Dubstepforum.com

Ema_geodiV wrote:

wobbles wrote:it's fashionable atm, don't worry, soon everyone will hate China as soon as they get a little fatter and world policey

Fashionable?

yes ema, fashionable

fashionable- : currently popular

: dressing and acting in a way that is currently popular

Full Definition of FASHIONABLE

1
: conforming to the custom, fashion, or established mode
2
: of or relating to the world of fashion
— fash·ion·abil·i·ty noun
— fash·ion·able·ness noun
— fash·ion·ably adverb
See fashionable defined for English-language learners »
See fashionable defined for kids »
Examples of FASHIONABLE

It isn't fashionable to express such an opinion these days.
fashionable people who know all the right restaurants
First Known Use of FASHIONABLE

circa 1580
Related to FASHIONABLE

Synonyms
à la mode (also a la mode), au courant, chic, cool [slang], exclusive, stylish, fresh [slang], happening, hip, in, modish, sharp, smart, snappy, supercool, swell, swish, trendy, voguish
Antonyms
dowdy, out, outmoded, styleless, unchic, uncool, unfashionable, unmodish, unstylish
[+]more

Hey wobbles, you should go take a walk through Chinatown.

时尚

Ema_geodiV wrote:Why do some people hate 'murica?

There is nothing to like. It's a reactionary institution which only exists to support the interests of the ruling class.

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilen ... 3-7-14.pdf

OGLemon wrote:

Ema_geodiV wrote:Why do some people hate 'murica?

There is nothing to like. It's a reactionary institution which only exists to support the interests of the ruling class.

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilen ... 3-7-14.pdf

I presume other countries are paradises for the working class?

dansci wrote:

OGLemon wrote:

Ema_geodiV wrote:Why do some people hate 'murica?

There is nothing to like. It's a reactionary institution which only exists to support the interests of the ruling class.

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilen ... 3-7-14.pdf

I presume other countries are paradises for the working class?

Why would you assume that? States are just another organ of the bourgeoisie. I don't believe in the concept of the workers' state, nor do I believe in working class paradises. The idea of the anarchism entails that the society is classless. Thus we are just left with human beings in free association with one another.

ok John Locke

Is there more violence in the states than other economically developed countries, or is it just more sensationalized by the media there and therefore more prominent?
I refer to violence as a whole- of course, the systems in the US do allow for more gun crime than say Canada or the UK, and that (especially school shootings) is a problem unique to the states. But violence as a whole exists everywhere.

I blame the weather.

Every where hot as fuck bad/fucked up shit happens.

Australia, Brazil, various places in Africa, India, Middle East and of course a majority of America.

Proof in the pudding of this week.

Shooter in Canada : world hysteria/coverage.

School shooting in America : Another one?

GET OUT OF THE SUN YO.

OGLemon wrote:

dansci wrote:

OGLemon wrote:

Ema_geodiV wrote:Why do some people hate 'murica?

There is nothing to like. It's a reactionary institution which only exists to support the interests of the ruling class.

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilen ... 3-7-14.pdf

I presume other countries are paradises for the working class?

Why would you assume that? States are just another organ of the bourgeoisie. I don't believe in the concept of the workers' state, nor do I believe in working class paradises. The idea of the anarchism entails that the society is classless. Thus we are just left with human beings in free association with one another.

The concept of anarchism is outdated and based on unreliable information. Humans will naturally stratify themselves based on merit and personal connections...and even if one could abolish the capitalist state, it would reform in a short amount of time.

"The concept of anarchism is outdated and based on unreliable information." How can anarchy become outdated? What unreliable information is at it's foundations? You say that human hierachies exist naturally but opposing them does not? Head scratching stuff bro.

I don't think so. In pure communism there is no private property. Private property is an essential characteristic to having power, because with private property comes resources. With resources comes control over the means of production, and so on. You also have to remember that communism only exists in a post-scarcity society. The idea of private property in a post-scarcity society is meaningless. Capitalism won't live forever, just like feudalism before it. For me, communism is the logical end game in the development of human relations.

Anarchy is outdated because society cannot exists without some form of stratification. Several thousand years ago, anarchy was possible and most people lived in stateless societies. The reason why anarchy was possible is because most people had the all the knowledge they needed to survive(how to raise animals, hunt for food, farm, etc). However most people now don't possess the information needed to sustain society... For example no person could mine enough tantalum to create capacitors to form their own computer... Or mine graphite and cedar wood to make a simple pencil.

It is possible to abolish the state, but it forms back pretty quickly and often, the new state is worse than the one that preceded it. Ie: Soviet Union, Qing China, Somalia...

OGLemon wrote:I don't think so. In pure communism there is no private property. Private property is an essential characteristic to having power, because with private property comes resources. With resources comes control over the means of production, and so on. You also have to remember that communism only exists in a post-scarcity society. The idea of private property in a post-scarcity society is meaningless. Capitalism won't live forever, just like feudalism before it. For me, communism is the logical end game in the development of human relations.

Post scarcity is a complicated term... We technically live in post scarcity at least compared to 500 years ago. We have abundance of all foods and materials and any difference in wealth is only symbolic. Capitalism of some form can still exist in a post scarcity economy because there will always be some need for private property(patents, copyrights, thoughts, etc)

dansci wrote:patents and copyrights

but private ownership over these things don't exist in communism. Patents and copyrights are means for people to secure private ownership over their ideas. This private ownership is only necessary to secure economic benefit for the inventor or artist in a capitalistic economy. Since you receive according to your need, private ownership over patents or copyrights is unnecessary as a tool for survival.

This may lead you to asking "but why would anyone do anything then?" Here is my answer. In communism, the motive for human economic behavior will be different from the current motive of profit. Human motive in communism will derive entirely from the partly from the materialistic needs of society, but mostly from the desire of the individual. If I were a scientist my motive for advancing the scientific models would be my love for science or knowledge in general. In other words, the human enjoyment of work will be the motive for the individual.

Okay now on to the revolutions.
First off, the Marxist-Leninist revolutions of the 20th century were not proletarian in nature, nor were any of the countries ready for the social revolution. At the end of WWI Russia's economy was in the beginning stages of the industrial revolution. Much of the country was still in a semi-feudal mode of production. Let's relate this back to the theories of revolution. The social revolution was envisioned to take begin in countries with advanced capitalism. Which makes sense because these countries would be the most prepared for the socialization of the means of production. This mode of production was capitalistic in nature, even Lenin himself knew that in 1918.

Lenin wrote:

[+] Spoiler

If the words we have quoted provoke a smile, the following discovery made by the “Left Communists” will provoke nothing short of Homeric laughter. According to them, under the “Bolshevik deviation to the right” the Soviet Republic is threatened with “evolution towards state capitalism”. They have really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these “Left Communists” repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . .

It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country.

I can imagine with what noble indignation a “Left Communist” will recoil from these words, and what “devastating criticism” he will make to the workers against the “Bolshevik deviation to the right”. What! Transition to state capitalism in the Soviet Socialist Republic would be a step forward?. . . Isn’t this the betrayal of socialism?

Here we come to the root of the economic mistake of the “Left Communists”. And that is why we must deal with this point in greater detail.

Firstly, the “Left Communists” do not understand what kind of transition it is from capitalism to socialism that gives us the right and the grounds to call our country the Socialist Republic of Soviets.

Secondly, they reveal their petty-bourgeois mentality precisely by not recognising the petty-bourgeois element as the principal enemy of socialism in our country.

Thirdly, in making a bugbear of “state capitalism”, they betray their failure to understand that the Soviet state differs from the bourgeois state economically.

Let us examine these three points.

No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognised as a socialist order.

But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ ... may/09.htm

That is why Stalin started the rapid industrialization of Russia. Rapid industrialization resulted in famine and a large number of the deaths under Stalin, because the agricultural side of the economy was neglected. China was in a similar mode of production as Russia and also had a massive industrialization process. China knew that socialism was not possible under their current conditions so that is why the reforms of Chen Yun and Deng Xiaoping occurred. Whether China returns to the path of socialism once its economy surpasses all others on Earth remains to be seen. My labour credits are on No.

agree with about a half of wobless' reasons
(the rest presumably poetic licence)

but most apply to the whole world,
including countries with relatively low rates of civilian murders & incarceration

so it's gotta do something with the culture
maybe even the frictions of "multiculture",
a sense of individual entitlement to whatever I can get
un-moderated by empathy for rival consumers
(which other countries try to address with an un-begrudging welfare state))
leading to unhappiness, unhealthiness & drug addiction

all combined with easy access to armaments


which adds up to solipsism, fear & guns
promoted by like-minded governments

@Oglemmon

Scientists love the work they do, however what reason would they have to invest lifetimes worth of money to create something if they never receive a reward for there work. Scientific machinery costs millions of dollars...I doubt any brilliant scientist is going to sit back and receive a pat on the back after devoting years to make a single invention. Communism denies the bright and smart their fair compensantion by making the claim that anything other than basic materials is capitalist evil.

As for the revolution argument...

China will never return to path of socialism...in fact there never was a path of socialism to begin with.

Communism was formed during a time when industrialists made large sums of money while there workers slaved to make a basic living. Karl marx and Engels would've never predicted the rise of labor unions and workers rights groups which eliminated the need for the 1st world communist revolution and state

dansci wrote:@OGLemon
Scientists love the work they do, however what reason would they have to invest lifetimes worth of money to create something if they never receive a reward for there work. Scientific machinery costs millions of dollars...I doubt any brilliant scientist is going to sit back and receive a pat on the back after devoting years to make a single invention. Communism denies the bright and smart their fair compensation by making the claim that anything other than basic materials is capitalist evil.

There is no money in communism. Communism has a gift economy. Goods are not sold or traded on markets. They are distributed according to the need of the human. As long as you give to society, society will give back to you. Therefore, a scientist would not be worried about why his or her needs aren't meet. Communists don't make the claim that anything other than basic materials is capitalist evil. That would be more in line with the asceticism (something I do practice but that stems from my philosophical/religious views on life). If anything communists support the highest human development for all people.

dansci wrote: Communism was formed during a time when industrialists made large sums of money while there workers slaved to make a basic living. Karl marx and Engels would've never predicted the rise of labor unions and workers rights groups which eliminated the need for the 1st world communist revolution and state

As workers rights get stomped on across the globe.

communist state

but Lemon
the problem is how to implement a truly communist state
without the nepotism of previous attempts that effectively turns to totalitarianism

I mean, it requires ideal people willing to share stuff in order to have equal equity.
Where & how is that gunna happen amongst preppas, rednecks, magnates, dole-bludgers, tweakers & fundamentalists?
These people would need to be coerced or somehow re-educated.
Realistic?

wobbles wrote:

Ema_geodiV wrote:

wobbles wrote:it's fashionable atm, don't worry, soon everyone will hate China as soon as they get a little fatter and world policey

Fashionable?

yes ema, fashionable

fashionable- : currently popular

: dressing and acting in a way that is currently popular

Full Definition of FASHIONABLE

1
: conforming to the custom, fashion, or established mode
2
: of or relating to the world of fashion
— fash·ion·abil·i·ty noun
— fash·ion·able·ness noun
— fash·ion·ably adverb
See fashionable defined for English-language learners »
See fashionable defined for kids »
Examples of FASHIONABLE

It isn't fashionable to express such an opinion these days.
fashionable people who know all the right restaurants
First Known Use of FASHIONABLE

circa 1580
Related to FASHIONABLE

Synonyms
à la mode (also a la mode), au courant, chic, cool [slang], exclusive, stylish, fresh [slang], happening, hip, in, modish, sharp, smart, snappy, supercool, swell, swish, trendy, voguish
Antonyms
dowdy, out, outmoded, styleless, unchic, uncool, unfashionable, unmodish, unstylish
[+]more

yes wobbles I know what it means thanks for reminding me...

i blame alcohol being 21+tbf