La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I have never put anyone on ignore on this forum as I'm pretty open to even the shitiest of posters, but I'm close with LDV. Complete and utter, blinkered claptrap. Carry on. Are you sure? If it is such claptrap then explain why? Simply because it is so different to what exists today, would take a lot of work, and requires a very large amount of support does not make hope in it blinkered. What about the socialist states of the Soviet Union and Maoist China, they differed vastly from what existed before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 i really think u been smokeing something u havent, but to be honest i think it be a great idea, i only want a house and food in my life, sod the The job, the family, the fucking big television... the washing machine, the car, the compact disc and electrical tin opener... good health, low cholesterol, dental insurance... mortgage, starter home, leisure wear, luggage... three-piece suite, D.I.Y., game shows, junk food, children... walks in the park, nine-to-five, good at golf... washing the car, choice of sweaters, family Christmas... indexed pension, tax exemption, clearing gutters... getting by, looking ahead, the day you die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 What about the socialist states of the Soviet Union and Maoist China, they differed vastly from what existed before. That's absolutely true. But note that not only did they not work, but the absolute power that the elite abrogated to itself resulted in the most shocking abuses. The number of peace-time civilian deaths in the USSR and China during communism dwarfs even the slaughter of the two world wars. One rather fears that your anarchy would be subverted in the same way. And even if it wasn't people would still starve because no system can compare with money for efficiently allocating scarce resources. That's why money has survived. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Are you sure? If it is such claptrap then explain why? Simply because it is so different to what exists today, would take a lot of work, and requires a very large amount of support does not make hope in it blinkered.What about the socialist states of the Soviet Union and Maoist China, they differed vastly from what existed before. I hope for world peace, but it isn't going to happen. Much the same as your hope isn't going to happen, the human race is to diverse to be fixed with one ideal. To be honest I can't be bothered explaining anything to you, because we'll go back and forth and you'll just keep spouting shit, without any definitive answers, that I don't particulatly want to listen too. Hence my comments, which I'm entitled to, of putting you on ignore. Thanks. EDIT: to add in quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 LDV. Complete and utter, blinkered claptrap. If it is such claptrap then explain why? Simply because it is so different to what exists today, would take a lot of work, and requires a very large amount of support does not make hope in it blinkered. What about the socialist states of the Soviet Union and Maoist China, they differed vastly from what existed before. LDV - as people have told you again and again and again the reason your posts so annoy people is that they are not based on anything like reality. You have these phrases: anarchism, abolishment of money, freedom of wage slavery etc etc - all of which are meaningless castles floating in the air with no path to connect them to reality. There are literally thousands of examples of communistic communes, socialist states, utopias etc which claimed to be able to do what you aspire for. They failed. Often with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Cambodia abolished money, Mao trumped permanent revolution and unleashed the Red Guards to sow anarchy within what he saw as the counter revolutionary communist bureaucracy. Think of all the hippy communes of the 1960s and various religious groups that have tried out the idea throughout the last few millenium. You seem to think Anarchist Catalonia is some sort of Ideal - why not Mao's Yannan - a far larger and long lived organization than a war torn and violent punctuation in Spain's civil war pain. Both ended in nepotism, violence, and a failure. Your ideas are based on 19th century ideas of labour power and class conflict. The Soviet Union and Maoist China did not so vastly differ from what existed before - both replaced real emperors with Red ones, both relied on the exploitation of rural labour and the creation of an urban elite. Believe it or not that isn't such a revolutionary idea. Sure through the barrel of a gun they enforced new labour patterns on the peasants, but I fail to see how this is helpful to you. Revolutionary societies following aspirations, but maybe different methods than you - though you never explain your methods - used repression and violence to kill literally millions of people to produce an agricultural system still vastly less efficient than those practiced in the west. Oh yes - up the revolution, for there utopia lies. Capitalism is a practical philosophy - it assumes people are self interested, have diverse needs and desires and are willing to engage in exchange to achieve them. It also works - you ask about US dynanism - try this from Nassim Nicholas Taleb in the Black Swan: Whenever you hear a snotty (and frustrated) European middle brow presenting his sterotypes about Americans, he will often describe them as 'uncivilized', 'unintellectual' and 'poor in math' ... Yet the person making these statements is likely to be addicted to his iPod, wear blue jeans and use Microsoft Word to jot down his 'cultural' statements on his PC, with some Google searches here and there interrupting his composition. Well, it so happens that America is currently far, far more creative than these nations of museum goers and equation solvers. It is also far more tolerent of bottom up tinkering and undirected trial and errror. And globalization has allowed the United States to specialize in the creative aspect of things, the production of concepts and ideas, that is, the scaleable parts of products, and, increasingly, by exporting jobs, separate the less scaleable components and assign them to those happy to be paid by the hour. There is more money in designing a shoe than in actually making it. Nike, Dell, and Boeing can get paid for just thinking, organizing, and leaveraging their know-how and ideas while subcontracted factories in developing countries do the grunt work and engineers in cultured and mathematical states do the non creative technical grind. There is more reality and insight into the complexity of the world in that paragraph in all you pages of bull about your anarchist utopia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Capitalism is a practical philosophy - it assumes people are self interested, have diverse needs and desires and are willing to engage in exchange to achieve them. It also works - you ask about US dynanism - try this from Nassim Nicholas Taleb in the Black Swan: There is more reality and insight into the complexity of the world in that paragraph in all you pages of bull about your anarchist utopia. It will be pie in the sky if there is to be no process of making things happen or no goal to attain. It involves realising class consciousness, having people reading from the same hymn sheet, and working together for revolution. An completely anarchist society may be impossible to achieve, I admit that much. Though I don't understand you idea about capitalism working, it never has worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 It will be pie in the sky if there is to be no process of making things happen or no goal to attain. It involves realising class consciousness, having people reading from the same hymn sheet, and working together for revolution. An completely anarchist society may be impossible to achieve, I admit that much. Though I don't understand you idea about capitalism working, it never has worked. So your way to achieve anarchy is to get everyone to agree with your group think about class etc, and read from the same hymn sheet. Read what you've written LDV - don't you see the irony! You really should read Orwell, but not only stuff like 1984 - though you are sounding like a great proponent of double speak - but also his social commentry and reasons for rejecting revolutionary ideas. Over capitalism and its successes I am of the opinion that it is capitalism which finds innovative uses for invention. Other societies have been inventive, but not innovative - Imperial China for an example. The inventions are not put to use and so these societies risked stagnation - capitalism drives innovation. Marx thought the dynamism of capitalism would uncover its contradictions - he was wrong. Class tensions have weakened over time not strengthened - why? Because of the benefits that innovation has brought to society. I have never said capitalism is without huge problems, but it has improved material conditions massively AND provided hugely greater options for people both in their work and their leisure. To deny that success of capitalism is to deny reality - but then again you do that alot don't you LDV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Look, this is all well and good... but is the number 3 to Laxey going to be on time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 Look, this is all well and good... but is the number 3 to Laxey going to be on time? Exactly - this local bus thread has taken a turn towards the fookin surreal. Be an anarchist LDV - try starting spouting your shoite in a thread entitled 'anarchy' or something. You're a nutcase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Exactly - this local bus thread has taken a turn towards the fookin surreal. Back on topic, bus missed me daughters stop AGAIN. Why is it tough? They drive a bus, it stops at bus stops. How hard can it be? If you can't rely on it, you have to make alternative arrangements, and the system becomes pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Exactly - this local bus thread has taken a turn towards the fookin surreal. Back on topic, bus missed me daughters stop AGAIN. Why is it tough? They drive a bus, it stops at bus stops. How hard can it be? If you can't rely on it, you have to make alternative arrangements, and the system becomes pointless. but if we lived in ldv world, the bus would stop and wait because he be happy doing the job for a bag of carrots, the reason he dont stop is because he gets paid cash, and thats limiting his creativeness to stop at a bus stop u see, back on track, u sure u got the right times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 but if we lived in ldv world, the bus would stop... ...here: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 back on track, u sure u got the right times Yeah, there's other kids at the stop too. It happens dropping off too when she's on the bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 what u need slim is a police stinger, it stop the bus every time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 So your way to achieve anarchy is to get everyone to agree with your group think about class etc, and read from the same hymn sheet.Read what you've written LDV - don't you see the irony! You really should read Orwell, but not only stuff like 1984 - though you are sounding like a great proponent of double speak - but also his social commentry and reasons for rejecting revolutionary ideas. No I do not see the irony. You need a lot of people holding socialist perspectives for a socialist revolution to be possible. You are not forcing anyone to believe anything, but highlighting how we are not free people when we should be. It begins by demonstrating how our freedom have been taken away from us in many ways Marx thought the dynamism of capitalism would uncover its contradictions - he was wrong. Class tensions have weakened over time not strengthened - why? Because of the benefits that innovation has brought to society. I have never said capitalism is without huge problems, but it has improved material conditions massively AND provided hugely greater options for people both in their work and their leisure. To deny that success of capitalism is to deny reality - but then again you do that alot don't you LDV. Marx was wrong about quite a number of things. And I agree with you about innovation and dynamism. It is a good question as to what the alternatives are to profitmaking for leading to innovation. Is it profit making only that can drive innovation? I am not sure that class tension has weakened given the extent of labour unrest in the West. Even though living standards improve the position of the classes remains. And I am not saying that capitalism is nothing but a failure. But the problems that it does cause would deem it a system that needs to be replace. Better living standards and social mobility are not the answer to the problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.