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

[0f0003 | maschinenkunst]

\\ didnt go through a few days ago - resent




"Dmytri Kleiner" <dk at telekommunisten.net>


> >  >thus you can contribute nothing to
> >  > such a discussion except juvenile disdain, which proves nothing
> > but your
> > lack of emotional maturity.
>
> > Very diplomatic.Tell me that to my face
> > and you'll experience some very nice + fluffly balkan diplomacy.
>
> Not sure if this is threat, which is an odd way to prove your  
> emotional
> maturity,
>


You're applying democratic standards of maturity [similar to the  
specialist terms] which I don't observe.
I conform to a different world and frankly, I refuse to conform to  
yours, because it fails to create
a meaningful existence.


Incidentally this is from my isea paper:

'existentially, the traditional Balkan inhabitant always places  
himself in a cosmic context.
his personal experience lacks neither genuiness nor depth; but the  
fact that it is
expressed in a language unfamiliar to modern democracy makes it  
appear spurious or infantile'



> but I would be happy to discuss political economy in person,
> things always sound harsher in email and politics goes down nicely  
> with a
> beer. If/when you are in Berlin, please join me for a drink,
>
>
> I suspect we
> would get along better in a personal conversation then in a written  
> debate.
>


Of course, but Berlin is off limits - deep dislike. ditto for most of  
west eu.






> > In the interim here's the deal -- Change ur f.tone or move on.
>
> I assure you that when you start making tangible, coherent arguments
>


Thing is - I decide how I express myself. My arguments are what they  
are. Take them or leave them.



>
> I will
> respond to them with seriousness. However, if you are concerned  
> about tone,
> please reflect on the fact that your entire argument is built upon
> incredulous disdain for "BS" and "super cool pop.tart artists,"
>


My terminology or anyone else's is as valid as yours.
Terminology does not in and of itself imply goodness.




> mixed with
> allusions to "sacredness" and kin-communal/commons-based modes and  
> Romanian
> villages.
>


Conscious childhood. You won't find that in a book and I'm not going  
to explain it
because, and again don't take it as an affront, we live in different  
worlds.

And that, is the best 'copy protection'.
Sometimes it is best like that.




> You have not once engaged with the theories and practices of
> Telekommunisten/venture communism except to introduce equivocation
> regarding the terminology of classical and socialist economics.
>
> If you want to response meaningfully, try to bear in mind the main  
> point of
> our discussion;
>


I am not going to slice or limit my argument. Nevertheless, from  
personal and some of my friends experiences
I know intimately that your theories do not work, even from a purely  
economic pov. Mind you, I udnt mind if they did.

If you have any real world examples where your theories worked,
by all means, recite them.



>
> that the new relationships
>

It's the same routine of extrapolating the small scale.




> I describe in the text you
> responded to are economic ones, meaning they are based on the  
> division of
> incomes resulting from factor prices, that these incomes are the  
> basis of
> class stratification/reproduction, and that the resulting class  
> structure
> forms the social superstructure, including the legal, cultural and  
> economic
> make up of society.
>


First of all I disagree that it is the basis.

Secondly, in my view, your theory does not alter much.
As mentioned, recite some real world examples.




[continued]