|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:now that i don't doubt, but the bio isn't really marxist theory, though, right? more stories of kim il sung's heroic exploits. i know DPRK literature is a big thing. true, but it isn't so strange to think the same phenomenon applies
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
has anybody read hoxha's memoirs? they sounded good based on jon halliday's review and i have learned that he edited a later release of them
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
I touched the poop. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/802674859104935936
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Was your next response 'why don't you try thinking rather than searching a website?' It's both good advice and a warm up for the abuse you should just give them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
namesake posted:Was your next response 'why don't you try thinking rather than searching a website?' I just kept doing logic dork poo poo to string him along, but ">Ctrl+F the Mises page" is 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dankmtl/status/935858876137857024
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
I was just reminded of the Spartacist League for some reason and decided to look them up again: oh dear she's right
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
 Also D&D and CSPAM
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYJy9uBSpRs
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
woah i was wondering what song that was https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp2qcCrdBLA
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:
so the east was way cooler then
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:I was just reminded of the Spartacist League for some reason and decided to look them up again: this is why nobody likes trots
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I touched the poop. my spergy austrian economics poo poo doesnt have the word legal entity in it therefor you are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NoContextUnruhe/status/935471172745129985
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
That Twitter is amazing https://twitter.com/NoContextUnruhe/status/935235955614801921?s=17 A true goon 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
lmao
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6UAKCU5vEs
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 07:59
|
|
|
My favorite quote to use against Von Mises bootlickers is quoting Milton Friedman saying they are empirically wrong according to all economic data, contradicted by the evidence, and actively harmful to world policy. This is usually pretty traumatic to them since they also worship Milton Friedman. "In 1969, Milton Friedman, after examining the history of business cycles in the U.S., concluded that "The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false."[90] He analyzed the issue using newer data in 1993, and again reached the same conclusion.[91]" Also fun to quote Murray Rothbard when he proposes unleashing a fascist police state against homeless people and legalizing child slavery "4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not “white collar criminals” or “inside traders” but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error. 5. Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society." - Murray Rothbard
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
It's amazing how much effort they put in to just flat out misunderstanding capitalism. He originally said to somebody else that capitalism doesn't use force, and that using force violates the NAP - which is why I said capitalism requires the force of a state to maintain the legal regimes which even make it possible in the first place. He read that and took it to mean that capital itself, not private capital, is impossible without the state, because in his head he thinks the definition of capitalism is a system where you can trade capital, which is functionally indistinct from every other economic period known to history. I eventually had to point out to him that von Mises himself would agree with me, because he literally wrote the book on Liberalism and was a minarchist, not an ancap. It's all half-understood stumps of ideas gleaned third hand from internet commentaries, because none of them have any compulsion to actually read anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's amazing how much effort they put in to just flat out misunderstanding capitalism. He originally said to somebody else that capitalism doesn't use force, and that using force violates the NAP - which is why I said capitalism requires the force of a state to maintain the legal regimes which even make it possible in the first place. He read that and took it to mean that capital itself, not private capital, is impossible without the state, because in his head he thinks the definition of capitalism is a system where you can trade capital, which is functionally indistinct from every other economic period known to history. These are the same people who frantically call the police and scream into the phone when a black motorist drives through their neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
I love trolling liberals by reminding them that Nelson Mandela said apartheid ended because of Cuban MiGs in Angola and that the US and UK did nothing but prop up the regime
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 11:18
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I love trolling liberals by reminding them that Nelson Mandela said apartheid ended because of Cuban MiGs in Angola and that the US and UK did nothing but prop up the regime The liberal commentariat was always deeply disturbed that Mandela refused to renounce violence. quote:http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/21/opinion/why-won-t-mandela-renounce-violence.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The liberal commentariat was always deeply disturbed that Mandela refused to renounce violence. My weird whiteguy take on the civil rights struggle is that King wouldn't have achieved as much as he had without Malcolm X and NOI and the Panthers presenting a much less pleasant option to the liberal of the time. How much of an idiot am I for thinking that? Asking without irony, I'm a dummy when it comes to civil rights/race relations in Ameri(c/KKK)a.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:My weird whiteguy take on the civil rights struggle is that King wouldn't have achieved as much as he had without Malcolm X and NOI and the Panthers presenting a much less pleasant option to the liberal of the time. The implicit threat of black nationalism and black communists was a big factor in liberals seeking to embrace Dr. King, but they didn't even really "embrace" his politics until he was already assassinated and the King Riots sparked a massive wave of righteous violence in its wake. It took a nationwide uprising before white liberals started really taking civil rights seriously, and it led directly to the passage of the 1968 Civil Rights Act. The necessity of violence in guaranteeing just de jure rights for black people is almost completely erased by focusing on Dr. King as a singular force for civil rights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:. It took a nationwide uprising before white liberals started really taking civil rights seriously, and it led directly to the passage of the 1968 Civil Rights Act. So how do we deal with that, as whiteys who believe that POC should get a fair shake? Again, I'm both a drunk and a coward, but think that people should be equal in the eyes of God and man without referring to skin color. And if God disagrees that fucker can sit and spin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
by building a new society. ours is unsalvageable tbh
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:My weird whiteguy take on the civil rights struggle is that King wouldn't have achieved as much as he had without Malcolm X and NOI and the Panthers presenting a much less pleasant option to the liberal of the time. in my college course on the civil rights movement this was said to be explicitly true but that was the early 90s who knows what they tell people today
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Sergg posted:Also fun to quote Murray Rothbard when he proposes . . . legalizing child slavery no matter how often one reads his work, it never ceases to amaze "In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market." "Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die."
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's amazing how much effort they put in to just flat out misunderstanding capitalism. He originally said to somebody else that capitalism doesn't use force, and that using force violates the NAP - which is why I said capitalism requires the force of a state to maintain the legal regimes which even make it possible in the first place. He read that and took it to mean that capital itself, not private capital, is impossible without the state, because in his head he thinks the definition of capitalism is a system where you can trade capital, which is functionally indistinct from every other economic period known to history. capital itself is impossible without the state. without a state to enforce capital, it becomes free means of production + free association of producers. capital is distinct from, say, the sun (which is merely a means of production), because the state can't enforce ownership of the sun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Annual Prophet posted:no matter how often one reads his work, it never ceases to amaze actually its not pedophilia its righteous child murder bing bong so simple
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:capital itself is impossible without the state. without a state to enforce capital, it becomes free means of production + free association of producers. capital is distinct from, say, the sun (which is merely a means of production), because the state can't enforce ownership of the sun. If you're talking about ownership of capital then sure, but in the absence of the state there's still room for capital to exist, if you're thinking of capital as simply wealth that facilitates the creation of even more wealth. It's not likely that you can maintain control of capital in the absence of the state, but even if capital is controlled communally or collectively it's still capital. A strictly Marxist originalist definition of capital, which is basically financial capital, is inadequate - but Marx described basically the same thing we're talking about by clarifying that wealth and capital are social relations. There have been several historical periods preceding capitalism in which it was possible for capital to arise, but they're all socially distinct from capitalism as a system. Capitalism isn't just a system in which it's possible to realize the creation of capital, but in which capital is privately controlled as a class by the bourgeoisie. This is what makes capitalism distinct from previous aristocratic, feudal, communal, or state planned modes of production.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Is this where all the "ironic" holodormor deniers hang out?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A--h4iQySik
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Look at those socialist failures who didn't even manage to rack up half as many kills as the good old British Empire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
Despera posted:Is this where all the "ironic" holodormor deniers hang out? Why, are you one?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
fi FDR hadn’t died maybe the USA and USSR could have allied after ww2 to take on Britain and France and dismantle colonialism forever
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Despera posted:Is this where all the "ironic" holodormor deniers hang out? Well, no one's doing it ironically itt DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:fi FDR hadn’t died maybe the USA and USSR could have allied after ww2 to take on Britain and France and dismantle colonialism forever Instead we got Truman and Japan got the nuke
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:If you're talking about ownership of capital then sure, but in the absence of the state there's still room for capital to exist, if you're thinking of capital as simply wealth that facilitates the creation of even more wealth. It's not likely that you can maintain control of capital in the absence of the state, but even if capital is controlled communally or collectively it's still capital. A strictly Marxist originalist definition of capital, which is basically financial capital, is inadequate - but Marx described basically the same thing we're talking about by clarifying that wealth and capital are social relations. You are right that what makes capital is the social relation of property. It is irrelevant if the owner is an individual, a board of directors, or a city. Which is why capitalism can be state planned if those states are participating in markets. That is just the difference between a small company town and a big one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
Ruzihm posted:You are right that what makes capital is the social relation of property. It is irrelevant if the owner is an individual, a board of directors, or a city. The character of the state is also important, I'd argue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 03:00
|
|