Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

I'm doubting he's as bad as the people you mentioned though, they're all basically right wing neo-con apologists, I'd hope Kulinski doesn't hold such beliefs.

Kulinski is definitely not a neocon, but he does regularly refer to the New Atheists. Mostly, he says he agrees with them. However, he has periodically criticized one leading New Atheist, Bill Maher. (Maher once got angry at me when I said online, I know that, as a communist, I am not a progressive. However, I also know that Maher is neither a communist nor or a progressive.) Maher also buys into the regressive leftist jargon. To me, Maher is a neocon light (a bit like H. Clinton).

{typo edited out}

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Maher is just a bigot. Liberals would happily criticize a Conservative who espouses such views, but when one of their own say's identical statements it's okay.

Yes, he is. But what else can one be when, of course, one is right <sarcasm>.

[The Widening Gyre]

(no particular problem with this, it's what the poorer countries are for)

At least you're honest about the implications of 'social democracy in one country'. Universal healthcare for some, Hellfire missiles, barbed wire and Nike sweatshops for everyone else.

[Dejanic]

(no particular problem with this, it's what the poorer countries are for)

At least you're honest about the implications of 'social democracy in one country'. Universal healthcare for some, Hellfire missiles, barbed wire and Nike sweatshops for everyone else.

Indeed. It's easy to support such an oppressive ideology that only benefits a small percentage of the world, when you're part of that percentage.

[War Gears]

In other words, there is no such thing as religion. It is just a word. There are only religions. Presumably, Kulinski would agree with some religions, like the largely atheist religion, the American Ethical Union, founded more than 100 years ago by Felix Adler.

You might as well say there is no such thing as cats, chairs, or even humans. Religion is a valid universal.

The AEU is not a religion, and atheism seems entirely incompatible with religion.

[Dumb Ideologies]

At least you're honest about the implications of 'social democracy in one country'. Universal healthcare for some, Hellfire missiles, barbed wire and Nike sweatshops for everyone else.

Indeed. It's easy to support such an oppressive ideology that only benefits a small percentage of the world, when you're part of that percentage.

Its very easy to moralize in the abstract but ultimately the welfare of your own country and your own people trumps those of the Nowherestan basket cases. Every penny you spend on them is a penny they didn't go towards investing in your own country's infrastructure and making it better.

I make no apologies for this belief.

[Trotskylvania]

The issues you mention are an inherent feature of SIOC, a Stalinist feature. Socialism, just like Capitalism must be global otherwise it will fail. Imagine the reverse, a world where every country is Socialist bar a couple of Capitalist ones, it'd be no surprise Capitalism would fail in such countries. Once the global revolution takes place, there will be no reversal, we'd be in a different mode of production so Capitalism wouldn't be brought back, just like we can't now suddenly bring feudalism back.

Social Democracy will always fail against the right, its strongholds are all depleted or depleting and most Social Democratic parties are shades of their former selves. If I'm going to fight for a losing team I'll fight for the team that wants to end all exploitation and struggle, not the team that wants to end some of it.

So you'd drown the world in blood because you refuse to compromise?

The world is already drowning in blood. It will get worse in the coming century.

Revolution is not a matter of will. It happens because the very nature of political economy gives people no alternative but rebellion.

Attempts to mediate the misanthropic nature of political economy have all failed. Social democracy had it's day in the sun, but it was dismantled as the system reached a crisis point of declining rates of profit. It was dismantled, in many cases, but the very social democratic parties that had created it. This is not an accident, nor is it an example of some cabal of neoliberals infiltrating the governments of the world. It's inherent to the nature of political economy. Capital must complete its circuit, and anything that impedes it will be economized. Even human welfare.

[Dumb Ideologies]

So you'd drown the world in blood because you refuse to compromise?

The world is already drowning in blood. It will get worse in the coming century.

Revolution is not a matter of will. It happens because the very nature of political economy gives people no alternative but rebellion.

Attempts to mediate the misanthropic nature of political economy have all failed. Social democracy had it's day in the sun, but it was dismantled as the system reached a crisis point of declining rates of profit. It was dismantled, in many cases, but the very social democratic parties that had created it. This is not an accident, nor is it an example of some cabal of neoliberals infiltrating the governments of the world. It's inherent to the nature of political economy. Capital must complete its circuit, and anything that impedes it will be economized. Even human welfare.

Or the "solution" itself continues to fail and demonstrate even more problems and contradictions than what it purports to inevitably replace, and everyone just decides to stay with that instead, giving up full socialism as a flawed theory, doing the best they can to get moderate leftist ideas back into power.

Can we do that one please?

[The Parkus Empire]

Social Democracy is the "Goldilocks zone" of political ideology, where state and well-regulated market are both in their heaven and all is right with the world.

Add a healthy sprinkle of nationalism to reinforce unity and some institutionalised form of state-mandated collective bargaining to keep class conflict off the table, and you have reached the peak of rational, well-balanced, and harmonious governance. These are just facts, my friends.

Except of course that unfortunate fact that the prosperity of developed nations is built on the poverty of the workers in general and in the modern day mostly the extreme poverty of the third world. Social democracies do not generate magical growth and improvement of living standards out of no where, they either rely on exploiting the earth to sell commodities which of course eventually run out and/or exploiting the third world for cheap labour and their citizens reaping the profit then that money flowing back into their economy. and prior to this the out right imperialism of the 19th century also played a part in making social democracies rich in the first place.

Tariffs, homie.

But I agree that social democracy is undesirable, mainly because it functions as an alternative to unionization of the economy.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Except of course that unfortunate fact that the prosperity of developed nations is built on the poverty of the workers in general and in the modern day mostly the extreme poverty of the third world. Social democracies do not generate magical growth and improvement of living standards out of no where, they either rely on exploiting the earth to sell commodities which of course eventually run out and/or exploiting the third world for cheap labour and their citizens reaping the profit then that money flowing back into their economy. and prior to this the out right imperialism of the 19th century also played a part in making social democracies rich in the first place.

Tariffs, homie.

But I agree that social democracy is undesirable, mainly because it functions as an alternative to unionization of the economy.

Your politics eternally confuse me.

[War Gears]

Tariffs, homie.

But I agree that social democracy is undesirable, mainly because it functions as an alternative to unionization of the economy.

Your politics eternally confuse me.

Just you wait until he discovers Archeofuturism.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Your politics eternally confuse me.

Just you wait until he discovers Archeofuturism.

DELET THIS.

Do you have any idea what you've done?

[The Ides of March]

So you'd drown the world in blood because you refuse to compromise?

The world is already drowning in blood. It will get worse in the coming century.

Revolution is not a matter of will. It happens because the very nature of political economy gives people no alternative but rebellion.

Attempts to mediate the misanthropic nature of political economy have all failed. Social democracy had it's day in the sun, but it was dismantled as the system reached a crisis point of declining rates of profit. It was dismantled, in many cases, but the very social democratic parties that had created it. This is not an accident, nor is it an example of some cabal of neoliberals infiltrating the governments of the world. It's inherent to the nature of political economy. Capital must complete its circuit, and anything that impedes it will be economized. Even human welfare.

"So you'd drown the world in blood because you refuse to compromise?" Oh how classic of a bourgeois response ...I bet the old Lords of Feudal Europe said the same to the pitchfork-weilding peasants as they slaughtered each and everyone of them. To that I respond with "So you'd drown the world in blood because you refuse to give up your unjustly earned position on the world?"
Preach comrade!

Though I myself I'm completely against violence and I would wish for a pacifist revolution brought about by positive activism. You know, ignore the state and built a society besides it ..if they come to destroy our society, we will defend it ...but we will not attack them.

[The Parkus Empire]

Tariffs, homie.

But I agree that social democracy is undesirable, mainly because it functions as an alternative to unionization of the economy.

Your politics eternally confuse me.

One-nationism legalized strikes and suing employers. Unions providing benefits are preferable to high taxes. Also unions provide class identity and purpose, instead of a stupid delusion of "class mobility".

[The Widening Gyre]

Its very easy to moralize in the abstract but ultimately the welfare of your own country and your own people trumps those of the Nowherestan basket cases. Every penny you spend on them is a penny they didn't go towards investing in your own country's infrastructure and making it better.

I make no apologies for this belief.

Building your own country's welfare off of a violent and ultimately unsustainable unequal extraction of resources is a shortsighted and reckless position for a nationalist to take.

Or the "solution" itself continues to fail and demonstrate even more problems and contradictions than what it purports to inevitably replace,

Like what? Twice now you've pointed to this alleged perpensity of socialism to fail but you've failed to elaborate on it - sounding more and more like some sniffle-worthy pure ideology.

[Trotskylvania]

The world is already drowning in blood. It will get worse in the coming century.

Revolution is not a matter of will. It happens because the very nature of political economy gives people no alternative but rebellion.

Attempts to mediate the misanthropic nature of political economy have all failed. Social democracy had it's day in the sun, but it was dismantled as the system reached a crisis point of declining rates of profit. It was dismantled, in many cases, but the very social democratic parties that had created it. This is not an accident, nor is it an example of some cabal of neoliberals infiltrating the governments of the world. It's inherent to the nature of political economy. Capital must complete its circuit, and anything that impedes it will be economized. Even human welfare.

Or the "solution" itself continues to fail and demonstrate even more problems and contradictions than what it purports to inevitably replace, and everyone just decides to stay with that instead, giving up full socialism as a flawed theory, doing the best they can to get moderate leftist ideas back into power.

Can we do that one please?

The only difference between the economic organization of the Soviet Union and Sweden was that the former came at the barrel of a gun. Once the world revolution failed to kick off, Russia was locked into trying to mediate capitalist relations. Many of the revolutionaries understood this. It's why Bukharin moved from the left to the right of the Bolshevik Party, and settled for social democracy. Stalin and others intensified capitalist exploitation to build up the military, and used the state security apparatus as a blunt instrument to purge all the dissidents.

Trying to "will" ideas is exactly the problem with the modern left. Ideas cannot be willed, because they don't drive history.

[The Parkus Empire]

So you'd drown the world in blood because you refuse to compromise?

The world is already drowning in blood. It will get worse in the coming century.

Revolution is not a matter of will. It happens because the very nature of political economy gives people no alternative but rebellion.

Attempts to mediate the misanthropic nature of political economy have all failed. Social democracy had it's day in the sun, but it was dismantled as the system reached a crisis point of declining rates of profit. It was dismantled, in many cases, but the very social democratic parties that had created it. This is not an accident, nor is it an example of some cabal of neoliberals infiltrating the governments of the world. It's inherent to the nature of political economy. Capital must complete its circuit, and anything that impedes it will be economized. Even human welfare.

I would say cooperatives and distributism are a solution preferable to an absolute state monopoly and ex post facto laws.

[Genivaria]

The world is already drowning in blood. It will get worse in the coming century.

Revolution is not a matter of will. It happens because the very nature of political economy gives people no alternative but rebellion.

Attempts to mediate the misanthropic nature of political economy have all failed. Social democracy had it's day in the sun, but it was dismantled as the system reached a crisis point of declining rates of profit. It was dismantled, in many cases, but the very social democratic parties that had created it. This is not an accident, nor is it an example of some cabal of neoliberals infiltrating the governments of the world. It's inherent to the nature of political economy. Capital must complete its circuit, and anything that impedes it will be economized. Even human welfare.

"So you'd drown the world in blood because you refuse to compromise?" Oh how classic of a bourgeois response ...I bet the old Lords of Feudal Europe said the same to the pitchfork-weilding peasants as they slaughtered each and everyone of them. To that I respond with "So you'd drown the world in blood because you refuse to give up your unjustly earned position on the world?"
Preach comrade!

Though I myself I'm completely against violence and I would wish for a pacifist revolution brought about by positive activism. You know, ignore the state and built a society besides it ..if they come to destroy our society, we will defend it ...but we will not attack them.

Correction, the Revolutions happened because the MONARCHS refused to compromise.

[Trotskylvania]

The world is already drowning in blood. It will get worse in the coming century.

Revolution is not a matter of will. It happens because the very nature of political economy gives people no alternative but rebellion.

Attempts to mediate the misanthropic nature of political economy have all failed. Social democracy had it's day in the sun, but it was dismantled as the system reached a crisis point of declining rates of profit. It was dismantled, in many cases, but the very social democratic parties that had created it. This is not an accident, nor is it an example of some cabal of neoliberals infiltrating the governments of the world. It's inherent to the nature of political economy. Capital must complete its circuit, and anything that impedes it will be economized. Even human welfare.

I would say cooperatives and distributism are a solution preferable to an absolute state monopoly and ex post facto laws.

"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that firm has a boss."

Yeah, your cooperative has elected the boss. But it's the ultimate useless exercise, because you can't democratically annul the circuit of capital. You're still an enterprise in a market economy. There is still a bottom line, and you're still in competition. The optimal business plan for success in the market doesn't change if it's a cooperative vs. a traditional firm. You still must economize, and that means maximizing the exploitation of labor.

Worse, you've put the laborer in an impossible position, where their interests as the ersatz owners of the cooperative are now opposed to their interests as a laborer. Increasing the value of the cooperative requires increasing the level of exploitation. It means removing non-productive assets, whether individual employees or entire wings of the cooperative.

[The Parkus Empire]

I would say cooperatives and distributism are a solution preferable to an absolute state monopoly and ex post facto laws.

"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that firm has a boss."

Yeah, your cooperative has elected the boss. But it's the ultimate useless exercise, because you can't democratically annul the circuit of capital. You're still an enterprise in a market economy. There is still a bottom line, and you're still in competition. The optimal business plan for success in the market doesn't change if it's a cooperative vs. a traditional firm. You still must economize, and that means maximizing the exploitation of labor.

Worse, you've put the laborer in an impossible position, where their interests as the ersatz owners of the cooperative are now opposed to their interests as a laborer. Increasing the value of the cooperative requires increasing the level of exploitation. It means removing non-productive assets, whether individual employees or entire wings of the cooperative.

You have performed a magic trick here by presuming market value matters to a cooperative. Which it doesn't, only intrinsic value does.

[Trotskylvania]

"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that firm has a boss."

Yeah, your cooperative has elected the boss. But it's the ultimate useless exercise, because you can't democratically annul the circuit of capital. You're still an enterprise in a market economy. There is still a bottom line, and you're still in competition. The optimal business plan for success in the market doesn't change if it's a cooperative vs. a traditional firm. You still must economize, and that means maximizing the exploitation of labor.

Worse, you've put the laborer in an impossible position, where their interests as the ersatz owners of the cooperative are now opposed to their interests as a laborer. Increasing the value of the cooperative requires increasing the level of exploitation. It means removing non-productive assets, whether individual employees or entire wings of the cooperative.

You have performed a magic trick here by presuming market value matters to a cooperative. Which it doesn't, only intrinsic value does.

Try running a cooperative for long when expenditures continue to exceed revenues.

[The Parkus Empire]

You have performed a magic trick here by presuming market value matters to a cooperative. Which it doesn't, only intrinsic value does.

Try running a cooperative for long when expenditures continue to exceed revenues.

This is where I suggest a program of state loans.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

In other words, there is no such thing as religion. It is just a word. There are only religions. Presumably, Kulinski would agree with some religions, like the largely atheist religion, the American Ethical Union, founded more than 100 years ago by Felix Adler.

You might as well say there is no such thing as cats, chairs, or even humans. Religion is a valid universal.

The AEU is not a religion, and atheism seems entirely incompatible with religion.

Cats, dogs, and humans are universals. Words are not. From a critical realist perspective (which is what I based my comments on), that is the epistemic fallacy. In other words, you are conflating knowledge (including words) with ontology (existence). The same epistemic fallacy is regularly committed by the New Age guru Ken Wilber. The founder of critical realism, Roy Bhaskar, had seemingly endless debates with Wilber over the subject.

Words cannot be universals, since their definitions change, as determined by lexicographers, with every new edition of their dictionaries. Dogs and cats have substance. Words do not.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Or the "solution" itself continues to fail and demonstrate even more problems and contradictions than what it purports to inevitably replace, and everyone just decides to stay with that instead, giving up full socialism as a flawed theory, doing the best they can to get moderate leftist ideas back into power.

Can we do that one please?

The only difference between the economic organization of the Soviet Union and Sweden was that the former came at the barrel of a gun. Once the world revolution failed to kick off, Russia was locked into trying to mediate capitalist relations. Many of the revolutionaries understood this. It's why Bukharin moved from the left to the right of the Bolshevik Party, and settled for social democracy. Stalin and others intensified capitalist exploitation to build up the military, and used the state security apparatus as a blunt instrument to purge all the dissidents.

Trying to "will" ideas is exactly the problem with the modern left. Ideas cannot be willed, because they don't drive history.

Unless they're one of the select set of ideas whose eventual success is inevitable. Will masquerading as science.

[Dejanic]

The only difference between the economic organization of the Soviet Union and Sweden was that the former came at the barrel of a gun. Once the world revolution failed to kick off, Russia was locked into trying to mediate capitalist relations. Many of the revolutionaries understood this. It's why Bukharin moved from the left to the right of the Bolshevik Party, and settled for social democracy. Stalin and others intensified capitalist exploitation to build up the military, and used the state security apparatus as a blunt instrument to purge all the dissidents.

Trying to "will" ideas is exactly the problem with the modern left. Ideas cannot be willed, because they don't drive history.

Unless they're one of the select set of ideas whose eventual success is inevitable. Will masquerading as science.

Fuck your coherent and well citated arguments have served us all well! I am now a Capitalist and supporter of Austrian economics!

Are you this guy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U99VDQb7FE