Vikas being racist AGAIN
- anticap: plus buddhism is like hinduism but without the bullshit
- anticap: it's like the same thing except white people associate a fat dude with buddhism
- anticap: trust me I know what I'm talking about because I have a buddhist comic book set.
- anticap: I heard buddha had a HUGE wang
- anticap: kind of like Rasputin
anticapitalist replied to your post: I get a little frustrated when people get…
at the same time, while we are within capitalist hegemony, ethical consumption is one of the few things we can do. I think when one is able to purchase a more ‘ethical’ good, then one should.Yeah I hear ya. It’s not worthless, just skin deep. And supporting counter-institutions adds a whole new dimension to that, though I would say that doesn’t usually fall under the category of “ethical consumption”
And I guess the other thing is that I don’t really see a logical stopping point to ethical consumption. What would that be? Living off the grid? At what point does our dependency on capitalism become ethical enough that we should stop worrying about our consumption? I remember Bob Black said something in the spirit of”Everyone is selfish under capitalism because only the rich can afford not to be. But old habits die hard”
Anyways I think we probably agree, and certainly I don’t want to throw people under the bus that are concerned about the things they buy and how it might impact others.
My philosophy is basically “do what you can reasonably do”.
Wait, Free Will is bullshit. and Causality is mostly true (except for quantum shit, which is still causal, but not really). Mises is a poop.I agree with you on the quantum stuff, but why is free will bullshit?
To quote from this post I made a while back:
Does Free Will Exist? My Thoughts
This issue was addressed very well in an essay arguing against a deterministic universe
Determinism Dilemma (DD)
(1) Whenever any agent acts, his/her action is either determined or it is not determined.
(2) If an agent’s action is determined, then the agent could not have done otherwise.
(3) If an agent could not have done otherwise, then the agent does not act freely.
∴ (4) If an agent’s action is determined, then the agent does not act freely. [2, 3]
(5) If an agent’s action is not determined, then the agent’s action is a matter of pure chance.
(6) If an agent’s action is a matter of pure chance, then the agent does not act freely.
∴ (7) If an agent’s action is not determined, then the agent does not act freely. [5, 6]
∴ (C) No agent ever acts freely
——-
I believe the way people make choices in through cognition and interpretation of a given scenario and past scenarios. In otherwords, our thought process is like a giant equation. We have the illusion of choice, in that this “giant equation” presents many possibilities, but that is all part of the “calculation” that determines what action we will do. we are all just chemical reactions acting on stimuli. We have as much free will as a rock or a bacteria.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2108
is where I am going with this.
libertarians-and-stoya replied to your post:DAMMIT
blame the minimum wage lawsI agree.
If they were higher, the working class would have more disposable income that they could spend on buying things like guitars. Increased aggregate demand for guitars would cause greater employment at guitar center.
Instead, the shitty minimum wage law allows employers to pay workers stupidly low wages, so that the working class can’t buy any thing fun, and thus guitar center can’t hire very many people.
The problem with your argument is the fact that employers cannot supply those jobs at higher wages artificially. Wages rise with time - employers do not have means to hire everyone at those higher wages.
They’re too busy paying themselves 375 times more than the average working class citizen. They could reduce their own pay to pay for more workers.
Unless there was some way to instantly grant employers the money to demand those jobs, they won’t be able to.
Employers already have the money, the monopoly on capital, and the support of the state. But they still need MORE before they stop exploiting people?
It’s like saying “Oh if you give a Mafia boss more guns then he’ll stop shooting people”.
Employers don’t need more money or capital. They need to start paying their workers more, and they need to stop exploiting the shit out of the workers.
Eliminating minimum wage and allowing employers to create sweatshops will increase employment, but the working class would still be fucked over.
Tumblr confession?
Sometimes on Skype, Vikas and I talk about how perfect Mehreen and Samia are and swoon over them.
I’m not even sorry.
god dammit anna. It’s not weird when you do shit like this. but now everyone knows I’m a creep.
(Source: hookedonsemiotics)
Reasons why I stopped posting OC.Hey, you can’t stop just because it doesn’t get a lot of notes! Man, OC is the only thing that keeps me on this site most of the time. Besides, if we allow the left to be just some recycling program of Al Jazeera and Alternet articles, we will never be taken seriously.
It’s also boring as hell because libertarians reblog with the same trite objections.
‘blah blah Non-aggression”
“blah blah blah Natural law”
“Voluntary”
“Socialism is Coercive”.
It makes me want to die.
(Source: nixonplumbingco)
>”It’s still lauded by socialists and communists across the United States and the world.”
No one supports Cuba. Like nobody.
Cuba did not implement marxist policies. That is a fact. They did not resemble the dictatorship of the proletariat, and they did not resemble anarchism/communism.
You said “Said in response to the oppressive Cuban government oppressing their people. Fucking Commies will never admit how awful their policies become when put into practice by a state.” in response to my original post, and that’s what my reply was about.
Cuba is not marxist. the USSR was not marxist.
So Che and Castro weren’t Marxist? And yes, there are tons of people who support Cuba. The Party for Socialism and Liberation like Cuba, CPUSA likes Cuba and many communists worldwide like Che. They like Che. There’s a problem with that.
And quite honestly, if you want to keep on saying “all of these Communist states weren’t Marxist” then don’t ever call anything we have right now “capitalistic”.
Those individuals may have been marxist (to be honest, I’m like the only socialist who has never read anything written by Che or Castro), but the Cuban government’s policies were not marxist at all…
>”And quite honestly, if you want to keep on saying “all of these Communist states weren’t Marxist” then don’t ever call anything we have right now “capitalistic”.”
Cuba was not marxist because it didn’t follow the ‘tenants’ of marxism.
A society with capitalist property rights = some form of capitalism.
I’ll admit, I lol’d.
Said in response to the oppressive Cuban government oppressing their people. Fucking Commies will never admit how awful their policies become when put into practice by a state.
>implying state enforced/controlled property rights and divisive class lines = communism
Communism, by definition, is a classless stateless society. There is no such thing as a stateless society ‘put into practice by a state’.
But Che was great! Don’t shit on his legacy!!!
No, Marx expected there to be a state then it to dissolve into anarchy. That didn’t happen. Look what you’ve done.
Seriously though, I understand that Marxism is supposed to be a stateless classless society. But that hasn’t happened yet. And I doubt it ever will. This is why I at least like libertarian socialists of the mutualist flavor.
You are misinterpreting the dictatorship of the proletariat. I really have no desire to debate if we don’t agree on what marxism/socialism entails.
Marx’s description of the state and the role of the nation-state in the path to communism is basically. “The state will make sure shit doesn’t get fucked up while the workers seize the means of production”.
Stalin and Lenin were like “Okay, that means the state controls everything and we poop in everyone’s mouth right?”.
Stalinist and Leninist bullshit ≠ marxism.
Fuck anarcho-capitalists, and their wanna be anarchist bullshit. :(I know! Anarcho-capitalists are so strange. They’re like the new generation of Pokemon, like, what the fuck happened?
They’re like the new generation of Pokemon
They’re like the new generation of Pokemon
They’re like the new generation of Pokemon
Anonymous asked: you, anna and vikas
onedoesnotsimplybecomejuthika:
oh my.
Vikas was wide eyed as the two beauties (Anna much more prettier) feasted upon his body. They were starting to make out passionately, Juthika holding the mixtape of Kanye West she made for the exotic Jewish beauty who was sucking face with her.
“In the words of Kanyeezus,” Vikas began, “Let us procreate for the better of the leftist community.”
Juthika was unsure of how to start. Vikas was a leftist and Anna was a Marxist, and they were much more experienced in the world of politics than this brown girl who only knew how to laugh at people who were doofuses. Anna was holding onto Juthika’s brown globes of flesh underneath her jeans, and Juthika was slowly biting her lower lip, eliciting a moan from the Jewish goddess.
Vikas was wide-eyed by the blatant display of feminism in front of him. He fidgeted with his chess pieces while another pawn was lifting up in his pants. This was getting to be too much for the boy. He could fight libertarians, but not them.
Anna, the more experienced of the three, pulled out a plastic lund that made Juthika weak in the knees. Instead of pushing it towards Juthika, she motioned Vikas to come over.
“Prepare your anus. This is going to be a night of strap-on politics you’ll never forget.”
“pawn in my pants”
I have a king in my pants, thank you very much.
for vikas xoxo
