http://m.ensonhaber.com/1-mayis-mitinginde-apple-watch-iscilere-seslenmek.html
Isn't there a paradox here?
The Apple trademark is symbolic.
It signifies the capitalist system.
Whereas, any communist party should inherently be at the opposite side.
However, here in Turkland, TCP leader is wearing an Apple watch.
This situation is a sign to the ones who can understand.
Yes, they especially give signs to say ''we are here.''
Through the history, the global powers has funded some people in target countries who seem on the left but who are not actually on the left, to weaken the left and prevent it from spreading. Turkland and TCP are not exceptions. This has been happening since cold war, to eradicate the left by the hands of the left.
Greetings.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on May 03, 2018, 12:55:40 PM
http://m.ensonhaber.com/1-mayis-mitinginde-apple-watch-iscilere-seslenmek.html
Isn't there a paradox here?
The Apple trademark is symbolic.
It signifies the capitalist system.
Whereas, any communist party should inherently be at the opposite side.
However, here in Turkland, TCP leader is wearing an Apple watch.
This situation is a sign to the ones who can understand.
Yes, they especially give signs to say ''we are here.''
Through the history, the global powers has funded some people in target countries who seem on the left but who are not actually on the left, to weaken the left and prevent it from spreading. Turkland and TCP are not exceptions. This has been happening since cold war, to eradicate the left by the hands of the left.
Greetings.
Correct ... Modern Left = French Revolution. Russian Revolution = French Revolution 2.0. Chinese Revolution = French Revolution 3.0 ... and so it goes. Peasant revolts never last, vast numbers of imbeciles doesn't make effective opposition. Democracy isn't, because voters are easy to deceive.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on May 03, 2018, 12:55:40 PMThe Apple trademark is symbolic.
It signifies the capitalist system.
No, it symbolizes shameless greed.
*beat*
Which is probably totally different.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 04, 2018, 12:27:34 AM
No, it symbolizes shameless greed.
*beat*
Which is probably totally different.
The Tech industry is ... quite pathological, when it comes to money. All corporate logos symbolize greed. Please give any money you have to the nearest bum, so you can purge your guilty conscience.
Apple Watch is conspicuous consumption, what isn't? We have been doing that since the Stone Age.
I never felt I needed a Rolex watch, but I did have a Rolodex card holder that was handy, but that was before computers.
Quote from: SGOS on May 04, 2018, 06:23:23 AM
I never felt I needed a Rolex watch, but I did have a Rolodex card holder that was handy, but that was before computers.
Jesus! ... you came back!
I wear a $12 digital watch. Which replaced a $12 digital watch I had for 50 years but finally couldn't be fixed. And I loved that watch. Bright black display on a light background. I don't wear jewelry either. "Fancy" never interested me. But I had a friend who adored his Rolex watch, a pride and joy. He also had to have a fancy car (destroyed in a freak accident not his fault) and then he was broke. I also had a carpool member who lived precariously paycheck-to-paycheck. Best house, best clothes, gold chains, fancy vacations, restaurants... Her finances finally collapsed too.
I don't get it. When I see a Rolex watch or gold chains, I think "what a waste" and I'm not impressed.
My car is a 2005 Toyota Highlander SUV. I originally bought it because I needed the height above the idiots driving on the dark morning back roads with their high beams on as I went to meet my carpool. And I was hauling both a jon boat or a utility trailer often. I think it is time to replace it. The dealership suggested it is time to replace the timing belt and all other belts for $1,000 and that is getting to where the maintenance isn't worth it.
So I'm looking at a new Highlander, a Suburu Forrester, and a couple wagons (Audi A4 Allroad Quattro and Volvo V90) to last another 13 years or more.
What I don't want is a moonroof (a real leakage waiting to happen) or fancy internet-of-things included. And if I can't avoid those, I'm considering a rebuilt Ford Taurus Wagon. I had one of those and loved it.
But to get back to the point, I'm not into "fancy"...
Quote from: Cavebear on May 05, 2018, 07:42:58 AM
When I see a Rolex watch or gold chains, I think "what a waste"
When you meet a person, you don't immediately check to see what kind of watch he is wearing, so wearing a Rolex doesn't make any sort of 1st impression. I can know a person for years before I finally notice his watch. And if it turns out he actually wears a Rolex, I would have already figured out by then that he was a pretentious asshole anyway.
If you want people to notice your watch, buy a Mickey Mouse watch, not one of the common digital types with a picture of a fairy princess on the face. Get Mickey, with the twirling mechanical arms. People notice them, and it will make them smile.
Quote from: SGOS on May 05, 2018, 08:24:44 AM
When you meet a person, you don't immediately check to see what kind of watch he is wearing, so wearing a Rolex doesn't make any sort of 1st impression. I can know a person for years before I finally notice his watch. And if it turns out he actually wears a Rolex, I would have already figured out by then that he was a pretentious asshole anyway.
If you want people to notice your watch, buy a Mickey Mouse watch, not one of the common digital types with a picture of a fairy princess on the face. Get Mickey, with the twirling mechanical arms. People notice them, and it will make them smile.
You might be surprised. I saw my friend show it off when meeting influential people. Wearing a Rolex WAS a sign of "I'm your kind".
Quote from: Cavebear on May 05, 2018, 07:42:58 AM
I wear a $12 digital watch. Which replaced a $12 digital watch I had for 50 years but finally couldn't be fixed. And I loved that watch. Bright black display on a light background. I don't wear jewelry either. "Fancy" never interested me. But I had a friend who adored his Rolex watch, a pride and joy. He also had to have a fancy car (destroyed in a freak accident not his fault) and then he was broke. I also had a carpool member who lived precariously paycheck-to-paycheck. Best house, best clothes, gold chains, fancy vacations, restaurants... Her finances finally collapsed too.
I don't get it. When I see a Rolex watch or gold chains, I think "what a waste" and I'm not impressed.
My car is a 2005 Toyota Highlander SUV. I originally bought it because I needed the height above the idiots driving on the dark morning back roads with their high beams on as I went to meet my carpool. And I was hauling both a jon boat or a utility trailer often. I think it is time to replace it. The dealership suggested it is time to replace the timing belt and all other belts for $1,000 and that is getting to where the maintenance isn't worth it.
So I'm looking at a new Highlander, a Suburu Forrester, and a couple wagons (Audi A4 Allroad Quattro and Volvo V90) to last another 13 years or more.
What I don't want is a moonroof (a real leakage waiting to happen) or fancy internet-of-things included. And if I can't avoid those, I'm considering a rebuilt Ford Taurus Wagon. I had one of those and loved it.
But to get back to the point, I'm not into "fancy"...
You wholly misunderstood the subject.
The subject is the global powers' role in developing countries... not that you don't like showing off...
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on May 19, 2018, 10:10:46 AM
You wholly misunderstood the subject.
The subject is the global powers' role in developing countries... not that you don't like showing off...
I made light because you probably don't really want me discussing the damnable role the US has had worldwide in developing countries. We basically kept them underfoot for a century for profit. We allowed petty thieving dictators (and those were the DECENT types). And we supported the worst ones too. There wouldn't BE Banana Republics in SA if not for US (the capitilized pronoun, not the country). But the US (the country) took deliberate action to keep the SA and CA nations ineffectual, broken, and subject to dictators beneficial to US (in either meaning)
If you don't understand THAT, you cannot understand the US, SA, or CA.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 19, 2018, 12:30:13 PM
I made light because you probably don't really want me discussing the damnable role the US has had worldwide in developing countries. We basically kept them underfoot for a century for profit. We allowed petty thieving dictators (and those were the DECENT types). And we supported the worst ones too. There wouldn't BE Banana Republics in SA if not for US (the capitilized pronoun, not the country). But the US (the country) took deliberate action to keep the SA and CA nations ineffectual, broken, and subject to dictators beneficial to US (in either meaning)
If you don't understand THAT, you cannot understand the US, SA, or CA.
Without the Monroe Doctrine, we would be speaking French now. And the Caribbean and Latin America aren't helpless campesinos, they have their own mistakes, to which we add. This is because we want Europeans in general, and the Communists/Russians/Chinese out of our backyard. Having them here in strength would be a mistake of strategy, that tactics might not overcome. Like Highlander, in the end there can only be One. Of course that One is the solidarity of the cemetery.
Quote from: Baruch on May 19, 2018, 01:57:25 PM
Without the Monroe Doctrine, we would be speaking French now. And the Caribbean and Latin America aren't helpless campesinos, they have their own mistakes, to which we add. This is because we want Europeans in general, and the Communists/Russians/Chinese out of our backyard. Having them here in strength would be a mistake of strategy, that tactics might not overcome. Like Highlander, in the end there can only be One. Of course that One is the solidarity of the cemetery.
@Baruch and
@Cavebear I am wondering very much that why you are referring to United S. as us. Any explanation to this.
THe country you were born in affect your consciousness that so much,
The USA do it, you say: ''We do it''...
Let's go into your childhood : ) why you are behaving in this way.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on May 19, 2018, 02:13:52 PM
@Baruch and @Cavebear
I am wondering very much that why you are referring to United S. as us. Any explanation to this.
THe country you were born in affect your consciousness that so much,
The USA do it, you say: ''We do it''...
Let's go into your childhood : ) why you are behaving in this way.
So, where are YOU from?
We are talkin' about you, not me.
But when it comes to me, let me say.
I am a member of humanity. And ı am a world citizen. at least, ı feel in that way.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on May 19, 2018, 02:49:02 PM
We are talkin' about you, not me.
But when it comes to me, let me say.
I am a member of humanity. And ı am a world citizen. at least, ı feel in that way.
Then my congratulations to you! And I really mean that...
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on May 19, 2018, 02:13:52 PM
@Baruch and @Cavebear
I am wondering very much that why you are referring to United S. as us. Any explanation to this.
THe country you were born in affect your consciousness that so much,
The USA do it, you say: ''We do it''...
Let's go into your childhood : ) why you are behaving in this way.
That is an interesting question ... you get a gold star for that.
I was born in Texas, that is " a whole other country" as advertised ;-)
This makes much sense as Trump having a android, and the android's company is evil company bent on world deestruction
No, there's actually no paradox. This is the deep and profound misunderstanding of what Marxism and Communism actually are, as opposed to what was done in their name by the Eastern bloc throughout the 20th century.
There's nothing in Marxism that says you can't be wealthy. There's nothing in Marxism that says you can't own things for yourself, even quite nice things. Marx didn't object to wealth, he objected to wealth derived from other people's labor, and communal ownership refers only to the means of production, not to everything. His thesis was not that ownership is bad per se, but that the guy whose only contribution to production is to own the facility is not actually earning his wealth, he's getting it through other people's work rather than his own.
I'm not going to get into whether or not Marx had a point, I'm just correcting the common misunderstanding about what ownership means to Marx.
The practical upshot is no, there's no paradox, provided he bought it with fairly earned money. And that's a question of whether or not his compensation as head of the party is commensurate with his work. That, I don't have the information to judge.
Yes, communism is great, so is capitalism, if it wasn't for the idiots who do it wrong ;-(
There are many "pure" political ideologies. Some are rational, some not. Pure capitalism means that a few people are unbelievably rich and the rest live in poverty because they didn't succeed at the game. Pure Authoritarianism and Monarchy are about the same. Pure Communism is not (and I am not a communist) and pure commutarianism is not. I do sometimes see value in managed commutarianism...
But since nothing can be pure "anything", I rather like social democracy. It means opportunity, but consequences for failure. But also survival to the ones who cannot succeed and support for their children who might. Any functional system of government has to be a blend that rewards some people to some extent, but also offers hope to children for a future.
Just me thinking out loud, I suppose...
Quote from: Cavebear on May 22, 2018, 04:02:23 AM
There are many "pure" political ideologies. Some are rational, some not. Pure capitalism means that a few people are unbelievably rich and the rest live in poverty because they didn't succeed at the game. Pure Authoritarianism and Monarchy are about the same. Pure Communism is not (and I am not a communist) and pure commutarianism is not. I do sometimes see value in managed commutarianism...
But since nothing can be pure "anything", I rather like social democracy. It means opportunity, but consequences for failure. But also survival to the ones who cannot succeed and support for their children who might. Any functional system of government has to be a blend that rewards some people to some extent, but also offers hope to children for a future.
Just me thinking out loud, I suppose...
Too bad few agree with that ;-(
Quote from: Cavebear on May 22, 2018, 04:02:23 AM
But since nothing can be pure "anything", I rather like social democracy. It means opportunity, but consequences for failure. But also survival to the ones who cannot succeed and support for their children who might. Any functional system of government has to be a blend that rewards some people to some extent, but also offers hope to children for a future.
I recall our Political Theory class (required for the major so some sadist put it at 8am), the first day of which the professor stated up front that the only political theorist whose ideas could go straight from page to practice was Machiavelli; everyone else needs modification, interpretation and negotiation to become something workable.
Quote from: trdsf on May 22, 2018, 11:13:21 AM
I recall our Political Theory class (required for the major so some sadist put it at 8am), the first day of which the professor stated up front that the only political theorist whose ideas could go straight from page to practice was Machiavelli; everyone else needs modification, interpretation and negotiation to become something workable.
Machiavelli theory still works, but only in the Mafia.
Quote from: trdsf on May 22, 2018, 11:13:21 AM
I recall our Political Theory class (required for the major so some sadist put it at 8am), the first day of which the professor stated up front that the only political theorist whose ideas could go straight from page to practice was Machiavelli; everyone else needs modification, interpretation and negotiation to become something workable.
Well, actually that IS a sort of political theory. Just not one I agree with. I had various poli-sci professors with everything from good old Machiavelli to Lenin, and we had to adjust or fail the courses. Professor A was a dedicated Leninist, Professor B was a Rockefellerist, Professor C was something else. etc. We learned to think about all views. Heck, I had one class where the Professor consider all males scum of the earth and required that we write a class paper proving it (I got a C writing about how women were diminished in TV ads in 1970).
I went to college thinking moderate-left politics were good and I left that way, LOL.
Those of you who went to college, and didn't do STEM, need to demand a refund ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on May 25, 2018, 11:47:39 AM
Those of you who went to college, and didn't do STEM, need to demand a refund ;-)
I never "stemed". But I did learn something about reality. No refund requested.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 11:53:30 AM
I never "stemed". But I did learn something about reality. No refund requested.
Unfortunately political science has nothing to do with reality, just saying. Like Cheney said, politics is about making reality, not studying it. Usually making some bad reality in fact.
If you learned about reality, then you learned it like everyone else, not for a school or a book (though I love those). You learned if from living your daily life, same as a Medieval peasant did.
Quote from: Baruch on May 25, 2018, 06:43:00 PM
Unfortunately political science has nothing to do with reality, just saying. Like Cheney said, politics is about making reality, not studying it. Usually making some bad reality in fact.
If you learned about reality, then you learned it like everyone else, not for a school or a book (though I love those). You learned if from living your daily life, same as a Medieval peasant did.
Cheney's view of the reality of politics is not everyone's view of it. I personally don't think he understood "reality" very well. Many people who view politics as a "game" get kicked out out of the game. Trump is going to go out with the same lack of understanding.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 02:15:11 AM
Cheney's view of the reality of politics is not everyone's view of it. I personally don't think he understood "reality" very well. Many people who view politics as a "game" get kicked out out of the game. Trump is going to go out with the same lack of understanding.
Cheney says ... "So!". Trump is as scary as a plush toy. Cheney in the light is dangerous, even more so in the dark.