The mafia
in [Physics]
|
Prev: BBC News Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
Next: Penn material scientists demonstrate the transduction of optical radiation to electrical current in a molecular circuit
From: Michael Gordge on 16 Feb 2010 15:50 On Feb 14, 11:41 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > What this is is 'not even wrong' i.e. its premisses are so far off > base that it can't even be argued against sensibly. It's the premise of capitalism that can not be argue against, and so because ewe cant, ewe choose to attack me and not the subject being debated, typical behaviour of ewe lefturd retards. Capitalism is based upon and is utterly impotent without, the premise of private ownership, begining at you / your life / your body - based on facts of reality, that life is a self generating self sustaining form of existence, you breath your air, you digest your food, your energy can only be activated by your mind, therefore you are the owner and you are therefore responsible for the results of your energy which can only be initiated by your mind. You didn't answer, why dont you want to be held responsible for the results of your energy? MG
From: Andrew Usher on 16 Feb 2010 19:41 Sam wrote: > > The common masses are very much in the dark about what is > > the true situation on Earth. > > The Intelligence of Earth only allows them to know what they > > think they should know. > > > > THE BORG > > This issue would probably go over his head. Most liberal/leftist > types have an in-built firewall that renders the cognitive domain > pretty much useless. Your 'cognitive domain' is not working properly if you uncritically accept such unsupported conspiracy theories. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 16 Feb 2010 19:39 Michael Gordge wrote: > On Feb 14, 11:41 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > What this is is 'not even wrong' i.e. its premisses are so far off > > base that it can't even be argued against sensibly. > > It's the premise of capitalism that can not be argue against, and so > because ewe cant, ewe choose to attack me and not the subject being > debated, typical behaviour of ewe lefturd retards. See what I said about this guy not even reading my posts ! Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 16 Feb 2010 19:42 Sam wrote: > > They don't exist. I'm sure the real elites are fine with us believing > > in junk like that, though. > > You talk about base arguments and you come out with that clanger. > > Who are the real elites? > > How do they operate? Read my first post, and perhaps previous posts by me. Then use your brain, if you can. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 16 Feb 2010 21:58
Ste wrote: > > > Isn't the common denominator here not race or gender, but wealth? That > > > is, the rich are as threatened by the white working class as they are > > > by the blacks, as threatened by women as they are by men? > > > > Not in the same way. They know that blacks or women (since they > > perceive themselves as benefiting from their system) are not a threat > > to form a political revolution. > > But that has not been the case in places like South Africa. Blacks > have consistently posed a revolutionary threat, and there was no > question that blacks benefitted from the apartheid regime. First of all, I think you mean 'blacks did NOT benefit from the apartheid regime', don't you? Anyway, it's a question of numbers there. When blacks outnumber us five-to-one, they can be a threat. When they are outnumbered by that ratio, not really. Even so, they are not a threat to organise in the same way that say, the Bolsheviks were. > As I say, > the only common thread is that the rich face a constant revolutionary > threat from the poor and dispossessed. But they don't. Why then is there no revolutionary threat right now in the Western world? It's because they've successfully brainwashed almost all of us. What to do about that is an important question. > > The white working class is different; > > they'd never let us get handed power in the same way that blacks and > > woman do - would they? That would threaten their monopoly on control, > > and any attempt to maintain it would indeed lead down the road to > > revolution - just as it did in 1789. > > I think you forget that the working class (which only incidentally > happens to be predominantly white in the UK) was heavily disciplined > during the 80s, with the very strongest working class communities and > workers' organisations smashed. If they were strong enough, it would be impossible to smash them, as they could just go underground. > The difference with women and blacks > is that in their present form they are not really a threat to the > existing economic system, largely because they're having to fight > against social as well as economic oppression. There is no social oppression against blacks or women! Not anymore; they are advantaged in every possible way. The decisive reason they are not a threat is that they have been bought off as a result. > > > Indeed. It was full employment for 30 years after the second world war > > > that largely contributed to the capitalists' inability to discipline > > > workers. That's why these days they normally try to keep a certain > > > section of society unemployed, in order to maintain competition > > > between workers and ensure discipline. > > > > I'm not sure it's so organised as that. > > I think you'd be surprised. As unemployment drops, you'd expect > inflation to rise and productivity to fall, as labour becomes less > disciplined and the relative labour supply becomes more scarce (and > therefore demanding higher wages, etc). And when that happens, > governments with monetarist policies (like the Thatcher government) > react by reigning in government spending, and ratcheting up interest > rates, which puts people back on the dole and wrings out > "inefficiency". If you goal is production, then it's an inefficiency to have people not working when they are capable of working - even if they are less productive than others. Efficiency for business only means profits for them, not the general welfare. Monetarism isn't all bad, as far as it recognises the importance of the money supply - inflating the currency (as Nixon did) is no cure for structural problems. Andrew Usher |