|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:09 pm
Lady Merewyn Gracchvs Lady Merewyn Louis-Auguste Robespierre Comrade Mann Gracchvs why do your views fail so hard? This is a trick your location has played on your perception. See, you are a Mandelite who outright rejects Trotskyism. Even Mandel didn't. But then, he really doesn't matter at all does he? I mean, with the long-wave theory of capitalism what does he come up with? In the 60's: We are in a wave of growth. Because of this, the labour aristocracy can be bought off. Our tasks, according to Mandel therefore do not include revolution. The workers are just too well bribed to come over We need to 'radicalise them.' In the 90's(in fact, since the crash in the 70's), and I assume now: We are in a wave of decline. There will be a mass of layoffs and such. Our tasks according to Mandel therefore do not include revolution. The workers need jobs in order to hold the bourgeoisie hostage after all so we need to fight for employment and other nice things. So yeah, from you perspective within the marsh, everything looks like fail to you. The moment you reject the non-marxist theories of Mandel you will be open to a whole new world of awesome. I hope to see you here one day. Comrade Mann Additionally but not Communism related. Why are you so lame? You must have some serious issues that you are projecting, constantly, onto me. Is there something you need to get off your chest? Some untold failure maybe? Maybe you have failed to rise to the occasion, and you no longer feel worthy? If so, It is okay, she is still into you!You are evil, Gracchvs. Just like Hello Kitty. Not lame... you don't get to be cool like FDR razz Or like Mann, eh. Except unlike FDR, his lameness isn't in the legs. Well, maybe one leg... It is nice of you to be so understanding. If we accept your statement as true ( censored so as not to affect outcomes of bets undertaken by several members of this guild), then I have a simple question for you--how would you know? Is there something you aren't telling us? eek You can't have him. Sorry. You should ask him about exactly what I know. Also, you should edit your post if you do not want to be so open to the gamblers among us.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:14 pm
Gracchvs Lady Merewyn Gracchvs Lady Merewyn Louis-Auguste Robespierre This is a trick your location has played on your perception. See, you are a Mandelite who outright rejects Trotskyism. Even Mandel didn't. But then, he really doesn't matter at all does he? I mean, with the long-wave theory of capitalism what does he come up with? In the 60's: We are in a wave of growth. Because of this, the labour aristocracy can be bought off. Our tasks, according to Mandel therefore do not include revolution. The workers are just too well bribed to come over We need to 'radicalise them.' In the 90's(in fact, since the crash in the 70's), and I assume now: We are in a wave of decline. There will be a mass of layoffs and such. Our tasks according to Mandel therefore do not include revolution. The workers need jobs in order to hold the bourgeoisie hostage after all so we need to fight for employment and other nice things. So yeah, from you perspective within the marsh, everything looks like fail to you. The moment you reject the non-marxist theories of Mandel you will be open to a whole new world of awesome. I hope to see you here one day. You must have some serious issues that you are projecting, constantly, onto me. Is there something you need to get off your chest? Some untold failure maybe? Maybe you have failed to rise to the occasion, and you no longer feel worthy? If so, It is okay, she is still into you!You are evil, Gracchvs. Just like Hello Kitty. Not lame... you don't get to be cool like FDR razz Or like Mann, eh. Except unlike FDR, his lameness isn't in the legs. Well, maybe one leg... It is nice of you to be so understanding. If we accept your statement as true ( censored so as not to affect outcomes of bets undertaken by several members of this guild), then I have a simple question for you--how would you know? Is there something you aren't telling us? eek You can't have him. Sorry. You should ask him about exactly what I know. Also, you should edit your post if you do not want to be so open to the gamblers among us. Yes, but you have interwebs and he doesn't, so I'm asking you. You're dodging the question. *glares*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Lady Merewyn Gracchvs Lady Merewyn Gracchvs Lady Merewyn Louis-Auguste Robespierre This is a trick your location has played on your perception. See, you are a Mandelite who outright rejects Trotskyism. Even Mandel didn't. But then, he really doesn't matter at all does he? I mean, with the long-wave theory of capitalism what does he come up with? In the 60's: We are in a wave of growth. Because of this, the labour aristocracy can be bought off. Our tasks, according to Mandel therefore do not include revolution. The workers are just too well bribed to come over We need to 'radicalise them.' In the 90's(in fact, since the crash in the 70's), and I assume now: We are in a wave of decline. There will be a mass of layoffs and such. Our tasks according to Mandel therefore do not include revolution. The workers need jobs in order to hold the bourgeoisie hostage after all so we need to fight for employment and other nice things. So yeah, from you perspective within the marsh, everything looks like fail to you. The moment you reject the non-marxist theories of Mandel you will be open to a whole new world of awesome. I hope to see you here one day. You must have some serious issues that you are projecting, constantly, onto me. Is there something you need to get off your chest? Some untold failure maybe? Maybe you have failed to rise to the occasion, and you no longer feel worthy? If so, It is okay, she is still into you!You are evil, Gracchvs. Just like Hello Kitty. Not lame... you don't get to be cool like FDR razz Or like Mann, eh. Except unlike FDR, his lameness isn't in the legs. Well, maybe one leg... It is nice of you to be so understanding. If we accept your statement as true ( censored so as not to affect outcomes of bets undertaken by several members of this guild), then I have a simple question for you--how would you know? Is there something you aren't telling us? eek You can't have him. Sorry. You should ask him about exactly what I know. Also, you should edit your post if you do not want to be so open to the gamblers among us. Yes, but you have interwebs and he doesn't, so I'm asking you. You're dodging the question. *glares* You have his phone number. I don't want to go into anything further than he would want me to... *smiles wistfully*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:29 am
Dear Gracchvs,
No matter how many definitions of 'state capitalism' I read, I feel as though I don't get it.
Please enlighten me!
(look, a proper question!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:16 am
Comrade Kotka Dear Gracchvs, No matter how many definitions of 'state capitalism' I read, I feel as though I don't get it. Please enlighten me! (look, a proper question!) The basic idea is that the bureaucracy is not a new class, or a social caste, but a collective capitalist. This collective capitalist [wtf?] extracts surplus value in order to create profit, which it then uses to compete militarily with the imperialists. In short: competition is the defining feature of capitalism, therefor all competition is capitalist. DOWN WITH THE IMPERIALIST FOOTBALL ASSOCIATIONS! Yeah, see the absurdity? And I am not distorting it to make a funny point or anything like that. There is a bunch of bullshit information and outright lies they make to force reality to fit their schema, but the actual logic behind it is just that: Competition is capitalist The SU[now China] are competing militarily with imperialism, ergo, they are capitalist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:10 am
That sounds...pretty stupid.
What are reformist policies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:58 am
Raziel Hotokashi That sounds...pretty stupid. What are reformist policies? A reformist is someone who sees the ultimate goal as socialism and tries to achieve that through reform within capitalism. Such a person does not use reforms as a propaganda tool, but as the means to victory. As such, these people desire not workers' revolution, but to get 50%+1 votes in the legislature in order to pass their reforms through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:49 pm
Hey Gracchvs how come all your views with Communism are all compliant with the views the Bolsheviks might have had and tried but lead to them getting their a** kicked and hopes dashed into the dirt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:54 pm
Louis-Auguste Robespierre So yeah, from you perspective within the marsh, everything looks like fail to you. Just in the US and other non-eligible places for revolution at this current time. Quote: You must have some serious issues that you are projecting, constantly, onto me. That doesn't disprove how lame much you blow chunks. Regardless no one needs to project their problems on you. You just fail hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:30 pm
Now now, calm down everyone. Louis-Auguste Robespierre In short: competition is the defining feature of capitalism, therefor all competition is capitalist. DOWN WITH THE IMPERIALIST FOOTBALL ASSOCIATIONS! Yeah, see the absurdity? I'm not sure it's the competition that defines it as 'capitalist', but rather that a surplus is being extracted by people who already make more than the working class and then spent on projects which may arguably benefit the bureaucracy more... what do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:56 pm
Comrade Kotka Now now, calm down everyone. Louis-Auguste Robespierre In short: competition is the defining feature of capitalism, therefor all competition is capitalist. DOWN WITH THE IMPERIALIST FOOTBALL ASSOCIATIONS! Yeah, see the absurdity? but rather that a surplus is being extracted by people who already make more than the working class and then spent on projects which may arguably benefit the bureaucracy more... what do you think? No. They would have a better time if they did in fact argue that. In their 'ABCs of Marxism' series of articles, SAlt have C is for Competition. SAlt Central to these laws is competition. Competition drives the capitalist system forward. It both spurs individual corporations to maximise profits for future investment, and it fuels tensions, both diplomatic and military, between nation states. If corporations fail to invest in new technologies or successfully hold down wages in their particular firm, they risk losing ground to their competitors and ultimately being forced out of business. Similarly, if nation states lose control over the trade routes, natural resources and markets that the companies operating with their border rely on, these firms will start to lose out to those in stronger nation states. Competition therefore underpins a dynamic in capitalism which constantly pushes those who run the system to attack wages, people's rights and to go to war. My bold later in the article Studies of pre-school age children also reveal a spontaneous tendency towards turn taking in games, sharing and collaborative solutions to problems. Competitive behaviour has to be actively nurtured, with co-operative modes of learning, such as sharing answers on tests or plagiarism, being penalised in most Western educational institutions. In short, competition is capitalist and runs contrary to human nature. Therefore, if there is competition in a world which is naturally geared toward cooperation, it is due to capitalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Louis-Auguste Robespierre Lady Merewyn Gracchvs Lady Merewyn Gracchvs Or like Mann, eh. Except unlike FDR, his lameness isn't in the legs. Well, maybe one leg... It is nice of you to be so understanding. If we accept your statement as true ( censored so as not to affect outcomes of bets undertaken by several members of this guild), then I have a simple question for you--how would you know? Is there something you aren't telling us? eek You can't have him. Sorry. You should ask him about exactly what I know. Also, you should edit your post if you do not want to be so open to the gamblers among us. Yes, but you have interwebs and he doesn't, so I'm asking you. You're dodging the question. *glares* You have his phone number. I don't want to go into anything further than he would want me to... *smiles wistfully* You, comrade, are dodging my question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:11 am
Oh, and another question. From a linguistic standpoint... as far as terminology goes, what would be the difference between Marxian and Marxist? I've heard them used interchangeably, but I'm sure there are shades of meaning that differentiate the two...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:20 am
Lady Merewyn Oh, and another question. From a linguistic standpoint... as far as terminology goes, what would be the difference between Marxian and Marxist? I've heard them used interchangeably, but I'm sure there are shades of meaning that differentiate the two... A Marxist is one who follows Marxism, which is a specific ideology. A 'Marxian' on the other hand is a pretentious arse-hole who agrees in the main with marx's economic theories and overall method of looking at history 'Historical Materialism' and yet denies the need, possibility and desirability of revolution. They live exclusively in academia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:54 am
How will we reach a post-scarcity society? To be more descriptive will the overabundance of goods be caused by a more efficient system of producing goods, or by people taking control of the population problem and controlling each other’s consumption habits creating a system to optimize the consumption of goods?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
