On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com> 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:danieldi...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 5:57 AM
> *To:* John Milstone <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> *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 <comandantegri...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Reply via email to