Hey Jerome, you socialist faggot.

[Rosstones]

Jerome loves the pnas.

Tone, give me my name back you newb.

...rookie fucks

[Tone]

We could have a system that hybrids social programs with libertarianism where taxes are reduced to 15% their current levels and only go to social programs, it would be a novel hybrid system

[Tone]

Jerome, its not good to be socialist, its bad, give freedom a chance, the libertarian way of life ends up helping more unfortunate people than socialism does. We have to be as ethical and correct as possible in our mentally ill world of sociopathic demons.

[Weak]

Send nudes

[Dameon Angell]

I just saw an email about some TWD Cup and noticed the forum link. Glad to see nothing's changed. Cheers you cunts!

[Jerome Scuggs]

kthx: academia is full of liberals stifling conservatives
jerome: lol ur wrong
donald j. trump, kthx’s president: agreed w jerome

[paradise!]

Kthx has conceded.. Jerome wins.

Wicket666 don't even try.

This thread gave kthx 2 black eyes and a rash on his butt. GG

jerome just pulled an archived CIA pdf to prove a point. the man goes hard...

[Jessup]

Kthx has conceded.. Jerome wins.

Wicket666 don't even try.

This thread gave kthx 2 black eyes and a rash on his butt. GG

[Jerome Scuggs]

as a fun sort of thing to ponder as well, keep in mind that, unless a president specifically orders otherwise, all classified materials become declassified automatically after, i believe, 30 years

that being said, it's interesting to reconsider the sort of things we believed about the USSR (BTW I AM IN NO WAY DEFENDING THE USSR, but it's like when people say they hate obama because he's from kenya. I'm not a fan of obama... but i'm forced to defend him because lol he was born in fucking hawaii)

for example:

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...00150009-5.pdf

[Jerome Scuggs]

im sorry to re-re-reply for a third time, but there's so many different little conceptions and perspectives i'd like to sort of highlight and correct. i hope you see where all my posts sort of tie into one another. anyways here goes

I'm definitely encouraged by the success of the teacher strikes accomplished outside of corrupt unions. But I see this as more of human progress within a capitalist structure, moving forward toward a more civil existence, and not necessarily any push toward socialism. Not sure how the world would ever transform that way ... at least, again, without almost unending resources coupled with some as-yet-unforeseen way to reward effort.

"capitalism" is more than just economics... it's a mindset, it's a way of organizing society. capitalism is the idea that some people will be wealthy/powerful, most people won't, and this is a good thing (or... it's an inescapable thing)

days 1-5 of the teacher strike might fall into the paradigm you describe: teachers' bosses trying to reach a deal with union bosses in a very sort of normal, modern arrangement. however on day 5, after the unions presented a very shitty compromise, the teachers told the unions to fuck off and at that point it became direct action, the teachers organized and, together, they wielded the same amount of influence as their bosses did. in this moment the normal capitalist arrangement/hierarchy dissolved, the traditional hierarchy dissolved, and most importantly - we saw that it worked.*

*of course the vile fuckin republicans decided to plunder the 5% raise straight from the medicare/medicaid fund... i can't underscore how 1) vile and 2) predictably capitalist this was. But hey, teachers in Oklahoma have begun raising the funds and food they will need to keep children fed and up-to-date on their act/sat/ap testing... if they go on strike they will go in with the experience gained by the WV teachers, and I am hoping they refuse to allow their government to reward them with a raise at the expense of another marginalized/relatively worse off class of people.

I, for one, have been paying very close attention to the "fight for $15" movement. now, i haven't seen like, McDonald's implement a $15 wage... but because of the movement, because of the constant pressure, I'm sure you've heard about stores like walmart and target bumping their starting wages up to $11, $12/hr. small steps baby. My state, Louisiana, still has the federal minimum... 7.25? 8.25? But even then, most businesses, even local, now start at $9/hr. Why do i bring this up? Because I think it's more than reasonable for states to levy taxes to pay for more robust education budgets and teacher salaries. If the government taking $50/yr out of my check would guarantee a better education system... it's a no-brainer, and it's not like wages are as stagnant as they were even two, three years ago.

(Bear with me here, it's this one again...) In a true socialist state, I've never found a way to get past how to get anyone to get up off their asses to do anything without it being self-interested. How can we appeal to self-interest? The self-interest which causes people to risk their life savings (and often lose it), to work unbelievably long hours for little earned and despite little progress. In my more idealistic days I contemplated a world where social status would become the driving force behind human innovation. But resolved that that couldn't occur unless resource scarcity disappeared, as people will always compete for resources if there is a reason to. A new resource would then need to become deeply important, worth struggling for, risking for, working until you're almost at your wit's end. Social status/"respect" seemed possible enough.

try to think of this in the broad strokes of history. we've seen political power taken from monarchs and (theoretically anyways) given to the people. i have come to believe the next big hurdle in human progress is seeing economic power likewise democratized.

i'm not saying people shouldn't work for money, i'm not saying the owner of a business should make exactly the same as the lowliest worker. all i'm saying is that, like, it would cost something like $400 billion total to eradicate hunger/poverty (im vastly overinflating the commonly held number. this cost would cover the cost of things like developing public infrastructure like water/electricity, and developing farmland, that would sustain even the poorest people on earth with a quality of life befitting our civilization). Calculate how much the top 500 wealthiest people make per year, calculate how much each of them would have to sacrifice to generate $30b/yr over a decade between just these 500 people. You'll find they still have enough to pad their bank accounts, reinvest in their companies, secure their entire families' well-being, and donate to their favorite politicians. Now imagine not just these 500 people, but entire countries, were generating this money via tax or whatever. It's insanely feasible and the only thing stopping us, ultimately, is that noone sees any profit in, say, bringing fresh water to a majority of the african continent. (this doesn't mean doing this WOULDN'T be profitable. it just means peoples' imaginations are inherently limited)

Once had a girlfriend whose great-grandfather invented the shrimp peeling machine when he was a teenager. His father told him if he could figure out a way to peel shrimp faster than by hand, he could make a million dollars. He grew obsessed with this idea, a chance to leap ahead in the world, a lucky break that probably would never come ... but something to try for, still. Eventually, after a hell of a lot of failure, he managed to rig an old hand-crank washing machine to peel shrimp. After that he went on to make his millions and file over 70 patents for various inventions.

I don't see that happening in a socialist country, even if he was respected for having improved everyone's lot by lowering the cost of shrimp production. After all, how much respect can you give such a person? A head-nod when you pass in the hall. He's not going to have parades where he's carried on the shoulders of the people. Nothing even approaching the triumphant feeling of making millions through ingenuity, or the triumph of discovery experienced only after you've had sufficient motivation to get there in the first place.

this is complicated because i have to stress, once again, that if Marx was the dude who discovered "laws of physics" in terms of society and social movements... then you can think of communism - and the soviet union - as basically the equivalent of like, the Wright Flyer and the Sopwith Camel. (and when i try to argue that aircraft are pretty cool, people like kthx say "but but but the sopwith camel isn't even a good aircraft! it's slow! it's got a short range! therefore, the idea of flight is ridiculous)

that being said, look at how the USSR went from literally a feudal country of farmers to the first country in space.

there is a FUCKLOAD of nuance here, i'll be the first to admit it:
-because the USSR was a centrally planned economy, they were able to basically shift a fuckload of society towards the goal of spaceflight, at the direct expense of everything else.
-by no means can i compare the innovations generated by the whole of the USSR to the USA

but, when looking at the same nuance, when one really dives into the history of entrepreneurship, some of the most brilliant people with some of the most groundbreaking ideas wound up dying relatively poor - because
-some people just aren't in it for the money
-some people had their ideas exploited/stolen by "capitalists" (good example is the recent movie The Founder)

one thing i think we can both agree on: there are undoubtedly a fuckload of people trapped in the current system, who have brilliant ideas, and they simply cannot see them to fruition because they don't have money, they don't have access, or they're just too busy working at a job they really don't care for, to pursue their passions. i, for one, really don't "work very hard" at my job because it's just something to do to pay bills so I can go home and read, read, read. (gotta say i kick ass at my job but i turn down offers to go into upper management on a biannual basis because i know these people, i work with them, and their entire lives revolve around that job)

I've never seen a way out of this. An old, tired criticism, I know, but like the problem of evil for some of the world's religions, not an easy one to sidestep. So I've never been able to feel comfortable with socialism. Meanwhile, capitalism is deeply corrupt, provides paths to profit from the misery, murder and mutilation of people born in the wrong place at the wrong time. (But that evil is perhaps a more natural one -- leave the world be, and that's what you'd have. "Laissez faire!..." The beast bares its teeth in the woods.) But there's still room for improvement, always. I suppose I don't see it as a system you can really replace, so much as refine, temper, improve, struggle against. A struggle you might call the history of human governance. Sometimes that governance steps too far in its hubris and replaces the tyranny it wants to overcome with one far more terrible, as in the case of the USSR. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth working to improve. Slow, incremental steps... ones we can be sure are in the right direction. Cocksure revolutionaries, count me out of your schemes, now and forever.

This is an odd sentiment to me because I think one of the most basic truths about the history of humanity is we tend to think things are impossible right up until the second we shatter the myth and discover and do things above and beyond what we thought we were even capable of.

But let's shift from a more heady metaphysical discussion to a more concrete one: Capitalism is a system that is driven by growth. It can never "reach equilibrium", it must always be growing, it must always have new markets. So considering the fact that we live in a very finite world, with a finite number of jobs... do you really think it's a system that will be around in perpetuity?

[Jerome Scuggs]

btw ima drop this here so we can hopefully get on the same page when it comes to "left" "right" "liberal" "conservative" "Liberal" and "Classical Liberal"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlLgvSduugI&t=2s

very straightforward video, and to the best of my knowledge as a student of history, he ain't wrong

[Jerome Scuggs]

Plutocracy's the state of rule across the world and across history, and keeping charming, wealthy god-emperors from having undue influence is one of the most difficult and important problems of our time.

I'm definitely encouraged by the success of the teacher strikes accomplished outside of corrupt unions. But I see this as more of human progress within a capitalist structure, moving forward toward a more civil existence, and not necessarily any push toward socialism. Not sure how the world would ever transform that way ... at least, again, without almost unending resources coupled with some as-yet-unforeseen way to reward effort.

(Bear with me here, it's this one again...) In a true socialist state, I've never found a way to get past how to get anyone to get up off their asses to do anything without it being self-interested. How can we appeal to self-interest? The self-interest which causes people to risk their life savings (and often lose it), to work unbelievably long hours for little earned and despite little progress. In my more idealistic days I contemplated a world where social status would become the driving force behind human innovation. But resolved that that couldn't occur unless resource scarcity disappeared, as people will always compete for resources if there is a reason to. A new resource would then need to become deeply important, worth struggling for, risking for, working until you're almost at your wit's end. Social status/"respect" seemed possible enough.

Something I think I should stress is that Marx didn't "invent" marxism any more than Newton "invented" gravity. Marx examined why societies change, why revolutions happen, what causes people to rise up and challenge the dominant authority. As a result, he discovered processes which lead to change, and then spent his life trying to distill this into something people could then apply looking forwards to create change themselves. The proof of his success can be seen in pretty much a majority of revolutions that have happened since 1848. Just about all modern revolutionary theory since owes, in some way or another, a 'debt' to Marx (lol)

Why am I saying this? Because I have to stress that "communism" was far, far, far from the thing that influences most students of Marxism. Communism was Marx's idea for what to do after a revolution or a mass social change... but it's not the only option out there. At the end of the day, any push towards democracy (democratizing politics OR democratizing the economy) is the goal for anyone who calls themselves a socialist.

For example... I caught something in the news the other day, about how a particular govt entity in England is implementing a new idea to fight inequality in a particular industry (ill have to google for specifics): they are implementing a worker:boss pay ratio. They aren't creating a basic income, they aren't capping the amount of money CEO's can make... all they are saying is that the boss can make no more than 20x what the lowest-paid person is making. If they want more money, they can "work harder" and do that capitalism shit, and if their business is successful, literally everyone, not just the CEO, will profit.

In my mind this is a bold and interesting new idea which aims to bring a more democratic, equal playing field to the economy. It doesn't really punish anyone, and it most definitely benefits everyone.

Once had a girlfriend whose great-grandfather invented the shrimp peeling machine when he was a teenager. His father told him if he could figure out a way to peel shrimp faster than by hand, he could make a million dollars. He grew obsessed with this idea, a chance to leap ahead in the world, a lucky break that probably would never come ... but something to try for, still. Eventually, after a hell of a lot of failure, he managed to rig an old hand-crank washing machine to peel shrimp. After that he went on to make his millions and file over 70 patents for various inventions.

I don't see that happening in a socialist country, even if he was respected for having improved everyone's lot by lowering the cost of shrimp production. After all, how much respect can you give such a person? A head-nod when you pass in the hall. He's not going to have parades where he's carried on the shoulders of the people. Nothing even approaching the triumphant feeling of making millions through ingenuity, or the triumph of discovery experienced only after you've had sufficient motivation to get there in the first place.

I've never seen a way out of this. An old, tired criticism, I know, but like the problem of evil for some of the world's religions, not an easy one to sidestep. So I've never been able to feel comfortable with socialism. Meanwhile, capitalism is deeply corrupt, provides paths to profit from the misery, murder and mutilation of people born in the wrong place at the wrong time. (But that evil is perhaps a more natural one -- leave the world be, and that's what you'd have. "Laissez faire!..." The beast bares its teeth in the woods.) But there's still room for improvement, always. I suppose I don't see it as a system you can really replace, so much as refine, temper, improve, struggle against. A struggle you might call the history of human governance. Sometimes that governance steps too far in its hubris and replaces the tyranny it wants to overcome with one far more terrible, as in the case of the USSR. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth working to improve. Slow, incremental steps... ones we can be sure are in the right direction. Cocksure revolutionaries, count me out of your schemes, now and forever.

This is like... exactly the sort of thing that Marx spent his entire life tackling. Because, once again, I have to stress that "the communist manifesto" was a document that Marx wrote not for himself, but as a favor to an organization Marx was working with at the time, the League of the Just (League of Communists after the eponymous manifesto was written). And I have to stress that Marx, in writing it, took his ideas and then applied them to fit the goals of the Communist league. But it was by no means what Marx thought the future would inherently bring... it was just one idea of thousands, and somewhat unfortunately for us, it happened to be an idea that took off in the soviet union.

Any time people in a community organize to affect change - maybe even just get a new park built in a neighborhood - the methods behind their organizing can be traced back to Marx and his writings on what drives change. It doesn't matter how small or large the change is: the key is progress.

Some important things to consider:
-feudal serfs had no way of imagining a system of life better than feudalism. To them it was much better than what came before
-capitalism has only existed for 1% of human history, it is by no means permanent
-capitalism is markets, yes.... but not all markets are capitalist. There were marketplaces in rome and athens, and they were by no means capitalist
-capitalism is a state of mind, a "dog eat dog" mindset, a mindset built on rigid hierarchy where those on top "earned" their place by "being the best". This is why the right-wing, which once supported monarchism, easily evolved into being pro-capitalism: because at the end of the day the right is all about rigidly enforced social hierarchies with a few people on top, and the rest of us on bottom, buffered by a "middle class"

Painting socialism in an extreme lens is a very good tactic because it prevents people from looking at small gains in a positive light. What if the united states adopted single payer healthcare? Read this thread: there is a disturbing amount of people who literally think making healthcare affordable will cause the united states to IMMEDIATELY become a combination of the USSR and venezuela. But what if... what if a single-payer system just meant we'd now have a healthier population?

[Dierienow]

Haha you voted for Brexit I'm guessing. Ya absolute shit cunt. Gyet outta hyere ya wild dingus took your baybee. Shrimp on the barbie motherfucker.

Mates. Lads. Boys. Init? I'm out.

[DUMBRIT!]

The forum topics and discussions seemed to have changed somewhat since my last visit

[Jerome Scuggs]

Plutocracy's the state of rule across the world and across history, and keeping charming, wealthy god-emperors from having undue influence is one of the most difficult and important problems of our time.

I'm definitely encouraged by the success of the teacher strikes accomplished outside of corrupt unions. But I see this as more of human progress within a capitalist structure, moving forward toward a more civil existence, and not necessarily any push toward socialism. Not sure how the world would ever transform that way ... at least, again, without almost unending resources coupled with some as-yet-unforeseen way to reward effort.

(Bear with me here, it's this one again...) In a true socialist state, I've never found a way to get past how to get anyone to get up off their asses to do anything without it being self-interested. How can we appeal to self-interest? The self-interest which causes people to risk their life savings (and often lose it), to work unbelievably long hours for little earned and despite little progress. In my more idealistic days I contemplated a world where social status would become the driving force behind human innovation. But resolved that that couldn't occur unless resource scarcity disappeared, as people will always compete for resources if there is a reason to. A new resource would then need to become deeply important, worth struggling for, risking for, working until you're almost at your wit's end. Social status/"respect" seemed possible enough.

Once had a girlfriend whose great-grandfather invented the shrimp peeling machine when he was a teenager. His father told him if he could figure out a way to peel shrimp faster than by hand, he could make a million dollars. He grew obsessed with this idea, a chance to leap ahead in the world, a lucky break that probably would never come ... but something to try for, still. Eventually, after a hell of a lot of failure, he managed to rig an old hand-crank washing machine to peel shrimp. After that he went on to make his millions and file over 70 patents for various inventions.

I don't see that happening in a socialist country, even if he was respected for having improved everyone's lot by lowering the cost of shrimp production. After all, how much respect can you give such a person? A head-nod when you pass in the hall. He's not going to have parades where he's carried on the shoulders of the people. Nothing even approaching the triumphant feeling of making millions through ingenuity, or the triumph of discovery experienced only after you've had sufficient motivation to get there in the first place.

I've never seen a way out of this. An old, tired criticism, I know, but like the problem of evil for some of the world's religions, not an easy one to sidestep. So I've never been able to feel comfortable with socialism. Meanwhile, capitalism is deeply corrupt, provides paths to profit from the misery, murder and mutilation of people born in the wrong place at the wrong time. (But that evil is perhaps a more natural one -- leave the world be, and that's what you'd have. "Laissez faire!..." The beast bares its teeth in the woods.) But there's still room for improvement, always. I suppose I don't see it as a system you can really replace, so much as refine, temper, improve, struggle against. A struggle you might call the history of human governance. Sometimes that governance steps too far in its hubris and replaces the tyranny it wants to overcome with one far more terrible, as in the case of the USSR. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth working to improve. Slow, incremental steps... ones we can be sure are in the right direction. Cocksure revolutionaries, count me out of your schemes, now and forever.

I will sit down and tackle this after work. But consider this: since like 2001, how many people who have worked on this very game, profit from it? Could it be that thinking of "profit" in purely monetary terms is limiting your conception of what motivates people?