"Economics for a crowded planet" needed?!?

[revol68]

Go figure this one out....

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?!?

Yippee, lets celebrate postmodernism, the final victory of the commodity form over such debased evil notions as truth, of course lets also overlook the very real and material universal assumptions and regimes that act asthe foundations of postmodernity.

As for studying any subject in depth, well I'd say I've been reading marxist and anarchist literature and theory since I was 15.

 

[revol68]

Well you're certainly worth shit.

Do you even know what an argument is???

Yes, which is why I'm awaiting one countering the state capitalist theory of the Soviet Union.

The only other theories I'm aware are the 'deformed workers state' shit from orthodox trots or inane liberal wank about the inherent totalitarianism of revolution.

 

[gorski]

It's a bloody cheap shot at a weakest possible cop-out - that's what it is, Blagsta!!! Those perpetuating this mythical beast are just not learning from all this mess left behind the collapse of the "socialist block"!!!

No "capitalist" principles lived to tell the tale in Stalin's USSR. None! From property rights to any rights whatsoever, no subjectivity built into the Constitution [a worthless piece of paper], no market of any kind, no "competition" to speak of, no "technological priority of organising the production", money was merely an accounting matter etc. etc. etc. Ever heard of ideologically created serious famines, when millions died or serious lack of... well, everything! Why do you think that was the case? Because Capitalist production lived in the USSR - even unhappily?!? FFS!!!

Every time the principles associated with Capitalism [bourgeois society] and Communism [political state] clashed, the latter won the day. Period.

It's really sad I have to explain this to anyone: the principle of surplus value had no "value" in the state where surplus power production was the principle which created all the relationships in such a state from itself. Everything was subjugated to it.

So, if you are not too arrogant to learn/inform yourself you may start thinking about this little issue...

If you are - oh, well...

 

[gorski]

Yippee, lets celebrate postmodernism, the final victory of the commodity form over such debased evil notions as truth, of course lets also overlook the very real and material universal assumptions and regimes that act asthe foundations of postmodernity.

As for studying any subject in depth, well I'd say I've been reading marxist and anarchist literature and theory since I was 15.

And now that you are 16 and a day...

You fuckwit: how am I a "PoMo" idiot? You have no greater opponent of that idiocy than me, you blathering twat!!!

 

[Blagsta]

It's a bloody cheap shot at a weakest possible cop-out - that's what it is, Blagsta!!! Those perpetuating this mythical beast are just not learning from all this mess left behind the collapse of the "socialist block"!!!

No "capitalist" principles lived to tell the tale in Stalin's USSR. None! From property rights to any rights whatsoever, no subjectivity built into the Constitution [a worthless piece of paper], no market of any kind, no "competition" to speak of, no "technological priority of organising the production", money was merely an accounting matter etc. etc. etc. Ever heard of ideologically created serious famines, when millions died or serious lack of... well, everything! Why do you think that was the case? Because Capitalist production lived in the USSR - even unhappily?!? FFS!!!

Every time the principles associated with Capitalism [bourgeois society] and Communism [political state] clashed, the latter won the day. Period.

It's really sad I have to explain this to anyone: the principle of surplus value had no "value" in the state where surplus power production was the principle which created all the relationships in such a state from itself. Everything was subjugated to it.

So, if you are not too arrogant to learn/inform yourself you may start thinking about this little issue...

If you are - oh, well...

Can you write that so it makes sense? Ta.

 

[gorski]

Yes, which is why I'm awaiting one countering the state capitalist theory of the Soviet Union.

The only other theories I'm aware are the 'deformed workers state' shit from orthodox trots or inane liberal wank about the inherent totalitarianism of revolution.

Well, that tells one just how much you know... Bolloxxxx....

 

[gorski]

Can you write that so it makes sense? Ta.

Not for people with no ears to hear it, as it were...

Try reading slowly... Then you may even try asking intelligent questions, so I can see where you may be stuck... The rest is an unintelligent provocation from eejuts like random and his ilk...

 

[revol68]

It's a bloody cheap shot at a weakest possible cop-out - that's what it is, Blagsta!!! Those perpetuating this mythical beast are just not learning from all this mess left behind the collapse of the "socialist block"!!!

No "capitalist" principles lived to tell the tale in Stalin's USSR. None! From property rights to any rights whatsoever, no subjectivity built into the Constitution [a worthless piece of paper], no market of any kind, no "competition" to speak of, no "technological priority of organising the production", money was merely an accounting matter etc. etc. etc. Ever heard of ideologically created serious famines, when millions died or serious lack of... well, everything! Why do you think that was the case? Because Capitalist production lived in the USSR - even unhappily?!? FFS!!!

Every time the principles associated with Capitalism [bourgeois society] and Communism [political state] clashed, the latter won the day. Period.

It's really sad I have to explain this to anyone: the principle of surplus value had no "value" in the state where surplus power production was the principle which created all the relationships in such a state from itself. Everything was subjugated to it.

So, if you are not too arrogant to learn/inform yourself you may start thinking about this little issue...

If you are - oh, well...

So Nazi Germany wasn't capitalist?

You're a clown, the much vaunted rights of man as preached by the ascendent bourgeois have always been lip service, in so much as they have been enforced it has been through struggle.

Anyone with a clue about the French Revolution could see through your liberal idealist shit.

Furthermore even those liberal ideals were born in blood, in violence and terror.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Can you write that so it makes sense? Ta.

I don't read Gorski's posts any more. I simply sit back and admire their shape.

 

[Blagsta]

Not for people with no ears to hear it, as it were...

Try reading slowly... Then you may even try asking intelligent questions, so I can see where you may be stuck... The rest is an unintelligent provocation from eejuts like random and his ilk...

I find it very difficult to decipher your posts. Can you use proper grammar?

 

[Flavour]

gorski is a turing test competitor built by IBM in co-operation with the Swedish Centre Party

 

[gorski]

So Nazi Germany wasn't capitalist?

You're a clown, the much vaunted rights of man as preached by the ascendent bourgeois have always been lip service, in so much as they have been enforced it has been through struggle.

Anyone with a clue about the French Revolution could see through your liberal idealist shit.

Furthermore even those liberal ideals were born in blood, in violence and terror.

Gawd, I gave you bigger credit than you deserve...

Nazi Germany was Capitalist, sure: that's how it started! Capitalists and some other elites helped them in, from finances onwards, trying to respond to the "Red danger"...

But your artistry in logics is mind-boggling: "if one is Capitalist, then the other 'totalitarian nightmare' must also be Capitalist" or inversely, "if one isn't then none can be Capitalist!" Wow!

Look, you moron: Capital as the principle can survive even when it's "directed", as you well know!

That does not automatically mean that any totalitarian society is automatically the same, that it has the same origins or the same structure.

Sur-real Socialist structures were all created from above. The state does it all from itself. Nazi state started from the interests of the big business and political elites, with some brainless muscle and lust for mayhem and blood!

Now, fuck off!!! My son has a fever and I have better things to do than trying to teach a deaf, intransigent fool, who is so arrogant he can't see any differences between Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR....

Blagsta, go study and stay away from cheap shots like that. Your comprehension level is in the basement - ain't nowt wrong with my grammar. Not that bad anyway. Btw, how many langs do you speak?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Yes, which is why I'm awaiting one countering the state capitalist theory of the Soviet Union.

The only other theories I'm aware are the 'deformed workers state' shit from orthodox trots or inane liberal wank about the inherent totalitarianism of revolution.

Asiatic Mode.

The USSR didn't meet the requirements of even some sort of 'state capitalism' until some time after the 60's.

 

[revol68]

Asiatic Mode.

The USSR didn't meet the requirements of even some sort of 'state capitalism' until some time after the 60's.

Please expand.

 

[revol68]

Gawd, I gave you bigger credit than you deserve...

Nazi Germany was Capitalist, sure: that's how it started! Capitalists and some other elites helped them in, from finances onwards, trying to respond to the "Red danger"...

But your artistry in logics is mind-boggling: "if one is Capitalist, then the other 'totalitarian nightmare' must also be Capitalist" or inversely, "if one isn't then none can be Capitalist!" Wow!

Look, you moron: Capital as the principle can survive even when it's "directed", as you well know!

That does not automatically mean that any totalitarian society is automatically the same, that it has the same origins or the same structure.

Sur-real Socialist structures were all created from above. The state does it all from itself. Nazi state started from the interests of the big business and political elites, with some brainless muscle and lust for mayhem and blood!

Now, fuck off!!! My son has a fever and I have better things to do than trying to teach a deaf, intransigent fool, who is so arrogant he can't see any differences between Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR....

Blagsta, go study and stay away from cheap shots like that. Your comprehension level is in the basement - ain't nowt wrong with my grammar. Not that bad anyway. Btw, how many langs do you speak?

I wasn't saying they are or were the same, rather my point was counter to your suggestion that the lack of bourgeois freedoms meant it couldn't be state capitalist. There most certainly was surplus value extracted from the workers of the ussr, there were wages and commodities, the fact the state was the single employer is precisely why it is called state capitalism, which shouldn't be mistaken for the normal role of the state under plain old capitalism or even in fascism.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Please expand.

It's a tentative stipulation but its basis is that 'statified capital' didn't dominate production until after the gulag system began to crumble.

The mode of production that existed in Russia for many centuries could be characterized as Asiatic ('base'), although it was beginning the pre-capitalist transition to Feudalism. The Bolsheviks swept Feudalism away, of course, but in response to underdevelopment caused by the emergence of capitalism the Asiatic mode was consolidated in order to pursue capitalist development led within a modern state.

At least that's how I expose it. Interestingly, there are few texts that pursue this line of enquiry.

 

[revol68]

It's a tentative stipulation but its basis is that 'statified capital' didn't dominate production until after the gulag system began to crumble.

The mode of production that existed in Russia for many centuries could be characterized as Asiatic ('base'), although it was beginning the pre-capitalist transition to Feudalism. The Bolsheviks swept Feudalism away, of course, but in response to underdevelopment caused by the emergence of capitalism the Asiatic mode was consolidated in order to pursue capitalist development led within a modern state.

At least that's how I expose it. Interestingly, there are few texts that pursue this line of enquiry.

Yes this is why it is referred to as state capitalism, something the bolshevik leadership themselves saw as pretty much identical with socialism, albeit under the management of the party.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Yes this is why it is referred to as state capitalism, something the bolshevik leadership themselves saw as pretty much identical with socialism, albeit under the management of the party.

But it wasn't qualitatively capitalist; the soviet state was only able to internalize the idea of communism (hence 'socialist') which it wasn't in essence. But, likewise, the capitalist law of value, which was too primitive, couldn't fully operate.

 

[Knotted]

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.

You came up with a string of idiotic anarchist cliches, which didn't even address gorski's points. Gorski's concerned about non-violence. Your wooden anarchist critique of bolshevism was just not relevant. You're capable of so much better.

And yes the theory of state capitalism is just ludicrous. Only the most ridiculous, parachial Western political sects hold it. You try explaining it to an eastern European of any political persuasion, and they'll think you've just arrived from Alpha Centauri.

 

[butchersapron]

It's a tentative stipulation but its basis is that 'statified capital' didn't dominate production until after the gulag system began to crumble.

The mode of production that existed in Russia for many centuries could be characterized as Asiatic ('base'), although it was beginning the pre-capitalist transition to Feudalism. The Bolsheviks swept Feudalism away, of course, but in response to underdevelopment caused by the emergence of capitalism the Asiatic mode was consolidated in order to pursue capitalist development led within a modern state.

At least that's how I expose it. Interestingly, there are few texts that pursue this line of enquiry.

Is there not bollocks. It's what the whole multi-decade wittfogel debate was about, as I suspect you've just read somewhere.

 

[Blagsta]

Gawd, I gave you bigger credit than you deserve...

Nazi Germany was Capitalist, sure: that's how it started! Capitalists and some other elites helped them in, from finances onwards, trying to respond to the "Red danger"...

But your artistry in logics is mind-boggling: "if one is Capitalist, then the other 'totalitarian nightmare' must also be Capitalist" or inversely, "if one isn't then none can be Capitalist!" Wow!

Look, you moron: Capital as the principle can survive even when it's "directed", as you well know!

That does not automatically mean that any totalitarian society is automatically the same, that it has the same origins or the same structure.

Sur-real Socialist structures were all created from above. The state does it all from itself. Nazi state started from the interests of the big business and political elites, with some brainless muscle and lust for mayhem and blood!

Now, fuck off!!! My son has a fever and I have better things to do than trying to teach a deaf, intransigent fool, who is so arrogant he can't see any differences between Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR....

Blagsta, go study and stay away from cheap shots like that. Your comprehension level is in the basement - ain't nowt wrong with my grammar. Not that bad anyway. Btw, how many langs do you speak?

Polite.

 

[Blagsta]

You came up with a string of idiotic anarchist cliches, which didn't even address gorski's points. Gorski's concerned about non-violence. Your wooden anarchist critique of bolshevism was just not relevant. You're capable of so much better.

And yes the theory of state capitalism is just ludicrous. Only the most ridiculous, parachial Western political sects hold it. You try explaining it to an eastern European of any political persuasion, and they'll think you've just arrived from Alpha Centauri.

You're almost as bad as gorski

 

[gorski]

We are nowhere near as bad as revol or BA. In fact they start this shite all the time!!! BAs and revols of this world spread bad blood, attacking anyone who might dare to think differently then they are. Sometimes I suspect it's on purpose. I already asked BA how much is he getting for his services to HM's Gov...

But seriously: all the Western "intelligence" services pray to God there are more like the two of them. If there weren't such arrogant wankers around they would have invented them!!! They sure as Hell put people off Socialist ideas with their behaviour and shitty, aggressive attitude of "we know the only truth and everybody else is stupid" kind.

What a stupid and idiotic Stalinist attitude!!!

As for Stalin as a CEO of a ginormous Capitalist Corporation: you have a few planks missing upstairs and no experience whatsoever of such a monolithic experience, which is what makes you so gullible to this shit you're slurping so readily and with gusto!!!!

Morons with no self-insight whatsoever!!! Stop your disservices to the Left! See a shrink!!!

That is if you really believe all the shit you're spouting here...

 

[Knotted]

I don't share those sentiments. Non of this is personal to me.

 

[Blagsta]

knotted i find your posts almost as impenetrable as gorski's and just as detached from reality

 

[Blagsta]

although generally not as rude

 

[Fruitloop]

Gorski: what is your view on the political nature of the USSR?

 

[Knotted]

knotted i find your posts almost as impenetrable as gorski's and just as detached from reality

My comments are generally directed at particular posters rather than casual observers. It's a bad habit.

although generally not as rude

Hmm, must try harder.

 

[gorski]

FL, I have already discussed this many times on this forum, starting with this thread and in particular in a "debate" with BA. If memory serves something about "convincing one on planned economy" or some such thread but also elsewhere. Just search under my nick...

K, I know: you just like trolling...

 

[gorski]

although generally not as rude

Blagsta, I never attacked either of them first, not in those terms. And I saw them do it to many people. I am no Christian, so if somebody attacks me I retaliate! Fair?

If somebody shows no respect to anyone, if they don't recognise others, if they are inconsiderate - what obliges us, at the receiving end, to respect them, to recognise them or to be considerate towards them?

So, they got what they deserve from me. No less!