Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

More pacts from the Labour Party jokers

1235

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    You appear to think it is.

    Personally, I think that the people who exploit us, destroy the environment in the name of profit, bomb other countries in pursuit of profit, create homelessness poverty and despair are legitimate targets.

    Although actually I am undecided on violence. On the one hand, the people with the power and the vested interests will not give it up without a fight. On the other hand the society I would wish to create would be one based on voluntary co-operation and mutual aid and I'm not sure if that can be achieved by violent means. Its the ends and means argument, its been debated in anarchist circles for years...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    .

    Personally, I think that the people who exploit us, destroy the environment in the name of profit, bomb other countries in pursuit of profit, create homelessness poverty and despair are legitimate targets.
    i don't think your actualy alowed to say that anymore ...

    so ...we kill the evil bastards ...throw some of them in jail ...
    who's going to do the killing and who's going to jail them?
    whoever these people are ...your then going to ask me and a few million others to ...believe it was needed ...and to trust you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so ...we kill the evil bastards ...throw some of them in jail ...

    Some more of the same type of people. Which is why it never frigging works.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    That's what a revolution would be.

    See this is where history comes in useful again...
    klintock wrote:
    That your empathy isn't shared. By me for a start. You'd have to watch me and people like me. All the time.

    People like you would probably get a bullet in the back of the head.

    klintock wrote:
    That's pretty damn complex. I just want people to leave me alone and I'll extend them the same courtesy. I want freedom to choose, and by extension your freedom to choose. You want to rearrange everything, fine, be my guest, off you pop. Just don't expect me to join in or pay for it.

    See, this what I want too. However its not going to happen while a few people own the land and resources and the majority have to pay them or work for them to survive. You don't seem to have a problem with that. I do.

    klintock wrote:
    I don't use guns, cages or fraud and I have an entirely different view of what constitutes my self interest. I also don't expect people to join me beause of the magic of the "law".

    You'd fit quite well into the loony fringe of the tories.
    klintock wrote:
    Fair enough, you haven't. That was bad phrasing on my part. What I meant was you see the state as an obstacle that has to be surmounted first, or fought through and then everything else you want to do comes afterwards. I don't think that's the case.

    I think that property and class relations (economics basically) are what needs to be changed. The state is what enforces these relations.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i don't think your actualy alowed to say that anymore ...

    so ...we kill the evil bastards ...throw some of them in jail ...
    who's going to do the killing and who's going to jail them?
    whoever these people are ...your then going to ask me and a few million others to ...believe it was needed ...and to trust you.

    See above.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    People like you would probably get a bullet in the back of the head.

    Not violent eh? Nah mate, you've got it all skewed, I'd most likely be the guy with the gun, if that's the way it was going.
    See, this what I want too. However its not going to happen while a few people own the land and resources and the majority have to pay them or work for them to survive. You don't seem to have a problem with that. I do.

    Of course I see the problem with it. It's just not as big a barrier as you seem to think it is.
    You'd fit quite well into the loony fringe of the tories.

    Apart from not believing in government, law, voting or being in a party...... :crazyeyes
    I think that property and class relations (economics basically) are what needs to be changed. The state is what enforces these relations.

    I agree. I just don't think the scope is as limited as you seem to do. The law that they use for instance, has some major vulnerabilities, especially on the areas of credit etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Not violent eh? Nah mate, you've got it all skewed, I'd most likely be the guy with the gun, if that's the way it was going.

    That wasn't really a serious comment. Our views aren't that different tbh. I just think your starting point is all wrong.
    klintock wrote:
    Of course I see the problem with it. It's just not as big a barrier as you seem to think it is.

    I'm not sure what you mean here, can you clarify? At the moment what I described is the basis of our economic system.
    klintock wrote:
    Apart from not believing in government, law, voting or being in a party...... :crazyeyes:

    Yep.
    klintock wrote:
    I agree.

    Eh? I've only ever seen you argue for an extension of property rights.
    klintock wrote:
    I just don't think the scope is as limited as you seem to do. The law that they use for instance, has some major vulnerabilities, especially on the areas of credit etc.

    Pure fantasy on your part.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    See what I don't get about people of your ilk is that you claim to want to end coercion, but you seem to be in favour of coercion when it comes to economics. I don't get it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That wasn't really a serious comment. Our views aren't that different tbh. I just think your starting point is all wrong.

    Lol. Exactly what I think.
    I'm not sure what you mean here, can you clarify? At the moment what I described is the basis of our economic system.

    Yes, but the accumulation of capital currently has few barriers, so you can at least use the system that's in place. You are never going to beat the game, because it's completely rigged, but you can turn to gold anf other stuff to protect yourself from the worst excesses of it.
    Eh? I've only ever seen you argue for an extension of property rights.

    No you haven't. That's what you read my position as. People > stuff. Where theres a choice, people win, because they are more valuable. The idea that people > stuff must come through in my posts, surely to fuck? It's just not usually on the menu is all.
    Pure fantasy on your part.

    *shrug*
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    See what I don't get about people of your ilk is that you claim to want to end coercion, but you seem to be in favour of coercion when it comes to economics. I don't get it.

    :confused:

    All business coercion is currently backed by state coercion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Lol. Exactly what I think.

    Except that I'm right. You're arguing an idealist position. I'm arguing a materialist position.
    klintock wrote:
    Yes, but the accumulation of capital currently has few barriers, so you can at least use the system that's in place. You are never going to beat the game, because it's completely rigged, but you can turn to gold anf other stuff to protect yourself from the worst excesses of it.

    I want to get rid of it completely.
    klintock wrote:
    No you haven't. That's what you read my position as. People > stuff. Where theres a choice, people win, because they are more valuable. The idea that people > stuff must come through in my posts, surely to fuck? It's just not usually on the menu is all.

    People need stuff to survive. How is that controlled and organised? Private property is the basis of our current system and I only see you argue in favour of private property.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    :confused:

    All business coercion is currently backed by state coercion.

    Yep. Remove the state but leave the economic base and what happens?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Except that I'm right. You're arguing an idealist position. I'm arguing a materialist position.

    But the bizzarre thing is mine lets me do stuff and yours does nothing. If i build a model of behaviour, I expect it to work.
    I want to get rid of it completely.

    How? The thought exists, the thing will rebuild itself.
    People need stuff to survive. How is that controlled and organised? Private property is the basis of our current system and I only see you argue in favour of private property.

    :confused:

    I see our current system as anything BUT private property. Private property is 100% control of your stuff 100% of the time, and 0% contol over other people's property 100% of the time.

    We are currently in the same feudalistic mess we have always been, the language changed and lessons were learned and that's about it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    But the bizzarre thing is mine lets me do stuff and yours does nothing. If i build a model of behaviour, I expect it to work.

    Except it doesn't let you do stuff does it? Apart from post shite on websites. My view has led me to my union activity and my advocacy work.

    klintock wrote:
    How? The thought exists, the thing will rebuild itself.

    This makes no sense. Ideas arise from material conditions not the other way around.
    klintock wrote:
    :confused:

    I see our current system as anything BUT private property. Private property is 100% control of your stuff 100% of the time, and 0% contol over other people's property 100% of the time.

    We are currently in the same feudalistic mess we have always been, the language changed and lessons were learned and that's about it.

    This is precisely why you should read some history.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Except it doesn't let you do stuff does it? Apart from post shite on websites. My view has led me to my union activity and my advocacy work.

    Yeah, it does. *shrug*
    This makes no sense. Ideas arise from material conditions not the other way around

    Nope - idea - action - reality. All stuff is thought of first.

    I have a problem, I imagine a tool to fix it, and then I create the tool. Idea first, then a change in reality.

    Yo answer your earlier question, the "people", free from a state would just go and create another one, because they have the idea frimly in their heads.
    This is precisely why you should read some history.

    That's precisely why you shouldn't.

    Our differences are how we achieve, not what we want I guess. I just think I am closer to the reality of things than you are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Yeah, it does. *shrug*

    You have a rich fantasy life, I'll grant you that.
    klintock wrote:
    Nope - idea - action - reality. All stuff is thought of first.

    I have a problem, I imagine a tool to fix it, and then I create the tool. Idea first, then a change in reality.

    You've got that arse about face as usual. You can't imagine things if you don't know about the possibility of them. Could a Roman imagine the internet?
    klintock wrote:
    Yo answer your earlier question, the "people", free from a state would just go and create another one, because they have the idea frimly in their heads.

    Errr...no. I seriously suggest you read up on this stuff.
    klintock wrote:
    That's precisely why you shouldn't.

    Our differences are how we achieve, not what we want I guess. I just think I am closer to the reality of things than you are.

    You're living in cloud cuckoo land because you have no knowledge of history. You don't know how we got here from there, you don't understand the development of the state and capitalism because you don't educate yourself which leads you to believe bizarre things like the Queen owns the world and we live in a communist society. Its really quite strange the things you believe, you seem to be fairly out of touch with the world.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You have a rich fantasy life, I'll grant you that.

    The richer your life on the inside, the richer your life on the outside. :wave:
    You've got that arse about face as usual. You can't imagine things if you don't know about the possibility of them. Could a Roman imagine the internet?

    Depends how bright he was. Yes, material circumstances come first when you are at a subsistence level of thinking, but last time I checked we'd moved on a fair bit. The real world chucks problems at you, you imagine a solution, then you try and alter reality to make your solution happen to change the real world. Then you start again on a new problem.

    Changes happen from ideas then. If you have the idea that a "state" can solve your problems, then given freedom to solve your problems, you will go and make another one. Pretty simple really.
    Errr...no. I seriously suggest you read up on this stuff.

    Has to be that way. Things that require belief to exist require a constant supply. No one thinks that the touch of a king can cure scrofula or whatever anymore, so the idea of king is weak.
    You're living in cloud cuckoo land because you have no knowledge of history.

    That isn't true, because ir assumes I have no knowledge of history. I do. I just don't think it's that relevent.
    You don't know how we got here from there

    It doesn't matter.
    you don't understand the development of the state and capitalism

    Don't need to. Only need to know how it happens right now. The people you are talking about care nothing for history, will bandon principle at a whim. The history of the world is the history of the adaptable. *shrug*
    you don't educate yourself which leads you to believe bizarre things like the Queen owns the world and we live in a communist society.

    No I think the "queen" owns everything because I went and asked someone who has legal knowledge. I think we live in a communist society because I ignore labels and look at what's factually happening.
    Its really quite strange the things you believe, you seem to be fairly out of touch with the world.

    Which is very odd, because it's the only place I can be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Depends how bright he was. Yes, material circumstances come first when you are at a subsistence level of thinking, but last time I checked we'd moved on a fair bit. The real world chucks problems at you, you imagine a solution, then you try and alter reality to make your solution happen to change the real world. Then you start again on a new problem.

    No, the material conditions suggest what kind of solutions you can come up with and what you can actually make. As I keep stressing - you need materials to make things. You can't imagine the internet if you first haven't made the PC, the microchip, the transistor, the telephone, the calculator, the difference engine etc.
    But it goes deeper than production of goods - your material (economic) circumstances affect the way you see the world. If you live on an inner city housing estate in receipt of benefits next door to a crackhouse, you're going to see the world in a very different way to someone who grew up on a country estate, went to Eaton and is a captain of industry. If you don't believe me, go out and talk to some people.
    klintock wrote:
    Changes happen from ideas then. If you have the idea that a "state" can solve your problems, then given freedom to solve your problems, you will go and make another one. Pretty simple really.

    No. This is where its hard to communicate with you because you don't want to educate yourself about history. The state is actually a relatively recent invention. In very recent history people have been trying to do away with the state. Read up on the history of anarchism sometime. Peter Marshall's written a good effort.

    A lot of people know that the state can't solve their problems. I was faciliating a group at work yesterday - the people I work with (recovering drug users) know that the state can't solve their problems and that no one in power gives a shit. They know that people like me care and can help but they really know that its themselves and their peers who will make things better. Why do they know this? Because their material circumstances around them tell them - the state can't house them, their aren't enough decent jobs at decent wages, the benefits system is stacked against them, theres not enough provision for mental health services, rehabs and treatment. They know that the state ain't gonna solve shit. You really need to get into the world and talk to people klintock.
    klintock wrote:
    Has to be that way. Things that require belief to exist require a constant supply. No one thinks that the touch of a king can cure scrofula or whatever anymore, so the idea of king is weak.

    You make some weird statements, I can't make head nor tail of this. :confused:
    klintock wrote:
    That isn't true, because ir assumes I have no knowledge of history. I do. I just don't think it's that relevent.

    You consistently demonstrate that you know fuck all. You bring subjects up that you don't understand fully in support of your argument, then have to abandon them when I show you to be full of shit (your use of the communist manifesto is a prime example.)
    klintock wrote:
    It doesn't matter.

    Of course it matters. The reasons why things are like they are today is because of things that happened in the past. Y'know, causality? Cause and effect? Remember that?
    klintock wrote:
    Don't need to. Only need to know how it happens right now. The people you are talking about care nothing for history, will bandon principle at a whim. The history of the world is the history of the adaptable. *shrug*

    Another statement that makes no sense at all. :confused:
    klintock wrote:
    No I think the "queen" owns everything because I went and asked someone who has legal knowledge.

    Ever consider they might have been wrong? Or pulling your leg? Or just full of shit? Because its not true klintock.
    klintock wrote:
    I think we live in a communist society because I ignore labels and look at what's factually happening.

    No, you think we live in a communist society because you're insane.
    klintock wrote:
    Which is very odd, because it's the only place I can be.

    You live inside a make believe world in your head klintock. You're seriosuly out of touch with reality.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, the material conditions suggest what kind of solutions you can come up with and what you can actually make

    How? Through ideas. So changes in reality come through ideas, and those ideas must precede any action. Thanks for agreeing with me. Problem - idea - action - result - new problem blah blah blah. Ideas come first, always.

    Even if you don't change the material world in any way, you still have to think first, then act.
    As I keep stressing - you need materials to make things.
    #
    The things you've just used your imagination to come up with you mean? :rolleyes:
    But it goes deeper than production of goods - your material (economic) circumstances affect the way you see the world.

    CAN, doesn't have to. Normally though, I agree, because we are so keen to switch off our conscious and coast, most of us.
    If you live on an inner city housing estate in receipt of benefits next door to a crackhouse, you're going to see the world in a very different way to someone who grew up on a country estate, went to Eaton and is a captain of industry.

    Your ideas about the world will be very different. You aren't using the "world" in the sense I would normally. You mean the spehere of human relations. The perception of the real world doesn't change much. Water is wet, gravity pulls us all the same fire burns etc.
    If you don't believe me, go out and talk to some people.

    They come to me, usually.
    No. This is where its hard to communicate with you because you don't want to educate yourself about history. The state is actually a relatively recent invention.

    No, really? Must be someone else who keeps posting the dates of it's creation over and over. :rolleyes:
    The state is actually a relatively recent invention. In very recent history people have been trying to do away with the state.

    Which is a stupid thing to do. Beliefs that are fought grow stronger, even children know that.
    A lot of people know that the state can't solve their problems. I was faciliating a group at work yesterday - the people I work with (recovering drug users) know that the state can't solve their problems and that no one in power gives a shit.

    Are they the people who support the state with resources, belief and votes, obedience etc? No. The only people who think the state is there to help are the ones who haven't asked it for any yet. I quite agree.
    They know that people like me care and can help but they really know that its themselves and their peers who will make things better.

    Yeah that one is a classic double bind. How do you help someone to be independent? Is it in the "states" or any other "helpers" best interest to solve all these problems?
    Because their material circumstances around them tell them - the state can't house them, their aren't enough decent jobs at decent wages, the benefits system is stacked against them, theres not enough provision for mental health services, rehabs and treatment.

    And yet, they live in a world with millions of people and therefore an infinite number of possibilities if they just approach it right.
    They know that the state ain't gonna solve shit. You really need to get into the world and talk to people klintock.

    like I said, these aren't the people who support the state (unless you count the fear of becoming like them as support, that's why their situation has been created, after all.) also, you need to stop listening to people as much and start watching how they behave.
    You consistently demonstrate that you know fuck all. You bring subjects up that you don't understand fully in support of your argument, then have to abandon them when I show you to be full of shit (your use of the communist manifesto is a prime example.)

    I asked you which one hadn't been done yet, and then told you why it had when you brought one up. :confused:
    Ever consider they might have been wrong? Or pulling your leg? Or just full of shit? Because its not true klintock.

    Who do you think I asked?
    No, you think we live in a communist society because you're insane.

    *Shrug*

    Your the one with the invisible lines in your head, mate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You 2 arguing around in circles neither making that much sence perhaps Blagsta more but Klintock's funnier.

    I bet when you woke up this morning the first thing on you mind was "get on the PC argue with that bastard"

    Frankly I cant see what your arguing about, it seems a tad over theoretical and then your arguing about your arguments.

    Why dont you each state your positions using about 200 words or so, and what these specific disagreements are.

    Is it only private property, Blagsta says it exsists Klintock says it dosnt ?

    There must be more, perhaps you should start your esseys with

    "What I did on my summer holidays..." Sorry no I meant

    " I think private property does/dosnt exsist because......"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I bet when you woke up this morning the first thing on you mind was "get on the PC argue with that bastard"

    :lol:

    QFT

    We mainly argue because we enjoy it I reckon. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And yet, they live in a world with millions of people and therefore an infinite number of possibilities if they just approach it right.


    Thanks for that,Klintock. A positive thought for the day (and everyday for that matter) :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    How? Through ideas. So changes in reality come through ideas, and those ideas must precede any action. Thanks for agreeing with me. Problem - idea - action - result - new problem blah blah blah. Ideas come first, always.

    I see where you're coming from, but you're missing an essential point. The ideas you can come up with will be determined by what you have access to. You can't imagine the internet without knowing about computers and telephones. You can't klintock, no matter what you might think. You then also need the materials to do something with your ideas. Yes, ideas are important but you put the cart before the horse. Actually it might be more accurate to state that there is a dialectic between ideas and the material. Neither one is "first", they exist in a dynamic relationship. You can't have one without the other.
    klintock wrote:
    Even if you don't change the material world in any way, you still have to think first, then act.

    Yes, and how you think is largely determined by what is around you.

    klintock wrote:
    The things you've just used your imagination to come up with you mean? :rolleyes:

    Using the ideas that have been determined by the world around you. You appear to have avery quaint dualist, almost Platonic view of the world in which ideas inhabit a seperate realm from the material.
    klintock wrote:
    CAN, doesn't have to. Normally though, I agree, because we are so keen to switch off our conscious and coast, most of us.

    No, it does. Get out into the world, speak to people. Thats how I form my views. Try it sometime.
    klintock wrote:
    Your ideas about the world will be very different. You aren't using the "world" in the sense I would normally. You mean the spehere of human relations. The perception of the real world doesn't change much. Water is wet, gravity pulls us all the same fire burns etc.

    Oh yes, I forgot, you can't do abstraction or symbolism due to some kind of brain damage. Yes, the "material" world will be the same however your perceptions and the meanings attached to them will be very different as will the opportunities you have and the opportunties you imagine you have. I see it every day in my work. I suspect you don't really know a wide variety of people? You appear to assume that people all think the same.
    klintock wrote:
    They come to me, usually.

    You're writing weird stuff again. :confused:
    klintock wrote:
    No, really? Must be someone else who keeps posting the dates of it's creation over and over. :rolleyes:

    All I've seen you do is get basic historical facts completely wrong, seemingly based on what some shyster "lawyer" told you once.
    klintock wrote:
    Which is a stupid thing to do. Beliefs that are fought grow stronger, even children know that.

    More irrelevant weird shit. :confused:
    klintock wrote:
    Are they the people who support the state with resources, belief and votes, obedience etc? No. The only people who think the state is there to help are the ones who haven't asked it for any yet. I quite agree.

    Eh?
    klintock wrote:
    Yeah that one is a classic double bind. How do you help someone to be independent? Is it in the "states" or any other "helpers" best interest to solve all these problems?

    You're the master of the non-sequitur. :confused:
    klintock wrote:
    And yet, they live in a world with millions of people and therefore an infinite number of possibilities if they just approach it right.

    You were making some kind of sense at the beginning of your post, you're not now.
    klintock wrote:
    like I said, these aren't the people who support the state (unless you count the fear of becoming like them as support, that's why their situation has been created, after all.) also, you need to stop listening to people as much and start watching how they behave.

    I never had you down as being so simple minded as to be a behavourist klintock. Actually, maybe I did. You believe all sorts of other weird shit.
    Try talking to people, finding out what they think, what the barriers are in their lives. Go and meet some people living on council estates, the unemployed. You might get a big reality check.
    klintock wrote:
    I asked you which one hadn't been done yet, and then told you why it had when you brought one up. :confused:

    Except you're totally wrong kilntock and quite quite deluded.

    klintock wrote:
    Who do you think I asked?

    I bet you're dying to tell me. They were wrong however. Or maybe pulling your leg to wind you up.
    klintock wrote:
    *Shrug*

    Your the one with the invisible lines in your head, mate.

    They're not invisible unfortunately, I'm getting old. They are mostly laughter lines though. I like to think they add character.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You 2 arguing around in circles neither making that much sence perhaps Blagsta more but Klintock's funnier.

    I bet when you woke up this morning the first thing on you mind was "get on the PC argue with that bastard"

    Frankly I cant see what your arguing about, it seems a tad over theoretical and then your arguing about your arguments.

    Why dont you each state your positions using about 200 words or so, and what these specific disagreements are.

    Is it only private property, Blagsta says it exsists Klintock says it dosnt ?

    There must be more, perhaps you should start your esseys with

    "What I did on my summer holidays..." Sorry no I meant

    " I think private property does/dosnt exsist because......"

    Its an argument over basic political philosophy really.

    I believe that people's material conditions affect how they view the world around them. So someone growing up on an inner city estate in a single parent family will have a very different view of life to someone who grew up on a country estate and went to Eaton. I believe that the material world around us influences the ideas we have about the world and arise from the world.
    As human beings, we need to manipulate the material world to survive. We need shelter, food, warmth etc. After that we like to make things to make our lives easier. We need access to land and resources to do these things. Currently, land and resources (private property) are owned and controlled by a minority of people (the ruling classes) who only allow the majority of people (the working classes) to have access to land and resources if they sell their labour to the ruling classes in exchange for pay so they can buy (or rent) housing, so they they can buy fuel, food etc.
    The working classes sell their labour to the ruling classes but the only way for the ruling classes to accumulamte capital (seeing as they don't actually make anything) is to pay the workers less than the value of the products that they make. This surplus value is appropriated as profit.
    If we all had equal access to land and resources (i.e property wasn't private but public), we would have a more equal and just society. History is driven by competition between classes and nations for control of these resources.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta, how many people don't need to sell their labour, I can't think of many. Who are these shadowy 'few'?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I see where you're coming from, but you're missing an essential point. The ideas you can come up with will be determined by what you have access to.

    Nope. Bollocks. Your brain is not limited by resources, physical laws or even time. Ever heard of the Wright brothers or Einstein? Atomic theory is thousands of years old.
    You can't imagine the internet without knowing about computers and telephones

    Each idea is built upon older ideas. So the ideas still come first. By the way, if you think the idea of the internet didn't come before the internet in reality, either your going through time backwards or it was delivered by pixies.
    You can't have one without the other.

    Yeah you can. You can have a great big mound of pig iron but not horse shoes, if no one has had the idea of hoseshoes yet. Equally, you can have the idea of horseshoes but no iron to make any. Da Vinci had a helicoptor, a submarine and a beard.
    Yes, and how you think is largely determined by what is around you.

    As we said, in most cases. doesn't have to be though.
    Using the ideas that have been determined by the world around you. You appear to have avery quaint dualist, almost Platonic view of the world in which ideas inhabit a seperate realm from the material.

    Ideas do inhabit a different realm than the material. Some of them are useful for manipulating the real world, some aren't. Again, there is no limit to what you can imagine. Just sit there and fly around your room for a moment before coming on back, eh?
    No, it does. Get out into the world, speak to people. Thats how I form my views. Try it sometime.

    And I listen AND watch people AND interact with them. It's more or less the whole of my job.
    Yes, the "material" world will be the same however your perceptions and the meanings attached to them will be very different as will the opportunities you have and the opportunties you imagine you have.

    But these perceptions can be changed quite quickly, especially compared to how tricky the real world is to manipulate. And as ideas come first, you can change a lot just by changing your mind.
    I see it every day in my work. I suspect you don't really know a wide variety of people? You appear to assume that people all think the same.

    No, I see a wide variety of people, I just have a very different criteria for assessing them than you do, I think. Everyone thinks differently, but you can see how they think just by watching them and testing what you observe.
    All I've seen you do is get basic historical facts completely wrong, seemingly based on what some shyster "lawyer" told you once.

    :confused:
    I never had you down as being so simple minded as to be a behavourist klintock. Actually, maybe I did. You believe all sorts of other weird shit.

    No, I am trying to get you to do more than just talk to people. Ever seen the way a stream of people move around a bakery? Go and watch the people pass it on a street sometime and see what you notice. Yes, it's a weird thing but just go and do it.
    Try talking to people, finding out what they think, what the barriers are in their lives. Go and meet some people living on council estates, the unemployed. You might get a big reality check.

    Had an unemployed lad in this afternoon, as a matter of fact. Can't see these barriers you are talking about, mate. He thinks there are some though, and well, we'll see.

    *shrug* to the rest of it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    Blagsta, how many people don't need to sell their labour, I can't think of many. Who are these shadowy 'few'?

    People who own property and land and live off the rent collected, people who live off share ownership, people who own companies etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How many people do you think actually do this, and how many have done so all their lives?

    My parents own their house, both work as well, so are they working class or are they evil capitalists? Many people own shares but very few can live entirely from the income from them.

    Your black and white view is rather simplistic isn't it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Nope. Bollocks. Your brain is not limited by resources, physical laws or even time. Ever heard of the Wright brothers or Einstein? Atomic theory is thousands of years old.

    What are you on about? Those ideas came about from observation of the physical world.
    klintock wrote:
    Each idea is built upon older ideas. So the ideas still come first. By the way, if you think the idea of the internet didn't come before the internet in reality, either your going through time backwards or it was delivered by pixies.

    You are (quite deliberatly I suspect) misunderstanding and misrepresenting my position. I have never said in any way that "the idea of the internet didn't come before the internet in reality". If you're going to engage in debate, please try to extend me the courtesy of actually reading my posts.
    What I have said is that the idea of the internet requires other technologies to be in existence first. Which is true. A Roman could not have imagined the internet.
    klintock wrote:
    Yeah you can. You can have a great big mound of pig iron but not horse shoes, if no one has had the idea of hoseshoes yet.

    And why did you think people thought of horse shoes? Because they observed that horses would often become lame.
    klintock wrote:
    Equally, you can have the idea of horseshoes but no iron to make any. Da Vinci had a helicoptor, a submarine and a beard.


    And he got his ideas from observing the physical world. Whats your point?
    klintock wrote:
    As we said, in most cases. doesn't have to be though.

    No, it is. Get out there and meet people. My ideas are not formed from reading books and posting crap on the net. They are formed from meeting people and talking to people from all walks of life. I've lived in 5 different cities in the UK and known everyone from TV producers and pop stars to street junkies and prostitutes. I can tell you that your material circumstances do very much influence the way you see the world.

    klintock wrote:
    Ideas do inhabit a different realm than the material. Some of them are useful for manipulating the real world, some aren't. Again, there is no limit to what you can imagine. Just sit there and fly around your room for a moment before coming on back, eh?

    Oh god, you're a dualist. No wonder you're so nutty. Ideas arise from material reality klintock. Unless you believe its those pixies again.
    klintock wrote:
    And I listen AND watch people AND interact with them. It's more or less the whole of my job.

    Yes, its my job too. I work with people from all walks of life from people who've been city traders and company directors to people who've left school at 12 and been in and out of prison all their lives. Thats why I have the views I do - I talk to people for a living about their lives and what they want to change.
    klintock wrote:
    But these perceptions can be changed quite quickly, especially compared to how tricky the real world is to manipulate. And as ideas come first, you can change a lot just by changing your mind.

    See, you think those perceptions can be changed quite quickly because you're an advocate of simplistic and superficial quick fixes like NLP and hypnotism. People's perceptions can be changed quickly, but they change back even quicker. Real change requires a change in material and social circumstances and a lot of internal work that takes years. Its my job mate, to help people change. If NLP and hypnotherapy worked long term they'd be used in my line of work. They don't so they're not.
    klintock wrote:
    No, I see a wide variety of people, I just have a very different criteria for assessing them than you do, I think. Everyone thinks differently, but you can see how they think just by watching them and testing what you observe.

    If you think you can understand what people feel and think just by observing them you're crazier than batshit.
    klintock wrote:
    :confused:

    Got a conveniently short memory ain't ya?
    klintock wrote:
    No, I am trying to get you to do more than just talk to people. Ever seen the way a stream of people move around a bakery? Go and watch the people pass it on a street sometime and see what you notice. Yes, it's a weird thing but just go and do it.

    :rolleyes:
    klintock wrote:
    Had an unemployed lad in this afternoon, as a matter of fact. Can't see these barriers you are talking about, mate. He thinks there are some though, and well, we'll see.

    You gonna imagine him some money into existence? or hypnotise the jobcentre to get off his back? :lol:
    klintock wrote:
    *shrug* to the rest of it.

    I see you're unwilling to be drawn on the Queen owning stuff. Quelle surprise. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    How many people do you think actually do this, and how many have done so all their lives?

    Its also about who controls and directs resources, including labour. I've posted a link about it a number of times. If I post it again will you read it this time?
    http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Foundations.pdf
    Toadborg wrote:
    My parents own their house, both work as well, so are they working class or are they evil capitalists?

    What an absurd question. You've just answered it in your question, look - "both work as well". What has owning their own house got to do with it? Read my post a bit more carefully.
    Toadborg wrote:
    Many people own shares but very few can live entirely from the income from them.

    Very true. And?
    Toadborg wrote:
    Your black and white view is rather simplistic isn't it?

    You expect me to write an indepth analysis of capitalism in my lunch break? I'm bright but I'm not that bright.
Sign In or Register to comment.