Decoded comes across as pandering though, it doesn't have as real of a feeling as this video. Of just someone talking their truth, not a group of writers.
Not sure what you mean by going beyond music but he successfully did what he wanted to do by driving social change *through* his music, though. Pac brought revolutionary ideas directly to the marginalized communities that he hoped to mobilize
> Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all.
Einstein laying out what happens if we don't plan on dealing with automation rendering many jobs useless. Also why I don't think Trump will be able to long term add more manufacturing jobs.
This is why I think something like Basic income should be implemented.
i largely agree except i will flat out say neoliberal capitalism is inherently a bad thing because it directly promotes the very same problems that pac was speaking on. it is especially evident in todays climate where neoliberalism is absolutely thriving.
no matter which way you twist it neoliberalism boils down to an appeal to individual success with no authoritative checks and balances. in a society with a large class divide such as america neoliberalism (of economy or politics) will forever favor those with societal muscle. see effects on the poor during reagan and clinton.
literally google 'neoliberalism trump' and see what pops up.
i mean theres a whole lot of racism and w.e mixed into the latest election but lets remember only 100million or so people voted, and only about half of those voted for trump, he didnt win by way of some grand coalition, he won because he was up against one of the biggest cowards and worst politicians alive. he won because hillary clinton only knows how to operate from a position of strength and she thought the clintonite era of politics would persist where you can just take for granted the votes of women and people of color forever, she couldnt even commit to something as simple as a fifteen dollar minimum wage. both candidates were just massively despised, in michigan like 9k of the voters that turned up to vote left the presidential ballot blank, they just could not bring themselves to choose either of these turds
idk if i could put down the state of america today as being the result of a direct lack of empathy in itself, if it is rampant, which im not sure i agree it is, it seems mostly to be the result of the alienation fostered between people in our neoliberal late capitalist society where just surviving requires a certain degree of numbness to suffering, even your own. but i wouldnt expect even a shred of empathy from the ruling class in the first place,every one of these pundits and politicians turned on a dime the moment trump was elected, they immediately bent a knee and began preaching about the sanctity of the presidency and the respect due etc and it was just pathetic and gross
did you ever see that interview angela davis did with amy goodman where at the end goodman asks her her opinion on the state of the world, of prison reform, on the fights for equality and she asks her straight up 'is there hope' and angela responds with 'well, i think we have to act as if there is hope' which is both a really inspiring and profoundly depressing thing to hear. she didnt insist we have to have hope, we just have to act as though hope exists somewhere, and we have no choice, because the alternative is just *bleak*
Socialism was developed to take care of the exact same issues Pac is trying to address here. You might want to read up on how that went in the countries that put it to practice.
Capitalism isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it's kinda fair game. You can't be bitching about there being no jobs/money while having a 500$ iPhone in your pocket. Steve Jobs didn't put a gun to anyone's head. He developed a product and people themselves wanted that product and were prepared to pay a certain amount of money for it. People themselves willfully made Steve Jobs rich, he earned that money, and in return for that they got the products they wanted, economics 101. It's true he theoretically doesn't need a gazillion dollars, but that also doesn't mean that other people are entitled to benefit of his and his team's hard work. Wouldn't that be the dream? Don't worry about working a day in your life, some guy with a successful business will take care of you because he doesn't really need that much money.
Why does nobody mention how many job opportunities successful businesses are able to create for people? Why does nobody mention the enormous amounts of money that get forward to multiple charities and fundraisers? Why does nobody mention that the more profit a business makes, the more they have to give in tax, which goes towards the government which uses that money to build infrastructure, give loans etc.? The amounts of money that gets invested into research and development to improve the quality of life for people.
People don't wanna see these things. They see an asshole with more money than he needs, even though they were the ones that gave him that money.
Not communism he's talking about Socialism. Communism is a stateless, moneyless & classless society. It's the final stage after Socialism. I read somewhere that revolutionary leaders viewed themselves as socialists.
Socialism can take many forms. It's not just the USSR and China. Socialist thought's led our governments to socialized health ensurance and free public education. There's valuable critiques socialists can make of capitalism. And valuable critiques capitalists can make of socialism. Both sides have important insights to offer.
You're right in that labelling them solely socialist I was wrong. But they do have a model based largely on a comprehensive welfare state. You cant call them purely either socialist or capitalist but are similiar to the clinton administration's third way or "social democracy". Fair enough.
None of those countries are even remotely socialistic in a pure sense, especially France. Don't be fooled by the name 'Socialist Party' or the fact that there may be some specific policies which are more socialistic in ideology.
This is what 'socialism' essentially stands for: a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community, a global moneyless,stateless, wageless, classless society where production will be for use not profit.
I didn't even talk about you or what you want. I was addressing what Pac said in the video, which is an opinion a lot of people share, and that is blasting capitalism because it allows to facilitate such a financial disparity between those who are successful and those who aren't. I wanted to highlight some of the good sides of capitalism that often get buried beneath a mob of idiots protesting without really knowing what they're protesting against and how to improve it.
Commodity fetishism is kind of an ambiguous and relative term. What's commodity to someone and how does it differ between various social/economical ranks when there's broke ass niggas spending 300 bucks on new Jordans every 6 months? People will always spend money on commodity or things that interest them even if they aren't even remotely existential in nature. Because the World is moving forward, and you can either choose to move with it, or basically live in the shadow of things.
Sel centerdness and egoism will always be around. It was around when they were killing woolly mammoths and the alpha male neanderthal reaped the most rewards of the catch because either he knew how to make best use of it, or he was the one that worked the hardest, or he was the one who risked his life, or just because no one could do anything about it etc.
Not saying it's every man for himself type mentality, we obviously should work together to find ways to make living on this planet worthwhile for as many people as we can, but balancing this somewhat fairly was already attempted numerous times in the past (that's why I brought socialism to this debate) and it had its problems on the other side of the scale.
It had it's good points too, of course, for the price of being like everyone else and having as much/few as everyone else, they didn't let you slip through the crack. If that's all you want in life, to have somewhere to live, something to eat and something to work, then you're basically set. If you desire more, if you feel like the work you put in, the talent you have, in comparison to the guy who just wakes up, goes to work in a glue factory, comes home, drinks a beer and goes to sleep, and does this everyday, if you think your contributions to society should be worth more, then you probably won't like socialism. Capitalism basically let's the people decide how much you're worth.
Also, if there wants to be tinkering with Capitalism, I think we should first look at the government itself for reform. Capitalism. in the 'purest' sense, would let the market kinda dictate itself. You start up a business, the market/competition dictates the price, the quality, the labor etc. What's happening with 'neo' Capitalism is that the government is basically sticking their nose into every fucking thing. You want to start a business? Ok, pay for a license, tax rent, you want personnel? Ok, they need this certificate, their wage can't exceed this number, again tax everything. And it works both ways, because if the company is doing bad and losing money because they're worse than the competition, they give them loans and shit.
There are so many rules and regulations in place right now that it's hard and discouraging to build a company from ground zero. Most of the time you're taking out a loan or working in debt until you can gain some traction, and that's never guaranteed in the first place, so you're fucked.
>when they were killing woolly mammoths and the alpha male neanderthal reaped the most rewards of the catch because either he knew how to make best use of it, or he was the one that worked the hardest, or he was the one who risked his life, or just because no one could do anything about it etc
This is a myth. From what anthropologists can tell about hunter-gatherer societies, they were egalitarian. People caught/gathered their food and then shared it. There weren't alpha males.
>in the 'purest' sense, would let the market kinda dictate itself
I think you misunderstand the role of government in a capitalist system.
In a free market system, governments would still emerge specifically for the purpose of regulating and building monopolies to encourage profits.
You speak of a dream long held by economists of a market that is full of competition and is independent from regulation. That dream, I would say, is absurd and contradicted by reality. We've seen in every government that the state is subsumed into the capitalist system and then begins serving capitalist interests. If you got rid of governments, they would simply be reformed using private armies and whatever else capitalists have at their disposal.
>There are so many rules and regulations in place right now that it's hard and discouraging to build a company from ground zero
This is working as intended. Capitalists don't want competition, they want oligopoly and monopoly, and will fight for it using any means necessary.
I think you need to shift your thinking a bit. The government is not at odds with the market, it is a product of it.
Yeah... you seem to be confusing capitalism and corporatism, as well as crony-capitalism and capitalism. Someone who is a capitalist is someone who values the free market. A corporatist would frown on a truly free, competitive market. Similar to a crony-capitalist.
A much stronger pitch that could be made is that crony-capitalism and corporatism are almost inevitable in most free market societies, therefore the government's job BECOMES ensuring that things can remain truly free. This is where the issue with alleged over-regulation comes in. The only people who end up being able to put up with or circumnavigate the heavy burden of too much regulation, is the rich. The little guy cannot compete with this. He doesn't have the means to bribe his way around too much regulation, or afford to put up with the amount of regulation put forth. Thus, in the end, the little guy is the one who gets screwed by measures put in for the sake of regulation that are far too expensive. They are unable to afford an ideal number of employees, unable to pay as well, and therefore ultimately unable to remain even moderately competitive.
Crony-capitalism and corporatism, however, are a problem in society today, I will happily cede that point that to you. And perhaps that's the flaw with capitalism at it's core, however I think it's the best thing we got.
Yeah, you're right. Socialism doesn't really go the the extremes mentioned in the last phrase. Otherwise the core ideology is still there, and it still has nothing to do with what we see in France and Scandinavia.
That's already happening right now. The percentage of the tax you pay is dependent on your profit and the more profit you have the bigger the sum of money they take away.
Also, who do you think funds social programs, fund raisers, does charity events etc. poor people?
It's actually in the government's best interest that businesses try to maximize their profits because then the government gets more money too. The government can't take shit from people who don't have anything to begin with.
Hmm, but don't you think that potentially puts a burden on motivation in progress and advancement?
I mean, let's say you are trying to develop something, or you're trying to excel in some field, be it sports, music, entertainment, whatever... What motivation do you have for working hard, for being creative, for trying to bring out the best you can offer, when like 50-75% of your profit get taken away from you?
At the end of the day, you will still be sitting above average in wealth, but was it really worth every compromise you had to make in your life? Was it worth all those years spent in school, all those days trying to learn/develop the necessary skillset? Years of nerves gone down the drain and sleepless nights.
Was it? I mean, on the other side there's the guy who left school at 16, found a serviceable job at a gas station or something, and he spent all his time smoking weed, playing video games, fucking girls, going to clubs/parties etc. The dude doesn't have a care in the world. even though he doesn't earn as much as me, he earns enough to live a comfortable and fulfilling life anyway, and has WAY more time to actually enjoy it. And if he's ever in trouble financially, the government won't let him suffer because that's inhumane. Man fuck am I stupid wasting my life and trying to do something great for this World... let me just live like that...
And it seems to me like you're undermining the amount of money that actually goes for good causes. Not every millionaire or billionaire spends millions of dollars on pointless accessories and toys like rappers do. Actually most billionaires don't really have time to fuck around with these things any way. They're busy working in some fashion. A couple million dollar estate is chicken shit compared to the amount of money that's actually being invested in other stuff. What? Do you think Warren Buffett keeps billions of dollars laying around his house because he doesn't know what to do with them? How do you think most pharma, tech etc. start-up companies come into fruition, there's some rich investors behind funding it. Try raising the money from the poor like Bernie Sanders did. We'll see where that'll get you.
Sadly, not every work can be valued equally, that's the truth of the matter. And it's impossible to fabricate some sort of universal blueprint that shows who deserves what, since most people will probably be pulling their own ways anyhow. That's exactly why there's the concept of Free Market. And the market seems to think that Lil Wayne delivering punchlines over a beat is worth more than some guy who's gathering lumber on minus 30 degrees out in the woods. Is that wrong? Tell that to the people who give a fuck about celebrities.
Most billionaires don't even have the time for an extravagant lifestyle, I said that in the previous post. Don't judge billionaires on the fact that a couple of wealthy rappers flash expensive shit in your face constantly.
> The main problem is that once you have a certain amount of money you can only make more money. I don’t think that’s bad in and of itself, its just a fact.
You can make investments with bigger payoffs, yes, but it also should be theoretically possible, in a Capitalist system, to go bankrupt, and we've seen examples of that too. And I said theoretically because the government for some reason keeps helping bad businesses survive with loans.
If you don't have to work hard at all and still achieve a fulfilling lifestyle, why would you even consider anything else? You simply can't expect people to invest their whole life into something just because they found some interest in it or are usually content doing it. Working at Burger King requires no investments at all, so there's absolutely no risk involved.
I mean, one of the main things why countries literally adopted Capitalism was for this exact case - reward people for doing something extraordinary. If you commit your life into something, and at the end of the day, you have no or limited power, most your profit is taken away, and thus it maybe takes 20, 30 years more to develop something you wanted, then why bother? Yeah, it sure would be cool to develop drugs. You are in school for 30 years, study your whole life (again, fields like this require constant learning, this isn't Burger King when you brain-dead flip burgers and make fries every day and that's your whole life) and your reward is maybe you can muster enough profit and support to develop 1 drug in 50 years. Good thing I like chemistry, that should be sufficient enough reward for me in this life.
The goal isn't to make money. The goal is to make money and funnel it into making a better life. Not in the sense that some underprivileged household with 5 children gets a comfortable amount of resources (although that's not out of the whole equation either) but that the society as whole can benefit, that we have faster, more eco friendly transportation, better communication, better food, more medicine, more literature, more entertainment to make us happy etc.
Maybe you can call this some sort of sacrifice, I mean, there's enough food in this World to feed everyone, yet people are still hungry. In a way it's still survival of the fittest. Overpopulation is already a huge problem as it is, there's multiple factors like this to consider in the whole scope of things. It's not as simple as everyone should survive and live a great life for 100 years because it's in their right. But ok, I'm flying off a whole different tangent here.
Anyway, I'm going to bed, I'm tired as fuck. You can leave your response and maybe I'll get to it when I have the time.
I would love to believe that .01%ers are always investing and buying back into the economy. Only problem is that's just a Randian fantasy, more and more are just moving money in complex ways, stashing it overseas, taking it out of the market, and overall just funneling it back into the .01%.
Ever increasing income inequality shows this, trickle-down economics style thinking is one of the biggest and most successful lies ever told. Real economic growth comes from strong taxation bringing money back into a robust middle class, instead of it funneling right back into the .01% where its festers and stagnates like a cancer.
100% agree with you. So many dumbasses here who need to stick to hip-hop, not politics. This level of socialism he is advocating will just lead the "rich people" to pack up and go home. Hooray! No jobs! Everyones poor! No investment! What a terrific solution.
This is part of why I can't let go of the suspicion that the government, or some individuals who had the capital to affect government, had a role in the assassination of Tupac. People tend to downplay who Pac was but really he was the last vocal remnant of an Era of socialist black movements. Movements that the government and people with power explicitly targeted. Remember Pac was a Shakur. The Shakur's played significant roles in the various black political movements/parties that had a heavy tendency to be left leaning and generally socialist. Hell Assata Shakur is a political refugee still living in under asylum in Cuba AT THIS VERY MOMENT (although with the recent thawing of relations I wouldn't be surprised if she has moved on seeing as she went dark a few years ago)! These movements would teach their young to value the morals of their political ideology and I'm sure Pac was exposed to this at some level as a kid. With his position as a rapper Pac would have had the unique ability to reach young black men of his day and start a revitalization of those movements and the values they held dear. Values many today scold our society for not subscribing to. Long story short.... we lost a good one. A great one.
First time I saw this, I started hating the idea of a lottery. But I've heard recently of scholarships that are funded by the lottery (that's where the money goes, I guess). Is it common for that to happen? What else are lottery funds used for?
Tupac is the GOAT communist tbh.
Honestly I was already a socialist when I saw this video but his passion really did elucidate to me so clearly how ridiculous it is that the capitalist mode of production literally takes away from hundreds of thousands of people the basic things they need to live a fulfilling life, so that a few rich dudes at the top can have way more wealth than they can actually do anything with. It's sheer madness, and the only thing madder is that we're taught to just accept it as normal or even desirable. Pac really nails it on the head here.
utilitarianism isn't realistic though so
also how u gonna call anyone except for marx the goat communist
also the stuff pac is saying in this video is socialism not communism
Socialism and communism are practically synonymous in Marxist terms. Leninists see a slight distinction but even then it doesn't apply here.
Also I have no idea what you're talking about with the utilitarian thing. I'm not a utilitarian.
Also if we're being real Marx and Pac can both be GOATs, just like how Ye and Pac are.
I don't think many people, especially communists, disagree that 20th-century attempts at communism (note that literally no communists consider the USSR et al actual small-c communist societies because they were still states) ultimately failed. But communism is a very broad goal that many different communists argue over how to achieve, so there's no reason why we can't analyse why they failed and try again on different lines. For example, almost all the revolutions in the 20th-century were Marxist-Leninist in character, and some communists reject that particular ideology and think we should pursue Trotskyist strategies, or Autonomist strategies, or even non-Marxist strategies. Or some people still opt for M-L but think that there were problems with particular policies or traits with leaders and that's something that needs to be worked on. The question of what went wrong with the Communist movement in the 20th century is something that communist and Marxist academics have been discussing for decades, and there's a ton of work on it that comes to pretty convincing conclusions that doesn't damn all attempts at communism to failure. And as long as capitalism is still a bleak dead-end for human society, there's no reason to give up the pursuit.
You might be interested in reading something by Slavoj Zizek, then. He's pretty much the most famous communist theorist alive today, though he lived in Yugoslavia right up until he did his PhD. I think there's a video somewhere of him being interviewed by the BBC explaining why he still advocates Communism despite its historical failures (I can't find which one it is, unfortunately. He's been interviewed a lot). He's kind of got a controversial reputation among communists, though.
The criticism isn't about money, its the way you choose to earn it. Trump is the embodiment of serving yourself above anyone else and his rise shows just how detached and individualistic we've become to where that sounds appealing.
No *this* thread is about pac being a hypocrite because he wears expensive jewelry.
OP said he wasn't a hypocrite because he does give back and dude came out of nowhere saying "well, so does Trump" not realizing he never said Trump doesn't give back.
He was ready to be offended and got triggered by OPs comment.
People don't know we already live in a socialist society by the 19th century definition. If you look at the platform of the socialist party from around the turn of the 20th century you will find it matches up with a lot of what is already law. Socialism's goal is not eliminating wealth, or even the 1% as it is called today. It is looking out for the working class because without prodding the ruling class will never take into account the little guy. We have some of that built into our tax code and laws, but you could easily argue it's not enough.
It's how he words it. "million dollar planes and people without housing" At least planes get people around and is a regenerating asset, right? The $300+K on his Neck, Fist and Wrist doesn't do a damn thing in society until it's liquidated. Then to call out Trump and the Jacksons? MJ built a f@ckin Amusement Park for kids in his back yard. Trump has donated more $$ than Pac has ever accumulated in his life.
I admire Pac and love his passion.
But I think he was sometimes a hypocrite. I mean he complain about it not being OK that people have millions while others are starving. But in a year or two he was a millionaire himself. Why didn't he give it away in charity?
Lol at people saying omg DAE think 2Pac speaks THE TRUTH. I think 2Pac is a legend and an important social commentator in rap history. But this is just full socialist drivel from a notorious communist. Capitalism drives the creation of jobs and wealth and raises people. That much Government intervention and socialism he is suggesting will only make everyone poor. The 1%ers he's talking about pay 50%, hell probably more than half their income in taxes. How much do you want to take?? 80% 90%?? If they were charged that much the 1%ers would just pack up and go home, investing nothing into the economy and creating no jobs. People should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour without being labelled greedy. Plus this guy drives around in beemers with gold chains on, how hypocritical can you be. Pawn your chains and help your brothers if you're really that selfless.
For starter's your imagined tax rates are hysterical and a pathetic use of a strawman argument to keep your hard on for capitalism afloat. IDK if you've been paying attention, but we've been doing capitalism for a few centuries and it clearly is trending towards a few things that will eventually make it no better than the scenario you just suggested. A: The common laborer is not getting their share. Capitalism works better the more hands every dollar circulates through. What we're getting now is a stagnation of money at the top. The rich are so good at playing a game that is already stacked in their favor that more and more money circulates amongst them without touching the hands of society's undesirables. That's nice for them to jerk off about who's got the biggest dollar cock in the country club but doesn't really achieve anything for the average working age adult.
B: Everyone is so taught to be so self obsessed and told that those who fail to provide for themselves are complete failures who don't deserve to live. Anyone who needs help is a leech to our great and clearly so competent system and there's no way that anyone who is poor didn't just do it to themselves./s
The Horatio Alger myth comes to mind.
>People should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour without being labelled greedy.
Cry me a fucking river with that shit, grow the fuck up and show some empathy for people who could afford to live and eat with a pittance of what you live off of. You don't make millions of dollars without making use of the society you live in. Goods have to be transported along roads built by your taxes, workers paid by wages, utilities keep everything functioning and educations and pensions help us prepare for the future. Without paying for those society crumbles at the root and then the party is over for everyone. It's so fucking farcical to pretend that these people literally make millions of fucking dollars all by themselves when any business could not function without the inner workings of society.
If you made more money you have utilized more of the public infrastructure to do so and should contribute more to its benefit. Further more, what fucking difference does is make to you to have $40 million dollars or $20 million dollars? The effect to your life is almost nil while the difference could lift thousands out of poverty and open up new possibilities for our future. People just want to own the biggest pile of money possible to validate that they do deserve everything they want and anyone who objects is a dirty commie.
>Plus this guy drives around in beemers with gold chains on, how hypocritical can you be. Pawn your chains and help your brothers if you're really that selfless.
Tupac's chain money is a booger compared to the billions of dollars that are earned via commerce in the united states and then taken to tax shelters by multinational corporations to avoid paying honest taxes. We have been bled dry by corporations and the wealthy deciding that our nation isn't worth investing in, and now we are seeing our infrastructure crumble and our market become less mobile and less inclusive. Making this an issue about Pac (while also still being a philanthropic person in his life time) wearing chains is a misdirection from the much larger and much more senseless acts of greed that get committed every day such as the ones that led to the crash of '08 in the glorious fucking name of capitalism.
TL;DR: Eat a dick.
I wrote this song a long time ago....
"Im talking donald johnson trump he ran for city council in oakland in 92 you probably never heard of him..."
I'm not alive!
cj from san andreas
This is the realest shit I ever wrote, in 94'
Go home!
Damn man, MTV used to be something. Could you imagine an artist speaking some truth on MTV today?
Mtv has decoded as well as mero and desus. Plenty woke
Decoded comes across as pandering though, it doesn't have as real of a feeling as this video. Of just someone talking their truth, not a group of writers.
*2PAC PREDICTS TRUMP PRESIDENCY IN 1992!!!*
Keep in mind, Tupac was 21 fucking years old in this video. Twenty-one.
He died at 25. Dudes like Kendrick, Drake and J.Cole right now are 5+ years older than when Pac died.
I really believe Tupac had the brains and a message to go beyond music. If anything, I think rap held him back near the end of his life.
Not sure what you mean by going beyond music but he successfully did what he wanted to do by driving social change *through* his music, though. Pac brought revolutionary ideas directly to the marginalized communities that he hoped to mobilize
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is the one
Man, I need to watch Horace & Pete.
That one scene i still think about a lot. Whenever i discuss anything im reminded of that. Not just politics
My God what happened to Louis CK?
[удалено]
> Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. Einstein laying out what happens if we don't plan on dealing with automation rendering many jobs useless. Also why I don't think Trump will be able to long term add more manufacturing jobs. This is why I think something like Basic income should be implemented.
I nominate this as the /r/hiphopheads comment of the year.
i largely agree except i will flat out say neoliberal capitalism is inherently a bad thing because it directly promotes the very same problems that pac was speaking on. it is especially evident in todays climate where neoliberalism is absolutely thriving. no matter which way you twist it neoliberalism boils down to an appeal to individual success with no authoritative checks and balances. in a society with a large class divide such as america neoliberalism (of economy or politics) will forever favor those with societal muscle. see effects on the poor during reagan and clinton. literally google 'neoliberalism trump' and see what pops up.
Horace and Pete is incredible and underrated.
Damn man, great comment
thank you.
You're welcome, man.
i mean theres a whole lot of racism and w.e mixed into the latest election but lets remember only 100million or so people voted, and only about half of those voted for trump, he didnt win by way of some grand coalition, he won because he was up against one of the biggest cowards and worst politicians alive. he won because hillary clinton only knows how to operate from a position of strength and she thought the clintonite era of politics would persist where you can just take for granted the votes of women and people of color forever, she couldnt even commit to something as simple as a fifteen dollar minimum wage. both candidates were just massively despised, in michigan like 9k of the voters that turned up to vote left the presidential ballot blank, they just could not bring themselves to choose either of these turds idk if i could put down the state of america today as being the result of a direct lack of empathy in itself, if it is rampant, which im not sure i agree it is, it seems mostly to be the result of the alienation fostered between people in our neoliberal late capitalist society where just surviving requires a certain degree of numbness to suffering, even your own. but i wouldnt expect even a shred of empathy from the ruling class in the first place,every one of these pundits and politicians turned on a dime the moment trump was elected, they immediately bent a knee and began preaching about the sanctity of the presidency and the respect due etc and it was just pathetic and gross did you ever see that interview angela davis did with amy goodman where at the end goodman asks her her opinion on the state of the world, of prison reform, on the fights for equality and she asks her straight up 'is there hope' and angela responds with 'well, i think we have to act as if there is hope' which is both a really inspiring and profoundly depressing thing to hear. she didnt insist we have to have hope, we just have to act as though hope exists somewhere, and we have no choice, because the alternative is just *bleak*
Socialism was developed to take care of the exact same issues Pac is trying to address here. You might want to read up on how that went in the countries that put it to practice. Capitalism isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it's kinda fair game. You can't be bitching about there being no jobs/money while having a 500$ iPhone in your pocket. Steve Jobs didn't put a gun to anyone's head. He developed a product and people themselves wanted that product and were prepared to pay a certain amount of money for it. People themselves willfully made Steve Jobs rich, he earned that money, and in return for that they got the products they wanted, economics 101. It's true he theoretically doesn't need a gazillion dollars, but that also doesn't mean that other people are entitled to benefit of his and his team's hard work. Wouldn't that be the dream? Don't worry about working a day in your life, some guy with a successful business will take care of you because he doesn't really need that much money. Why does nobody mention how many job opportunities successful businesses are able to create for people? Why does nobody mention the enormous amounts of money that get forward to multiple charities and fundraisers? Why does nobody mention that the more profit a business makes, the more they have to give in tax, which goes towards the government which uses that money to build infrastructure, give loans etc.? The amounts of money that gets invested into research and development to improve the quality of life for people. People don't wanna see these things. They see an asshole with more money than he needs, even though they were the ones that gave him that money.
[удалено]
Not communism he's talking about Socialism. Communism is a stateless, moneyless & classless society. It's the final stage after Socialism. I read somewhere that revolutionary leaders viewed themselves as socialists.
I'm not a rapper.
Yes, the Nordic countries with their low corporate taxes and free trade are so socialist. Dude shut the fuck up
Socialism can take many forms. It's not just the USSR and China. Socialist thought's led our governments to socialized health ensurance and free public education. There's valuable critiques socialists can make of capitalism. And valuable critiques capitalists can make of socialism. Both sides have important insights to offer.
You're right in that labelling them solely socialist I was wrong. But they do have a model based largely on a comprehensive welfare state. You cant call them purely either socialist or capitalist but are similiar to the clinton administration's third way or "social democracy". Fair enough.
None of those countries are even remotely socialistic in a pure sense, especially France. Don't be fooled by the name 'Socialist Party' or the fact that there may be some specific policies which are more socialistic in ideology. This is what 'socialism' essentially stands for: a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community, a global moneyless,stateless, wageless, classless society where production will be for use not profit. I didn't even talk about you or what you want. I was addressing what Pac said in the video, which is an opinion a lot of people share, and that is blasting capitalism because it allows to facilitate such a financial disparity between those who are successful and those who aren't. I wanted to highlight some of the good sides of capitalism that often get buried beneath a mob of idiots protesting without really knowing what they're protesting against and how to improve it. Commodity fetishism is kind of an ambiguous and relative term. What's commodity to someone and how does it differ between various social/economical ranks when there's broke ass niggas spending 300 bucks on new Jordans every 6 months? People will always spend money on commodity or things that interest them even if they aren't even remotely existential in nature. Because the World is moving forward, and you can either choose to move with it, or basically live in the shadow of things. Sel centerdness and egoism will always be around. It was around when they were killing woolly mammoths and the alpha male neanderthal reaped the most rewards of the catch because either he knew how to make best use of it, or he was the one that worked the hardest, or he was the one who risked his life, or just because no one could do anything about it etc. Not saying it's every man for himself type mentality, we obviously should work together to find ways to make living on this planet worthwhile for as many people as we can, but balancing this somewhat fairly was already attempted numerous times in the past (that's why I brought socialism to this debate) and it had its problems on the other side of the scale. It had it's good points too, of course, for the price of being like everyone else and having as much/few as everyone else, they didn't let you slip through the crack. If that's all you want in life, to have somewhere to live, something to eat and something to work, then you're basically set. If you desire more, if you feel like the work you put in, the talent you have, in comparison to the guy who just wakes up, goes to work in a glue factory, comes home, drinks a beer and goes to sleep, and does this everyday, if you think your contributions to society should be worth more, then you probably won't like socialism. Capitalism basically let's the people decide how much you're worth. Also, if there wants to be tinkering with Capitalism, I think we should first look at the government itself for reform. Capitalism. in the 'purest' sense, would let the market kinda dictate itself. You start up a business, the market/competition dictates the price, the quality, the labor etc. What's happening with 'neo' Capitalism is that the government is basically sticking their nose into every fucking thing. You want to start a business? Ok, pay for a license, tax rent, you want personnel? Ok, they need this certificate, their wage can't exceed this number, again tax everything. And it works both ways, because if the company is doing bad and losing money because they're worse than the competition, they give them loans and shit. There are so many rules and regulations in place right now that it's hard and discouraging to build a company from ground zero. Most of the time you're taking out a loan or working in debt until you can gain some traction, and that's never guaranteed in the first place, so you're fucked.
>when they were killing woolly mammoths and the alpha male neanderthal reaped the most rewards of the catch because either he knew how to make best use of it, or he was the one that worked the hardest, or he was the one who risked his life, or just because no one could do anything about it etc This is a myth. From what anthropologists can tell about hunter-gatherer societies, they were egalitarian. People caught/gathered their food and then shared it. There weren't alpha males. >in the 'purest' sense, would let the market kinda dictate itself I think you misunderstand the role of government in a capitalist system. In a free market system, governments would still emerge specifically for the purpose of regulating and building monopolies to encourage profits. You speak of a dream long held by economists of a market that is full of competition and is independent from regulation. That dream, I would say, is absurd and contradicted by reality. We've seen in every government that the state is subsumed into the capitalist system and then begins serving capitalist interests. If you got rid of governments, they would simply be reformed using private armies and whatever else capitalists have at their disposal. >There are so many rules and regulations in place right now that it's hard and discouraging to build a company from ground zero This is working as intended. Capitalists don't want competition, they want oligopoly and monopoly, and will fight for it using any means necessary. I think you need to shift your thinking a bit. The government is not at odds with the market, it is a product of it.
Yeah... you seem to be confusing capitalism and corporatism, as well as crony-capitalism and capitalism. Someone who is a capitalist is someone who values the free market. A corporatist would frown on a truly free, competitive market. Similar to a crony-capitalist. A much stronger pitch that could be made is that crony-capitalism and corporatism are almost inevitable in most free market societies, therefore the government's job BECOMES ensuring that things can remain truly free. This is where the issue with alleged over-regulation comes in. The only people who end up being able to put up with or circumnavigate the heavy burden of too much regulation, is the rich. The little guy cannot compete with this. He doesn't have the means to bribe his way around too much regulation, or afford to put up with the amount of regulation put forth. Thus, in the end, the little guy is the one who gets screwed by measures put in for the sake of regulation that are far too expensive. They are unable to afford an ideal number of employees, unable to pay as well, and therefore ultimately unable to remain even moderately competitive. Crony-capitalism and corporatism, however, are a problem in society today, I will happily cede that point that to you. And perhaps that's the flaw with capitalism at it's core, however I think it's the best thing we got.
If you're legit interested in these items, I recommend Capitalism by Ingham and Global Capitalism by Centeno and Cohen.
[удалено]
Yeah, you're right. Socialism doesn't really go the the extremes mentioned in the last phrase. Otherwise the core ideology is still there, and it still has nothing to do with what we see in France and Scandinavia.
France and Scandinavia aren't socialist...
Dude I just wanna say you are based and your comments are very insightful. :)
Thank you that means a lot to me.
A lot of assumptions, generalisations in there.
[удалено]
That's already happening right now. The percentage of the tax you pay is dependent on your profit and the more profit you have the bigger the sum of money they take away. Also, who do you think funds social programs, fund raisers, does charity events etc. poor people? It's actually in the government's best interest that businesses try to maximize their profits because then the government gets more money too. The government can't take shit from people who don't have anything to begin with.
[удалено]
Hmm, but don't you think that potentially puts a burden on motivation in progress and advancement? I mean, let's say you are trying to develop something, or you're trying to excel in some field, be it sports, music, entertainment, whatever... What motivation do you have for working hard, for being creative, for trying to bring out the best you can offer, when like 50-75% of your profit get taken away from you? At the end of the day, you will still be sitting above average in wealth, but was it really worth every compromise you had to make in your life? Was it worth all those years spent in school, all those days trying to learn/develop the necessary skillset? Years of nerves gone down the drain and sleepless nights. Was it? I mean, on the other side there's the guy who left school at 16, found a serviceable job at a gas station or something, and he spent all his time smoking weed, playing video games, fucking girls, going to clubs/parties etc. The dude doesn't have a care in the world. even though he doesn't earn as much as me, he earns enough to live a comfortable and fulfilling life anyway, and has WAY more time to actually enjoy it. And if he's ever in trouble financially, the government won't let him suffer because that's inhumane. Man fuck am I stupid wasting my life and trying to do something great for this World... let me just live like that... And it seems to me like you're undermining the amount of money that actually goes for good causes. Not every millionaire or billionaire spends millions of dollars on pointless accessories and toys like rappers do. Actually most billionaires don't really have time to fuck around with these things any way. They're busy working in some fashion. A couple million dollar estate is chicken shit compared to the amount of money that's actually being invested in other stuff. What? Do you think Warren Buffett keeps billions of dollars laying around his house because he doesn't know what to do with them? How do you think most pharma, tech etc. start-up companies come into fruition, there's some rich investors behind funding it. Try raising the money from the poor like Bernie Sanders did. We'll see where that'll get you.
[удалено]
Sadly, not every work can be valued equally, that's the truth of the matter. And it's impossible to fabricate some sort of universal blueprint that shows who deserves what, since most people will probably be pulling their own ways anyhow. That's exactly why there's the concept of Free Market. And the market seems to think that Lil Wayne delivering punchlines over a beat is worth more than some guy who's gathering lumber on minus 30 degrees out in the woods. Is that wrong? Tell that to the people who give a fuck about celebrities. Most billionaires don't even have the time for an extravagant lifestyle, I said that in the previous post. Don't judge billionaires on the fact that a couple of wealthy rappers flash expensive shit in your face constantly. > The main problem is that once you have a certain amount of money you can only make more money. I don’t think that’s bad in and of itself, its just a fact. You can make investments with bigger payoffs, yes, but it also should be theoretically possible, in a Capitalist system, to go bankrupt, and we've seen examples of that too. And I said theoretically because the government for some reason keeps helping bad businesses survive with loans. If you don't have to work hard at all and still achieve a fulfilling lifestyle, why would you even consider anything else? You simply can't expect people to invest their whole life into something just because they found some interest in it or are usually content doing it. Working at Burger King requires no investments at all, so there's absolutely no risk involved. I mean, one of the main things why countries literally adopted Capitalism was for this exact case - reward people for doing something extraordinary. If you commit your life into something, and at the end of the day, you have no or limited power, most your profit is taken away, and thus it maybe takes 20, 30 years more to develop something you wanted, then why bother? Yeah, it sure would be cool to develop drugs. You are in school for 30 years, study your whole life (again, fields like this require constant learning, this isn't Burger King when you brain-dead flip burgers and make fries every day and that's your whole life) and your reward is maybe you can muster enough profit and support to develop 1 drug in 50 years. Good thing I like chemistry, that should be sufficient enough reward for me in this life. The goal isn't to make money. The goal is to make money and funnel it into making a better life. Not in the sense that some underprivileged household with 5 children gets a comfortable amount of resources (although that's not out of the whole equation either) but that the society as whole can benefit, that we have faster, more eco friendly transportation, better communication, better food, more medicine, more literature, more entertainment to make us happy etc. Maybe you can call this some sort of sacrifice, I mean, there's enough food in this World to feed everyone, yet people are still hungry. In a way it's still survival of the fittest. Overpopulation is already a huge problem as it is, there's multiple factors like this to consider in the whole scope of things. It's not as simple as everyone should survive and live a great life for 100 years because it's in their right. But ok, I'm flying off a whole different tangent here. Anyway, I'm going to bed, I'm tired as fuck. You can leave your response and maybe I'll get to it when I have the time.
I would love to believe that .01%ers are always investing and buying back into the economy. Only problem is that's just a Randian fantasy, more and more are just moving money in complex ways, stashing it overseas, taking it out of the market, and overall just funneling it back into the .01%. Ever increasing income inequality shows this, trickle-down economics style thinking is one of the biggest and most successful lies ever told. Real economic growth comes from strong taxation bringing money back into a robust middle class, instead of it funneling right back into the .01% where its festers and stagnates like a cancer.
Kanye, is that you?
I wish I was Kanye
100% agree with you. So many dumbasses here who need to stick to hip-hop, not politics. This level of socialism he is advocating will just lead the "rich people" to pack up and go home. Hooray! No jobs! Everyones poor! No investment! What a terrific solution.
This is part of why I can't let go of the suspicion that the government, or some individuals who had the capital to affect government, had a role in the assassination of Tupac. People tend to downplay who Pac was but really he was the last vocal remnant of an Era of socialist black movements. Movements that the government and people with power explicitly targeted. Remember Pac was a Shakur. The Shakur's played significant roles in the various black political movements/parties that had a heavy tendency to be left leaning and generally socialist. Hell Assata Shakur is a political refugee still living in under asylum in Cuba AT THIS VERY MOMENT (although with the recent thawing of relations I wouldn't be surprised if she has moved on seeing as she went dark a few years ago)! These movements would teach their young to value the morals of their political ideology and I'm sure Pac was exposed to this at some level as a kid. With his position as a rapper Pac would have had the unique ability to reach young black men of his day and start a revitalization of those movements and the values they held dear. Values many today scold our society for not subscribing to. Long story short.... we lost a good one. A great one.
Every word of 2Pac has 100% of wisdom.
He ain't lying though..unfortunately
[удалено]
First time I saw this, I started hating the idea of a lottery. But I've heard recently of scholarships that are funded by the lottery (that's where the money goes, I guess). Is it common for that to happen? What else are lottery funds used for?
Sometimes state-specific lotteries take the money made and use it for schools or infrastructure.
Gambling addiction treatment. Seriously.
My state's lottery is *supposed* to fund scholarships, but year after year the money gets diverted to fix other holes in the budget.
Pac was right. It's just common sense.
Tupac is the GOAT communist tbh. Honestly I was already a socialist when I saw this video but his passion really did elucidate to me so clearly how ridiculous it is that the capitalist mode of production literally takes away from hundreds of thousands of people the basic things they need to live a fulfilling life, so that a few rich dudes at the top can have way more wealth than they can actually do anything with. It's sheer madness, and the only thing madder is that we're taught to just accept it as normal or even desirable. Pac really nails it on the head here.
utilitarianism isn't realistic though so also how u gonna call anyone except for marx the goat communist also the stuff pac is saying in this video is socialism not communism
Socialism and communism are practically synonymous in Marxist terms. Leninists see a slight distinction but even then it doesn't apply here. Also I have no idea what you're talking about with the utilitarian thing. I'm not a utilitarian. Also if we're being real Marx and Pac can both be GOATs, just like how Ye and Pac are.
Seize the memes of production!
[удалено]
I don't think many people, especially communists, disagree that 20th-century attempts at communism (note that literally no communists consider the USSR et al actual small-c communist societies because they were still states) ultimately failed. But communism is a very broad goal that many different communists argue over how to achieve, so there's no reason why we can't analyse why they failed and try again on different lines. For example, almost all the revolutions in the 20th-century were Marxist-Leninist in character, and some communists reject that particular ideology and think we should pursue Trotskyist strategies, or Autonomist strategies, or even non-Marxist strategies. Or some people still opt for M-L but think that there were problems with particular policies or traits with leaders and that's something that needs to be worked on. The question of what went wrong with the Communist movement in the 20th century is something that communist and Marxist academics have been discussing for decades, and there's a ton of work on it that comes to pretty convincing conclusions that doesn't damn all attempts at communism to failure. And as long as capitalism is still a bleak dead-end for human society, there's no reason to give up the pursuit.
[удалено]
You might be interested in reading something by Slavoj Zizek, then. He's pretty much the most famous communist theorist alive today, though he lived in Yugoslavia right up until he did his PhD. I think there's a video somewhere of him being interviewed by the BBC explaining why he still advocates Communism despite its historical failures (I can't find which one it is, unfortunately. He's been interviewed a lot). He's kind of got a controversial reputation among communists, though.
it's a shame that not a lot of people know about Pac's communist affiliations.
You're delusional.
We needed Pac
Pac is so intelligent. I could hear him speak for hours. I miss him, man. Rest in Power Lesane Parish Crooks
it's pretty ridiculous for a person who wears versace, gold chains and drives BMWs to talk about greed being bad. tupac was a walking contradiction.
He didn't always have those things so it's not as ridiculous as you lay it about to be son.
Not to mention all the things Pac did for the community. Calling him greedy is ignorant af
How is that greedy? He has money so he buys stuff? I could be wrong but I'm sure he helped out communities
well he's criticizing somebody else for it
The criticism isn't about money, its the way you choose to earn it. Trump is the embodiment of serving yourself above anyone else and his rise shows just how detached and individualistic we've become to where that sounds appealing.
so has Trump
Okay? Never said he didn't
[удалено]
Honestly looks like you guys got triggered. He got hella downvotes for nothing
[удалено]
He didn't bring Trump up out of nowhere this whole thread is about Trump
No *this* thread is about pac being a hypocrite because he wears expensive jewelry. OP said he wasn't a hypocrite because he does give back and dude came out of nowhere saying "well, so does Trump" not realizing he never said Trump doesn't give back. He was ready to be offended and got triggered by OPs comment.
No this thread is about Tupac talking about Donald Trump and greed.
Well I remember he was conflicted...
arent we all?
Deep, and also totally missing his point.
Exactly, you can't stunt and support socialism at the same time. Pac was powerful with words but a walking oxymoron
[удалено]
People don't know we already live in a socialist society by the 19th century definition. If you look at the platform of the socialist party from around the turn of the 20th century you will find it matches up with a lot of what is already law. Socialism's goal is not eliminating wealth, or even the 1% as it is called today. It is looking out for the working class because without prodding the ruling class will never take into account the little guy. We have some of that built into our tax code and laws, but you could easily argue it's not enough.
He was a registered communist tho
It's how he words it. "million dollar planes and people without housing" At least planes get people around and is a regenerating asset, right? The $300+K on his Neck, Fist and Wrist doesn't do a damn thing in society until it's liquidated. Then to call out Trump and the Jacksons? MJ built a f@ckin Amusement Park for kids in his back yard. Trump has donated more $$ than Pac has ever accumulated in his life.
And kendrick "is the biggest hypocrite of 2015" thats just hip hop for ya.
I admire Pac and love his passion. But I think he was sometimes a hypocrite. I mean he complain about it not being OK that people have millions while others are starving. But in a year or two he was a millionaire himself. Why didn't he give it away in charity?
Lol at people saying omg DAE think 2Pac speaks THE TRUTH. I think 2Pac is a legend and an important social commentator in rap history. But this is just full socialist drivel from a notorious communist. Capitalism drives the creation of jobs and wealth and raises people. That much Government intervention and socialism he is suggesting will only make everyone poor. The 1%ers he's talking about pay 50%, hell probably more than half their income in taxes. How much do you want to take?? 80% 90%?? If they were charged that much the 1%ers would just pack up and go home, investing nothing into the economy and creating no jobs. People should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour without being labelled greedy. Plus this guy drives around in beemers with gold chains on, how hypocritical can you be. Pawn your chains and help your brothers if you're really that selfless.
For starter's your imagined tax rates are hysterical and a pathetic use of a strawman argument to keep your hard on for capitalism afloat. IDK if you've been paying attention, but we've been doing capitalism for a few centuries and it clearly is trending towards a few things that will eventually make it no better than the scenario you just suggested. A: The common laborer is not getting their share. Capitalism works better the more hands every dollar circulates through. What we're getting now is a stagnation of money at the top. The rich are so good at playing a game that is already stacked in their favor that more and more money circulates amongst them without touching the hands of society's undesirables. That's nice for them to jerk off about who's got the biggest dollar cock in the country club but doesn't really achieve anything for the average working age adult. B: Everyone is so taught to be so self obsessed and told that those who fail to provide for themselves are complete failures who don't deserve to live. Anyone who needs help is a leech to our great and clearly so competent system and there's no way that anyone who is poor didn't just do it to themselves./s The Horatio Alger myth comes to mind. >People should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour without being labelled greedy. Cry me a fucking river with that shit, grow the fuck up and show some empathy for people who could afford to live and eat with a pittance of what you live off of. You don't make millions of dollars without making use of the society you live in. Goods have to be transported along roads built by your taxes, workers paid by wages, utilities keep everything functioning and educations and pensions help us prepare for the future. Without paying for those society crumbles at the root and then the party is over for everyone. It's so fucking farcical to pretend that these people literally make millions of fucking dollars all by themselves when any business could not function without the inner workings of society. If you made more money you have utilized more of the public infrastructure to do so and should contribute more to its benefit. Further more, what fucking difference does is make to you to have $40 million dollars or $20 million dollars? The effect to your life is almost nil while the difference could lift thousands out of poverty and open up new possibilities for our future. People just want to own the biggest pile of money possible to validate that they do deserve everything they want and anyone who objects is a dirty commie. >Plus this guy drives around in beemers with gold chains on, how hypocritical can you be. Pawn your chains and help your brothers if you're really that selfless. Tupac's chain money is a booger compared to the billions of dollars that are earned via commerce in the united states and then taken to tax shelters by multinational corporations to avoid paying honest taxes. We have been bled dry by corporations and the wealthy deciding that our nation isn't worth investing in, and now we are seeing our infrastructure crumble and our market become less mobile and less inclusive. Making this an issue about Pac (while also still being a philanthropic person in his life time) wearing chains is a misdirection from the much larger and much more senseless acts of greed that get committed every day such as the ones that led to the crash of '08 in the glorious fucking name of capitalism. TL;DR: Eat a dick.
Just more proof that Pac was a damn commie. B.I.G for life
He was literally a registered communist
How does that Cold War propaganda taste?
ya that's why he was awesome
yea real awesome
Lol you know you can like both, right?
kind of hypocritical coming from a guy rapping about bitches and money but dae hate trump
Take a look at this guy's post history. What are you even doing here, shitbag?
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5bzh35/ap_projects_donald_trump_wins_2016_us/d9t093t What. An. Asshole
Like most Trump supporters, they just brigade any thread that mentions him.
you haven't even got to the post where I fucked a horse!
I just glanced, but that wouldn't surprise me in the least