JoylessJester posted:P.S I hate the bake off, that's why I watch it every week and get really into it. I'm sorry to tell you this, but you're Part of the Problem and will be shot in Full Communism. Also this: 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
It's the perfect storm of headlines. (1) The Cultural Marxists banned Christmas (2) Now the Cultural Marxists are stealing the People's Princess's money and giving it to untermensch; also, white blonde posh girl dies. (3) White blonde posh girl dies.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
Bring back the Marxism tag or you too will die when Full Communism arrives.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 12:45
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:this but unironically Who said I was being ironic? 
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 12:59
|
|
Jose posted:This is why communism hasn't and will never work hth Robespierre posted:We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish with them. Now, in this situation, the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people's enemies by terror. 
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
HorseLord has a lot of sympathy for dictators as long as they're not uncool American-sponsored types. I think you'll be waiting a long time for a fan of Stalin to get on the anti-Putin bandwagon. Edit: also voting 1 until the Marxism tag comes back. Capitalist pigdogs. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 16:13
|
|
HorseLord posted:I actually hate Putin very much, I think the capitalist regime in Russia is disgusting and illegitimate, and I also dislike the fact that the only reason they align themselves with Ukrainian separatists is so they can inevitably stab them in the back as part of their own imperialist schemes. Mmmhmm. And yet you have argued that the Russian invasion of Crimea was effectively a legitimate act because 'Crimea is Russia', and have essentially argued that the seperatist militias are hardy communists fighting the fascist Ukranian menace. I don't think we'll take it amiss if you avoid UKMT because you think we're dangerous compromisers for not loving Stalin or whatever your moronic badposting persona roots for. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 18:23
|
|
HorseLord posted:I have a bias against reality. HorseLord posted:Crimea is Russia and Crimea's government decided on joining Russia, which they can do, because they're Crimea's government. You conveniently miss out the fact that the government that assented to referendum and annexation was installed by Russia after an invasion, and was led by what had previously been the minority party. Whether or not the referendum was a reflection of public opinion is very suspect (as in, at the very least the margin probably would have been very much closer if not for military occupation and other forms of manipulation). HorseLord posted:It's a simple matter of self determination, which is a thing Lenin was big on. Don't try to feed me this nonsense. Marxism-Leninism is not in rude health in Donetsk. In fact, some of this poo poo is an undoing of Lenin's legacy - Lenin was very conscious of historic Russian attempts to poo poo all over Ukraine and thoroughly encouraged the development of Ukranian culture. The current Russian policy is, meanwhile, strongly in accord with the Stalinist policy with respect to Ukraine. The proper Leninist position would be to reject the conflict entirely. HorseLord posted:There are explicitly communist regiments and battalions in the union of people's republics' military, this is literally, actually true and factual. Further, 68 seats out of 100 in the Donetsk Soviet are held by the Communist Donetsk Republic party. Sorry reality has a communist bias. 11 are held by the Communist party proper. I am not overly impressed with the communist credentials of these communist parties, particularly given their rather-stronger-than-Leninist nationalisms. Both sides, it is admitted by everyone, are composed of an unpleasant mixture of individuals. Nobody denies fascists are fighting on the Ukranian side. They also fight on the seperatist side. But if you think the company you keep really matters, you should be as embarrassed as I, since fascists (some of whom are bankrolled by Putin) around Europe are largely on the Russian side on this one!
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 19:05
|
|
DesperateDan posted:Is the reason you are doing this here because you know how well it would go in the Eastern Europe thread? He's tried and he gets shot down and then tries again in a new thread. He'll opine at length about how the starvation of Ukranians under Stalin was not intentional or targeted, and about how Stalin was generally a cool guy, if prompted. He is the kind of person who gives communism a bad name - and ironically makes Full Communism all the more unlikely for all his efforts to defend it.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 19:17
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:What is the appeal of Maoism, anyway? I mostly hear it described as 'Marxism-Leninism with more focus on agriculture', but Mao was famously poo poo at agriculture. It's like Marxist-Leninism but peasant friendlier. In practice, it shits on them even more.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 22:15
|
|
kingturnip posted:Remind me why the government haven't curbed lobbying yet? Because we haven't abolished capitalism.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 13:57
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Any particular volumes you'd recommend? I could do with some new reading material, especially in a style other than Zizek's intense chapter-length run-on sentences. You could compromise with http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n09/slavoj-zizek/barbarism-with-a-human-face Lenin's big hits are: What is to be Done? State and Revolution Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism aaaaaaand Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder Most of Lenin's stuff is available here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/index.htm
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Lenin: A Study in the Unity of his Thought by Lukacs, obviously.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 17:29
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:I could never get the hang of Lukacs. Everyone says he's great, but all I can see is that duck cartoon that says "Liberals" over and over again, only saying "realism" Ya well Luxemburg and Gramschi then.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 17:35
|
|
Foucault was for real a loving boss though. 
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Foucault's aspirations are a bit different to Marx's though, obviously; Foucault's dominant categories are power, knowledge, and discourse. He's much more invested in how people think than Marx is, really. He definitely doesn't have the scientism of the orthodox Marxist.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 17:48
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Oh, yeah, I don't think this is even contestable. The question is whether Foucault's methods or project contradict the underlying Marxian programme, and I don't think it does. I don't think they reconcile too well if they're consistently applied actually. Marxian scientism would have to clearly be put in its place by Foucault's thinking. Plus, Foucault is always going to want to put a case for something like false consciousness much more strongly than Marx. Stoneofshame has already given a problem in terms of the way Marx conceptualises in terms of meta-narratives. On the other hand, Foucault is incredibly obviously a species of post-Marxian thinker who is reliant on the fundamentals of Marx's contribution to do his stuff. I sort of see Foucault as what happens if you mix up Marx with some Wittgenstein, and also Nietzschean ideas of genealogy. But I'm inclined to see it that way as an intellectual historian. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 17:57
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:If you say so, I guess. I suppose I tend to think the whole "metanarrative" point is one that tends to be overstated, both for how destructive the critique is and for how fundamental it really is to the central premises of marxism, but I really am a little exposed when discussing Foucault, so I won't argue the point. Two essential points that Foucault will make are: (a) You're pretty hosed because you can never be sure that your original reference points and terminology, and entire way of thinking is shaped by power in your discourse. You say you want 'freedom' (to pick an easy example) - but what the gently caress does that mean? Your conceptualisation will always be constrained by your socialisation. Of course, Marx is out to say some similar things, but Foucault is much more sceptical about how easy it is to bust out of this, and the beneficiary of much more thought on the subject of language (which is where Wittgenstein gets involved) (b) Forms and structures of knowledge contain organising principles that are mutable and changeable, and the presence of these principles can obscure knowledge as surely as revealing it. Marx is clearly the victim of this by accepting certain Victorian normative ways of thinking about historical progression and so on.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Obviously you can use both forms of analysis but you sound pretty desperate to have your cake and eat it.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 18:41
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Don't see why not - Foucault himself said that he wasn't intended on providing a universal, or even consistent theory, but an analytical toolbox, where people could take or leave whatever was useful to them. You could use the power/knowledge and work it into a more Marxist-structuralist framework and get away with it I think, as long as you were explicit about what you were doing. My point is you are still going to cause issues for purestrain 19th century as-espoused-by-Marx Marxism when you turn that toolbox on it. I didn't say Foucault was a negation of Marx at all, but I think Foucault is going to want to say there's a naivety in the Marxist claim to scientism. We can reconcile that difference for sure, but I don't think Marx himself ever could have. You'd have an easier time with the early Marx, I think. Pesmerga posted:Also, I'm not really sure false consciousness is really the correct term - due to the social construction inherent in understanding, and that knowledge is the result of power relations, I'm not sure there can be a 'false' consciousness. It would be more that there are 'competing' consciousnesses, some more dominant than others. Hence the use of 'something like' in that sentence - I was merely hinting at one route a person might try to go down to reconcile Marx and Foucault. It is certainly one of the ways that Marx prefigures Foucault. Also, this discussion really does not belong here.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
I am considering doing a non-troll Marxism thread or A/T thread.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 19:07
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:It would if those meddling eurocrats hadn't given us the wrong tag! Give me
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 19:19
|
|
Guavanaut posted:This happening in SA is about as likely as full communism happening in the current parliament. Oh fine: a Marxism thread without a full troll OP. But actually in a few threads a fairly non-troll discussion of Marxism has taken place (e.g. Help D&D debate and discuss thread).
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
A guy I work with is trying to bring his wife over from overseas. He accidentally picked the wrong thing in a dropdown on the online form for her visa application. UKVI claim they can't fix it and that he has to start from scratch, and pay like £1k in fees to start over. What. A. Joke.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 12:32
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Maybe he should take more care filling out an online form for such an important document. gently caress right off. The system is basically designed to be a laborious, expensive and difficult to use piece of poo poo as a tax on the people who use it.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 14:52
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Yeah I don't disagree, but if you're filling out a visa application for your wife you should still ensure you fill the form out correctly, no? It's not so much that he just misclicked as that it was very ambigious as to what the correct option to choose was.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 14:58
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Ah well that's a little more complex than you suggested initially, so yeah maybe he has a case. These are things that should be easier for everyone involved, but wait til UKIP get in, it'll be even more difficult then. It's loving sinister because it feels intentionally designed to discourage people and put them off, but it's obviously a stealth way of doing it.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Well, given the civil services are being mugged for personnel and money I'm pretty sure they're being forced to get brutal with people. I think the whole incentive structure is just hosed up - it's not about giving money to people who need it, it's about loving as many people as you can to save money.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
And that most people don't already feel bad about having to ask for help, and will downright brazenly lie or distort to get it. Benefit fraud is basically a tiny problem that's massive only in the imagination.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 15:37
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Hire an immigration attorney to review the documents It's not my form, just a colleagues, but I will suggest that. The thing is - there is no earthly reason it should cost someone money to resubmit an electronic application. At this point it hasn't even cost any government labour to do anything. JFairfax posted:any of you people angry at visa application forms actually ever filled out one? Yes, in fact I filled out the forms that got this guy his original visa and did it without any hitches. But he thought doing his wife's would be easier and didn't ask for my help, which was probably his biggest mistake. Ed: But then again I have legal training which makes teaching yourself immigration poo poo comparatively easy, and I still think it's a dogpiss system/ Disinterested fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
I can't believe that nobody mentioned that this isn't just for loving the poor - it's for loving immigrants as well! (Well, yes, poor immigrants mostly). Trying to incentive people to not have large numbers of children when they're economically dependent is, I think, not really the state's business. But to the extent that is a even a legitimate aim, how on earth can you justify loving over a kid arbitrarily, who knows nothing about which number kid she is and, after all, didn't choose to be born? I rather hope that the European court can meddle in this plan in some way. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 10:23
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:I don't know if you peeps are aware of this, but one of the things that distinguishes Universal Credit from the benefits it's replacing is 'in-work conditionality'. How is that even supposed to work?
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
I mean how is it going to be policed. Are the gestapo going to visit you to establish if you have sucked enough of your boss's dick recently?
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 12:25
|
|
 It's at times like this I'm glad I'm not caught up in the benefits system. Not because I'm scared of being poor, but I'm loving terrified of the bureaucracy.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 12:28
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Im stuck in it at the moment mate and I swear its more work than work, that sounds ridiculous I know People who think it isn't draining and hard being out of work are loving morons.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 12:46
|
|
Fans posted:So if you have four kids what do you do exactly? Do you pick your least favorite one to starve completely or do you spread out the food so they all starve only a little bit. Once you get to around five kids I'd say you have to let at least one of the kids starve or they all starve. You clearly eat the child you expect to earn least. Unlucky girls.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
What if the government shouldn't have a role in regulating the number of children people have? Particularly 'small government' conservatives. 
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
Re-establish dowries and lower the age of consent. Let's solve this problem like we used to hundreds of years ago and just start selling the unproductive ones off. Also abolish child labour laws. Fuckers can earn their keep.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 13:02
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:your support for the complete abolition of child benefit is noted, comrade I am in favour of complete abolition of Tories, including their children. It is the only way to be sure.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:50 |
|
Fans posted:But if I eat the poor and eat the rich I'm going to get cramps. Burning for fuel is also acceptable.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 13:20
|
|