Well fuckwit it still has a worth then doesn't it. Even if it has a negative worth it is not worthless. You really aren't half as smart as you think you are.
Results 41 to 60 of 163
Your initial comment in this thread contained the old standard socialist fallacy: Production for profit is different from production for use. The reality remains that capitalists can only accrue profits when they produce items others find useful. In other words, production for profit IS production for use. Which means the pursuit of profit will result in production which is beneficial for people.
So when you are talking about a situation where a smaller company is competing against a larger one, you suggest the smaller capitalist might sell out. Maybe.
But not always so. Smaller capitalists have thrived, and in some cases overcome, their much larger brethren by focusing on areas that larger guys overlooked, or did a task better, than the larger guys.
And the way that occurred is by the smaller company pursuing profits, which means they satisfied the overlooked needs, or satisfied needs in a better fashion than did the larger folks.
Well fuckwit it still has a worth then doesn't it. Even if it has a negative worth it is not worthless. You really aren't half as smart as you think you are.
"Ensanguining the skies,
How heavily it dies,
Into the west away.
Past touch and sight and sound,
Not further to be found,
How hopeless underground
Falls the remorseful day" A.E. Housman
I HATE the Chinese state, it does more damage to Leftism than Nazism and Fascism combined.
Correct, it has a worth value that is less than worthless, just like -5 is less than 3 even though it isn't 0. I'm happy we agree.
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
# # #
Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho
I agree with him in that many (not necessarily you) on the left get hyped up about a revolution or revolutionary action when absolutely nothing worthwhile in the last several years has been done by anyone to move any leftist movement forward. I guess he was referring to the fact that many on the left also excuse this lack of 'movement' with 'the masses aren't ready for revolution' which for the most part is accurate. So it's comparable to the date setters in that there's a lot of hype but not a lot of happening.
Capitalism obviously rejects any type of revolution against it as any system will but it doesn't necessarily reject reform. Rather than waiting for the masses to turn against a system that they're content with why not *educate them about the possibility for change*, Environmental issues, economic issues, etc. Start by gaining a little bit of contentment that the system is changing on issues that you're concerned with and maybe, as people realize how much can and needs to be changed, you'll have more support. Not support for outright communism, anarchism or whatever but a hybrid system that's mixed and matched.
I know 90% of the revleft community are against reformists but that's ok because i'm not a reformist. I'm just presenting an idea, and i'm curious as to what you all think of it.
"whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"
http://youtu.be/g-PwIDYbDqI
Well there is that and the fact a lot of leftists are lazy or settled into sectarianism, however having a non-class concious and brainwashed proletariat does not help. Which is why we don't say there will be a revolution today, tomorrow or even in a decade's time.
I disagree entirely. Most sensible leftists I have spoken to are not "hyping" a revolution that is just around the corner, they are advocating a revolutionary destruction of the society we currently live in as a medium-to-long-term goal.
There is no real problem with this tactic as long as you realise how limited it is, in its way. Class consciousness comes fastest either from education or extreme mistreatment, and naturally the former is preferable but not as effective as the latter (just to clarify I'm not cynical enough to want to make my life miserable so my peers start to share my world-view.).
A hybrid system is no good to the working class, bollocks to it and the horse it rode in on.
I think it's too limited, but may help in these the early days. The main danger is that people get caught up in the reform and abandon the revolution in favour of playing the bourgeois politics game.
What were you restricted for, by the way?
Sciences & Environment rocks my bedroom.
[FONT=Arial]Say what you mean and say it mean...[/FONT]
"Frankly if we have a revolution and you stop me eating meat, I'm going to eat you."- The inimitable Skinz.
Be careful, lest the time comes where we have to weigh you against a duck.
Hate to admit it, but you're probably right there. I think most people here know we are no-where near ready for a revolution and it would be foolish to think we are. That shouldn't mean that we don't prepare for one though. Although there are some on the left (not necessarily on this site) who mistake preparation for petty-thugery.
"Ensanguining the skies,
How heavily it dies,
Into the west away.
Past touch and sight and sound,
Not further to be found,
How hopeless underground
Falls the remorseful day" A.E. Housman
I HATE the Chinese state, it does more damage to Leftism than Nazism and Fascism combined.
How do you explain then, when in practice for example the vast majority of food which is unsold by supermarkets eg.Walmart are piled up in a storehouse ready for disposal rather than hand it out to the homeless population?
Why is it the United states alone produces enough grain to feed the planet 3 times over yet still sees the need to dump vast amounts of unsold surplus in the ocean?
I fail to see how this is 'beneficial' when you consider the amount of people who could benefit from a different system of distribution.
In the real world, whenever the money is on the table the capitalist is more likely to want to cash his chips and run, and repeat the process by using their money to threaten another monopoly.
You're probably referring to niche markets that appeal to peoples creature comforts rather than their day to day needs. I was referring mainly to industries which affect bread and butter issues like medical care and transport, which is why i mentioned my experiences in Manchester.
Yadda yadda yadda. Same as above. Who cares if its not reducing my commute to work, or reducing my wait time for a live saving operation?
What a convenient get-out clause.
I couldn't care less what goes on in other part of the forum. It's here - where differing views are aired - that the nature of the beast comes out. When I see talk of torture and homicide to those who happen not to agree with your private vision of utopia, it doesn't take long to work out the score.
Until I'm willing to learn? You mean "until I've learned to agree with you", don't you? You might want to try doing that yourself.
You're joking aren't you? Just because you and Publius happen to have some beliefs that overlap at the edges doesn't put you in the same league as him. At least he has his own ideas- as erroneous as I find them; unilke yours, his posts don't consist of a string of insults passed off as arguments.
Go and tell someone who cares.
No, I don't. The true believer isn't interested in facts, their beliefs are an article of faith, so it is with you.
When I see gays set on fire, I'll believe there's a wizard in sky. When I see communism succeed without turning into some variation of North Korea, I might entertain the idea that you could be right.
Hypocracy noted.
So if I were to search this forum, I won't find any Soviet/red China apologists or any claims that these countries weren't communist or were attempting communism, or that they practiced the invalid concept known as "state capitalism"? Are you sure?
That's funny, I'm not the one dependent on public transport...or welfare cheques...or the NHS. If all that makes me a failure, what does it make you?
Naomi Klein proves that free markets are inherently violent and militaristic: The phrase "right wing think-tank" contains the word "tank".
You condenscending ****! So what if he uses public transport, at least he doesnt have a carbon footprint the size of bigfoot.
:angry:
I agree, we cannot stress the importance of the left agreeing with itself.
Well, now, this is an interesting idea. What happens if you saw someone you know set a gay person on fire? Would that mean that there's a wizard in the fire?
So you're suggesting that the true extent of communism is Soviet/red China? However I find you contradict that statement with this:
Now this suggests that communism and North Korea (which you obviously associate with Soviet/red China) are two distinctly different things. That is North Korea is a mutilated version of communism, but surely this does not corroborate with you the previous statement? Ah must just be my eyes.
Well that's your fucked up bourgeois perception of failure. For me, and for Jazzratt (to whom I am supposing your reactionary tirade was addressed) and any other leftist member of the site, being dependent on the NHS is a success. It shows that man is caring for fellow man, and would be present after our revolution so yeah, it's a positive thing. Being dependent on public transport is fine, it can be very convenient. To be dependent on a welfare cheque may not necessarily mean failure, it could be someone got sacked for no apparent reason and was forced on the dole. You seem to have a low opinion of the proletariat, well let's take them out of society and see how you cope for a week, you bourgeois ****. So if we can feel pride in those things you listed, then we are a success and you, remain, a failure.
Lot's of love, Lux
"Ensanguining the skies,
How heavily it dies,
Into the west away.
Past touch and sight and sound,
Not further to be found,
How hopeless underground
Falls the remorseful day" A.E. Housman
I HATE the Chinese state, it does more damage to Leftism than Nazism and Fascism combined.
But what have they actually done for themselves or for others to break free of capitalism.
Well ok but by 'hybrid system' I simply mean something we haven't thought of yet. Something unforeseeable.
Revolutionary reform could be a demand for change through revolution. Revolution doesn't have to be an abolishment of an entire world economic system. (Although this makes me sound in favor of the world economic system, I am not in favor)
For interrupting the left's back patting circle jerk and asking some very important questions. I am on the left, but find it so hard to admit it because of certain people, in fact, most of the left makes me embarrassed to even have a political orientation.
"whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"
http://youtu.be/g-PwIDYbDqI
The weakness in the reformist language is this:
It seeks to slowly strangle capitalism. The result is that production declines, as wealth and property are slowly removed and capitalist actions are restricted, resulting in increased misery for workers. The refornist naturally and properly gets the blame for the problem at election time. It also allows for the capitalist to marshall its resources and work to obstruct the advance of socialism.
Which is the other problem: The reformist has to actually argue in favor of something. They actually have to convince people that their way is the best way.
The more hardcore revolutionary socialist types of course disdain such debate, probably because they revel in the fact they have absolutely no idea of how to go about and create a socialist community. Its far better just to create "the conditions neccessary" for a socialist revolt (which of course such socialists have no idea what they are) blame all the problems on capitalism and invest no further intellectual activity.
You seem reasonably intelligent so I apologise for insulting you. Look, I'm sure the left is frustrating atm - and even I get annoyed by the 'gun-crazy' nature of certain comrades (again not necessarily on his site) but stick with us, if capitalism's gonna be overthrown, I believe I'm in the right place, and amongst the right people.
"Ensanguining the skies,
How heavily it dies,
Into the west away.
Past touch and sight and sound,
Not further to be found,
How hopeless underground
Falls the remorseful day" A.E. Housman
I HATE the Chinese state, it does more damage to Leftism than Nazism and Fascism combined.
Socialists always seem to conceive of socialism from the point of their writing about it. The present world just sort of happened. But one cannot look at it that way. When the observation is made that the USA produces enough food to feed the world three times over, it is so because of capitalism. You can't just say "well, if there was a better distribution system" everything would just continue to flow the same, America would continue to feed the world. Change the system, and the results change. There is no way around.
Which is why your reference to some problem with the NHS is so curious. The NHS is a microscosm of how a socialist community would function. Because what the NHS does is allocate resources in a certain way. You will ALWAYS have to wait on line, because everyone in the UK cannot work in health care, nor can doctors operate on more than one person at a time. And the doctor is not a slave, and has the "right" (certainly in a socialist community) to free time. So how is the care parcelled out? Yep, wait on line, since other methods of allocating the resources are frowned upon. That the socialist criticises the capitalist method of allocating resources does not mean that the socialist community will not confront the same problem.
Specifically, your complaint at the end of your note is that the capitalist community has not solved the problems of a socialist segment of the community in its allocation of resources. Its sort of a weak criticism of capitalism, and a weak argument for socialism.
Highly debatable. If there were the resources there to begin with, it wouldnt matter what political ideaology was distributing it, it would still be there. The difference is capitalism chooses to dump it in the ocean rather than over the people who need it.
I would argue that under socialism there would be MORE resources rather than fewer, as the labour of all people would be utilised and scientific progress would be concentrated more on agricultural and industrial endeavours as opposed to the military and the various niche markets.
To which I would disagree with angrilly, there is a misconception that state owned health care is inefficient slow per se which is blatant spin on the part of the profiteers. The reason the UK NHS is falling to pieces is because it is underfunded by a capitalist government. At the peak of the Cuban revolution, Cuba had a health care system which was the envy of the western world. You would have struggled to find anywhere (in that region at least) where you could find a doctor with such speed and efficiency.
Its at this point when its not even a political argument anymore but comes philosphical. If a means of government produces more misery than it does joy, is there any moral grounds for mantaining it?
The reason the capitalist 'community' has no onus to solve the unequal distribution is because if it did so then it would lose its means of control over those who need it. Without the desperation caused by the inequality, they are unable to extort cheap labour from deperate people for as little money as possible.
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Neither do I. What does public transport run on anyway, moonbeams?
-
Not limited to it, no.
No it doesn't suggest that. You're clutching at straws and it's lame.
Yes, it must be. You're reading something that isn't there.
Reaction against the ridiculous isn't fucked up. It's sensible.
Being dependent on others is a sign of sucess? I guess being on the dole all your life must be a sign of sucess too, where you're completely dependent on others. If that's sucess, what's failure? Getting a job and not having to claim other people's money? You should listen to yourself.
I wouldn't say that made you a giver of virtue but a collector of it. Is the reciever of charity morally equal to the giver? I don't think so.
I'm more descriminating about what I call the proletariat (which, unlike you, I happen to be part of). People who actually work are what I consider working class, which doesn't include people on welfare cheques, as they don't.
Take out all the people who don't work and we'll see what? Less taxes? Bring it on.
Why criticise the bourgoise? I thought they were dependent on the proletariat. By your standards, we ought to consider them sucessful because of it.
In the same way someone comitting suicide is a success when they leap off a tall building. Good job.
Naomi Klein proves that free markets are inherently violent and militaristic: The phrase "right wing think-tank" contains the word "tank".
Ten years ago, when Zimbabwe farms were owned as capital and operated for profit, Zimbabwe was a net food exporter. Food as a resource was plentiful.
Now, with the farms nationalized and operated as an affirmative action jobs program, Zimbabwe is a net food importer that routinely faces famines and relies on other capitalist countries for food assistance.
This, I think, should clearly demonstrate that political ideology does indeed matter; the resources will not just automatically "be there."
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
# # #
Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho
Being dependent on other is a sign of a successful society. How would you know I'm not a member of the proletariat? Besides, guessing from your nature, you are in fact petit-bourgeois.
*Sigh* Ok, let's go back to the beginning. B O U R G E O I S; and also the plural is B O U R G E O I S I E. Not that you'd actually know because you probably haven't read The Communist Manifesto.
1 in 3 people get cancer, I've lost 4 people to it already, let's hope you're one of those 1 in 3, that you have no money, and that no one gives you any money to help you recover - then you might change your fucking mind. People like you are a disgrace, you are implying that a person should actually feel guilty for RECEIVING charity. You're probably one of those people who gives to charity on the odd occaision to make yourself feel better, instead of wanting to help them. Moral highground has no place in charity, charity should itself be so common that there should be no qualms on either side; that is the provider and the charity in question.
Anyway:
*courtesy of Jazzratt_Images*
"Ensanguining the skies,
How heavily it dies,
Into the west away.
Past touch and sight and sound,
Not further to be found,
How hopeless underground
Falls the remorseful day" A.E. Housman
I HATE the Chinese state, it does more damage to Leftism than Nazism and Fascism combined.
So you don't understand fuel efficiency and the benefits of public transport? Fine, just don't pretend your ignorance holds any weight. Since the amount of energy used per person is less with a public transport system than with everyone owning a car I suggest you fuck off. Cars are good for having fun in but hopelessly ineffeciant at transport.
No, I expect your wonderful repetoire of strawmen is practically limitless, but please do spare us the details of your moronic beliefs.
DPRK =/= Stateless Classless Society. get the fuck over yourself, you're the guy who has come here to get his jollies by trolling a forum.
So wait, because I've recognised that you coming on this website, dick in hand, ready for a trolling session indicates that your life is a hollow failure you feel you're in a position to declare some of our most progressive achievements "ridiculous".
You've never had a period of prolonged unemployment in your privileged life so you clearly don't understand how important things like food on the table, actually having a table and a roof over your head become in those situations, you'd rather just hoard all your resources and pretend that somehow this makes you a success rather than facing up to the fact that all it means is that others will starve to death because of you, this is why you're scum and this is why you should die in a fire. I think a sign of a successful life is one that is enjoyed by the person living it and one that furthers society. So a communist on the dole is worth a fuck of a lot more than some nob in a suit.
You don't know shit about the proletariat. Stop pretending that you're anything but a petit-bourgeois ****. Most of the proletariat go through periods of unemployment, as it is the nature of the bourgeois slave masters to occaisonally take away the one thing they give the workers - a wage.
Well let's see, first we'll start with your strawman: what would happen if the unemployed proletariat were removed:
1) Suddenly the labour pool would be dramatically reduced as anyone looking for a job dissapears.
2) No new workers come into this pool, after all they have to start out as unemployed.
3) Your society is fucked
Now imagine this situation if all proletarians were removed. See why we don't think you and your class are that great? You couldn't do shit without us.
I don't think you quite understood what he meant, but that's okay because you're a moron and I understand you understand things more slowly than others.
Because society provides for the destitute, the left can feel a small sense of success.
Tell you what, why don't you go and protest the tax rate by immolating yourself?
Sciences & Environment rocks my bedroom.
[FONT=Arial]Say what you mean and say it mean...[/FONT]
"Frankly if we have a revolution and you stop me eating meat, I'm going to eat you."- The inimitable Skinz.
Be careful, lest the time comes where we have to weigh you against a duck.
Who's dishing it out? If you have to resort to infantile mudslinging on the basis of financial or class status, then you insult us all, chump.
Which is beside the point. Havent you ever heard of a car pool? Or the concept of having just one polluting vehicle per x number of people rather than a polluting vehicle per person? Duhhh!!!!!!!! :wacko:
