Subhaditya
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Costas Panayotakis in his book Remaking Scarcity says that the system is fairer when more people have experience in administration, resource allocation positions. Its ignorance of the inner workings of these that enable much of the corruption.
So the thing to do is to rotate these positions with as many people as possible. And never allow anyone too much time to occupy these administrative positions. That way more people will have experience with administration and it would be harder to fool them by the current administrators. Better to have temporary politicians/bureaucrats who return to the pool of common people after their short tenure ends.
We can have career doctors, engineers etc but its better to not have career politicians.
Okay, so what happens with the goods & services where demand far outstrips supply? How do you allocate them?
About me being sexist, maybe i am maybe i am not i dont know.
In a socialist soceity i will probably try to get into a ‘free love’ commune like the one the Rajneeshis were founding in Oregon. Heck if i was alive at that time and had the means, i would have joined them.
Nevermind the guru’s inability to stop himself from using the commune’s fund to buy Rolce Royces and luxury watches for himself. Why ? Because his was the only free love commune out there that i was aware of… getting to have sex with hundreds possibly thousands of women without condoms outweighed the failings of the guru haha. Sounds pretty close to paradise when all the women allow you to have sex with them 😉. They even turned a desert into farmland, focussing on sustainable living. Osho might have partly been a businessman, but his people were great.
Hi Robbo203,
When there is scarcity of several goods and services, isnt the conditions ripe for corruption to creep in? Like engaging in some quid pro quo with ‘friends’ to secure the scarce goods/services that you the allocater of these g&s need.
I know i would curry favour with the ladies in exchange for sex if i had influence over the allocation of those scarce goods & services that are in demand with the ladies… yeah mostly because i dont get much of it 😁.
jondwhite wrote:What if there is mass unionization, can the workers organized stop wages falling as a proportion of profit?I believe so, its why I think governments crack down on unions… to increase profits of industrialists by weakening the workers ability to coordinate with each other to push their interests.From what I heard USA govt never allowed strong trade unions to come up there. Twice they cracked down on workers movements aimed at mobilizing the workers by accusing them of being Soviet spies or sympathisers. First it happened after the First World War and again in the 1960s.Margaret Thatcher's crackdown on trade unions was aimed at increasing profits for businesses.Workers organized can definitely get themselves a better deal which is why capitalists are so opposed to workers organizing themselves doing things like forming trade unions.Like for forming laws… our politicians invariably go where the money is… its not much of a contest when one side has say workers or small businesses and the other has big businesses backing it.But if these people or even small businesses could organize themselves better and coordinate with each other to push their common interests they might even end up pooling enough money to challenge the money big business is offering to the politicians. The thing is it is not happening now as its hard for so many people to coordinate with each other and do things like pool money for lobbying or even know what is going on in parliament/senate etc. But something like a big trade union or a collection of unions getting together can do a far better job of it than people individually can.Who knows mass unionization might even lead to a socialist society coming up down the road.
Thomas Piketty said in his book Capital in the Twenty First Century that USA will be the first developed country to lose its middle class (middle 40%) then some time later European countries will follow suit finally Scandinavian coutries will lose theirs… but he also believed before that transpires huge political unrest will take place… it will not happen peacefully.All their wealth will trickle up to the 1%, the middle class will lose ownership of their houses.
Dave B wrote:The problem with the title of the thread is that the only successful ‘communist community’ ;that lasted a hundred years or so. [successful communist community being one that practiced a free access moneyless system within it of voluntary labour etc.] was one that prohibited sex , and was ‘christian’ ie the Shakers. http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm the communist part of it however is pretty much left out of the otherwise glowing Wikipedia entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers Engels said it was communism in 1844 anyway in a preamble to his pamphlet in a letter to Karl. It is quite clear also that many of the early Christians were communists in the sense that they believed in having things in common As in Didache circa 100AD , epistle of Barnabas 130, anti Christian tract passing of Peregrinus 170 , Celsus again anti Christian and ad 170, Justyn the Martyr circa 130. etc. Ignoring the well trawled acts stuff. And there is also the other stuff, like below again from 2nd century. For man God made all things to be common property. He brought the female to be with the male in common and in the same way united all the animals. He thus showed rightousness to be a universal sharing along with equality. But those who have been born in this way have denied the sharing which is the corollary of their origin and say Let him who has taken one woman keep her, whereas all can share her, just as the other animals show us. With view to the permanence of the race, he has implanted in males a strong and ardent desire which neither law nor custom nor any other restraint is able to destroy. For it is God´s decree……Consequently one must understand the saying You shall not desire as if the lawgiver was making a jest, to which he added the even more comic words Your neighbors goods. For he himself gave the desire to sustain the race orders that it is to be supposed, though he removes it from no other animals. And by the words Your neighbors wife he says something even more ludicrous, since he forces what should be common property to be treated as private posession. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/epiphanes.html Sexist orientated admittedly but plenty to sink your teeth over that kind of thing????? This stuff however seems to be preserved by early Christians critiquing some kind free love notion of Christian communism; looks like flower power kind of stuff? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarpocratesThanks Dave, I didnt knew early Christianity had such thoughts going.But the thing is Rome became the center of power for Christianity not because the masses wanted it but because a bishop close to the Roman elites convinced them to become Christian and turn their part of the Roman empire into a Christian empire.That the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church was chosen not because he was popular with the masses but because he was popular with the elites. The elites chose the Pope not the masses.Maybe at the start when the landlords werent too much into Christianity thoughts of having things in common could survive but I doubt after it became an instrument of the masters to enforce their will it was anything other than 'keeping ones property to oneself' and everyone submit to the condition as it is Gods will.I really dont see how the church can bring about socialism controlled as it is by some of the biggest property owners of the land. I just dont see them parting with their possessions on their own and thus promoting ideas that will result in such a thing happening.
mcolome1 wrote:I think you main problem is that you need a partner able to provide sex to you, that would be your vaccine to cure your problems. Your scarcity is sex. I do not have to read any books written by pervertsChristopher Ryan is pervert, is see you will not even go through data.And of course you believe monogamy will solve all problems, the data that is showing otherwise you will not even go through it.So whose data are you following may I know, you form opinions without going through all the data that is available to you, scientist will tell you how innacurate you can get when you refuse to go through all the data that is available to you.If you had gone through the portions about our anatomy in C.R. book I doubt you would still believe we are a monogamous species. If you had gone through James W. Prescott's article you would know by now societies that practice sexual monogamy are much more violent than those where people can freely seek out physical pleasure with whoever they want.You are stuck up on rape…. try to find out how much rape is happening among the Mosuo of China… they are still around so you can even pay them a visit if you like… you will also get to see how women behave when they are free to have sex with whoever they want.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Subhaditya wrote:[Well all I can say is I can prove my superiority through violent means as well.Dream on Bonny LadIf your theseis is that lack of sex produces violent threat, does the above quote back up my thesis that you're clearly not getting any
Tim you keep distracting attention … I am throwing James W. Prescott's research, Christopher Ryan's PH. D. thesis at you and what are you doing… speculating on my desires and getting it wrong most of the time.FYI last time I hit someone I was in school.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:mcolome1 wrote:Subhaditya wrote:At the height of the Victorian Age there were 80,000 prostitutes in the streets of London.The Britsh army had an elaborate system to ensure their soldiers got sex from 'non local' prostitutes, probably for security reasons 'local' was avoided.Disabled people(men and women) make use of them as 'sex surrogates' and pay them for their services….. to say such a service is not required in a thoroughly monogamous society is a joke.If you fail to add this 'pleasant/unpleasant' task (which I understand will be voluntary like every other task) in a socialist society will mean socialism will fail in its promise to meet people's needs through peaceful cooperation.I thibk that 80,000 prostitutes is nothing compared with the ring of child prostitution that exists around the world. Doesn't;it bother you to know that children are being used as prostitute ? Those are sexual slaves, and many of those children are already suffering from venereal diseases, and probably they will die at a very young age. That ring of prostitution is also tied to drug traffic, and some are also used to transport drugs Personally, I do not care if the socialist society is going to be monogamous, or polygamy, what is really worrying me is this society based on profits who is using children as prostitutes, and a bunch of perverts are having sex with minors, and are destroying their personal life. Those are the social issues that socialists must worry aboutThere is a big ring of women who have been forced into prostitution, only the rings from the Major Antilles is bigger than the 80 000 that you have mentioned, and those women are distributed thru different countries, and the most affected one are women because there is male prostitution too
You are right on the money there Comrade. The commodity based "society" that the upholders of Capitalism laughingly describe as "freedom" casually ignores that fact that slavery and especially sexual slavery still exists and thrives in most parts of the world.The idea of the "happy hooker" who chooses the so called sex industry as part of a life style choice. which Subhaditya appears to go along with, is a propaganda myth created for those making millions out of the misery of men, women and as you so rightly point out many children. A recent survey in the Uk by the charity Barnardos reported that of female prostitutes they surveyed over 70% began working in the sex industry as children.The fact that capitalism reduces everything to a commodity that can be bought or sold, leads to a situation where children are traffiked and forced into being sex slaves and creates a mind set where those abusing them think that it is ok to do so. The scandals in Rochdale and Rotherham, that hit the headlines are only the tip of a very large ice berg.I'd rather live in a Socialist society with the problem of some people being sexual frustrated, than a capitalist society with millions being sexual exploited.
Lol you two…. both of you guys have some sort of paranoid condition when it comes to the use of the word 'sex' …. did you two even read the word 'voluntary' in my post… here is the link to the meaning of the word voluntary … http://www.dictionary.com/browse/voluntaryMcolome1 also sees a bourgeoisie conspiracy everywhere.I dont think either of you read the book 'Sex At Dawn' I mentioned or checked the article by James W. Prescott 'linking lack of physical pleasure with violence'. I am not even sure you two know what I am talking about… you two keep getting drawn to issues of coercion, yet cannot see a connection between sexual frustration and coercion… In a world where it is 'natural' for women to fight over men and the 'superior woman' will get to have the man and vice versa there is implicit acceptance of inequality where the 'superior' being has the right to a better life than his inferiors, well then stop cribbing about your inferior existence. Prove your superiority and you will get to have a better life than your inferiors if not well then be content with your inferior existence. You want competition or cooperation… do you want one to forcefully prove his/her superioirity to the other and hence deny the other the thing they are competing over(sexual partner in this case) and keep it all to themselves because face it both cant have it in a sexually monogamous or polygamous place. Do you want every person to prove their superiority to their competitors as the more superior you are the better life you will deserve to have.Well all I can say is I can prove my superiority through violent means as well. Machiavellian deception comes in handy too. It is brutal but effective and maybe the only way in a world of scarcity. Socialist dont think socialism will work in a world of scarcity….Yet Mcolome1 cannot connect sexual frustration with scarcity and the pain it causes and its connection to violence, infliction of pain on one self and others…. and the environment of domination and submission it promotes…In an environment of scarcity there always will be a dominant master class who corner the scarce resources and a slave class who must be 'content' to live in deprivation if they wish to 'survive'.And that is why I am against artificially creating an environment of scarcity.p.s. Dr. Susan Block has sex with many men and women and is also married and she makes extra money by appearing in a TV show promoting pleasure seeking behavior and she is 60 years old, does she qualify as 'happy hooker' or she something else Im not sure maybe Tim can clarify.Also I know of a person who joined porn as she had doubts about her attractiveness when she was in school… so inspite of being a good student she chose to join porn…I wish there were more women in this forum I could talk to half the guys here only see rape when I mention the word promiscuity… as if peaceful promiscuity is impossible.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Do we spend our energy rehabilitating certain terms from their abuse? Or do we move on as many others have by either dropping what is considered an outmoded and redundant style of language and simply re-invent socialism in a new garb.Either option involves explaining what we really mean when we describe how we see present-day society and what we want to replace it and how we wish to do it. We cannot avoid the laborious task of education.In my humble opinion I think 're-invent socialism in a new garb' might provide better results… once you have a 'convert' you can always let him/her know this is what 'socialism' has always stood for and how the master class has done a good job of twisting its meaning.This is what I do… and people start talking about 'practicality of this new good idea' this 'newage dream' lol…. they have no idea I am talking about socialism…
At the height of the Victorian Age there were 80,000 prostitutes in the streets of London.The Britsh army had an elaborate system to ensure their soldiers got sex from 'non local' prostitutes, probably for security reasons 'local' was avoided.Disabled people(men and women) make use of them as 'sex surrogates' and pay them for their services….. to say such a service is not required in a thoroughly monogamous society is a joke.If you fail to add this 'pleasant/unpleasant' task (which I understand will be voluntary like every other task) in a socialist society will mean socialism will fail in its promise to meet people's needs through peaceful cooperation.
Osama Jafar wrote:Suppose that SPGB somehow won elections, is the first move hay workers there no state there no money we arent even elected is that the plan, amnt making fun of you but am getting somewhere for simple minded people like me.If SPGB manages to get support of the majority…. majority would have developed a socialistic consciousness by then… after that its only a matter of time before socialist society comes up.The challenge is to get the majority to understand what socialism is right now only a small minority seems aware of what it stands for…No socialist society can come up when the majority do not know what it is… as socialism requires people taking charge of their own lives… they cannot be like sheep and surrender all power to some shepherd who they hope will take them to a better place… they have to take themselves there no one will do it for them.
mcolome1 wrote:The only threat to Capitalism is the whole working class of the whole world armed with a class consciousness.How do you bring about this class consciousness…. that person Aaron Swartz was trying to do something about it… and he was developing political aspirations… anyways you said someone with humanist principles cannot aspire to be president… I think you are wrong on that…And do you tell people to question things or just provide ready made answer as if we already know what perfection is and all we have to do is implement it and we would reach the 'state of perfection' … your posts sound like bible preaching and we all know how wrong they were about many things.Just because you got one thing right doesnt mean you got everything right.
