: Translation: Gee shall omit the points he is not up to confronting. . .
Would you accept the same in your previous post then, with you avoiding most of it? Or do you reserve for your elitist self the right to discern what is worthy and what is not? Sheer arrogence, Nietzche would like you.
: 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). .
You do post with a denial of other's abilities. You deny Gort or any business creator has any special ability by expounding on the role of luck and privilege and do so in a manner dripping with scorn for such people. Perhaps you only hate those people who use their abilities for their own ends, rather than turn them over to what you decide 'society' should be.
:: 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.
You're talking about yourself here.
: As I told Gee only a day or two ago, if the MAJORITY of proletarians DO NOT want socialism, then it won't happen.
And now you accept the position that it requires voluntary assent and not your vangaurdism.
: Gee is (again!) assuming that I advocate terrorism and adventurism. NOT TRUE.
When you drop your vangaurdist position people stop thinking of you as the above.
: In order for a SUCCESSFUL socialist revolution to happen, the overwhelming majority of workers must support it.
So they wont need a vanguard, yet this ;
"A Leninist such as myself DOES believe that this majority will be led by a resolute revolutionary party prepared for struggle with the capitalists."
could mean anything from ineffectual terrorists, ineffectual minute political party to ineffectual pamphleteers. Which is it?
: I've always maintained that socialism is PREDICATED upon the mode of production that capital currently utilizes.
You need those Rockefellers, Fords, Gorts and Gates to organise production for you to take it. You rely upon them and their motivations (which you vehemently oppose) to make it possible for you to seize that which would not have come about but for them. Quite literally biting the hand that feeds you. More over, you then expect, post seizure, for the productivity to remain as high having removed that which motivated it previously. Dream on.
: Gee's assertion that the millionaire and the pauper's 'want' is the SAME is nonsense.
'i want more' as a principle is applicable as motivation to either. What they want more of may be different -that they want more is the same.
The rest was as predicted. Pretty much the 'but capital is stolen therefore workers pay it really'. Fine, whatever way you cut it the worker doesnt pay tax out of his income - that was RD's point directed at those who compalin of income tax - his basis (that its exploited) is the same but the explanation clearer than your hyperbole retort of the previous post. The concept of exploitaion is one that has been discussed by Joel Jacobson, and ignored by you.