chenGOD

Ah yes, all the muslims that are being bombed and murdered for oil in....Canada?

Don’t be, thanks to you I have new cylob to enjoy!!! Had no idea this existed!

Sorry: me dum.

I was actually thinking more how the 808 was originally introduced to be a replacement for a real drum set (I think to work with electric organs) but it was such a dismal failure at that, but instead found new life as a mainstay of techno and acid. Hence “nothing sounds quite like an 8 - 0 - 8.” But the fish can works well. There’s a little known video of Robert Henke screaming that at oppressed Asian coders working on Ableton.

Like:

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that music production software that was created primarily as a means to produce techno, is intuitively designed to facilitate the four-on-the-floor patterns that have been common in techno since, well, forever. Just fuck right off. :old man yells at clouds gif:

Even in the Korg M1, microtuning was available. Modular synthesis has always had microtuning available to it (not the easiest to implement). This list shows how much gear there is that has microtuning. Scala was released what, 7-8 years ago and is a fantastic piece of software that really allows you to fuck around with tunings. It's just, a lot of people never bother to dig into their kit. Many of the people who do either never release music, or never should release music. (This isn't directed at you ignatius, your post just provided an easy jumping off point).

I mean Aleksi has been pumping out Colundi records with some insane tuning in them non-stop for how many years now?

What you can't see is the second Expedition where all the toilet paper is after their weekly grocery trip.

One last thing @cyanobacteria You asked earlier why I referenced central planning, because of course you have said numerous times in this thread and elsewhere that central planning can work. It can, but it is less efficient than a well-regulated market, and the links I posted that came from a Soviet educated economist which show that central planning doesn't work you conveniently ignored.

finally something useful from this thread.

It is based on the book, yes.

That is an interesting question: do we want a microsoft? A heavily regulated microsoft might not be bad, considering their software (as much as I dislike using it) does power large amounts of economic activity. And Bill Gates apparently was one of those who could actually code (the quality of his code is in dispute, but apparently you couldn't bullshit him) and run a business. Corporations and corporation-like business arrangements have been in existence since 3000 B.C. in Mesopotamia, for example, (see p.15 of the linked PDF), in Assyria (see linked PDF), and so on throughout history. Yes formal corporations didn't exist until 1555 with the Muscovy Company, but the practice and type of company organization has been in existence for almost as long as there has been "civilization". Generally, to start a business, you take on a loan from a bank. This is not without considerable risk, given that close to 50% of small businesses fail in a given year. The money was not earned from workers in her business, as her business didn't exist yet. Your last sentence is the perfect example of why others think you arrogant: I understand the Marxist lens well enough, but I was interested to hear your thoughts and interpretation. Instead you merely parrot back Marx, and rehash the same material over and over. When confronted with data and evidence about your claims, you ignore it (see my refutation of your interpretation of Chinese "democracy", discussion on the mix of private/public enterprise and its efficacy in providing good mass public transit, your claims on North Korea, etc.), so as such, I am no longer interested in hearing your interpretation.

You have some weird fetish where you think everyone who think Marxism is not the "greatest gee-willikers just the best way to ensure prosperity for all" must think that capitalism is 100% infallible. This is obviously not true. the issue is that Marxism and central planning will not improve on this lot, on the contrary, it will make it worse. Here is a very good easy to understand PDF about why central planning has inefficiencies that lead to the downfall of the state, using the USSR as an example. https://carleton.ca/vpopov/wp-content/uploads/CPEs-IO-and-structural-inefficiencies.pdf, (I'll note here that the author of this paper graduated from the Economics Department of Moscow University in 1976). Here he has a paper on the new socialism and how it may be competitive. You should read it, you'll like it. Clearly they don't. Why do you insist on erecting this strawman? How many times have I said in this very thread that strong regulation, strong unions, workers rights, pensions that adjust for inflation, universal health care, etc. are all necessary to provide for the dignity of workers.

@cyanobacteriahas been pretty explicit that private property would still be allowed in his Marxist wunderland, which I believe included running small stores. So if I read you right, you're saying they're already capitalist. I can't speak about your personal experiences, but in my own experience I know and have worked for owners who do work in the trenches. Considering the above statistic of 99% of firms in American being small businesses, with the majority of those firms having fewer than 100 employees, it is not implausible for owners to be doing a lot of that. My uncle owns (actually owned he's sold it since) a small hotel/pub/restaurant in Cornwall, UK, which had a staff of about 20 in the peak season (tourist place). I worked there for a summer (well a bit more than a summer) and while I definitely didn't make enough to buy a Rolls, I was able to work, live, bought a small motor, and traveled across England. My uncle did quite well out of it, but he also worked long hours doing so, as well as taking on all the risk by putting up the initial investment etc. I use the example of a bakery because I knew some people who worked for a local bakery in Vancouver that did fantastically, and have opened up two other locations. The people I knew who worked there never (rarely may be a better choice of words) had to do anything outside of their job description, and certainly not for free. My wife also worked for a small business in Vancouver, and since she was essentially the office manager her work was quite varied but she was well compensated for it. The owner, while not doing much of the managerial work, did ironically do work which was the main thrust of the company. Ultimately, decision making in small business lies at the feet of the owner, and so they are risking quite a lot for incorrect decisions. I have yet to see a persuasive argument for why an owner shouldn't be rewarded commensurate to their risk? Bookstores may not necessarily be highly capital intensive but there is still risk involved. And many owners would also feel badly should the business fail and their employees' livelihoods suffer (maybe not in the wacky cut-throat world of American small business?). If those businesses are so fragile and the under-paid person knows it, that is significant leverage. Now, of course in the US unions and workers' rights have been eroded significantly, so that leverage is harder to wield. In countries where workers rights haven't been eroded as badly, that leverage becomes an important tool. Sorry for being cringe.

Would many people have jobs without private ownership of some industry? Do you think for example, a Microsoft or BMW or Royal Dutch Oil comes about through communal activity? Corporations are sadly, almost a natural outgrowth of business activity. I'm sure I've said this elsewhere, but the book "The Company" by economic historians John Micklethwait and Adrian Woolridge describes how similar structures to corporate activity have formed throughout history, with a key inflection point being in 1555 with the formation of the Muscovy Company (these same authors argue for more oversight and regulation of corporations in a later book). An explicit note that I am not advocating for deregulation, on the contrary, regulation on corporations should be much more thorough and enforced strongly. I am also not saying that all economic opportunity comes from corporations, indeed, in America, approximately 50% of the population is employed in small enterprise, and if you include medium enterprise that percentage rises further. So what would you think about a successful baker who has one location where demand exceeds her capacity to supply that demand? Should she be denied opening a second location elsewhere in the locality (which would require hiring employees, managing resources, inventory flow, for which I presume she should be financially compensated with respect to her responsibility and risk). Does she suddenly become a capitalist moving from one bakery to opening a second? While I'm not sure exactly how public transport relates to Marxist thought, some of the most effective public transportation in the world (Japan, South Korea, Netherlands as examples) are run by a mixture of public and private ownership. China's national rail system allows for foreign capital investment, and is owned by shareholders (at least in the freight sector). Pure models (either private or public) have seen much less success, and as an example of the most extreme, North Korea's subway system is pretty decrepit. Looks nice in the station, but inside is clearly from decades ago (see pictures). You want critique of Marx: While I think Marx offers some useful insight into the cyclical nature of capitalist modes of production, I don't think he accounts for the adaptability of capitalism, as well as the power of creative destruction. I also don't think Marx offers much in the way of prescription to elide the cyclical nature of commerce and manufacture, and history demonstrates clearly that central planning is a less efficient means of distributing scarce resources than through well-regulated markets with capital investment and private firms. You have repeatedly said that Marxism is not a utopia, so I assume you are not entertaining the fantasy of a "post-scarcity" economic model.

So how is this democratic?

Sign me up!

Do you agree or not that Marx’s basic premise for beginning the transformation to communism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeois?

I wasn’t sure whether or not to post this here or in the Florida thread but I guess here:

Do you think that document supports the claim that the USSR was democratic? I already gave a lengthy (for an internet music forum) rebuttal to this which clearly shows how the CCP is not democratic, and how anti-union (i.e. how anti-worker democracy) China is. Even in the US, the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats are quite clear. There are communist parties in countries all over the world that participate in democratic elections. Your penultimate sentence is very instructive; it shows how unwilling you are to participate in open dialogue, but would rather stay in an ideological bubble. Unluckily for you, the narrative here is not determined by “Marxist framing of the narrative”.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/07/china-bhutan-border-villages-security-forces/ China building villages for Chinese residents in a foreign country with no consent from said foreign government.

You have repeatedly stated in this thread that the Soviet Union was the most advanced socialist state the world has ever seen. Stalinism was the complete antithesis of democracy. You have also claimed China is communist because they say their stated goals are communism. The CCP is a one-party state where no democracy exists. The last link I provided with the fellow from Karl Marx university describes how classical socialist parties attempted to gain power and transform society, and it was not through any form of democracy. Theory is useless without a means of putting it into practice. So all the theoretical definitions provided in this thread mean very little when in practice, socialist states have been authoritarian regimes that allowed for no pluralism, no democratic control of the means of production, and no dissent against the vanguard party.

I would say exactly the same. Cheerio.