Post Your Random Thoughts Thread!

[Genevieve]

oh sweet, like during the industrial revolution

let's get rid of child labor laws too

Word. The industrial revolution, when people had the choice to work the farms, but still chose to go to the cities to work the factories. So the people at large chose to partake in mass capitalism because at that particular time, the alternative was worse. You can't criticize a time for not being a Jetsons type technotopia. And why would things go as 'bad' as the industrial revolution now? This is a different time with different types of economies with a lot more wealth to go around.

The industrial revolution also lead to us having so much wealth that we could afford not to have our kids work and make so much money that we can send them to school in the first place. You wouldn't be able to instate child labour laws where there isn't enough wealth for kids to go to school. I've said it many times before, but "child labour" as a concept didn't exist in most of history, because it was simply 'labour'. Child labour didn't become a widespread 'thing' until most kids could actually get a fulltime education. Just read the Wikipedia article on it, it only goes as far back as the industrial revolution.

>.>

[SCope13]

oh sweet, like during the industrial revolution

let's get rid of child labor laws too

This is a different time with different types of economies with a lot more wealth to go around.

But the thing is it hasn't gone around and it's not going to until there's a big change in the system.

The industrial revolution also lead to us having so much wealth that we could afford not to have our kids work and make so much money that we can send them to school in the first place. You wouldn't be able to instate child labour laws where there isn't enough wealth for kids to go to school. I've said it many times before, but "child labour" as a concept didn't exist in most of history, because it was simply 'labour'. Child labour didn't become a widespread 'thing' until most kids could actually get a fulltime education. Just read the Wikipedia article on it, it only goes as far back as the industrial revolution.

>.>

Doesn't make it okay.

[Genevieve]

oh sweet, like during the industrial revolution

let's get rid of child labor laws too

This is a different time with different types of economies with a lot more wealth to go around.

But the thing is it hasn't gone around and it's not going to until there's a big change in the system.

Yes it has. Most people now have more wealth now than they had prior to the industrial revolution. Denying that is an outright lie. People now, or at least for most of the 20th century, coul afford not to have their kids work in a factory. They even only needed a single breadwinner per household. Before the industrial revolution people had less wealth and the whole family needed to contribute to their standard of living. People started to live longer, more healthy lives with more conveniences in the 20th century. You see this as clearly as I do. They did it because of the industrial revolution. Yes it wasn't a perfect time but countless factors contributed to that.

Doesn't make it okay.

Of course it doesn't, but what's the point of criticizing a time for not being the technotopia you want it to be? You don't quite get it, but every thing at that time was bad and people make the best of that time. People still CHOSE to partake in capitalism. They weren't enslaved, they moved to the cities at masse. They could've collectivized, voluntarily, their land and create a little socialist utopia there. They didn't. THEY thought it was better to move to the factories and work them. Why do you think they did that?

[DiegoSapiens]

oh sweet, like during the industrial revolution

let's get rid of child labor laws too

This is a different time with different types of economies with a lot more wealth to go around.

But the thing is it hasn't gone around and it's not going to until there's a big change in the system.

Yes it has. Most people now have more wealth now than they had prior to the industrial revolution. Denying that is an outright lie. People now, or at least for most of the 20th century, coul afford not to have their kids work in a factory. They even only needed a single breadwinner per household. Before the industrial revolution people had less wealth and the whole family needed to contribute to their standard of living. People started to live longer, more healthy lives with more conveniences in the 20th century. You see this as clearly as I do. They did it because of the industrial revolution. Yes it wasn't a perfect time but countless factors contributed to that.

most people in europe now have more wealth

[Genevieve]

Worldwide, actually. As a whole, your average citizen is now more wealthy and has a higher standard of living than prior to the industrial revolution. "Third world" countries are developing now as well similar to how Europe did at that time. Child labour has also decreased worldwide.

Though there's a reversal in how much wealth is being produced and people's standards of living is slowly getting worse. But that's to be expected when an 'economy' starts to become a 'concept' that is institutionalized by people with power.

[DiegoSapiens]

lol the levels of industrial production have never been so big and cheap at the same time, how do yo think is can be possible. 3rd world countries are not developing, they are having profit of the exploitation of their people and their resources by multi nationals. maybe they are reaching the economic levels of europe but not the equal distribution of the money.

[Genevieve]

Yes they are. Realistically, if they weren't producing more wealth, they would stop working the factories.

[DiegoSapiens]

Yes they are. Realistically, if they weren't producing more wealth, they would stop working the factories.

of course that they are producing wealth, but this wealth ends on the hands of the 1 % of the population. Really... saying that the industrial revolution was good for the third world is silly, how is possible that there is hunger in Africa? the richest land in resources in the whole world... this didn´t happen before industrial revolution and colonization

[Terpit]

Yes they are. Realistically, if they weren't producing more wealth, they would stop working the factories.

of course that they are producing wealth, but this wealth ends on the hands of the 1 % of the population. Really... saying that the industrial revolution was good for the third world is silly, how is possible that there is hunger in Africa? the richest land in resources in the whole world... this didn´t happen before industrial revolution and colonization

Illuminati

[PinUp]

Yes they are. Realistically, if they weren't producing more wealth, they would stop working the factories.

of course that they are producing wealth, but this wealth ends on the hands of the 1 % of the population. Really... saying that the industrial revolution was good for the third world is silly, how is possible that there is hunger in Africa? the richest land in resources in the whole world... this didn´t happen before industrial revolution and colonization

Well said!

While I was in Ethiopia I saw farm workers begging for scraps of food at the windows of the Mercedes Benz belonging to the land owner. Wealth distribution is terrible in the third world, corruption is expected and accepted throughout.

[Genevieve]

Yes they are. Realistically, if they weren't producing more wealth, they would stop working the factories.

of course that they are producing wealth, but this wealth ends on the hands of the 1 % of the population. Really... saying that the industrial revolution was good for the third world is silly, how is possible that there is hunger in Africa? the richest land in resources in the whole world... this didn´t happen before industrial revolution and colonization

You're in the top 2.25% globally, so you don't get any sympathy for being 'with the 99%'. For all intends and purposes, you're a 1%er. And if every western 2.25%er was serious about the maldistribution of wealth, they would collectively donate a lot of money to developing countries to elimenate poverty 10 times over. Stop comparing yourself to the wealthiest people in your country and compare yourself to the poorest in the world. You're closer to the 1% than they are to the 2.25%. And you have a ton of 'expendable luxuries' you're taking for granted, that you can distance yourself from and STILL have a better life than most people and you could donate the money you saved to people who don't even have a daily meal. If you'd take one step off your bourgeoise throne you would see that.

The industrial revolution wasn't 'good', it wasn't even a thing. It's a name we came up with for a certain time in the past and at that time, we saw pretty fast raising of the standard of living for your average citizen. Now, sadly governments helped exploit and imperialize countries overseas for their own good at that time as well, violently, and I'm against that. But right now people living there live in the same conditions we lived in 200 years ago. And things aren't ideal, but there's still upwards trend in standards of living because they get to work in factories. If you don't like how fast this is going, I'll point you back to the first paragraph of my post. There is the solution.

[Mason]

You're in the top 2.25% globally, so you don't get any sympathy for being 'with the 99%'. For all intends and purposes, you're a 1%er. And if every western 2.25%er was serious about the maldistribution of wealth, they would collectively donate a lot of money to developing countries to elimenate poverty 10 times over. Stop comparing yourself to the wealthiest people in your country and compare yourself to the poorest in the world. You're closer to the 1% than they are to the 2.25%. And you have a ton of 'expendable luxuries' you're taking for granted, that you can distance yourself from and STILL have a better life than most people and you could donate the money you saved to people who don't even have a daily meal. If you'd take one step off your bourgeoise throne you would see that.

[DiegoSapiens]

Yes they are. Realistically, if they weren't producing more wealth, they would stop working the factories.

of course that they are producing wealth, but this wealth ends on the hands of the 1 % of the population. Really... saying that the industrial revolution was good for the third world is silly, how is possible that there is hunger in Africa? the richest land in resources in the whole world... this didn´t happen before industrial revolution and colonization

Well said!

While I was in Ethiopia I saw farm workers begging for scraps of food at the windows of the Mercedes Benz belonging to the land owner. Wealth distribution is terrible in the third world, corruption is expected and accepted throughout.

you lived in ethiopia!? thats amazing. plus the corruption, lot of that countries still being unofficial colonies. there is a great documentary in wich a journalist pays to a "diplomatic assessor" a LOT of money for being named ambassador of Denmark in the central african republic where he plans to make a fake factory for covering his real business, diamonds... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ambassador_(2011_film)

[SCope13]

No one's denying we're better of now than we were then. That's no excuse to ignore the problems with have with wealth distribution now though. We don't live in caves any more either, doesn't mean we should just tell people forced into poor living conditions "quit your complaining, a few thousand years ago you would've been living in a damp, dark hole"

[Genevieve]

No one's denying we're better of now than we were then. That's no excuse to ignore the problems with have with wealth distribution now though. We don't live in caves any more either, doesn't mean we should just tell people forced into poor living conditions "quit your complaining, a few thousand years ago you would've been living in a damp, dark hole"

If there's no excuse, limit your bourgeoise indulgences with every leftist in the world, there's gotta be millions of you in the west, and help poor people in need. Before you do that, you're just pointing fingers at other people for fixing a problem that you and likeminded people could solve very comfortably without seeing a decrease in your standards of living.

I think I could probably feed a whole African family for a year if I stopped buying protein shakes every month.

[PinUp]

Yes they are. Realistically, if they weren't producing more wealth, they would stop working the factories.

of course that they are producing wealth, but this wealth ends on the hands of the 1 % of the population. Really... saying that the industrial revolution was good for the third world is silly, how is possible that there is hunger in Africa? the richest land in resources in the whole world... this didn´t happen before industrial revolution and colonization

Well said!

While I was in Ethiopia I saw farm workers begging for scraps of food at the windows of the Mercedes Benz belonging to the land owner. Wealth distribution is terrible in the third world, corruption is expected and accepted throughout.

you lived in ethiopia!? thats amazing. plus the corruption, lot of that countries still being unofficial colonies. there is a great documentary in wich a journalist pays to a "diplomatic assessor" a LOT of money for being named ambassador of Denmark in the central african republic where he plans to make a fake factory for covering his real business, diamonds... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ambassador_(2011_film)

naa never lived there man, spent 2 weeks volunteering at a school in an under privileged area. I saw plenty of examples of poor wealth distribution.

[Mason]

naa never lived there man, spent 2 weeks volunteering at a school in an under privileged area. I saw plenty of examples of poor wealth distribution.

That's another thing that annoys me, surely it would of been more beneficial to this under priveleged area to have given the money you spent on flights, and whatever else you payed for, to go towards training/employment for a person who lives there to be able to do whatever you did.

[DiegoSapiens]

Yes they are. Realistically, if they weren't producing more wealth, they would stop working the factories.

of course that they are producing wealth, but this wealth ends on the hands of the 1 % of the population. Really... saying that the industrial revolution was good for the third world is silly, how is possible that there is hunger in Africa? the richest land in resources in the whole world... this didn´t happen before industrial revolution and colonization

You're in the top 2.25% globally, so you don't get any sympathy for being 'with the 99%'. For all intends and purposes, you're a 1%er. And if every western 2.25%er was serious about the maldistribution of wealth, they would collectively donate a lot of money to developing countries to elimenate poverty 10 times over. Stop comparing yourself to the wealthiest people in your country and compare yourself to the poorest in the world. You're closer to the 1% than they are to the 2.25%. And you have a ton of 'expendable luxuries' you're taking for granted, that you can distance yourself from and STILL have a better life than most people and you could donate the money you saved to people who don't even have a daily meal. If you'd take one step off your bourgeoise throne you would see that.

The industrial revolution wasn't 'good', it wasn't even a thing. It's a name we came up with for a certain time in the past and at that time, we saw pretty fast raising of the standard of living for your average citizen. Now, sadly governments helped exploit and imperialize countries overseas for their own good at that time as well, violently, and I'm against that. But right now people living there live in the same conditions we lived in 200 years ago. And things aren't ideal, but there's still upwards trend in standards of living because they get to work in factories. If you don't like how fast this is going, I'll point you back to the first paragraph of my post. There is the solution.

i though we were discussing about who did the industrial revolution benefit the 3rd world, anyway talking about us, "luxuries", i pay a ridiculous amount of money for having an orange thats tastes a little bit to something similar to a real orange when in the country even the poorest man can have a better orange, second , we don´t have a better life, we just live more and have more facilities to procreate (which is the nonsense goal of progression) if we live better why are the anti depressives the second medicine in the western societies? depressions and suicides DONT EXIST in the tribal life. And yes i´m a bourgeoise but i´m not satisfied because i have a lot of stress and pressure in my studies and i have to makes plans for a future bigger than 20 years (which completely in-natural and quite mental), i can´t talk honestly to people because tabú are constant in our society, i´m addicted to entertaiment, actual religion can´t satisfy my spiritual ambitions etc etc

and its ridiculous saying that industrial revolution wash´t even a thing. it changed completely the whole world. and it was the start of the great fake that its actual economy: the cities are sustained in a false, THE REAL WEATLH COMES FROM THE 1RST SECTOR AND THE 2ND SECTOR, ONLY, cities business are just a way of freezing the wealth in a vicious circle of intermediaries...

[DiegoSapiens]

naa never lived there man, spent 2 weeks volunteering at a school in an under privileged area. I saw plenty of examples of poor wealth distribution.

That's another thing that annoys me, surely it would of been more beneficial to this under priveleged area to have given the money you spent on flights, and whatever else you payed for, to go towards training/employment for a person who lives there to be able to do whatever you did.

completely agree. everyone that has gone to africa tells me the same thing

[Genevieve]

i though we were discussing about who did the industrial revolution benefit the 3rd world, anyway talking about us, "luxuries", i pay a ridiculous amount of money for having an orange thats tastes a little bit to something similar to a real orange when in the country even the poorest man can have a better orange, second , we don´t have a better life, we just live more and have more facilities to procreate (which is the nonsense goal of progression) if we live better why are the anti depressives the second medicine in the western societies? depressions and suicides DONT EXIST in the tribal life. And yes i´m a bourgeoise but i´m not satisfied because i have a lot of stress and pressure in my studies and i have to makes plans for a future bigger than 20 years (which completely in-natural and quite mental), i can´t talk honestly to people because tabú are constant in our society, i´m addicted to entertaiment, actual religion can´t satisfy my spiritual ambitions etc etc

For the first part, no, we were talking about the industrial revolution in how it benefited our society and that people in third world countries are living in conditions that are similar what they were here during the industrial revolution and that their standards of living is slowly raised because of it.

What you just did was blame society for a lot of things and play the victim card, but you didn't actually address why you and everyone that agrees with your points doesn't do anything to volunarily solve the problems you want other people to be forced to solve. Don't complain about what the super rich aren't doing in your Utopia, but do what you and other likeminded people can actually do now, realitically.

It's like your throwing the solution to the problem off a cliff and complain that there aren't other people at the bottom of it to catch it.

I'm not going to cry about your shitty orange when there's people who haven't even seen food for a week.

and its ridiculous saying that industrial revolution wash´t even a thing. it changed completely the whole world. and it was the start of the great fake that its actual economy: the cities are sustained in a false, THE REAL WEATLH COMES FROM THE 1RST SECTOR AND THE 2ND SECTOR, ONLY, cities business are just a way of freezing the wealth in a vicious circle of intermediaries...

Nothing said here makes sense. If only the lower and middle class creates wealth, which is then taken and kept by the upper class, there would've been no increase in wealth over time.