Tottenham riots

  On 8/13/2011 at 1:50 AM, chenGOD said:

Exactly - they never practiced communism. Much like the West never practiced "free market capitalism". So to say that communism vs capitalism is the crux of the argument is misleading. Collectivization does not necessarily equate with failure. As I explained before - China practiced ISI (like many of the latin american nations that claimed they were communist) - which is an obviously flawed system as it does nothing to promote competition and over-saturates the market. I'm not ignoring your point about Mao's collectivization movement - I'm saying it is not primarily communist, which I explained in an earlier post. Sure the west has a higher quality of life, but they got there not because of capitalist ideals, but rather because of slavery, exploitation of colonies, and unequal treaties. I think that's the third time I've typed this.

Economic history is very different from what is commonly believed in both the west and the east.

Capitalist and Communist systems alike are rife with corruption and abuses of power - there's nothing in that comparison. If you don't believe me - just look at Standard and Poor's (the ratings agency which just downgraded the US), Moody's and others ratings of the junk mortgage bonds in 2008.

 

yes I made a mistake in the numbers for the kibbutz - they produce something like 9% of industrial GDP and 40% of agricultural output.

 

Oh yeah and I'd like to invite you to take a look at China's growth since 1969 (when Mao was still alive).

 

Lastly go to the World Bank site: http://data.worldban...N?display=graph and look at when China's GDP per capita started to take off - that's right..in the 90s, when they were....wait for it.....beginning to exploit the fuck out of African countries (the chart holds the same if you take it in GDP current US dollars).

i'd still prefer for you to address the effects of collectivization on actual humans and from that, on economy at large, that's where i was trying to go basically. i'll just say that collectivization is communist enough, take it as you wish.

your overly self assured knowledge about "real economic history" is academically suspicious to say the least, sure it's essential to challenge widely accepted notions but the way you present it borders on academic hipsterdom.

now numbers, you mark the 90's as the beginning of china's colonialism, fine.

i think this chart is better as it compares china with with the evil empire of usa over the years:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG/countries/CN-US?display=graph

not that bad for a state that doesn't indulge in colonialism i'd say.

Just had another thought: what we're seeing now is not the collapse of capitalism because of an inherent flaw in capitalism, but the defeat of free market capitalism by multinational corporations. I think the capitalism as we seem to be discussing it - some fantasy of a more free-market, level playing field, rough-and-tumble competition - will be supplanted not by communism, but the post-capitalism of MNCs. Try starting a small business these days and you'll know exactly what I mean - these uber-large, uber-rich corps have escaped the grasp of any government that could "monopoly bust" them, they've taken over the driver's seat. That's the big news (at least it seems so to me).

Hell with regards to the East India Company - the only reason they were allowed to exist is that they were granted charter by the government at the time, the crown.

Eugene - if you want to see the effects of collectivism on actual humans then watch a documentary with the actual Chinese who were involved in the collectivization - they threw themselves into it with unbridled enthusiasm. It was simply when Mao and his cronies took the resources produced and allocated them inefficiently that the system collapsed. The peasants weren't supposed to know that using shitty recycled metal would produce crappy pig iron, but Mao and his group of leaders sure as shit should have known.

My views on economic history are hardly hipsterish - as anyone who's studied history would tell you. It's simply that your views are stuck in an antiquated model that you learnt in high school.

Lumpy - MNCs aren't necessarily bad - what they need to do is abolish corporate personhood and increase regulation. What will truly bring down capitalism is the unrestrained, unregulated flow of money that investment banks are allowed to push around the world.

if you replaced "communist" with "Leninist", then I would agree with you.

What would you call the Christiana Freetown in Denmark, or the Federation of Egalitarian Communities? Would you say these have done far more harm than good?

  On 8/13/2011 at 2:41 AM, lumpenprol said:

Just had another thought: what we're seeing now is not the collapse of capitalism because of an inherent flaw in capitalism, but the defeat of free market capitalism by multinational corporations. I think the capitalism as we seem to be discussing it - some fantasy of a more free-market, level playing field, rough-and-tumble competition - will be supplanted not by communism, but the post-capitalism of MNCs. Try starting a small business these days and you'll know exactly what I mean - these uber-large, uber-rich corps have escaped the grasp of any government that could "monopoly bust" them, they've taken over the driver's seat. That's the big news (at least it seems so to me).

I would be inclined to agree with this. The problem is the same as where we started though. This is still considered "free-market".

  On 8/13/2011 at 2:43 AM, chenGOD said:

they threw themselves into it with unbridled enthusiasm

simply nonsense.

when they still had their privately owned portions of land they worked the fuck out of them even though they were extremely small, neglecting the work on state owned collectivized land.

yet again, im talking about the steps leading to the great leap, mutual assistance groups>low level cooperative>high level cooperative. if you're not too familiar with that then lets just drop it.

and regarding "threw themselves", hardly, and that having in mind that recent talk about human agency, they were blatantly thrown into it against their will, less than a decade ago they were given those lands in the reform, i don't think i need to tell you about the power of chinese propaganda those days and the dynamics of mass-line.

any comments about the chart i linked btw ?

  On 8/13/2011 at 2:43 AM, chenGOD said:

Hell with regards to the East India Company - the only reason they were allowed to exist is that they were granted charter by the government at the time, the crown.

true I don't know shit about the East India Company, and it'd be only a google click away...I prefer to talk out of my ass, hehe. Regardless, I'm not sure anything about that period - rapaciousness of western powers against brown people - either confirms or undermines anything about capitalism. I guess your argument is communism as it was practiced also doesn't reflect anything about the nature of communism...but then I would go back to my question about "what the hell is true communism anyway, besides a very valid critique of the ills of capitalism?"

  On 8/13/2011 at 2:43 AM, chenGOD said:

Eugene - if you want to see the effects of collectivism on actual humans then watch a documentary with the actual Chinese who were involved in the collectivization - they threw themselves into it with unbridled enthusiasm. It was simply when Mao and his cronies took the resources produced and allocated them inefficiently that the system collapsed. The peasants weren't supposed to know that using shitty recycled metal would produce crappy pig iron, but Mao and his group of leaders sure as shit should have known.

but couldn't one argue that capitalism can exist without that centralized control, whereas communism requires it? Which is why it's so prone to being exploited.

  On 8/13/2011 at 2:43 AM, chenGOD said:

Lumpy - MNCs aren't necessarily bad - what they need to do is abolish corporate personhood and increase regulation. What will truly bring down capitalism is the unrestrained, unregulated flow of money that investment banks are allowed to push around the world.

yeah, but how to do that? I mean, at this point I'm sure KFC is more powerful than most countries. Maybe the US could still regulate them, but can Peru? These corps have their tentacles so deep, even in the wants and needs of the people...but yeah, banks. I'm not going to argue with you, as I see it both are big issues.

  On 8/13/2011 at 2:45 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

What would you call the Christiana Freetown in Denmark, or the Federation of Egalitarian Communities? Would you say these have done far more harm than good?

How could these few tiny examples be extrapolated to humanity at large?

  On 8/13/2011 at 2:45 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 8/13/2011 at 2:41 AM, lumpenprol said:

Just had another thought: what we're seeing now is not the collapse of capitalism because of an inherent flaw in capitalism, but the defeat of free market capitalism by multinational corporations. I think the capitalism as we seem to be discussing it - some fantasy of a more free-market, level playing field, rough-and-tumble competition - will be supplanted not by communism, but the post-capitalism of MNCs. Try starting a small business these days and you'll know exactly what I mean - these uber-large, uber-rich corps have escaped the grasp of any government that could "monopoly bust" them, they've taken over the driver's seat. That's the big news (at least it seems so to me).

 

I would be inclined to agree with this. The problem is the same as where we started though. This is still considered "free-market".

well it is, isn't it? big fish eat little fish, get bigger, rinse wash repeat. It only becomes non free market when someone intervenes to break up the monopoly, a move I'd agree with. But it's not yet time, I guess...

  On 8/13/2011 at 3:22 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 8/13/2011 at 2:43 AM, chenGOD said:

Hell with regards to the East India Company - the only reason they were allowed to exist is that they were granted charter by the government at the time, the crown.

 

true I don't know shit about the East India Company, and it'd be only a google click away...I prefer to talk out of my ass, hehe. Regardless, I'm not sure anything about that period - rapaciousness of western powers against brown people - either confirms or undermines anything about capitalism. I guess your argument is communism as it was practiced also doesn't reflect anything about the nature of communism...but then I would go back to my question about "what the hell is true communism anyway, besides a very valid critique of the ills of capitalism?"

 

  On 8/13/2011 at 2:43 AM, chenGOD said:

Eugene - if you want to see the effects of collectivism on actual humans then watch a documentary with the actual Chinese who were involved in the collectivization - they threw themselves into it with unbridled enthusiasm. It was simply when Mao and his cronies took the resources produced and allocated them inefficiently that the system collapsed. The peasants weren't supposed to know that using shitty recycled metal would produce crappy pig iron, but Mao and his group of leaders sure as shit should have known.

 

but couldn't one argue that capitalism can exist without that centralized control, whereas communism requires it? Which is why it's so prone to being exploited.

 

  On 8/13/2011 at 2:43 AM, chenGOD said:

Lumpy - MNCs aren't necessarily bad - what they need to do is abolish corporate personhood and increase regulation. What will truly bring down capitalism is the unrestrained, unregulated flow of money that investment banks are allowed to push around the world.

 

yeah, but how to do that? I mean, at this point I'm sure KFC is more powerful than most countries. Maybe the US could still regulate them, but can Peru? These corps have their tentacles so deep, even in the wants and needs of the people...but yeah, banks. I'm not going to argue with you, as I see it both are big issues.

 

 

  On 8/13/2011 at 2:45 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

What would you call the Christiana Freetown in Denmark, or the Federation of Egalitarian Communities? Would you say these have done far more harm than good?

 

How could these few tiny examples be extrapolated to humanity at large?

 

  On 8/13/2011 at 2:45 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 8/13/2011 at 2:41 AM, lumpenprol said:

Just had another thought: what we're seeing now is not the collapse of capitalism because of an inherent flaw in capitalism, but the defeat of free market capitalism by multinational corporations. I think the capitalism as we seem to be discussing it - some fantasy of a more free-market, level playing field, rough-and-tumble competition - will be supplanted not by communism, but the post-capitalism of MNCs. Try starting a small business these days and you'll know exactly what I mean - these uber-large, uber-rich corps have escaped the grasp of any government that could "monopoly bust" them, they've taken over the driver's seat. That's the big news (at least it seems so to me).

 

I would be inclined to agree with this. The problem is the same as where we started though. This is still considered "free-market".

well it is, isn't it? big fish eat little fish, get bigger, rinse wash repeat. It only becomes non free market when someone intervenes to break up the monopoly, a move I'd agree with. But it's not yet time, I guess...

this is again where the problem i mentioned earlier comes in. these MNC's have obviously had help from governments, shit, some of them ARE the government. See the paradox?

What do you mean "how to do that"? The idea of corporate personhood could easily be repealed, if we could only find a judge with the balls to do it. However, because of the incestuous relationship between state and business (whoops that hand gets more and more visible by the minute), it would be nigh on impossible. The reason I say that it would be easy to repeal is because corporations as person rely not on some legal ruling, but rather from a passing remark of a court reporter, inserted in the notes of the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case from 1886.

Corporate interests should also be barred from participating in WTO talks. In the US, public officials should be limited to receiving a set amount of donations, total. Not from one individual, but in total. Bank accounts of public officials should be open to investigation.

And a monopoly is not a free market (although it is the result of free market policies combined with early entrants) - by definition, with only one player there is no market. That's partly why US telecom/internet provision is so utterly shitty, cause there's no incentive to compete. The two players (so a very limited oligopoly, granted, not a monopoly) run roughshod over any new entrants - plus there is a significant barrier to entry in the telecom/internet market (that kind of capital outlay is hard to come by).

sorry to all others that want to know stuffs about riots. im gonna tone it down now.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/cameron-backs-eviction-for-london-rioters-20110813-1irlo.html

While this makes a lot of sense, I wonder if it condemns them to homelessness and more crime. I can't understand these people who rioted for no other reason than to riot.

  Quote

In a statement, it said the tenant had breached their tenancy agreement, which applies to everyone living in the household and prohibits them from a range of criminal and anti-social activities.

A council estate sounds like hell to a lot of people, but when you have very little to nothing it must make the world of difference. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.

rap caused this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2_6ggJf3ns

there's nothing quite as entertaining as old white farts talking about hiphop culture.

Ah..nothing like some good old fashioned racism couched in the terms of academia to explain away the ills of society. pip pip what jolly good show old boy.

  On 8/12/2011 at 6:39 AM, delet... said:

  On 8/11/2011 at 5:24 PM, keltoi said:

 

fat bitch looting crisps and juice! seriously lock her up and give her a nice criminal record

 

HAH !! She should have looted some shopping bags whilst she was at it. Could have carried more stuff more comfortably.

  On 8/12/2011 at 12:03 PM, spratters said:

 

Oh, and find the fat bird, force feed her all the crisps and chuck her in the Thames.

But she'll float, and it's summer so she won't freeze either. Then again, maybe she'll head off down the Thames and out into the north sea or something, like an opposite iceberg. Then come winter, she'll be eaten by a hungry polar bear, in need of the rich blubber to keep it and it's species going.

Everybody wins.

  On 8/13/2011 at 4:41 AM, rumbo said:

Cameron backs eviction for London rioters

 

Oh this'll really bring the crime rate down. Having a bunch of homeless and newly released from prison youths around the joint. Fucking Idiots.

  On 8/13/2011 at 10:35 AM, delet... said:

  On 8/13/2011 at 4:41 AM, rumbo said:

Cameron backs eviction for London rioters

 

 

Oh this'll really bring the crime rate down. Having a bunch of homeless and newly released from prison youths around the joint. Fucking Idiots.

There's nothing new in this. Councils have always been able to evict people for antisocial behaviour. It's also important to note that they're not necessarily being made homeless, they will still retain a right to housing benefit when renting privately or through a housing association or whatever(although that petition would take this away as well). Housing is a major problem in the UK and there are over 1.8million households on the waiting list for social housing. The argument is that a council tenancy is a privilege, and there'll always be someone who is in just as much need to take their place, but who won't try and burn down their neighbour's house/business.

  On 8/13/2011 at 10:20 AM, delet... said:

  On 8/12/2011 at 6:39 AM, delet... said:

  On 8/11/2011 at 5:24 PM, keltoi said:

 

fat bitch looting crisps and juice! seriously lock her up and give her a nice criminal record

 

HAH !! She should have looted some shopping bags whilst she was at it. Could have carried more stuff more comfortably.

 

  On 8/12/2011 at 12:03 PM, spratters said:

 

Oh, and find the fat bird, force feed her all the crisps and chuck her in the Thames.

 

But she'll float, and it's summer so she won't freeze either. Then again, maybe she'll head off down the Thames and out into the north sea or something, like an opposite iceberg. Then come winter, she'll be eaten by a hungry polar bear, in need of the rich blubber to keep it and it's species going.

 

Everybody wins.

It's all happened before:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/image_galleries/whale_thames_gallery.shtml

uks a real screwed up country full with people who morphe into facists just cuz some people steal/burn some stuff

It's not rap music that caused this, it's was video games and Grand Theft Auto: http://www.thesixtha...and-theft-auto/

Or maybe both. Ban everything.

  On 8/13/2011 at 2:50 PM, sup said:

uks a real screwed up country

The UK isn't a country....

  On 8/13/2011 at 4:41 AM, rumbo said:

Cameron backs eviction for London rioters

 

This morning's NY Times...

British Leader Seeks Public Housing Evictions for Rioters and Their Families

Published: August 12, 2011

how in the holy fuck is that going to solve anything? how in the fuck is that even going to bring stability?

i mean, seriously, executing every single one of the rioters would be a better idea than this (speaking in a Machiavellian sense, of course).

nah, they can get a job! it's that easy.

never mind the smartly presented people with relevant experience who are struggling to find a basic min. wage job.

Yeah, been reading about the eviction things... Let's solve an issue born out of poverty by taking away the poor people's homes!

council houses are not the same as using housing benefit, they will still have access to that.

i dont see anything wrong with it, these cunts obviously have no appreciation for others homes/business anyway