Sivad wrote:
I'm a misanthropic socialist, I don't care so much about liberating the masses, my main concern is saving the future from the elites the masses have empowered. But I do think socialism is how decent people would organize.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but this statement of yours is internally contradictory -- 'liberating the masses' is *equivalent* to 'saving the future from the elites'. And there's no mass-empowering of those elites -- they use militarism and violence to stay on their perch.
SSDR wrote:
@Political Interest, Yeah I don't like mass immigration.
SSDR wrote:
I was always a socialist. I just didn't know or completely understand, but as I got older, I understood more. I also realize that currency and the concept of value are inefficient, and waste humanity's energy.
You're not a socialist if you're against open borders because capital, every day, gets to whizz around the globe without boundary constraints, while *working-class* people, like those of the caravan from Central America, are limited by the capitalist governments in their geographic access to better job markets, like those of the United States.
I'd like to *generalize* 'currency' and 'the concept of value', to *exchange values* altogether -- socialism is essentially a call for the *elimination* of exchange values (implying a strong nationalistic currency), in favor of a world society of *use values*. Material production of all goods and services should be collectively directed by the workers themselves / ourselves, to determine how to fulfill unmet human need everywhere, instead of continuing to rely on the 'hands-off' market mechanism, that relies on (abstracted) exchange valuations.
Sivad wrote:
You got it backwards, money doesn't corrupt people, people are corrupt so they invented money as a vehicle to facilitate their corruption. Not money in general of course, just the specific form of bankster money adopted by this diseased racket we call civilization.
You're hedging, to only criticize the *expansion* of the money supply -- politically this is a *reactionary* line, because you're implying that interest and rents collected on existing, *non-productive* capital are okay, but even the bourgeois-paradigm use of *equity* (investment) capital is too much for you and your politics. Anyone who dismisses government control of the money supply, as for deficit spending, is implicitly backing feudal-like / slavery-like social relations of rentier capital that ultimately ties the working class to private lands / estates. Without government backing of investment capital there is no real capitalism and growth of industry because the ownership of rentier capital is sufficient for those owners, and they have no economic motivation / incentive to expand their hoards for the sake of growing industry and liberating serfs and slaves to the somewhat-more-flexible social role of *wage* slaves, as we have today.
I have a fuller treatment of this topic at RedMarx:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/redmarx ... t1241.htmlAnd, money itself wasn't an 'invention' as much as it was a logical progression of class society and the role / duties of capital ownership (private gold supplies to gold-paper, and then the public government service of state-backed notes, etc.).
There's no alternative to 'civilization', except a revolutionary overhaul of it, so there's no point in *denouncing* 'civilization' when no better alternative to it can be suggested -- your line is a dead-end.
---
Sivad wrote:
If pofo has taught me anything it's that reasonable discussion and measured speech is a waste of time in politics, if you want to sway people you have to use strong rhetoric which appeals to their fear, their desire, their sense of outrage. And if I can do that without lying or even stretching the truth then why not?
*Or* -- if you give people the benefit of the doubt, that they can potentially see-through the power structure of class rule, then socialism becomes something more like 'political education', meaning the knowledge of how class-riven society is *actually structured* (elitist ruling class vs. the world's working class), so that class struggle can better be a two-way street, instead of the typical everyday labor-exploitation and social-minority-oppression that is *usually* is.