: BS spouts the usual 'arguments' in the form of ad hominens, I shall try and pick over the attacks for anything worth considering.Translation: Gee shall omit the points he is not up to confronting. . .
: Passing over the hatred of ability and the 'must have' belief that no one is more capable than any other....
Of course, the FACT that I have never 'hated ability'----I've championed the ability of the proletariat---and never claimed that anyone 'must have' anything---socialism is no welfare state---won't stop Gee from making his propagandistic claims (over and over). . .
Stoller:
His prejudice is that socialism must be spontaneously voluntary---or naught.
This, not surprisingly, is a handy straw man to defeat with the tired human nature thesis.
: The belief that BS and a merry band of gun toting rebels can seize power, nominally on behalf of the working class he condescends with the very notion of having to lead them to water, has been catastrophically played out so often
on earth that one must assume BS has a gap in his Kolb learning cycle.
What a dodge.
As I told Gee only a day or two ago, if the MAJORITY of proletarians DO NOT want socialism, then it won't happen.
Gee is (again!) assuming that I advocate terrorism and adventurism. NOT TRUE.
In the socialist future, the 'guns' will only be pointed at a MINORITY---most likely the remaining capitalists and their assorted sycophants.
Let me repeat (again!):
In order for a SUCCESSFUL socialist revolution to happen, the overwhelming majority of workers must support it.
A Leninist such as myself DOES believe that this majority will be led by a resolute revolutionary party prepared for struggle with the capitalists. This fighting vanguard will disseminate revolutionary theory as often and as quickly as the proletariat can absorb it; indeed, this process will be the FIRST STAGE in the revolution's history.
The people, NOT THE PARTY, will be holding the guns.
Stoller:
People (even savages) have done [collectivized labor] ONLY because it is MORE EFFICIENT than individual, atomized labor.
: Until the first chance to escape it, and evidently become more efficient than had heretofore been dreamed of.
I've always maintained that socialism is PREDICATED upon the mode of production that capital currently utilizes.
But I also maintain that the oppressive social relations (social division of labor) can be successfully changed IN LIGHT OF the present high level of productivity.
How many times do I have to repeat these BASIC points?
: To deny the principle 'i want more' is acting for the millionaire and the pauper is an evasion.
Gee's assertion that the millionaire and the pauper's 'want' is the SAME is nonsense. (Is it part of Gee's subjective / objective conflation that went splat here?)
: Skinners example is worthwhile, but doesnt contravene the above basic motivation.
If Gee actually understood the difference between variable-ratio schedules and fixed-interval schedules (of reinforcement), he'd not be so
quick to say that. . .
: Oh dear, what a socialist embarrasment, a rampant Leninist who thinks the paycheck you get, with its shown deducted taxes, means you paid the tax out of your income. Please read Red Deathy's post for clarification, then do
comback with some half hearted back pedalling about how "its all the workers wealth really and so, erm... you didnt mean that and well, erm.... youre all
wrong!"
RD:
As I've said before on this board, the working class doesn't pay tax, our employers pay it for us, if Income tax didn't exist, our wages would be no different in reality.
What RD is saying (amongst other useful things) is 'the working class doesn't pay tax, our employers pay it for us' OUT OF THE SURPLUS THE WORKERS PRODUCE.
Nonetheless---taxes for workers (at least in America) have steadily RISEN while corporate taxes have steadily LOWERED, showing an
absolute increase in surplus appropriation.
A worker's paycheck shows the increase.
Gee's claim that workers pay no taxes, therefore corporations pay ALL taxes---a fundamental MISUNDERSTANDING of RD's entire presentation---is as churlish as it is childish.
None.
