chenGOD
-
Posts
20,668 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by chenGOD
-
-
On 9/10/2023 at 7:18 AM, user said:
This is a very nice photo with a lot of lens flare. But not sure how it relates to my question? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious.
-
1
-
-
On 9/7/2023 at 7:49 PM, mcbpete said:
Nah must've been before that - I'm assuming my 'sorry' was in reference to its (then) overuse. It might've come about originally from that guy who posted progress in EKT of construction of wooden acoustic panels, and then ripped into everyone for not appreciating the nulls (and would post continually posts tracks at something like 81% speed for some reason). I could be wrong but I thought it might've been the same person that referred to the Analord .flac releases when they were briefly available on Rephlex as 'digital vinyls/vinals'
Was is maybe this thread ?
Man the OCD on display in the linked autechre thread there was wild. (null)
-
4 hours ago, zlemflolia said:
you think imperialism and foreign policy designed to maintain global capitalism are not economic
That isn't what I said, at all. Certainly they have an impact, but they are not inherent features of capitalism (especially imperialism). Central planning is an inherent feature of Communism. The question we were discussing, was whether I thought that that all implementation of central planning on a national scale has been a failure to date, in comparison to capitalism.
If you would like to talk about foreign policy of the US and China, we can certainly do that, but I think there's another thread for that discussion.
-
12 hours ago, zlemflolia said:
look at US death tole bombing entire cities and countries, genociding people by poisoning their farmland, enforcing "intellectual property" (always somehow the property of some company rather than the workers who invented that shit) to prevent other countries from getting access to ag/med tech, look at the domestic US death tole of over 1m preventable deaths due to covid, and youre going to complain about early 19th century post-colonial decolonial movement mistakes?
what about US deaths due to weapons exports and funding genocidal states like israel?
ur just gona come say "great leap forward" and u think that refutes socialism? ur rhetoric borders on cia level disinfo
What in the actual fuck are you talking about? I’m talking about the failure of central planning as an economic policy, not foreign policy, domestic health policy, or anything else.
The simple fact is that all efforts at central planning and collectivization on large scales have been a failure. This is not to say that everything is perfect with capitalism (in its many iterations), far from it, but you asked if communism as tried so far was a failure in comparison to capitalism. So far the answer is yes.
Also, toll, not tole.
-
Any watmmers in Paris and have a heads up on goings on on the 22nd? I’ll be there and that’s the only night I have some free time.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, zlemflolia said:
failures in comparison to what? capitalism which centuries after its dominance still cant even solve homelessness and feed people and give them healthcare in the wealthiest nation in human history? that capitalism?
Yes. As bad as shit is right now, every communist effort to date has been even worse. Look at the numbers of how many died under the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution. Look how many died of starvation in Stalin’s Soviet Union, or the numbers of people living on subsistence-level rations, while working insane hours to meet centrally planned quotas.
Comparative poverty in the US/Canada/Western Europe is shitty, but nothing compared to those examples above, and certainly nothing compared to the centrally planned economies that exist today (Cuba, North Korea, etc.)
-
9 hours ago, zlemflolia said:
you think you cant have central, even decentralized, economic planning understanding X and Y and what processes need them?
You can, but they don't work as well as market economies.
9 hours ago, zlemflolia said:u really gonna just say "people have to stick to one job for life, just look at the great leap forward" lol
That's clearly what I said. People can change careers, obviously, but it takes time to become proficient to where you're as productive in your new field. That's simple. All efforts to date to centrally dictate where capital should go have been failures for a number of reasons.
-
16 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:
bartering N bananas for M apples will naturally result in a highly liquid and fungible commodity emerging as money, read capital section on money
who makes the plan? people, workers.
Therein lies the rub - you need X number of widgets to complete project Y. You don't have those widgets, but someone in the neighbouring town does. But they need them to complete their own project W. You can offer to trade them for something else so they can complete a different project, they will evaluate the opportunity cost of completing project W later and determine if the trade outweighs the cost.
Which people and workers?
22 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:you really think free associated labor and reduction of strict division of labor means some random guy is going to be asked by some other random person to "whip something up in python"? no, clearly he is referring to free associated labor and his dream that you can work as a fisherman one day, farmer the next, and something else the next, which is actually very viable and simply involves more investment into human education as you even quoted
Marx literally says: "Education will enable young people quickly to familiarize themselves with the whole system of production and to pass from one branch of production to another in response to the needs of society or their own inclinations". Maybe it won't be a carpenter being told to program some accounting software, but carpenters just can't up and magically become electricians or plumbers or farmers.
Chinese history shows it is actually not viable at all. See "the Great Leap Forward" and consequences thereof.
-
26 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:
theres no price without money
Of course there is price without money. When you exchange one good for another you have created a price: "these two bananas are worth 4 apples".
29 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:c) "the communist mode of production"
"Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain."
This is Marx describing the communist mode of production. Private property (where property = the means of production) is gone, instead replaced by communal ownership, but since communism is supposed to have a global democratic charter, it will need some management. Indeed Marx acknowledges this:
Quote-20-
What will be the consequences of the ultimate disappearance of private property?
Society will take all forces of production and means of commerce, as well as the exchange and distribution of products, out of the hands of private capitalists and will manage them in accordance with a plan based on the availability of resources and the needs of the whole society.
...
Industry controlled by society as a whole, and operated according to a plan, presupposes well-rounded human beings, their faculties developed in balanced fashion, able to see the system of production in its entirety.
Question: who makes the plan?
SpoilerAs an aside, Marx also assumes that people will be able to learn entire systems:
QuoteEducation will enable young people quickly to familiarize themselves with the whole system of production and to pass from one branch of production to another in response to the needs of society or their own inclinations
Can you imagine some git who knows nothing about programming suddenly being told "hey we need you to whip up something in Python"?
-
3 hours ago, zlemflolia said:
chengod: "This is the literal definition of communism according to Marx"
Marx: "no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today"
Also Marx: "the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever." (from the same document as your text above). Marx can't even agree with himself.
I see where the misunderstanding is - you're talking about the abolition of money, I'm talking about the allocation of resources.
2 hours ago, zlemflolia said:Quote"Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain. "
The allocation of resources will be in the hands of the nation. Yes no money, hooray, but the state will still be setting out "prices" through whatever exchange is necessary to make a good or provide a service.
So yes communism contains "govt set prices and production quotas".
-
You mean the part where he says:
6 hours ago, zlemflolia said:the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever.
Is that the part where he refutes it?
6 hours ago, zlemflolia said:these are policy proposals for a path to attempt to achieve it
I disagree with this analysis - after laying out the "policy proposals" Marx and Engels write:
QuoteIf the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
They simply state there will be no class division - the notion that central planning will disappear is never stated.
Anyhow, you and I will never see eye to eye, so please go ahead and have the last word (again).
Sorry to all others.
-
How bizarre, I put on "Stars of Ice" today for the first time in a while. A sad loss for music.
-
20 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:
communism is not govt set prices and production quotas its literally the abolition of money, something only conceivable under mature socialism anyway
Points 5,6, and 7 of Marx and Engels 10 point general plan in the Communist Manifesto (Chapter II) describe centralization of those functions quite explicitly:
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan
Point 2 acknowledges the function of income (money) by calling for a tax:
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
So, yes, communism is in fact the controlling of production quotas and prices.
Like I said earlier - I'm sure you can find a collective of like-minded individuals to work towards fully automated luxury communism where money is no longer necessary. Until we have that, let's go with market socialism which acknowledges that private property will exist (owned by collectives) and markets/supply and demand will guide the allocation of capital.
-
14 hours ago, Nebraska said:
And the recovery is slow and ongoing, but at least they have recovered: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/2023/08/31/um-report-detroit-economic-outlook-strong-but-only-36-of-residents-make-living-wage/70721676007/
-
3 hours ago, ignatius said:
is she running for president? don't get me wrong.. it'd be hilarious to watch trump debate random people (from his prison cell) over whatever bullshit is going on in his brain..
Let's be honest, he just wants to ogle her.
-
1
-
-
Just now, zlemflolia said:
ur already falsely equating a bunch of stuff.
"not living in one location permanently" = "rental properties required"
1)how about, freedom of movement and free access to housing? if someone moves that housing just becomes available. how does renting (paying rent and having landlords) become necessary?
2)u already know fixed house/apartment/condo with longterm freedom of ownership and modification is personal property not private property and has no reason to be abolished. how does that imply landlords?
3)now ur saying u want market socialism? how is "nicer capitalism" = "market socialism" lol, i think youre confusing social democracy + welfare net with market socialism
1) Because paying for goods and services is a basic tenet of a market based economy.
2) Personal property and private property are of equal importance in market based economy. Communism is not a market based economy (govt sets prices and production quotas).
3) Market socialism is not nicer capitalism, you're the one who said all I have offered is nicer capitalism (thank you for putting words in my mouth). Market socialism is not communism either. Private property will continue to exist under market socialism as markets/supply and demand will continue to provide signals for the allocation of goods/capital/means of production.
-
1 hour ago, zlemflolia said:
y use so many words when u can just say "abolish landlords" "abolish private property" and all this stuff is solved? why the half measures
im serious tho i just dont get it
for real all these pages and not one alternative to capitalism presented except "nicer capitalism hopefully"
Because rental properties are necessary (not everyone will be living in one location permanently) and private property (like a house/apartment/condo) that can't be taken away from you without due process is also a necessity and guaranteed in virtually every founding principles document worth having.
Nicer capitalism is an interesting way to spell market socialism, nothing hopeful about it, we can work towards it and many places are. Sorry it sucks for you so bad in wherever you live. I'm sure with enough time and effort you can work towards fully automated luxury communism with a collective of like-minded thinkers.
-
17 minutes ago, ignatius said:
Just don't buy Nestle chocolate - back in Canada we have a very good (much better than Nestle crap) chocolate company who do all the right things. Is it a touch more expensive, yes, but it's a) fucking delicious and b) also fucking delicious. Find similar in your neighborhood and support them!
-
1
-
-
On 2/18/2023 at 10:50 AM, usagi said:
I can't see anything in this article to get mad about. the 303 elitism is silly, true, but plenty of older producers hold those sort of views. AFX is on record as one of them.
the remark about the more choices being available the less he knows what to do is truly asinine though, and the mark of a hack. but he was only ever a hack, who made a few fun tunes back in the day which have a bit of nostalgia value now.
But digital clones of analog machines won't replicate the uniqueness inherent to each machine, due to timing and tuning quirks in the analog machines that just aren't present in the digital clone.
As for the paradox of choice, I mean that's a real thing: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/is-the-famous-paradox-of-choic,and lots of musicians have made similar remarks.
I don't think he ever pretended to be anything more than a dude making music to party to though? I mean the tag (motto? whatever) on his youtube channel is "eat,sleep,rave,repeat". Also I think (controversially??) that it's just a touch ironic to accuse him of 808 elitism and then turn around and call him a hack who only made a few fun tunes...
Plus Acid8000 is a banger:
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, springymajig said:
making reasoned arguments about why you disagree with Hoggy's questions
yer honour, i submit to the court that i have never made a reasoned argument.
-
8 hours ago, springymajig said:
One of the things I find very off putting about this music discussion forum is the hostility toward discussing music.
But there's a clear difference between discussing music and saying "factor X is more important than factor Y". To be fair to @hoggy, the question was at least "what is more important to you", but it's still really just subjective tastes, and honestly (speaking for myself solely) I'm not interested in why you like something, but I am interested in what you like.
1 hour ago, toaoaoad said:that rhythm is far more important in music than melody
This reminded me of the Stockhausen interview with the wire (1995) as part of which he listened to a few tracks from Aphex, Plastikman, Scanner, and Daniel Pemberton, and then gave some opinions/advice - https://web.archive.org/web/20130529064851/https://www.thewire.co.uk/in-writing/interviews/karlheinz-stockhausen_advice-to-clever-children
And it's just the artists are like, i don't really care - i'm going to put out what i want to. Like Aphex didn't take to heart... "immediately stop with all these post-African repetitions, and he would look for changing tempi and rhythms, and he would not allow to repeat any rhythm if it were varied to some extent and if it did not have a direction in its sequence of variations."
So yeah.
Spoilerbatcock
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, hoggy said:
a bat can also be a kind of burrito
Am envisioning a bat drenched in onions and hot sauce then wrapped with its own wings. Still though, batcock...
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, ignatius said:
very male centric.
What is more important
a) burritos
b) disgusting with salsa
c) batcock
-
Completely forgot about Pole after Steingarten came out many moons ago. This is lovely - a nice return (yes it came out in 2022) to them for me.
I am now convinced that capitalism is evil
in General Banter
Posted
Why can't you stick to the question that you asked me instead of taking a gish gallop approach to this? Why don't you come up with a counter-example where a centrally planned economy has resulted in better outcomes than one which uses capitalism as its basis?
There's a perfect example - North Korea vs South Korea. Both created at the same moment in time, with the exact two approaches we're discussing being used, both starting from the same economic/industrialized base. So why don't you tell me why you think North Korea's central planning and devolution to a fascist state with autarky is the better option than South Korea?
This shit is particularly hilarious, as if any of the nations that have tried to implement communism haven't engaged in the same practices (stolen goods, human trafficking, exploitation of labour, etc.)