Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11192021
Results 201 to 208 of 208

Thread: Proposed California "ethnic studies" curriculum to teach that capitalism is oppressive ...

  1. Top | #201
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    3,331
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    If that wasn't dogmatic guff, I'd bother to reply to it, but it is.

    I would start by explaining how most property owners get to be property owners nowadays (post-Marx's era). Most don't have it gifted to them. Most work hard, spend less in order to save up a deposit, and then take out a giant risk called a mortgage. This is true even if the property is not for themselves to live in but to rent to others, either for business or residential purposes. Most are part of the new middle class that capitalism allowed the expansion of.
    Marx wrote thousands of pages on this. You haven't read any of it, and have no intention of doing so, but you know that it's something vaguely threatening to your worldview so it has to be "dogmatic guff".

    My daughter is 23 and already owns (ie has a big mortgage on) a 4-bed house that she rents out, because when she was 15, she started a little dog-minding business (that also paid her own way through university) and worked hard at it in her spare time (while a student) and eventually had enough to put a small deposit on the house before she'd even qualified from uni. Granted, she needed me as a guarantor. Hopefully, that initiative and endeavour will pay off for her. It might not. She could lose out. Dems de breaks for many landlords. Now I don't know exactly where the money lent to her is coming from, but my guess is it's probably coming, indirectly, from 'investors'. You know, the bad people.
    Counterpoint: all landlords function as parasites, who purchase homes they have no intention of living in and intentionally profit from the basic human requirement for shelter. This activity amounts to placing oneself between a person who needs something to live and the object of their need, and using the coercive power of the state to extract profit from that person. Landlords are the perfect example of capitalism's moral failure to provide people with the resources they need to live. They only exist because we accept that a person may acquire something they have no desire or need to use for themselves, purely in order to deprive others of it unless they pay a fee.

    If the goods and services of society were produced and distributed democratically, with the aim of meeting human wants and needs rather than siphoning money into the accounts of people who place barriers around human necessities.
    Well, to be fair, you don't read many business books! Secondly, landlords provide an important service: they provide housing for people who either can't afford to buy or don't want to buy. It's not good for people to buy homes if they don't have the cash flow to afford (see 2008/09 crash). Secondly, it isn't economically smart to buy a house unless a person intends to live there for 5 years or more. Many local people today are extremely mobile, moving place to place to pursue their careers. They let landowners shoulder the up and down RE values.

  2. Top | #202
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    3,331
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison View Post



    You think, you think, you think, someone else may think differently. How do you know this is the “most fair way”?

    And indeed, this is exactly how it works under capitalism.... if you've been born into considerable wealth. Salaries and other compensation are negotiated like business deals. This of course is nothing like what happens to most laborers, who have no power at all to define the value or terms of their work.
    Yeah, so? That disparity isn’t necessarily a feature of capitalism, i.e. an employer willing to negotiate with an applicant because his last name is Rockefeller the 5th, isn’t necessarily because of capitalism.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Because consent is a function of symmetrical information and power. It always is. Because accepting any less is solipsism, which is an efficient race to hell on earth.
    How is it possible to have two equally empowered parties?

  3. Top | #203
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    2,550
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    5,461
    Rep Power
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Bosch View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post

    Because consent is a function of symmetrical information and power. It always is. Because accepting any less is solipsism, which is an efficient race to hell on earth.
    How is it possible to have two equally empowered parties?
    That's not what I said, so try asking again.

  4. Top | #204
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,499
    Rep Power
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    You, me, and most of the Western world have been lied to our entire lives. I suggest you do some actual research. This page is an excellent place to start. Another one, larger but less organized (Google docs), can be found here. If you're averse to educating yourself on this topic, ask yourself why, and recall:

    To me, that image is ironic, coming from you, and I have no idea why it includes a photo of your head.

    First, it's obvious and does not need stating. Second, of the two of us, I am clearly the one whose views are more flexible, reasonable, realistic, achievable and moderate.

    Plus, I am probably much better informed about (and have more sympathy with) leftism than you imagine. Of course I'm aware that I've been bombarded my whole life with capitalist/consumerist/whiteist/bearded male propaganda and I am cynical about and suspicious of it. But equally there's nothing in that very one-sided anti-capitalist polemic you linked to that surprises me much at all.

    I just haven't, like you, bought myself a dreamy Marxist dogma hobbyhorse to ride around on because it makes me feel all good and righteous. I'm still smiling at your pov being so incredibly blinkered and presumptuous that you thought it accurate to describe me as neoliberal. That you even thought that should be a bit of a red flag for you, imo. It certainly is for me, listening to you. Seriously. When you get to the point of thinking that only you and people like you are right and everyone else is wrong, you need to pause for thought, especially if you're merely critiquing something (and sometimes a caricature or extreme version of it) and only have a hypothetical to offer as an alternative. Hypothetical 'better worlds' are two-a-penny and very, very easy to get a big hard-on about.

    I'm still waiting for that example of out-and-out socialism working better and more stably on a large scale than a mix of socialism and capitalism. Not that it's a deal-breaker, it might merely have not just happened yet and would be fab, but it would help your case. Otherwise, how am I or anyone else to know that you're not just a well-meaning fantasist with a superficially attractive and noble but very harmful (and possibly out-of-date) idea?
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 08-16-2019 at 02:20 PM.

  5. Top | #205
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    3,739
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,128
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    You, me, and most of the Western world have been lied to our entire lives. I suggest you do some actual research. This page is an excellent place to start. Another one, larger but less organized (Google docs), can be found here. If you're averse to educating yourself on this topic, ask yourself why, and recall:

    To me, that image is ironic, coming from you, and I have no idea why it includes a photo of your head.

    First, it's obvious and does not need stating. Second, of the two of us, I am clearly the one whose views are more flexible, reasonable, realistic, achievable and moderate.
    Just not in any way you care to demonstrate. Ruby, you haven't actually addressed a single thing I've said in this thread or any other, beyond just labeling large swaths of analysis as 'dogmatic'. You're not interested in a good faith discussion, so I'm not going to have one with you, as much as you keep piping up to goad me into one. If you want to take that as a concession, have at it. And by the way, most leftists I know recognize Slavoj Zizek when they see him.

  6. Top | #206
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    5,171
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    5,543
    Rep Power
    58
    Lenin, Stalin, and Brezhnev are on a train, which comes to a sudden stop.

    Lenin says, "Organize the passengers to take over the train!"

    Stalin says, “No, just shoot the conductor.”

    Brezhnev says, “No, just close the curtains.
    Now,everybody pretend that the train is moving.”

  7. Top | #207
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,499
    Rep Power
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Ruby, you haven't actually addressed a single thing I've said in this thread or any other, beyond just labeling large swaths of analysis as 'dogmatic'.
    I admit I have engaged in a bit of slagging off (as I am sometimes wont to do when talking to those I consider extremists of any sort) but to say I haven't addressed anything else is nonsense.

    Plus, I asked for evidence that your idealist, pure Socialism system might actually work better than existing mixed systems which work pretty well. You're one to talk about not addressing things.

    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    You're not interested in a good faith discussion...
    Am too, if the other person has a balanced and reasonable and non-dogmatic pov.

    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    And by the way, most leftists I know recognize Slavoj Zizek when they see him.
    Good for them. I did not say I was a leftist. Or a neoliberal. By golly your perception of politics is simplistically binary. See also: dogmatic.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; Today at 10:54 AM.

  8. Top | #208
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    3,331
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Lenin, Stalin, and Brezhnev are on a train, which comes to a sudden stop.

    Lenin says, "Organize the passengers to take over the train!"

    Stalin says, “No, just shoot the conductor.”

    Brezhnev says, “No, just close the curtains.
    Now,everybody pretend that the train is moving.”
    I don't think that socialists are lazy. IMO, they just don't understand business and what it takes to be successful. They don't understand that what drives success is incentives. Most successful people are grinders. They work long hours often for nothing. The average entrepreneur makes nothing for years as they develop their companies. They make great sacrifices. But here's the deal, grinders aren't going to grind without incentives.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •