Logical Argument Against Parasites

[gnarlylove]

The Oxfam International report, true and accurate though it may be, plays right into hands of those now openly trying to foment a worldwide war between the classes. I'm sure those manipulators would happily give you kudos for doing your part by spreading the news.

Look again, GL: my assertion, that we should work within the system "in order to oppose the aspects we don't especially like", wasn't based on how much (or how little) I've benefited from it personally; it was based on the recognition of the fact that setting out to demolish the system by potentially violent means wouldn't necessarily do away with its hidden controllers. In fact, in all likelihood the current 'powers that be' ...would essentially remain the powers that be over whatever stripe of 'trade control' that might emerge from the ashes in the old system's wake.

We're dealing with a largely invisible enemy, whose present day soldiers are the descendants of "the [O.G.] architects of policy" (monetary and otherwise) ...and whose passed-down legacy has been to rule the masses by subversion and deceit, both within and outside of the halls of legitimate governments. Not only would this foe not be defeated by bloody confrontations between the people and the puppets it has so brazenly placed before us, it would actually be strengthened by such confrontations.

I'm not going to be drawn into an argument on the merits of the history we've been given to believe by mainstream historians, nor do I plan to further engage you on issues more relevant to the OP, but I'll leave you with this: overt resistance to an enemy cloaked by its covert MO over the past hundred years in particular ...really is futile.

Reading this post gives me confidence that we agree on many things. I am categorically opposed to violent insurrection whether radical or state or fascist. In fact, my hope is localized alternatives like local currency and public ownership can come to the fore. But you need to understand and likely do is that institutions of power are not going to simply let Oxfam determine policy because we can argue accurately that its just. They are power systems and power systems do not fade away. Thus, working within these systems of oppression to better human conditions is a bit silly if its your only approach. It won't accomplish mitigation of war and violence which you seem opposed to, and rightly so.

 

[gnarlylove]

What ALL of these class warfare drones ignore is the simple fact that once the evil master is destroyed, someone just as evil, or sometimes even more so...takes over. For all the faults of the Romanovs, they never murdered 60 million of their own people.

That took progressives to do that. Yes, they were able to kill the ruling elite that they so despised. But why oh why did they find it necessary to murder all those other people?

Progressivism is a disease. It springs up from time to time like ebola and leaves death and misery in its wake.

And yet your avatar is a disease (according to your loose definition). Please stop your wholehearted jihad against progressives and people who generally don't agree with you. It's logically worthless, a mere one sided tactic.

However, on this point, I agree, I think what you believe has a grain of truth. Progressivism is a facade. The reason is because vested interests have hijacked politics (and this is nothing new). Choosing between progressives and conservatives is like choosing between Mike and Ike. There are a hundred alternative types of food but for some reason you think this is a real decision. My point is though you assert the parties are wildly different (they are but ONLY on "wedge issues") they in fact are no different. Obama's presidency has been a repeat of GW Bush's 2nd term. We need alternatives to progressives and conservatives because both have created this arid employment climate while the profits flow for 1/10 of 1% of Americans (like Hedge Fund managers, Bankers, etc)

 

[westwall]

What ALL of these class warfare drones ignore is the simple fact that once the evil master is destroyed, someone just as evil, or sometimes even more so...takes over. For all the faults of the Romanovs, they never murdered 60 million of their own people.

That took progressives to do that. Yes, they were able to kill the ruling elite that they so despised. But why oh why did they find it necessary to murder all those other people?

Progressivism is a disease. It springs up from time to time like ebola and leaves death and misery in its wake.

And yet your avatar is a disease (according to your loose definition). Please stop your wholehearted jihad against progressives and people who generally don't agree with you. It's logically worthless, a mere one sided tactic.

However, on this point, I agree, I think what you believe has a grain of truth. Progressivism is a facade. The reason is because vested interests have hijacked politics (and this is nothing new). Choosing between progressives and conservatives is like choosing between Mike and Ike. There are a hundred alternative types of food but for some reason you think this is a real decision. My point is though you assert the parties are wildly different (they are but ONLY on "wedge issues") they in fact are no different. Obama's presidency has been a repeat of GW Bush's 2nd term. We need alternatives to progressives and conservatives because both have created this arid employment climate while the profits flow for 1/10 of 1% of Americans (like Hedge Fund managers, Bankers, etc)

No, my avatar is a fast jet, doing what I like to do, which is go fast. Do you see it shooting anything? Or dropping a bomb? No, it's pulling a high G maneuver and that's what I like to do.

I am a liberal Democrat. I am not, and will never be a progressive. Progressivism has managed to murder more people in the last 100 years, than all of the religions combined over the last 2,000 years.

No, progressivism is a disgusting disease.

 

[gnarlylove]

I appreciate the correction. The jet is doing its thing and I don't have a problem with that but I tend to associate that technology with warfare so my bad. But at least you understood my point.

And can I ask you what liberal Democrat is like on issues? Say minimum wage or defense spending? Or anything you'd like to say regarding what a liberal D looks like.

 

[gnarlylove]

Perhaps a chance of revival by a little Karl Marx...

Reification of money:
The economists themselves say that men accord to the object (money) a trust that they would not accord each other as persons. ...Money can only possess a social property because individuals have alienated their own social relationships by embodying them in a thing. 1844
Or a decade later and more generally:
But if capital appears as the product of a labor, the product of labor also appears as capital--no more as simple product, not as exchangeable goods, but as capital; objectified labor becomes mastery, has command over living labor. It appears equally to be the result of labor, that its product appears as alien property, an independent mode of existence opposed to living labor, an equally autonomous value; that the product of labor, objectified labor, has acquired its own soul from living labor and has established itself opposite living labor as an alien force.

Considered from the standpoint of labor, labor thus appears to be active in the production process in such a way that it seems to reject its realization in the objective contradicitons as alien reality, and that it puts itself in the position of an unsubstantial labor capacity endowed only with needs against this reality which is estranged from it and which belongs, not to it, but to others; that it established its own reality not as an entity of its own, but merely as an entity for others, an thus also as a mere entity of others, or other entity, against itself. Grundrisse, pg 100

Marx's gist is of general alienation arising from surplus value. Surplus value is unnatural as argued in the OP, and it certainly creates deleterious relationships between human beings. The point of development should not to be for a group of individuals to dominate others. This leads to its own annihilation, precisely what we are seeing and will continue to see with apparent readiness as the ecological, economic, political, water and a variety of other crises become impossible to stifle.

 

[westwall]

I appreciate the correction. The jet is doing its thing and I don't have a problem with that but I tend to associate that technology with warfare so my bad. But at least you understood my point.

And can I ask you what liberal Democrat is like on issues? Say minimum wage or defense spending? Or anything you'd like to say regarding what a liberal D looks like.

I am pro choice but not for the reason you think.

I am pro gay marriage.

I am pro legalization of drugs though I have never used them.

I am anti minimum wage because it has never accomplished what it set out to do and instead made things worse.

I am pro immigration reform. But, I am anti illegal alien. I want our borders closed and I want the criminal element deported. Then we'll see what we can do to help the good ones.

I am pro second amendment because governments are by definition incompetent and when they get too large they are evil.

I am pro helping those who truly need help. I am not in favor of giving money to lazy people who CHOOSE not to work. This is a free country and you're free to starve if you don't want to work.

I am anti multinational corporation.

I am anti Federal Reserve.

Put simply I am for the maximum amount of rights and responsibilities for the INDIVIDUAL and the minimum amount of power in the hands of the government and their paid lackeys.

 

[gnarlylove]

Very honest and revealing. I tend to agree with some or even most of what you said; government should be limited may be true but limiting the government must also mean we limit multinational corporate power. They are just as strong, influential and corrosive as the government, producing not for consumers, but producing for profit. Thus life is thrown out the window and profit becomes corrosive because life is essential.

But that aside, political beliefs arise out of one's understanding of themselves, other people, and their beliefs about how to treat others i.e. ethics. Ethics come in 3 forms: personal ethics--what you do when no one's around; interpersonal ethics--what you do when you interact with another human; universal ethics or societal ethics or even politics, because politics is simply what you'd do or how you think about others in the abstract.

So my question becomes what are your ethics? More specifically, should all human beings be granted access to life? Or should they be turned down if they lack the means to afford life sustainment? If so why do some deserve life and others do not i.e. treated as stray animals, estranged and feral.

Then, do Mexicans or Saudis exist with only negligible differences with us White Americans? Or should we refuse life based on one's belief system, which is not a physical property and thus could be asked "should we refuse life based on non-physical, extrinsic and ad hoc differences?"

 

[oldfart]

Just a note for all the perfect forecasters out there. This is your chance to get the recognition you deserve! Be able to clobber other posters with your perfect track record! Humiliate your opponents with your verifiable brilliance!

Post your fearless predictions on the Forecasting thread. Unless of course, if you believe your predictions are going to be wrong.......