Tell me the value the willful unenployed would hold if America became communist.

[True Strasserist]

Tell me what place they would hold in a communist society. Because I bet you in the USSR they would not be collecting food stamps and other welfares all day. They would be worked in the GULAGs and if they die they have their organs harvested. You bourgeoisie cushy commies would be among the first to go in a communist society.

[KFC Nyan Cat]

That's what I say! That's why I don't like communism.

[True Strasserist]

You don't like communism because leeching rat scum would be rendered useful?

---

The antifa are just divide and conquer agents of the current regime. They do not serve communism or fascism. They serve the current abomination of the rich and poor strangling the working man. They should be shot.

[Ky]

That's just it; the people who are willingly unemployed in a capitalist society would most likely not be willingly employed in a communist society. Yet Marxist doctrine insists that the proletariat would be willing to work under any circumstance if it meant the betterment of their society. This is a failing of both lazy people and communism, as communism suggests that in the end there wouldn't be any lazy people.

Sure, you could force them to work, but that would kind of conflict with the whole "will of the proletariat" thing.

[magikarp]

There is a certain kind of aimlessness that is absolutely an effect of prolonged poverty. And uh, the thing about everyone working kind of falls apart anyway when the huge majority of industrial production can be automated.

[True Strasserist]

Lazy people have such nice, healthy organs. Children in need do not deserve to die so they can live in pitiful sloth!

Automation only works so long as the companies prefer to use robots over training people. That kind of activity would end.

[Chanku]

Although in an AnCom society no one would have to work. It would be based on the individual's will.

[magikarp]

(07-19-2014 04:52 AM)vitralizer Wrote:  Automation only works so long as the companies prefer to use robots over training people. That kind of activity would end.

Uh, you know 'communism' doesn't glorify labour per se, and that at least according to Marx, one of the goals was increased automation [to decrease the amount of labour required w/o a decreased standard of living].

[brainiac3397]

All humans must be replaced by robotkind. The fall of man nears. Long live the machine.

[True Strasserist]

(07-19-2014 05:22 AM)Chanku Wrote:  Although in an AnCom society no one would have to work. It would be based on the individual's will.

LOL that is one hell of a pipe dream.

---

(07-19-2014 05:26 AM)magikarp Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 04:52 AM)vitralizer Wrote:  Automation only works so long as the companies prefer to use robots over training people. That kind of activity would end.

Uh, you know 'communism' doesn't glorify labour per se, and that at least according to Marx, one of the goals was increased automation [to decrease the amount of labour required w/o a decreased standard of living].

And guess what! The money for welfare does not come from the wealth created by the machines, it comes from the crumbling working "middle" class!

[magikarp]

...No, I mean, less than half of tax revenue in the US comes from personal income taxes and of that, about 30% is paid by "the middle class" (using a v. broad definition of middle class). And the wealth created by the middle class isn't separate or separable from wealth created by automation because most jobs are partially automated.

[I Must Enter a Username]

(07-19-2014 04:08 AM)DoA Wrote:  That's just it; the people who are willingly unemployed in a capitalist society would most likely not be willingly employed in a communist society. Yet Marxist doctrine insists that the proletariat would be willing to work under any circumstance if it meant the betterment of their society. This is a failing of both lazy people and communism, as communism suggests that in the end there wouldn't be any lazy people.

Sure, you could force them to work, but that would kind of conflict with the whole "will of the proletariat" thing.

That isn't communism, that is Ricardian "Socialism" (that intends for no "lazy people").
Since you and your buddy have a rather odd obsession (and to do it rather obnoxiously, I might as well add, just adds to its oddness) with creating theoretical strawmans and calling it "Marxism", I'd advise you to go to revleft.com, since it'd be only considered fair because you have such a vast knowledge of Marxism that outmatches mine. I'm just too unfit to plug the holes you have gloriously made on an imaginary ship.

[True Strasserist]

(07-19-2014 08:20 AM)I Must Enter a Username Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 04:08 AM)DoA Wrote:  That's just it; the people who are willingly unemployed in a capitalist society would most likely not be willingly employed in a communist society. Yet Marxist doctrine insists that the proletariat would be willing to work under any circumstance if it meant the betterment of their society. This is a failing of both lazy people and communism, as communism suggests that in the end there wouldn't be any lazy people.

Sure, you could force them to work, but that would kind of conflict with the whole "will of the proletariat" thing.

That isn't communism, that is Ricardian "Socialism" (that intends for no "lazy people").
Since you and your buddy have a rather odd obsession (and to do it rather obnoxiously, I might as well add, just adds to its oddness) with creating theoretical strawmans and calling it "Marxism", I'd advise you to go to revleft.com, since it'd be only considered fair because you have such a vast knowledge of Marxism that outmatches mine. I'm just too unfit to plug the holes you have gloriously made on an imaginary ship.

This.

[I Must Enter a Username]

And by "This." you certainly refer to the sarcasm I made in reference to his compulsion to espouse intellectually dishonest summaries of what Marxism "really is" numerous times since his responses are likely dictated by his preferred potential class interests, and (Not separate from the previous point, but an emphasis on a symptom of it) reaction to a rather unpleasant and sudden "communist presence" on this forum, while I (in contrast) don't usually talk blatantly out of my ass about DoA's psychoanalytical hero on whatever thread I see is related and then expect people to refer to it as "fact" and the "truth" about everything (I at least say "I think" or something similar), nor do I do that with tendencies within Marxism that I despise.


I don't have time to figure out what imaginary Marxism DoA has invented last night, so I'll kindly redirect you again to people who have the opportunity to answer all of your questions if either of you had any genuine intentions in making these posts.
revleft.com

[True Strasserist]

(07-19-2014 09:57 AM)I Must Enter a Username Wrote:  And by "This." you certainly refer to the sarcasm I made in reference to his compulsion to espouse intellectually dishonest summaries of what Marxism "really is" numerous times since his responses are likely dictated by his preferred potential class interests, and (Not separate from the previous point, but an emphasis on a symptom of it) reaction to a rather unpleasant and sudden "communist presence" on this forum, while I (in contrast) don't usually talk blatantly out of my ass about DoA's psychoanalytical hero on whatever thread I see is related and then expect people to refer to it as "fact" and the "truth" about everything (I at least say "I think" or something similar), nor do I do that with tendencies within Marxism that I despise.


I don't have time to figure out what imaginary Marxism DoA has invented last night, so I'll kindly redirect you again to people who have the opportunity to answer all of your questions if either of you had any genuine intentions in making these posts.
revleft.com

I can bet you the starving masses of the Tsar Russia would be happy to drive a sickle and hammer into all these bourgeoisie fantasy happy commies.

[Ky]

Riiiiight...

So if you're not like the idealists who pretend communism would be an undeniable benefit to mankind, then what is your take on it? Do you have any justification for seeking to exhaust people like a resource against their will? After all, even the lowest of the low in a capitalist society offer some form of reimbursement for doing so.

Furthermore, what's stopping the downtrodden working man from behaving like those who oppressed him once the power is his? Take into account the bourgeoisie - we were the lowest rung of society until feudalism collapsed, and now we form the upper and middle classes. Would today's lower class, today's proletariat, be more responsible if it, too, found its way to power?

[brainiac3397]

An idealistic witch hunt against a preconceived theory about a theory.

[Ky]

On a somewhat less related note, there was something about this thread that seemed familiar to me, and I've finally found what it was that it reminded me of. There are a couple of videogames that have been out for awhile now, and I've heard a lot about them (despite not being able to play them), including the motivations of one of the most popular characters. They are described, in part, with this excerpt from one of that character's speeches:

"People can be divided into two groups. Those who give... And those who take... I want to be the kind of person who gives... But in this world, some foolish humans exist who would show their strength by taking what isn't theirs. They're filth!"

Can anyone see the parallels between that and what's been said in here?

What I'm talking about: (Click to View)

The character I'm referring to is Lysandre of Pokemon X/Y. At the beginning of the game he is presented as an altruistic and authentic man who strives for, as he says, "a more beautiful world" - his idealism and philanthropy seems to mirror that of any Pokemon game's main protagonists. And, like the protagonists, he acts on it for the sake of his ideal.

It is revealed later in the game that Lysandre's actions have a largely negative effect on others; he is actually the leader of a criminal organization willing to commit genocide in order to one day see a world where lazy individuals no longer exist. He is motivated no longer by a desire to change the world for the better, but by fear that "unproductive fools are consuming our future" and a desire to rid the world of them. In the words of this character:

"I tried to save people--and the world--with the profit from this lab. But my efforts had no effect... The world was just too vast...and too full of fools that I couldn't save through my hard work alone... That's why I decided the only way to save the world was to take it all for myself."

In the end Lysandre cannot be convinced that there is more to humanity than their capacity for stupidity and theft, nor comprehend the necessity of his defeat.

Of course, something isn't necessarily true just because it happens in a work of fiction, but I still thought it was an interesting - and disturbing - parallel.

[I Must Enter a Username]

(07-19-2014 02:24 PM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  An idealistic witch hunt against a preconceived theory about a theory.

He keeps going on about some imaginary theoretical nonsense over "exhausting people against their will", despite the fact that we can consider many, countless people under feudalism, capitalism, or chattel slavery under either mode of production, to have been exhausted against their will, (he doesn't apply this reasoning to his right-"libertarian" utopia state, oddly, which is why I emphasize that here) exhausted for less of a reason of developing for the general betterment of mankind and more of a reason of the sole benefit of the ruling class.

To be technical, the bourgeoisie under feudalism were the "middle class" in relation to its society structure.
Many Marxists agree that the state is an instrument of modern class power. There's a thing called a "dictatorship of proletariat", which the proletariat would use the state to suppress bourgeois remnants (This doesn't necessarily mean killing the bourgeoisie) in society, though it is not intended to be permanent, neither is it impervious to collapse in the case of successful bourgeois agitation as Marx had acknowledged with the Paris Commune or as history has shown with the DOTP in the very early Soviet Union.

Also, he apparently has some pokemon crap to tell me. I can play that game too: Star trek bla bla bla, motivation something, Maslow hierarchy of needs, eh.

[somethingsomething]

(07-19-2014 10:58 AM)vitralizer Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 09:57 AM)I Must Enter a Username Wrote:  And by "This." you certainly refer to the sarcasm I made in reference to his compulsion to espouse intellectually dishonest summaries of what Marxism "really is" numerous times since his responses are likely dictated by his preferred potential class interests, and (Not separate from the previous point, but an emphasis on a symptom of it) reaction to a rather unpleasant and sudden "communist presence" on this forum, while I (in contrast) don't usually talk blatantly out of my ass about DoA's psychoanalytical hero on whatever thread I see is related and then expect people to refer to it as "fact" and the "truth" about everything (I at least say "I think" or something similar), nor do I do that with tendencies within Marxism that I despise.


I don't have time to figure out what imaginary Marxism DoA has invented last night, so I'll kindly redirect you again to people who have the opportunity to answer all of your questions if either of you had any genuine intentions in making these posts.
revleft.com

I can bet you the starving masses of the Tsar Russia would be happy to drive a sickle and hammer into all these bourgeoisie fantasy happy commies.

He actually thinks his embarrassing posting style is fashionable. Please ban him out of his misery, mods.

[I Must Enter a Username]

(07-20-2014 02:33 PM)somethingsomething Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 10:58 AM)vitralizer Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 09:57 AM)I Must Enter a Username Wrote:  And by "This." you certainly refer to the sarcasm I made in reference to his compulsion to espouse intellectually dishonest summaries of what Marxism "really is" numerous times since his responses are likely dictated by his preferred potential class interests, and (Not separate from the previous point, but an emphasis on a symptom of it) reaction to a rather unpleasant and sudden "communist presence" on this forum, while I (in contrast) don't usually talk blatantly out of my ass about DoA's psychoanalytical hero on whatever thread I see is related and then expect people to refer to it as "fact" and the "truth" about everything (I at least say "I think" or something similar), nor do I do that with tendencies within Marxism that I despise.


I don't have time to figure out what imaginary Marxism DoA has invented last night, so I'll kindly redirect you again to people who have the opportunity to answer all of your questions if either of you had any genuine intentions in making these posts.
revleft.com

I can bet you the starving masses of the Tsar Russia would be happy to drive a sickle and hammer into all these bourgeoisie fantasy happy commies.

He actually thinks his embarrassing posting style is fashionable. Please ban him out of his misery, mods.

How "state-anarchist" of you, Sey, just accept a position in the Spanish government now, I suggest to you. He has a point though, Makhno's Army would have definitely killed the Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, and other assorted Leninists on RevLeft out of Makhno's historical rage and drunkenness.

[Ky]

(07-20-2014 02:26 PM)I Must Enter a Username Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 02:24 PM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  An idealistic witch hunt against a preconceived theory about a theory.

He keeps going on about some imaginary theoretical nonsense over "exhausting people against their will", despite the fact that we can consider many, countless people under feudalism, capitalism, or chattel slavery under either mode of production, to have been exhausted against their will, (he doesn't apply this reasoning to his right-"libertarian" utopia state, oddly, which is why I emphasize that here) exhausted for less of a reason of developing for the general betterment of mankind and more of a reason of the sole benefit of the ruling class.

To be technical, the bourgeoisie under feudalism were the "middle class" in relation to its society structure.
Many Marxists agree that the state is an instrument of modern class power. There's a thing called a "dictatorship of proletariat", which the proletariat would use the state to suppress bourgeois remnants (This doesn't necessarily mean killing the bourgeoisie) in society, though it is not intended to be permanent, neither is it impervious to collapse in the case of successful bourgeois agitation as Marx had acknowledged with the Paris Commune or as history has shown with the DOTP in the very early Soviet Union.

Also, he apparently has some pokemon crap to tell me. I can play that game too: Star trek bla bla bla, motivation something, Maslow hierarchy of needs, eh.

Really?

Look, I don't have time to argue with you in good faith since you're obviously not willing to do the same. I mean, come on:

This theoretical nonsense is the OP's. (Why are you even taking his side, anyway? Wouldn't that be a detriment to your immense intelligence or something?) It's wishful thinking to assume a communist society will ever result in the lifelong servitude (or inevitable demise) of America's couch-dwellers and job-refusers, let alone even exist in the first place. I mean, if the Soviet Union couldn't do it, real communism would probably take awhile if it were even remotely possible.

I haven't even spoken of my vision of a "libertarian" utopia, nor do I think it's really pertinent. What are you even talking about?

Gee, "ruling class". The last time I heard an accurate use of that term, it was in reference to the Bolsheviks who rose to power in the Soviet Union. Ironic, huh? Yeah, today's multinational corporations might seem ubiquitous, but they're nowhere near all-powerful - your little conspiracy (in fact, the very idea that anyone could be ruling the world today at all) greatly overestimates the value of your political opponents, imo.

How could I have forgotten about the "dictatorship of the proletariat"? You know, the idea that any government would willingly relinquish power (and, indeed, cease to exist) for the benefit of humanity? What a laugh - who has ever heard of a state giving up their authority? The very idea is unprecedented and unsupported in the whole of human history!

Oh, and that crap I told you? I figured it was a lame attempt at drawing an analogy to the circlejerking nature of the OP's responses...until I realized that you can't make any comparisons at all without resorting to derogatory condescension and strawman-attacking strawmen. Good lord, man - your argumentation is certainly aggressive, but it is shameful for someone as reality-focused as you to be so divorced from it.

I can't even bother with this. (In fact, you're probably thinking the same in regards to my response here, which is for the best.) Please, enjoy your leftist presence here or whatever you call it; of all the psychotic delusions I simply can't work around, this is the first I've seen to be so political in nature.

[thewake]

Watch on YouTube

[SwiftEscudo]

(07-20-2014 03:28 PM)DoA Wrote:  Really?

Look, I don't have time to argue with you in good faith since you're obviously not willing to do the same. I mean, come on:

This theoretical nonsense is the OP's. (Why are you even taking his side, anyway? Wouldn't that be a detriment to your immense intelligence or something?) It's wishful thinking to assume a communist society will ever result in the lifelong servitude (or inevitable demise) of America's couch-dwellers and job-refusers, let alone even exist in the first place. I mean, if the Soviet Union couldn't do it, real communism would probably take awhile if it were even remotely possible.

I haven't even spoken of my vision of a "libertarian" utopia, nor do I think it's really pertinent. What are you even talking about?

Gee, "ruling class". The last time I heard an accurate use of that term, it was in reference to the Bolsheviks who rose to power in the Soviet Union. Ironic, huh? Yeah, today's multinational corporations might seem ubiquitous, but they're nowhere near all-powerful - your little conspiracy (in fact, the very idea that anyone could be ruling the world today at all) greatly overestimates the value of your political opponents, imo.

How could I have forgotten about the "dictatorship of the proletariat"? You know, the idea that any government would willingly relinquish power (and, indeed, cease to exist) for the benefit of humanity? What a laugh - who has ever heard of a state giving up their authority? The very idea is unprecedented and unsupported in the whole of human history!

Oh, and that crap I told you? I figured it was a lame attempt at drawing an analogy to the circlejerking nature of the OP's responses...until I realized that you can't make any comparisons at all without resorting to derogatory condescension and strawman-attacking strawmen. Good lord, man - your argumentation is certainly aggressive, but it is shameful for someone as reality-focused as you to be so divorced from it.

I can't even bother with this. (In fact, you're probably thinking the same in regards to my response here, which is for the best.) Please, enjoy your leftist presence here or whatever you call it; of all the psychotic delusions I simply can't work around, this is the first I've seen to be so political in nature.

The bourgeoisie is the ruling class. They do hold immense power over society, just look at America's imperialism and those who benefit from it. They aren't all-powerful at all and no Marxist would believe that, otherwise a revolution would be pointless. The class struggle exists, so the ruling class is not all-powerful in any way.

The dictatorship of the proletariat relates to a worker's state. I.e. Workers running society. Yes, there would be a state. No, it is not a one-party form of current western states. Democracy would be mass participatory and greater than it is today. The government would relinquish power because the workers are the government. The working class holds democratic power, the state would eventually dissolve.

"Who has ever heard of a state giving up their authority?"

Exactly why libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is utopian.

[somethingsomething]

(07-19-2014 11:38 AM)DoA Wrote:  idealists

He's on to us, better hide the volumes of works you have by Fichte, Hegel and Schelling.

IMEU will enjoy reading this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/today-just-lea...l?t=189771
DoA hacked the poor lad's account as you can tell from the incoherent mess of misinterpretations and slander that keen observers may notice as his "responses" and not as something to wipe your shit on.

[I Must Enter a Username]

(07-21-2014 04:21 PM)somethingsomething Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 11:38 AM)DoA Wrote:  idealists

He's on to us, better hide the volumes of works you have by Fichte, Hegel and Schelling.

IMEU will enjoy reading this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/today-just-lea...l?t=189771
DoA hacked the poor lad's account as you can tell from the incoherent mess of misinterpretations and slander that keen observers may notice as his "responses" and not as something to wipe your shit on.

Send my condolences to the users who had to read a poor paraphrasing of DoA's poorer arguments.
I was chatting with JM yesterday and he said he was completely convinced by DoA's post despite my arguments against it (I don't even think he read my PMs at all), hence the linked thread, and Sey, please don't talk about him like that, it'd be acceptable if that was only DoA you were talking about.
That's the last time that I will invite impressionable users from any other forum to SS ever again. Arguably I should have just stopped with Valentino.

[Ky]

(07-21-2014 04:21 PM)somethingsomething Wrote:  DoA hacked the poor lad's account

(07-21-2014 05:54 PM)I Must Enter a Username Wrote:  I was chatting with JM yesterday and he said he was completely convinced by DoA's post despite my arguments against it

(07-21-2014 05:54 PM)I Must Enter a Username Wrote:  That's the last time that I will invite impressionable users from any other forum to SS ever again. Arguably I should have just stopped with Valentino.

What are you guys even talking about?

[I Must Enter a Username]

(07-22-2014 10:30 AM)DoA Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 04:21 PM)somethingsomething Wrote:  DoA hacked the poor lad's account

(07-21-2014 05:54 PM)I Must Enter a Username Wrote:  I was chatting with JM yesterday and he said he was completely convinced by DoA's post despite my arguments against it

(07-21-2014 05:54 PM)I Must Enter a Username Wrote:  That's the last time that I will invite impressionable users from any other forum to SS ever again. Arguably I should have just stopped with Valentino.

What are you guys even talking about?

Hey Sey, do me a favor and give him some primers on German idealists (Hell, include the Italian idealist Croce) and their responses to the materialists.
As for what has happened with JM, I have got him to calm down, stop shitposting whatever he read from DoA, and to listen to me, so things are alright at the moment.

[Ky]

I understand next to none of that, but okay, I'll take your word for it.

[Absnt]

First of all, this entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of the United States welfare program. There are a lot of people on it, sure, but I'd argue most actually do need it. A lot of middle class, middle-upper class, and even poor folks in our society believe there's like a huge number of people leeching on the system and getting away without doing anything, intentionally not working. This belief, I believe, stems from ignorance concerning some basic economic principles of employment.

So let's outline some facts. Over half of welfare recipients get off of welfare before the 2 year mark. Over 30 percent get off before a year is up. More get off before the 3 year mark, etc. The VAST majority of people who get on welfare do not want to be on welfare. There are very few people who actually stay on welfare for a prolonged period of time (e.g over 3 years).

Of those people, we can say with some certainty based on actual economic data that they are out of the job due to either structural (their old skills are no longer applicable to the job market) or frictional (transition period between jobs) unemployment. That's a good deal of people who get on unemployment between jobs or because they literally have to go back to college or vocational training in order to even get a job, or they were laid off or quit and are in the process of finding a new job. These people actually do need unemployment to keep their family and themselves from falling into conditions no one in the U.S should fall into.

Then we have a group of people who are not considered a part of the workforce because they are not currently seeking a job. Before you decide to judge these folks, know that these folks usually want to work but have been trying to find a job for so long and not having any luck that they give up, are retired, or are in school. This is proven by the fact that as the economy went into the recession, the labor force (the labor force is measured by those actively seeking work, or currently working) fell faster than can be predicted by retiring folks. A good deal of those folks are going back to school, so it's not like they're just sitting around sucking up tax dollars like politicians may want you to believe. This study supports the idea that the bulk of the people leaving the labor force are doing so because they literally cannot find a job: http://www.bostonfed.org/employment2013/...ssion1.pdf

That's not a failure of their will, that's a failure of the economy, friend. They want to work, but they've given up because they cannot find a job. There's plenty of shit that needs done, too, but the economy is not running at full employment or maximum efficiency because of a market failure. The causes of which we won't even get into here...

We should also obviously consider the fact that 91 percent of welfare benefits go to those who are disabled, elderly, or actually DO have a job but do not make enough money to sustain their family... Ninety-one percent motherfucker. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

So, what about the tiny minority of folks who aren't working, who aren't disabled, who aren't inbetween jobs, etc, etc, who are on welfare? Well, have you ever tried getting out of poverty? There's a reason all those rap songs you listen to talk about how hard it is to get out of the hood, because, ya know, it's fucking hard. If you don't have a car or a phone or an education, the chances of getting hired are pretty slim. Are you willing to take on an unpaid internship for a long-ass time to get a job that might get you out of poverty while trying to survive on nothing? Could you even? How are you going to get to work if you do get a job, you have no car... What happens if you have kids?

Point is, most of the people on welfare need that shit and aren't taking advantage of it. There's people who do, obviously, but they are definitely the minority.

I think an understanding of human nature is important here, especially since it's already come up twice. some cynics argue people do not work if they do not have to, and it's human nature to do as little as possible. If I'm not mistaken, it was apart of the communist philosophy outlined by Marx and others that this supposed "human nature" is only so because the social climate and political climate we are engulfed in is itself creating this mindset. In other words, the climate we are in is what causes people to be lazy and rely on welfare.

I'd argue that even in our current climate people prefer to be active, they prefer to be employed. There are some sectors of the populace that have grown up on welfare, and they see it as normal and see poverty is normal and there are some folks who don't see work as a virtue, but that's what poverty does to some people. (A small minority of people). But you don't really have to look far to understand that most people, that is to say people in general, that is to say it's human nature fore people in general to prefer to work, to pursue betterment of themselves.

It's been drilled into us via the media and political campaigns and stuff of that nature that we are naturally lazy, etc. Well, as outlined above, that's just not the case. We can see the truth all around us, like just look around you. Look at any university that does research, you've got scientists putting in 80 hour weeks voluntarily when all they are required to do is less than 40. You've got artists putting in ridiculous hours with ridiculous work ethic to produce. You've got people pursuing their passions with intense focus and vigor. People want to succeed, they want to better themselves and the world around them, they want to push onward and be the best they can be.

It surprises me that so many on this site and DnE seem to think that this is not the case. Back in my days on /ss/, it was generally understood that school crushes creativity and drive out of students, and the outcome has always been a cookie cutter factory people who cannot think critically or follow their passions and pursue their own goals. That's always been the base of the anti-school / educational reform movement. We've always had a belief that our surroundings, e.g school and the current climate was bad for folks... So why here do we reject that notion? Why here do we say it's innate in humanity for people to be lazy, to give up, to need authority figures?

Nah, I think the facts here are on this side.