- Lycurgus (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC) page being replaced, other maintenance of static links in my user space here to my domains this summer mostly done, mediawiki and other upgrades still WIPs, will update the § title link above when done.
Simple Principles for World Revolution
- the relation between the lead workers and the consumer of ihr labor so that it is that of . of
- en:Production for use¹ (at cost) of socially necessary goods and services transparently accounted in a common money based on labor time which working people create themselves.
- A pragmatic basis of subsistence/production).
So for example the first principle might be worked out at lower levels than provincial or national level before regionally or internationally but from the beginning it should sweep clean private tyrannies and conspiracies from the bottom up. And it might not be able to be applied at the local level until there is sufficient understanding of how to do so. But an advancement in understanding is itself a sufficient gain that its solidification can be associated with a more or less sudden collapse rather than a slow withering away of structures of the old society can be anticipated. Similarly the fiat money of the nation-state system can co-exist with the new relegated to its proper sphere. but one that never compromises the most rapid advancement to the realization of these two end goals (political disintermediation and de-privatisation of the
¹Bifurcated post revolutionary situation where the sphere of reproduction and unnecessary production separate.
Reply to struth on an Article by E.J.Dionne
WaPo closes comments after two weeks so I'm compulsively responding to.
In another place I will comment on the careful use of language, but yes that's right, that's a main sense of the term "Capitalist". It's also true of course that I would be committing a fallacy of composition if I asserted that the owner of a factor of a thing was the owner of the thing. It's also true there is no cheat or exploitation when labor is fairly compensated for its factor in production, by established market values, presuming those market values are in fact fair.
However as Marx and Marxists will explain, the essence of this system is 1) the expropriation of the en:surplus value (which is called "profit") in the struck price of the house or car and 2) the basing of all production and indeed all of society on this scheme of expropriation, as an "ism" (cf Heilbroner, Nature of Capitalism).
Moreover, the lie or cheat and attempt at domination are clear in the general failure of honest accounting which is at the core of this system. In principle, the Marxists complaints could and can be dismissed where there is open and clear accounting, at least insofar as a narrow focus on the deal in production is concerned, which for that matter are to some extent required at least at the level of monopoly/big Capital. In that case the Capitalist is simply a (possibly vincibly corrupt) knowledge Worker and charges a known amount for her factor of organizing production.
But the entire system is based on subverting such openness in accounting which is why I wanted the current POTUS to be in a contest with Sanders, although the latter is a poor anti partner to the former, who is more or less an epitome of the system, a pure brand rentier with not even the role in production common to a Gates or in speculation to a Buffet. It is also a poor basis for the structuring of society, substituting what is appropriate to individual motivation as an organizing principle for a collective without an actual means of reconciling the different interests.
When labor is relatively simple and easily commodified such as in manufacturing line workers the model can work fairly well. However when such commodification is impossible as for example in the intellectual worker, or when collective interests can't be reduced to individual gain the system fails and blocks needed responses.
Excellent as an economic regime under enlightened leadership as the Chinese Communist Party has shown and was the case here when it was in planetary opposition.
disasterqualified success for some at best as a basis for en:society per se.
That spectrum of conceptions of the organization of en:society, in which it, society as a whole, has effectively reached full self-consciousness, transcending those objectifications of the other vestigial in socialisms and which are the hallmark of primitive social orders, in a pure relation of the individual to society, not just the nation state, local power elites, revolutionary cadres, etc. but the totality of living beings of at least one's species of origin. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I wrote the B6500 version of CANDE, which was quite different from the 5500 version, and both have been heavily modified over the years. You can contact me at ivan at ootbcomp dot com.
- noting Igodard wrote above, so there's no confusion I'm saying I wrote the en:CANDE MCS. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
End of IP editing
The situation with ip edits is like the failure of Socialism with the current human stock, the masses of the old society, this being borne to me by the recent need to block such from the US Congress. Until now I felt that it was preferable to defend anonymous editing in the spirit of wiki but I see the wrongheadedness of this now so will only edit mainspace with this account which is the only named one I've ever used to edit here. Lycurgus (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Followed this policy until end of 2015 then gradually reverted to mostly by the ipv4 address used for 2y or so up to this point and whose talk page I've reset back so it can be released/reused. Lycurgus (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't have time to defend content from attack such as this article is currently under. There's a modicum of social service I will perform here but pretty much at or past my limit in dealing with the individual attacking this article. Will pull this into my space and change the link on my user page to point to it rather than conflict with the individual FreeKnowledge-Something. The established and ongoing policy, otherwise my wiki editing service would be a horror of dealing with such individuals. Don't want. I will work with others to defend the public content, otherwise TRTTD is the course mentioned/taken. Lycurgus (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- In closing (I hope) noting that I didn't carefully read everything the individual had to say, in particular didn't read all the text he put on the talk thread I opened. Lycurgus (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Help fix the gender bias on Wikipedia?
- Hi LeoRomero :) I am sympathetic to your cause but I have a new year's resolution for 2016 to sharply reduce the time I spend in general internet/social media, such as wikimedia. It's just for a year, so I will revisit this at the end of 2016. However, SFAIK, outside of whatever the ambient culture has, there's no such bias known to me in the English wikipedia. Lycurgus (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
It's only a paradox because we are just at the point where we can ask the question, having only had language and what is called thinking, civilization, and science for successively shorter periods of time. Today there is still no human culture based on scientific values and only 1 known to me with any program to have such a basing. So in a way even asking the question is presumptuous, given the current state of cultural development of the questioner.
I think the most cogent analogy is to the so-called uncontacted peoples, a few of which remain. It's only approximate of course because no human population has ever had a comparable isolation but from the point of view of the posing of the question/paradox it's pretty direct.
Uncontacted peoples of today exist in the same human environment that, from the point of view of persons reading this text, is saturated with communications. These communications are all around them but they simply are not at a stage where they can access them and the larger human culture is finally at a stage where it will allow them to develop at their own pace, remain uncontacted, at least to the extent it can control itself in such things as habitat conservation.
There is surely a cosmic civilization which is possibly older than the solar system, certainly much older than the entire human lineage, and likely has had some interaction with it, is aware of the development of life in this system. The new details found on planet formation and thus the basis for intelligent life make this clear. For the same reasons that we do not contact the uncontacted peoples, including the ethical burdens such contacts would impose on the superior culture, we are not contacted by that civilization. We are probably still pretty uninteresting (or worse) at this point, except to developers, researchers, or tourists, so why would a cosmic culture vastly superior in every way, including morally risk an unforced contact with us?
Nothing stops us from developing to the point where we can, if you will, discover radio and stop listening for jungle drums or looking for smoke signals. A substantial advance in physics will be required to understand this of course (as opposed to just use it, here the analogy is to the masses in world culture that use semi-conductor based technology but are oblivious to the principles of quantum mechanics upon which it is based), but at least we have a physics, primitive peoples only have their religion. Lycurgus (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
188.8.131.52, should you make it here, I encourage you to make an account if you are going to edit the wiki as I did when I began to do so. After that you can still edit by ip but you will have recourse to something other than just that ip. I don't feel compelled to respond to your request but I will note (again) that thought/language are complex matters which you are completely free to work out for yourself, in whatever way and time you have. There are many ways to interpret the term "Antireligion", one of which is noted in en:Jiddu Krishnamurti whose rejection of a messianic cult in his name is an On This Day item today.
Should you decide to work the article, an interesting use of the term not currently noted in the article would be as a substantiation of what Krishnamurti noted and currently itemized as #3 in the Schools § of his article. This and the itemized logical program I gave in response to your complaint on the Antireligion talk page both refer to the possibility of a school or schools of thought which would be rightly called an "Antireligion". This connotation of the term is not currently in the Antireligion article and as a result of a number of factors probably never will be, but it is likely a more productive thing than your efforts in re "Antireligionists" which may be a non-starter in English as there are other terms already established. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)