|
What is prolix?
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
lollontee posted:What is prolix? when you finshi your apprenticeship lixing and get paid;
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
lollontee posted:What is prolix? too many words
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:too many words Okay how about just "What prolix?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
i once bought pizza out of this delivery guy's trunk at a gas station does that count
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I could ask you the exact opposite question: 'what is the point in demanding that the USSR was socialist, practically?' consistency and accuracy. hence the focus on well-defined criteria. I actually bought into the no-true-scotsman line for a long time, so i understand its appeal. but once you get into the nitty-gritty, there's just no way to square that circle. since you're asking about practical ends, here's another: throwing socialist projects under the bus only harms the movement in the long run. sure, you get the sugar rush of drinking from the dominant culture's fountain. but you also discard past experiences and practices, some of which were quite important. any attempt to separate wheat from chaff in the soviet project is undermined by people who insist it was never socialist in the first place. sort of like how marxist economists aren't taken seriously when people think their theory was "proven" inconsistent rudatron posted:losing sight of what actually maters - the standard of living and the state of life for ordinary people which, in the USSR, was total loving bullshit. a common move in anticommunist propaganda is to take capitalism's Best In Show, and compare that against the current state of a socialist country. "see how much better!" except that what we really ought to be comparing are a) how it stands relative to its previous position, and b) how a country stacks up against nations in similar stages of development. the USSR at the outset had more in common with Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America than it did with Germany or the United States. and compared to other poor, third-world countries, its performance in terms of macroeconomic and quality-of-life indicators was excellent if you're going to summarize the entirety of the state of life in the USSR with "loving bullshit" maybe i'd be wasting my time recommending you read Robert C. Allen or whatever. i hope you'll at least take a few minutes out of your day to skim this short essay. set aside your preconceptions for a moment; read it as a martian would. you might dismiss it as "propaganda" or "apologia" (as you just did with the work of a well-regarded sociologist), as though it's somehow possible to depoliticize the issue. of course, you also correctly note the depoliticization impulse as a liberal conceit, so maybe you won't. lemme know how the coin lands rudatron posted:I don't know why you think I'm a trotskyist, I've never said I was a trotskyist, I do not give 1 flaming poo poo what trotsky said or thought. I used the term 'state capitalist' because it works. i don't think you're a trotskyist and i don't think i called you one; trots at least care about theory, whereas you show open contempt for it. my "useless objections" are important because they show various ways that "state capitalist" precisely does not work. your flaccid, already-answered defense of the term suggests confusion not only re: socialism, but capitalism as well. i'm halfway surprised you didn't end up alleging "state-feudalism," seeing as the state owns all the land rudatron posted:Stop right there. https://twitter.com/dril/status/922321981 rudatron posted:Pray tell, what materialistic, scientific metrics are you using to distinguish between what is 'primary' mode, and what is the 'secondary' mode, hmm? again: the main one is "which class controls the state." a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie privileges capitalist production, and so on. this is reflected both in which class interests are suppressed, and how the individual productive relations fit into the broader system. i thought my example of how slavery wound up reflecting capitalism pretty much spoke for itself. same goes for capitalist relations under socialism. for example, price information was used as one indicator in monitoring how well enterprises were meeting plan targets, but said plan targets were not determined by the nature of price information. profits, though accounted, likewise did not "call the tune" of how production developed of course, you insist that there is "no meaningful definition of class" etc etc. Here, feel free to borrow the one I've been using the whole time. it's old, but sturdy. rudatron posted:all 'public' property was actually still 'private' property i just want to single out this one bare assertion; i fully believe you're smart enough to one day understand these topics well enough to feel silly for having posted this. rudatron posted:I love this quote for how breathlessly it ignores that politics cannot be cleanly separated from economics, something that liberals never seem to get. yes. i was struggling for breath, mad online, when i wrote this. i was literally livid. my face was the same color as an apple or a beet. you're right to observe that liberals are foolish to believe the economy is unlinked from politics, such that the former can be apolitical, and the latter is not subject to class conflict. good. but i'm saying something else, a point that you're not following because you refuse to engage with concepts that you dismiss as "high philosophy." now, i don't know what makes it "high" or why that's bad, but philosophy IS is kind of important when you're making a philosophical argument, as you and I both are. i'm drawing the same distinction marx & engels did between "base and superstructure" in dialectical materialism, or what is referred to as "stratification" or "emergence" in most modern realist philosophies. economic relations are basic; the state and politics, ideology, etc, sit atop. my go-to comparison is to say the relationship is like the relationship of biological laws to chemical ones. biology emerges from the mechanisms of chemistry, but is not reducible to "just a lot of chemistry" due to its own structure. when a biological entity moves, it mobilizes vast complexes of interrelating chemical processes. yet the laws of biology don't and cannot violate the laws of chemistry. similarly: politics emerges from economics but is not reducible to it; it mobilizes complexes of interrelating economic processes; yet it's still subject to the laws governing the economy — class struggle, hard material limits and so on. so while the analogy supports your (correct) point that economy and politics are not radically separate, it also illustrates that attempting to peg politics as just applied economic relations is reductionistic, leading down a dead end. moreover, you're arguing for an interpretation of base/super that M&E explicitly disavowed. please, do me a favor and go read the Collier book i linked one or two posts ago, because i do not suspect any partial explanation i give will satisfy you, and I'm not going to write out a whole seminar here. rudatron posted:Alright, here's where I start my rant. yeah. and here's where i get off the ride. what follows stands or falls on the basis of the misunderstandings above, and i don't even know where to begin with these slapdash definitions you're throwing around. it even kind of looks like your toe went over the line of a human-nature argument, but i'll give you the benefit of a doubt, for all the good that's ever done me rudatron posted:No, your real crime is that you aren't marxist. Lenin posted:It is often said and written that the main point in Marx's theory is the class struggle. But this is wrong. And this wrong notion very often results in an opportunist distortion of Marxism. ... For the theory of the class struggle was created not by Marx, but by the bourgeoisie before Marx, and, generally speaking, it is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Those who recognize only the class struggle are not yet Marxists. ... Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is what constitutes the most profound distinction between the Marxist and the ordinary ... bourgeois. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism should be tested. gonna go with Vlad on this one. sorry dude. https://twitter.com/BlackAutonomist/status/774950652162117632 incidentally, it's pretty cool how i've been accused of being both an inveterate doctrinaire and a liberal pretend-marxist in the same thread. that's probably close to center square on the bingo sheet Aeolius fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
rudatron posted:making sure you don't upset the 1 hold over tankie forgot to ask, who are you even talking about ThaumPenguin posted:it was me actually thanks for clarifying. are you the One Tankie, too? tag yourself on this chart: https://twitter.com/harakat_tahrir/status/835270730396872704
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
communist anime bette be posted or i will probate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4H70U26HxM
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
and gently caress you homework-tan
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABCtU6NB_xs
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:rudatron i think i was a lot more charitable to you than you're being to me. He does this by highlighting some facts, but overlooking others. For example, all workers were part of a trade union! (you couldn't choose which union you were under, and striking was illegal - they were mechanisms to increase productivity, not represent workers). All unions operated under democratic centralism! (But all lower committees were bound to follow all directives of higher committees, and you could kick people out the higher ups didn't like, meaning what you actually end up with is a patron-client relationship between the different levels of the councils). https://www.loc.gov/item/90025756/ Aeolius posted:throwing socialist projects under the bus only harms the movement in the long run. Do you wonder why the phrase 'communist intellectual' is such a loving joke? "Well that's just because of capitalist propaganda!" partial marks, because that answer presupposes an all-powerful 'Other' on which you get to blame all your own failures, though it is technically true that propaganda did exist and had an effect. No, the real reason is because no one believes any of the poo poo 'communist intellectuals' say, because they cannot communicate cleanly. Why? Because they don't think cleanly. Even when failures stares them in the face, they rattle off excuses after excuses about. They gave up persuasive power for the dull repetition of meaningless phrases (ie - "The working class is in the driving seat!" - this is meaningless tripe, it communicates nothing about the power structures of decision making, it simply gives the appearance of doing so). "Oh but that's just contempt for theory!" It's contempt for arrogance. quote:i hope you'll at least take a few minutes out of your day to skim this short essay. set aside your preconceptions for a moment; read it as a martian would. quote:again: the main one is "which class controls the state." a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie privileges capitalist production, and so on. quote:of course, you insist that there is "no meaningful definition of class" etc etc. quote:yeah. and here's where i get off the ride. what follows stands or falls on the basis of the misunderstandings above, and i don't even know where to begin with these slapdash definitions you're throwing around. Your response is to dismiss that, without much comment really, but to dismiss it in the most deceptive way possible - by surrounding your dismissals with walls of text on literally everything else. You continually repeat 'workers control the state', without giving any meaningful response as to why the lack of accountability doesn't itself invalidate that claim. But you'll sure post whole pages from a book from 1974, written by a guy who wasn't even living the soviet union at that time, and didn't have much in the way of verifiable sources about life inside the union, for fairly obvious reasons. For you, it seems, the central plank upon which all my other criticisms follow is unimportant enough to deserve reply, yet you'll happily write out a long-winded analogy for 'I think you're being reductionist'. A reply which, by the way, doesn't work, because you were explicitly disregarding the economic basis of political power in the soviet union, upon which can be argued that such political power constituted an economic class. Your entire chemistry/biology metaphor was, as it turns out, totally worthless in justifying yourself, because you can, actually, decompose all biological processes to chemical ones, it just takes a lot of time and isn't necessary. But it can become necessary, when you're arguing about loving chemistry. Your argument was that they were 'political elites, not economic elites', as an argument against them constituting a class - that is an argument about basic relations! Your argument only works under the clean separation between economics and politics that liberals employ, otherwise we can simply substitute the 'chemical' parts into the appropriate 'biological' parts, and end up with a contradiction! How stupid can you get? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
trigger wanring, homework explainer don't read this: ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... The ussr was bad
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:oh hey where are the heros? Hey you loving moron I work at Wal-Mart. Go huff your own facts. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Hey you loving moron I work at Wal-Mart. Go huff your own facts. i worked for half a decade inspecting sewers suck my loving dick
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
This isn't a 'who has the shittiest job' competition, you just said everyone else was an it worker or something and couldn't stand all day at retail, then I posted I had. I can see your work has influenced your posts. Get it I'm saying your posts are poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLZJ-0IP9bY
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
fair weather communist cuck cuckmunists
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
I do people's taxes Today I had a guy whose refund was three times my yearly income lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
this is what i'm talkin about. 10/10 baloogan post right here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:this is what i'm talkin about. 10/10 baloogan post right here. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
rudatron posted:(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) now that you have been stood up against the wall, i will provide some bullets:
in conclusion,
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 08:52
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:now that you have been stood up against the wall, i will provide some bullets: this is how u do it
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
and gently caress you homework-chan
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
go teach english in china you homecuck explainer having never worked a hard day of work in your life weanting all the benefits of maoism then anti-maoism homecuck cucksplainer - chan anime would be an anime an anime about a child who has no clue about anything trying to seem smart and seem relevent but everyone everyone around them is ignoring himmmmmmmmmm
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 09:52
|
|
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:great idea! joining PSL is a great way to indicate to the future/present fascist regime that you're not a real threat and can be safely ignored lol this joke doesn't work well when the democrats are the alternative tbh Fallen Hamprince posted:trigger wanring, homework explainer don't read this: It was pretty bad, also sorta good in some ways. I'm sure a lot of peeps look back fondly on the olden days. As well as many others really hate it. All for p good reasons mostly. Politics!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 10:33
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:lol this joke doesn't work well when the democrats are the alternative tbh a lot of americans look back fondly on the reagan years for very similar reasons
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
Can you stop using the word cuck Baloogan. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Can you stop using the word cuck Baloogan. no. check my rap sheet. i have roughly ~80 probations related to trying to censor that word. its a new world, our cyberpunk made-up swear is cuck. Sorry but its true. "cuck"
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
lol I remember when u got ur month prob from D&D mid primary, big lmao not even being able to yell into the abyss as trump is going wild on republicans
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 11:16
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:thanks for clarifying. are you the One Tankie, too? absolutely 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:lol I remember when u got ur month prob from D&D mid primary, big lmao not even being able to yell into the abyss as trump is going wild on republicans at the time i thought we had no hope i thought trump would lose instead of TRUMP the hero of hte working class winninglamo lol @ fiction and lol lamo @ homework-sama you idiot, you left wing idiots trump trump is the 'hero of the working class' literally nothing you did made a differentce might as well watches anime  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK5Sn-hGZ7M
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
every single one of your bullets has missed its mark, so I guess I'll walk. Every step of the way, you've tried to shift the debate onto something different. Not once, repeat, once did you ever respond to that objection, other than to repeat the same tired old horseshit -they-were-socialist-because-the-party-was-working-class-ergo-the-party-interests-are-working-class-interests- no, gently caress you. You're not an intellectual, you're just a loving coward. Before the soviet union, leftism could exist entirely on promises. It could promise that it was seriously working towards a better future, and get people lined up behind that. In the post-soviet ear, those promises are hollow. So I get the incentive to rewrite history. But this is a self deception. Don't you think it's odd that the soviet system was so easily able to transition into the kleptocratic proto-fascist state of Russia today? Don't you think it's odd that the head, right-wing leaning, autocrat of Russia was a former member of the KGB? It's almost as if...the seeds of the current russian system...existed in the former...that actually, the current oligarchical control, is just a continuation of the oppression that came before, only now friendly with and integrated into the whole global capitalist system. Marx is dead. Lenin is dead. Stalin is dead. The bolshevik revolution, it's legacy, is dead. The USSR was a lie, the promises it made were broken. That is the hard truth, and that truth is the burden of all leftists today. Suffer that burden. You don't want to do that, you'd rather go hunting for 'respected sociologists' (read: authors of the pamphlet that justified your confirmation bias) and create an 'alternate truth'. That is why you're a coward. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
In the post-truth era, where everyone lives in little loving bubbles and has their opinions reflected back to them - through google searches, through facebook walls & social media, through algorithms - the only way to really know if you're on the path to truth, is if you're suffering, if you're out of that comfort zone. You've done nothing but construct a vast mental apparatus to help you avoid that suffering. So long as you can throw up irrelevant bullshit in the face of the people you talk to, you get to think you've 'won'. Alternate reality maintained!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
PROlX PROLXI PRROLIXX loving rude a tron doo not be prolix
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
you loving idiot proolix mohter fcuyk,,er wtf u doing mainng making workkkks worddds liiiiiiikke 4 or loving 6 or fucing 12 sylablez https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2gJNOZr564 syla belz sil a bellz a a a a a silabelzzzz BURNING UP PROLIX Porplix prolix prolix mmotherfukcere
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
ur fiied fired fired fired dessssssssssssssssssssssssssired BURN IN ING IN MY ROOM dessssssssssssssssssssssires wtf literally are you gonna make me read your prolix posts? like seriousy? u gonna make me read it? no im gonna probate wtf y u do this to me?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
And the biggest problem is i literally dont know your poiont yours not communiicatings pretty sure you needs to comomucaitate using use sinmple english SIMPLE ENGLISH you cuck encrypting your idiot propaganda in jargon mobther loving going to task for a RSA key srs wtyff
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
settle down baloogan
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
Baloogan posted:And the biggest problem is i literally dont know your poiont this rings true for mass communications: you need a simple, clear, direct message but for discussion purposes one can (and should) go deeper there's a role for "peace, bread, land" and there's a role for a giant volume like Capital eta: 
Red Dad Redemption fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 14:09
|
|
