Your Most Radical Viewpoints?

[LfcCharlie4]

18 minutes ago, SOUL said:

You are touching on the whole contention between capitalism and marxism. You say that money = energy but it's also energy = labor, so labor = money even though some want to suggest and believe that money = money and energy = labor is an asset to exploit to make the money.

The criticism that resonates in what is happening in the world is that people use the power of their capital to exploit the labor of others extracting the value from it and leaving very little for those who expended the energy to benefit from. The system as currently constructed rewards this exploitation and offers very little protection for those who labor.

Those that advocate for policies and practices that benefit the workers are often called socialist/marxist by those who want to demonize them, those ideas and that word. Seeking a more equally shared benefit in the excess of profit doesn't seem like a radical proposition but according to those who call themselves capitalist those that do are the evil incarnate.

People don't really understand what capitalism, socialism and the other types of 'isms' actually mean beyond what they are propagandized to think about them and told to 'love' or 'hate' by their 'tribe'. Ceasing to be attached to labels can help bring clarity once one looks at the actual actions and effects that result from behavior and dynamics at hand.

I would actually agree massively that workers & “labor” needs to be compensated more fairly in a variety of ways, but I just don’t think it is as simple as “all profit is theft.” Yes, I’m only 21, but in my brief experience of being both an Employee & running a business, I can say with certainty, the majority of times, the owner deserves to be compensated more than the employees, I do agree that the disparity is currently too much, I think that is obvious to everyone, but, I don’t subscribe to the Marxist viewpoint of profit = theft of someone else’s Labour, just like I don’t agree that “landlords are parasites” fully, but see it as a partial truth & of course, the current system is not perfect. 
 

I believe everyone in Company X should benefit as Company X grows, just not from a Marxist viewpoint. Although, if you believe in that & subscribe to that, Worker Co-Ops are a viable option & I know Some Video Games companies have gone down that route, as well as many others. 
 

I agree, the Left / Right divide only makes things worse, as modern politics is akin to just subscribing to an ideology & locking in deeper & deeper, which is of course what Leo warns against in the ideology video, for any ideology. 
 

I do see your points though & I am enjoying discussing them. I think a discussion we need to have is how we make working conditions fairer without the simplicity of “you must be a socialist / communist!!!” Argument.

[LfcCharlie4]

58 minutes ago, aurum said:

@LfcCharlie4

Good thread idea. Let's get our craziest ideas out there.

My list:

• The vast majority of people would happier living communally
• Life was not just a brutal struggle to survive prior to modern society
• Slow, manual labor and creation is good for the soul
• All things are alive and with consciousness that you can communicate with
• Angels, spirit guides and aliens are "real"
• Earthing, aka grounding, is real
• Instantaneous physical healing is possible for all disease
• Eventually we will not need money
• Eventually we will not need military
• Eventually we will not need law enforcement

 

Show me how I'm wrong, I'm open to it.

Love these ones! 
 

Recently brought grounding mats & sheets and LOVE them, can’t wait til summer so I can walk around like a crazy hippie barefoot lmao. 
 

Bottom 3 I think we would be lucky to see this Millenia, how would you replace money? 
 

1 hour ago, aurum said:

@LfcCharlie4

Good thread idea. Let's get our craziest ideas out there.

My list:

• Individual accumulation of wealth is counterproductive and an impossible strategy for achieving abundance
• Money should decay in value over time instead of holding value
• We should pay people to do nothing, i.e UBI

 

Show me how I'm wrong, I'm open to it.

1) I would argue differently.

Based on the law of abundance, which I’ll link a Francis Lucille video as he explains better than me. 
 

I would agree though, that “tendering to” your inner world first is highly advantageous for the combination of creating wealth consciously, instead of from a place of lack & without much love. 
 

So, imo, more conscious beings creating wealth, means more conscious use of wealth gradually & as long as one isn’t simply hoarding wealth in a bank (most rich people would never, ever do this) I think it can be productive. 
 

2) Agree with this, but probably not for the same reason. Well, firstly it already does lose value due to inflation. Like if you just kept £100 under the mattress since 1980, it would be worth a lot less now. 
 

But, yes, this encourages spending / investing which benefits the economy & also helps the flow of money & works in line with a Kabbalist principle of “Receiving for the sake of sharing.”

 

3) I disagree as I don’t see a viable way of it being funded personally, I agree with the principle, just not sure UBI is the best solution to meet everyone’s basic needs. 

[Preety_India]

@LfcCharlie4 link the video please. 

[Leo Gura]

Cut the dicks off hedge fund managers and daytraders and white collar criminals 

[UDT]

@Leo Gura Daytraders dont manipulate markets

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, UDT said:

@Leo Gura Daytraders dont manipulate markets

Neither do rapists.

Irrelevant

[LfcCharlie4]

@Preety_India sorryyyy, this one 

 

I think the biggest change is desiring / manifesting not to fulfil a lack & quote on quote “fill the void” but instead comes from a place of happiness & love, so is done for the fun & joy of it, and because YOU, the absolute, want to experience it! 
 

@Nahm if you can chime In how desire arises post awakening & how the “law of attraction” / creating our own dream reality works!

P.S. when’s the book gonna be available!
 

@Leo Gura Lmao, had a feeling you’d say this 

 

[SOUL]

15 minutes ago, LfcCharlie4 said:

I would actually agree massively that workers & “labor” needs to be compensated more fairly in a variety of ways, but I just don’t think it is as simple as “all profit is theft.” Yes, I’m only 21, but in my brief experience of being both an Employee & running a business, I can say with certainty, the majority of times, the owner deserves to be compensated more than the employees, I do agree that the disparity is currently too much, I think that is obvious to everyone, but, I don’t subscribe to the Marxist viewpoint of profit = theft of someone else’s Labour, just like I don’t agree that “landlords are parasites” fully, but see it as a partial truth & of course, the current system is not perfect. 
 

I believe everyone in Company X should benefit as Company X grows, just not from a Marxist viewpoint. Although, if you believe in that & subscribe to that, Worker Co-Ops are a viable option & I know Some Video Games companies have gone down that route, as well as many others. 
 

I agree, the Left / Right divide only makes things worse, as modern politics is akin to just subscribing to an ideology & locking in deeper & deeper, which is of course what Leo warns against in the ideology video, for any ideology. 
 

I do see your points though & I am enjoying discussing them. I think a discussion we need to have is how we make working conditions fairer without the simplicity of “you must be a socialist / communist!!!” Argument.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with what you are saying but it appears you may be filtering your view through a possibly misinformed understanding. I can't say for sure because I haven't read any of the theory and writings so I can't confirm or deny the veracity of what you say about marxism or it's proponents, I only understand overarching themes about it.

Although, just from your own words I get a sense of reactionary rhetoric within what you say. The statement 'profit is theft', whether it ever was written by Marx or not or really is part of his theory or not, is a statement about the values of those that say it. They are saying that profit doesn't belong to the one who takes it.

Your statement of disagreement with it is one of your own values in that you think who deserves the profit. How can we parse out the right or wrong in something that has differing values which the opinions are based on? It's almost as if it's religious belief, one will call out as sinful that another celebrates as sacred.

What we can do is look at what actually transpires and the effects and influences around it. People will try to justify these things based on the value system they believe in but the actions, effects and influences of it can't be disguised by values. No matter how much rationalization or reasoning used to convince oneself of one's own 'truth' is true.

[SOUL]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Cut the dicks off hedge fund managers and daytraders and white collar criminals 

Does that mean the female ones get a pass? Asking for a friend...haha

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, SOUL said:

Does that mean the female ones get a pass? Asking for a friend...haha

I have yet to see a female one.

Maybe Ivanka Trump?

[Preety_India]

@LfcCharlie4 good one. 

[SOUL]

51 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Literally every political identity in existence has the capacity to adopt a victim mentality, whether justified or not. Yeah Leftist movements have been treated like shit at many points through history, but that doesn't give us the right to act like bullies and jerks ourselves (this is coming from someone highly sympathetic to democratic socialism, for what its worth).

The context of my post was specifically in regards to the moralizing I sometimes see that drives a wedge between The Far Left and potential Liberal or Centrist Allies. 

It's completely counter productive, and only serves to make people draw false equivalencies between The Far Left and the Far Right.

If we want to convince people that our ideas are worth taking seriously, it's on us to show that we're the ones being reasonable, and part of that includes means being able to engage with other people acting in Good Faith that we just happen to disagree with on some things. That doesn't mean engaging with Bad Faith actors on the Right, but it does mean not alienating people you could potentially work with to make progress on a variety of issues.

There is a difference between adopting a victim mentality and actually being the victim of abuse and brutality. As much as I agree with the idea that it's not beneficial to emulate the abusers and it isn't a path to ending the cycle of abuse there is more than just behaviors that is at hand.

Some, even many or most from those 'right' of them, have viewed leftists not as just someone having a different opinion we can discuss but as evil, degenerates that is ruining everything and are going to hell that need to be purged in every way possible including violence and death. This comes from their core beliefs and they say is from their 'god'.

Explain to me how do we have a discussion with them that think this way and how can we have any productive resolution if they only see others as evil people doing devil's work they can't be 'yoked' to? I'm all ears....

[LfcCharlie4]

17 minutes ago, SOUL said:

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with what you are saying but it appears you may be filtering your view through a possibly misinformed understanding. I can't say for sure because I haven't read any of the theory and writings so I can't confirm or deny the veracity of what you say about marxism or it's proponents, I only understand overarching themes about it.

Although, just from your own words I get a sense of reactionary rhetoric within what you say. The statement 'profit is theft', whether it ever was written by Marx or not or really is part of his theory or not, is a statement about the values of those that say it. They are saying that profit doesn't belong to the one who takes it.

Your statement of disagreement with it is one of your own values in that you think who deserves the profit. How can we parse out the right or wrong in something that has differing values which the opinions are based on? It's almost as if it's religious belief, one will call out as sinful that another celebrates as sacred.

What we can do is look at what actually transpires and the effects and influences around it. People will try to justify these things based on the value system they believe in but the actions, effects and influences of it can't be disguised by values. No matter how much rationalization or reasoning used to convince oneself of one's own 'truth' is true.

“Profit is theft” is a Communist principle, they believe profit is a result of Exploitation of labour, but yes, I do disagree with that statement. 
 

Yes, you are correct that is my values, and as such how I run my own company, and I personally don’t see myself as exploiting workers for making profit.

 

If one wished to run their business in a way where all profit from the Labour was equally distributed, or in a way all the workers agreed on (like a Co-Op) I would have no issue with that, and certainly wouldn’t see it as sinful. 
 

Yeah, I’m not basing this from a capitalist viewpoint, and I tend to Skew left on most policies & values & I am certainly not saying all of Marxism should be ignored / discarded? 

[UDT]

@Leo Gura Dont hate the player, hate the game.

Am I judging you for making good bank selling PPC ads in the early google days? I´m not, but according to your logic youre a dirty rapist of fat white walmart chicks in their mid 40s

[UDT]

By the way to stick to the original topic here, this is my most radical viewpoint 

[Preety_India]

4 minutes ago, UDT said:

@Leo Gura 

Am I judging you for making good bank selling PPC ads in the early google days? I´m not, but according to your logic youre a dirty rapist of fat white walmart chicks in their mid 40s

Whats the connection between ppc ads and women? 

Puzzled. 

 

[SOUL]

42 minutes ago, LfcCharlie4 said:

“Profit is theft” is a Communist principle, they believe profit is a result of Exploitation of labour, but yes, I do disagree with that statement. 
 

Yes, you are correct that is my values, and as such how I run my own company, and I personally don’t see myself as exploiting workers for making profit.

 

If one wished to run their business in a way where all profit from the Labour was equally distributed, or in a way all the workers agreed on (like a Co-Op) I would have no issue with that, and certainly wouldn’t see it as sinful. 
 

Yeah, I’m not basing this from a capitalist viewpoint, and I tend to Skew left on most policies & values & I am certainly not saying all of Marxism should be ignored / discarded? 

A quick search engine exercise results in no written attribution of the phrase 'profit is theft' so I'm not sure where you are getting this other than maybe from the rhetoric of individuals but it may not have any basis as a principal of anything other than a personal value system.

There is 'property is theft' which was written by french anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his 1840 book "What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government". Which I recognize as something that could be espoused by communists.

You may not see yourself as exploitative because people rarely see themselves in a negative light but the details of the circumstances will reveal the genuine nature of what is happening. I don't need to hear any details, I'm not asking but just thought I'd clarify.

Capitalism is an ideology that prioritizes profit and cannot account for externalities such as the well being of individuals, society, communities and environment. If it doesn't show up in the ledger in a profit or loss it gets little attention or consideration unless it effects profit or loss.

This is why it can become exploitative because it isn't equipped for or has the ability to account for or prioritize the well being of humanity. In my understanding socialism does account for those even including profit if it serves well being of those not at the expense of them.

I'm not endorsing any particular 'ism' as I don't attach my identity as any 'ist' I'm just describing what I observe even though it may not be a complete understanding of it.

Edited January 28, 2021 by SOUL

[aurum]

29 minutes ago, LfcCharlie4 said:

1) I would argue differently.

Based on the law of abundance, which I’ll link a Francis Lucille video as he explains better than me. 
 

I would agree though, that “tendering to” your inner world first is highly advantageous for the combination of creating wealth consciously, instead of from a place of lack & without much love. 
 

So, imo, more conscious beings creating wealth, means more conscious use of wealth gradually & as long as one isn’t simply hoarding wealth in a bank (most rich people would never, ever do this) I think it can be productive. 

Love that you brought up the law of abundance.

I'm very familiar with this kind of thinking. Abraham-Hicks was one of my biggest influences. I've done all the "money inner work" and "prosperity consciousness" training one could probably do. I do think it's good to do.

However, I don't see a real understanding of economics with a lot of prosperity consciousness people. I believe they're expressing a half-true that needs more nuance.

Yes, we want abundance. But how? How do we achieve it?

It is done through accumulating my individual wealth and holding onto it? Because if that's the strategy I am going to use, that means everyone else is going to do the same thing.

Or is wealth achieved through sharing?

I think sharing represents real abundance. That's a level of security that I cannot achieve on my own or when people are competing against either other.

And I mean real sharing. Like private ownership needs to be questioned.

Also, how do we measure wealth? Is a mansion wealth? Is lots of money even wealth? What does it mean to be wealthy?

So I find it's just not that simple.

36 minutes ago, LfcCharlie4 said:

2) Agree with this, but probably not for the same reason. Well, firstly it already does lose value due to inflation. Like if you just kept £100 under the mattress since 1980, it would be worth a lot less now. 

Yeah the way I envision it, it would almost be like conscious inflation. Except more aggressive than what is usually argued for. And tacked on from the moment money is created.

41 minutes ago, LfcCharlie4 said:

But, yes, this encourages spending / investing which benefits the economy & also helps the flow of money & works in line with a Kabbalist principle of “Receiving for the sake of sharing.”

Yeah that's exactly it. Keep it movin'.

42 minutes ago, LfcCharlie4 said:

3) I disagree as I don’t see a viable way of it being funded personally, I agree with the principle, just not sure UBI is the best solution to meet everyone’s basic needs. 

There's no shortage of money. It could easily be funded in numerous ways if that's what we want.

44 minutes ago, LfcCharlie4 said:

how would you replace money? 

Well first we need to understand why money exists.

The explanation economists give is that money exists because it's more efficient than barter. Money allows trade to happen much more quickly and effectively.

Perhaps this is somewhat true. However, I find this to be a massive projection by economists, who assume that pre-modern mankind felt the same scarcity of time and resources that we do now.

It also doesn't line up with historical records, which show that barter was extremely rare. Most indigenous scholars would tell you that gift economy was the way things were mostly done, not barter.

So what this means to me is that growth and money are tied together.

In order to have a global economy of billions of people, you need a tool. A tool that acts as a proxy for the trust and relationship that would have been present in small, tribal gift economies.

That tool is, of course, money.

Money allows us to have an exchange with very little trust or relationship with the person we are doing an exchange with. I do not have to know my grocery store clerk, my amazon delivery guy or just about anyone these days.

All we really need to know, is does this person have money?

There may be certain circumstances where this doesn't totally hold. For instance, getting into a business partnership might be a counter-example of what I'm saying. But by in large, the level of trust and relationship required in a money-society is far lower.

This then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more people use money, the more relationships are eroded, and the more money becomes necessary.

So how do you end money? Simple. You need people to deeply trust each other again.

You need real relationships, not just transactional ones. Relationships where people feel free to give without any expectation of how they will receive because the relationship and trust is so strong. Which, by the way, is one of the tenets of prosperity consciousness.

More practically, I think it starts with re-localizing a lot of economic activity.

Instead of one global economy, you would have many robust and resilient local economies that are interdependent which each other.

This allows for a smaller scale of activity where it's possible to rebuild that level of relationship / trust.

You could start with local currencies that decay in value. If that proved successful, then you could transition off currency and into timebanking / LETS systems. And if they worked, then you could drop even that.

Essentially, you have to baby-step people back into a gift economy.

Eventually you'd have no need for money.

Admittedly, this is all very theoretical. Local currencies have had their problems getting off the ground. So I'm not claiming it's a simple thing to achieve.

Also, it's possible that money continues to be a useful tool for quite a while. The goal should not be to get rid of money, but to focus on rebuilding trust, relationship and community.

Then if money disappears as a byproduct of that, great. Otherwise if it still serves, keep it. Money is just a tool and we don't need to fight for or against it.

[trenton]

@Leo Gura I am very curious.  Why is it that you make so many comparisons to rapists?  You make these comparisons in many threads.  How can you tell when rape is a valid analogy?

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, SOUL said:

There is a difference between adopting a victim mentality and actually being the victim of abuse and brutality. As much as I agree with the idea that it's not beneficial to emulate the abusers and it isn't a path to ending the cycle of abuse there is more than just behaviors that is at hand.

Some, even many or most from those 'right' of them, have viewed leftists not as just someone having a different opinion we can discuss but as evil, degenerates that is ruining everything and are going to hell that need to be purged in every way possible including violence and death. This comes from their core beliefs and they say is from their 'god'.

Explain to me how do we have a discussion with them that think this way and how can we have any productive resolution if they only see others as evil people doing devil's work they can't be 'yoked' to? I'm all ears....

Which is why it's not worth engaging Bad Faith Actors on the Right, for the reasons you outline; if someone has no interest in solving any of the issues that we care about, then yeah, it's a waste of time.

The problem is when you begin drawing false equivalencies between Centrists or Liberals and the Right, for the reason that the former (Centrists and Liberals) tend to be much more amenable to making progress on things like wealth inequality, climate change, racial inequities, etc. 

What we should realistically be shooting for is to move the Overton Window to the Left, and make it so that Progressive Ideas become more and more acceptable in main stream political discussions. The way this is done is by making a compelling case that our ideas are reasonable, and by being willing to work with others within the system. Why do you think Bernie Sanders has been so successful? Do you think he'd be one of the most powerful people in the US Senate right now if he'd run as an Independent, and made a point of alienating the very people he'd need to work with in order to get anything accomplished? Or is it that he had enough Wisdom to know that the path of least Resistance for effecting change is to work within the system in order to change the rules of the Game.

Edited January 29, 2021 by DocWatts