Page 20 of 25
Re: Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:05 am
by scott nathaniel
Funk N. Furter wrote:
Steve posts garbage, but I humour him out of a morbid fascination. Basically he is so terrible as to be interesting. He doesn't pretend to be clever, so I can tolerate him, to a degree.
I basically post here to practice my typing, and for a mental shift in gear, a distraction if you like. I post a pretty standard Marxist view. Stevie boy posts drivel, loosely based on the 'libertarian' position, although he is loath to go into any real debate.
I can't remember your other 2 posts, seeing as this thread has about 300.
If you want to make a point, make it without being personal. There is a difference between banter between two people who reply to each other several times a day and someone popping up from nowhere with a long, humourless attack on the two main participants in the thread.
It was not an attack; it was a diagnostic evaluation. Learn the difference. And for being a self proclaimed socialist, you sure like to monopolize threads. Why don't you re-read your posts, scrap the crap and show me what you're left with. Posting 300 times doesn't justify 300 post of shit, regardless of your tennis partner.
Re: Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:09 am
by scott nathaniel
Funk N. Furter wrote:scott nathaniel wrote:You see, this is how I'm trying to help you. You and Steve are each half-stupid. You each insist on focusing on the half that is not half-stupid and both incorrectly believe that by getting together you combine into a full not-stupid. It doesn't work like that; you both still only make a full-stupid.
What the fuck is this gibberish supposed to mean? Tell you what, don't bother. I don't care. You are heading straight for the ignore list, something that I do very rarely on this forum (I should do it more).
Cool, I will graciously have the last word. \last-word\end
Re: Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:38 am
by Steve Ballmer
Funk N. Furter wrote:Steve Ballmer wrote:@ Funk
Of course I don't believe it. But it is the argument you are presenting.
No it's not. Marx's views are not validated by a few more people reading them in an economic crisis, but it does show that there is still interest.
Yes there is also an increase in interest in fascism in hard economic times, that is no surprise. Hitler came to power in a huge recession.
However while the capitalists fight Marx's ideas, they welcomed Hitler. I won't say his ideas, because he didn't actually have any.
So if we come back to what you were saying, your argument is that Marx knows more about economics than I do because "a few more people are currently reading him than 10 years ago". Well I'll have you know that Turnips Weekly is also enjoying an increased circulation.
Marx my ass.
Re: Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:39 am
by Steve Ballmer
Funk N. Furter wrote:I thought of a good catchphrase...
Uneven Steven, he hates equality.
I can't hate something that doesn't exist. What a strange thing for you to say...
Re: Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 1:58 pm
by Bean Machine
Funk N. Furter wrote:I thought of a good catchphrase...
Uneven Steven, he hates
equality.
FYP.
Re: Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:00 pm
by Steve Ballmer
Funk N. Furter wrote:Steve Ballmer wrote:Funk N. Furter wrote:I thought of a good catchphrase...
Uneven Steven, he hates equality.
I can't hate something that doesn't exist. What a strange thing for you to say...
Strange for a Marxist to mention equality? What a strange thing for you to say...
I didn't say that. I'd offer you reading lessons, but you couldn't pay for them. Not because I'm expensive, but because you're a penniless soon-to-be hobo.
Meanwhile, define equality.
Re: Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:03 pm
by Steve Ballmer
Quick honesty test: Do you (Funk N.) concede that your revolution will require violence?
Re: Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:26 pm
by andydes
I have a question on Marxism.
If the goal is get rid of money and provide everything based on need, what will life be like for a techno producer?
Who does the producer apply to to get a new analogue synth? How will they decide if the synth is a good use of the nation's resources? How will they get gigs? Would all producers be treated equally so it doesn't matter if you're good or shit, you still get the same as everyone else? Or would it be based on popularity, where established mainstream artists get the best spoils?
What if you have a regular job and just do it in you spare time?
Re: Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:49 pm
by earthloop
Marxism is just another version of Capitalism...but with a different bias. In fact, all 'ism's (capitalism; Marxism; Socialism; Communism etc etc) are versions of the same thing! There is no fundamental genetic difference, just like all people, no matter their racial profile, are humans. I hope this clarifies the impotence of this debate!
Re: Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:53 pm
by andydes
earthloop wrote:Marxism is just another version of Capitalism...but with a different bias. In fact, all 'ism's (capitalism; Marxism; Socialism; Communism etc etc) are versions of the same thing! There is no fundamental genetic difference, just like all people, no matter their racial profile, are humans. I hope this clarifies the impotence of this debate!
Spoken like a true humanist.
Re: Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:59 pm
by earthloop
Oh, and by the way, just in case anybody missed the news, I thought this was a poignant reminder that the Swiss are not perfect!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-10/s ... ah/4877948 (edited...better link)
Re: Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition
Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 6:37 am
by Machinesworking
Funk N. Furter wrote:Steve Ballmer wrote:Quick honesty test: Do you (Funk N.) concede that your revolution will require violence?
The workers will need to defend themselves and the revolution from attack if necessary. We all know what Pinochet, Suharto, Hitler etc etc did.
Defended their revolution from attack, that's how they saw it anyway.
Thus, is the problem with revolutions, blood is blood, is blood.
Re: Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition
Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 7:29 am
by Steve Ballmer
This is hilarious. Upset a ******** (I don't know which words are "allowed" today) and suddenly everyone is racist.
Re: Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition
Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 7:31 am
by Steve Ballmer
Funk N. Furter wrote:andydes wrote:I have a question on Marxism.
If the goal is get rid of money and provide everything based on need, what will life be like for a techno producer?
Who does the producer apply to to get a new analogue synth? How will they decide if the synth is a good use of the nation's resources? How will they get gigs? Would all producers be treated equally so it doesn't matter if you're good or shit, you still get the same as everyone else? Or would it be based on popularity, where established mainstream artists get the best spoils?
What if you have a regular job and just do it in you spare time?
I have no idea how this would work. I imagine that there would be mechanisms that
evolved. Try to think of an evolutionary process starting with what we have
now.
Looks like planning an economy is harder than we thought
Re: Unintended Consequences: Swiss Edition
Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 7:34 am
by Steve Ballmer
Funk N. Furter wrote:Steve Ballmer wrote:Quick honesty test: Do you (Funk N.) concede that your revolution will require violence?
The workers will need to defend themselves and the revolution from attack if necessary. We all know what Pinochet, Suharto, Hitler etc etc did.
So that's a no to the honesty thing. Even after you've admitted that your revolution will INITIATE violence in the form of confiscations, you still maintain that any violence you use will only be in self-defense.