I just call them all pretty gay personally.Now of course this is a very broad set of ideas, but post modern is used as a general term of identification.
I just call them all pretty gay personally.Now of course this is a very broad set of ideas, but post modern is used as a general term of identification.
I mean-degenerate, subversive, insidious, evil, bacillus are also good adjectives.I just call them all pretty gay personally.
And idiotical dysfunction and incompetence of anarcho-syndicalists was the key element in Nationalist gaining the upper hand.This is actually so stupid as to make my head hurt. Are you aware of history at all? This is exactly the argument which monarchists made against democracy and republicanism. This take is exactly why I despise reactionaries. Anarcho-Syndicalist Spain was an anarcho-socialist government.
No, the problem is that you look at the history through your ideological lenses and are incapable of accepting arguments deviating from your ideological leanings as being made in good faith.This is made even more problematic by the general historical ignorance which seems to be evident in nearly every single reply.
Since your requests can be mostly summed up as ''my superior transcendent mind gives me privileged access to universal truths, accept what I say'', it's kind of understendable people are not hurrying to carry out your demands.I have a continually growing frustration with peoples in ability to carry out a simple request.
You entered the forum and started the thread, puting up a big ''come fight me'' sign. What result did you expect?There is one of me and many of you.
Since there are many types of socialism for you to cherrypick, the broadest definition would be that the means of production are owned by society as whole, rather than individuals.Provide a definition of socialism.
Since arrival of society change is usually heralded by chaos, destruction and mass death, it is only normal for people to react to these upheavals, be it priviliged classes protecting their privileges or common people defending themselves from depradations of champions of ''enlightment''. But since revolutionaries are commiting the mass murder for the greater good, opposing them is obviously very bad thingWhat the absolute fuck! I am going to either assume "You say that we’re reactionaries like it’s a bad thing." is either a joke or a statement made in ignorance. Yes. Yes being a reactionary is a bad thing. It's a very bad thing. Very very bad. That is unless you think the enlightenment was bad. Within a political context the term reactionary has a very specific meaning.
Look up the history of Zionist movement, there is even a Wikipedia articleThe founding of Israel was motivated by the belief that Jews must return in order for Jesus to come back.
Yeah that ones a bit silly. I’m pretty sure basically zero of the Jews who founded Israel wanted Jesus to come back given that, ya know, he might be a little bit mad about the whole nailed on the cross thing. Also they don’t believe he was the messiah. What he is talking about is one specific strain of Christian Zionism.Look up the history of Zionist movement, there is even a Wikipedia article
I don't want to speak for him but I'll guess.In an attempt to change the direction of this thread from repeated rehashings...
@DirtbagLeft
Socialism's validity or invalidity is dependent on a number of underlying philosophical presuppositions. I'm not terribly interested in trying to argue about the consequences of those assumed principles fruitlessly, it's far more productive to argue about them directly.
So, a few questions:
1: Do you subscribe to the labor theory of value?
2: What do you believe about the basic moral nature of man? Is he naturally good, naturally bad, somewhere in between? Why do you believe this?
3: What do you believe is 'the means of production?'
1. So you don't believe profit is 90% extorted sweat and toil? Which as I understand it basically what the LTV argues.@LordsFire
So, a few questions:
1: Do you subscribe to the labor theory of value? Sort of. It very much depends on what I am trying to understand but I reject a strictly labor theory understanding of value. Given my background in the Austrian School I default toward subjective theory over labor theory. For me the tool is dependent on the job.
2: What do you believe about the basic moral nature of man? I am an anti-realist if that helps. My view of the basic nature of man is egoism. I disbelieve in altruism. I hold to rational selfishness. I believe that generally speaking people try to move away from pain and towards pleasure. My views are far more complex than this so please take this as the overview it is intended as.
3: What do you believe is 'the means of production?' The material objects. I reject intellectual property.
I hope this is clear and helps.
Fair enough. What about something self made-on a vacation to Atlanta, I recall some friendly African American folks were weaving baskets(maybe as a group, I don’t remember) and selling them to tourists. Now obviously a basket or an art piece or whatever is comprised of commodities. But if I make something, something as simple as a piece of pottery or some artistic construction and sell it-maybe I make a dozen is that a commodity? I’m making it and I’m selling it. Does the labor theory apply here? Or something like a kid selling their drawings or other self produced items.@Lord Invictus
1. So you don't believe profit is 90% extorted sweat and toil? Which as I understand it basically what the LTV argues.
This is what I meant by the tool and the job. The problem I have here is that you are attempting to compare two disparate things. In terms of manufacturing I would apply labor theory. In terms of profit I would apply subjective theory. Slightly (and by slightly I mean a lot) more complicated than this. So yes I do believe that profit is 90% extorted sweat and toil.
2. Would you say, in relatively prosperous conditions people will treat each other with some standard of decency, or are people going to look out for their own interests even if harsh "natural" conditions such as a struggle for food and shelter are met and not in existence.
I believe that everyone is always going to look out for their own self interest and that most people lie to themselves about this fact. There ability to evaluate their self interest is determined relatively by Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.
3. As I understand there is a difference between socialists and simply objects. Something like a hand me down T-shirt(I got a lot from my cousin growing up) is not a commodity(it may have been)-whereas a loaf of a bread or a car is. Is a factory the means, or just the producing machinery? Is the building included? Okay so I am not going to lie this is a bit more complicated by this. I am not exactly comfortable with making claims about socialists in general on this topic as it is hotly contentious. From a Market Socialist perspective the shirt would initially be a commodity but as a hand me down it is not a commodity (not exactly true but true enough to convey the intent).
"Is a factory the means, or just the producing machinery? Is the building included?"
One at a time
1) Is a factory the means,
Yes/No
2) or just the producing machinery?
Yes/No
3) Is the building included?
Yes/No
This is a gotcha I used to use. I am not saying you are using it as such but that I used it that way in the past. The problem is that depending on exactly what you mean at any given time either answer is true. The means of production are any factor which contributes to the production of a final product. The problem I have with your question is that it is malformed and reductionist. As a general rule I have no problem with reductionism so long as it is followed by emergentism.
@LordsFire
So, a few questions:
1: Do you subscribe to the labor theory of value? Sort of. It very much depends on what I am trying to understand but I reject a strictly labor theory understanding of value. Given my background in the Austrian School I default toward subjective theory over labor theory. For me the tool is dependent on the job.
2: What do you believe about the basic moral nature of man? I am an anti-realist if that helps. My view of the basic nature of man is egoism. I disbelieve in altruism. I hold to rational selfishness. I believe that generally speaking people try to move away from pain and towards pleasure. My views are far more complex than this so please take this as the overview it is intended as.
3: What do you believe is 'the means of production?' The material objects. I reject intellectual property.
I hope this is clear and helps.
This is actually so stupid as to make my head hurt. Are you aware of history at all? This is exactly the argument which monarchists made against democracy and republicanism. This take is exactly why I despise reactionaries. Anarcho-Syndicalist Spain was an anarcho-socialist government.
The argument you just made is literally "The french revolution failed therefore enlightenment values failed." and "Because the US failed at implementing enlightenment values democracy failed."
Your statement wasn't even an argument. It was a brain dead assertion. If you are going to engage then actually engage and do not resort to willfully ignorant reactionary talking points.
You ignorant swine. Somehow, you miss the crux of my argument. Namely, that you provide a definition and then you see if the thing in question fits the definition. You define by definition not by example. If I ask you to define a fruit and you tell me "well an apple is a fruit" what you have done is to give a definition by example. A definition defines the boundaries of the thing. I understand that for a conservitard such as yourself this is an extremely difficult concept to grok.You ignorant brat. Somehow, you miss the crux of my argument. Namely, that you cannot pick and choose who is part of your group and who is not. The regimes of the 20th century believed very similarly to you and you and your kind, instead of taking time to reflect what went wrong, go on to say, "But that's not real socialism/marxism/etc."
Note, this is why I dropped out. I have other thoughts and rebuttals to your position, but I felt that you were already getting piled on by many others and didn't want to pile on any further. I am still following the discussion though.There is one of me and many of you.
You ignorant swine. Somehow, you miss the crux of my argument. Namely, that you provide a definition and then you see if the thing in question fits the definition. You define by definition not by example. If I ask you to define a fruit and you tell me "well an apple is a fruit" what you have done is to give a definition by example. A definition defines the boundaries of the thing. I understand that for a conservitard such as yourself this is an extremely difficult concept to grok.
Definition:
Fruit:
- a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.
- the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound, especially of an image in a photograph or on a screen.
If you have been keeping up when I got push back on NK I didn't fight it too hard because conceding NK as socialist gets us nowhere near my conceding Nazism or the USSR. In fact the ground on which I conceded NK as qualifying as Socialist preclude both the USSR and Nazi Germany. This is how someone acts in good faith. Be honest, concede where possible so that the conversation can move forward. Do I think NK is socialist? No I think it's semi-socialist. But I can Grant NK as socialist for the sake of the argument. and I can do so knowing it gets no one anywhere near close to qualifying either the USSR or Nazi Germany to be classified as socialism.
- 1.
the sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food.
Now. Please provide a definition of socialism so that the conversation may progress. A definition not an example. If necessary I can provide you with the definition of what an example is so that you can understand what I am NOT looking for. Just ask and I will gladly do so you utter fucking imbecile.
You do realize Stalin was considered the moderate when compared to Trotsky.... right, trotskyists winning would guarantee they would try to spread communism.I mean-if one left wing ideology had won out in Spain, Trotskyite, Left Republican, Anarchist or whatever-the Republic probably would have gotten a better outcome. But its division was legendary, even at the time.
I'm referring specifically to the Spanish Civil War. Not Trotsky vs Stalin in the USSR.You do realize Stalin was considered the moderate when compared to Trotsky.... right, trotskyists winning would guarantee they would try to spread communism.
Trotskyists follow his ideals, in other words they would do the same thing. My point is, they would be a terrible result, best case scenario their reign ends fairly quickly and in the aftermath of ww2 the marshall plan cleans up their mess, worst case having communists in Spain results in making containing the Soviets in East Germany become impossible.I'm referring specifically to the Spanish Civil War. Not Trotsky vs Stalin in the USSR.