- Capitalism and Alternatives -

A 'Reaganesque' foreign policy is your remedy (better)

Posted by: Stoller on November 23, 1999 at 10:11:37:

In Reply to: A crucible of contention ... but I have the remedy. posted by Dr. Cruel on November 22, 1999 at 15:35:32:

Please---crawl back under your rock, Doc.

Again trying to bury unpleasant data under a rock. Oh, very well, here I go.

When have you EVER presented ANY data to back up your reactionary views?

Everytime I start presenting credible citations to support my assertions, you simply slither away from your outrageous statements...

Before I take my place "underground"...

Maybe you could take Lark---who supports the doctrines of Plato---and NJ ---who defends 'benevolent authoritarianism' with you.

Jeez, all you supremacists SICKEN ME.

..."defending a 'Reaganesque foreign policy'"... Most certainly.

Which brings us to:

Doc's sudden conversion to peacenik rhetoric is most disingenuous.

I haven't any idea where this is coming from...In any case, I'm certainly not "pro-war". Are you?

You're 'certainly not' pro-war---yet you support a 'Reaganesque' foreign policy.

WHICH is it?

And: do I defend war?

You bet.

I UNCONDITIONALLY defend the right of the working class to rid themselves of vile aristocrats like YOU!

... asserting that the Nazi Regime was actually "popular with average German workers"

[W]ho, and this is why the Marxists came up with the term 'lumpen proletariat'...

[W]hy then the ubiquitous goon squads?

Answer: Because that is what the workers would become, once organized in large groups...

No. They ALREADY were 'the lumpenproletariat.'

The point is that without the Storm Troopers, they MOST LIKELY would have struggled against fascist capital in trade unions (or political organizations).

Who exactly started World War 1, Doc? Was it the Bolsheviks---or was it the capitalists?

DC: The monarchists.

Like the monarchists of the 20th century operated independently of capital?

That's absurd.


Incidentally, the tourist and gambling industries depend on the $100 candy bar rule.

Now, anyone with half a brain will admit that the LTV does NOT fully apply in the case of monopoly.

Actually, one would expect you to claim that any discrepancies in monopoly pricing were due to the exploitative nature of such an arrangement.

I'm not talking about the relationship between capitalist and consumer here, Doc---I'm talking about the relationship between capitalist and laborer.

If you ACTUALLY read Capital LIKE YOU SAID YOU DID, you wouldn't make such inane errors.

Being able to buy a $100 candy bar (and the increases in pay and worker output that these sorts of consumer demands generate) is the key to the unmitigated success of capitalism.

Like, the waiters and hat check girls at EXCLUSIVE country clubs really rake in the dough...

That, of course, depends on the economy. In the Victorian era, they often did get quite a bit more than they were "worth", mainly through the unspoken understanding of what might happen to one's food or one's hat if they didn't. But that's besides the point.


If you can cite something other than everest to prove your assertion that waiters and hat-check girls in Victorian England were raking in the dough, I'd love to see it.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup