- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Doc's Illimitable Nonsense

Posted by: Stoller on November 24, 1999 at 23:27:37:

In Reply to: Slithering posted by Dr. Cruel on November 24, 1999 at 00:45:54:

: And since when did keeping my own earnings make me a 'supremacist'?


Another solitary island-dweller who MAKES everything he / she CONSUMES.

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

: I am not pro-war, but I am anti-'Marxist revolutionary', who - by your own admission - are 'pro-war'. Thus, if we're to have any peace, we'll have to "deal" with the Marxists.

And 'deal with' means...peace?

: Let's do a bit of reductio ad absurdum here. As in, "If there were no 'enthusiastic workers', then where did all those fanatical Nazis come from?

UNEMPLOYED non-workers, perhaps?

[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.'

DC: But the Cheka were loyal agents of the party. Go figure.

What a brazen dodge!

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

: As in using money? Yes. As in being motivated by business interests - certainly, to some extent.

Let me get this card-stacking nonsense straight:

The tsar's court operated independently of capital '[a]s in being motivated by business interests'---certainly? With 'to some extent' (tacked on)...

WHAT is that supposed to mean?

Or were you simply hoping that I---by becoming confused by your illogical blather---would simply blurt out something EVEN MORE illogical?


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

: He forgets his own rhetoric, me preciouss. As in, the candy bar must be made, and thus, the labor used to make it resides in its sugary goodness[?]. Monopolies being a means of 'exploitation', doncha know. Any profits made would rightly belong to the workers and all that sort of thing, etc.

Again you are conflating monopoly's effect on CONSUMERS with monopoly's effect on WORKERS.

And to say: 'Any profits made would rightly belong to the workers and all that sort of thing' is COMPLETE NONSENSE.

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.

: You'll not likely have become a tycoon over your earnings. You might make it to becoming a butler, however.

THAT was your 'citation'?

That a good little worker can work real hard and 'finally make it' to the rank of butler?

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup