[syndicate] Re: \\

[Dmytri Kleiner]

Hello syndicate.


On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:08:55 -0500, 0f0003 | maschinenkunst
<n2o at ggttctttat.com> wrote:

>> Whith this drivel, all you are proving is you are unable to see or
>> understand anything else other than "plastik / fashion /facade",

> Is there anything else behind your capitalist government financed
> drivel +?

Well, I haven't posted any pretentious android talk to any art mailing
lists, so obviously, nothing that you would understand, no.

Also, for three messages in a row you haven't noticed that I don't much
care what you think of me, but rather the arguments that I make, which you
are plainly unable to comment on.

I'm flattered you think I'm fashionable.

As a middle-aged, out of shape, software developer with a fairly pedestrian
wardrobe and penchant for talking about boring technical topics like
information technology and political economy, I'm not often accused of 
wanting to be the belle of the ball.

I admit, it would be better if somebody other than a blathering
wannnabe robot like yourself though I was fashionable, but I'll
take what I can get.

Drinks on me when the "capitalist government financed" cheque arrives,
In the meantime Telekommunisten will continue to support ourselves through
software development and operating self-financed Internet & Telephone
services.


>> If Venture Communism is unappealing to you, can you name a project
>> that
>> enagages with class struggle,  that you do find interesting?

> Why 'project' / fashion / facade +?

If on-line translation technology had advanced to the point of 
being able to parse gibberish, I would happily respond to that.

Instead, I will simply understand the obvious, you are unable 
to endorse anything other than yourself, because you are lacking 
conviction even in your own beliefs, and thus have no means of 
engaging positively with anything, thus no prescriptive or even 
coherently critical comments are possible from you, 
only posturing.


> Maybe you pull up your insecurity sensitivity and narcassistic bs +
> elaborate your political economy beyond 2bit catch phrases.

Here is a good starting point: political power is an extension of
economic power, thus political change can only follow, and never
precede a change in the mode of production.

more:

http://www.telekommunisten.net/venture-communism

Your catch phrases are not even worth two bits, as you make no
reference to any arguments I make, you only express how painfully
insecure I make you feel by being so much more fashionable than you,
which I'll admit is sad if true.


> Now, what part of - both communism and capitalism are non sustainable
> political economic systems [that similarly degrade existence] do you
> dispute +?

You plainly have no clue what the terms even mean, nor has your attitude
given me any reason to believe you are interested in knowing.

First of all you should learn the difference between a mode of production
and a "political economic system," second the difference between
"communism" and a "communist" workers state.

"Capitalism" is a mode of production, in particular a mode of production
where state-back property owners are able to capture and accumulate 
surplus value by withholding the instruments of production from labour.

"Communism" is a theoretical society that is stateless and property-less,
and exists as an ideal within most, if not all, tendencies within 
socialist thought.

What you appear to mean by "Communism" is a "Communist" worker's state
(which nobody would say is Communism). This "transitional" society is 
controversial and particular to certain tendencies. The actually 
existing historical cases certainly give us some interesting insights, 
all of which I'm certain are lost on someone as eager to make broad 
judgments like you, who is plainly immune to a more nuanced 
understanding.

The "political economic system" I employ is basic Ricardian political
economy, since I'm a software developer and not Piero Sraffa, 
Nobuo Okishio nor Andrew Kliman, that is good enough for my purposes.

It is simply an analytical model, not a society, which is never
homogeneous, nor conforms to any theoretical model or ideal.

The map, as was famously said, is not the territory.

But I don't expect you to offer any serious discuss on any of this, 
just post more uninspired attempted derision.


> In fact show me one coherent, large scale sustainable system created
> by humans.

What a pointless and shallow statement.

I wish you luck waiting for gods or space aliens to create a 
"large scale sustainable system" to your liking.

In the mean time, my goals are rather less grandiose.



-- 
Dmytri Kleiner
editing text files since 1981

http://www.telekommunisten.net