Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
Methuen
Metalhead

Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 4:55 pm
Posts: 726
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:54 am 
 

Five_Nails wrote:
darkeningday wrote:
Five_Nails wrote:
a point that'll rustle some jimmies, "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals."

Imagine thinking anyone but the most irrelevant people in the world would be offended by this embarrassingly milquetoast and noncontroversial sentiment. :lol:


Just wait, the bickering partisans will log off of reddit and be back here soon. :argue:


I do try not to bite :(

Got a week off work coming up, so I'll be on the computer less, one less partisan taking part ;)
_________________
Methuen at Last.fm

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 5272
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:28 am 
 

Regarding Five_Nails brain aneurism leaking all over the last page, I offer this: if communism is responsible for the atrocities of the USSR, what about the far greater atrocities committed in the name of democratic capitalism? And don't give me this "muh dude that was just Capitalism done wrong" because that's a No True Scotsman!

Thinking America under socialism would take the shape of an abysmally poor eastern European or south American nation that started with rags and which themselves were ruthlessly sabotaged by imperialist countries, is the most brainwashed, reactionary boomer take ever.

Want a left wing country that was much more tolerant and progressive than pretty much any of its contemporaries? See the Weimar Republic.

And the Nordic Model, which is far to the left of any sitting politician in America, seems to be doing pretty well. While I wouldn't call it a socialist utopia, it's still objectively much more socialist than Venezuela, and sure as fuck more socialist than the US is and probably ever will be.
_________________
ambientsorrow wrote:
Pretty rubbish, I must say. Certainly not worth the hype behind it. Boring and predictable. A band for 14-22 year olds.

Top
 Profile  
Methuen
Metalhead

Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 4:55 pm
Posts: 726
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:54 am 
 

darkeningday wrote:
Regarding Five_Nails brain aneurism leaking all over the last page, I offer this: if communism is responsible for the atrocities of the USSR, what about the far greater atrocities committed in the name of democratic capitalism? And don't give me this "muh dude that was just Capitalism done wrong" because that's a No True Scotsman! (etc etc)


No-one is talking about Scandi countries, potential Americas, or Weimar Germany, chill :lol:

I think if you put up a poll on countries that people quite fancied, you'd find Scandinavia quite near the top.

The discussion got into the horrible things that all of the example communist nations in history have done because the resident hardliners won't own any of it. It's just "propaganda". As for the 'how many people die in the west', we did that on the preceding page, too, as a diversion because the resident hardliners also didn't want to admit that China is running trains to concentration camps.

It's a peculiar kind of leftist that would fit in at a David Irving lecture, but it takes all sorts I suppose.

Sedition went off on a strange tangent with Drone first talking about how China must be defended against the nasty capitalist lies about their atrocities as some sort of 'last man standing', and then further talking about Marxist anti-Semitism (which funnily enough turned up in Venezuela too - Jewish bankers making the world go round and all that rotten nonsense).

Recapping it does make one realise how much time is wasted arguing with these people, thanks for that :lol:
_________________
Methuen at Last.fm

Top
 Profile  
InnesI
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:19 pm
Posts: 1533
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:15 pm 
 

darkeningday wrote:
Regarding Five_Nails brain aneurism leaking all over the last page, I offer this: if communism is responsible for the atrocities of the USSR, what about the far greater atrocities committed in the name of democratic capitalism? And don't give me this "muh dude that was just Capitalism done wrong" because that's a No True Scotsman!

Thinking America under socialism would take the shape of an abysmally poor eastern European or south American nation that started with rags and which themselves were ruthlessly sabotaged by imperialist countries, is the most brainwashed, reactionary boomer take ever.

Want a left wing country that was much more tolerant and progressive than pretty much any of its contemporaries? See the Weimar Republic.

And the Nordic Model, which is far to the left of any sitting politician in America, seems to be doing pretty well. While I wouldn't call it a socialist utopia, it's still objectively much more socialist than Venezuela, and sure as fuck more socialist than the US is and probably ever will be.


Will that depends on if you start from the point of thinking there is one type of socialism only - which I don't believe there is. Socialism can be communistic or social democratic. Huge difference. And if we take my country as an example, since you brought it up, social democracy in the 1950's compared to the 2010's is also a huge difference.

I understand how north americans might think of us as very socialist and by comparison we are - in certain areas. But at the same time our system is also heavily influenced bu the New Public Management wave that gained traction in the 1980's. Swedens socialism is very liberal (in the European sense of the words not the american). That is liberal in this sense means classical liberal as the term was first used and includes market economy, automatisation of people, homo oeconomicus etc. Had you asked a socialist in the early 1900's he would have probably loathed the Swedish liberal line of present day presented by the sociald emocratic party. Remember that one of the great conflicts was socialism and liberalism (again in the european sense of the word).

I actually think that there really haven't been a pure socialist party in power (one that didn't have just as much, or more, liberal influences as socialist influences) maybe since the 60's.

Top
 Profile  
Dembo
Dumbo

Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:58 am
Posts: 1685
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:04 am 
 

Sedition and Pockets:
One reason I'd call China capitalist is the flocking of capitalist corporations to China, where they hire workers like everywhere else. There's something odd about that being the case unless the system there is capitalism. State capitalism may be a applicable term here.

But even if they don't hold power in the same way as in other countries, the tendency is clearly in the direction of increased power to capital, which again goes back to theoretical errors in maoism, specifically concerning contradictions.

But I agree that maoism wasn't a society as such.

Five_Nails, Unorthodox:
Find anything resembling a "rosy vision of a perfect society" among scientific socialists, which marxists are. Have you guys read anything by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin? It seems you've read some utopian socialists, or anarchists, if any thinkers of the socialist movement. Marxists hold no illusions about the gruesomeness of class struggle, that the brutality and manipulation with which the bourgeoisie will counter a unified socialist movement can't be dealt with simply by debates and peaceful protests.

And what about the common portrayal of capitalism as something which rewards hard work, when reality shows that those who work the hardest and under the worst conditions are the ones rewarded the least? Aren't The American Dream, the idea of a meaningful notion of democracy under economical inequality, and other common cases of capitalist propaganda rosy in your eyes?

Methuen:
I should clarify. I've never denied that for example Gulag prisons existed. What's problematic about the mainstream narrative is regarding numbers and guilt, terrible source references, and double standards. The mainstream narrative tells us that during the Stalin era, Stalin was guilty of everything bad, when there is evidence of other causes, both regarding individuals and other aspects. Also, you should distinguish between various countries and periods in time in one and the same country, since no one who objects to one claim would object to everything and since various movements are each other's enemies. For example, the revisionists in the Soviet Union, who love to sentence en masse and rehabilitate convicted people en masse based on when the original sentence was made, "providing documents" that make Stalin look bad, and using this to show that "even communists admit [x]" reveal a lack of knowledge about these topics. And you should take interest also in when non-communists and even straight out anti-communists go against the mainstream version, for example about the so called Holodomor being a man-made and intentional event.

Top
 Profile  
InnesI
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:19 pm
Posts: 1533
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 3:38 pm 
 

Dembo wrote:
And what about the common portrayal of capitalism as something which rewards hard work, when reality shows that those who work the hardest and under the worst conditions are the ones rewarded the least? Aren't The American Dream, the idea of a meaningful notion of democracy under economical inequality, and other common cases of capitalist propaganda rosy in your eyes?


This is such a common misconception among both socialists and capitalists. What ideal capitalism seeks is for those who produce something excellent and unique to be rewarded the most. Not the most hard working. This is the case... sometimes. But an absolutely free market very often also just produce unnecessary desires to make people consume. This is my main gripe with capitalism – that it removes important values and replaces them with wants and whims.

Its the same misconception can be seen with the "survival of the fittest" tagline which many seem to think to mean survival of the strongest. Especially in Sweden where many even translate it as "den starke överlever". It is misunderstood both by proponents of the idea and those who oppose it.

Top
 Profile  
Sedition and Pockets
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:29 am
Posts: 592
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 4:14 pm 
 

Dembo wrote:
Sedition and Pockets:
One reason I'd call China capitalist is the flocking of capitalist corporations to China, where they hire workers like everywhere else. There's something odd about that being the case unless the system there is capitalism. State capitalism may be a applicable term here.

But even if they don't hold power in the same way as in other countries, the tendency is clearly in the direction of increased power to capital, which again goes back to theoretical errors in maoism, specifically concerning contradictions.


Foreign capital has certainly been invested in China is massive amounts, but that capital rarely actually owns anything there. Chiefly, it comes in the form of contracts with Chinese manufacturing firms that are typically wholly or partially state owned, whose "profits" are then disposed of to meet CPC priorities. China's internal markets remain heavily socialized, and much of what is produced for internal consumption is not produced for profit at all. China has executed numerous billionaires over the last 15 years. Even "state capitalist" isn't really a fair characterization.
_________________
The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)|Our Program/What We Stand For|Liberation News|Join Us

Top
 Profile  
InnesI
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:19 pm
Posts: 1533
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:26 pm 
 

Sedition and Pockets wrote:
Foreign capital has certainly been invested in China is massive amounts, but that capital rarely actually owns anything there. Chiefly, it comes in the form of contracts with Chinese manufacturing firms that are typically wholly or partially state owned, whose "profits" are then disposed of to meet CPC priorities. China's internal markets remain heavily socialized, and much of what is produced for internal consumption is not produced for profit at all.


This is my impression as well. Its the communist party using certain capitalistic ideas in to further, or fund, their socialization. I don't see them actually letting "the capital" in itself gain to much influence. Capitalism as a tool to increase power in the party and the state not like in the US where the capital in many ways own media outlets and such.

Top
 Profile  
Sedition and Pockets
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:29 am
Posts: 592
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:49 pm 
 

InnesI wrote:
Sedition and Pockets wrote:
Foreign capital has certainly been invested in China is massive amounts, but that capital rarely actually owns anything there. Chiefly, it comes in the form of contracts with Chinese manufacturing firms that are typically wholly or partially state owned, whose "profits" are then disposed of to meet CPC priorities. China's internal markets remain heavily socialized, and much of what is produced for internal consumption is not produced for profit at all.


This is my impression as well. Its the communist party using certain capitalistic ideas in to further, or fund, their socialization. I don't see them actually letting "the capital" in itself gain to much influence. Capitalism as a tool to increase power in the party and the state not like in the US where the capital in many ways own media outlets and such.


...and where the state is constituted specifically for the defense and maintenance of capital and the management of capitalist affairs.
_________________
The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)|Our Program/What We Stand For|Liberation News|Join Us

Top
 Profile  
Dembo
Dumbo

Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:58 am
Posts: 1685
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2020 10:40 am 
 

About China, it's the tendency that's my main concern. Whatever the proper labels for Chinese society, capital is highly influential on people's lives, with the permission of the state. And just like "market socialism" was wrong and paved the way for the return of capitalism in various Eastern European countries and elsewhere, it will be the case for China.

InnesI wrote:
Dembo wrote:
And what about the common portrayal of capitalism as something which rewards hard work, when reality shows that those who work the hardest and under the worst conditions are the ones rewarded the least? Aren't The American Dream, the idea of a meaningful notion of democracy under economical inequality, and other common cases of capitalist propaganda rosy in your eyes?


This is such a common misconception among both socialists and capitalists. What ideal capitalism seeks is for those who produce something excellent and unique to be rewarded the most. Not the most hard working. This is the case... sometimes. But an absolutely free market very often also just produce unnecessary desires to make people consume. This is my main gripe with capitalism – that it removes important values and replaces them with wants and whims.

I'm not talking about "ideal capitalism", but what's being propagated in capitalist societies.

Top
 Profile  
des91
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:51 pm
Posts: 45
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2020 1:26 pm 
 

InnesI wrote:

This is such a common misconception among both socialists and capitalists. What ideal capitalism seeks is for those who produce something excellent and unique to be rewarded the most. Not the most hard working. This is the case... sometimes. But an absolutely free market very often also just produce unnecessary desires to make people consume. This is my main gripe with capitalism – that it removes important values and replaces them with wants and whims.

Its the same misconception can be seen with the "survival of the fittest" tagline which many seem to think to mean survival of the strongest. Especially in Sweden where many even translate it as "den starke överlever". It is misunderstood both by proponents of the idea and those who oppose it.


Yeah the hard work thing is such bs. I’ve been working in a distribution center warehouse for 3 years and still don’t make a living wage (live with my parents). Almost have perfect attendance all three years, worked 6 full days a week several times, working at a fast pace almost all the time and they pay us just an ass hair above minimum wage.

Top
 Profile  
matras
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:01 am
Posts: 954
Location: Sweden
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2020 3:03 pm 
 

The bootstrap myth is one of the most pervasive and ingrained lies in western society, and one that is really hard to unlearn... because what's your options in the current system?

Top
 Profile  
InnesI
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:19 pm
Posts: 1533
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:02 pm 
 

Dembo wrote:
I'm not talking about "ideal capitalism", but what's being propagated in capitalist societies.


I haven't seen anyone propagate for hard work leading to greater reward in the meaning that you give to the words (work as, and I paraphrase, those who work the longest hours in the worst conditions i.e. factory workers and such). The words are used but not to mean that. Is there even one example where this is even implied?

The easier a job is (meaning the easier you are able to be replaced if you quit) - the lower the sallary. I think that is a given in a capitalist society even though the bad wording of "hard work - high reward" is misinterpreted by many. Its very common however that say that work should pay off compared to not do anything at all collecting welfare.

I think the general principle is sound. If you do something special you should be rewarded more for that than others who don't. Nivellation of people, salaries etc is not good for a society (although high class differences have also shown to be bad for society at large). I don't however believe that we can let the marked dictate the conditions. In that case I think China is smart in using the market as a tool but to further their agenda (not that I agree with their agenda but the strategy is smart).

Top
 Profile  
des91
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:51 pm
Posts: 45
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:21 pm 
 

Yeah I’ve always been of the belief that the work harder, get rewarded for it was supposed to mean what is commonly misconstrued. Like, what do people mean when they say “work hard”. Push yourself to your physical limit doing manual labor? Work long hours?

Off topic slightly but I fucking suck at school of every type. College, trade schools, all that kind of thing. Tried them all and failed. It’s just hard for me to learn skills in general. That is why I work hard manual labor stacking packages and showing pallets in a warehouse. It’s very straightforward and meets my natural born strengths. But I move fast and never skip work ever. Shouldn’t I be rewarded for that? This where I thought the hard work paying off was supposed to be applied to. But I guess not.

Sorry for the rant...

Top
 Profile  
Unorthodox
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:08 pm
Posts: 1917
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:04 pm 
 

des91 wrote:
Off topic slightly but I fucking suck at school of every type. College, trade schools, all that kind of thing. Tried them all and failed. It’s just hard for me to learn skills in general. That is why I work hard manual labor stacking packages and showing pallets in a warehouse. It’s very straightforward and meets my natural born strengths. But I move fast and never skip work ever. Shouldn’t I be rewarded for that? This where I thought the hard work paying off was supposed to be applied to. But I guess not.

Sorry for the rant...


Sorry if this comes across as incredibly callous but..

Rewarded, as in paid enough so that you can put a roof over your head, feed a family and not go hungry without working obscene hours each week? Absolutely, the way we regard people in your line of work is incredibly fucked. Absolutely no one working minimum wage or close to minimum wage jobs can afford an apartment anywhere in this country. They have no healthcare and no way to saving any money. It's unsustainable.

But should you be rewarded as in you should get as much as a software engineer for Google? No. And that's not a moralistic statement- that's a statement regarding the supply and demand of labor. For every one person I can find working at Google, I can find 10+ that will stack packages in a warehouse. So because the supply of labor is larger in your line of work, businesses don't need to pay that much to find someone to work that job.

...I have no idea what any of this has to do with this initial point of this thread, and I've kinda checked out after the Five_Nails rant, but there you go.

edit: Also, if your bosses see that you are more productive than your peers, then they're stupid not to promote you. But there always is a point people reach with all jobs where they tap out how much they can truly progress. This is my problem with wacko banksters like Jamie Diamond who say "someday you could be the CEO just like me". Like, yeah- you could. But there's only one CEO, and thousands of workers. Fat fucking chance :(
_________________
Last.fm

Top
 Profile  
InnesI
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:19 pm
Posts: 1533
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:32 am 
 

des91 wrote:
Yeah I’ve always been of the belief that the work harder, get rewarded for it was supposed to mean what is commonly misconstrued. Like, what do people mean when they say “work hard”. Push yourself to your physical limit doing manual labor? Work long hours?

Off topic slightly but I fucking suck at school of every type. College, trade schools, all that kind of thing. Tried them all and failed. It’s just hard for me to learn skills in general. That is why I work hard manual labor stacking packages and showing pallets in a warehouse. It’s very straightforward and meets my natural born strengths. But I move fast and never skip work ever. Shouldn’t I be rewarded for that? This where I thought the hard work paying off was supposed to be applied to. But I guess not.

Sorry for the rant...


The idea is that you can climb in a corporate structure. If you are the best in the country at stacking packages, then great, you might get more raise than others. However it won't make you rich my any stretch. But in theory capitalism would allow you to change occupation and climb the corporate ladder. So if you're static at your workplace your hard work will only get you so far. But it should open new and better paid opportunities. Maybe as warehouse manager or some other lower level manager etc. As Unorthodox said it is about supply and demand (with many other facors playing in such as education).

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 454771
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:01 pm
Posts: 527
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:22 am 
 

The goal of capitalism is that eventually everyone will become CEOs and thus be rich. You may say that in reality companies only need a small number of CEOs and a much larger number of warehouse workers, implying that even if everyone worked hard and was equally as capable, some would still be unfairly given more money and power than others who do work which is equally as essential for the company to carry out it's business, but that's just not looking at the bigger picture. Maybe 70% of your paycheck is getting eaten up by rent now, but that will surely get ironed out eventually...

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: KrigareTjovane and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

 
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group