How Learning Economics Makes You Antisocial - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14992667
Victoribus Spolia wrote:
No one ever said that his conclusion didn't follow from his premises; however, it seems we are agreed that his conclusion DOES involve ATLEAST the implicit dehumanization of an entire class of people; which, if the situation is as a dire as he claims, it would be equally logical to justify their genocide.

Its not that his conclusion isn't reasonable, but that its blatant wickedness should make us reconsider his premises. After all, depending on our worldview schema, it is always easy to find some group to blame and simplify the solution to the world's problems to an easy "if we only disenfranchised or eliminated this group everything would get better." This of course, not being qualitatively different than simply saying "well if those damn Jews didn't disproportionately control the media, government, and academia, everything would be better."


I have already pointed out that if the first statement is true, then the conclusion won't be sinister by nature; as it only implies the ‘expropriation’ of such group of people from their positions of power, and the wealth (that should rightfully belong to its actual creators).
I’d like to add to my previous statement that, such act (of expropriation) would only be ‘sinister’, if done with the intention of replacing one small group of individuals by another- to be the new owners of the same wealth and power. And, it would turn out to be a ‘mistake’, if done without a justified and viable plan of action in order to achieve a system of society in which the political – economic relations serve to benefit everyone, as oppose to a handful of super rich (greedy, profit-seeking individuals, as put forward initially by Qatzelok).

Victoribus Spolia wrote:
This is why the only purely subjective element prohibited in the Decalogue was "covetousness," as from it springs the roots of genocidal scapegoating; whether communistic, fascistic, or otherwise.


I have implicitly given my answer to this part already. I don’t believe such act would be ‘covetousness’, it would not be so because the super-rich / the Capitalists are not the rightful owners of the wealth they have acquired.
It is the existing system of society that allows them to accumulate wealth (surplus value) through the exploitation of the labor power. Scapegoating, fascism, genocide, and much more existing issues of today; are all the results and inevitable consequences of the ruling Capitalist system.

Therefore, it is foremost that such system – not the individuals – to be targeted for change, to achieve true humane goals.
Last edited by Stardust on 07 Mar 2019 13:05, edited 1 time in total.
#14992668
Hindsite wrote:I don't agree with the title. To me learning economics did not make me antisocial.
However, learning economics and capitalism did make me an anti-SOCIALIST.
HalleluYah


In that case, you should be opposing to the views of the genius whose name is mentioned in your signature too. Believe it or not, Einstein was a Socialist!

https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

Also, the statement itself, has no validity in the context you're implying:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... t_Einstein
#14992701
Stardust wrote:In that case, you should be opposing to the views of the genius whose name is mentioned in your signature too. Believe it or not, Einstein was a Socialist!

Why can't I pick and choose a view I like of a person without making a big deal of all the views of a person I don't like?

I also like this quote from Einstein, "God does not play dice with the universe."

Praise the Lord.
#14992728
Hindsite wrote:Why can't I pick and choose a view I like of a person without making a big deal of all the views of a person I don't like?

I also like this quote from Einstein, "God does not play dice with the universe."

Praise the Lord.


I never said you can't, but what would be the point of quoting a person in your signature whose overall views about life - in society, and the philosophic questions regarding the origins of it; are in opposition to yourself?
It would be something like taking 'one sentence' from an article about a specific subject, and using it in another with totally different context.

Cheating, may I dare say...
#14992734
Hindsite wrote:
That is crazy talk. Capitalism has been working to build wealth from the beginnings of civilization. Without capitalism, socialism and communism can not long survive. Buying and selling is a necessary part of any successful economy.



Sure, I'll readily acknowledge capitalism's productive prowess, but it's been enabled at the cost of much human lifeblood and life-time.

You're being blithely dismissive in saying that socialism and communism would somehow *depend* on a continued capitalism, when in fact the respective modes of production are inherently *antagonistic* (class vs. classless society).

Buying and selling are *exchange*-based and we need such exchange-reliant material economy activity *less and less* as digital technologies have improved and enabled better *planning* and logistics. It's gotten to the point where we now have *digital centralization* (without requiring any heavy-handed local dictatorships as 'sponsors'), as with online aggregated stores like Amazon and eBay.

Communism offers the promise of *exchange-less* material-economic structures, since exchange values would be eliminated altogether (moneyless). The shorthand for this is 'free-access' and 'direct distribution', meaning that nothing would be produced for the sake of increasing *exchange values* (national currency valuations), but rather would be produced as-a-gift by liberated workers, for their / our own benefit, and for the public good (a communistic 'gift economy').

So imagine an Amazon or eBay that's post-capitalism, coordinates sheerly voluntary liberated-labor, provides a point of centralization for the same, and distributes all necessarily-non-commodity products to those who need them the most.

I have a model that explains this approach in more detail:

https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... -Questions


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image
#14992809
Stardust wrote:I never said you can't, but what would be the point of quoting a person in your signature whose overall views about life - in society, and the philosophic questions regarding the origins of it; are in opposition to yourself?

I don't quote any of his stupid quotes that I don't agree with.
Stardust wrote:It would be something like taking 'one sentence' from an article about a specific subject, and using it in another with totally different context.

Cheating, may I dare say...

Some people do that with the Holy Bible. I try not to do that.
Praise the Lord.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, I'll readily acknowledge capitalism's productive prowess, but it's been enabled at the cost of much human lifeblood and life-time.

You're being blithely dismissive in saying that socialism and communism would somehow *depend* on a continued capitalism, when in fact the respective modes of production are inherently *antagonistic* (class vs. classless society).

Yes, I am dismissive of complete socialism and communism, because it is clear that in practice they are much more destructive than capitalism. In theory, they are made to sound good and equal to all, but it has never worked that way in practice.
#14992874
Hindsite wrote:
Yes, I am dismissive of complete socialism and communism, because it is clear that in practice they are much more destructive than capitalism. In theory, they are made to sound good and equal to all, but it has never worked that way in practice.



This is the political *conditioning* that everyone receives, that historical Stalinism in various circumscribed countries is what's desired.

As soon as one *reads* anything in the revolutionary tradition one will understand that Stalinism *does not equal* socialism -- a workers state:

https://www.marxists.org/


There's also the fact that the Bolshevik Revolution wasn't unimpaired -- it was *invaded* and that had ultimate effects on its economy:



The Allied intervention was a multi-national military expedition launched during the Russian Civil War in 1918. The stated goals were to help the Czechoslovak Legion, to secure supplies of munitions and armaments in Russian ports, and to re-establish the Eastern Front. Overthrow of the new Bolshevik regime was an additional, covert motivation.[6] [7]

After the Bolshevik government withdrew from World War I, the Allied Powers openly backed the anti-communist White forces in Russia. Allied efforts were hampered by divided objectives, war-weariness from the overall global conflict, and a lack of domestic support. These factors, together with the evacuation of the Czechoslovak Legion, compelled the Allied Powers to withdraw from North Russia and Siberia in 1920, though Japanese forces occupied parts of Siberia until 1922 and the northern half of Sakhalin until 1925.[8]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_in ... _Civil_War
#14993048
Hindsite wrote:I don't quote any of his stupid quotes that I don't agree with.

Some people do that with the Holy Bible. I try not to do that.
Praise the Lord.


You're trying to obscure my point, by giving irrelevant answers.
I'll pass... I am neither religious; nor believe in them!
#14993110
Stardust wrote:You're trying to obscure my point, by giving irrelevant answers.
I'll pass... I am neither religious; nor believe in them!

My answers simply show that your point is flawed. I could have easily guessed that you were an unbeliever.
#14993134
Stardust wrote:I have already pointed out that if the first statement is true, then the conclusion won't be sinister by nature; as it only implies the ‘expropriation’ of such group of people from their positions of power, and the wealth (that should rightfully belong to its actual creators).

Here, you are still trying to mitigate Vic's barking about the house being threatened by "a strange odor." I wrote "removed from positions of power" and Vic barked out "kill people?!" in order to protect our murderous system.

Along with making its students anti-social, the anti-socialism of Economicists has turned thinking individuals into house dogs who bark pre-conceived memes to defend our extinction-producing system.

Economics, commercial media, and formal education all provide house-dogs with their material, as well as their attachment to the system.

In Cuba, the dogs rarely bark because they are social. They can be social because there are so few dangerous machines on roads. There are few dangerous machines on the road because Economic theory was replaced by social distribution of resources un Cuba a half- century ago.

In suburban America, the barking never stops because the dogs are misérable. So they bark at strange odors instead of replacing their masters.

Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of a Health Canada W[…]

I think they call your way of arguing "mott[…]

The idea of the Democrats leading a revolution is […]

(1) I think it is unscientific because humans ar[…]