Forum Proposal [Archive]

vox

28th February 2002, 09:09

Personally, I don't believe that capitalist filth should even be allowed to post here, and that includes Supermodel.

However, the notion has been raised:

"There are two theory forums. This is the other one, the actual "theory" forum should stay leftist only."

Damn straight.

If the right-wing idiots are going to be allowed to post anywhere, then get rid of this cage for 'em. (For 'em, forum, GET IT???)

Fact is, the right winger want us dead. Read Ann Coulter if you don't believe me. Believe a real live right-winger. She writes:
"Liberals are up to their old tricks again. Twenty years of treason hasn't slowed them down."

She's a radical right-winger, and a common voice in the mainsteam media. If they feel that way about US liberals, just imagine how they feel about us.

In fact, she reminds me a lot of Supermodel.

Regardless, the fact remains that this is a community for the Left. Tips, like SM gives, of gaining acceptance are garbage. We are not all teenage boys easily distracted by a bit of talk about sex, so Supermodel is DISCOUNTED, like a KMart garden hose.

Send to hell the right-wingers who seek to disuade and distract us. We do not need them.

And I know that I, personally, do not need them.

Valkyrie

28th February 2002, 14:05

He hehehehehe!!!! Vox you're too funny! I genuinely see your genius and admire it greatly. But.. I thought I was the one giving sex tips; -- albeit, socialist ones.

It took me awhile to figure out that your references of SM is an acronym for Supermodel and not sadism and masochism. (she could be though, she could be...) But sure enough, it can also be a reference to "soccer mom." which she thinks of herself as. Something I can relate to and also highly admire just the same, not being one myself. I think if S&M wants to change the world for the better, she is ok in my book. After all, It is the parents of the world who have the most at stake.

(Edited by Paris at 3:56 pm on Feb. 28, 2002)

Supermodel

28th February 2002, 14:31

I love you too, vox.

And I'm not a right winger. I'm not anything except that I live a capitalist life by definition.

I'm still curious to know what scares you so much about the moderate viewpoint, even more than the extreme right.

Oh Paris, you crack me up. What on earth is Socialist sex? I don't get into sadomassochism (does doing it with a hangover count?) but whatever fires your rocket, that's what I say.

Oh well, I'll log off and go have sex again now....

(Edited by Supermodel at 4:06 pm on Feb. 28, 2002)

Hayduke

28th February 2002, 19:49

Sounds to me that the little right wingers try to get out of their cage ........ Fack you ...you might even be happy you still here so you are in no position to suggest a thing....

AgustoSandino

28th February 2002, 20:33

wow, you people take yourselves too seriously.

Anonymous

28th February 2002, 21:08

some one said it, have a left wing theory and a right wing theory, how about it malte
lets say the capis aren't allowed post in the left wing forum and lefties are allowed to post in the capis one.

CheGuevara

28th February 2002, 22:35

Keep your filthy capitalist asses in here.

ZaPaTiStA SoCiAlIsTa

1st March 2002, 02:22

I admire vox, he speaks nothing but truth. I totaly agree with him. The cappies should stay in this forum, we dont need IP and his incompetent statements in any left forum. Him and the rest of the cappie filth should stay in this room.

Imperial Power

1st March 2002, 03:54

Zapatista socialista I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your are 11 years old. You guys are hilarious. It sounds as though you feel have some sort of power.

Hayduke

1st March 2002, 08:10

and those words were said by a imperial moron on a socialist board

Moskitto

1st March 2002, 19:15

What's wrong with capitalists in Chit-Chat? Chit-Chat is not political. Except a post about whether socialists should wear wonderbra's was vaguely political. But apart from that. Chit-Chat is a way of escaping politics.

Hayduke

1st March 2002, 20:03

I agree with that but the question is can we trust them to not use the forum to spread there capitalism bull..........

vox

3rd March 2002, 09:22

"I love you too, vox."

For what it's worth, I've never made a pretense of liking you, so don't act surprised. I've been against you from the start, and that hasn't changed.

"And I'm not a right winger. I'm not anything except that I live a capitalist life by definition."

Oh, okay. That makes it all better. You're a capitalist, but, golly, we better not blame you for that, right? Didn't you say previously that you owned a couple of businesses? And that your husband does, too? It was a while ago, but it was something like that.

You do realize that capitalists are, well, not too well-liked here, right?

"I'm still curious to know what scares you so much about the moderate viewpoint, even more than the extreme right."

Hmm. The first thing that leaps out at me is that you think I somehow fear the far right, or even you. The feeling is disgust, SM.

Now, why do I find you somehow more disgusting? Because you're a liberal, aren't ya?

I disllike liberals, SM. And you're right, in a way, they make me sicker than right-wingers.

See, here's the thing:

Liberals recognize that there's something wrong, but they think that capitalism can fix it. They believe that the very economic structure which causes so many problems can fix those problems. Liberals are worse than right-wingers. Right-wingers are just hateful idiots. Liberals know what's wrong and appreciate the benefits of what's wrong. Liberals are foul.

What's the difference between a liberal and a radical? A liberal supports a system she knows is unfair, a radical wants to change that system.

So there ya go. I think I've answered all of your objections, yes?

vox

El Che

3rd March 2002, 15:05

Say what?????????????? lol You wana invade the best part of the forums with your crap???????? excuse my french, but i dont fucking think so!! And you can post in the "chit chat" for all i care. I dont want to know you, just dont get in my way.

Imperial Power

3rd March 2002, 20:09

O damn El Che! I thought we could be best friends.

peaccenicked

4th March 2002, 18:23

Hey IP, I ll talk to you,
friends, more like friendly acquaintances. Do you have a look at Aristotle at all.
I would discuss that with you .
The nicomachean ethics.
I look for it on the web and open a new topic here.
It does not really matter what the label is. who really cares. socialism v capitalism, that can only be chit chat!
Nothing really serious is here except our arguments against you, but that being the case or not.
I will do so.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 7:57 pm on Mar. 4, 2002)

peaccenicked

4th March 2002, 18:35

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomach...aen.8.viii.html (http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.8.viii.html)
in order to be a friend, it is a good idea to know what friendship means.
In scot's it is spelt 'freinds' in some places. [free...inz]

Valkyrie

4th March 2002, 18:50

I'd like to get in on the nicomachean discussion. I've read them. Ethics is kind of an obsession for me; to put it mildly.
So, Let me know when you start the topic.

Supermodel

4th March 2002, 22:53

Yes, vox, you clearly have a very serious mind. I have made it perfectly clear that I live a capitalist life but espouse neither right wing nor left wing views and have never voted in an election (well, I'm not a citizen of any real country so I can't).

I can be totally honest. How many of the socialists on this board have savings accounts, employees, retirement accounts, company stock? Does having a job that provides these turn them into right wingers?

Go ahead, ban us all, we'll be back with semi-socialist screennames.... I like Wonderbra as a handle....pretty but a pain in the tits......

Bakunjin

4th March 2002, 23:53

I think they can chat in Chit-Chat...You can always ignore them if you don't like what they are talking:) ;)

RedRevolutionary87

5th March 2002, 03:12

i dont think you understand super model, socialism isnt a joke, and your bussinesses are more than what you need to live they dont provide, they help fill your wants, remmber for every doller made above your needs is a doller less that a hungry person kan have.

I Will Deny You

5th March 2002, 03:48

Quote: from RedRevolutionary87 on 4:12 am on Mar. 5, 2002
i dont think you understand super model, socialism isnt a joke, and your bussinesses are more than what you need to live they dont provide, they help fill your wants, remmber for every doller made above your needs is a doller less that a hungry person kan have.No one ever said that the socialist system itself is a joke. That doesn't mean that we can't joke about it in general. Ever heard of Abbie Hoffman? Discussion in a somber environment isn't any more productive than discussion in a relaxed environment and some people here take themselves way too seriously. And just because she earns more than she needs, how can we know how much of her money is given to charity? She has two kids and kids cost a lot. I'm sure she's putting plenty of what she earns into savings so that when it comes time for college they'll be provided for. If she weren't a consciencuous person, she wouldn't be here. So if running businesses is something that she is skilled at and enjoys doing, then that's what she should do. We need businesses, the question is who they should be run by and how their money should be distributed.

RedRevolutionary87

5th March 2002, 04:48

i have heard of abie hoffman however i dont really agree with he whole yippie movement, in my opinion it was a movement that the U$ government indorced because it was an alternative to communism. howver im getting off topic, i didnt mean to undermine her for owning a bussissiness, i was only attempting to make her aware of the situation that exists, and we may joke about socialism all we want but there wil come a time when blood will need to be spilled, and we cannot afford to make jokes then, sorry if i made anyone feel bad, just trying to shed some light.

guerrillaradio

5th March 2002, 15:25

Hmm...Vox et al are merely letting themselves be wound up by the capis....can't you see?? Imperial Power (or his very clever and even more mature nickname Imperial Moron), Agosto, Reagan Lives (maybe he does, but I believe he has Alzheimer's) and the rest are taking the piss, and you're being sucked in with your head up your collective arse!!

I feel no more affinity with Vox than I do a far-rightist. Extremism isn't left or right, it's just extremism. The political spectrum's ends meet, so in reality it isn't about left or right wing, it's more to do with extremist and moderate.

And as Naomi Klein says, attempting to boycott the system gets us nowhere. We live in a capitalist environment not through choice (and if another fucker tells me to move to North Korea I swear I'll strangle him), and therefore we have to accept some of its wrongs, but live within in with a certain amount of irony. I need money to buy CDs by leftist bands, books by Chomsky, Marx and Nietzsche, but above all, food.

Now grow up and stop this pathetic self-parody.

peaccenicked

5th March 2002, 15:36

guerrillaradio, you are right about the wind up.

Supermodel

5th March 2002, 17:17

RedRevolutionary87

5th March 2002, 21:34

actualy that is the whole point of communism, the rich get rich off the surplus created by the poor, thats why every country cant be like america

I Will Deny You

5th March 2002, 22:35

Quote: from RedRevolutionary87 on 5:48 am on Mar. 5, 2002
in my opinion it was a movement that the U$ government indorced
I never mentioned the Yippies specifically, although they do go hand-in-hand with Hoffman. Yippie, technically (if it's possible to get technical about such a term) was simply a word for anyone going to protest at the 1968 Democratic Convention. If you crack open a book about Abbie, the Yippies, the convention or the Chicago 8 it won't be long before you see that the government tried its damndest to infiltrate the Yippies. Jerry Rubin's bodyguard, the official Yippie photographer and many seemingly innocuous on-lookers were undercover cops. The FBI had not one but two psychoanalysts following Hoffman and there are thousands of pages of FBI files on him. And if I had a dime for every illegal COINTELPRO wiretap that Hoffman had to deal with I'd have enough money to buy the whole US government and put a golden statue of Hoffman in the middle of the Capitol. And let's not forget the time the government conspired and acted illegally to put Hoffman and Rubin in jail for a decade. Also, the alleged cocaine deal that Hoffman set up had undercover narcs on both sides, took place two days after the Rockefeller Laws were enacted, and seems to have been engineered beforehand to frame Hoffman. While he was in hiding Anita and Abbie's friends were constantly harassed. So, no, the US government did not endorse the Yippie! movement.

Quote: from RedRevolutionary87 on 5:48 am on Mar. 5, 2002
it was an alternative to communism.
The Youth International Party did not take any "official" position on communism, although Hoffman is a confirmed communist himself. The Yippies didn't try to propose any economic system at all. Their main goal was to end the Vietnam war and they were more of a countercultural phenomenon than anything else.

SasafrÃ¡s

5th March 2002, 22:44

Yeah, Linds! You schoolin' these fools! Educatin' these punks!

:biggrin:
(I'm kidding!)

Yet again, I have not made a relevant contribution to this. I'm sorry!

(Edited by La Rainbeaux at 5:44 pm on Mar. 5, 2002)

vox

7th March 2002, 08:03

SM wrote:

"Yes, vox, you clearly have a very serious mind. I have made it perfectly clear that I live a capitalist life but espouse neither right wing nor left wing views and have never voted in an election (well, I'm not a citizen of any real country so I can't).

"I can be totally honest. How many of the socialists on this board have savings accounts, employees, retirement accounts, company stock? Does having a job that provides these turn them into right wingers?

"Go ahead, ban us all, we'll be back with semi-socialist screennames.... I like Wonderbra as a handle....pretty but a pain in the tits......"

You go on for a bit about nonsense, like having a savings account, as if a savings account, when the capitalist structure demands that one saves, is, in and of itself, a capitalist idea, which is foolish, of course. Yes, you spout a lot of foolishness.

However, you mention banning. Hee!

Just why do you mention this, SM? Do you have something to say to me? DO YOU? Or, like a good little capitalist, will you decline to respond?

I'm betting on the latter.

Fact is, I'm one of the very few here who even pays attention to the likes of you. You should be grateful that I respond to you capitalists.

So, if you are banned, which I doubt will happen, please come back and post the same rubbish. I'll be on you then, too.

vox

I Will Deny You

7th March 2002, 22:07

Quote: from vox on 9:03 am on Mar. 7, 2002
You go on for a bit about nonsense, like having a savings account, as if a savings account, when the capitalist structure demands that one saves, is, in and of itself, a capitalist idea, which is foolish, of course.To vox and Supermodel: I have a savings account. I'm not so sure why a savings account matters so much. I go to college, and there are lots of kids here who don't even have jobs and still spend all of their money. I, however, have a job and worked even more these past three years. Not only do I not go around spending my parents' money, I don't even spend my own just for the hell of it. Maybe I misunderstood you vox, but the fact is that I live in a capitalist country and I have a savings account because I exercise self-control and don't spend all of my money, because there are plenty of places I'd rather be than the mall. So if "the capitalist structure demands" that I save, this is probably the one and only time when I'm more than willing to comply with capitalism.

El Che

7th March 2002, 22:14

Actualy what vox is saying is that weather you save or not is completly irrelevant to the question of being socialist or not. Because we live under capitalism, and unless we are lunatics we must do what must be done in order to survive/live as well as possible under such a state of afairs. And of course saving is much more "socialist" than spending money on futilities. In other words right on IWDY :)

(Edited by El Che at 11:15 pm on Mar. 7, 2002)

Moskitto

7th March 2002, 22:25

I never buy anything.

The most expensive thing i've bought at once was an £80 Braca Sport paddle which was a bargain because they sell at £250 normally.

I see my grandma every weekend and she always gives me money so I get a massive pile of money that I really need to put into the bank.

Then there's a load in the bank.

But the problem is I never buy anything except when I used to buy the occasional drink or chocolate bar from the shop, but now I can't because i'm booked up every weekend.

Supermodel

7th March 2002, 22:29

Sorry vox it took me a while to get back to you because I have to work over here and oh yes that would involve reading people's posts and that's hard work, ya know.

Anyways, what were you saying, let me look again....

as if a savings account, when the capitalist structure demands that one saves, is, in and of itself, a capitalist idea, which is foolish, of course.

now that's what I like to hear, I was worried that my little pass book was evidence that I've joined the vast right wing conspiracy. Are you coming out of the closet......do you, vox, actually have some savings???? Maybe a little 401(k), that your bastard evil dictator/employer forced you to have???? OMG be careful, you might catch capitalism, that's how I got started. And there is no known cure.

Now how could I ignore the only person here who actually tries to take me seriously. Everybody else knows I'm just making this stuff up.

As for getting banned, I believe it was you in the thread about Capis posting in any section they choose that mentioned me, and how Malte should ban the capis, here it is....OMG it's this thread, stick with the program supermodel it's not that hard really....

Personally, I don't believe that capitalist filth should even be allowed to post here, and that includes Supermodel.

Them's bannin' words!!!....although I've denied deserving the full title of capi.....anyways, the problem is I can't remember rules, I'm not non-compliant I'm just too dumb to figure out what I'm supposed to do.

The fact is, I'm more confused than even my posts would indicate. I live a capitalist life but it's not making me happy. But then you keep telling me that makes me a capi.

So I said, if a capi is dumb enough to invest in a company that loses money (Enron, Microsrategy, Atlantic Crossing, Amazon) is that the opposite of capitalism, because they are giving up their wealth so the workers can continue to get paid.

But you say, saving is a good thing. For Socialists. Saving and investing are precisely the same thing. I invest, therefore I am capi.

Anyways, you're the only person who listens to me, come back on Monday and I'll tell you about my problems with my mother, she never showed me love, she......{{{sobs, sobs.....}}}}

(Edited by Supermodel at 11:32 pm on Mar. 7, 2002)

vox

10th March 2002, 03:29

SM writes:

"Saving and investing are precisely the same thing."

Are they? Hmm, I wasn't aware of that. Indeed, the gov't insures my savings up to a point, yes? But does the gov't insure my investment in Enron? Of course not.

Indeed, the two are very separate things. I would have thought that this was obvious.

"So I said, if a capi is dumb enough to invest in a company that loses money (Enron, Microsrategy, Atlantic Crossing, Amazon) is that the opposite of capitalism, because they are giving up their wealth so the workers can continue to get paid."

I'm afraid you lost me here, SM. Investing in a company does not at all insure that workers get paid, does it? If it does, please explain to me how, if you sell one lot of Company X, and on that same day I buy one lot, how does this benefit the worker at Company X? Further, after the IPO, in what way do stock sales benefit a company? Also, for this all stems from the same question, perhaps you could explain if a CEO's promary responsibility is to the worker or the sharholder. That would be very much appreciated.

vox

vox

10th March 2002, 03:41

guerrillaradio,

I'm sorry that I didn't reply earlier. I believe I missed your post.

Anyway, I like some of what Klein has to say, but I don't agree with her postmodernist interpretation. I disagree with the notion of fragmentation that the postmodern seems to require. I see this reflected in the literature of right-wingers who accuse the Left of being a patchwork of causes without a unifying thread.

There are Leftists here with whom I disagree almost as much as I disagree with the right, but even then we are united by a common, overarching interpretation of capitalism. Have the Leftist postmodernists (if such a thing can really exist) ever pointed to fragmented capitalisms, or is their philosophy only applicable to reactionary sentiments? It's a serious question, I think.

vox

guerrillaradio

10th March 2002, 22:12

Vox - what you are suggesting equate to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", which is a philosophy I cannot and will not follow. It is a philosophy employed by imperialist America in pretty much every country it's got its nose into. So although I agree we hold a similar view of capitalism, it ends there. You are a radical leftist, I am more moderate in my leftism, but incredibly libertarian (I shocked myself when I took the political compass test).

And I fail to see how Klein employs postmodernism. Sure, her anger is directed at a relatively new problem (the size and injustices of corporations), but she does not advocate a return to the pre-brand era. Instead, she suggests that the brands are allowed to remain in existence, but only with their injustices eradicated.

And as for your question concerning leftist postmodernists, I do not know as I am yet to learn of the existence of one.

Supermodel

11th March 2002, 15:35

Just to explain a couple of my thoughts here:

Savings equal investments: Savings in a bank or perhaps even government bonds are indeed guaranteed by the government up to a limit. Investments in common stock are not, but preferred stock is partially safer as a corporate bonds. For every investment out there there is a measure of risk that coordinates with the level of return. Savings and investments do in fact serve the same purpose to the holder. The level of relative insurance again does not make a huge distinction between savings and investments. For the vast majority of savers, the two concepts are equal.

The concept of capital as a means to pay the workers: Certainly upon IPO or investment in a non-public company, as vox noted, is an infusion of cash that boosts the company, and its ability to grow, hire, and make pay raises or even continue to pay wages in the event of a loss year.

However the value of the shares, or the market capitalization, does not stop affecting the condition of workers after the IPO. Indeed it is very common to hear of layoffs and wage reductions as a result of the company's stock going down.

This is as a result of two factors: most, if not all, public companies are significant holders of their own stock, known as "treasury stock". The stock price goes up, the company benefits. A dividend is announced, the company pays itself.

Secondly, almost all public companies are themselves huge investors in the stock of other companies, as a strategy to offset cyclical risks in thier own business. Again, ups and downs in stock prices drastically affect the company's own profits.

As a purchaser of public company stock, the investor shores up the company by providing demand for the stock which will in a macro sense increase the price.

The executives work for the shareholders, that is clearly laid out in corporate law. However improved conditions for workers are clearly an important element of improving management at the company and thereby enhancing profits. The good of the shareholder, the good of the worker, and commonly the good of the shareholder-woorker, are not mutually exclusive.

vox

14th March 2002, 14:20

SM writes:

"...but preferred stock is partially safer as a corporate bonds. "

I have absolutely no idea what that means.

"For every investment out there there is a measure of risk that coordinates with the level of return."

Tell it to Enron's investors.

"Savings and investments do in fact serve the same purpose to the holder."

Are you suggesting an "essential" relationship? I don't think that one exists, for the former is insured by the gov't and the latter is not. How, exactly, are these similar?

"The level of relative insurance again does not make a huge distinction between savings and investments. For the vast majority of savers, the two concepts are equal."

This is your attempt at an answer. You equate perception with fact, which is, of course, a fool's game.

"However the value of the shares, or the market capitalization, does not stop affecting the condition of workers after the IPO. Indeed it is very common to hear of layoffs and wage reductions as a result of the company's stock going down.

"This is as a result of two factors: most, if not all, public companies are significant holders of their own stock, known as "treasury stock". The stock price goes up, the company benefits. A dividend is announced, the company pays itself.

"Secondly, almost all public companies are themselves huge investors in the stock of other companies, as a strategy to offset cyclical risks in thier own business. Again, ups and downs in stock prices drastically affect the company's own profits."

First off, the idea that company owned stock affects the actual, material conditions of a company isn't backed up in reality. What's affected is the company's value, which affects its ability to leverage capital. There is a wealth of info about the role of leveraged capital in post-industrial capitalist societies available and I suggest you take a look. It seems that you're interested in such things.

Secondly, if companies invest in other companies to offset ups and downs in their own markets, where can the blame then be placed? Only upon capitalism itself, with its crisis of overproduction which is a consequence of its very nature. Are we to feel sympathy for one company which invests in another? Of course not.

"As a purchaser of public company stock, the investor shores up the company by providing demand for the stock which will in a macro sense increase the price."

Yes, it may increase the price of the stock, but exactly HOW does this benefit the corporation? Yes, there is a benefit to the amount of leveraged capital it may use, but is that a good thing?

Does it reflect the real value of a company?

"The executives work for the shareholders, that is clearly laid out in corporate law. However improved conditions for workers are clearly an important element of improving management at the company and thereby enhancing profits."

I think that's bullshit.

Please give two real-world examples of this. I can give you real examples of companies cutting staff in order to shore up stock prices. Indeed, it's a common practice.

I only ask for two.

vox

Supermodel

14th March 2002, 20:58

OK head hurts ....head hurts......

Two examples.....well where I work there is 20% turnover each year (i.e., we are growing slowly but only after one fifth of our employees leave every year). This is a fairly high number. I.e. it sucks where I work.

Turnover is excessively costly as we estimate is costs one and a half times someone's salary to replace them. When you add the costs of turnover, and the costs of failing to provide quality standards of living for employees, corporations in the US are forced by competitive forces to improve working conditions in order to keep people from leaving. There is an equal and opposite effect when there is a glut of supply of people in the market, but that hasn't happened in over 12 years.

N'other example: Hertz renta car, entirely employee owned. Dyncorp, employee owned.

Now Enron, the risk and stock price were out of alignment because there was WAY imperfect information in the stock market. As you know, the stock market runs on consistent reliable information. When that goes out the window, as with Enron, investors are schnookered. Not to mention employees.

I still say savings and investments are the same because they are both deferred spending, i.e., deferred enjoyment of one's money. This country penalizes people who save/invest by taxing them twice and at higher rates, then *****es about nobody saving any money. But then again I have a hard time reconciling saving/investing with socialism.

Good thing when Che went around his Buenos Aires family asking for funds to go "find himself", his aunts and cousins had saved some of theirs so they could give it to him. So he could turn around 10 years later and pretend money means nothing. But I still love that rogue.....

(Edited by Supermodel at 9:01 pm on Mar. 14, 2002)