Automotive Lust
- R_P - Jun 4, 2024 - 5:22pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 4, 2024 - 4:36pm
Israel
- R_P - Jun 4, 2024 - 2:40pm
What makes you smile?
- oldviolin - Jun 4, 2024 - 2:28pm
Name My Band
- oldviolin - Jun 4, 2024 - 2:24pm
NY Times Strands
- rgio - Jun 4, 2024 - 2:21pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- RPnate1 - Jun 4, 2024 - 2:18pm
Radio Paradise Comments
- blackieray - Jun 4, 2024 - 1:52pm
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - Jun 4, 2024 - 1:49pm
Economix
- rgio - Jun 4, 2024 - 1:15pm
Favorite Quotes
- Proclivities - Jun 4, 2024 - 1:15pm
Bad Poetry
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 12:11pm
Classic TV Curiosities
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 12:09pm
What's that smell?
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 11:50am
Joe Biden
- steeler - Jun 4, 2024 - 11:15am
Trump
- Red_Dragon - Jun 4, 2024 - 11:05am
Today in History
- kurtster - Jun 4, 2024 - 10:40am
Music Videos
- black321 - Jun 4, 2024 - 10:11am
NYTimes Connections
- ptooey - Jun 4, 2024 - 8:50am
Baseball, anyone?
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 4, 2024 - 8:28am
Things You Thought Today
- thisbody - Jun 4, 2024 - 8:17am
Wordle - daily game
- JrzyTmata - Jun 4, 2024 - 8:09am
Canada
- GeneP59 - Jun 4, 2024 - 7:23am
the Todd Rundgren topic
- ColdMiser - Jun 4, 2024 - 4:18am
Your First Albums
- Manbird - Jun 3, 2024 - 5:42pm
King Crimson
- Steely_D - Jun 3, 2024 - 2:25pm
June 2024 Photo Theme - Eyes
- ptooey - Jun 3, 2024 - 1:52pm
2024 Elections!
- R_P - Jun 3, 2024 - 10:19am
Art Show
- Red_Dragon - Jun 3, 2024 - 10:01am
Your favourite conspiracy theory?
- Beaker - Jun 3, 2024 - 8:00am
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing
- Proclivities - Jun 3, 2024 - 7:06am
Beer
- Red_Dragon - Jun 3, 2024 - 5:20am
Snakes & streaming images. WTH is going on?
- rasta_tiger - Jun 2, 2024 - 7:31pm
Ukraine
- R_P - Jun 2, 2024 - 3:07pm
songs that ROCK!
- thisbody - Jun 2, 2024 - 12:01pm
Republican Party
- Red_Dragon - Jun 1, 2024 - 8:34pm
Live Music
- buddy - Jun 1, 2024 - 3:39pm
RP on Twitter
- R_P - Jun 1, 2024 - 2:47pm
Football, soccer, futbol, calcio...
- thisbody - Jun 1, 2024 - 10:20am
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes.
- Isabeau - May 31, 2024 - 1:22pm
What Did You See Today?
- Isabeau - May 31, 2024 - 1:15pm
ONE WORD
- thisbody - May 31, 2024 - 10:39am
Climate Change
- ColdMiser - May 31, 2024 - 8:10am
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- Alchemist - May 30, 2024 - 6:58pm
Human Curated?
- Ipse_Dixit - May 30, 2024 - 2:55pm
Evolution!
- R_P - May 30, 2024 - 12:22pm
favorite love songs
- thisbody - May 30, 2024 - 11:25am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - May 30, 2024 - 11:04am
Sonos
- konz - May 30, 2024 - 10:26am
Fascism In America
- R_P - May 29, 2024 - 11:01pm
You might be getting old if......
- Bill_J - May 29, 2024 - 6:05pm
Science in the News
- black321 - May 29, 2024 - 11:56am
Roku App - Roku Asterisk Menu
- RPnate1 - May 29, 2024 - 11:15am
Geomorphology
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 29, 2024 - 10:56am
The Obituary Page
- Steve - May 29, 2024 - 5:49am
Notification bar on android
- tjux - May 28, 2024 - 10:26pm
Interviews with the artists
- dischuckin - May 28, 2024 - 1:33pm
RightWingNutZ
- R_P - May 28, 2024 - 12:02pm
RP Daily Trivia Challenge
- ScottFromWyoming - May 27, 2024 - 8:24pm
Poetry Forum
- Manbird - May 27, 2024 - 7:20pm
fortune cookies, says:
- thisbody - May 27, 2024 - 3:50pm
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - May 27, 2024 - 9:29am
First World Problems
- ColdMiser - May 27, 2024 - 7:33am
Funny Videos
- thisbody - May 27, 2024 - 7:20am
Internet connection
- thisbody - May 27, 2024 - 7:12am
Ways to Listen to RP on WiiM Plus
- earthbased - May 27, 2024 - 6:56am
John Prine
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 26, 2024 - 5:34pm
New Music
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 26, 2024 - 5:24pm
Artificial Intelligence
- R_P - May 25, 2024 - 11:05pm
What Makes You Laugh?
- thisbody - May 25, 2024 - 10:42pm
The Dragons' Roost
- miamizsun - May 25, 2024 - 12:02pm
Media Matters
- Beaker - May 25, 2024 - 10:59am
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - May 24, 2024 - 3:42pm
Business as Usual
- R_P - May 24, 2024 - 12:49pm
It's the economy stupid.
- R_P - May 24, 2024 - 12:38pm
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
RightWingNutZ
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 132, 133, 134 ... 170, 171, 172 Next |
(former member)
Location: hotel in Las Vegas Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 8:16pm |
|
dionysius wrote: It's more than a critique; it's a program!!! It does not have to be revolutionary violence that accomplishes that program; in fact I'd prefer it it if it weren't. But it is more than just sniping at capitalist excesses and injustices, and more than mere reformist amelioration of the same. It is a fundamental overhaul that privileges people over markets, and erases real class distinctions and barriers. Modern Marxism must be peaceful, nonviolent, democratic, and determined. Hardnose, commonsense agitation, education and organization are the only tools towards accomplishing this, not elitist "vanguard" ideologies and unfocused anarchism. You can have capitalism, too, but only within a socialist framework, if you want social justice and equality linked to freedom of action and productivity. There's our Hegelian synthesis.
And you said to Kurt—
It does not mean public ownership of everything!!! My toothbrush is mine, and yours is yours. However, the open land, water, air, uranium and opera is for everyone to share, equally. The largest possible public domain, in all senses. The commons, rather than fenced-off private lots of different sizes.
It means public provision of the necessary things of life, however that society chooses to define it. Be it education, food, housing, employment, heath care, etc. A classless society, with true equality of opportunity, and not one way, one track, one enclave for rich people and others for everyone else. Merit and work rewarded, not greed and placement and networking. A solid floor beneath everyone, with room for personal improvement above that. A real synthesis of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. A market that serves us, and not us the market.
Not utopia. But a better place than now.
It is interesting, and I must point out the difference— I said analyzing, and I meant objective... you chose critique, which implies a judgment... to me, Marxism is a materialistic tool to understand the machinations of capitalism in economic terms of labor, profit, capital investment, etc., with no social chafe attached... I have always thought that the weakness of Marx's conclusions (critiques) was his failure to see a way to operate within the system of capitalism with collective bargaining — labor unions — workers of the world, unite! But again, to me, Marxism, with its objective materialism, is an excellent mode of analysis for all economic systems... I am kind of groping in the dark here, and I apologize for that...
I know I be so elite but here is something I find interesting from the Stanford Encyclopedia—
Historical materialism - Marx's theory of history - is centered around the idea that forms of society rise and fall as they further and then impede the development of human productive power. Marx sees the historical process as proceeding through a necessary series of modes of production, culminating in communism. Marx's economic analysis of capitalism is based on his version of the labour theory of value, and includes the analysis of capitalist profit as the extraction of surplus value from the exploited proletariat. The analysis of history and economics come together in Marx's prediction of the inevitable economic breakdown of capitalism, to be replaced by communism. However Marx refused to speculate in detail about the nature of communism, arguing that it would arise through historical processes, and was not the realisation of a pre-determined moral ideal.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 7:59pm |
|
dionysius wrote:
It does not mean public ownership of everything!!! My toothbrush is mine, and yours is yours. However, the open land, water, air, uranium and opera is for everyone to share, equally. The largest possible public domain, in all senses. The commons, rather than fenced-off private lots of different sizes.
It means public provision of the necessary things of life, however that society chooses to define it. Be it education, food, housing, employment, heath care, etc. A classless society, with true equality of opportunity, and not one way, one track, one enclave for rich people and others for everyone else. Merit and work rewarded, not greed and placement and networking. A solid floor beneath everyone, with room for personal improvement above that. A real synthesis of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. A market that serves us, and not us the market.
Not utopia. But a better place than now.
I think that phrase contradicts itself. Who gets to decide who lives where and who does what ? No room for individualism, darn that ism thing again. I prefer the beach, yet the government decides that I should live in North Dakota. I want to be a marine geologist, but the government says we don't need any and I must make doorknobs for public housing, because we need more doorknobs. Equal opportunity for what ? To do what I really want to do ? Or equal opportunity to do for the government ? Edit: and who decides Mac or PC ?
|
|
dionysius
Location: The People's Republic of Austin Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 7:44pm |
|
kurtster wrote: But what about the part of a Socialistic society where the government owns everything, there is no private property ? Am I missing something or are we ignoring a crucial part of what Socialism really is ? How do you reconcile privacy and private property with the program ? How does one have motivation without ownership or the possibilty of ownership of personal property for example ? We rent everything from the government and have no form of private transportation ?
It does not mean public ownership of everything!!! My toothbrush is mine, and yours is yours. However, the open land, water, air, uranium and opera is for everyone to share, equally. The largest possible public domain, in all senses. The commons, rather than fenced-off private lots of different sizes. It means public provision of the necessary things of life, however that society chooses to define it. Be it education, food, housing, employment, heath care, etc. A classless society, with true equality of opportunity, and not one way, one track, one enclave for rich people and others for everyone else. Merit and work rewarded, not greed and placement and networking. A solid floor beneath everyone, with room for personal improvement above that. A real synthesis of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. A market that serves us, and not us the market. Not utopia. But a better place than now.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 7:30pm |
|
dionysius wrote: It's more than a critique; it's a program!!! It does not have to be revolutionary violence that accomplishes that program; in fact I'd prefer it it if it weren't. But it is more than just sniping at capitalist excesses and injustices, and more than mere reformist amelioration of the same. It is a fundamental overhaul that privileges people over markets, and erases real class distinctions and barriers. Modern Marxism must be peaceful, nonviolent, democratic, and determined. Hardnose, commonsense agitation, education and organization are the only tools towards accomplishing this, not elitist "vanguard" ideologies and unfocused anarchism. You can have capitalism, too, but only within a socialist framework, if you want social justice and equality linked to freedom of action and productivity. There's our Hegelian synthesis.
But what about the part of a Socialistic society where the government owns everything, there is no private property ? Am I missing something or are we ignoring a crucial part of what Socialism really is ? How do you reconcile privacy and private property with the program ? How does one have motivation without ownership or the possibilty of ownership of personal property for example ? We rent everything from the government and have no form of private transportation ?
|
|
dionysius
Location: The People's Republic of Austin Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 7:12pm |
|
romeotuma wrote:
To me, at its essence, Marxism is a materialistic methodology for analyzing capitalism...
It's more than a critique; it's a program!!! It does not have to be revolutionary violence that accomplishes that program; in fact I'd prefer it it if it weren't. But it is more than just sniping at capitalist excesses and injustices, and more than mere reformist amelioration of the same. It is a fundamental overhaul that privileges people over markets, and erases real class distinctions and barriers. Modern Marxism must be peaceful, nonviolent, democratic, and determined. Hardnose, commonsense agitation, education and organization are the only tools towards accomplishing this, not elitist "vanguard" ideologies and unfocused anarchism. You can have capitalism, too, but only within a socialist framework, if you want social justice and equality linked to freedom of action and productivity. There's our Hegelian synthesis.
|
|
Manbird
Location: La Villa Toscana Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 7:10pm |
|
dionysius wrote:
:sigh: The name "communist" and some Marxist trappings and rhetoric were hijacked by repressive Russian nationalists, and this somehow becomes everyone's historical misunderstanding of Marxism. That's why I won't use the term, though I prefer it to "socialist" for a number of etymological reasons. People are right to equate Hitler and Stalin—not much to choose between them, really. We need to look to ourselves and our motivations, always. Chauvinistic nationalism of any stripe is bad news, and that includes American nationalism. I agree: Communism is having to share the same stupid bowling ball with everybody at Johnson's 16th St. Mega Lanes even the sweaty guy with the fat fingers who smells like fish tacos and italian sausage all day.
|
|
dionysius
Location: The People's Republic of Austin Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 6:53pm |
|
hippiechick wrote: Well, they call themselves Communists, but, really they are Totalitarians.
:sigh: The name "communist" and some Marxist trappings and rhetoric were hijacked by repressive Russian nationalists, and this somehow becomes everyone's historical misunderstanding of Marxism. That's why I won't use the term, though I prefer it to "socialist" for a number of etymological reasons. People are right to equate Hitler and Stalin—not much to choose between them, really. We need to look to ourselves and our motivations, always. Chauvinistic nationalism of any stripe is bad news, and that includes American nationalism.
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 6:46pm |
|
kurtster wrote: I am only speaking in terms of a sovereign State government, not about a kibbutz or farming commune in Montana, for example. And the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics only disolved some 15 years ago, not 100 years ago, and China is still around last I looked along with Cuba and North Korea. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Meet the new boss same as the old boss ...
So what is the new paradigm I'm missing here anyway ?
And the only thing synthethic going on around here is how we make money.
Well, they call themselves Communists, but, really they are Totalitarians. Although he never used the terms himself, the triad thesis, antithesis, synthesis is often used to describe the thought of German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. The triad is usually described in the following way: - The thesis is an intellectual proposition.
- The antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis, a reaction to the proposition.
- The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.
According to Walter Kaufman, although the triad is often <1> thought to form part of an analysis of historical and philosophical progress called the Hegelian dialectic, the assumption is erroneous. Hegel used this classification only once, and he attributed the terminology to Immanuel Kant. The terminology was largely developed earlier by the neo-Kantian Johann Gottlieb Fichte, also an advocate of the philosophy identified as German idealism. The triad is often said to have been extended and adopted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, however, Marx referred to them in The Poverty of Philosophy as speaking Greek and "Wooden trichotomies".
|
|
sirdroseph
Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 6:16pm |
|
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 6:14pm |
|
sirdroseph wrote:Yea, really it all comes down to eatin and poopin. May all your traffic lights be forever green, my brother.
|
|
sirdroseph
Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 6:08pm |
|
kurtster wrote: I am only speaking in terms of a sovereign State government, not about a kibbutz or farming commune in Montana, for example. And the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics only disolved some 15 years ago, not 100 years ago, and China is still around last I looked along with Cuba and North Korea. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Meet the new boss same as the old boss ...
So what is the new paradigm I'm missing here anyway ?
And the only thing synthethic going on around here is how we make money.
Yea, really it all comes down to eatin and poopin.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 6:01pm |
|
hippiechick wrote: In theory, communism is not a bad thing. If a group of people is agreeable to living communally, then it works.
However, Stalinism, Trotskyism, etc. isn't true communism. It's the ruling class having everything they want, while the rest suffer. If it was true communism, The government would be out working with the people.Besides, you are talking about -isms that existed 100 yrs ago. Things have changed. The terms used in the 20th Century are no longer applicable. Start trying to think out of the box, Kurt.
Are you familiar with thesis, antithesis, synthesis?
I am only speaking in terms of a sovereign State government, not about a kibbutz or farming commune in Montana, for example. And the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics only disolved some 15 years ago, not 100 years ago, and China is still around last I looked along with Cuba and North Korea. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Meet the new boss same as the old boss ... So what is the new paradigm I'm missing here anyway ? And the only thing synthethic going on around here is how we make money.
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 5:17pm |
|
kurtster wrote: I have a long held belief that it is not unreasonable to equate Communism to an organized religfion, where the State is the Religion. Its all about what is best for the State before everything else. An evil religion. That's my over simplified take. I have heard some of my own friends defend the actions of the government recently by stating that the government's needs should come before the people's. I am left speechless in response to that. If that's how most American's feel about things, then it is truly over in my opinion and this is just the endgame.
In theory, communism is not a bad thing. If a group of people is agreeable to living communally, then it works. However, Stalinism, Trotskyism, etc. isn't true communism. It's the ruling class having everything they want, while the rest suffer. If it was true communism, The government would be out working with the people.Besides, you are talking about -isms that existed 100 yrs ago. Things have changed. The terms used in the 20th Century are no longer applicable. Start trying to think out of the box, Kurt. Are you familiar with thesis, antithesis, synthesis?
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 4:50pm |
|
Argonaut wrote: Kurtster, this your statement. It clearly makes the very point I have been trying to say regarding the socialism. It isn't a question, it is a statement. And I won't NEGLECT to mention the hundreds of millions of people who were murdered if they failed to toe the communist/socialist line. The communist/socialist states make Hitler PALE IN COMPARISON. More people have been killed by communism/socialism than the ENTIRE COMBINED HISTORY of this earth. Capitalism is a progressive, simply because it is not feasible for it not to be. The very survival of corporations who do not move forward would be in doubt, whereas in communist/socialist states, such SURVIVAL IS IRRELEVANT, hence the stagnation that is rampant in communism/socialism.
I have a long held belief that it is not unreasonable to equate Communism to an organized religfion, where the State is the Religion. Its all about what is best for the State before everything else. An evil religion. That's my over simplified take. I have heard some of my own friends defend the actions of the government recently by stating that the government's needs should come before the people's. I am left speechless in response to that. If that's how most American's feel about things, then it is truly over in my opinion and this is just the endgame.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 3:21pm |
|
Argonaut wrote: No no, not 'take a swing'. There somebody asked 'what is wrong with socialism', so I've typed a definitions. Sarcastically and being really really angry. You are just proving now that Obama IS a socialist, no?
I've said he was from the beginning. I was the one who posed the question, what is wrong with calling Obama a Socialist, since so many here deny that he is yet profess to be Socialist or favor Socialism themselves. Perhaps they feel he isn't Socialist enough to be called a Socialist, I don't really know, that's why I asked. I ask lot's of questions here. Sometimes I know the answers before I ask and sometimes I really do not know the answers. I toss sketty on the wall to see what sticks. Does not mean that my views can be ascertained by the kinds of questions I ask. I poke and nudge and sometimes go off the rails, but not with the intention of getting personal or down right mean. Sometimes emotions do get the best of me, but I am of the opinion that the stupidest question is the one not asked.
|
|
GeneP59
Location: On the edge of tomorrow looking back at yesterday. Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 3:21pm |
|
Hey, Sen. Edwards. What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the lake? ...... A good start! But they missed you.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 3:11pm |
|
hippiechick wrote: Doesn't it concern you that so many elected officials, people who should be reasonable, believe this ridiculous lie?
It is the D's and the LDSM who keep giving this crap about O's birth certificate the light of day. They could ignore it like so many other things that they ignore so well, like the will of the people and this would fade away. It is only kept in the highlight of things because it is used to discredit groups with legitimate concerns and points of view by associating the birthers to their complaints in an effort to discredit everyone on the opposing side.
|
|
samiyam
Location: Moving North
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 3:10pm |
|
Argonaut wrote: No no, not 'take a swing'. There somebody asked 'what is wrong with socialism', so I've typed a definitions. Sarcastically and being really really angry. You are just proving now that Obama IS a socialist, no?
"Tell me the truth, you aren't really out here for the "hunting", are you?" ~ The Bear ~
|
|
musik_knut
Location: Third Stone From The Sun Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 8:48am |
|
hippiechick wrote: You're right. I put JE's name in on edit. He threw these people, who were completely devoted to him, under a garbage truck and went back and forth several times. As disgusting as they come.
Well, politically, I believe we've heard the last of Sen. Edwards. Good riddance to him *and any like him*.
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 24, 2010 - 8:47am |
|
musik_knut wrote:
Andrew Young of Sen. Edward's group? Almost anything said in a negative light about Sen. Edward's will pass the first smell test with me. What a deceiving worm. We are talking about the same Young? Or do I have names jumbled up?
You're right. I put JE's name in on edit. He threw these people, who were completely devoted to him, under a garbage truck and went back and forth several times. As disgusting as they come.
|
|
|