Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined


About sologdin

  • Rank
    alleged attractive nuisance
  • Birthday 10/25/1917

Profile Information

  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. a lot of protestant schismatics in the US think that roman catholicism is some sort of paganism.
  2. a good example of cancellation in action: makes well-intentioned proclamation but unintentionally offends a third party regarding an essential characteristic of the third party's self image and sense of self worth-->becomes involuntarily celibate.
  3. not everything is scientific is fine, but there's an abyss between reasonably scientific and the dungeon master's guide.
  4. as i recall it, also, the exercise was conducted under the chatham house rule, so we can't even really know whose conclusions are under discussion.
  5. with the results adjudicated by a roll of the dice. am maybe seeing, potentially, a flaw in the suppleness here.
  6. targs, it's fair to say that marxist doctrine is not impressed with intellectual property. that does not mean that plagiarism would be acceptable interpersonally or institutionally. on the contrary, we see authors taking personal responsibility for their signatures as a matter of left doctrine and in actually existing socialism's praxis. and when i was a university instructor, i enforced educational plagiarism rules as a matter of pedagogical ethics--even while submitting it to critique as untenable theoretically. call it an enlightened false consciousness in the deliberate re-enactment of manifestly unreasonable discursive practices. ETA-- i just noticed that targs is BJR. BJR, what you doing with the sneaky name change? you can hardly say that "we all know what plagiarism is" when you in fact did not know what it is upthread.
  7. squabs! good to see you kicking around. of course, the USSR withstood two invasions from y'all, and lasted over 70 years under siege.
  8. which accept private property and enterprise but at the same time intervene in the economy, redistribute wealth to greater or lesser degree, right. we can democratically set the acceptance of private property very low without much inconsistency in principle--property has for many hundreds of years, in common law systems, been a matter of title, which is simply a way of stating that the public decides how property is defined; the distinction between allodial title and feudal title is very old. we see in china how-- zhan, s. "the land use question in china.' NLR 122 (mar/apr 2020), 117. the property regime at the end there reminds me very much of georgist ideas, such as are currently in effect in fairhope, alabama. i think that property rights are limited only by our imagination, and that the point of democracy is for the public to determine sequentially which imaginary is to occupy the real. a lack of authoritarianism means that people will be persuadable toward the right and toward the left. proper communism in its extreme form is an abstraction, as ripp was saying upthread--we don't need to insist on ideological purity or 100% compliance with an ideal. the point is ultimately an aesthetic one, about making lived lives better. we know that capitalism and communism, each as actually practiced, as opposed to their respective doctrines, elevate in different ways, and incur different costs for the elevation--always a trolley problem. not sure if democracy in itself covers a middle ground. it's fairly radical for what it is. it does seem to be consistent with a number of political and economic beliefs, though--and certainly it has the moderating effect of slowing down a process so that everyone can be heard--notoriously inefficient, the public listening to itself.
  9. so, this is 100% false. plagiarism is using materials from someone else without attribution--though it is not a matter of law, but usually a part of the ethical code of whichever institution is at stake (school, publisher, whatever). similarly, for copyright infringement-- 17 U.S.C. § 501(a). feist publ’ns, inc. v. rural tel. serv. co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991).
  10. what a wonderful thread. a pleasure to see so many of you after so long. if anyone needs to file a claim against the board for age discrimination, PM me for free consultation.
  11. totally. i get you. we can't bog down every discussion of actual policy with a colloquy on names and what is true commanism neway or the type of discussions we had many years ago at the cybercommunist party group about whether the soviet union was state capitalism or bureaucratic collectivism or a deformed workers' state or a degenerated workers' state or a proper workers' state or socialism or communism or wut.
  12. althy-- no doubt there's quite a bit of public discussion about it. i think diangelo's argument is that the visceral response that some white persons display occurs within a saturation of racial discussion, but which is usually moralized in a way that equates racism with an intentional evil act, rather than the structural aggregate of now unintentional effects of the disparate impact variety, morally neutral each in themselves potentially, but cumulatively part of a pattern arising inexorably out of segregation and chattel slavery. for instance, when confronted with something as simple as "excuse me, but what you just said is a tad insulting" (direct quotation of a person of color to me recently), white fragility produces an emotional, defensive response, rather than one that seeks to understand the grievance--converting the encounter into one where the white person alleges victim status for being unfairly accused of an intentional evil act. diangelo says that she has the emotional response personally, but tries to focus up in hearing the grievance and working through it. there's a cool stoic/skeptic/buddhist/marxist discipline that i appreciate in that--though she does not argue from any of those four positions (except that 'false consciousness' is mentioned a couple times, once approvingly, even, in the text). i get that some people have visceral responses of the type you describe--that's a bit different than diangelo's point. her original essay is from 2011, and the monograph that i read is 2018. so it may be that certain points are OBE. but, then again, it reminds me of foucault's famous opening to the history of sexuality, volume I, which argued against the old idea that sexual liberty was destroyed by “the monotonous nights of the Victorian bourgeoisie” (3), wherein “silence became the rule,” and “proper demeanor avoided contact with other bodies and verbal decency sanitized one’s speech” (id.). a system of “taboo, nonexistence, and silence” (5), transferred “pleasures that are unspoken into the order of things that are counted” (4). foucault doubted the old ‘repressive hypothesis,’ and instead posited a "regime of power-knowledge-pleasure that sustains the discourse on human sexuality” (11). in order for the bourgeois to “gain mastery over [sex], in reality, it had first been necessary to subjugate it at the level of language, control its free circulation in speech, expunge it from the things that were said, and extinguish the words that rendered it too visibly present” (17): “when one looks back over these last three centuries with their continual transformation […] one sees a veritable discursive explosion” regarding sex (id.). his model of the “proliferation of discourses” (18) is the “nakedness of the questions formulated by the confession manuals of the Middle Ages” (id.), wherein the detail “believed indispensable for the confession” included: “description of the respective positions of the partners, the postures assumed, gestures, places touched, caresses, the precise moment of pleasure” (19). we can see an analogy to the confessional style for which diangelo advocates--and it does involve a proliferation of discourse on race and racism, even while seeking to control and restrain. am curious to see how it works out.
  13. we can draw a distinction between party and state organs, maybe--they're the communist party (though they were the social dems before the revolution), but the state is a union of separate socialist republics. the early constitutions don't mention socialism directly, though, which is curious. i don't take names very seriously--NSDAP has socialism in it, and they weren't. DPRK has democratic in it, and it isn't. mentat-- all states codify some specific ideological/political/economical traits into their core agreed. These characteristics are not immutable, but they do tend to be stable. agreed. The U.S.S.R. was a communist state (for a certain definition of communist, that's reasonable. there was a single party, which was the communist party and the hammer and sickle featured in the national flag and state emblem. It didn't last forever, but as long as it did, it was representing communism as its defining trait. well, the solitariness didn't occur until after the 1936 constitution, as i recall it, and only then as a deviation from the constitution. it certainly held itself out as some sort of leftwing endeavor. within the party, though, there was quite a range of debate on policy. Thus a democratic state can't be communist in the same way it can't be left-wing (even if a left-wing party might currently be in power, passing left-wing laws and implementing left-wing policies). Its core requires a level of "neutrality" or "mutability" but it has decided already that it is capitalist and accordingly is not neutral?
  14. BJR-- we should object to concentration camps wherever they occur, whether we mean the original ones that the UK ran in the boer war, or the privately-operated ones that the NSDAP used for slave labor to assist german capitalists, or the ones used by the US during the second world war. if the chinese are running concentration camps for religious groups and ethnic minoritarians, this is similarly to be deplored--but not as part of communism, but rather as a deviation from left principle. not sure that an objection about persons who are communists in theory also being hypocritical in their praxis is salient as an objection to the theory itself. this is again an objection to deviation from doctrine. the non-sequitur about living in the US while objecting to it is frivolous, both in terms of its placement here, in terms of its inconsistency with your argument otherwise, and in terms of the silliness of its jingoist position. am sure we'd all love to see the evidence of this thesis. it is difficult at times to distinguish prisons, detention centers, concentration camps, and such like. is there a principle that you are using to draw the distinctions--or is it an unprincipled attempt to insulate the rightwing against criticism? OGE-- totally. i love chris harman's argument in economics of the madhouse about what happens if robots do all the work? his point is about unsustainability of an increasing organic composition of capital and the declining rate of profit in marx's political economy--eventually capital does all the work with no labor to exploit, in which case, who buys all the stuff made by robots? point made, this is a bit of an unmarxist position, however, to the extent that new needs are always made in capitalism once old needs are met. so, we have electricity and telephones and water in houses in the late 20th century--but then internet and cell phones and whatnot is all necessary, and people have phoney baloney internet jobs and that's all legit capitalism. once the robots make everything of the old economy, then, yeah, we should expect AI to have developed to the point wherein the robots can demand rights as citizens and consumers, which might render them non-capital, i.e., labor to be exploited--and the non-robots will develop a capitalist economy wherein their labor can be exploited. we shall see. mentat-- not sure what this means. i suspect either nothing is an accident or everything is. i.e., all acts of state should be regarded subject to later amendment? agreed, as to both. it may have been better to have a more menshevik outfit in charge--though this is being a bit counterfactual idealist.
  • Create New...