discokermit
Well-Known Member
no it isn't. capital letters are for wankers.
What's your kind of revolution?
- Thread starter ymu
- Start date
no it isn't. capital letters are for wankers.
I would place a bet that most people wank, or have wanked at some point. Even illiterates.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
that's not what malthusianism is though.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Says who? He thinks we're fucked because there are too many of us using up too few resources. That's Malthusian.
discokermit
Well-Known Member
it's like you're trying to have a go but are just saying words. is not using capitals illiteracy now? does wanker have to be used only in a literal sense? does this apply to all sex based insults? i'm out of the loop i think.
Poor comeback (sorry for the 'cheesy' pun).
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
and marxists would agree that we are fucked because of resource scarcity (or at least i would and i'm a marxist). however, that doesn't mean that there isn't enough resources to go around, but currently most of them are being consumed by the rich and by big business. it also doesn't mean we shouldn't develop things like renewable energy (and such things would prob be more efficiently developed under a planned economy).
as far as the environmental stuff goes, i think that it is a catastrophe both in terms of social and biological effects and i usually tend to agree with lletsa's posts on the topic. however where i have a problem with lbj's posts is that he seems to be implying (although it poss isn't intended this way) that it's the fault of "car drivers" for driving cars, that it's a problem with the attitudes of society and people "expecting" that they can have what they want when they want, when actually a lot of people on low incomes are effectively coerced into buying shit, unenvironmentally sound, cruelly produced food, and they have no other choice when everything else is an unaffordable luxury. you can talk about people needing to lower their expectations etc but it isn't as simple as that and i personally don't think that a socialist economy would mean a reduced standard of living.
as far as the environmental stuff goes, i think that it is a catastrophe both in terms of social and biological effects and i usually tend to agree with lletsa's posts on the topic. however where i have a problem with lbj's posts is that he seems to be implying (although it poss isn't intended this way) that it's the fault of "car drivers" for driving cars, that it's a problem with the attitudes of society and people "expecting" that they can have what they want when they want, when actually a lot of people on low incomes are effectively coerced into buying shit, unenvironmentally sound, cruelly produced food, and they have no other choice when everything else is an unaffordable luxury. you can talk about people needing to lower their expectations etc but it isn't as simple as that and i personally don't think that a socialist economy would mean a reduced standard of living.
discokermit
Well-Known Member
riiiiiiiight. okayyyyyy.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You see I do not think I am hijacking it. That's what I was trying to explain before. And you really haven't understood my point if you still think it's yoghurt-weaving. I don't particularly call myself a Marxist as I disagree with some of Marx's analysis of capital as far as I understand it, but my point was an entirely Marxist one – you can't just transform one area of society in isolation from all the other areas that need changing. You have to change all of them at the same time.
I actually think I've been trying to address these more than you. There are a lot of unanswered questions in your framework, including worker–boss relations and the guarantee that workers have a fair say. Although you appear to have incorporated one or two of my ideas there.
I'm glad you agree. So let's not derail the thread any further, eh?
discokermit
Well-Known Member
okay skip. you da boss.
Cool, bro.
discokermit
Well-Known Member
anytime, amigo.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Good punctuation is just a sign of good manners.
I read the Sun.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Yeah, I agree with that. It's why I put some time into a joined up proto-manifesto for a new era, where the fundamental interconnectedness of all people and their means of production are made obvious, and allowing a seamless transition into political, social and economic democracy where the people have a genuine say over the development of their polity and a degree of autonomy and control over their working lives, with no fear of homelessness or destitution, or form-filling to avoid it.
But sustainability has to be pull, not push. People won't listen if you start telliing them that it's all their fault. They'll give up their cars when the local shop sells decent food at a low price and the bus passes at least every half hour even in rural areas, and when the buses can take them everywhere they go for less than the cost of running a car.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
So do i as it goes, when people leave it lying around at work.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
You see I do not think I am hijacking it. That's what I was trying to explain before. And you really haven't understood my point if you still think it's yoghurt-weaving. I don't particularly call myself a Marxist as I disagree with some of Marx's analysis of capital as far as I understand it, but my point was an entirely Marxist one – you can't just transform one area of society in isolation from all the other areas that need changing. You have to change all of them at the same time.
I actually think I've been trying to address these more than you. There are a lot of unanswered questions in your framework, including worker–boss relations and the guarantee that workers have a fair say. Although you appear to have incorporated one or two of my ideas there.
you're not hijacking it - these questions need to be thought about if we're ever going to progress things further
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
From the posts of his I've read I'd say that's an oversimplification of his position. It seems to me that his position is that as resources become scarce (or more so) those with power will hoard them and those without power will die out as a result - it's a very pessimistic view but it's not Malthusian. It's perfectly possible to hold that view at the same time as thinking that we could, in theory, come up with a sustainable model that does not require population controls - but in practice it's not possible because powerful vested interests would successfully defend their privilege, meaning there weren't enough resources for everyone else. (Again, I must point out that this isn't a position I agree with).
That said I'm extrapolating this from the few posts of his I've read on here so you may be right and I may be wrong. Hopefully Lletsa will be along soon to clarify.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Having a system where people have differing levels of wealth is also coercion.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Fair enough. I'm not in fact accusing lletsa of being a eugenicist. He very clearly isn't. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that his analysis is Malthusian. His solutions aren't because he doesn't supply any solutions. I could sum up lletsa's position in two words, I think: We're fucked.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Sounds about right to me.discokermit
Well-Known Member
you know it makes sense.
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
I'm not getting the disctinction between needs and wants in ymutopia. Who is deciding what's a need and what's a want and how are they doing it? Is a Kit-Kat a need or want?
The whole plan, as presented thus far, seems like a cross between Terry Gilliam's Brazil and the WI.
The whole plan, as presented thus far, seems like a cross between Terry Gilliam's Brazil and the WI.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Needs are clearly listed in the OP.
Similar threads
