|
Braggart posted:I want to plug the Discord The beans go in easier if you use a funnel, see above instructional diagrame.
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2020 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Great, Keir Starmer. How wonderful for us(!)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2020 23:15
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:I mean my old CLP was mostly pensioners because they have a lot more free time to campaign but sure. The chances of anyone's mother or grandmother being a capitalist are pretty drat low; being a capitalist isn't just owning a property in which you live, it's owning tens or hundreds of millions of pounds plus in assets; it's being able to leverage those assets to control people. Almost nobody is a capitalist in a meaningful sense, and a revolutiont hat guillotines little old ladies for having lived in London since the sixties and therefore owning one house worth a million or two is a stupid loving revolution.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2020 15:43
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:In the sense of "does not work, relies on extraction of surplus value from labour for income", pensioners are capitalists. You're confusing this with the popular use of "capitalist" to mean big bad haute bourgeois billionaires, but by Marx's definition most pensioners are something like petit bourgeois. I honestly don't think it's as clear cut as this. Pensioners fit that definition, sure, but so do many if not most disabled people, unemployed people, children, non-working parents, arguably teachers, medics, anyone in a service industry, etc etc etc. In short, it's a pretty poo poo definition of capitalist. Society caring for the poor and vulnerable who are unable to work, doesn't make those being cared for loving capitalists. Understanding what drives pensioners to vote against their own interest is important, btu so is understanding what drives everyone else to vote against their own interest, and anyone* who votes Tory is doign that. *let's face it, the people in whose interest it actyually IS to see Tory policies enacted are so vanishingly small in number that there are functionally none of them. thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Jan 2, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:I don’t mean all pensioners but specifically most pensioners in the UK, where most people hold private or workplace pensions which are not the same as National Insurance, and are, in fact, forms of capital ownership (funds invested in a portfolio managed by the pension trust) . Besides my intention's not really to identify wall fodder but to look at why pensioners in particular vote with capitalist class interests. "Does not work, relies on extraction of surplus value from labour for income' applies pretty strongly to children, I think? Pension funds' growth relies on capital, sure. BUt an individual pensioner currently withdrawing from that fund, mostly doesn't. And indeed, relies a lot MORE on the kinds of social structures built by socialism, to wit, healthcare systems, social care systems, public transport, etc etc etc. The fact that their monetary income comes partly from capitalist economic systems doesn't align their interests with capital any more than it does for ANY of us; almost everyone relies on capitalist systems for their income in some way or another because CAPITALISM IS THE loving SYSTEM.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2020 16:41
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Children are closer to a commodity than a capitalist under capitalism, I think. I'm more making the point that 'Does not work, relies on extraction of surplus value from labour for income' is a poo poo definition of capitalist in any system, let alone our current one. A better one is 'someone who owns and leverages significant amounts of the means of production, typically for their own person/corporate gain'.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
radmonger posted:If disabled care was organised on a capitalist basis, they would be capitalists. As it is not, they are not. So it has nothing (directly) to do with extracting income from suprlus value generated by others' labour then? WHich was my point in the first place. Because every single person who's getting income from sources that aren't their own personal labour, is benefitting from surplus value generated by others' labour. hell, loving anyone who buys clothes is doing that in the system in which we live, given that the clothes are literally only as cheap as they are because the capitalist system screws over the people making them in bangladesh or china or whever.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:I disagree, because the reason Marx talks about the capitalist and proletarian classes in Das Kapital is to look at the economic system of capitalism. In Marx's day, absent the social democratic measures we have now, it was easy to separate the two classes. But that separation is not about having a small capitalist class against a mass of workers, it's about identifying the conflict between the classes. By this logic we're basically all hosed though, since the amount of work, both emotional, mental, and physiccal, that it takes to divorce oneself from capitalism entirely, or hell even slightly, is next to impossible for most people. And whilst I don't disagree that we;'re all hosed because the system is so ingrained that it will take a MAJOR global disaster to unseat it, I don't feel like it's a useful shorthand.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2020 17:09
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:And this is the purpose of building parallel structures, both ideological and material, How do you build parallel material structures when the only sources of material are capitlism?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:There's a few different models, ranging from the unionist tactic of asking for donations from a community to Stalin's preferred method of robbing banks ("expropriation funds for the proletariat"). Of all of these, the only one that actually comes outside the system of capitalism is robbing banks though. Even if you're aksing communities to donate their materials, they still had to obtain those loving materials somewhere. So, where do you get the materials that you use to divorce yourself from capitalism, other than capitalism, and if the answer is 'from capitalism' well... you didn't actually divorce yourself from capitalism at all, did you? The defition of capitalist as 'literally anyone who benefits from capitalism' is hugely unhelpful, because it encompasses essentially everyone in the modern world.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2020 17:29
|
|
|
radmonger posted:If you define capitalism so loosely that it includes absolutely everything, then it stops being much of a viable idea to overthrow it. This is precisely the point I'm making, I'm not sure why that's three times in the last couple of pages you've made that argument to me, instead of the person with whom I'm arguing, who actually seems (to me at least) to espouse the position that capitalists are anyone who benefits from capitalism in any way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
radmonger posted:I think you are missing that there are three groups: ??? No, I just don't think that B is a separate category; there are a lot of people who are being catergorised in B who fit much more clsely in A, and a much smaller number who fit much more closely in C. Pensioners are the former. Small-scale landlords who own and seek rent on maybe a couple of properties that they don't live in, for instance, are likely to be the latter. The former are workers (even if they are currently workers living off the accumulated capital which they worked to accumulate during their lifetime, either through tax and the public welfare system, or through private pensions, or through the contents of their bank accounts, or through money hidden in a loving mattress), the latter are capitalists.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Purple Prince seems to be making a distinction between capital and money which you're not. Someone living off accumulated money (or a state pension) is not living off capital, someone living off the money generated by currently owned capital is. Again though, the distinction is nowhere near that simple for pensioners specifically. Because what a pension is thought to be by the general public is 'some money i saved whilst I was working, so thatI could spend it when I retire' but what it actually is is 'some money I paid a pension fund which they used as capital for investments on the promise that they would give some of it back to me when I retire'. In principle it's functionally identical to shoving some money into an envelope and sticking it under your mattress, and that's the way I suspect the vast majority of people look at it, but in practice, it's not even close. In principle, a pensioner is living off money they earned, regardless of whether it's a state or a private pension. In practice they're living off money other people are currently earning, regardless of whether it's a state or private pension. In practice, it doesn't loving matter that a pensioner's pension comes out of the dividends of a capitalist's investment, it matters that the other dividends of the capitalist's investment persuaded the pensioner to vote for the toff who's going to sell the NHS the pensioner needs to not die of flu next winter..
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:It surely does matter when it's legal for your pension fund to send you letters saying things like "IF CORBYN WINS KISS YOUR PENSION GOODBYE". It doesn't make the pensioner a capitalist themselves (to bring it back to the original thing I took exception to), if capital has an additional avenue to propagandise to them because of their status as a pensioner. If what you're saying is that it shouldn't be legal for pension funds to use their capital for propaganda or lobbying then you're not going to get abny arguments from me. But it also shouldn't be legal for anyone to be a billionaire, for anyone to lie in an election campaign, for anyone to under-pay their workers, for any profit-making corporation to own a water source, etc etc etc etc etc. What should or should not in principle be legal is kind of irrelevant to discuss when it de facto (whether or not it is de jure) IS legal for pensions to propagandise to their beneficiaries.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:Why not just cut out the pension fund part and make it illegal for anyone not socialist to propagandise? May as well get to the point rather than trying to police industry's communications separately. I'd prefer to make it not legal for anyone at all to propagandise, personally.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
JFC my dad just sent me this bullshit accompanied by the words 'you don't have to agree with the politics to find this intriguing'. I'm trying to decide just how sarcastically I want to respond - can someone offer a second opinion? This definitely feels to me like 'we want to hire some people who already agree with us to tell us we're clever, and we openly acknowledge that most people think we're stupid, so we don't want THEM', plus a strong dose of 'we think Facebook were on to something when they sold peoples' data to Cambridge Analytica, but we should be doing it in house not subcontracting'. https://dominiccummings.com/2020/01/02/two-hands-are-a-lot-were-hiring-data-scientists-project-managers-policy-experts-assorted-weirdos/ (E: and the bit about 'we want diverse thought but not people teeling us to think diversely about gender and identity, those weirdos can gently caress off', jesus) thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Jan 3, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2020 08:21
|
|
|
A war that there's no way to win, and that can just be turned into another foreverwar? SOUNDS PERFECT.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2020 09:14
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Trying to position yourself as an "elder statesman" only works if you've been a statesman Tom. Quite literally considering Iran has definitely previously had the technology to enrich uranium and will have very little to prevent it going back to that if the multi-trillion-dollar US military machine starts trying to kill it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2020 09:39
|
|
|
Jose posted:When Boris implements a draft for this war you'll all be sorry that you didn't take my no deal brexit advice of getting fat as hell I'd say they wouldn't possibly be stupid enough to do this, given that to the best of my knowledge there is literally no current orthodoxy to suggest that conscripts are even slightly worthwhile soldiers, but... lol
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2020 14:31
|
|
|
Ratjaculation posted:hello friends, how is everyone feeling 3 weeks on? I'm doign my best to avoid it, personally.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2020 14:43
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:they don't need or want warm bodies with rifles, they want people who actually want to be there. For a given value of want, anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2020 15:50
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:the majority join up because they see no other way of ever getting out of the town where they were born, or because their mates all joined up, or family tradition/pressure, or any combination of those factors, and it's that pressure against their own reservations that leads to the worst issues you get with mental health. This is much more what I'm complaining about. I don't think even close to the majority of people who join up with the Forces are psychos, I think most of them are much more victims of lovely economies forcing them to do so. Possibly less so in this country than in the USA, because our education costs are lower and I don't think the forces pay for University the way they do in the US, but it's still the military-industrial complex exploiting the poor and vulnerable that concerns me, not giving psychos guns.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
Isomermaid posted:The the state of the whole HIGNFY, Private Eye, gently caress it, even latter era Python sneering type of satire is woeful to behold, getting less funny, more dated, and a shitload less USEFUL than it used to be, and it's entirely down to loving pickled boomer-to-gen-x sensibilities that have failed to adapt to the times. It's (or it looks like it is) very, very difficult to maintain a meaningfully satirical attitude in the face of modern success, even if someone does manage to actually acheieve modern success whilst being meaningfully satirical, which is pretty unlikely given how little it's in the interests of commissioning editors to comission actual satire. Successful people get rich and hang out with rich people and become progressively more insulated from the real world and more prone to taking liberal attitudes because they are insulated from the consequences of the things they're mocking. It's really, really difficult to stay sane when you're a celebrity, basically. I've seen it happen so many times over the past 20 years or so and it's always disappointing. People stop punching up, because punching up loses them work, then they stop punching at all and just start making lukewarm quips, then they start punching down because it makes them popular, or because "balance" is imposed on them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
SpaceCommie posted:Lotta people in this thread worried about the draft forgetting this line from the internationale. You assume any conscript would ever be in shooting distance of a general with a loaded weapon. Bold.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
bessantj posted:He might use it like that at some point. Yesterday someone didn't do a very good job and he pointed to what they had done and said "that was loving gay." Give him lovely feedback for being a lovely person. If you feel like being nice, ask him politely to refrain first, then leave him lovely feedback when he doesn't.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:Noswaith dda goons. Does anyone have any advice on joining a Union? It's one of the things I should have done a while ago but decided for it to be one of my new years resolutions. I'm in Cardiff but does anyone have any recommendations? I'm a bit green on the area - I know what a union is but not the actual workings of joining. Unite is about 10 minutes from my current work place (being made redundant in April was my Christmas present from them) so might work as a starting point. What is your work (be as broad or as specific as you feel comfortable with) - that will by and large define what unions you are eligible to join.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:I work in the charity sector at the moment. But likely to be leaving here rather than applying internally for another role. Thanks for the reply, I'm a bit unsure how it all works. The charity sector has really poor union penetration unfortunately. You can probably join Unite or Unison but I wouldn't be at all surprised if you wouldn't have a direct rep or steward, because as I say, unions don't really have a lot of presence in the charity sector. It was something that really put me off when I worked there for a while, and, coincidentally enough, really exploitative working practices are loving RIFE In the charity sector, not least because it relies on the good-nature of the people working in it not to challenge them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2020 22:36
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:https://twitter.com/Mike_Pence/status/1213189757708189699 Once is tragedy, twice is *checks notes* nope, it says here 'still tragedy, because hundreds of thousads or millions of people will still loving die'.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
BizarroAzrael posted:I'm also looking to join up, I'm in software testing. Subscriptions are typically monthly, with no ongoing commitment. Most unions will ony help with issues that arose after you joined, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2020 13:18
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:Oh was she involved with that? I saw a couple of those podcasts and quite enjoyed them. She was personally involved in the meetings that gave us both the Edstone and Controls on Immigration and refused to say who was responsible for either when I heckled her asking.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2020 13:51
|
|
|
crispix posted:Dracula was shite as well. The new episode of Who was also pretty mediocre. I actually liked it until the SHOCKING TWIST at the end which was completely un-foreshadowed as far as I could tell.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2020 14:19
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:J K Rowling stumbles drunk onto the set and retroactively declares everyone gay and also that the Doctor can't just become a woman? Not it just turns out that the one guy was The Master all along and yawn
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2020 14:25
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Wait they did that a second time? I mean they did that a second time like 5 or 6 seasons ago, this is like... 5 now?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2020 14:59
|
|
|
Chuka Umana posted:https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/jess-phillips-willing-to-fight-for-britain-to-rejoin-eu-w7f86xbh0 If Jessflaps wins we'll see a government in a red rosette in 2025 but it won't be a Labour government.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2020 15:38
|
|
|
BizarroAzrael posted:I just got in a twitter fight about Sadiq Khan. Left Labour guy saying to not vote for Khan after he said "the public got it right" on the GE and the Tories "deserved it". Which is obviously lovely and on-brand for him . But this guy seems to be advocating handing the election to an islamophobe Tory (apparently Khan "doesn't care" Tories are islamophobic. Am I wrong that it seems counterproductive to hand London over like that, even if Khan should face repercussions? The ideal case would be to run a different Labour candidate, but given the choice between Khan and any Tory, I'd still want people to vote for Khan.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:Get Armageddon Done Hey I'd vote for The Asteroid 2025.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2020 23:30
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:hey we sent her to the other side of the world, not much more we can do given she is *definitely* too old for the ISS I mean you can unfollow her on facebook, but I suggest at this point that telling her to go die in a fire might be a little too on point.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2020 15:18
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:Does anyone have any ISP recommendations? I'm trying to get to get my new home hooked up after moving but the automated service has some unspecified problem with the new address and trying to get hold of a real person to talk to has been like trying to communicate with Mars via smoke signal. We use the Phone Coop and have been pretty satisfied. ANd they're a coop so
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2020 16:07
|
|
|
The feeling I get from both Lewis and Starmer is that they're genuinely broad-church party-line types. I.e. they both nominated Corbyn because they felt that everyone deserved a voice, rather than just saying they did, but they didn't actually want him to get it - but equally, that having got it, they were happy to follow what the party clearly wanted rather than Cantue-ing the tide. What they would do as leader is therefore kind of inherently suspect, as to whether they would follow the membership, or the PLP - the former set the strategic line, but the latter set the twactical line much more, and have much mroe direct incfluence.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
By the time we actually have another election it won't matter that he's a remainahahahahaha I couldn't even get through the sentence.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2020 19:47
|
|