[Subhaditya]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

The use of the term "retards' is completely unacceptable on a Socialist Forum and is highly insulting and pejorative to people with an Intellectual Disability.You appear not only to wish to insult women but also appear to wish to insult other groups of people who do not meet your Benchmark of acceptability.Can I suggest you go off and educate yourself on the societal position of people with intellectual disability and the struggles that have faced to overcome dehumanising attitudes like yours. You appear to want to join in the societal devaluation of people with intellectual disabilities. Can I suggest that instead of giving vent to your bizarre sexual fantasies you take the time to find out about the struggles of other workers and their families, 

Tim I have heard many people like you… in the name of respecting women's honour you enslave them…. in the name of batting for the retards you keep them castrated… Here I am batting for better sex lives for them and look at you… you are diverting attention to terminologies. So what is the earth shattering difference between the term intellectual disability and retard both qualify a person as intellectually inferior to the average person in some way or you would call them 'normal' not use special terms to describe them.You know all that matters is if you actually care for them or not, thats far more important than stupid terminologies.Ensuring niggers get same treatment as the white man matters far more than the term nigger or negro… thats just statement of intent… actual delivery is what matters in the end…. even a 10 year old can treat just about anyone with respect if it wanted to… are you going to waste time on teaching respectful terminology or actually do something like try meeting their needs.Have you ever wondered why blacks keep referring to themselves as niggers ? 

[Subhaditya]

Matt wrote:

I am pretty promiscuous but your post is creeping me out.

Lol, I just realized this will be one of the unpleasant tasks … to ensure everyone gets enough pleasant sex… because well there are always many who are arent getting any sex thats worth calling it sex… money and power can go a long way in addressing that which of course only a few will have enough of… and money wont exist in socialistic society… and yet socialism isnt complete if your critical needs arent met through cooperation… So I suppose to meet peoples sexual needs in a socialist society without money…. there will be the unpleasant task of giving sex to those with whom no one they are attracted to wants to have sex with… and it cant be done by those they are not feeling attracted to…. or we can pair up 2 guys not getting any and make them ejaculate each other which is probably not going to meet these two guys sexual needs especially if they are attracted to women.So I guess for socialism to deliver on its promise of 'to each according to their needs from each according to their ability', to the list of unpleasant tasks will need to be added the unpleasant and voluntary task of giving 'pleasant sex' to those who arent managing it on their own. If I can get any cruder it would be giving 'pleasant sex' to the uglies and retards of the world who arent managing any on their own.I guess it would be managed the same way as the other unpleasant tasks that need to be done to meet peoples needs.

[Subhaditya]

Dave B wrote:

The proposition is in fact quite simple. It is proposed that the only way we, or the 99%, can solve the problems that we have now as a result of our development is to move towards free access moneyless communism. That is contested obviously, particularly by the 1% who suffer that much less from the problems of capitalism; and needs debate. A debate that is restricted and controlled by the ownership of the media by the 1%. And probably we will, as Winston Churchill put it in another somewhat ironic context; Do the Right Thing — After Exhausting All the Alternatives

And by alternatives of course the ones promoted by the 1% where they remain in control and dictate to the 99% what to do.

[Subhaditya]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

So how does this politically aware and conscious majority come into existence.   

Damn there is no delete post button… I just realized Steve is looking for a theory and I dont have one… so I am editing it to this…

[Subhaditya]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Yes the development of scientific theories tends to be a  minority concern …In any event , that has got nothing to do with changing society which very clear must be the concern of the majority not a small minority

[my bold]These are contradictory political positions, robbo.To 'change society' (which must mean our socio-natural being, what Marx calls our 'organic nature') requires social theory and practice, which, for building a democratic society like socialism, can only be the 'theory' of the majority and the 'practice' of the majority.'Scientific theories' have everything to do with 'changing society'.Your continued failure to address this contradiction in your politics will lead you to take an essentially Leninist position – that an 'expert elite' can come up with the scientific social theories required to build our world.

A doctor may know more about a patients condition than the patient…. does not imply doctor has the patients best interest in mind… what benefits the doctor may not be in the best interest of the patient… take away power from the patient and the outcome may be great for the doctor but not so positive for the patient.Have you heard of project MKULTRA… it is described very nicely in the first chapter of the book "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein.

[Subhaditya]

mcolome1 wrote:

Nobody with humanist principles will never desire to be a president

Hmm, if there is an hour to spare do check out this documentary about Aaron Swartz… he dreamed of being in the White House eventually…. but look what he was upto while he was alive….https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpvcc9C8SbMYou may not get to become one but thats different from wanting to…The US governemnt killed him off as he was proving to be a genuine threat to their capitalist class and was growing in power…

[Subhaditya]

Dave T wrote:

In facty I would hazard a guess by saying that such an event has never occured where workers as a class have developed a socialist consciousness.

I agree, or russian workers would not have allowed their leaders to lord over them break up the soviets, communes etc.

[Subhaditya]

mcolome1 wrote:

He spend the whole year calling himself an anarchist, and then, at the end,  he ends supporting state capitalism, and state capitalists leaders,  and calling workers to vote for the Democratic Party which is one of the party of the USA ruling class. He is just a political pendulum, he is not a threat to capitalism

Someone explained it as to those converted he tells them to aim for the end goals i.e. anarchy while those still believing in capitalism and trying to decide between the 2 parties he tells them to vote for the pro poor party…. maybe after noticing the behavior of the pro poor party for a while they will lose faith in it became disillusioned and finally start looking for the alternatives.  Maybe this is what Chomsky is upto ?

[Subhaditya]

Hmm, I would….1) Introduce swiss style referendums where when an issue has collected a certain number of signatures it will be put to a popular vote and become law if people approve it.2) Make elected representatives recallable along with an option to reverse any of their very recent decisions with the process starting the same way as referendums. To prevent abuse allow only one recall per year and two for the entire term.3) Allow the bottom 50% to select any two newspaper, news channel and two news websites to be fully funded by the state for a couple of years. The two most popular choices in each category in the vote being selected for state funding. It can be done region wise then the funding will be for operating in that region only.The funding can be capped at the top expenditure in that category for the previous year. No need for any 'national' government controlled media. This will be a lot of money coming for addressing poor people's concerns focussing on things that can be delivered in a couple of years since then the funding will again be up for grabs. 4) Make all media organizations run by their employees… that is the editors of content will be selected by the employees and not the owners and recallable if the employees dont approve of them anymore. That way all media content will have approval of a majority of their employees and not just their editorial board and owners.

[Subhaditya]

robbo203 wrote:

Try telling  a worker today that he or she – and it seems to be overwhelmingly if not exclusively  women that you are talking of – is going to be shared around as the object of sexual desire and see what sort of response you get.

Good point, I am probably getting the wording all wrong… maybe this link (it is explicit ) will give a woman's perspective and which I think is healthier for socialism. There you will see for almost all of its duration women giving themselves pleasure… and at the end of it she(Dr. Susan Block at 59 years probably) says this

Quote:

different permutations of the pussy… many pussy… because I know it heals you… I want to heal you so you dont fucking go off to bomb villages and big cities

Before you go ballistic on me saying there is no relation between sex and violence again I will draw attention to James W.  Prescott's research on the link between denial of physical pleasure and violence.As long as massive number of people enjoy inflicting violence on others and themselves… 'human behavior' will look too violent, 'barbaric' and socialism 'impractical', 'impossible'.In this context a "many pussy" world looks far more likely to turn to socialism just because people will not see "many rape" when you mention the word "many pussy" instead they will see "more affection" which seems impossible to see at the moment.People cant even seem to see themselves as 'humans' and seem to be aspiring to be humans trying to control their 'animal nature'  where they equate sex with rape. James W. Prescott talks about this in his article…       

[Subhaditya]

Are you telling me…When one is forced to live in a hovel while another one lives in a palace… and if the hovel dweller has a desire to live in the palace you use repression to prevent that from happening… domination and subjugation is not happening ? A new subjugated class wont come up in no time?And its a bad idea to 'encourage' the palaces and hovels to share what they have to offer to those who seek to experience them.That it is not socialistic to 'encourage' people to share… especially when there are many examples showing people are perfectly capable of sharing in a collective way.Whats with this political correctness… we are not equal or we would all look the same. We want to be treated equally. Or we would be perfectly content living in an unequal society…. which religion has tried to accomplish for thousands of years.p.s. i used the word 'encourage' not 'force'… whats with this blindness there is a difference between encourage and force… person being encouraged can reject it while person being forced will be killed or jailed or fined for refusal.

[Subhaditya]

Matt wrote:

 Who are you to consider any human as 'ugly' anyway?

Please… the object of attraction always judges… or is it programmed to judge ?

[Subhaditya]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

I love wikipedia.  Isn't wikipedia a socialist organization in practice? Leaderless (mostly).  everyone can and does contibute according to their ability. Everyone can and does benefit according to their need. . . .

^^

[Subhaditya]

Looks like capitalism offers better quality sex life for the uglies of the world… you get monogamy + prostitutes + higher you go the more proletarian wifes and daughters will be at your disposal.

[Subhaditya]

Matt wrote:

I am pretty promiscuous but your post is creeping me out.

Alright I will not talk about it anymore.

[Author]

Posts