(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
indigi posted:this seems naive. one time Philadelphia firebombed a city block cause some anti-racist vegetarians were getting on their nerves, if there was anything resembling a legitimate “revolt” in an American city their response would be swift and without remorse, and capital would approve The rate of profitability only keeps going down, which is why capitalism needs creative destruction to return profitability to the system. Destroyed cities need to be rebuilt, along with all of the stuff that was in them. Who cares about the bag holders?
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/gavinmuellerphd/status/1401495962313502728
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 00:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AshleyRParker/s...ingawful.com%2F
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 02:13
|
|
|
pls recommend me books about the cuban rev + present day cuba
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 02:21
|
|
|
that journalist loves the word so much they quote it twice
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
Michael Bender
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
it’s different if you prefix it with “mental”
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 03:51
|
|
|
this is like some prophecy fuckery poo poo quote:TRUMP
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 03:59
|
|
|
ah, but President trump the oracle at Delphi never said which one would be reduced to ruin
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 04:11
|
|
|
the relationship between the capitalist class and the working class, visualized
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 17:54
|
|
|
tokin opposition posted:explains a lot unfortunately opinions are a bourgeois affectation, comrade. we should deal in truths, facts, and the ruthless critique of every existing thing including hippies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 07:03
|
|
|
What happened to Daniel Noriega anyways? I remember way back in the 80s following the Nicaragua revolution and listening to "Sandinista!" by the Clash and believing that a new socialist paradise in central america was just around the corner. Now it's all killing students, locking up opposition candidates, evil dictator poo poo. For the very first time ever When they had a revolution in Nicaragua There was no interference from America Human rights in America The people fought the leader and up he flew With no Washington bullets what else could he do? Sandinista! edit: removed video that had pictures of dead people it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYJzcLEpHl4 raspurtin has issued a correction as of 06:10 on Jun 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 05:59
|
|
|
raspurtin posted:What happened to Daniel Noriega anyways? I remember way back in the 80s following the Nicaragua revolution and listening to "Sandinista!" by the Clash and believing that a new socialist paradise in central america was just around the corner. Now it's all killing students, locking up opposition candidates, evil dictator poo poo. A lot of things have gotten better since the Sandanistas took over, and much of their opposition has been sponsored by USAID. It's at the very least probably the most socially democratic state in central america. They have stupid abortion laws and other problems worth criticizing though
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 06:12
|
|
|
I think you mean Daniel Ortega Manuel Noriega was the CIA-backed dictator of Panama
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 06:16
|
|
|
Ortega hasn't killed enough people, imho.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 06:18
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Ortega hasn't killed enough people, imho. yeah, there's a good quote in the prince where Machiavelli says if you take power, the best thing to do is kill all your enemies quickly. he goes into the reasoning, i remember things like people being glad they weren't killed, indicating a clear break from previous power, not looking weak by having to use executions throughout the time in power. it definitely looks better when you do it like Castro. the best thing about it, in my eyes, is that it's extremely easy to get justice for crimes when the revolution has changed the laws, so things that people would gladly advertise in Forbes for example, are crimes the people decide deserve punishment. Edit: Or people who are obviously being protected by the powers that be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 06:39
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:yeah, there's a good quote in the prince where Machiavelli says if you take power, the best thing to do is kill all your enemies quickly. he goes into the reasoning, i remember things like people being glad they weren't killed, indicating a clear break from previous power, not looking weak by having to use executions throughout the time in power. Right. Any revolutionary government in Latin America will have the United States and all of its reactionary neighbors constantly breathing down their necks and looking for any excuse to invade. It's primarily why the Sandinista government had to keep the police & army demobilized during the recent guarimbas, because the propaganda war took precedence over the actual gangs terrorizing the roads & countryside. If you start killing or prosecuting too many contras then that's "evil dictator poo poo."
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 06:43
|
|
|
Yeah a whole lot happened since that clash song from 1980, such as at least a decade of civil war throughout Central America which was almost entirely the fault of the U.S. and its proxies
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 06:50
|
|
|
The Sandinistas ended up being voted out of government just to make the pain from the United States stop, and wouldn't get back in for 17 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 06:56
|
|
|
one of the reasons i call myself a marxist and a communist, and not an anarchist, is that i find marxists are much more historically aware of the extreme risks, and the hard choices, that all successful revolutions have suffered through. as well i tend to give communist countries a break for the hard choices they occasionally have to make to survive, in a capitalist world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 07:05
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I think you mean Daniel Ortega Doh! Yes, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 07:28
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:one of the reasons i call myself a marxist and a communist, and not an anarchist, is that i find marxists are much more historically aware of the extreme risks, and the hard choices, that all successful revolutions have suffered through. plus you'd have to change your username
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 07:42
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:yeah, there's a good quote in the prince where Machiavelli says if you take power, the best thing to do is kill all your enemies quickly. he goes into the reasoning, i remember things like people being glad they weren't killed, indicating a clear break from previous power, not looking weak by having to use executions throughout the time in power. wasn't The Prince supposed to be a satire like not denying that you have to somehow dispose of counterrevolutionaries but idk if immediate capital punishment is the way to go. there's gonna be plenty of stuff for them to help rebuild Ardent Communist posted:one of the reasons i call myself a marxist and a communist, and not an anarchist, is that i find marxists are much more historically aware of the extreme risks, and the hard choices, that all successful revolutions have suffered through. yah agreed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 07:57
|
|
|
indigi posted:wasn't The Prince supposed to be a satire I think every few decades, consensus shifts on it. IIRC right now, there's not a lot of support for it being a satire per se, but you'll see people arguing it was either a legitimate attempt to stay in the good graces of Lorenzo de' Medici, or it was an attempt to trick him by giving him such bad advice that he'd be overthrown and replaced with a republic
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 08:13
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:one of the reasons i call myself a marxist and a communist, and not an anarchist, is that i find marxists are much more historically aware of the extreme risks, and the hard choices, that all successful revolutions have suffered through.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 09:04
|
|
|
at some point i thought that anarchism could be cool but then i realized that the anarchist explanation for why they haven't ever really succeeded in overthrowing capitalism always boiled down to "well we tried but then we got crushed by those evil capitalists/communists/whateverists" and upon about half a second of further thought i realized that maybe this implies some kind of fundamental impossibility of their position and that's when i decided that this whole anarchism business is actually very silly
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 09:09
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The rate of profitability only keeps going down, which is why capitalism needs creative destruction to return profitability to the system. Destroyed cities need to be rebuilt, along with all of the stuff that was in them. Who cares about the bag holders? The tendency of the rate of profit to fall affects specific products/services when specific (common) conditions exist, not the system as a whole at all times like a law. Things can function just fine without such destruction. Moon Shrimp has issued a correction as of 09:44 on Jun 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 09:22
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:at some point i thought that anarchism could be cool but then i realized that the anarchist explanation for why they haven't ever really succeeded in overthrowing capitalism always boiled down to "well we tried but then we got crushed by those evil capitalists/communists/whateverists" and upon about half a second of further thought i realized that maybe this implies some kind of fundamental impossibility of their position and that's when i decided that this whole anarchism business is actually very silly there is a way through communism well hypothetically, but dissolving the state is the end goal
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 09:43
|
|
|
Moon Shrimp posted:The tendency of the rate of profit to fall affects specific products/services when specific (common) conditions exist, not the system as a whole at all times like a law. Things can function just fine without such destruction. The TRP does affect the entire system though, once it's aggregated in financial markets. The ability of the system to function even despite declining profitability doesn't matter to financiers, who always want the maximum rate on their returns possible. It's therefore more profitable in the short term from the perspective of a financier to do mass destruction & reconstruction in a system where the profitability is anemic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 10:40
|
|
|
Moon Shrimp posted:The tendency of the rate of profit to fall affects specific products/services when specific (common) conditions exist, not the system as a whole at all times like a law. Things can function just fine without such destruction. The general rate of profit tends to equalise, as capital moves to sectors with greater rates of profit. So the falling of "natural" profit rates based on increasing organic composition in one industry causes a small fall in the general rate of profit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 10:54
|
|
|
I know Marx thought it would affect the whole system but I'm not convinced it's the reality of what happens. The decline is caused by the profits initially created by gains in productivity being eaten away as competitors increase their productivity to the same level and then lower their prices to increase their market share, creating a race to the bottom. Then another breakthrough in productivity occurs, raising profitability again, but with diminishing returns since you're already starting from a lower sell price. This doesn't really seem to occur in modern day capitalism, though. I just paid 8 dollars for a box of laundry detergent that probably only cost cents to make. My clothes, also, cost at least an order of magnitude less to make than I paid for them. Clearly the effects of competition on prices and profits is operating in a more complex way than Marx imagined.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 11:40
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Ortega hasn't killed enough people, imho.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 13:41
|
|
|
Moon Shrimp posted:I know Marx thought it would affect the whole system but I'm not convinced it's the reality of what happens. to not fall into a hole of technicality, you are forgetting to account for inflation and confounding profit and profitability, among other things. The profit given by a box of detergent today may be greater than it was, but it is far less lucrative than it was in the past when there was very little detergent on the consumer market. Think, for example, about salt: it is quite ubiquitous today and incredibly cheap when once it was obscenely scarce to the point of being reference point to wages in Antiquity. Salt has been rendered much cheaper than ever in our time, yet there are mining companies for salt and businesses that own salines. These companies exist, so they have profits that, aggregate, might be today greater than the salt trade in its heyday; however, the potential increase of profitability in salt nowadays is very, very low. This means that the potential to bring new capital into it is almost none. The ultimate drive for the expansion of capitalism is not profit, which was the mistake of many liberal thinkers about it, but for profitability: someone who earns X then employs their surplus capital to earn X+1, then it goes, number go up. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall is one of the masterstrokes of Marx, as it detects the quintessential why of capital accumulation instead of being reinvested in a proportional manner, as there are many activities that could use that capital and are lucrative yet the capitalist sits on their rear end instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 15:41
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:at some point i thought that anarchism could be cool but then i realized that the anarchist explanation for why they haven't ever really succeeded in overthrowing capitalism always boiled down to "well we tried but then we got crushed by those evil capitalists/communists/whateverists" and upon about half a second of further thought i realized that maybe this implies some kind of fundamental impossibility of their position and that's when i decided that this whole anarchism business is actually very silly They also like to omit the fact that anarchists began attacking communists during the Spanish Civil war which then allowed Franco and the Fascist Falange to steamroll them both into ovens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
I've always heard that the Spanish republic was the aggressor against the Catalonian anarchists. The problem with them was that they were idiots and thought they could do their thing without taking any kind of state power
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:to not fall into a hole of technicality, you are forgetting to account for inflation and confounding profit and profitability, among other things. The profit given by a box of detergent today may be greater than it was, but it is far less lucrative than it was in the past when there was very little detergent on the consumer market. I just woke up and I can't quite understand what you mean by profitability. I'm pointing out that stuff like detergent is still sold for far more than it costs to make, meaning its still generating a high return of profit for investors, and those investors can then reinvest those profits elsewhere. It's still a profitable investment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 20:11
|
|
|
It is still cheaper to make because of various efforts to externalize costs: extracting resources through imperialism, "outsourcing" production, dumping your waste in someone else's backyard etc You can temporarily increase or maintain profits but whatever measures you took will not prevent the tendency of profits to fall in the long term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
Don't be making a reverse transformation problem error either - the mass of profits can increase while the rate of profitability falls. This is because profitability in the Marxist sense is about value, not monetary or accounting returns. The production cost of something falls due to increased capital usage which lessens the amount of value in each commodity (because productivity is higher so less labour hours are used to make it so the socially necessary labour time is less). However the sale price is different from SNLT so there's a widening gap between the two for a variable amount of total production and monetary profits seem to explode but it comes at the cost of changing the amount of value added - capital substitutes for new labour and so the Marxist measure of profitability- surplus value extracted from workers - is reduced. It's this that is squeezing capitalists and is the cause of crisis because they have all these massive expensive machines already in place, boatloads of cash coming in and suddenly find there's no way they can spend all the money to get suitable returns any more. Yes there's always some hypothetical investment offering a return but without connecting to value the money just spirals off either into crazy bubbles like we have now or the crisis hits and suddenly capital becomes so much cheaper that acquiring the dead labour in it and accessing the newly freed up, usually desperate and cheaper, labour means there are sources of value that are worth buying again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 20:58
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:there is a way Anarchy the dream Communism the means 🚩👩❤️💋👩🏴
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
namesake posted:Don't be making a reverse transformation problem error either - the mass of profits can increase while the rate of profitability falls. Ok I see now, you guys are talking about there being fewer opportunities to reinvest profits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 22:55
|
|