- 24 Jan 2019 15:28
#14982478
You *are* funny -- or at least you're *trying* to be, which, in your case, will have to do.
In your egomania you keep thinking that socialists have to "convince" others of the rottenness of capitalism, by being *nice* to them, apparently. What you're missing is that the task of revolution isn't a response to a vacuum-cleaner salesperson at the door, it's a matter of how the whole *world* works, and when capitalism goes into crisis (as it's doing now), you'll still have your opinions, but that's *all* you'll have. Those like the yellow vests, teachers, maquiladora workers, etc., are showing *today* what needs to happen to bring all this bullshit to a close, for the sake of workers control over social production.
Well, unfortunately, your obsession with *culture* / the superstructure trumps any political consciousness, so you end up with *this* lifestylist mess. The term I developed for this / you is 'cultural roadkill', meaning that you're focusing on the wrong thing, the culture instead of the politics, and so you wind up being summarily dismissive, and incorrectly so.
Look -- I'm here for the politics, not for hugs 'n' cookies. I don't *like* you, so I'm not going to *cooperate* with you. Got it?
As usual, you're showing that you don't even *understand* socialism -- it's not that any of these activities should not be done -- as for your moralistic reasons -- but rather that the *market system* would be obviated under socialism, meaning that merchants would no longer exist due to the post-capitalist economics of mass planning, free-access, and direct-distribution, drug lords would not control any portion of black-market markets because there would *be* no markets, and prostitutes could just be voluntary, for-free (liberated) sex workers, if they like.
If you like, or, LGBTQ would just *happen* as a part of civil society, without the government-legal-status thing even being necessary *at all*.
---
Okay, that's better -- you were sounding like a conservative, or even fascist, with your dictatorial 'criminalization' and 'punishment' political line there.
With all such socially-necessary work roles being fulfilled by available-and-willing liberated labor, post-capitalism, humanity would realize *vast* economies-of-scale, due to industrial liberated-productivity, which was my original point regarding this section.
Okay, your political line is *improving* now.
Bad idea. Now you're getting *away* from the ethos of socialism / communism, which *should* be that people are so informed, knowledgeable, and capable of *any* of society's tasks (with automation), that no 'middlemen' roles can exist / be-carved-out, for the sake of task-specialization, as into fixed professions. The way to *guarantee* the proletarian revolution is to *generalize* all economic power, as with liberated-labor work roles, so that *no* specializations / professionalization happens, and especially regarding overall *administrative* tasks / roles, contrary to your Stalinistic bureaucratic-elitist state-collectivist politics.
You're an egomaniac because you think your own political *opinions* are sufficient for structuring a potential post-capitalist / socialist-type society. You're too reticent to *test* your political beliefs against the *logistics* implied by your positions, so you just sound mechanical, opinionated, and egomaniacal.
Doesn't matter -- I'm not a fucking aspiring moralist censor, unlike you, so, again, as long as cultural content isn't being proactively counterrevolutionary or advocating harm to others it's not for *anyone* to censor, especially since no state apparatus would be required anyway, long-term.
SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, Well if you try to annoy conservatives, then they will go against socialism even more because they would dislike how you are around them personally. First impressions can be more convincing than you think. And I am not an anarchist, YOU are. You just don't know it
You *are* funny -- or at least you're *trying* to be, which, in your case, will have to do.
In your egomania you keep thinking that socialists have to "convince" others of the rottenness of capitalism, by being *nice* to them, apparently. What you're missing is that the task of revolution isn't a response to a vacuum-cleaner salesperson at the door, it's a matter of how the whole *world* works, and when capitalism goes into crisis (as it's doing now), you'll still have your opinions, but that's *all* you'll have. Those like the yellow vests, teachers, maquiladora workers, etc., are showing *today* what needs to happen to bring all this bullshit to a close, for the sake of workers control over social production.
SSDR wrote:
"No, not necessarily -- people may be doing what they *have* to, to 'survive', but may have in-mind something much better and more socially enlightened, which could be at-odds with how they have to live under current exploitative and oppressive capitalist social conditions. (In other words they're not class-conscious.)" Well the way one is personally doesn't have to be determined by what they have to do in order to survive. Middle class people and upper class people aren't always worrying about survival, unlike the majority of the working poor (hence most working poor people are leftists). And yes, non socialists are not socialists because they don't have the proper sense of reality. They believe what they were raised by (such as thinking that money buys love or a woman needs comfort from a masculine man to be truly happy. They were raised to think this which is why they have no sense of reality). But, there are various non socialist ideologies that all of whom lack real consciousness, from conservativism or liberalism, to fascism and Islamic extremism. They are not socialists, but they are different from each other. A dirty hippie smoker is not the same as a strict, fake, catholic Spainard who supports Franco. But they are both not socialists in this case.
SSDR wrote:
"So if you're so good with the *history* of it all, why are you so *dismissive* of the group and its actual, anti-fascist *politics*?" Because a lot of people mix socialism with the Antifa. Anyone nowadays who claims to be a socialist is accused of belonging to the Antifa. The Antifa also promote social decay, ghetto shit, and trash. I would not want to share services with some messed up druggies who act annoying asf.
Well, unfortunately, your obsession with *culture* / the superstructure trumps any political consciousness, so you end up with *this* lifestylist mess. The term I developed for this / you is 'cultural roadkill', meaning that you're focusing on the wrong thing, the culture instead of the politics, and so you wind up being summarily dismissive, and incorrectly so.
SSDR wrote:
"Because I *don't want to*, not to you." Aww someone doesn't trust me? Well I guess you don't have any socialists in your background (I can sort of tell, unless if you're lying). You come from a middle class background?
Look -- I'm here for the politics, not for hugs 'n' cookies. I don't *like* you, so I'm not going to *cooperate* with you. Got it?
SSDR wrote:
"You make it sound like the term 'criminal' is absolute, uncontroversial, and fixed in meaning. Laws *change*, like alcohol prohibition -- it's a *political* thing, something that you're not grasping, ironically." Yes a criminal in a socialist society would not be the same as a criminal in a capitalist society. Merchants, drug lords, and prostitutes would be criminals in a socialist society, but not in a capitalist society. Prostitution is slavery. Merchants are scammers. And drug lords buy and sell like capitalist pigs.
As usual, you're showing that you don't even *understand* socialism -- it's not that any of these activities should not be done -- as for your moralistic reasons -- but rather that the *market system* would be obviated under socialism, meaning that merchants would no longer exist due to the post-capitalist economics of mass planning, free-access, and direct-distribution, drug lords would not control any portion of black-market markets because there would *be* no markets, and prostitutes could just be voluntary, for-free (liberated) sex workers, if they like.
SSDR wrote:
"Socially, sure I'm 'progressive' within the current context of capitalist social norms, but ultimately, *politically*, these social norms need to be under the control of *workers*, as with workers tribunals." Yes this is mostly true. This proves that homosexuality and LGBTQ rights have nothing to do with socialism, since in a workers' ran socialist society, the workers would determine if LGBTQ is acceptable or not.
If you like, or, LGBTQ would just *happen* as a part of civil society, without the government-legal-status thing even being necessary *at all*.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Wow -- no wonder I call you a fascist. Where's the *socialist* ethos in your politics? The one point that you focus-on and repeat the most is this 'criminalization' and punishment aspect.
SSDR wrote:
So if humans need to work, and if one doesn't work, yet they have the ability to DOESN'T make them bad? I guess me knowing that someone is bad because they slack and cause social decay makes me a fascist? Shit talk to your wife lol.
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're blithely ignoring the *constructive* dynamic of *mass industrial machinery* -- if industrial agriculture can be done under workers control, requiring agricultural work from only 2% of the population (or less, potentially), providing the world with enough food for life and living, then where's the problem?
SSDR wrote:
You would still need plumbers, HVAC technicians, truck drivers, factory workers, warehousers, delivery drivers, cooks, computer programmers, engineers, software designers, architects, computer maintenance, apartment maintenance, painters, roofers, electricians, doctors, dentists, physicians, psychologists, nurses, concrete pavers, machinists, Teachers, professors, scientists, paramedics, firefighters, cooks, cafe servers, custodians, packagers, and even carpenters. Not everyone is so skilled that they can do all of the talents of the occupations I just listed. Everyone has different abilities, talents, skills, and desires. You can't build a home, maintain ALL of the parts of it (HVAC, plumbing, electrician, roofing, or even painting (some people don't like to paint)), build and maintain a car, and perform surgery on yourself when you need to. No human has the ability to do ALL of those things. There's way more than agriculture that's needed to maintain the survival of humanity.
Okay, that's better -- you were sounding like a conservative, or even fascist, with your dictatorial 'criminalization' and 'punishment' political line there.
With all such socially-necessary work roles being fulfilled by available-and-willing liberated labor, post-capitalism, humanity would realize *vast* economies-of-scale, due to industrial liberated-productivity, which was my original point regarding this section.
SSDR wrote:
"And why should *any* society trust *your* judgments? What if someone declared that their own chosen efforts at digging up *coal* and using it for fuel for themselves should be socially accepted as 'work'? Who *decides* what's 'work' and what's not?" Buying and selling shit, banking, and merchandising are not "work."
Okay, your political line is *improving* now.
SSDR wrote:
"Untrue, and this goes to show how inept and worthless you are with political issues, and policy." Woahh theree.
SSDR wrote:
"Who gets to use a factory, displacing other claimants, and why?" People who have the ability to work in factories (not everyone likes to work in factories) and those who are best suited for factory work.
Bad idea. Now you're getting *away* from the ethos of socialism / communism, which *should* be that people are so informed, knowledgeable, and capable of *any* of society's tasks (with automation), that no 'middlemen' roles can exist / be-carved-out, for the sake of task-specialization, as into fixed professions. The way to *guarantee* the proletarian revolution is to *generalize* all economic power, as with liberated-labor work roles, so that *no* specializations / professionalization happens, and especially regarding overall *administrative* tasks / roles, contrary to your Stalinistic bureaucratic-elitist state-collectivist politics.
SSDR wrote:
"As previously mentioned, my *own* model / approach *can* address this real-world situation, while you blather on about nothing, egomaniac." How am I an "egomaniac?"
You're an egomaniac because you think your own political *opinions* are sufficient for structuring a potential post-capitalist / socialist-type society. You're too reticent to *test* your political beliefs against the *logistics* implied by your positions, so you just sound mechanical, opinionated, and egomaniacal.
SSDR wrote:
"I didn't *say* that I *support* 'hyper-masculine hiphop', I said that such could not be *objected* to, as long as it doesn't advocate the harmful treatment of others, meaning women." Hip hop is a symbol of patriarchy and capitalism you shit.
Doesn't matter -- I'm not a fucking aspiring moralist censor, unlike you, so, again, as long as cultural content isn't being proactively counterrevolutionary or advocating harm to others it's not for *anyone* to censor, especially since no state apparatus would be required anyway, long-term.