Quote from: WerekoalaNot only that, but I actually got a smiley from Old Geezer. You hear me? A frickin' SMILEY!

Hey, it was funny.  You deserved it.


(If you try to be a Socialist in 21st-century America, it helps a lot to have a self-deprecating sense of humor.

In fact, I'd guess a lot of bad shit would go away if more people had a self-deprecating sense of humor.)

Quote from: James J SkachThanks again!

You're welcome.

Honestly, I know what you mean about the 'echo chamber'; I rarely discuss my opinions except among 'the bretheren' just because of being tired of being shouted at/mocked as I said above.  

Even if you end up deciding I'm still wrong, at least you were willing to actually listen.

Makes a big difference.

Quote from: Old GeezerYou're welcome.

Honestly, I know what you mean about the 'echo chamber'; I rarely discuss my opinions except among 'the bretheren' just because of being tired of being shouted at/mocked as I said above.  

Even if you end up deciding I'm still wrong, at least you were willing to actually listen.

Makes a big difference.

I know I wasn't part of the discussion there, and please, don't take this as mocking, but the real problem I have with your philosophy is the


"I know we're light years from having a solution and I'm cool with that"


mentality you bring.*  

The system we have now works. It works now, it has worked in the past. Is it exploitive? That is debateable, and then the topic needs to shift to is it unavoidable exploitive or is it merely the current iteration?  Identifying something you don't like, that you want to change? I'm all for that. But come to me with real, feasable solutions, not some idea that some distant future generation will somehow work it all out.

Other than that I think I'm avoiding this debate in general... its long since ceased to be about what 'You' think, and become about what other, more famous, people have thought and written down.  Morrow has posted a dozen links alone, while you, Geezer, have given us both an essay and the entire, collected, works of Marx in subtituition for your own reasoning.   While appeals to authority are traditional I can only feel they get in the way of fresh insight and perspective. We've got 6 billion brains available to work out the problems of the world, why keep running to the same few dozen or so 'answer men'?

Meh. I should delete that last bit as useless wailing in the wilderness, but its how I feel about this sort of debate: Endless regurgitation of favorite talking points from other people.

*obviously  a paraphrase and not a direct quote.

Quote from: SpikeMorrow has posted a dozen links alone, while you, Geezer, have given us both an essay and the entire, collected, works of Marx in subtituition for your own reasoning.   While appeals to authority are traditional I can only feel they get in the way of fresh insight and perspective.

I posted links to articles that say things better than I could ever hope to.  It's not so much an appeal to authority as a desire to point you at someone who is more skilled at making the point than I am.

Quote from: John MorrowI posted links to articles that say things better than I could ever hope to.  It's not so much an appeal to authority as a desire to point you at someone who is more skilled at making the point than I am.

What he said.

Also, it's NOT "I'm cool with that."  But I do have to bear in mind that I'm not going to live to see the society I truly desire; I am working for the generations yet unborn.

Plus, trying to "change it all right away" simply isn't going to work.  That's where the fungobat factions on all sides come in.  It just does not work that way.

Oh, sure, I understand that everyone is looking for a more eloquent version of their points.  Well, everyone except me, I guess.

The problem is eventually it stops being Geezer arguing against Morrow and becomes Geezers old dead dude arguing against Morrow's Former Liberals... and from there how long until we just cut Geezer and Morrow out of the equation at all?

See: I'd be happy to argue with 'Old Geezer' on the applicability of his/your philosophy and what I think are the fundamental flaws with it, but until I read and digest the works of Marx and the essay, I can't do that, because for the most part all I have of Geezer's Trotskyism is that he's content to fight the millenial war against capitolist oppression of the masses, a la Marx and "value, profit and whatever...", which apparently was ghost written on behalf of his/your soul.

But Marx is dead, and I don't have a line on the author of the essay to debate his points with him.  

Sorry if I'm a bit curt and unresearched, I'm halfway to hypothermia right now....:deflated:

Quote from: Old GeezerHey, it was funny.  You deserved it.
(If you try to be a Socialist in 21st-century America, it helps a lot to have a self-deprecating sense of humor.
In fact, I'd guess a lot of bad shit would go away if more people had a self-deprecating sense of humor.)

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I've come to like you quite a bit. I THINK we butted heads over on TbP before I got sent to Gulag, but I think that was a factor of not having time to get to know you before I shot my mouth off. I do that, in case you haven't noticed. But I CAN learn, with time.

That said, hopefully you've found I was hardly the (insert favorite slander/nugget of truth here) that everyone over there thought I was. Or at least, if I still am, its a well-deserved reputation.

Plus, I totally respect you for this:

Quote from: Old GeezerAlso, it's NOT "I'm cool with that."  But I do have to bear in mind that I'm not going to live to see the society I truly desire; I am working for the generations yet unborn.

Even if I  don't agree with what you're working towards.

See? No poo-flinging required. Amazing, innit?

Quote from: SpikeSee: I'd be happy to argue with 'Old Geezer' on the applicability of his/your philosophy and what I think are the fundamental flaws with it, but until I read and digest the works of Marx and the essay, I can't do that, because for the most part all I have of Geezer's Trotskyism is that he's content to fight the millenial war against capitolist oppression of the masses, a la Marx and "value, profit and whatever...", which apparently was ghost written on behalf of his/your soul.

And this is "don't take this as mocking"?

And I am working to a better future.  I just feel the Fabians are right.

And the fact that explaining myself by referencing someone else annoys you merely adds a frisson of sweetness.

Your tears of rage and indignation are delicious to me.

Quote from: Old GeezerAlso, it's NOT "I'm cool with that."  But I do have to bear in mind that I'm not going to live to see the society I truly desire; I am working for the generations yet unborn.

Some food for thought.

Quote from: Old GeezerPlus, trying to "change it all right away" simply isn't going to work.  That's where the fungobat factions on all sides come in.  It just does not work that way.

Of course the nice thing about an agenda of reform and slow change is that if you take a wrong turn, it gives you time to correct.

Quote from: KoltarWhen I was in High School (early 1980s), I asked a American History teacher : Why was it that what is referred to as "Right-wing" in this country, gets called "left-wing" in other countries.   (at the time communists and collectivists in other countries were being referred to as right wing, whiile those that were talking like collectivists in this country were referred to as left-wing)


 She couldn't think of a good answer.

It's because the terms are relative, not absolute.

As walkerp pointed out, the terms left-wing and right-wing originated in where the various deputies chose to sit in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791. Those who favoured preserving the monarchy sat on the right side of the chamber, those who favoured a republic or even a direct participatory democracy sat on the left.

Thus, according to the original definitions, the right-wing supports Monarchy, either absolute with the "divine right of kings" (the Royalists) or constitutional (the Feuillants), and aristocratic privilege. The left-wing supports a republic and, generally, a free market. As far as I'm aware, no-one gives the terms those specific meanings anymore.

That's because the terms are relative to whatever has been the recent status quo -- and by "recent" I mean about the last thirty-forty years. Those who like the way things used to be and think recent changes have gone too far and need to be undone are right-wing; those who don't like the way things used to be and think recent changes haven't gone far enough and more needs to change are left-wing.

Obviously, then, whether an individual or group is right- or left-wing will depend on what the current political situation is where they live and what changes have occurred there in the past couple of decades.

If you're living in a country that's had a communist government for the past fifty years, then those who like that and want it to continue are right-wingers, while those who want to change it are left-wingers. Alternately, if you're living in a capitalist democracy, those who like that and want it to continue are right-wingers, while those who want to change it are left-wingers.

Also the things that right-wingers want to preserve or restore and which left-wingers want to change or eliminate depends on the traditions and history of the place. Support of the Queen is common among British right-wingers, but not among American right-wingers. Support for the "right to bear arms" is common among American right-wingers, but support for gun control is common among Australian right-wingers. It's all relative to the time and place.

It's also why, as the saying goes, all you need to change a liberal into a conservative is thirty years -- and it's not because they changed any of their positions.

Quote from: Old GeezerAnd this is "don't take this as mocking"?

And I am working to a better future.  I just feel the Fabians are right.

And the fact that explaining myself by referencing someone else annoys you merely adds a frisson of sweetness.

Your tears of rage and indignation are delicious to me.

?



EDIT:::

Sorry, that was unclear.  

First line: So, why do you think I was mocking you?

Second line: So, you are working towards a nebulous future instead of just hoping for a nebulous future. Sorry, I like to deal in concretes.  We seem to be of different mindsets here. For humor, I'm tempted to ask your astrological sign...

Third line: Eh. If that is what gets you off.

Fourth line: Assumption.  But again, if that is what gets you off.

It makes me want to hold a Marxism 101 tutorial. Geezer, if you can track it down I recommend a book called The Economic Theory of the Working Class by Geoffrey Kay. It may help clarify some points.