🔥 First they came for the incandescent bulbs...
-
I had a copy of 1984 with a great depiction of a boot stamping on a human face on the cover. I searched for that image with the keywords "1984 boot" and Google came up with this:
I totally had that game on my C-64. Wow. Mind blown.
-
@LaoC said:
Wat.Said bourgeoisie always exists within a state that usually has a kind of economic order set in the constitution or other laws. That's the intended economic order.
Why does there have to be an order of monks or the like for there to be an intended economic order?
So, you're turning back on what you said.
Either there is some oligarchy group that cooperates in the shadows or its just the competition of interests.
I don't know how unions and campaign financing figure here but once private property is in the constitution, it doesn't matter what kind of -archy we're dealing with, there's your intended economic system. What's so hard about that?I'm not denying that corporate has heavy lobby power, but so does the unions. Unions are some of the biggest donors to campaigns.
On a sidenote, what's your definition of an oligarchy anyway? If the US was divided up like its people's wealth ...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/If-us-land-mass-were-distributed-like-us-wealth.png@LaoC said:
When some of these interests are deemed unconstitutional,
Again, despite this manufactured image by the US liberal media, unions have massive lobbying power.
As long as they adhere to the intended economic order, they're free to lobby. Beyond that, there's the Communist Control Act.@LaoC said:
Oh sure, Engels recognized there would be an obvious alternative: "Socialism or Barbarism".Which potential ideals? You mean the countries I called bullshit on?
The potential socialist paradise. It never happens.@LaoC said:
How?that would imply the means of production owned themselves
But that can't happen in practice.
What it means is that some oligarchy ends up owning the public.
@LaoC said:
[citation needed]You haven't explained what you think "means of production" means in Marxism
Is land a means of production? Is labor a means of production?They are both means of production.
@LaoC said:
Kennedy would disagree. He was more concerned with making Vietnam an example of U.S. power in the world so he chose, as usual, to support the far bigger foot on people's necks in the form of Diem. The guy who brought the landlords back and murdered, tortured and imprisoned tens of thousands of suspected communists and was thus THE reason there was a significant revolutionary movement in the South in the first place.So Ho Chi Minh writing a Declaration of Independence like this was bad how?
It isn't. That's my point.
The error is
Unfortunately he was driven into bed with the Soviets
That's THE reason we fought in the war.
@LaoC said:
The million and a half Vietnamese killed in the war.Do you mean it was fine to kill them because the Russians had a huge fucking boot on their people's neck, too, or the dead were the Communists' fault for not letting good old colonialism rule in the South?
That doesn't make sense. Fine to kill who?
You're comparing two bads as if one is superior, I don't understand what your point is.
@LaoC said:
"You still fail to see that my avatar isn't red, it's square."False dilemma. Those are orthogonal categories.
That was my POINT. Gad.
The authoritarianism of implemented socialism that devloves into communism is the problem.
Or democracy.Socialism without heavy authoritarianism is anarchy.
@LaoC said:
[citation needed] Not that this was the point anyway. There's currently a wave of domestic terrorism because people feel threatened. Feeding and housing the refugees costs e.g. the Germans and estimated €10B a year. Nobody's even batting an eyelid over the €130B-over-15-years extra they just passed for the defense budget—because that's something the profit-oriented media can't scandalize. That's something that benefits rich people, you can't call that a reason for "crisis". Cuba in the 90s lost over 80% of their foreign trade. Now *that* would be a reason for crisis if there ever was one. They didn't have mobs roaming the streets beating up poor people or throwing hand grenades as it happens now. Most of them still knew what their alternative was, namely going back to being the "brothel of the Americas" as Cuba was called before the revolution.bunch of refugees they could provide for out of the petty cash box
You mean the ones, that after giving to hotels and being provided for, marched in the streets, lit tires on fire, and threw furniture out of the hotels because it wasn't enough?@LaoC said:
Which has very little if anything to do with Marx's economic theory.
Which remains a damned theory.Show me it in practice.
Of course it is. Actually very little of it is about how things are supposed to be organized in communism. First of all, it is a theory of capitalism and why it works the way it does, badly.
-
Your posts are several orders of magnitude harder to follow than @xaade's. I never would have thought that even possible.
-
I searched for that image with the keywords "1984 boot" and Google came up with this:
Big Brother is now Little Sister.
-
-
-
On a sidenote, what's your definition of an oligarchy anyway? If the US was divided up like its people's wealth
People keep up on that. Not sure that's inherently bad. The bad part is the fact that there are some that work hard and don't make middle-class pay. What the 1% own is not important to me. It's not like there's some cap on wealth. Unless you're a liberal; they believe that for some reason.
As long as they adhere to the intended economic order, they're free to lobby.
Stuck on ownership being evil... I see. It's the only thing in your head.
Capitalism is evil because ownership is evil because bad things happen.
Well, then, burn all people. Because people are responsible for bad things.
Well, you keep to your paradise then.
How?
Because the public cannot own the means of production, you have to have regulation on who can use the means and for what purpose and for what duration. That becomes the government.
[citation needed]
Reality.
Or did you miss out on the last 150 years of history.
Or democracy.
Constitutional Republic != Democracy.
There's currently a wave of domestic terrorism because people feel threatened.
That's the exact description of a socialist revolt.
First of all, it is a theory of capitalism and why it works the way it does, badly.
Well, until you produce something better, it's simply the best bad.
Jumping off of a slowly squeaking ship into shark infested waters because the ship is squeaking is not logical.
A theory is always going to appear better than a real economic system.
-
Here's how it goes down.
If the means of production are public, and without a constitution, there is some method for deciding how the means of production are used.
I'm not saying it has to be democracy, because you can also have a oligarchy (like the Russian government/military gestapo) "own" the means of production for the people in their stead.And since human labor IS a means of production. It gives the governing method the authority to regulate the use of that means of production.
Which gave the Russian communistic government the authority to shove people on trains and move them to labor sites.
-
@LaoC said:
On a sidenote, what's your definition of an oligarchy anyway? If the US was divided up like its people's wealth
People keep up on that. Not sure that's inherently bad. The bad part is the fact that there are some that work hard and don't make middle-class pay.
The question was what you definition of an oligarchy is, not whether it's good or bad. Everyone seems to agree that Russia is an oligarchy with 85% of wealth being held by the top 10%, 10% higher than in the US.@LaoC said:
1) The one sticking a moral label on everything is you 2) That wasn't the point. When you have a law against cubism you can hardly say art is free. When you have a law against communism, you can hardly say "there is a competition of interests".As long as they adhere to the intended economic order, they're free to lobby.
Stuck on ownership being evil... I see. It's the only thing in your head.Well, then, burn all people. Because people are responsible for bad things.
I know that's the solution preferred bythe Free Worldâ„¢ but as far as I'm concerned too many people got burned here already.@LaoC said:
Do you have to? What's wrong with the people working with those means of production deciding?How?
Because the public cannot own the means of production, you have to have regulation on who can use the means and for what purpose and for what duration. That becomes the government.
@LaoC said:
ITYM "or did you miss the last ..."?[citation needed]
Reality.
Or did you miss out on the last 150 years of history.
Didn't you want to explain what you think "means of production" means in Marxism? Then you should be able to quote a Marxist on that, otherwise one would think you just made it up. Especially because neither classical nor neoclassical economics take labor to be a "means of production".@LaoC said:
I know. What's your point?Or democracy.
Constitutional Republic != Democracy.
@LaoC said:
When mobs beat up poor people and throw hand grenades into refugee houses, that's an "exact description of a socialist revolt"?There's currently a wave of domestic terrorism because people feel threatened.
That's the exact description of a socialist revolt.
-
When you have a law against communism, you can hardly say "there is a competition of interests".
-
You're saying that because socialism isn't allowed the economy isn't free..... wow.... ok then.
-
There's a law against murder. Surely there's some corporate that would love to be able to legally kill its competitor? Sometimes you judge an idea to be invalid. We've judged socialism to be invalid.
What's wrong with the people working with those means of production deciding?
Because that becomes tyranny of the majority.
Look, we already have something that simulates public access to means of production. There are workshops here that provide everything you need to build anything, to individuals, for a cost based on duration of use.
That's exactly what socialism would be. Because you're not going to accomplish socialism without taxes, because some costs have to be shared.
So the concept already exists, as it should, within capitalism to a greater degree of freedom simply because some business owner realized he could capitalize on the concept of socialism.
Especially because neither classical nor neoclassical economics take labor to be a "means of production".
Of course it doesn't. Yet it plays out in reality, over and over again. It's a reasonable explanation on how Communistic governments justify owning people in the name of "for the people".
When mobs beat up poor people and throw hand grenades into refugee houses, that's an "exact description of a socialist revolt"?
No. The phrase I quoted is. Domestic terrorism because people feel threatened, is exactly how one could explain the socialist revolts of Russia and China. The details make the difference.
But the similarities are interesting.
-
-
Does this thread need a :Fire: yet?
-
Does this thread need a :Fire: yet?
Skimming through the thread, I think it probably earned one more than 150 posts ago.
-
But since we're not supposed to edit titles or something without asking...?
-
I think that applies mostly, if not exclusively, to article comments and topics started by a certain poster with a stick up ... well, let's just say a very unpleasant smelling stick.
-
Maybe we should take the from the declawing topic title.
-
On the matter of the original subject line, GE has come to its senses and decided to stop making CFL bulbs:
-
@LaoC said:
Not at all. "The economy" being "free" is a stupid concept anyway—people can be free or not, "te economy" can't. I'm saying that you're wrong to argue that there can't be an "intended economic order".When you have a law against communism, you can hardly say "there is a competition of interests".
- You're saying that because socialism isn't allowed the economy isn't free..... wow.... ok then.
Too bad you don't even have a working definition for the "oligarchy" you've been throwing around BTW.
2. There's a law against murder. Surely there's some corporate that would love to be able to legally kill its competitor? Sometimes you judge an idea to be invalid. We've judged socialism to be invalid.
Oh, definitely. I daresay the vast majority of murders happen exactly for this reason, "judged invalid" or not. Competition is often murderous in more than a metaphoric sense.Look, we already have something that simulates public access to means of production. There are workshops here that provide everything you need to build anything, to individuals, for a cost based on duration of use.
That's exactly what socialism would be.
http://bodega.towiski.de/Five-Mullah-Facepalm3.jpg
-
-
-
Yeah, I know.
That's exactly why I use the term.
"Liberals" are not liberals.
-
Not at all. "The economy" being "free" is a stupid concept anyway—people can be free or not, "te economy" can't. I'm saying that you're wrong to argue that there can't be an "intended economic order".
When you start sounding like blakey: .
-
-
Yay!