Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: All your meme are belong to us.

Topic: Reds in America: a discussion (Read 3127 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from Talkfreethought about...

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • uncool
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #200

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #201
owns

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #202
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #203
Quote
Every major historical advance in technology has destroyed human jobs, with some leaving many unemployed for long periods at a time.
https://qz.com/1269525/capitalism-is-unfolding-exactly-as-karl-marx-predicted/

What a complete load of horseshit. 

Quote
The human workforce has responded to these shift by gradually adjusting, taking on the new jobs generated by these advances, and so capitalism has continued to function, always depending on both human labor and technology.

A sane person knows that almost every advance has created jobs, and wealth, undreamed of by the lunatic commies, who never did a fucking thing to actually help mankind.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #204
A sane person knows that almost every advance has created jobs, and wealth, undreamed of by the lunatic commies,
Quote from: guess who
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground -- what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

  • ksen
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #205
Milton Friedman?

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #206
Of course.
ETA. Sorry, no. It's Hayek.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #207

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #208




eta: calling them "moderate democrats" somewhat obscures the fact that they were part of a corrupt as fuck political dynasty that pittsburgh DSA had previously fucked up in a prior election
  • Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 07:16:28 PM by the idea of Harambe

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #209

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #210

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #211
kinda feel like this makes a related and important point


Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #212
"Centrists are more hostile to democracy than extremists, except for far right extremists and fascists."

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #213
To be fair, seeing a white nationalist wave across Europe is a pretty good motivator of hostility toward democracy.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #214
"Centrists are more hostile to democracy than extremists, except for far right extremists and fascists."

this was actually about generic support for authoritarianism or "strong man" leaders, other indicators were consistent with the thesis.

To be fair, seeing a white nationalist wave across Europe is a pretty good motivator of hostility toward democracy.

it's at best an understandable motivator, and this is why the two points are related. think through the implications of what "hostility to democracy" means in practice, in the name of supposedly non-partisan technocracy, when racists are capable of motivating populist waves. you also have to pretty much ignore how the sensible moderates have historically given the reigns to fascists in the name of stability.

eta: lol, and on that note
  • Last Edit: Yesterday at 05:31:21 AM by the idea of Harambe

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #215
Didn't a lot of Hitler's support come from the professional class?

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #216
dunno about the professional class exactly, but an oft untold story of the rise of nazism is how it presented itself as a bulwark against "judeo-bolshevism." given that communists were a serious opponent in elections, you can imagine who this appealed to.

  • nesb
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #217
kinda feel like this makes a related and important point



That's interesting, but people often mark the center box in those surveys, because they don't don't know anything about politics, or care. Which might make the rest of their responses to the survey especially dubious.

  • nesb
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #218
Although, there probably is a contingent of legit fascists who self-identify as centerists.

Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #219
kinda feel like this makes a related and important point



That's interesting, but people often mark the center box in those surveys, because they don't don't know anything about politics, or care. Which might make the rest of their responses to the survey especially dubious.

not caring means you also don't care if authoritarians take over!

  • nesb
Re: Reds in America: a discussion
Reply #220
True