[syndicate] \\ komunizm vs kapitalizm vs juzt 4 u

Sat Jun 21 14:05:24 CEST 2008

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:06:02 -0500, 0f0003 | maschinenkunst
<n2o at ggttctttat.com> wrote:

> There is only so much an indiv can interact with b4 it becomes
> meaningless noise.

"meaningless" is meaningless, I am talking about economic relations, if I
buy something from you on line, it means I didn't have to get it from a
store, meaning there is no landlord collecting rent on the store front, nor
are there any other middlemen capturing value through the circulation
process. As I have exmplained multilple times, the effect of this is less
rent in the price. Once you agree to know that class stratification is
built on rent-capture, then you will see why this is meaningfull.

The reason you are having trouble understanding political theory, is you
read words like and "relations" in coloquilized personal/psychological
terms, and look for "meaning" as if these relations where about emotional
fullfilment. That is not what is being discussed, and until you agree to
understand the meaning of economic terms //in context// you will never
understand or be able to make coherent comments.

>  >on a global scale is a new kind of
>  >relationship, "meaningful" or "sustainable" is not implied,

> Without "meaningful and sustainable"
> it is prostitution

Statements like these are merely unsubstantiated, incoherent driel, I will
ignore the rest of them, please make your arguments coherently. Disdainful
posturing is not an argument.

> This is where, were I you, I would tell you - meaningful depends
> on the context it operates in.

Yes, meaing depends on the context, the context I am discussing is
political economy, the context you are discussing is the great battle
against "super cool pop.tart artist," I will leave you to fight that battle
on your own.

> Technology alters economic theories as it does labor dynamics. What
> is significant
> is what the impact on quality of life [another vague term] is.
> 
> I dont see e-anything altering in a positive way the quality of life.
> Quite the contrary - it raises the level of obfuscation and 'freedom'.

You are not looking at price composition, and you do not understand the
relation between rent capture and class straification.

I have no comment about your emotional fulfillment, only that less
exploitation would leave mean less work or more surplus for all of us,
except the rentier class.

> BTW - if u want 2 eradicate wealth discrepancies very quickly
> eradicate inheritance.

This is classic naive utopian comment, rooted in the belief that our
proposals can have any affect we can imagine. I (we) __can not__ "eradicate
inheritance," because inheretance is a component of the social order based
upon Capitalist productive relations. The superstructure can only change
once the base changes. Political change can only follow, and never proceed,
changes in the mode of production.

>  >, and I agree there is much to be learned from the Kin-Communal
> relations
> that where the bases of human society for millennia.
> 
> What is to be learned +?

Would like me to recommend some books on this? That is rather large
question.

One thing we can learn from them is that Cheiftans in Kin-Commonal society
did not accumulate great personal wealth until small scale crafts developed
and the Chieftan was able to control the circulation of the "Prestige
Goods" produced. Meaning that control of food and land alone, as well as
force, was less significant in terms of the development of class
stratification. I find that quite interesting.

> Agreed re: tech. And no, they are not eradicated.
> In particular communism had less impact in 50 years
> than capitalism in 15.

You continue to refuse to know the meaning of the word communism.

> Small scale refers to more than size.
> The 'small scale' you speak of exists on top of the large scale
> (garden on the heap of refuse). It cannot exist without the lrg scale.

Not sure what you mean, in what way does syndicalism depend on the large
scale? 

But yes, Venture Commism is designed to work the the current world, and
"depends" an reality, if that's what you mean. It is based upon joint stock
corporations, the Interenet, the International Telephone System, the Free
Software community, etc.

If you prefer a transitional strategy that has a fantasy world as it's
point of departure, I can see why Venture Communism is not for you.

> But what makes something meaningful is the unpronounceable.
> It causes seemingly inferior things, things like lets say
> that sweater that ur grandmother knitted just for you,
> to be more valuable than a D&G sweater.

I am glad you value home knit sweaters so much you mention them twice now,
despite making no connection between there realtive value against D&G
sweaters and telekommunsten.

>  >> People do not live in a state of revolution nor do they desire to.
>  >
>  > Yes, they do

> If u visit a village + inform the peasants about ur theories and
> start quoting
> life forms you've never met and they've never heard of what do u
> think will happen

They, like most people, will probably agree to understand simple things and
not refuse to know like you, and in anycase, it does't matter, their
productive relations will define their future society wether they
understand this or not, and wether they are interested, or not.

> Any system that walks over or relegates human desires to 2nd place
> will eventually be relegated to the dustbin.

I have no idea what system you are talking about, that productive relations
define society is not a "system" it is a fact of objective reality.

> There you go again classifying everything.

As I said, so long as you refuse to understand the basics, you will
continue to talk nonsense. Ironicaly, you are "classifying" things too,
i.e. your defination of "communism" in terms of cold war rhetoric, your
posturing about "super cool pop.tar artists," "1st" world vs. "3rd" world,
etc. You only critize my "classifying" because you are too uniterested in
being coherent to learn the terminology and logical catagories of the
subject you are trying to discuss, with predictably nonsensical results.

> What is imperative is that the property in the 1st world is tagged,
> and classified
> (your favorite as well it appears). This allows its value to be
> decoupled from its
> physicality/context, and leveraged globally.

Yes, this commonly understood, and is explained better and more clearly in
political writings. The idea that alianable property value being the basis
of exploitation is the very core fo socialist economics.

> Books are large scale/brand names while personal experiences are
> small scale grown and cooked.

It is not either/or, from the shallow posturing evident in your railing
againts "pop.tarts" I can clearly see that you are rich in neither
experience nor study.

>  > As with much of your comments, I am unclear on how this relates to
> anything
>  > I have written in the text you are responding to.

> This is not a book.

Nor a pipe, neither.

Your point?

> Dichotomies are for democratic sissies.
> Reality is for generalists.