We need to talk about Bernie

December 2022 Forums General discussion We need to talk about Bernie

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 107 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #117200
    Anonymous
    Guest
    Matt wrote:
    Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:
    @Robbo,  how did lenninist russia make exchange agreements with capitalist nations? 

    Same as any other, emerging from feudalism, capitalist nation, at a great disadvantage as a potential competitor.

    Quote:
    There was trade and exchange of ideas and values and capital goods between the two societies.

    They were not two societies.They were the same capitalist society, at different developmental stages.

    Quote:
    What I'm doing lately is formalizing and simplifying that to make it ubuiquitous and ever pressent and accessible as a more convenient tool for the public. 

    but is not necessary as Robin points out above *. It may even be of some use in the present day in local exchange networks and so on, but you are flogging a dead horse on here, as it is irrelevant in a free access,  production for use , commonly owned, post-capitalist society.

    @matt, I think maybe I needed to clarify.  what were the terms of sale and exchange agreements actually as examples. for example, Did they make an exchange agreement for  "500 pounds of wheet for 500 pounds of oil exchanged and limit the offer to specific place and time such as at the geographical border"? (capitalist based exchange between non-capitalist based nations).  or did they say things like "you agree to dismantle 20% of your nuclear first strike capabilty in exchange for us decomissing our fleet of trident class submarines" (a communist exchange as no property value is mentioned and only behavior is being exchanged).  If you look at international trade agreements they can be quite complex and include many intangibles.  Also there are unwritten exchange agreement based on word of mouth understandign between political leaders, although those suffer from trust and verification concerns which are frequently written in as part of the exchange agreement along with enforcement and agreement violation provisions.  So why can't individuals have that same power to make agreements that describe the exchange of non-capital value and also specify verification mechanism and enforcement mechanisms as part of the exchange agreement? I believe in practice there are many ways to write an exchange agreement for anything you value whether it's tangible or intangible, subjective or objective and I'm protoyting such a system now. As far as the dead horse argument goes, I think you've killed it prematurely. the horse will die when the world wide majority of people are informed and practicing socialism and vote for socialism.  So far socialist haven't even come up with a way to kill the horse despite their many attempts.  The exchange system I'm proposing doesn't kill the capitalism horse either.  It just gives each individual the choice on whether to exchange things using a horse or a camel or a car or a donkey.  And it lets them specify how things get exchanged in each exchange agreement so it's free access, individually owned (although any exchange will create a joint ownership of the exchanged items and a localized community of exchange partners defined by the reach of the exchange receipts.).  The exchange system I'm working on should work just fine for building bridges or roads in a capitalist society or hypothetical world scale socialist society.  you just specefy in your exchange agreements to use camels and it works for a non-horse world and if you get enough people to agree to exchange with camels (aka socialist terms and conditions for any exchange), then the horse is no longer needed and just wanders off because everyone likes camels better for exchanging things. 

    #117201
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:
    I think maybe I needed to clarigy.  what were the terms of sale and exchange agreements actually as examples. for example, Did they make an exchange agreement for  "500 pounds of wheet for 500 pounds of oil exchanged and limit the offer to specific place and time such as at the geographical border"? (capitalist based exchange between non-capitalist based nations).

    They were both capitalist based nations. 

    Quote:
    or did they say things like "you agree to dismantle 20% of your nuclear first strike capabilty in exchange for us decomissing our fleet of trident class submarines" (a communist exchange as no property value is mentioned and only behavior is being exchanged). 

    The traditional capitalist exchange methods, of the threat of 'business by other means' (war) ,  or mutually assured destruction.

    #117202
    Anonymous
    Guest
    mcolome1 wrote:
    Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:
    Well, yes I agree.  I've proposed an answer for you and you have not yet percieved it. I'm starting a great movement that answers a lot of your needs. What if I start a socialist revolution and you refuse the invitation?  


    Go ahead , make my day.  I have been waiting for that day for several decades. Not even the Commissar Lenin and the planned revolt of the Bolshevik were able to do that

    @mcolome1,The commissar lenin did not have the world wide web nor did they study modern communication theory, user behavior and cognitivie science as state of the art theories now explain them.  in the study of economics etc I have the advantage of several decades of data on practical application failiures and success after marx laid down his seminal thoeries and ideas.  Also, I'm pretty freeking smart too. ranked 178 in a state math contest and generally in the top 1% using most intellectual measures.  I was student assistant to a russian math proffesor and world expert who studied combinatorics, which involves extremely hard conceptual problems that require restatement of the solution and reframing of the problem in order to solve.  I even have a Erdos number of 2 which measures my degree of association in published math journals relative to the most published math author. (more about erdos numbers and ranking of mathematical talent at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s_number ). But let me add that I value good intentions more than intellectual brillance in deciding how much I value a person's writing.  I am poor and unemployed because I'm apposed to the failures of the capitalist system and I value poor people more than rich people just because of my life experience. Also, I've never sought to capitalize on my intellegence and never been particularly interested in gaining a lot of money so I've neglected my career management and I've generally pursued the life less traveled and focused on human relations instead of the more obvious and boring and emotionally empty fields of math or engineering or programing.  I do math and engineering and programing sort of some times to pay the bills when it doesn't confict with my moral imperatives, but enough about me. . .More importantly, to the question of why other brilliant minds and determined thinkers didn't come up with this. . .I wasn't looking directly at the problem.  I didn't start out trying to make socialism viable or do whatever you have been waiting for and I really don't care what you've been waiting for and what it will look like.  What I did was start out trying to make a robust exchange system for converting time value to capital goods value and then the idea evolved unexpectedly, thanks for all your suggestions, into an exchange system protocol that will do something that sounds a lot to me like socialism. I think it would take a lot of time to discover this if I was directly trying to discover a solution to promote socialism.  This was an accidental discovery that just sort of evolved unexpectedly to have applications for socialism.  It's probably not socialism and didn't come from any search to promote socialism.  So it's a lateral concept that's doesn't lead to socialism till you've digested 100 pages of system evolution theory.  It might not ever lead to socialism and probably leads to something else that is just more like socialism than what we have now. the extrapolations and evolution projections seem to suggest that what results in a 100 years time will be more like socialism than capitallism, but that's pretty speculative and depends on the combined will of the people over 100 years all wanting socialism without requiring them to understand socialism (it uses what's called progressive disclosure if you undrerstand user experience design terminology.)  It could maybe be used to create an authoritarian dictatorship in 100 years too if that's what people want.  Part of the my study is in how to set initial rules and conditions for a complex evolving system that incline a system thorugh millions of individual choice towards a final nash equilibrium condition.  That's not quite correct since a nash equilibrium assumes 100% selfish values and my conception of value is that the human nature is wired for altruism.  In any case I'm here to figure out what initial rules or laws I build into the base operating layer of the sytem and will prevent the emergence of an authoritarian dictatorship outcome in 100 years.  But I'm digressing.  let me address your ather points.  

    mcolome1 wrote:
    The problem is that  you have built in yourself  the conception of leader, leadership, and the individual conception of history, conception which has been proven for  more than 100 years that it  is totally incorrect and wrong. You can even send me your invitation to my funeral and it will not make any difference.  Many guru before you have tried to do that, and they have failed

     No, this is a leaderless system, or actually a equality of leadership system. That was one of the requirments I got from this website discussion boards.  So I revised the protocols to make the system work without political or top down authority of any kind.  There are certainly leaders, but not in the capitalist or political sense of the word.  they're chosen as part of any exchange transaction when you copy their terms and conditions of your use.  I think it's fair to call people who's ideas you adopt leaders.  My exchange system has that conception of leadership iin it. Doesn't socialism?  I shuder to think you want a form of socialism that says no one should ever copy or learn from the ideas of others because that would make leaders.  

    mcolome1 wrote:
    It has been proven due to past intents that socialism can only be established in a world scale, in the same way that capitalism has expanded itself around the world, and it has created the objective conditions for a new society, and it has to be established by the vast majority of the members of the working class,  the main problem is that the subject or the slaves does not have the proper political consciousness to replace capitalism for socialism.

     My exchange system can be used anywhere in the world.  it starts out with a world wide web base layer which is world scale (admitedly exchange terms and conditions are limited to local communities if they don't have world wide web access it will cause delays in processing. using this to exchange frequently with your neighbor doesn't require WWW, but using it to exchange with somoene in another nation who you've never met does require WWW).  it can expand percent wise with a small percent in some locations and a larger pecent in other locations and the percent can grow to a majority.  Timebanks, which is a foundation technology supporting and similar to my exchange system protocols already operates worldwide.  The practice of writing exchange agreements and making exchange agreements using this protocol is practice in rasing the political conciousness of people.  I haven't heard from you people on this website any original concrete actionable plans for how you get support of a vast majority of the working class poeple, but i'm offering you one right now. 

    mcolome1 wrote:
    That action ca not  be done by an individuals, or using brilliants ideas, we must  educate ourselves on the most basic principles of socialism, we must understand that as a class that we are the one only able to free ourselves, and break our invisible chains that keep us tied to capitalism.

     yes, I agree with this I think.  Are you saying individuals must educate ourselves without brillant ideas?  Only dumb stupid ideas must be used to educate ourselves?  sounds like that's what your saying. This doesn't require any class political action initially and any political action would be a byproduct of the exchange system usage.  The political action generated might no even look like political action as we understand it today, but "poilitical action" is probably the closest meaning for what I predict would the emergent large scale structure of popular exchange rules and conditions and practices and norms.    

    mcolome1 wrote:
     You can use your postcard for the Christmas holiday, or to record and time the boom of Marihuana sales next year in the State of California

    Thanks, but I'm waiting to send out actual postcards and keeping this secret from most of the world untill I've gotten some assurance and confidence from mulitple viewpoints and worldview.  I am deliberately only discussing this in out of the way information location that don't have the viral ability to spread the idea untill the time I'm confident it's not going to produce some authoritarian dictatorship in 100 years.  More likely I'm concerned with more science fictional type futurist utopian society problems.  There's a lot of great ideas that sound great for the first 50 years until everyone buys in and then turn out to have hidden problems.  So I don't want to let this genie out of the bottle until I know it's a good genie.  You can't put the genie back in the bottle, as they say.  I figure if worse comes to worse and you people here all agree with this idea then 1) it's probably a good endorsement as safe and not-dangerous to the evolution of mankiind.  2) it probably won't spread fast at this location. so  if it's a bad idea then I can (with a great deal of effort) discredit it and you if absolutely necessary because I discover the idea does, in fact, lead to some terrible future. I don't talk about this big picture future projection for my project anywhere else because. . . what if john gault hears about my plan? In truth, I'm using this forum as a place to test out my ideas safely in a place where I feel confident john gault and his disciples won't stumble on it.  That's also why a lot of my post significant arguments seem to be placed inside conversations about sex or otherwise slightly off topic.  If my ideas work here with your 15 or 20 active readers and contributors it provides me with a proof of concept and nothing more.  That's ideal because I still want a proof of concept before sharing the solution with people who will try to abuse and missuse it.  I'm sure you can appreciate my caution and secrecy efforts. 

    #117203
    Anonymous
    Guest
    Matt wrote:
    Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:
    I think maybe I needed to clarigy.  what were the terms of sale and exchange agreements actually as examples. for example, Did they make an exchange agreement for  "500 pounds of wheet for 500 pounds of oil exchanged and limit the offer to specific place and time such as at the geographical border"? (capitalist based exchange between non-capitalist based nations).

    They were both capitalist based nations. 

    Quote:
    or did they say things like "you agree to dismantle 20% of your nuclear first strike capabilty in exchange for us decomissing our fleet of trident class submarines" (a communist exchange as no property value is mentioned and only behavior is being exchanged). 

    The traditional capitalist exchange methods, of the threat of 'business by other means' (war) ,  or mutually assured destruction.

    Thanks for those clarifying answers that were of value to me.  I would perhaps ask why you feel that war or mutually assured destruction are elements of capitalism.  they seem equally appropriate for fuedalism, or stalinism (or whatever you call USSR), or even socialism (judging by your published statement of principles on this website).  Perhaps I'm asking the wrong question?  maybe I should ask you if you have the ability to concieve of individual exchanges and recognize individual exchanges as either primarly socialist or primarily capitalist exchange of value.  For me I figure if it uses words that specify capital ownership echanges, it's capitalism.  But if it uses langauge that enforces and specifies nothing of capital value and is an agreement about behavior or actions only then it's socialist.  What words would you use to distinguish between these two types of exchange I'm describing?  

    #117204
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    The vagabond Bernie Sanders was one of the Democratic senators who voted for the nomination of Mad Dog as secretary of the defense of the US government.  Mathis is one of the members of the military Junta of Donald Trump. There is another event that the press has not mentioned,  and is the appearance of military officers behind Trump during the inauguration

    #117205
    jondwhite
    Participant

    Do military personnel normally appear prominently behing the president during the inauguration?

    #117206
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    nonwhite wrote:
    Do military personnel normally appear prominently behing the president during the inauguration?

      https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/appearance-of-military-officers-during-trumps-inaugural-address-still-unexplained/His transition team  also wanted the Pentagon to do a military parade similar to the one that was  done by the Soviet, but it was denied http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-inauguration-day-transition-team-tanks-missile-launchers-us-president-parade-inuaugaral-a7536746.html

    #117207
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Bernie Sanders  Socialist revolution sounds like capitalismhttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2017/no-1352-april-2017/our-revolution-speak-yourself-bernieBernie Sanders recently published a book outlining his agenda for transforming America. But the ‘political revolution’ he envisages leaves capitalism firmly in place.Bernie Sanders, the self-described ‘democratic socialist’ who railed against the ‘billionaire class’ during the Democratic presidential primary, has written a book, titled Our Revolution. A promising title, which suggests he might lay out his vision for a socialist society to replace the capitalist profit system. But read the book from cover to cover and you’ll hardly find the words ‘capitalism’ or ‘socialism’—much less an explanation of their meaning

    #117208
    Anonymous
    Guest
    mcolome1 wrote:
    Bernie Sanders  Socialist revolution sounds like capitalismhttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2017/no-1352-april-2017/our-revolution-speak-yourself-bernieBernie Sanders recently published a book outlining his agenda for transforming America. But the ‘political revolution’ he envisages leaves capitalism firmly in place.Bernie Sanders, the self-described ‘democratic socialist’ who railed against the ‘billionaire class’ during the Democratic presidential primary, has written a book, titled Our Revolution. A promising title, which suggests he might lay out his vision for a socialist society to replace the capitalist profit system. But read the book from cover to cover and you’ll hardly find the words ‘capitalism’ or ‘socialism’—much less an explanation of their meaning

    Maybe you should call him up and tell him he doesn't know socialism and needs to listen to your words of suffering and suffer himself untill he understands socialism like you do. 

    #117209
    alanjjohnstone
    Keymaster
    Quote:
    Maybe you should call him up and tell him he doesn't know socialism

    Give me his personal phone number and i will, and i'll use the words of Eugene Debs to explain socialism to him. 

    #117210
    Anonymous
    Guest
    alanjjohnstone wrote:
    Quote:
    Maybe you should call him up and tell him he doesn't know socialism

    Give me his personal phone number and i will, and i'll use the words of Eugene Debs to explain socialism to him. 

    His personal phone number is an interesting example of a resource (his phone number) that is nominally free for anyone and the information that is his phone number is not private property.  BUT, still you and I do not have access to his phone number.  So here's an example of what will happen in a world where there is no scarcity and no property and free association.  Notice that Bernies private phone number is free and cost nothing to give away copies of it.  likewise in a world where there is no property as socialism requires, you would still not be able to get bernies phone number.  So under capitalism or socialism you personally can't get bernies phone number for the same reasons that have nothing to do with capitalism or socialism.  How socialism addresses this "free on paper and no scarcity in principle" vs "nominally free but actually very hard to find and knowing someone who can find his phone number makes it a  scarce resource in practice."So I think we need to talk about what it means to not have property and and how socialism addresses the problem of finding bernies phone number.  As usual I have an exchange theory explanation of this that distinguishes explicitely accessiblity and other kinds of concerns while avoiding the property vs no-property false dichotomy in your thinking.  Things can have other states besides owned and not owned.  They can be accessible or innaccessible.  items on the store shelf, such as bernies phone number,  can be hidden or promoted without being property.   A theory of capitalism and socialism that acknowledges these differences in ownership definitions seems essential to me, but I haven't read anything here about this sort of problem or solutions to the problem of finding bernies phone number. 

    #117211
    robbo203
    Participant
    Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:
    alanjjohnstone wrote:
    Quote:
    Maybe you should call him up and tell him he doesn't know socialism

    Give me his personal phone number and i will, and i'll use the words of Eugene Debs to explain socialism to him. 

    His personal phone number is an interesting example of a resource (his phone number) that is nominally free for anyone and the information that is his phone number is not private property.  BUT, still you and I do not have access to his phone number.  So here's an example of what will happen in a world where there is no scarcity and no property and free association.  Notice that Bernies private phone number is free and cost nothing to give away copies of it.  likewise in a world where there is no property as socialism requires, you would still not be able to get bernies phone number.  So under capitalism or socialism you personally can't get bernies phone number for the same reasons that have nothing to do with capitalism or socialism.  How socialism addresses this "free on paper and no scarcity in principle" vs "nominally free but actually very hard to find and knowing someone who can find his phone number makes it a  scarce resource in practice."So I think we need to talk about what it means to not have property and and how socialism addresses the problem of finding bernies phone number.  As usual I have an exchange theory explanation of this that distinguishes explicitely accessiblity and other kinds of concerns while avoiding the property vs no-property false dichotomy in your thinking.  Things can have other states besides owned and not owned.  They can be accessible or innaccessible.  items on the store shelf, such as bernies phone number,  can be hidden or promoted without being property.   A theory of capitalism and socialism that acknowledges these differences in ownership definitions seems essential to me, but I haven't read anything here about this sort of problem or solutions to the problem of finding bernies phone number. 

     I think it has already been explained to you several times  that by "private property" is meant "means of wealth production", not personal possesions,  and that by "exchange" is meant "quid  pro quo market exchange". These features cannot logically exist in a society in which the means of producing of wealth are owned in common – by everyone.  So "property vs no-property" is hardly a false dichotomy unless you chose  not to understand what is meant by property in the economic sense

    #117212
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    robbo203 wrote:
    Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:
    alanjjohnstone wrote:
    Quote:
    Maybe you should call him up and tell him he doesn't know socialism

    Give me his personal phone number and i will, and i'll use the words of Eugene Debs to explain socialism to him. 

    His personal phone number is an interesting example of a resource (his phone number) that is nominally free for anyone and the information that is his phone number is not private property.  BUT, still you and I do not have access to his phone number.  So here's an example of what will happen in a world where there is no scarcity and no property and free association.  Notice that Bernies private phone number is free and cost nothing to give away copies of it.  likewise in a world where there is no property as socialism requires, you would still not be able to get bernies phone number.  So under capitalism or socialism you personally can't get bernies phone number for the same reasons that have nothing to do with capitalism or socialism.  How socialism addresses this "free on paper and no scarcity in principle" vs "nominally free but actually very hard to find and knowing someone who can find his phone number makes it a  scarce resource in practice."So I think we need to talk about what it means to not have property and and how socialism addresses the problem of finding bernies phone number.  As usual I have an exchange theory explanation of this that distinguishes explicitely accessiblity and other kinds of concerns while avoiding the property vs no-property false dichotomy in your thinking.  Things can have other states besides owned and not owned.  They can be accessible or innaccessible.  items on the store shelf, such as bernies phone number,  can be hidden or promoted without being property.   A theory of capitalism and socialism that acknowledges these differences in ownership definitions seems essential to me, but I haven't read anything here about this sort of problem or solutions to the problem of finding bernies phone number. 

     I think it has already been explained to you several times  that by "private property" is meant "means of wealth production", not personal possesions,  and that by "exchange" is meant "quid  pro quo market exchange". These features cannot logically exist in a society in which the means of producing of wealth are owned in common – by everyone.  So "property vs no-property" is hardly a false dichotomy unless you chose  not to understand what is meant by property in the economic sense

     It is the same old idea spread by far right wingers,  and the so called anti-communists, that in a communist society your son is going to lose his bike, and his toys, and that peoples  would be driving communists cars, eating communists foods, and dressing communists clothing,  They do not understand, or the  ruling class do not want them to understand,  what is the difference between means of production ( private property )  and personal properties, exchange, and free access.We have said it  thousands of times in this forum that capitalist exchange is not applicable on a society, but it is like inserting water inside of a dry coconut. This is a real wasting of timeWe have explained thousands of times in this forum, in our journals, magazines, websites, blogs,  and pamphlet, those conceptions and Robbo has given a very simple definition of them which can be understood by any person with the brain of a mosquitoThere are peoples who have been so  deeply brainwashed by the ruling elite that will take them decades to understand  very simple socialist principlesWe are not children anymore, unless we have grown in a society where peoples do not mature politically and continue being political little children all their life.I wonder why in my time with so many limitations  we learned so easily all these concepts

    #183643
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Bernie Sanders is back again. He has already accumulated around 3.3 millions in contributions from his supporters

    #183675
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Ocasio Cortez refuses to back Bernie Sanders presidential race for 2020

    https://sputniknews.com/viral/201902211072629467-bernie-sanders-us-elections/

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 107 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.