Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by inthesomeday, Apr 30, 2017.
I can't take anyone who uses the phrase "global proletariat" seriously
Key word here is "ever to exist". And quelling change isn't exactly what I'd call adaptable. If we consider adaptability to be defined as capability to self-perpetuate, then sure, capitalism is right there. But it is not the strongest of the species that survives, but the one most responsive to change. If capitalism destroys the livable conditions of earth our of sheer self-preservation I don't think I'd call it adaptable.
I've been involved in anarchist organizing and community outreach since I was about 2, and my dad took me around G-Pan in Columbia, Missouri, my hometown. Here in California I've been involved in some campaigning and a lot of the socialist party's activities, from community outreach to tenant mediation. In Missouri I've seen white rednecks who live in the woods and own eight rifles stand on the same lines that no-English undocumented grandmothers living in three-family apartments do here in Cali. We are all on the same side.
Not me. A vast organization of the like-minded, assembled through a dialect with as many as possible until it becomes unsafe to stay in this stage.
The idea that a state is in any way necessary for the development of a community is an old one, and maybe a historical one, but things change and this is definitely one of them. I like to cite the Zapatista communities here as a modern example, and the economic organization of millions of Native North American peoples prior to the arrival of Europeans here as a historical one.
Yeah, and it has, I just don't think competition is a better motivator than, say, self-actualization through the quality of the work produced, or the good of your own society.
Change a culture that is accepting of it. This is done by reorganization of the world's economics.
Ryika, warpus-- Why's that?
I have to admit, it does have a obsolete, Victorian sounding ring to it... Fine to use for humor/sarcasm/irony but harder to take seriously if its being used seriously in a non-historical context...
@Hygro Do you find some inconsistency here? The world's people having a similar understanding of certain situations and systems has literally no correlation with the diversity of the human experience.
If you believe that "diversity" is limited to the superficial, yes sure.
Everyone believing the same thing is unrelated to diversity?
It doesn't quell change. The institutional structure of capitalism has changed immensely in the past several decades. It has been changing basically since the 19th century when it first became the dominant mode of production.
That isn't a matter of adaptability, it is a matter of (un)sustainability.
Well, you mentioned the "proletariat" so I'm talking about labor, or more specifically, union organizing.
Why's this? You're not a Maoist Third Worldist are you?
Because you keep using the word "education" when what you're actually talking about is ideological indoctrination, which suggests to me that you're also not really interested in dialog to get "a more perfect agreement and mutual understanding of the social ideal" as you claim in the beginning, but rather think that you already have a solution and just need people to agree with you to gain traction.
Yeah, I expect terminology like that to appear in an alt-history video game, said by 1-dimensional baddies, or something similar.
Diversity of thought, maybe. But we were talking about diversity of experience.
It quells change from outside of itself, or the opposition you referred to. And I contend that the structure has changed any more than its natural trajectory alongside the improving technological conditions it exists in.
Sustainability is a pretty important aspect of an economic structure, I'd say. An inability to maintain long-term sustainability, which would be pretty easily acceptable by just a little bit of-- well, adaptation to changing circumstances. Capitalism's structure didn't change too much after two wars that devastated millions, except to account for new technologies. Nor did it change to account for the rise of new deadly diseases except to find a way to exploit them as a new field of corporate gain.
No, I've found most unions in my country to be nothing more than middle men to exploitation. Back in the day they were pretty cool, but nowadays they're mostly pretty corrupt in my experience. I don't actually have much experience with them, though, no. Maybe I should test the waters a bit to see if they actually are very competent and good at doing things.
Nope. I'm not in the education stage yet, the dialect hasn't reached a point where enough folks can agree with it. I suppose the dialect will extend well into and past education and even the revolution itself, but for the time being I'm still changing my own beliefs in important ways given the input of people whose opinions I respect and whose logic is sound. Then once me and those people can agree, we'll start distributing the idea. This is "education". I guess that the input of those absorbing the idea will also be valued, but more important is the action that will follow. "Ideological indoctrination" isn't always a bad thing, also. If an idea is good, why shouldn't people be told about it?
I experience my thoughts. My thoughts guide my actions, which in turn I experience. My actions and experiences in turn guide my thoughts, which again I experience. I am not rare in this regard. Other things produce my experience as well.
I assume you are similar.
I really don't think the diversity of human experience relies on being able to think about how much the south should secede or how good Hitler is.
Really? So you see zero difference between the structure of 19th century British industrial capitalism and modern globalized/financialized capitalism?
I think you need to study capitalism a bit more.
Its structure changed enormously as a result of those wars. And not in ways that seem particularly related to technological change, either.
Is your country the United States?
But how you behave according to your understanding sure does.
A handful of powerful elites who control important industries control the whole entire world and its resources. This is at the expense of the billions who aren't powerful elites. Most of these powerful elites are centered in the West or the North, with some few in East Asia and some fewer spread out among the world's poorest areas. These powerful elites don't directly coordinate or even communicate, but for the most part they act within mutual self interest. This is applicable to both. Maybe the way these things happen has changed a little bit but that's just a natural development of the technological advances between then and now.
Its scope changed significantly. The actual structure didn't change much.
That's not really describing a structure, though. That like a Platonic Ideal Type.
Now this is better, but this is, in my view, drastic oversimplification. And still not really describing any institutional structure.
Of course it did. The institutionalization of unions alone was an enormous change from pre-Depression conditions. Add to that the shift to social welfare and equality as policy goals and you have a very different political economic system than what prevailed before the Depression.
Well, I completely disagree that US unions can be dismissed offhand as "middlemen to exploitation." This is a problem I run into routinely on the further reaches of the left, that exploitation is defined in purely metaphysical terms that have no relevance to anyone's lived experience.
Nitpicking microcosmic non-representative examples of "institutional structure" doesn't really define the global functions of capitalism as it operates on the scale it does. A drastic oversimplification is the only thing you can really give when it comes to the description of the whole world's economic relationships. We're still in the "modern period" in terms of world historical developments, which began with the industrial revolution + European colonialism and extends to today. I'll agree that the world's economics have expanded but its structure hasn't changed.
I don't think social welfare or equality could ever be policy goals in capitalism.
I'll concede you seem to have more to say about unions than I do, I agree the far left probably has an unfair attitude towards them. Would you care to tell me a bit about your perspective on them?
Free time vs. no free time; hunger vs. obesity - we were on the topic of dichotomies and you came up with the first one. "Exercise helps with depression" doesn't follow from any of that, so excuse me for calling BS on that being what you intended to say.
exercise helps with depression
activity vs inertia
Separate names with a comma.