"Economics for a crowded planet" needed?!?

[Random]

Slavery fell down because slaves rose against their owners?!?

Yes, partly

Who are the many who see a bourgeois revolution as a peasant revolution?

Albert Soboul, for one

 

[butchersapron]

One of the most fiercely contested and influential debates over the last 3 or so decades has been over Brenner's thesis that the bourgeois revolutions stemmed precisely from the class struggle that peasants waged against the landlords, which spurred them on to be more creative in their various management models, political, technical, economic. It doesn't require a modern bourgeois individual to engage in world changing class struggle. This is pretty mainstream stuff nowadays

 

[gorski]

...in a language [-s applies?] you read, literature you read and needless to say - approve of [which is a really hard sell, that's for sure!], BA...???

Random, hmmm... well chosen nick... Many, eh? Slaves brought down slavery from within Capitalism... and so merrily on...

 

[Random]

...in a language [-s applies?] you read, literature you read and needless to say - approve of [which is a really hard sell, that's for sure!], BA...???

Random, hmmm... well chosen nick... Many, eh? Slaves brought down slavery from within Capitalism... and so merrily on...

Why can't you talk properly?

 

[gorski]

I simply enjoy people like you going idiotic... errrmm... sorry, showing your true selves...

 

[gorski]

Edit: DP...

So, can everybody write in short, simple sentences, even Random can understand, please...

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

No, it's just that no one has thought of another option yet. Heh, it's socialists own little version of TINA really, that phrase.

There are more options than those two, at the moment I'd say neither depending on how you define them are likely any time soon.

 

[eoin_k]

So, can everybody write in short, simple sentences, even Random can understand, please...

You could even just try using sentences. Random often manages fine with people who present their arguments in coherent sentences. Why not try it some time?

 

[gorski]

Oh, I don't know..maybe I did try, say re. Modernity and he comes back in and "presents his argument" like this: "What a lot of hot air" and then accuses me of "narcissism"... People like that can kindly fuck off, you know... My argument was coherent and in sentences anyone can understand [post 157 and even 152 here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=323749&page=4]. After that I may not bother, true... I may give a few nuggets here and there, because pearls before pigs like him - what's the point???

So, maybe one can be bothered to read with a little bit of intelligence and concentration, not to mention fairness, then give back his considered counter-argument in coherent sentences, not a stupid AND petty, QUITE narcissistic ATTACK ON ME, INSTEAD OF AN ARGUMENT? THE CHEEK OF A BASTARD!!!! Telling me off for the very shite he does? YUCK!!!!

 

[eoin_k]

Can I just check that you are really citing posts you made in a different thread over a month ago as proof that you are capable of stringing a sentence together.

 

[gorski]

No, you may not. Go troll somewhere else... or get a life, whichever comes first...

 

[eoin_k]

I hope you won't take it as trolling if I ask you again what you think we have to learn from the retired neoliberal hatchetman.

Also, could you just clarrify your response to randoms' counterexample of the Haitian revolution to your claim that:

neither Slavery nor Feudalism have been demolished by slaves or peasants uprising...

If you are a bit unfamilar with these events CLR James' The Black Jacobins is a good starting point. Although, he is a Marxist (of the Trotskyist variety) so he wouldn't have anything to teach you.

 

[gorski]

Was that Capitalism or Feudalism? How can you bring down Slavery from within Capitalism, FFS?!?

I said, "Slaves-Slave Masters and Feudal Serfs/Peasants-Feudal Lords dynamics did not bring down Slavery, i.e. Feudalism." Look up! Hence, Marx's presumption has no leg to stand on, from that perspective!!!

Get it?

 

[i_got_poison]

a resolution between intransient parties, has only 2 conclusions; compromise (usually sought when both side have roughly equal military might) or violence.
naked barbarism has been our past and will no doubt feature in our future.




http://www.breathingearth.net/

 

[gorski]

"Overpopulation causes genocide..."??? The presumptions in this little scenario are ludicrously mad, on the ultra idiotic conservative side [he must be a conservative American economist!!!! ]!!! This fellah feasted a little bit too much on Malthus, I believe...

Ahem, ermmm.... caugh-caugh...

Sorry, sorry, I meant to say: GREAT SATIRE!!!!!

Seriously, let's not get ahead of ourselves... There are at least two major scenarios:

1) on this board only BA, revol and the like claim they have seen [the only viable] future [they'd be the "wise leadership", taking the rest of us, uninitiated bunch of bozos, by the proverbial hand and leading us to it]...

[...while the rest of us are at least "agnostics", if not "atheists", if you get me drift, thanx a bunch...]

2) this bunch, making these kinda stoopid videos and webistes, claims to know no less than "human nature" [i.e. the conservative poor sods], even claiming its most deterministic of dimensions... [I mean, this is mechanical, FFS... ]

Now, BA has the audacity to attack me because I allegedly spit on everybody else [nah, BA, just the likes of you, arrogant and demi-educated lot claiming to know everything best!!!], whereas he keeps doing it all the time, to anyone who dares differ from his little dogma.

The other bunch claims similarly that whoever disagrees with their vision of "human nature" is a fool. Flip a coin who's worse...

I say to both of them to take a hike.

First, look at the evidence from a different perspective. That Swedish lad in the top post certainly gave them a good run for their money/power, non?!?

 

[Knotted]

Yes because revolutionary politics begins and ends with bolshevism? Have you any understanding of the Russian revolution, of the role of the Soviets, the factory committees and the revolutionaries persecuted and suppressed by the Bolsheviks who wished to set the limits of revolution, who mistook state capitalism and technocratic management of the economy for socialism. The bolsheviks were social democrats in a country that offered no room for gradual reform, but which was spiralling to revolution, this meant they were forced to run with the revolution in order to head it off and reassert their social democratic statist politics.

To be perfectly honest, even gorski who knows fuck all about anything completely pwned you on the above. Nobody believes this "state capitalist" shit outside the odd theoretically backward sect.

 

[gorski]

[Oh, Mastah, much obliged!!!! ]

{Eppur si muove... Nicely done... }

 

[Knotted]

[Oh, Mastah, much obliged!!!! ]

{Eppur si muove... Nicely done... }

One thing I will credit you with is a basic understanding of what it's like to live in "socialist" eastern Europe.

You still don't understand Marx, though. Put down the Economic and Philosophical Manuscipts and read the basics. Start with the Communist Manifesto. Seriously. You've learnt everything except the important bits. I do wind you up, but I mean what I say.

 

[gorski]

Well, after 30+ years of studying precisely that you must forgive me if I just... smile at this...

 

[Knotted]

Well, after 30+ years of studying precisely that you must forgive me if I just... smile at this...

You've spent 30 years studying Marx and you will still say:

For starters, Marx has a bit of a problem: neither Slavery nor Feudalism have been demolished by slaves or peasants uprising...

You haven't understood the ABC. It's in the Manifesto. It's one line. It's written in plain English (or French, German, Italian, Flemish or Danish). It's written so the average 19th century worker can understand it. It's not some philosophical obscurity. You don't need to have studied philosophy for years. Here it is:

From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

Marx wasn't an anarchist tool who had an ahistorical belief that the oppressed would emancipate themselves through revolution (notice how revol failed to pick you up on this).

 

[Knotted]

I'm not trying to embarrass you by the way. Just read the basics. Read the unpretentious bits. It will be good for you.

 

[gorski]

Well, you just embarrassed yourself, as you clearly do not have the ABC sorted...

Sorry, that has nothing to do with what I stated re. his position on this particular subject... His position is that the oppressed shall rise against the oppressors and win in a big showdown, with lots of violence, a veritable bloodbath, when conditions are ripe, i.e. in a moment of crisis etc. etc.

Based on what?

In the Balkans there is a proverb: "Sjaši Murta da uzjaši Kurta!" As in, one goes down only for another to take his place but the oppression as such remains.

It's the old joke that in Capitalism the essential feature of it is exploitation/domination of Man by his fellow Man, whereas in sur-real Socialism the inverse is the case...

I think it's not impossible to abolish it but it will not be by revolution... for various reasons....

 

[Knotted]

Notice last time I admitted when I was wrong. It was embarrassing but I admit I was wrong about that matter of formal logic.

I'm not wrong this time. Believe me or don't. Try reading this.

 

[gorski]

That's Engels. And both of them were politicians/revolutionaries, actively searching for and working towards that "rupture"... Those were different times, a nasty early Capitalism, with nasty crisis points [this latest one is a camomile by comparison!!!]....

 

[revol68]

That's Engels. And both of them were politicians/revolutionaries, actively searching for and working towards that "rupture"... Those were different times, a nasty early Capitalism, with nasty crisis points [this latest one is a camomile by comparison!!!]....

Maybe you should expand your world view from a university staff room to the rest of the world you liberal apologist piece of shit.

 

[gorski]

I am neither.

But you have just cemented what I stated about you: you're a weak and mean piece of shit wanker who has no clue what/who he is accusing of weakness. This speaks volumes of your arrogance and tons about your flawed character, which is why you are escaping, in a slimy manner, all the serious questions I posed to you!!!

Are you a narcissistic teenager or an upper class upstart trying desperately to shake off his past and ingratiate himself to his "revol" bros in arms?!? Or some emotionally unstable poor sod who gives himself so much freedom to constantly growl at everybody who he disagrees with - BECAUSE???!!!??? What gives you the right to behave in this shitty manner?!?

 

[revol68]

To be perfectly honest, even gorski who knows fuck all about anything completely pwned you on the above. Nobody believes this "state capitalist" shit outside the odd theoretically backward sect.

Any communist worthshit holds it.

Also just out of interest on what specific points did Gorski pawn me on? Should be interesting cos as much as you dislike my thesis, Gorski's argument lies on pathetic liberal 'totalitarianism' theory.

 

[rioted]

Any communist worthshit holds it.

Well you're certainly worth shit.

Do you even know what an argument is???

 

[gorski]

Go figure this one out, revol....

I am no liberal but I fought "communists" who did this sort of thing all the time: label somebody and shoot them or arrest them. For their own good. Else some of their comrades could give them what's theirs... No respect, no recognition of others. Why should anybody recognise or respect you?!?

Not all the "Communists" think alike. No longer!!!! No more Stalin!!! Or maybe for you?!?

Let me update you, you ignorant FOOL: there isn't a "unifying" Q/issue on the Left any longer!!!!! NOTHING is obliging, as it were: war, revolution - no issue at all!!!

There are "Lefties" of all sorts nowadays. They DEFFO do NOT all think that Stalin and his lot, you bleeding IDIOT, was/were "social democrats" or that he was running a giant CAPITALIST organisation!!!! That's for ARROGANT eejuts from the West, like yourself, who have never experienced any of that shit on their own skin and who have never studied the subject in ANY DEPTH!!!!

You don't even know your own "tribe", twat - so how can I expect any just and fair portrayal of me and my views?!?

 

[Blagsta]

Any communist worthshit holds it.

Also just out of interest on what specific points did Gorski pawn me on? Should be interesting cos as much as you dislike my thesis, Gorski's argument lies on pathetic liberal 'totalitarianism' theory.

The state capitalist theory of the USSR makes sense to me too. I'm not sure what the arguments against it are though.