@Amarel

you keep using the word legal and legally but laws are created by governments and governments are the opposite of freedom which is what you claim to promote. You cannot have power without corruption.

The final system will be based on unlimited resources.

There will always be scarcity in some capacity, but the thing is the necessities of life can be made available to everyone if we approach it on a technical basis rather than within the framework of our current system which creates artificial scarcity because even when there are resources you can't have them unless you can pay for them. The way that we use resources in capitalist societies is retarded because we are giving yachts to people like Kim Kardashian (who's very existence is proof that capital has nothing to do with merit or hard work in many cases) while children starve in the streets because they where born into poverty and people can't afford decent healthcare. If you think the rich kids are entitled to their yachts just for being born then why aren't poor children entitled to food and health care? Because capitalism has it's priorities entirely backwards and is fundamentally flawed.

Socialism might be great if we had unlimited resources and an infallable leader.

The thing you don't realize is that socialism doesn't require unlimited resources as I've just demonstrated and it doesn't require a leader. My philosophy is that ideally people themselves wouldn't actually be making decisions (meaning people in positions of authority or people making decisions democratically, on a personal level people would still be free to do what they want) but rather decisions would be arrived at through methodology. There would be no leader in my way of doing things, there would only be the method of coming to fair and logical conclusions. In that way we would be governed by reason itself, not by an institution or the opinions of individuals.

I understand BUILDINGS,

Wrong, people who understand architecture understand buildings, not businessmen and investors. Trump has a lot of buildings, but he's not the one who built them, he just profited off their existence and the work that others put into them.

wanna know WHO paid for it, and HOW they paid for it..

None of that matters without people who actually know how to BUILD buildings you fucking IDIOT. Or, maybe there's no buildings in your magic land where social constructs are more real than actual things and investors are the ones who produce things rather than the people who produce them for the investors.

My STRONG back is he capital??

The only thing that is strong about you is your strong tendency to say things that are completely fucking retarded.

I dunno if capitalism is the best system or not..

You just said it was the best system by saying "yes" when I asked you if it was the final and ultimate system.

if we didn't have capitalists, where does the capital come from???

That is literally a retarded question. It's like asking "if we didn't have dogs, where would we get our dog food?". Only it's even worse, because at least dog food is a real physical thing, whereas capital is a social construct which exists to fuel another social construct called capitalism.

Without capital, how does the gold come out of the ground and become "capital"?

Gold is for electrical devices, space craft and medical implants. Those are it's real scientific uses, what you are talking about is using it to represent a social construct. On top of that America's monetary system is not based on gold, it is based on fiat currency backed by debt and oil.

If the government has the capital, where did they get it??

There is no government or capital, those things where made up by humans. They cannot exist in the real final ultimate system because that system would be based on objective reason and scientific methodology.

@Nom

I wish I could upvote you ten times with one account right now.

Yes.

Now, fetch this stick..

Primitive fool. You think the ultimate system is something that was made up by people who derived it from a social context of tyranny and superstition. Why would a type one civilization use a system that was made up by dumb apes who believed in talking snakes and angels and where just barely starting to figure out that putting spoiled brats who where born into wealth and power merely due to being born into the right family into positions of dictatorial authority (monarchy) is not such a good idea? They wouldn't because it's unscientific and based in superstitious beliefs (social constructs).

@AlofRI

It's objectively true that the best system is basically a mixture between Marxism, Technocracy, Meritocracy and Anarcho-socialism AKA a Resource Based Economy.

Again, right on the money.

As in correct about the money when I say it's an anachronistic social construct that causes us to use our planet's resources in unwise ways which only benefit those who play the game of capitalism well (as opposed to those who play the game of actually producing things) or are given wealth by a lucky roll of the dice. We have a system that resembles a type of game that puts all the resources and decision making power in the hands of those who play the made up game well rather than those who actually understand the real world. Business men and politicians generally do not know anything real, everything they have been trained to deal with consists of the workings of a conceptual fabric of ideas which at it's core is designed to impress the values and interests of those who weaved them into society.

I don't believe that any economic system can be inherently evil in and of itself, but capitalism certainly incentivises and rewards the doing of evil by the very nature of its overemphasis on individual power and wealth.

Yes. Capitalism and the monetary system are not some kind of conspiracy or evil scheme, but a natural outgrowth of scarcity and the barter system. They are nonetheless inherently flawed both for the reason you stated and also because they are unscientific and there is often a conflict between what is best for the economy or business and what is best in the real physical world. Not to mention what Jacque Fresco said about his experience during the great depression. We still had all the resources, operational machines in the factory etc. but people where starving and production was halting all because of some conceptual point system that humans made up.

These people argue in defence of tyranny because the only definition they have ever been given of freedom was provided by tyrants.

Yes. I think that the whole idea that authority is necessary in the first place came about for similar reasons, but it is also somewhat of a self fulfilling prophesy because people are not conditioned to come to valid conclusions on their own in many instances. The problem arises from having a society where people make decisions rather than arriving at them through methodology and reason, thus we entrust certain people to make decisions rather than having a society where everyone is trained to be able to arrive at decisions that can be universally agreed on because they are objectively logical.

Anyone who supports capitalism doesn't understand capitalism, either that or they are a shortsighted sociopath who only cares about themselves. The only reason these ass holes say Marx didn't understand capitalism is because he pointed out how stupid and evil it is. Arguing against socialism and in favour of capitalism is no different than arguing against democracy in favour of monarchy, they are just retarded robots who want to keep things as they are allegedly "supposed to be" rather than improving society.

You cannot engineer a culture without a stronghold on media and influence on young schoolchildren via regulating public education.

I disagree, culture is emergent not something to be forced. People need to organically understand things in order to truly understand them, indoctrination and socially constructed codes of behaviour enforced by authority lead to a weak behavioural foundation which makes it easier for people to act destructively if they think they can get away with it. But when they understand based on objective reason why civility is rational, more productive and mutually beneficial they will have no desire to go against the fabric of society. Understanding is the fabric of society.

The Illuminati are necessary to achieve utopia

There is no utopia. Utopia implies stagnation and perfection, there is no such thing as perfection and stagnation will eventually lead to decline.

they are not the obstacle you think.

The Illuminati are a metaphor or an "umbrella term" for the people who take advantage of the masses ignorance instead of trying to mitigate it. They include extreme capitalists, hereditary nobility, intelligence agencies, and pretty much governments and large corporations and banks etc. in general. Anyone who claims to have power over others, to own industries or be inherently entitled to more than others by birthright is basically a manifestation of the Illuminati archetype.

In anarchy all are free to be as they are naturally without limitation or organisation, let alone conditioning.

conditioning comes from culture and environment. organisation comes from co-operation.

You can't condition them without oligarchy.

Wrong. It all comes down to having a truly sane culture and the proper education techniques. When you use force you are not uplifting humanity so it knows what it should do, you are forcing it to do what you think it should do, and even if you are right the public will just be robots following your command. That is no way to have an adaptable civilization where people are able to make good decisions on their own.

Thank you for pointing out how an-com defeats itself as long as it's humans in the system.It mostly just depends on the conditioning of the humans and the level of scarcity but there is always a fundamental risk and tendency for humans to do something evil and/or retarded.

dsfhgajofdghndfhkdtiugoisfthfhaedfhstrjtgikfyujkdfjdfyjkdtuokhsrfaegrgdthfj

I am going to have bronto's baby.

Instead of dicking around with your alt accounts why don't you work on realizing that I'm not trying to plagiarise your shit and I just wanted to find your work.

Capitalist tribes wiped out communist ones and never again ever has 'true communism' existed since the original 'share everything' tribes were demolished by the superior ones.

It's not quite that simple. Rather than it being a matter of natural selection it was more a result of the entropic principle. That is, it is simply easier and more likely for corruption and ignorance to take hold then for societies to remain "innocent" as it where. It has much more to do with the social fabric rotting from the inside out and succumbing to a concentration and consolidation of information, wealth, and power in the hands of the few.The so called "communists" of the prehistoric world where usually those who lived in relative abundance and scarcity is a big part of why capitalism emerged.

I don't know that still.

.

I think you meant to say "technological"

.

He is a sociopath, he doesn't process honesty or trust.

Maybe you're right, because it's clearly illogical for me to plagiarise him (when he in fact probably plagiarised the material in the first place) just to show it off to him like some kind of idiot. The real and obvious reason I showed him is because I wanted to find out if it was his or not because I was looking for his material.

Right. And you found all these copies of my article by typing "British socialist journalism 9/11 inside job" into a search engine.

That was my first search, where I found the initial article. After I told you that I then pasted the whole damn article into a search engine and found the same exact article on several different sites.

Then stop being a lying prick and tell me how you found the article, why you messaged me about it, and how you knew I wrote it despite it not having a byline.

Dude, I am literally being completely honest with you I have found several other sites with the same article after I put the whole thing in the search engine (which I didn't do the first time). I already told you why I messaged you about it, I was trying to get you to confirm if it was yours. I did this by PM because if in fact it was yours, I knew you probably wouldn't want it revealed to the whole site. But I am under the impression you didn't write it originally because it is on several different sites.

I have found several more websites with the same exact article by the way. It's practically all over the internet.

And if you own the website I'll file a complaint with the DMCA. I can prove I wrote that content.

Don't be a retard.

OK cool. If you want to be a prick I'll just write to the website.

Whatever you say you tranny humping knob head.

Yes you are. There is no possible scenario in which you are not lying to me.

I really am telling the truth. What would I have to gain by lying about this? What I was trying to do was find something written by you on the internet, which is why I pmed you the link to confirm if it was yours or not.

This is impossible without knowing who I am.

Apparently not.

Don't make me lose the small amount of respect I have accumulated for you over recent days.

Don't make me search for more than just your journalism.

The only way you could have run any type of search is with the content itself, in which case you prove yourself halfway guilty (i.e. you copied the content).

Apparently not.

That's literally retarded. Shut up.

That's literally what happened. It was surprisingly easy to find that. I actually suspect that it isn't even your work and you actually plagiarised it.

Could you do me a favour and stop pretending you don't know how it got there? I'm not angry, just so long as nobody else tries to take credit for writing it.

I'm not lying to you. I was looking for your work, not posting it on websites just to lie to you and say I found your work. If I did post it myself then I would know that you automatically would know that it's not somewhere that you put it and that someone plagiarised it so it would be pointless to show it to you.

You copied it from this site and posted it on another one I'm guessing.

I literally typed "british socialist journalist 9/11 inside job" into my search engine and found that.

You don't even know my name. How could you be looking for my journalism?

By typing keywords into a search engine that might lead me to it.

Is it just one of those sites where anybody can upload content?

It doesn't appear that way.

No, I'm saying you plagiarised it.

How on earth did I do that?

I couldn't find much info about the website. What is it?

I don't know, I was searching on the internet to try and find your journalism and I came across that. It appears to just be a news/journalism site.

Not sure how I feel about having my content plagiarised though. You're supposed to ask permission first.

Are you saying that website plagiarised your material? Wow.

@Nom

I know you don't usually respond to PMs but this time you might want to. Check out what I found.

You're a walrus spooning spaktardicus. The US economy hit it's height by molesting third world countries for their resources. Second of all the opposite of what you say is true, humans naturally live in tribes and villages where they share resources and have no concept of money. All of this shit was socially constructed and made up as we went along.

But he was an intellectual though. But you sit in your moms basement jerking off to obese transexual midgets though while wearing your moms panties.

Shall we start taking things out of context again and chewing hard rice.

don't read or watch either. I know because they used to teach this thing called history.

You know who understood history? Marx. That's how he came up with the theory that societies become more socialist progressively as they advance.

Well, many of these so-called "building blocks" have been discovered by physicists already.

Yes, and when we get into the technical details of how these things work we are having a considerable amount of trouble. We end up with point particles that are waves when you're not looking at them and appear to be in multiple places at once. That of course, is a more simplified way of putting it but our understanding of subatomic particles is none the less confused. I think what we are missing is a unified field theory in the literal sense, as in a theory that views the universe as one unified field. When you no longer quantify everything as an independent body on the quantum level the particles will no longer appear to behave in paradoxical ways because when a particle would appear to telaport or travel along multiple trajectories simultaneously in the current standard model, we would understand that this is nothing more than the ebb and flow of the unified field causing certain frequencies of oscillation to pop up in certain places.

If memory serves, one dimensional strings are indeed theorised to oscillate.

Yes. I think it is more logical to view the universe in the context of fields being fundamental rather than the particles or strings themselves.

I don't understand what you mean by "different modalities". Can you explain further?

I mean that the field takes on certain sets of properties as it warps in various ways due to it's natural decline from uniformity resulting in the effects of the four fundamental forces and their respective sets of associated fields and particles.

@Conservanazi

You are right, but one thing I have brought up a few times is the fundamental assumption that physical reality consists of some form of quantifiable "building block" such as strings or particles. I suspect that these things are not separate and singular but merely oscillations in a field and that the universe consists of one fundamental field that is split into different modalities. If this is the case, then mathematics cannot ultimately describe our reality on a fundamental level.

How can you say I am "sucked in by capitalists" when I post AGAINST capitalism all the time!

You aren't against capitalism, you're for limiting it with state regulation.

This is an OPINION site

This is a debate site, and the mere use of the word opinion offends me. For me, debate is about arguing it out until both parties understand the actual truth, not about bickering back and forth with vacuous subjective opinions.

I have a right to my opinion.

When people say that all I hear is "I have the right to be objectively incorrect and try to justify it by personalizing and owning my stupidity with the word opinion".

My opinion is that capitalism has its place, capitalism CAN be good

Something either works or it doesn't in real life, if something is good then it's fucking good, if you knew what you where talking about you wouldn't be whining about opinions.

Capitalists and their lobbyists are destroying America WITH uncontrolled capitalism!

Then become a real socialist like me and Nom and stop supporting the system.

VOTE THEM OUT!

Voting will do you no good when it's the same uncontrolled capitalist activity that decides who gets into the fucking white house. The whole system needs to be uprooted.

t is already understood that the modern methods of Mathematics are superior in finding out what is "true" or "false"--however, unlike science, Math is entirely internal and not at all dependent on the external world

That's why I think our current understanding of things is skewed by an over-reliance on mathematics. Math can work well for solving physical problems but it can also lead one to contrive a system of physical mechanics based upon the false assumption that what you have factored into the equation physically exists. For example if you write an equation with the relative location of certain objects within 3 dimensional space, the 3 dimensions appear in the equation as X Y and Z, and thus they are just as "physical" as the objects themselves according to the math. But for all we know only the objects themselves exist in physical reality and the concept of space being an actual physical construct is contrived entirely from our reliance on math.

Amarel you are retarded. There is no legitimate left in American politics.

Well con. The Marxist socialists

But everything you've heard about Marxist Socialists you heard from Alex Jones and thefederalist.com so how can you possibly even know what they advocate?

What is bronto? What is nom?

Bronto is a religious nutjob and neo-con capitalist dickhead. He is also a liar and a zionist.

Nom is a person who isn't retarded.

Nom came from the Andramoda Galaxy, where males are the females in the relationship.

You arrived in a flying saucer from the interplanetary capitalist confederacy of insanely dishonest space Jews.

monopolizes the media with mass propaganda

Are you aware that monopolies are the direct result of capitalism and/or the state both of which Socialist Marxist wanker doodles like us want to eliminate?

Dorothy Day

W E B Du Bois

Amiri Baraka (formerly LeRoi Jones; poet, playwright)

Eugene V. Debs (union organizer, socialist organizer)

Norman Thomas

Mother Jones

John Dos Passos

Audre Lorde

Robert Owen (utopian)

Michael Harrington (author of "The Other America", preeminent socialist)

H G Wells

Frank Zeidler (former mayor of Milwaukee)

Darlington Hoopes

Alexander Cockburn (writer for the Nation, and formerly for the Wall

Street Journal)

Adolph Reed (writer for the Progressive, various others)

Harry Houdini

Doug Henwood ("Left Business Observer", radio commentator)

Manning Marable (professor of Afro-American studies at Columbia)

Angela Davis (professor of Philosophy at U Cal-Berkeley, a Reagan

frame-up survivor)

A Phillip Randolph (union leader)

Martin Buber (philosopher, "Paths in Utopia")

L Frank Baum (author, "The Wizard of Oz")

Cornel West

Jean-Paul Sartre (French existentialist)

Adrienne Rich

Kwame Toure (formerly Stokely Carmichael, SNCC dir., Black Panthers

founder)

E P Thompson

Raymond Williams

Rosa Luxemburg

Bill Veeck (former Chicago White Sox owner)

Art Spiegelman (author/illustrator of "Maus")

Stephen Jay Gould (scientist)

Malcom X

George Bernard Shaw

Dmitri Shostakovich (Soviet composer)

Marie Curie (French scientist)

Robert Oppenheimer

Al Lewis (Grandpa on "The Munsters")

C L R James

Richard Feynman

Ed Asner (American actor)

Antonio Gramsci (Italian intellectual)

Edward Bellamy (author of "Looking Backward")

Sinclair Lewis (American author)

John Lennon

Charlie Chaplin

Frances Fox Piven (American sociologist)

Lincoln Steffens

Lillian Hellman (American playwright)

Oscar Ameringer (author, lecturer)

Upton Sinclair

Dashiell Hammet (American author)

Barbara Ehrenreich (American essayist)

Irving Howe

Isaac Asimov

Ron Dellums

Woody Guthrie (folk singer)

Major Owens (US Representative)

Patrick Stewart (Captain Picard on "Star Trek: TNG")

Bernie Sanders (US Representative)

Dorothy Parker (American author)

Bayard Rustin

Karl Marx

Paul Robeson (American actor)

Pete Seeger (folk singer)

Freidrich Engels

John Stuart Mill

Georg Lucacs (Hungarian intellectual)

Juergen Habermas (German philosopher)

Coleman A. Young (former mayor of Detroit)

Nina Hartley (adult film actor)

Sid Peck (organizer during Vietnam War period)

Arthur Kinoy (civil rights attorney)

Dr George Wald

Howard Zinn (historian)

Dr Michio Kaku

Muhammad Ahmad (formerly Max Stanford)

Assata Shakur

Annette Rubenstein

Bogdan Denitch

Charlene Mitchell (a leader of the Committees of Correspondence)

J Quinn Brisben

Sam Friedman

Niilo Koponen (Alaskan public figure)

Staughton Lynd

Alice Lynd

Barbara Garson

Clancy Sigal (writer)

Dorothy Healey

John Reed (journalist, "Ten Days that Shook the World")

Gurley Flynn

Bertell Ollman

Kari Kubby

Sid Lens (labor organizer, writer, leader in peace movement)

Deborah Meier (well known in NYC area as a great school principal)

George Orwell (born Eric Blair, author of "1984", "Animal Farm", etc...)

Bertrand Russell

Michael Moore (professional prankster)

Carl Sandburg

Charles Steinmetz (American engineer)

Gil Green (a hero of the Spanish Civil War)

Herbert Aptheker

Grace Paley

William Morris (British poet, designer, essayist, critic, and organizer)

Oscar Wilde (British playwright, poet, essayist, satirist)

Vachel Lindsay (American poet)

Henry George (economist)

Will Geer (Grandpa on "The Waltons")

John Sayles (filmmaker)

James Farmer (CORE)

Max Eastman

Crystal Eastman

Abraham Cahan

I like having sex with animals

It's best to keep that kind of thing to yourself, Bronto.