: Stoller:
: Please---crawl back under your rock, Doc.: DC:
: 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...
: DC:
: 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.
: Doc:
: ..."defending a 'Reaganesque foreign policy'"... Most certainly.
: Which brings us to:
: Stoller:
: Doc's sudden conversion to peacenik rhetoric is most disingenuous.
: DC:
: 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!
: Stoller:
: ... asserting that the Nazi Regime was actually "popular with average German workers"
: DC:
: [W]ho, and this is why the Marxists came up with the term 'lumpen proletariat'...
: Stoller:
: [W]hy then the ubiquitous goon squads?
: DC:
: 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).
: Stoller:
: 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.
:
: __________
:
: DC:
: Incidentally, the tourist and gambling industries depend on the $100 candy bar rule.
: Stoller:
: Now, anyone with half a brain will admit that the LTV does NOT fully apply in the case of monopoly.
: DC:
: 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.
:
: DC:
: 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.
: Stoller:
: Is this supposed to infer that employees of monopolies SHARE in the spoils of monopoly?
: [snipping the incoherent blather...]
: Stoller:
: Like, the waiters and hat check girls at EXCLUSIVE country clubs really rake in the dough...
: DC:
: 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.
: No, EVERYTHING you just said is BESIDES THE POINT.
--
McSpotlight: Barry, does this post actually contain any original material in it? - it seems to be all quoted text. If you've rejigged a hyperlink, it would probably be a Good Idea to actually, like, tell us about it...
None.
