|
uh you're totally reading them. no one believes you.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Protip - We is bad. It doesn't really deal with that kind of stuff in the same way 1984 does. It's just straight up not as good. The issue with taylorism is that it's a management style, not a political-economic order, and it's kind of a recurrent one at that. The perpetual problem is always incentives and confirmation bias, the latter being more important. You can't make a judgement of 'fitting' a person into a position without introducing personal bias, or disincentivizing them from giving a poo poo about a position without possibility of advancement. Yet people have to keep learning this same lesson over and over again. thanks for the we-tip im not trying to advocate for taylorism or anything (if that's even a thing people do - i'm sure somebody does it somewhere, this is the internet after all), im more interested in the historical relationship between this explicitly capitalist industrial management theory and the ideologies of liberalism, socialism and fascism. the context that interests me is that this particular industrial management theory was popular at the historical moment when those ideologies were all making arguments for their viability as political-economic systems for an industrialized society
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
But it wasn't explicitly capitalist, it positioned itself 'scientific management', that's perfectly capable of fitting into the Soviet bureaucratized control that saw itself as an extension of 'scientific socialism'. If it fetishizes anything, it's not necessarily the reactionary conception of humans as inherently unequal, but the old behavioral psychological model of human beings as inherently predictable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
i suppose so. it seems from that article i linked as if early soviet thinkers identified it with capitalism, but i realize the first publicly available article that comes up on google isn't the synthesis of all valuable opinions. really i don't know much about it, which i guess is why i mentioned it. so thanks for saying things about it
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:i know it's typical of posters itf to project their own weirdo thought processes on other people, but don't be this willfully reductionist. characterizing sanders this way is based on what he has said, what he has proposed and a careful reading of history. contrary to what idiots like the anticoms in this thread claim, we're not all competing to be The Most Left, we base our politics on what we observe. OK, and I'm saying that if your assertion is that Bernie Sanders is fascist, all you've done is willfully abused language and devalued the term. I'm not a Sandersite or whatever, but if that's fascism, gently caress it, why not fascism?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:uh you're totally reading them. no one believes you. i have stopped. Jack of Hearts posted:OK, and I'm saying that if your assertion is that Bernie Sanders is fascist, all you've done is willfully abused language and devalued the term. I'm not a Sandersite or whatever, but if that's fascism, gently caress it, why not fascism? it's less "sanders is literally a fascist" and more "sanders represents a strain of liberalism that has and will ally with fascists when capitalism decays past the point where social democracy is sustainable"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:it's less "sanders is literally a fascist" and more "sanders represents a strain of liberalism that has and will ally with fascists when capitalism decays past the point where social democracy is sustainable" So Stalin was wrong, the social-democrats are not fascists, and Sanders is not the Strasser of this election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:So Stalin was wrong, the social-democrats are not fascists, and Sanders is not the Strasser of this election. Stalin wasn't being literal. He was attempting to illustrate the point that homework explainer just laid out in a much more straight forward manner. It's important to take into account when reading things from different time periods that have been translated with varying degrees of fidelity that the way somebody is writing or the audience they are addressing might not be a bunch of pedantic forum nerds in the year 2016. If the practical effect of social democracy is that it will aid fascism during the breakdown of a society, then to a revolutionary the practical effect of a social democratic group or institution is that it works for/as fascists. Somebody who does not actively wish for or prognosticate the inevitability of social break down might not perceive social democrats the same way. To Stalin and other communists of the period social chaos, revolution and counter revolution were not abstract concepts. They were facts of nature as inevitable as the changing of the tides or the rising of the sun. From this perspective alone are social democrats effectively fascists. To somebody sitting in the current year who believes in the fundamental stability of liberal democracy and capitalist economics the idea that a social democrat would be a fascist would look absurd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
a god drat idiot posted:If the practical effect of social democracy is that it will aid fascism during the breakdown of a society, then to a revolutionary the practical effect of a social democratic group or institution is that it works for/as fascists. So Stalin was objectively acting as a fascist when he extradited emigre German Communists back to Hitler's tender ministrations (eg Margarete Buber-Neumann)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:So Stalin was objectively acting as a fascist when he extradited emigre German Communists back to Hitler's tender ministrations (eg Margarete Buber-Neumann) Am I going to have to defend every aspect of soviet communism under Stalin to you just because I attempted to explain something you seemed to be struggling to grasp? I see the point you are trying to make but it isn't as on topic as you seem to think or hoped it to be. There are much better examples you could dredge up so I'm not sure why you went with that one anyway. It would only make his actions/him fascist (using this line of logic under discussion that I don't personally ascribe to)if one believes that extraditing them would advance the cause of fascism to the detriment of an active revolutionary situation. Once hitler is in power the revolutionary left in Germany has already been crushed so this is not an equivalent analogy to the situation with social democrats that was being discussed above.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
a god drat idiot posted:Am I going to have to defend every aspect of soviet communism under Stalin to you just because I attempted to explain something you seemed to be struggling to grasp? I see the point you are trying to make but it isn't as on topic as you seem to think or hoped it to be. There are much better examples you could dredge up so I'm not sure you went with that one anyway. It would only make his actions/him fascist (using this line of logic under discussion that I don't personally ascribe to)if one believes that extraditing them would advance the cause of fascism to the detriment of an active revolutionary situation. Once hitler is in power the revolutionary left in Germany has already been crushed so this is not an equivalent analogy to the situation with social democrats that was being discussed above. Agreed. Human life is only valuable if it advances the power of the party of Lenin and Stalin. The weak, the infirm: they can be turned into compost for all I care.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
a god drat idiot posted:Am I going to have to defend every aspect of soviet communism under Stalin Lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
God liberal democracy owns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Agreed. Human life is only valuable if it advances the power of the party of Lenin and Stalin. The weak, the infirm: they can be turned into compost for all I care. hosed up if true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Agreed. Human life is only valuable if it advances the power of the party of Lenin and Stalin. The weak, the infirm: they can be turned into compost for all I care. i don't think it's that absurd a calculus, though it is troubling. giving up some german communists now to delay nazi aggression against your already war-torn homeland, which was generally agreed upon as inevitable. i doubt were it not for the actual political situation, the same fate would have befallen them. we can point out mistakes while comprehending the circumstances which made them the "better" decision.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
a god drat idiot posted:hosed up if true. You are a sociopath, kill yourself and do the world a favour Homework Explainer posted:i don't think it's that absurd a calculus, though it is troubling. giving up some german communists now to delay nazi aggression against your already war-torn homeland, which was generally agreed upon as inevitable. i doubt were it not for the actual political situation, the same fate would have befallen them. we can point out mistakes while comprehending the circumstances which made them the "better" decision. On the other hand, he objectively aided fascists, making him more of a Strasserist than Sanders will ever be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:when capitalism decays past the point where social democracy is sustainable This has been "about to happen" since the Great Depression. Marx's periodization of history was wrong, deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:This has been "about to happen" since the Great Depression. Marx's periodization of history was wrong, deal with it. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:This has been "about to happen" since the Great Depression. Marx's periodization of history was wrong, deal with it. that's what we have lenin for, mate. capital has been exporting its violence for well over a century now, putting off that decay with superprofits gained by looting in the global south.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:that's what we have lenin for, mate. capital has been exporting its violence for well over a century now, putting off that decay with superprofits gained by looting in the global south. Communism is a science. *Comes up with constant excuses for a theory when the evidence contradicts it*
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:On the other hand, he objectively aided fascists, making him more of a Strasserist than Sanders will ever be. the united states is already essentially a fascist power abroad, domestically the economy hasn't had to transform due to the aforementioned looting. running for the position of war criminal-in-chief isn't a fascist act to the people of the united states, but let's ask the people of libya or iraq about it! i'm basically in agreement with this guy re: america's position in relation to historical fascism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGOyGSxkYYs R. Guyovich fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:it's less "sanders is literally a fascist" and more "sanders represents a strain of liberalism that has and will ally with fascists when capitalism decays past the point where social democracy is sustainable" So social democrats are fascists in an objective-but-not-literal sense. Gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:kill yourself and do the world a favour You sure you aren't a fascist?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Bernice Anders posted:You sure you aren't a fascist? According to Stalinists, everyone is a fascist, except the people who helped Hitler
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:that's what we have lenin for, mate. capital has been exporting its violence for well over a century now, putting off that decay with superprofits gained by looting in the global south. Nobody, including Lenin, has ever explained how this is supposed to work in detail. Due to its productivity, a United States that didn't engage in trade at all (or only engaged in "fair trade") would still be an extremely rich country, comparable in output to the entirety of Asia. Exploitation and unequal exchange are a result of extant economic and power imbalances, not the other way around. If like Lenin you instead believe social democracy is a result of remittances from international finance, Net Foreign Factor Income isn't an obscure metric anymore and readily disproves this. Not to mention the vast and easily observable differences in welfare outcomes between countries with no observable correlation to the intensity of overseas finance and trade, popularly between Scandinavia and the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
Ormi posted:Nobody, including Lenin, has ever explained how this is supposed to work in detail. Due to its productivity, a United States that didn't engage in trade at all (or only engaged in "fair trade") would still be an extremely rich country, comparable in output to the entirety of Asia. Exploitation and unequal exchange are a result of extant economic and power imbalances, not the other way around. If like Lenin you instead believe social democracy is a result of remittances from international finance, Net Foreign Factor Income isn't an obscure metric anymore and readily disproves this. Not to mention the vast and easily observable differences in welfare outcomes between countries with no observable correlation to the intensity of overseas finance and trade, popularly between Scandinavia and the U.S. This sounds pretty math-heavy man, I didn't take calc in college. I think I'm just going to go back to posting "FULL COMMUNISM NOW", thanks anyway tho
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Ormi posted:Nobody, including Lenin, has ever explained how this is supposed to work in detail. Due to its productivity, a United States that didn't engage in trade at all (or only engaged in "fair trade") would still be an extremely rich country, comparable in output to the entirety of Asia. Exploitation and unequal exchange are a result of extant economic and power imbalances, not the other way around. If like Lenin you instead believe social democracy is a result of remittances from international finance, Net Foreign Factor Income isn't an obscure metric anymore and readily disproves this. Not to mention the vast and easily observable differences in welfare outcomes between countries with no observable correlation to the intensity of overseas finance and trade, popularly between Scandinavia and the U.S. scandinavia isn't imperialist. what a strange analogy your metrics are off. you're relying on trade numbers to come up with a figure when imperialism is a vast system that includes domestic consumption, military spending, etc. taking the NFFI as an indicator of imperialism is flawed. and your point about exploitation vs. extant imbalance seems like a chicken vs. egg situation. does it really matter which comes first when the result is the same?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
What figure correctly identifies superprofits? Is there one, or do you just accept that international capitalism pays for welfare, union premiums etc. axiomatically? That is, getting the ruling class to pay for these things under liberal democracy is categorically impossible, therefore the money has to be coming from somewhere else?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Ormi posted:What figure correctly identifies superprofits? You might be interested in Zak Cope's work on this subject, as he attempted to quantify it. His analysis suggested that the superprofits of imperialism nearly, but not quite entirely, compensated for domestic exploitation. I would not be surprised if, in recent years, those superprofits (however you decide to measure them) have been considerably eroded. That's the fuel driving these crazy political shakeups we see in the USA and Europe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:You might be interested in Zak Cope's work on this subject, as he attempted to quantify it. His analysis suggested that the superprofits of imperialism nearly, but not quite entirely, compensated for domestic exploitation. I would not be surprised if, in recent years, those superprofits (however you decide to measure them) have been considerably eroded. That's the fuel driving these crazy political shakeups we see in the USA and Europe. Cope's deceptively simple argument is that productivity differences between OECD and non-OECD countries are illegitimate; superprofits reveal themselves when you "unskew" this data to world averages. However, pressed to explain this incongruity, he devolves into more facile explanations. "Capital Export Imperialism" is the notion that the developed world engages in or tacitly supports imperialist policy to maintain an oligopoly on capital and the developing world's dependence on overpriced capital imports. His first set of evidence towards this is a list of U.S. interventions with no attempt made to connect them with a policy of underdevelopment, deliberate or not, at all. The second is the much more documented effect of developing world debt in hindering economic outcomes. Yet, again, there is no evidence that the U.S. or any other OECD country "engineered" the failure of ISI or coerced developing countries into accepting debt and structural adjustments. If you acknowledge the legitimacy of some or all of the governments which embraced the Washington Consensus and conditional financial relief, you cannot meaningfully oppose their decisions from an anti-imperialist stance. You can, however, oppose these decisions from a more broadly anti-capitalist stance, which is precisely what actually-existing militant communist movements in the Third World do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
What form does a dictatorship of the proletariat take, and how do you prevent the new mangerial types from becoming a new class that rules in their own interests rather than that of the working class as a whole?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Strategic Voting: http://www.liberationnews.org/registered-democrats-vote-sanders-n-y-primary/ quote:PSL STATEMENT Also I saw Eugene Puryear a few days ago for maybe the second(?) time, at a conference. Cool dude, crazy smart, also funny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Strategic Voting: pretty cool of them
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
How many states will PSL be on in November or is it too early to tell? I haven't found anything about it on their website.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Here's some fun quotes by a prominent D&D Communist! http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3769585&userid=161079 I agree with Jewel Repetition. Living in a Liberal Democracy is so much better than the poo poo they'd like to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Here's some fun quotes by a prominent D&D Communist! Stalin did nothing wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Here's some fun quotes by a prominent D&D Communist!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Bernice Anders posted:Stalin did nothing wrong. He didn't brutally murder enough traitor,s like Khrushchev and Brezhnev
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
The Party for Socialism and Liberation is the mature, serious socialist alternative that last cycle ran two people constitutionally ineligible to run and was only on the ballet in 12 states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
Enjoy posted:He didn't brutally murder enough traitor,s like Khrushchev and Brezhnev his compassion got the better of him
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 02:23
|
|