It's not good hey frankiboy! And for me it is the end of our financial year, which has everyone from the CEO down waiting for me to do my reports that usually take a month, and they want them in days!frankiboy wrote:Working, when 99% of your friends and family are away on leave
What pisses you off?
Moderator: bbmods
-
fan4collingwood
- Posts: 4250
- Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 6:01 pm
- Location: Seaford Rise , Adelaide SA Australia
- Contact:
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54844
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
LOL, I have vague recollections of the basil Brush christmas special, on Christmas afternoon.skaman wrote:No, but Basil Brush does....boom,boom!Dave The Man wrote:Do you have Foxtel?Jock McPie wrote:what is an iq box? why did it break down, a small iq?Dave The Man wrote:Getting an IQ Box then it Bracking Down in 2 Days
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
Dave The Man
- Posts: 45002
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:04 pm
- Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 21 times
- Contact:
-
Piethagoras' Theorem
- Posts: 19603
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 1:09 pm
- Has liked: 1 time
- Been liked: 17 times
Not good at all. Can't ever recall working through Xmas/New Year break, it's a strange feeling. Don't have much choice, been contracting with an engineering/construction mob for the past 2 months who have plenty on. They pay well and pay promptly so I don't want to spoil our good relationship thus far.fan4collingwood wrote:It's not good hey frankiboy! And for me it is the end of our financial year, which has everyone from the CEO down waiting for me to do my reports that usually take a month, and they want them in days!frankiboy wrote:Working, when 99% of your friends and family are away on leave
Also, just bought a new car and saving feverishly for home deposit so the extra income is welcome relief. Especially when some asshole owes you thousands and is extremely hard to get hold of
Last edited by Piethagoras' Theorem on Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Formally frankiboy and FrankieGoesToCollingwood.
-
Proud Pies
- Posts: 14149
- Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 8:01 pm
- Location: Knox-ish
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54844
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
-
sherrife
- Posts: 3037
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 11:20 pm
- Contact:
People calling the USSR, Stalin, China, Mao, etc. Socialist...
No country on this planet is or ever has been Socialist. Anyone who says otherwise misunderstands the entire thing, is a Stalinist (ie. state-owned capitalist), or is wilfully spreading propaganda.
No country on this planet is or ever has been Socialist. Anyone who says otherwise misunderstands the entire thing, is a Stalinist (ie. state-owned capitalist), or is wilfully spreading propaganda.
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs
-
David
- Posts: 50683
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 17 times
- Been liked: 83 times
So what does that mean? Everybody has tried, and failed? Or have all these people simply been misinterpreting the works of Marx and Engels?
I ask this because, one of my criticisms based on my very limited knowledge of the theory of communism (I have briefly studied Marx and the Manifesto, but it goes back a few years), is that it simply doesn't work in practise (put it down to human nature, or whatever). Does this observation have any merit?
I ask this because, one of my criticisms based on my very limited knowledge of the theory of communism (I have briefly studied Marx and the Manifesto, but it goes back a few years), is that it simply doesn't work in practise (put it down to human nature, or whatever). Does this observation have any merit?
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
-
sherrife
- Posts: 3037
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 11:20 pm
- Contact:
Not really, no, because if you understand Marx, you understand that nobody can "implement socialism". Well, no, no single person or small group of people can try. Only a mass movement can do it, and it is only socialism when every single worker owns and RUNS their worksite, their region, their country.
In Cuba, China, North Vietnam, etc. there was never a mass workers movement therefore there was never going to be socialism. Ditto for most other places commonly referred to as being 'socialist paradises' or something of the sort.
The USSR is more complex, as at one point, for a few weeks, it looked promising. But Russia faced enormous difficulties from the beginning due to the massive peasant population (peasants are not workers because they own their own properties, therefore, like all other capitalists, they want to maintain this ownership, not give it up to the rest of society). But even after overcoming this obstacle, the working class was totally wiped out during WWI, the revolution in Germany (which was much more industrialised) failed, and then the civil war broke out; all of which destroyed the workers movement in Russia by the late 1910's. Thus although the leadership of Stalin and others was horrible in the 20's, the reason they were able to become dictators is that the movement that had supported the Bolsheviks up till 1917 was destroyed.
So you can see that the underlying issue is theoretical. If you're a Marxist you don't agree with the individualistic western analysis of events which relies on the assumption that leaders create and control historical movements, so the failure of the USSR is understood not to be a consequence of bad leadership (of which there was plenty!) but of the destruction of the mass movement that occured years earlier.
From the example of the Russian revolution Marx's ultimate point was validated: there can only be socialism when the workers are choosing it for themselves, ie. socialism must come from below. No developed nation has yet fulfilled this criteria, and therefore socialism has not even been possible.
In Cuba, China, North Vietnam, etc. there was never a mass workers movement therefore there was never going to be socialism. Ditto for most other places commonly referred to as being 'socialist paradises' or something of the sort.
The USSR is more complex, as at one point, for a few weeks, it looked promising. But Russia faced enormous difficulties from the beginning due to the massive peasant population (peasants are not workers because they own their own properties, therefore, like all other capitalists, they want to maintain this ownership, not give it up to the rest of society). But even after overcoming this obstacle, the working class was totally wiped out during WWI, the revolution in Germany (which was much more industrialised) failed, and then the civil war broke out; all of which destroyed the workers movement in Russia by the late 1910's. Thus although the leadership of Stalin and others was horrible in the 20's, the reason they were able to become dictators is that the movement that had supported the Bolsheviks up till 1917 was destroyed.
So you can see that the underlying issue is theoretical. If you're a Marxist you don't agree with the individualistic western analysis of events which relies on the assumption that leaders create and control historical movements, so the failure of the USSR is understood not to be a consequence of bad leadership (of which there was plenty!) but of the destruction of the mass movement that occured years earlier.
From the example of the Russian revolution Marx's ultimate point was validated: there can only be socialism when the workers are choosing it for themselves, ie. socialism must come from below. No developed nation has yet fulfilled this criteria, and therefore socialism has not even been possible.
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs
-
David
- Posts: 50683
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 17 times
- Been liked: 83 times
I guess the next question is, from an objective and rational perspective, do you see the potential for a socialist society to emerge in the near or even far future? Or are our capitalist societies too foreign to the world view?
Personally, I'm skeptical. The position you hold is very much a minority one, as far as I'm aware, which is not to say that it couldn't gain popularity, but I think it would have to take some large cultural change for that to happen.
Are the majority, from the working, middle or upper classes, really willing to sacrifice luxuries and personal financial gain when it comes down to it?
The Russian Revolution, from my understanding, was a reaction against real poverty and tyranny from the ruling classes. The fact is, in today's Western societies at least, we have got it pretty good. Even working-class families can afford big screen TVs. Can a revolution occur in such an environment?
Personally, I'm skeptical. The position you hold is very much a minority one, as far as I'm aware, which is not to say that it couldn't gain popularity, but I think it would have to take some large cultural change for that to happen.
Are the majority, from the working, middle or upper classes, really willing to sacrifice luxuries and personal financial gain when it comes down to it?
The Russian Revolution, from my understanding, was a reaction against real poverty and tyranny from the ruling classes. The fact is, in today's Western societies at least, we have got it pretty good. Even working-class families can afford big screen TVs. Can a revolution occur in such an environment?
Last edited by David on Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
-
sherrife
- Posts: 3037
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 11:20 pm
- Contact:
That's a difficult thing to predict, there is a theoretical answer to that but I'm still learning it, it goes something along the lines that capitalism inevitably leads to more and more exploitation, and therefore more and more struggle. Socialists need to be ready for the upturn in struggles, and harness that to get more people involved. That's a pretty crap explanation, but it's late, I'm tired, and I need to go to the toilet.
Also, who would have predicted the downfall of the feudal system? The kings certainly didn't. Change is only obvious the moment before it happens.
But I have another, equally rational question I would ask you in return. Is my pessimism or optimism relevant to the moral question? To put it another way: If society is unjust due to capitalism, and I know the solution is socialism, am I not morally obliged to work towards that goal?
Also, who would have predicted the downfall of the feudal system? The kings certainly didn't. Change is only obvious the moment before it happens.
But I have another, equally rational question I would ask you in return. Is my pessimism or optimism relevant to the moral question? To put it another way: If society is unjust due to capitalism, and I know the solution is socialism, am I not morally obliged to work towards that goal?
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs
-
David
- Posts: 50683
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 17 times
- Been liked: 83 times
Omar sorry about the edit in my above post... I'll respond to your reply now though.
I guess I believe in the importance of rational goals - ie, if you see the goal, and you know what you have to do to work towards it, then by all means do so.
However, if the goal you seek is unattainable (not saying it is necessarily), I see it as a waste of time to attempt to achieve it... rather, a more conservative goal should be aimed for.
For example, in this case (and forgive my simplicity, as you know I am no expert in this field), upon the theoretical realisation that pure socialism could never be achieved, I would then seek to undermine capitalism in different ways, or perhaps even work within the system to try to improve it slightly.
Lol, I dunno. I'm tired as well
I guess I believe in the importance of rational goals - ie, if you see the goal, and you know what you have to do to work towards it, then by all means do so.
However, if the goal you seek is unattainable (not saying it is necessarily), I see it as a waste of time to attempt to achieve it... rather, a more conservative goal should be aimed for.
For example, in this case (and forgive my simplicity, as you know I am no expert in this field), upon the theoretical realisation that pure socialism could never be achieved, I would then seek to undermine capitalism in different ways, or perhaps even work within the system to try to improve it slightly.
Lol, I dunno. I'm tired as well
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
-
Alec. J. Hidell
- Posts: 4628
- Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 4:13 pm
Chile under Allendesherrife wrote:People calling the USSR, Stalin, China, Mao, etc. Socialist...
No country on this planet is or ever has been Socialist. Anyone who says otherwise misunderstands the entire thing, is a Stalinist (ie. state-owned capitalist), or is wilfully spreading propaganda.
The one man in the world, who never believes he is mad, is the madman.
