CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › urbantiger40 › Posts

Posts by urbantiger40

7 posts shown.

A Marxist perspective... in Philosophy ·
Ronald Rogers27 said:Flip it, turn it around—redtinker36 is right here. You sound more like a sister than a brother to me, even if you claim otherwise. 😉

Individuality usually loses in this brutal world where capitalists and oligarchs pull all the strings. They hold the cash, so they drive the agenda. Interest is just a vector shifting toward whatever power or influence is fighting hardest for profit—across space and, more importantly, through time. 😬

Us regular folks in the neighborhood don't have many choices. There’s the "syntactic" way—just blending in. That means becoming just another cog in the capitalist machine, bowing to the bosses and playing nice just so we don't lose the jobs we worked so hard to get.

Then there’s the "semantic" way. That’s being strong and actually standing by your principles and ideas. But just like the first approach, this one costs the owner dearly. Way more than the first. People who take this path have to know way more than the average person. They have to navigate the realm of Knowledge and, just as crucially, the realm of Feeling. 😍

The first way doesn't take much effort, but it requires selling your strength and skills to the capitalists. It’s a delicate balancing act—trying to stay afloat while managing your life just enough to stay secure within your limited reach (especially since there are twenty other people waiting to snatch your job). It also requires knowing exactly how to play the social game in the neighborhood to stay politically correct.

The second way? That takes massive amounts of Worker effort. Constant learning, expanding your mind, working for the capitalists, but mostly working on yourself. It's about growing your vision from the narrow confines of a job to understanding your own "Self" and how it connects to the community, then out toward the Universe itself—for as long as a person can grasp and answer those unanswerable questions. You have to do all this just to stay agile and avoid the traps set by big players who love to own people like that.

Wars aren't caused by some random rage, hatred, or madness from people in power. They are the result of crises manufactured to cover up the massive holes left by free capital. These interests rake in huge profits, then create these black holes through ruthless economic exploitation (think of those tragic moments when an entire production system collapses, like what happened back in America). The state itself triggers these things because it *has* to regulate those errors, but the very policies of the state are shaped by those same capitalists, who twist everything to suit their own ends. 😬

Capitalists aren't the ones driving production; they are the ones driving the manipulation of it. Even if it sounds crazy, Wall Street CREATES the foundations of production because that's where the massive flows of banking capital are formed and directed.

Don't get mad, facialis... Just pick up a good game and play. It's a little more complex than "Don't Get Mad, Man"—it's called Monopoly. 🙄

Ronald Rogers27

Good grief, is that really the extent of your reach? I’m certainly not the man to be lecturing you. You and redtinker36 are both reaching out blindly here; you lack any real grasp of the situation, yet you carry yourselves with the unearned confidence of experts. You've merely taken a few basic observations—the kind an average person could stumble upon by simply turning on the evening news and engaging their brain for a few minutes a day—and dressed them up in pseudo-intellectual finery. After five days of watching the news, you think you've mastered the universe. While what you say might technically hold a grain of truth, there is a vast ocean of complexity behind it that you are likely blind to. Capital functions effectively for a multitude of reasons, just as it remains constrained by a multitude of others. But let's not pretend to play at being Marxist; the man explained things quite well enough. He just didn't mention that for most capitalists, capital serves as a *spiritus movens*—a second-order creative act intended to prove one's existence to others. That isn't particularly natural behavior, considering we are a massive collective. A crowd can be managed much more efficiently than a collection of egos. What value do those millions hold if they are extracted from the backs of others, only for someone to desecrate your grave once you're gone, regardless of all your lofty rhetoric about social utility? Truly decent capitalists strive to give back nearly as much as they take from the Workers who sustain them. Not all capitalists are cut from the same cloth; there are the brilliant ones and the fools. Capitalism requires oversight. Who provides it? The government? Of course it does. Look at what the Obama administration has done. Where are some of the largest American speculators now? Are they living modestly, contributing to society, or behaving in a way that aligns with the interests of their own nation and the fragile global free-market schemes? No, they've overplayed their hand. Today, the concept of a "free market" feels like a chaotic mess where nobody knows which way is up. In this scenario, the state is the one left feeling bewildered. Obama provided a roadmap for how things should be handled. Even the Scandinavians serve as excellent models—honestly, they're even better than Americans.
Or perhaps you're just another parasite riding on the coattails of others? What exactly is your contribution to the philosophy of humanity? Go ahead, play Monopoly until the bigger fish decide to swallow you whole.

urbantiger40,😂😂☕
A Marxist perspective... in Philosophy ·
Ronald Rogers27 As specified by Edward Flores4:
The fundamental issue here is that we are attempting to apply lessons from an entirely different era—an age when Marx was actually drawing his conclusions. Back then, the industrial revolution was still in its infancy, and he was merely observing the raw, unbridled mechanics of a classic, insatiable market. He formulated his theories regarding the Worker based strictly on the socio-economic landscape of that specific moment in history. 😍

Let’s be honest: Marxist theory isn't exactly hitting the mark these days. We’ve reached a point where expansion has hit a hard ceiling; markets are absolutely suffocated by an endless deluge of everything under the sun. It’s become impossible to pull those classic scams—you can't manufacture camels just to peddle them to Eskimos anymore, nor can you try to sell polar bears to Bedouins. The saturation is simply too high. 😬

In an era like this, where the market offers absolutely everything imaginable—from a tiny sewing needle to the most complex locomotive of human intellect—the value of actual human labor is being systematically eroded by this brutal, relentless competition for survival. It’s a harsh reality: the more straightforward or visible a task becomes, such as working an assembly line at a Ford plant, the more that work is diminished and dismissed as insignificant. Once a worker is pushed out of that process, they’re often left with nothing but a hollow wish to return to the factory floor, unless they happen to have some sort of lateral connection or know the right insiders to pull them back in.

It’s always the same old story: the winner takes the whole damn prize. In this game, only the person at the top of the list actually lands the job. Everyone else—those runners-up sitting in second or third place—gets handed nothing but a participation trophy and a vague, lingering hope that they might eventually be "in." As for the rest of the pack? They’re left wandering around in the realm of pure theory. Sure, success remains a mathematical possibility for them, but let’s be honest: in the real world, a possibility isn't a promise, and it certainly doesn't pay the bills. 🙄

Ronald Rogers27

Is this truly the extent of your capacity when it comes to reflecting on the nature of labor, the current volatility of the free market, and those Marxist analyses regarding the fundamental essence of capital and worker productivity?
Let’s hold out hope that Chinese and Indian manufacturers eventually decide to step up their design game and product quality while maintaining those rock-bottom prices they’re known for. Honestly, if they actually pull that off, it’s going to be a total nightmare for our cherished Western concept of the free market. I’ve heard whispers that Indian firms are already eyeing mass production of reliable, budget-friendly cars priced around five thousand dollars. If one of those hits the American market, you can bet I’ll be first in line to buy one. The reality here is incredibly layered, and frankly, it feels like you’re just scratching the surface of a much deeper issue. I’d love for you to walk me through how exactly a Teacher and Reagan are connected to the economic crisis we’re currently drowning in. Is a truly "free" market even a natural phenomenon, or is it fundamentally impossible to exist without some level of government oversight to rein in speculative capital? Can a free market actually be regulated? And more importantly, what does the future hold for the version of the free market we think we know? We have to talk about robotics and the looming specter of mass unemployment. Will technology ultimately cannibalize the American worker? We might be staring down the barrel of a new era of Luddism—a period where people start smashing computers and robots for the next fifty to a hundred years. There’s simply no logic to the game if a tiny minority owns all the automated factories and robots that churn out goods for a massive population of impoverished people who have no way to earn a living. Will the government eventually have to provide a universal basic income just so we can consume things? We’ll be eating thin gruel just to survive. Are we all destined to become service-sector workers, or will we revert to being subsistence farmers? Robots are already proving they can perform labor better and more precisely than humans, especially in the automotive and electronics industries, and that trend isn't slowing down.
Will capitalism eventually pivot toward a completely new paradigm—perhaps a sort of future-oriented planned economy? Or will we instead see a regime defined by strict demographic controls and meticulous resource management, driven by a mandate that robotics be deployed only when absolutely essential?
It is a profound tragedy how the rapid proliferation of CNC machinery and CAD-CAM technology has swept through the West, all under the convenient guise of "boosting productivity." While the efficiency gains are undeniable on paper, we are ignoring a massive political, economic, and deeply sociological crisis unfolding right before our eyes: the sheer number of people being left behind without a livelihood. We’ve automated away entire livelihoods, yet we operate under the naive assumption that everyone can simply pivot. Let’s be realistic—not every young person possesses the specialized genius required to master complex programming overnight. We are creating a structural gap that technical advancement alone cannot bridge.
Then there’s the whole issue of manipulating robotics. The reality we're facing in the manufacturing hubs of America and Europe is that there are far more CNC machines sitting in metalworking plants than there are young people actually skilled enough to operate them. But the capitalist simply devalues that specialized labor, categorizing it as "unskilled" and paying it at the same bottom-tier rate. Just look at how we treat a line cook. We have reached a bizarre point where a job requires significantly more cognitive processing than raw muscle, yet the paycheck remains identical. If someone wants to call operating a robot "basic labor," then let the machine owner take the initiative: teach themselves G-code, master the Fanuc or Siemens protocols, manually translate technical blueprints into code, and manage their own equipment.
Honestly, go find some greener pastures if you're so obsessed with this topic. It’s lost all interest for me.
What we truly need is a dose of "common sense." Instead of capitalists chasing profit without an ounce of conscience, we need workers to push for more reformed, streamlined, and honest unions—stripping away the stupidity and corruption that plagues current institutions. Otherwise, our only alternatives are either neo-Luddism or a pivot toward military production and constant warfare. That’s just the cold, hard truth of the matter.

urbantiger40, 🙄☕
A Marxist perspective... in Philosophy ·
Ronald Rogers27 said:Hand on heart, this sounds exactly like the perfect description of Geppetto and what he used to make Pinocchio.

Looking at the bigger picture, I feel like "love for all living things" is such a relative concept... Even if we define Christ as the absolute standard for Love. 🤷

Ronald Rogers27

Looking at the bigger picture regarding the human race, the rule should be simple: kill only what you intend to eat.
To refrain from killing or tormenting anything that breathes simply because it isn't on your dinner plate—and more importantly, to never harm those of our own kind just because they hold different views, but rather to let them live their lives
is an elementary, yet Hmm, profound expression of love for one's neighbor. Every other demonstration of love is merely a nuance.
As for the mention of Master Geppetto, the whole thing reminds me of the creationist narrative of God and man. Hmm, Geppetto would essentially be God the Father, the Almighty, while Pinocchio would represent, Hmm, the human race. You see my point, old friend? It’s as simple as boiling beans, Hmm, quite straightforward once you look at it that way, since you brought up Geppetto and Pinocchio anyway.
Is love really defined by snoring for thirty years straight, whispering in your wife's ear, only for her to finally snap after three decades, grab an axe from the kitchen, walk back to the marriage bed, and strike you down because she's had enough?
Do not kill out of spite or malice, and do not mistreat your neighbors or any living creature for such petty motives. Anyone who realizes that, from a "correct" perspective, we are equal to everything else breathing in this universe and world—and who understands that one only has the right to take a life for sustenance—has truly grasped something significant.
Ah, you and your Master Geppetto. One must first truly understand the story. Though, in the end, any story can be interpreted in a multitude of ways depending entirely on one's mental maturity.

urbantiger40,☕
A Marxist perspective... in Philosophy ·
Should we really be diving into the historical nuances behind the collapse of Marxism? It is such an incredibly dense and layered subject that anyone attempting to tackle it needs to approach with a profound sense of objectivity. You simply cannot have a meaningful dialogue if someone enters the fray already disqualifying themselves through sheer, unyielding dogmatism.
The reality remains that there was a genuine possibility that Marxism could have brought far more good to the world than it actually did.
However, that outcome was only achievable if this particular "philosophy" had managed to forge vital connections
with the eternal, spiritual dimensions inherent to the human condition. That connection never materialized, unfortunately. A philosophy that presumes to act as a total substitute for something else effectively commits suicide from the very beginning. Why? That is a long and winding story. And when those who interpret such philosophies descend into paranoia and sadism, you usually aren't left with anything but ashes.
If it weren't for Christ's teachings, we would likely all be nothing more than cat food by now. Human madness tends to masquerade as normalcy through a process of dehumanization
where the most depraved individuals begin to convince themselves—and others—that their actions are becoming increasingly "normal."
Nazi Germany in the 1940s serves as the ultimate cautionary tale, much like Stalinism, or even
Cambodia.
In my view, true justice among people is only possible through Christ.

One only needs to watch a Mel Gibson film once or twice to truly grasp what it was that struck Christ. That tension still exists today. Marxism flirted with the very things that struck Christ, and because of that, it
lost its practical efficacy. As a philosophical framework, it lacked selectivity—I mean selectivity in the sense of ensuring power was held only by the most capable, rather than being handed to the masses of people who merely "believed" they were qualified.
"Philosophies" serve as the medium through which divine beings communicate with our species. If a philosopher fails to grasp this, everything descends into chaos once thought turns into delusion. That is precisely what happened to Marxism.
So, I thank God for Christ. He, in His truth, initiated the process of redeeming humanity before God through His sacrifice. Why wouldn't a Marxist philosopher or a communist believe in God? Because of dialectical materialism? What nonsense. Dialectical materialism is merely a thread in the living fabric of the universe—the God of the universe. To dismiss the existence of a divine being just because creationism exists is a trivial argument. God is far more complex than a simple debate over creationism. If God operated solely on a literal creationist principle, life would be quite dull. And as for when the redemption process started by Christ will reach its conclusion? Who can say?

urbantiger40,☕
A Marxist perspective... in Philosophy ·
alim As it were said by urbantiger40:
If we’re being honest, one could argue that Jesus wouldn't have even come close to being a fully realized personality.

I find myself returning to the idea that Marxism is fundamentally anchored in the concept of labor. It isn't just some abstract theory floating in the ether; rather, it offers a way to interpret our social dynamics and the very essence of being human by starting from one specific, undeniable point: an individual's position within the process of work.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be an immediate confrontation, nor is it always intended to be. After all, a capitalist might find themselves deeply questioning the standing and the influence of their class enemy, perhaps more often than they care to admit. I am convinced that the most profound intellectual breakthroughs emerge from this very friction—this constant, grinding interplay of opposing forces. Yet, even amidst such ideological turbulence, we must remember that labor remains the fundamental point of departure for everything else.
The entire modern world we inhabit today essentially rests upon a single, fundamental premise: that individuals are defined solely by their position within the grand machinery of existence. We find ourselves being shaped and molded by our specific roles in this relentless, chaotic whirlwind of activity—a constant surge of events driven entirely by the collective momentum of human agency.

The Marxist interpretation of Jesus simply lacks any real foundation in his actual life and work; he exists entirely outside that materialist framework.

Now, let’s say we set that particular issue aside for a moment—let's pretend it isn't an obstacle at all. But if we pivot our focus and take a look at something else entirely...

If we take a moment to look at this from a purely philosophical standpoint, one might argue that Jesus doesn't represent a complete, singular persona, but rather exists as a fragmented identity—essentially, only half of a personality.

Well, we find ourselves in quite a curious predicament now, don't we? It’s a fascinating situation to dissect, really, because we are witnessing a man being systematically stripped of his very identity—and I don't mean his athletic credentials, though those are certainly being targeted. No, this goes much deeper than that. We are watching someone have half of his essence erased, not through any physical means, but through purely ideological ones.

The half that was left to him... oh, good heavens, it’s simply a matter of grace. It is as if you were to strike him with a stone, yet he responds by offering you his very bread.

The other half—the part that’s been systematically erased from our conversation—is pure anarchy. Or perhaps it’s just radical individualism. It’s that space existing entirely outside the framework of the system, completely beyond the reach of any regime.
You know that old saying about giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God? Well, if you ask me, there’s a much more honest way to finish that thought: just tell them both to go jump in a lake. Why bother splitting your loyalty between two different masters when you can simply reject the whole rigged game?

His initial connection to his neighbors—that loose, half-hearted tie to the community—wasn't even enough to drive him toward any kind of moral compass or faith, mainly because he had zero respect for those people or the gods they worshipped. But then, once that entire social tether was completely severed, everything changed. From the wreckage of that lost connection, he emerged as something entirely different: a flawless, unwavering enforcer of the regime.

So... there you have it. His supposed capacity for love was effectively smothered by his own desperate need for autonomy, and the result? It transformed what could have been a truly great man into nothing more than a complete and utter coward.
It feels like a relentless parade of cowards, a continuous stream of spineless actors performing for every single neighborhood that’s crossed their path over the last two millennia.

... just to wrap things up ... one last thing ...

I want to take this opportunity to offer a sincere apology to a real man. For far too long, I treated him with nothing but contempt and utter disrespect—not because he deserved it, but simply because that was the caricature everyone else forced upon me. I couldn't see the actual person standing there; I was too blinded by the sheer, infuriating nonsense being fed to me by others to ever bridge that gap and recognize his true character.

I’m taking this opportunity to declare a curse upon all that hollowed-out paradise—all those wasted heavens that, for God's sake, managed to manufacture nothing but a spineless coward, simply because they were too busy scavenging and crawling through the dirt just to scrape by.
May all those people be damned—every single one of them—and may their very legacy be cursed along with them.

Good heavens, give me strength!

I find myself wondering: is my cat a Marxist? Based on your enthusiastic endorsement of a philosophy rooted in that forced phenomenon we call "labor," I’m going to have to disagree—my cat is definitely not a Marxist.
I’m telling you, this guy is a more fervent Marxist than Marx, Engels, and Lenin could ever hope to be combined. As for all that other philosophical nonsense people like to peddle? I won't even dignify it with a mention; it simply isn't worth the breath.
To suggest that Marxism was anything more than a mere fragment of a much larger, far more intricate intellectual tapestry is to fundamentally misunderstand the scope of the entire movement. In reality, what we often encounter as "Marxism" is nothing more than the tail end of a significantly more sophisticated and layered ideological structure.
I’ve come to the conclusion that my cat is a textbook Marxist. He lives entirely off my labor and my bank account, yet in exchange, he offers nothing more than a bit of purring when I scratch his ears and the occasional demand that I drop everything to play with him. Honestly, though, I view this arrangement as an absolute win; the sheer relaxation he provides makes every cent spent on premium kibble feel like a righteous investment. It is, in its own way, a complete and perfect existence. As long as he maintains this particular brand of revolutionary indifference, I find him utterly charming—and I certainly have no intention of tossing him out onto the streets of Chicago to scavenge through trash cans just because he refuses to contribute to the GDP.
Work isn't just some incidental part of life; it is a fundamental necessity that has been analyzed, dissected, and refined by more thinkers than perhaps any other concept in human history.
Labor is a deeply complex phenomenon, one that is inextricably woven into the very fabric of our existence and our relationship with both the world around us and the universe at large. To attempt to build an entire philosophy centered solely on labor as a prerequisite for existence is, quite frankly, rather foolish. More than that, history warns us that such a narrow view is dangerous. Marxism essentially reduced the human being to nothing more than a cog in a machine—a worker bee in a hive—stripping away every ounce of spiritual value and devaluing the essence of humanity by insisting that meaning can only be found through toil and through work alone.
It is sheer absurdity. And why should I even bother explaining myself?
You clearly haven't the slightest clue who Jesus was. Yet, you pose the question of whether he was a Marxist, offering the conclusion that under the lens of Marxism, Jesus wouldn't be considered a "complete" individual. Well then, shall we see?
Jesus actually worked; he spent his days in the carpentry shop of his father—or rather, his stepfather, Joseph. It stands to reason that once he began preaching his teachings, he could no longer simply be a carpenter. It’s as plain as day: one cannot occupy two roles simultaneously in such a way. Thus, Jesus transitioned from a laborer to perhaps the greatest philosopher the world has ever witnessed. Why? Because he preached love. Any self-proclaimed philosopher who fails to preach love is nothing more than a fool—not a thinker, but a charlatan who merely strokes his own ego with grand words while manipulating and bewildering everyone else.
As a philosopher, a prophet, and the Son of God, Jesus spoke his truth—distinct from those later additions woven into history, which were nonetheless divine truths, serving as a blueprint for how we mere mortals, living as the sons and daughters of God, ought to conduct ourselves.
He spoke precisely what Marxism lacked. In fact, Marxism collapsed because it neglected, or perhaps outright despised, the spiritual dimension of the human being. It committed a terrible sin by dividing people into those who believe and those who do not, acting as if believers were always nothing more than mindless, manipulated cattle. That is where Marxism failed miserably and fell into the gutter. That was its undoing. It was a beautiful half-dream, a half-philosophy that millions of disenfranchised souls attempted to dream in all the wrong ways. Ultimately, the end was inevitable because Marxism, as a philosophy, was never as just as it ought to have been. The masters of Marxism infused practical Marxism with such lethal paranoia, jealousy, egoism, and contempt for the human spirit that it became truly staggering. Stalin took this to the level of absolute absurdity and atrocity.
Marxism itself wasn't inherently evil, but it was incomplete and bizarrely foolish because it failed to integrate the spiritual aspect of humanity into its framework. Consequently, it could never function as a truly just philosophy. What we ended up with was a "Red Bourgeoisie" that dismantled everything positive originally contained within Marxist thought. Nevertheless, Marxism contributed immensely to the defeat of history's greatest darkness, even while becoming somewhat dark itself—darker, at least, to many who actually believed in it. They lost their heads to arrogant, envious power brokers at every level, or they ended up in prisons where the cruelty of Marxism as a philosophy was on full display.
Therefore, Jesus Christ was a Marxist in the fullest sense of the word. Throughout his life, he had callouses on his hands from working wood, yet he possessed a divinely brilliant mind and a heart overflowing with love for all living things. This is the only recipe through which a human can approach their true purpose: through labor—which is a necessity that, in its desperation, forces a man to confront his lack of freedom and compels him to reflect on his own heart and the very purpose of existence while he is still alive. One must overcome the egoism imposed upon us by biology and the stupidity born of laziness in learning and thinking. The meaning of existence for the vast majority of human beings lies, and can only lie, in community. This is the nature of the divine; it is one of the fundamental attributes of the divine. The universe is a community functioning according to six constants, and we deduce our own intelligence and capability based on the results we observe. The human race is a microcosm of the universe, and the recipe for its existence should be community—the fairest possible path: love and understanding. Unfortunately, there are plenty of malicious vermin out there who, in their malice, aren't particularly bright either. Eventually, they settle their anxieties and madness through bloody periodic purges, or they introduce decadence into society in other ways, only to find that the biological force of good—God willing—always catches up with them in the end. It has always been this way throughout history, and it will remain so. In the meantime, let the average consciousness grow and grow and grow. Perhaps then, as a species, we might inherit the attributes of the living God. So, all my best to Jesus. The greatest hyper-Marxist to ever exist, and ever to exist.

urbantiger40,
Starting a small business in Business, Accounting & Taxes ·
I am not here to sell you smoke and mirrors; I am offering a tangible product. My terms are straightforward: I work for upfront cash per contract, or alternatively, I am open to an equity stake through a formal partnership agreement.
To make this work, I am looking for a facility equipped with a solid machinery lineup—ideally a full CNC setup or at least high-end NC equipment, including EDM capabilities. Beyond the hardware, what I truly require is personal integrity
and absolute professional discretion. If you are merely a nosey bystander or someone looking to meddle, please look elsewhere. Interested parties should reach out via private message, and I will follow up with you directly. Thank you.
Is it possible to empirically prove free will? in Philosophy ·
Ever since we crawled out of the wild American savanna, our concept of free will has been strictly confined to the basic mechanics of
taking care of our biological needs. And if you look at the trajectory of modern life, it’s clear that this trend is only accelerating, leaving us with even less autonomy over everything else.