the skunk-ape would have worked much better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunk_ape
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunk_ape
Dilbert, it does seem you've been taken in by the "people want free stuff" straw man argument quite a bit. I don't have student loans anymore, but I still want the education system reformed. I don't have crippling medical bills or insurance gaps, but I still want everyone to be covered. Oftentimes criticism to these ideas comes by way of "your taxes will go up" to which a proponent would say "no shit", or at the very least would say they at least want their taxes to go to something useful for society instead of bombing brown people and helping rich people get richer. It's not a "this is unfair; I deserve free shit", it's "this is unfair; people shouldn't have to go through this, so let's try to fix it."uziq wrote:
socialists aren't luddites ffs. we are literally talking about harnessing technology and automation to reduce manual workloads.Dilbert_X wrote:
But thats not what people want, they want all the stuff but without working.uziq wrote:
it doesn't want to reject work but to get people off the treadmill of working 60-hour weeks to buy shit they don't need which only ends up in landfill/the oceans.Most people don't want it, they want a nice life and to make progress, not be threshing corn to make lunch, thats why there's no progress at the national level.as to your second point, that's again pretty suss to me. most grassroots socialist organizations here are extremely community-based. arguably the biggest weakness of the left in its 21st century guise thus far has been a (structurally flawed) focus on localism, grassroots activism, small-scale communitarianism, etc. there are any number of very well-meaning socialists in the UK who are excellent local citizens but ultimately without any ability to change national policy.
it's not an either/or thing, not a case of capitalism-and-having-modern-convenience or socialism-and-the-kolkhoz.
Definitely. There's nothing wrong with wanting tax money to go to more things that people actually need rather than things the Pentagon doesn't want or corporate bailouts destined to be pocketed rather than restorative. SoCiaLIsM!
Excerpts from LA Times
Commentary: The rhetoric at the RNC has gone from disastrous to dangerous
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a … ic-kenosha
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a … erica-prop
Commentary: The rhetoric at the RNC has gone from disastrous to dangerous
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a … ic-kenosha
Commentary: To President Trump and the GOP, America is just a propNews stations periodically broke away from the otherwise sedate RNC to cover the America Pence promised to make great again — again. Against the backdrop of residents evacuating before the storm, doctors on the front line of the pandemic, and uprisings in the streets, watching the GOP’s self-congratulation tour felt like being dropped into a different dimension. Speaker after speaker expressed how well things have been going in America since President Trump took office, how great they are now, how all that will change if the Democratic ticket of former Vice President Joe Biden and California Sen. Kamala Harris wins in November. Aggrandize the present, fear for the future. Leverage anger and hate.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a … erica-prop
If you were among the curiosity seekers who tuned in to the second night of the Republican National Convention on Tuesday hoping for a repeat of Kimberly Guilfoyle’s sternum-shaking fervor — and the humorous memes to match — you were likely disappointed.
The GOP’s opening night program may have tried to shore up President Trump’s COVID-tattered image as an empathetic problem-solver, but it foundered on thunderous rhetoric, watery eyes and white grievance, to say nothing of the pandemic’s death toll or the economy’s collapse.
By contrast, Tuesday’s festivities were almost uniformly sedate. In fact, minus the now commonplace references to “radical left” boogeymen and a particularly lurid antiabortion speech from activist — and would-be women’s suffrage opponent — Abby Johnson, one might describe Night 2 of the Republican National Convention as a utopian vision of America, a place where the novel coronavirus was “successfully fought” and Congress “saved the economy” (former CNBC host and current Trump economic advisor Larry Kudlow); where overseas wars will soon come to an end (Sen. Rand Paul); where the president is an ardent feminist and the battle against “misinformation” is waged from the highest levels of government (Tiffany Trump).
The problem, of course, is that the utopia portrayed during the RNC on Tuesday is a fiction, and its America just a prop.
no. but it certainly is a final verdict on capitalism, the internal flaws of which are doing to be the end of it.Larssen wrote:
your reading of Marx is as though that's the final verdict on economics and power.
profit, as it is understood by capitalist economics, simply does not exist. the whole system is mathematically incoherent - it relies on perpetual grows, the addition of new markets, resources and consumers. out planet, however, is finite.I do think property rights and for-profit economics are here to stay.
okayNo, I don't see it in the same vein as...
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
capitalism's 'internal flaws' (or contradictions in marx's terms) have proven themselves remarkably resilient. capitalism is more protean, more able to adapt, and more able to survive than marx/engels predicted. your faith in historical materialism and the dialectic verges on the religiose. lots of systems exist with their internal flaws perfectly well. adorno analyzed this often in a post-marxist vein. cf. his writing on 'aporias'.
orly? so now is not the time? when then? how does one even determine that?uziq wrote:
his reading of marx is not good. it's not even good marx. he is urging america to have a communist revolution now, without even heeding anything that marx/engels say about historical development.
that^, however, is true. not the whole of the issue, but one of the major points. and i pointed it myself many times in my exchanges with you here, you just conveniently forgot about that.the reason communism failed in russia and its 'early experiments' aren't because it's a recipe that needs perfecting. it's literally because they were not at the right moment of historical development.
putting the words in my mouth again? it's kinda unbecoming to an intelligent person.and yet he keeps saying that america is doomed unless they have a revolution now
yep. they are not talking any real change, not naming the real problems, and fighting imaginary enemies. "defund the police" ffs. they are literally tilting at windmills.and shitting on the social democratic left of the democratic party who want to broach these issues.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
why don't you tell me how america is going to have a revolution when its entire bourgeois and liberal intelligentsia are frankly allergic to socialism and marxism? how is it going to spring out of the vacuum? maybe castro can send an army over with che guevara?
capitalism is mathematically incoherent. there is no profit in it's mode of production, it must all come from outside of the system. and we are long past the point when it could be solved via colonialism, and then the world wars. the whole world is now capitalist. and all the supposed "profit" is this. the end.uziq wrote:
capitalism's 'internal flaws' (or contradictions in marx's terms) have proven themselves remarkably resilient. capitalism is more protean, more able to adapt, and more able to survive than marx/engels predicted. your faith in historical materialism and the dialectic verges on the religiose. lots of systems exist with their internal flaws perfectly well. adorno analyzed this often in a post-marxist vein. cf. his writing on 'aporias'.
Last edited by Shahter (2020-08-27 09:15:12)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
i dunno. i can tell you how america is not going to have revolution, however - by defunding the police. or engaging in idiotic identity politics.uziq wrote:
why don't you tell me how america is going to have a revolution when its entire bourgeois and liberal intelligentsia are frankly allergic to socialism and marxism? how is it going to spring out of the vacuum?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
maths and logic itself are internally incoherent, c'mon. gödel wasn't that long after your prophets. you keep relying upon these 'axiomatic iron laws' from marx as if history genuinely is a hegelian dialectical process. it's a neat (too neat) theory.Shahter wrote:
capitalism is mathematically incoherent. there is no profit in it's mode of production, it must all come from outside of the system. and we are long past the point when it could be solved via colonialism, and then the world wars. the whole world is now capitalist. and all the supposed "profit" is this. the end.uziq wrote:
capitalism's 'internal flaws' (or contradictions in marx's terms) have proven themselves remarkably resilient. capitalism is more protean, more able to adapt, and more able to survive than marx/engels predicted. your faith in historical materialism and the dialectic verges on the religiose. lots of systems exist with their internal flaws perfectly well. adorno analyzed this often in a post-marxist vein. cf. his writing on 'aporias'.
C'mon you're going to have to try a little harder than this. Which internal flaws exactly? The 'capitalism' of feudalism, colonialism & the 21st century has gone through very different iterations and each had totally different power structures governing society & wealth distribution. Now in your imaginary property-less system, what entity is supposed to see to infrastructure, housing, production etc? The state? You tried that.Shahter wrote:
no. but it certainly is a final verdict on capitalism, the internal flaws of which are doing to be the end of it.Larssen wrote:
your reading of Marx is as though that's the final verdict on economics and power.profit, as it is understood by capitalist economics, simply does not exist. the whole system is mathematically incoherent - it relies on perpetual grows, the addition of new markets, resources and consumers. out planet, however, is finite.I do think property rights and for-profit economics are here to stay.okayNo, I don't see it in the same vein as...
What do you mean profit doesn't exist? Stop hiding in vagueness, give me your infallible mafs.
I'm sure thats exactly what the tsarists said.uziq wrote:
why don't you tell me how america is going to have a revolution when its entire bourgeois and liberal intelligentsia are frankly allergic to socialism and marxism? how is it going to spring out of the vacuum?
Corporations have become too big and rich and so powerful they're bullying governments.
They need to be scaled back or there will be an unpleasant schism at some point.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
you really are so historically illiterate, jesus fuck. there were huge numbers of socialists as well as liberals in pre-revolutionary russia. the writing was definitely on the wall. there were numerous giant assemblies, riots, strikes, brutal armed put-downs by guards, etc. socialism was a valid thing in europe and russia at the time, generally. in america there is no socialist party advocating for such policies.
Sanders should have had the nomination twice no? Isn't he moderately socialist?
America is practically a socialist country as it is.
Corporations have excessive freedoms, reign them in a bit and it will be as socialist as Germany.
America is practically a socialist country as it is.
Corporations have excessive freedoms, reign them in a bit and it will be as socialist as Germany.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
again, you're thinking social democrats, not socialism in the 19th century or original sense of the word. america is nothing like a socialist society. words have meanings, dilbert.
sanders isn't socialist, either. i mean there were hardcore socialists in russia during the tsarist era. chernov, trotsky, heard of them? there was a first russian revolution 12 years before the communist one, you know. workers were assembling en masse -- and being massacred by imperial guards. socialism was a major political force in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. in america today it is a buzzword used by sensationalist fox anchors. if you can't tell the difference, i can't help you.
it's incredibly funny you say 'the tsarists never saw it coming', anyway. the tsars mismanaged the russian peasantry for most of the 19th century, since at least the emancipation of the serfs, and were continually reminded of it by strikes, mutinies, military defeats and revolution after revolution. really a very uniquely bad historical comparison.
sanders isn't socialist, either. i mean there were hardcore socialists in russia during the tsarist era. chernov, trotsky, heard of them? there was a first russian revolution 12 years before the communist one, you know. workers were assembling en masse -- and being massacred by imperial guards. socialism was a major political force in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. in america today it is a buzzword used by sensationalist fox anchors. if you can't tell the difference, i can't help you.
it's incredibly funny you say 'the tsarists never saw it coming', anyway. the tsars mismanaged the russian peasantry for most of the 19th century, since at least the emancipation of the serfs, and were continually reminded of it by strikes, mutinies, military defeats and revolution after revolution. really a very uniquely bad historical comparison.
Last edited by uziq (2020-08-27 17:09:10)
"Socialism" is kind of the catch-all here for for left-of-center Americans who want more social programs to the point where I think definitions have split off. I don't think many casual conversations employ it in context of ~100 years ago.
here's a simple one: if it doesn't involve public/state ownership of property, institutions, resources, corporations, etc, then it's NOT SOCIALISM.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
"Socialism" is kind of the catch-all here for for left-of-center Americans who want more social programs to the point where I think definitions have split off. I don't think many casual conversations employ it in context of ~100 years ago.
Sadly it's probably too much to ask for someone's eyes to light up in recognition of names like Trotsky or be able to parse political concept, if they can't even point to what state they live in on a map.
According to the local Murdoch rag Biden is not doing as well as people think, in key states he's behind where Clinton was.
Trump could actually win this.
I approve of him sticking it to China, apart from that god help us.
Trump could actually win this.
I approve of him sticking it to China, apart from that god help us.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
if america being the world's biggest covid failure, by a yuuuge margin, is not enough of a wake-up call that trump isn't fit for office, then i fully believe that america is locked into a process of freudian death drive-esque self-annihilation, and will only be able to rid itself of the destructive energies once the grim process has been seen through to the end. maybe like a drug addict they've got to hit their metaphorical rock bottom before they can assess the true toll and rebuild.
I think they've lost their way and there's no hope, people are too stupid and uneducated now to even understand what going on.
Its going to take another war to deliver an Eisenhower and the next war is going to eradicate us all.
Or maybe if Kim Kardashian endorses Kanye West, and Kanye West has Elon Musk behind him pulling the strings then maybe, just maybe.
It doesn't even seem like a long shot at this point.
Its going to take another war to deliver an Eisenhower and the next war is going to eradicate us all.
Or maybe if Kim Kardashian endorses Kanye West, and Kanye West has Elon Musk behind him pulling the strings then maybe, just maybe.
It doesn't even seem like a long shot at this point.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
We are so divided and entrenched among the two leading parties that you have people who are all like "I'd rather pull out my toenails than vote for (x party)," even if they know their party's candidate is a joke, incompetent, embarrassment, or all of the above. Local and federal levels.uziq wrote:
if america being the world's biggest covid failure, by a yuuuge margin, is not enough of a wake-up call that trump isn't fit for office, then i fully believe that america is locked into a process of freudian death drive-esque self-annihilation, and will only be able to rid itself of the destructive energies once the grim process has been seen through to the end. maybe like a drug addict they've got to hit their metaphorical rock bottom before they can assess the true toll and rebuild.
it's too easy to punch down on 'reality tv culture' and 'kim kardashian', but really you're calling for people to be 'educated' whilst, erm, not exactly demonstrating the greatest education yourself ...Dilbert_X wrote:
I think they've lost their way and there's no hope, people are too stupid and uneducated now to even understand what going on.
Its going to take another war to deliver an Eisenhower and the next war is going to eradicate us all.
Or maybe if Kim Kardashian endorses Kanye West, and Kanye West has Elon Musk behind him pulling the strings then maybe, just maybe.
It doesn't even seem like a long shot at this point.
you spout pseudo-scientific racial theories; you make wild and too frequent comparisons to ww2-era japan and china; you talk about 'the tsarists' whilst having zero historical grasp of the events that led up to the revolutionary period in russia; you denigrate the study of history and blame the humanities for all the evil in the world. i could go on ...
you're more a part of the problem of our divisive, hate-filled, ignorant and frankly conspiratorial age than you think.