devoted a good chunk of your life to an academic field. There are no direct manual applications of this, Meaning you do not intend to remain part of the production class. When you move up to your 'white collar' job, your occupation will help dictate conditions of the production class.

I suspect once you're there, you too will do some good things.
And also treat yourself in some materialistic indulgences like a home, fancy food/car and a 1/2oz a week pass-time.
At which point you are the bourgeois.

And what is wrong with that?

I could post 20 pictures of third world nations, starving children, ect. Horrible situations some people are in because governments which once ruled for nationalist principles were replaced with governments more friendly to capitalist superpowers so that they we had access to cheap labour and resources which we could take from the nation leaving them with nearly no means to work towards this bourgeois position or have solid chances for recovery.

It all comes at a cost sweet. Check out this article, and try to push through it. Some interesting points, some worth debating. (grind your teeth if you must) Even check out the comments. There are good debates going on.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/06/09/why-capitalism-is-the-1-cause-of-poverty/

perhaps my favourite bit from the article: Profit is privatized while loss is socialized.

I'm not criticizing the article Raven, but we already agreed that the current economic system isn't proper capitalism. And that neither it or USSR could really be used as test cases.

"Let’s take a look at the most flawed component first, competition. Capitalism requires a loser is for every winner."

That's the antithesis of capitalism.
The fundamental principle of capitalism is that nobody has to enter into an agreement unwillingly:
I sell apples, you want apples, you trade me something you're willing to part with, that I want. (2 winners, no losers)
I charge too much so you don't buy my apples. (no winners, 2 losers)
You really wanted oranges instead, but I don't sell them (no winners, no losers)
You offer me extra to get you oranges because you really want them and I agree (2 winners, 0 losers)
or I decline to source oranges (no winner, no losers)
so you start your own orange market because I didn't want to be involved in oranges (no winners, no losers)

There is meant to be no inequality of outcomes.
Hardly an evil theory.
It's a Capitalist government's job to ensure that there are no forced agreements other than your tax/civil rights obligations. Ofc, that is not happening now. Instead we have:
You want apples, I don't care cuz you subsidize my corn (1winner, 6billion losers)

Happy to read your conversations. They all make interesting reading. Something to remember is that any system/plan/theory/ism relating to humans social structures has to come into contact with real humans. This is where they all tend to fall down as humans will always mess them up. We should still keep aspiring to improve the lot of all people though.

No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy, huh?

Humans should only inspire to follow The Word of Heavens and salvation will follow them.

Someone really should kick Bishop Brennan up the arse.

If only bishop Brennan is listen by ILP heretics....so many souls would be saved from damnation...

It's a Father Ted reference, gobbo.

No, its friar Tuck l!
You bobbo...

My favourite part of the episode is when Bishop Brennan realise's what has happened, and then of course as he appears to nearly fly across the lawn of the parochial house in rage at the end of the episode. Pure class, genius even.

Since when is criminals a class of people. I swear I walked past death criminal today. A man so criminal ppl just had him whacked. Probably ordinary ppl as well.

i think the main function of government is to minimise inequality - redistribute income and capital, ensure maximum education/development of individuals and health, counteract monopolies. Society works best when there is a level playing field for individual competition.

I don't understand why it's always "redistribute prosperity" instead of "generate prosperity into abundance".

See how well the Scandinavian countries do.

How does capitalism account for its main mantra production-for-profit, always seeking profit, which in turn would mean more production which requires more extraction of natural resources. How does production-for-profit counter this inherent flaw within its own method of production? Not to mention how does it account for the many environmental externalities that stem from unregulated production that is the main cause of pollution throughout the world?

Not only do we have to consider what makes a system that is viable, fair, and just but what is also sustainable and can even reverse some of the damage that we've already caused.

In fairness, I would point out that capitalist economies are not alone in having produced serious environmental externalities. A valid argument might be made as to what systems are best equipped potentially to internalize those issues, but the reality is that environmentalism has only really come into its own in the last number of decades, regardless of what kind of economic system a country has had in place.

Countries like China, former USSR, and former Yugoslavia, have anything but shining environmental records for example.

Yes, but the Green-Red alliance is a more recent movement, I think it began in the 90's but I'm not 100% sure. We can no longer think of the environment as separate from the economy.

Profit is the money you have left over after you've paid for all the things required for you to produce. Profit is the margin you live on after you've paid your rent/bills out of your paycheck.
Profit is the resources&time that actually belong to you.
I'm arguing for society to consider "peoples freetime&resources" a good thing.
I hate that Socialism has this "jobs for everyone" attitude. I want there to be as little 'job' as possible. Short high productivity periods, and long resource indulged free-periods.

The goal of socialism is to reduce the need for harsh larbor, unpleasant work, and all things that nature to that work becomes an enjoyable thing. The socialist conception of work is far different than capitalism.