1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why We Need Communism: Tent City University Lunchtime Meeting, 11 April

Discussion in 'protest, direct action and demos' started by Alfredo, Mar 30, 2012.

  1. Rogue_Leader

    Rogue_Leader Almost not completely ignorant.

    You're simply proving my point.
  2. love detective

    love detective secret pint

    if your 'point' is one which is diametrically opposed to the one you made earlier then I would be yes
  3. Citizen66

    Citizen66 splash the cistern

    If your 'point' is that you're coming across like a patronising prick, i believe it was proven a couple of posts ago.
    Lock&Light likes this.
  4. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    I'd recommend you read Marx.
  5. SpookyFrank

    SpookyFrank Bound for glory

    If reading Marx was going to do anyone any good it would have done so by now.
    Lock&Light and camouflage like this.
  6. Rogue_Leader

    Rogue_Leader Almost not completely ignorant.

    Aww, how adorable. Personal attacks.
  7. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    Eh?
  8. camouflage

    camouflage that's right, space pirate.

    patronizing present participle of pa·tron·ize (Verb)

    Verb: Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.​
  9. Louis MacNeice

    Louis MacNeice Autumn Journalist

    The calorific and nutritional value of potatoes is only made real in relation to other sources of calories and and nutrition; just as the communicative value of a mobile phone is only made real in relation to other methods of communication. Love detective is right, we make value. Rogue Leader is trying to dream a way out of our current mess, by wishing to subordinate our actions to some other naturally determined order where potatoes are intrinsically 'better' than gold.

    It is precisely the central position of human actions that makes communism such an attractive idea; a free association, the objects of which are to encourage the development and utilisation of our abilities (both individual and social) to identify and meet our needs (again both individual and social). The only qualification for entry to the free association being our mutually recognised, our shared humanity.

    Cheers - Louis MacNeice
    yield and Captain Hurrah like this.
  10. Spanky Longhorn

    Spanky Longhorn CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN

    We need potatoes and gold.:cool:
  11. copliker

    copliker ...

    I have a potato, but the nearest thing to gold I have is a fun size crunchie.
  12. Rogue_Leader

    Rogue_Leader Almost not completely ignorant.

    Wow. That's an astoundingly meaningless pile of bollocks. I'm impressed.
    phildwyer likes this.
  13. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    It would be great if you could argue your point?
  14. Spanky Longhorn

    Spanky Longhorn CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN

    Fair enough if you don't understand it, just admit. However you have simply resorted to personal insults, which means you've lost the argument imo.
  15. Rogue_Leader

    Rogue_Leader Almost not completely ignorant.


    Ok, perhaps you could explain what the difference is between




    and libertarian fundamentalist free market libertarianism?
    phildwyer likes this.
  16. phildwyer

    phildwyer Gorau arf arf dysg

    It is precisely this sort of emotive, sub-romantic gushing that puts so many people off becoming communists.

    (It's that repetition of "our" in the last sentence that really grates... unbearable)
  17. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage


    Maybe, if you could explain what "libertarian fundamentalist free market libertarianism" is.
  18. phildwyer

    phildwyer Gorau arf arf dysg

    I believe RL was alluding to the distinction between use-value and exchange-value.

    While obviously nothing has value apart from human beings, that does not mean that nothing has inherent value. All use-values inhere in their objects, and the physical presence of the object is required for its use-value to be realized.

    But as RL rightly says, exchange-value is immaterial and relational only. If you try to say the same of use-value, the distinction between them evaporates.
  19. Rogue_Leader

    Rogue_Leader Almost not completely ignorant.


    I am amazed that you have the intellectual sophistication to engage in socio-economic debate at this level and yet seem to be incapable of seeing the difference between things that have value in and of themselves and things that have value only as a medium of exchange.
  20. Rogue_Leader

    Rogue_Leader Almost not completely ignorant.

    It's most magnanimous of you not to exploit that meaningless typo that I made. After all, concentrating on a simple error by someone in a hurry might betray the intellectual bankruptcy of your position.
  21. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    Things don't have value "in and if themselves", as has been pointed out. If you disagree with what has been said, argue why.
  22. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    I take it from that, that you don't know what you mean.
  23. Rogue_Leader

    Rogue_Leader Almost not completely ignorant.

    I think the distinction between consumable commodities and exchange units is quite clear. I'm really not sure what it is you don't understand.
  24. Rogue_Leader

    Rogue_Leader Almost not completely ignorant.

    Oh, right. You actually don't know what libertarianism is?
  25. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    I'm asking you to respond to the points made to you.
  26. Rogue_Leader

    Rogue_Leader Almost not completely ignorant.

    If you believe there are points that I haven't answered, I'm sure you'll be delighted to remind me.

    This is why the left is fucked. Far too busy trying to score points off each other.
  27. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    Again - I'm asking you to explain what you mean by "fundamentalist free market libertarianism".

    I know what I meant when I referred to free market libertarian types. I'm guessing you mean that? The main difference would be attitudes to private property (i.e. means of production) and wage labour.
  28. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    You haven't responded to any points put to you as far as I can see. :confused:
  29. Rogue_Leader

    Rogue_Leader Almost not completely ignorant.

    Can we just refer to 'free marketeers' from now on? I'm a bit weary of typing it out every time.

    I'm referring to people who believe that there should be no regulation of industry whatsoever and that individuals are free to conduct themselves as they see fit without fear of state censure. By extension, this means that the free marketeer is free to develop his or her own skills which might or might not be exchangeable for the necessities of life.
  30. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    Yes? And?

    In that scenario what about people who don't own property?

Share This Page