'Middle Class' it's basically just a construct isn't it...

[DotCommunist]

How could it change? People want to own their own house and see the building up of such assets as insurance for their old age. How is that likely to change? The same with markets, the idea of mutually beneficial exchange has not changed for thousands of years. You are confusing mutually beneficial exchange with a market. They are not the same things. Market operations do not work as a universal gladhand do-thee-well sir happy days for all


It is easy to suggest that it might change, but how? Are people going to stop wanting a place to live? No. Are they going to accept a central organisation of property? Probably not. Here again, false opposition. Using the no technique as well, follow a question that has a concrete answer with one that does not in the hope that this will hold water. It doesn't

Tax could change and I earlier suggested a tax system based on square metrage (to deafening silence as ever here). Markets are the same - will people stop exchanging for mutual gain? No. Will they stop using money as a means for exchange? Maybe it will switch to smart cards or something like that, but without a huge disaster of epic proportions it is just convenient to use a medium of exchange. Maybe a barter system might be used for those without money, but only if everything breaks down, which is also highly unlikely. Fatuous nonsense, you engage in middle ground liberal fantasies where it would all be OK if we just got the tax system working and set up a rebuplic. You are a akin to the legal fetishists of the Freemen on The Land movement. Hoo fucking rah, you've solved it all

dunno why I bother mind, I recall debating with you before and you just wriggle and misrepresent when faced with anything other than the holy light shining from your own backside

 

[JimW]

You're begging all sorts of questions again, Gmart. Perhaps what people want is security of shelter and security of care throughout their life; private property and capitalist social relationships make that impossible for many, any housing at all impossible for some. As dotcommunist has pointed out, you also think exchange hasn't changed for thousands of years, which puts you at odds with bourgeois thinkers like Weber let alone anyone describing what actually happened.
And so we go on - a place to live must be in your own owned home? Not been the case in most places for most of history. In recent times, there was a point in the UK in the 1970s when 30 percent of the population lived in council housing, it took a concerted policy assault to reduce that; socialised housing worked well even in a capitalist context but in so far as it worked against the interests of capital it had to be got rid of. Rates of private renting remained high in many continental European nations, what makes you think they'd not like tenancy in the same place for free instead?
We're in a better position than ever (ETA for modern globalised versions of ever) technologically to allocate other goods based on need, but the limit of your vision is smart cards instead of cash. I may not individually be able to craft a fully worked out programme for the running of a complex high-tech society, but seems obvious that a social movement bringing together the skills of the people who create and distribute value now could work out how to do that under different relationships. That seems the best thing to work towards; rearranging the deckchairs might keep us that bit comfier until the iceberg heaves into view, but you have to be aware that's all you're achieving.

 

[Gmart]

You are confusing mutually beneficial exchange with a market. They are not the same things. Market operations do not work as a universal gladhand do-thee-well sir happy days for all

The vast majority of exchanges are mutually beneficial. No one forces me to shop in the supermarket, i go because I need food - if that is oppression then maybe we should look at the definition of that.

Here again, false opposition. Using the no technique as well, follow a question that has a concrete answer with one that does not in the hope that this will hold water. It doesn't

Without references these words mean very little.

Fatuous nonsense, you engage in middle ground liberal fantasies where it would all be OK if we just got the tax system working and set up a republic. You are akin to the legal fetishists of the Freemen on The Land movement. Hoo fucking rah, you've solved it all.

Are you in favour of a land tax based on square metrage? You seem to have forgotten to have a position - maybe you are avoiding doing so?

dunno why I bother mind, I recall debating with you before and you just wriggle and misrepresent when faced with anything other than the holy light shining from your own backside

I know exactly how you feel - you seem unable to stop yourself from insulting enough to address the issues. Maybe you don't notice yourself being insulting, and thus you feel that my accusation is not based on fact? I'm sorry - I should give an example: Describing my words as 'fatuous nonsense' but not directly quoting which passages you feel are so.

You're begging all sorts of questions again, Gmart.

Is this a criticism or a compliment?

Perhaps what people want is security of shelter and security of care throughout their life; private property and capitalist social relationships make that impossible for many, any housing at all impossible for some.

There will be some people who rent and some who own. It is pointless trying to guess as to what they might want but it is not fair to say that capitalism makes it impossible - with 70% home ownership that is obviously not true.

As dotcommunist has pointed out, you also think exchange hasn't changed for thousands of years, which puts you at odds with bourgeois thinkers like Weber let alone anyone describing what actually happened.

Exchanges are well-documented throughout history from the monastries brewing beer, and producing wool to sell (and before), to the present. If Weber or anyone else denies that this happened then that is news to me but please feel free to inform me.

And so we go on - a place to live must be in your own owned home? Not been the case in most places for most of history.

There is an inevitable mix of renters and owners, with an ever smaller amount of council housing

In recent times, there was a point in the UK in the 1970s when 30 percent of the population lived in council housing, it took a concerted policy assault to reduce that; socialised housing worked well even in a capitalist context but in so far as it worked against the interests of capital it had to be got rid of.

I do not know how you would judge if it 'worked well' or not, but as a basic principle it would seem fair to encourage people not to live their lives in supported housing of this sort unless they are disabled in some way - I would even argue that it would be harmful to encourage such a dependency culture.

Rates of private renting remained high in many continental European nations, what makes you think they'd not like tenancy in the same place for free instead?

Why would an owner offer their property for free?

We're in a better position than ever (ETA for modern globalised versions of ever) technologically to allocate other goods based on need, but the limit of your vision is smart cards instead of cash. I may not individually be able to craft a fully worked out programme for the running of a complex high-tech society, but seems obvious that a social movement bringing together the skills of the people who create and distribute value now could work out how to do that under different relationships.

And if people decide that they do not want to work for others under the terms you describe, what would be your reaction? Force?

That seems the best thing to work towards; rearranging the deckchairs might keep us that bit comfier until the iceberg heaves into view, but you have to be aware that's all you're achieving.

Any solution has to be based on what people believe, not an ideal of a minority imposed through authoritarian means. It is an obvious parallel to notice that the Christians are also saying that if only we all agreed with them and their book, then we would have a utopia.

 

[DotCommunist]

The vast majority of exchanges are mutually beneficial. No one forces me to shop in the supermarket, i go because I need food - if that is oppression then maybe we should look at the definition of that.

you didn't understand what I said

Without references these words mean very little.

What would you like references to? what in my reply implied knowledge that needed referencing?

Are you in favour of a land tax based on square metrage? You seem to have forgotten to have a position - maybe you are avoiding doing so?

My position, gmart? on your land tax wheeze? on your simplistic ideas? You advocate face down arse up, like the self satisfied nutsack you are.

I know exactly how you feel - you seem unable to stop yourself from insulting enough to address the issues. Maybe you don't notice yourself being insulting, and thus you feel that my accusation is not based on fact? I'm sorry - I should give an example: Describing my words as 'fatuous nonsense' but not directly quoting which passages you feel are so.

Don't apologise, I put my words directly next to yours in bold type, in the body of a direct fucking quote. Here we go with the gmart twist.

.

 

[JimW]

Gmart, you don't seem to be aware that exchanges in earlier times or other sorts of society are not the same thing as a market under capitalism, or that to beg the question is a logical fallacy. Nor can you conceive of a home being free to live in because it has no one owner, or that once free it no more creates a dependency culture than the air you breathe. You introduce authoritarian imposition where it's not been suggested. Why engagein debates you don't understand and can't follow?
Just sit back and rest assured there'll be a place for you in the new society. You can meet kids and serve as a chilling reminder of the horrible stunting of the human spirit and intellect possible under capitalism.

 

[Red Cat]

There will be some people who rent and some who own. It is pointless trying to guess as to what they might want but it is not fair to say that capitalism makes it impossible - with 70% home ownership that is obviously not true.

You missed the point that home ownership, as you call it, or what can be described more accurately as having a mortgage, does not make for a secure home.

And how does social housing result in a dependency culture? How does taking profit out of the equation result in dependency?

 

[Captain Hurrah]

serve as a chilling reminder of the horrible stunting of the human spirit and intellect possible under capitalism.

 

[TruXta]

serve as a chilling reminder of the horrible stunting of the human spirit and intellect possible under capitalism.

Intellects have been stunted under capitalism? Funny how we've produced more scientific knowledge in the last 50 years than all of human history before that then.

 

[Crispy]

You missed the point that home ownership, as you call it, or what can be described more accurately as having a mortgage, does not make for a secure home.

And how does social housing result in a dependency culture? How does taking profit out of the equation result in dependency?

If I could pay much lower rent, with a more secure tenancy, I'd consider myself more independent. I'd have more spare money with which to engage in meaningful activity, rather than enabling my landlord to live the life of Riley overseas. Insecure housing is a choke hold on personal freedom and it affects most people.

 

[JimW]

Intellects have been stunted under capitalism? Funny how we've produced more scientific knowledge in the last 50 years than all of human history before that then.

Obviously affected your ability to read the word 'possible' or get a joke, so there must be something in it.

 

[TruXta]

Obviously affected your ability to read the word 'possible' or get a joke, so there must be something in it.

Oh please. Certainly didn't read like a joke, particularly not in light of your posting history. And "possible" is just you covering your ass.

 

[love detective]

read like a joke to me (and i'm sure others) - and a good one at that

and what the frigg do you mean 'not in light of [his] posting history'?

not everyone subscribes to the tedious as fuck identikit brand of obvious u75 humour - some like Jim, inject a lot more intelligence & subtlety into their humorous offerings

 

[TruXta]

Actually I didn't read that closely enough. More fool me. Sorry, Jim. Been a stressful few weeks lately.

 

[JimW]

Not to worry, no apologies necessary but thanks. I'll have my joke writer taken out back and shot just to be on safe side.

 

[Kizmet]

This serves as a chilling reminder of the type of humour possible under communism...

 

[JimW]

No-one laughs like the commissar.

 

[love detective]

Not to worry, no apologies necessary but thanks. I'll have my joke writer taken out back and shot just to be on safe side.

is this some kind of joke?

 

[Santino]

In Soviet Russia jokes laugh at you.

 

[Kizmet]

only just...

 

[JimW]

You know full well I've long stood for a firm policy on failed humour.

 

[Kizmet]

In Soviet Russia humour remains the property of the state.

 

[JimW]

Though I was thinking of making a case that the increased production of science over the last 50 years doesn't necessarily refute the idea that capitalism stunts intellectual life. Reckon that could be done, but it won't be by me on this thread. And my head hurts when I'm not arguing for money.

 

[chazegee]

In Slovakia, the peasants laughed at Soviet Russia during the U.S.S.R days.
Given loads of Moscow money to build lots of lovely Commie tower blocks, they poured half of it down their necks.
They've been (almost) sober since Glasnost.

 

[love detective]

Though I was thinking of making a case that the increased production of science over the last 50 years doesn't necessarily refute the idea that capitalism stunts intellectual life.

absolutely - only a retard would think otherwise

 

[JimW]