On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Chris Zell <[email protected]> wrote:
> My background is libertarian but I now feel some form of communism could > be in our future, by default. > > > > First, consider that deflationary factors could drive economies into > permanent stimulus with scant regard for debts. Even Bloomberg admits that > the Bank of Japan may own a big chunk of their stock market already. If > they are forced into buying up stocks and bonds without end in order to > avoid collapse, then we have a form of communism – if you consider things > such as the Fed to be part of the government. > > > > Second, suppose automation does give us mass production of quality goods > at very low prices? If scarcity has always been the obstacle in socialist > systems, then this might overcome it. Leaders in China may believe this to > be true – and time will tell if they are correct. > Look: you're not QUALIFIED to define the term 'communism'. Simple as that. Stop trying. You just look bad (at best). However -- we DO know that NO new technology or research is going to be funded by a bankrupt World Capitalist order: unless of course, it appears to have 'Military significance'... So no wonder so many of you here are so hostile to the anti-Militarists amongst us: you are *eager* to get the *sure* funding which now accompanies the buildup to what looks like an increasingly likely WWIII. > > > *From:* Daniel Rocha [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 5:57 AM > *To:* John Milstone <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Robots to replace writers. > > > > I guess you are being ultra left here. The guy is showing will to learn > and you are kind of snubbing him. > > > > 2017-10-13 3:29 GMT-03:00 Che <[email protected]>: > > > > > > This is just (yawn) one more fake 'post-marxist' analysis (of which there > has been plenty: 'Post Modernism' being the exemplar of this genre). > Dismissing the importance of those CENTRAL materialist concepts -- the > Means and Mode of Production -- is a dead giveaway that this is just one > more quasi-/pseudo-'scientific' analysis. With a suspect political-economic > -- no doubt petit-bourgeois liberal -- agenda behind it, of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Daniel Rocha - RJ > > [email protected] >
