Socialism!
idk there is a non-1 amount of socialists here, so why not.
I'm a pretty bad socialist, so I'm still learning how to properly rally my fellow workers.
Smash the system and all that.
I'm a pretty bad socialist, so I'm still learning how to properly rally my fellow workers.
Smash the system and all that.
Tagged:
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Namely, I think the state should entirely control all industries that are essential to the health and wellbeing of its citizens. It is ludicrous to me that for example medicine is, by and large, a private field. Similarly I don't think what is taught in schools should be up for debate, a standardized national curriculum should exist that is based on sound science and a reasoned, balanced view of history, among other things (this would also eliminate the need for--eugh--standardized testing). Ideally, this would exist in such a place where not doing this would be roughly as unthinkable as privatizing the army, and thus the actual political party in power would not matter.
how did i typo "different" as "recent", well, ok
See I don't know none of these things, I've always been bad with like, names of movements.
I am never going to be a politician so they're not super important for me, but giving people a name to rally behind can be important if you're trying to organize them.
take it seriously and you get labor notes
That's essentially what money boils down to already.
Or, if you want the usual example: I spend two hours sewing a basket, you spend one hour getting a machine to make thirty baskets. who makes more money out of this
Am I wrong?
you can do it without the machines, of course. i sew worse than you, so i make one basket in the time you make two.
it also neglects, say, that my amateur baskets are shitty compared to yours and a buyer is going to want yours more.
I still think it's a sound basis for a system of value, if not one on it's own, though.
i'm a nihilist. nothing has objective value. this is irrelevant to economics, because we want things
I like being able to succinctly describe my views without sounding like I'm inventing words.
well that's convenient.
Plus it's hard to picket much out here in Bumfuck Nowhere, Pennsylvania. What am I going to protest?
Analogies of childhood paranoia within a polemic against alleged
“conspiracist thinking” seems an odd juxtaposition, nevertheless, it may
have inadvertently provided us with a source of Kriss’ distinct adult
aversion to concrete analysis and determinations that tend to upset his
metaphysical sophistry. Kriss throws his accusations of faulty theory
like toys from a pram, but any concrete evidence to convincingly refute
alleged fault is somewhat lacking. We will address the claims
regardless, in concrete historical detail.
In Kriss’ muddled equation, the third term – the distinct
property within each aspect of a contradiction that is common to them
both, but not indifferent, and not exclusive to the transient aspect –
has become “essential” and “revolutionary” to the dialectic. It is no
longer the dialectic itself that is revolutionary to the subjectivist,
but a static, metaphysical aspect within it. Contrary to this twaddle,
and as Marx’s quote confirms, the transient aspect of the dialectic must
only be grasped “as well” as its other aspects and not above or
superseding them. The dialectic “does not let itself be impressed by
anything” – and that includes its transient aspect and the sublation of
qualitative difference. It is in fact Kriss who has fallen foul of
Marx’s warning and become “impressed by things”; impressed by his static
metaphysical permanent concept of resolvable contradiction through a
grotesque interpretation of Marx’s third term. As Engels clearly states:
Kriss throws the accusation of “depoliticizing tragedy” while employing
bourgeois sectarian motifs to mask political processes, therefore
metaphysically aligning the current, yet ever-changing balance of power
within the Iraq antagonism in the complete opposite to reality to form
his false concept. To then suggest anti-imperialists “have abandoned
reality-based analysis” while positing muddle-headed theory is
indicative of the cognitive dissonance required to uphold such base
scepticism.
can you tell what current event this blog post is supposedly about?
seriously though, you know thomas l friedman? that's how i read everybody in this shite
People care if the police break up your protest on Capitol Hill. Nobody cares if you organize a community effort to clean up a local park so the neighborhood kids have somewhere nice to play. In terms of visibility, it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
i mean, consider how i'm thinking a bit here. i wanna choose a theory of value. advantages of labor theory of value: supposedly helps workers. advantages of marginalist theory of value: like two hundred years of useful economic theory.
Anyway, even if you don't believe that, the visibility thing is a genuine problem. Most people don't in America don't really even know what Socialism is.
it's not even a marxist/not thing, though marxists seem to be a lot more prone to being slovenian philosophers.
I feel like a lot of work boils down to that, you being treated as a disposable body rather than a human being. never heard of 'im.
Oops, I have been logic'd out of existence by a dead man.
*puffs*
delong wrote some neat things about this
a lot of people take issue with stockbrokers and bankers and such being so personally rich because "they're just moving money around", which, well, i sympathize. but we do have banks for a reason, they move money around. if you want to start a company you can get a loan from a bank, and where do they get that money? other people. and they make interest on you if you succeed. a system like this seems to me to be a good idea. it could, in the above vein, also to some extent describe state organizations like gosplan. so we can apply the same sort of criticisms.