Sen. Whitney Westerfield, a Republican from Fruit Hill who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, was one of the bill’s more vocal opponents. When he learned of the citation against a woman in labor, he called it “deplorable.”
“Where's the humanity in that response? Where is the compassion for human life? Where is the pro-life compassion for the unborn child in that response?” Westerfield said.
That cop is such a piece of shit that he’s making other Republicans ask if they’re the baddies
WHY does NYPD need all that tacticool gear to escort a handcuffed, unarmed suspect?
Marx and Engels clarified many of their ideas through their critical readings and polemics.
I can’t recall where — I think a preface to one of Marx’s works — Engels describes how the publishing of the work was not important in the end; that the important thing was the clarification of their own ideas through the effort of refuting their opponents. I think it was against Proudhon or Stirner… can’t remember…
You want to pin down absolute definitions of idealism vs materialism, capitalism vs socialism, but the precise meanings of these words are not agreed by all thinkers if they are consciously defined at all. Many thinkers who are called idealist did not self-identify as such, same for capitalist economists.
These terms ought to be considered as post-hoc groupings of an eclectic set of philosophies, even contradictory ones. So what definition of idealism are you applying?
there are no serious incompatibilities between idealism and Marxism
How can this be? Marx wrote a bunch of polemics against idealism. The German Ideology notably, but also the Gotha Critique, Theses on Feuerbach, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844). Are you defining Marxism as the school that emerged after Marx, or Marx himself?
If there are copycats, it still needs to be shown that it actually is effective in terms of political change. Likewise, if change does happen in the near future, it would be unclear whether it was already in the course of its own development with or without Luigi
I don’t want to get into all the particulars here
— guy who got into zero particulars
Again,
— guy who didn’t say anything yet
I’ll def check it out
Parenti is cool but nowhere near the level of Stalin and Mao
She/him just because. It should be two separate rolls.
Not Safe For Work(ers)
That is a really good way to summarize it. Just adding a little more detail since it is not directly wages which are the deciding factor, but the rate of exploitation. The rate of exploitation depends on wages but also intensity of labor, duration of the working day, etc. so there can be rising exploitation even as wages remain constant.
As an industry develops its technology, the amount of constant capital (machines, robots, AI…) increases over time. Even with fixed wages, the organic composition of capital c/v increases. And from the rate of profit equation p = s/(c+v) = (s/v)/[(c/v)+1] one can see how the rate of profit varies inversely with this organic composition c/v and directly with the rate of exploitation s/v. If c/v goes up over time, then profit falls unless there is a compensating increase in the rate of exploitation.
It gets to a point where in order to open a lemonade stand, you have to borrow $100k to license some bazingamachine that squeezes lemons super fast, so that you can compete with the other lemonade stands. Of course, borrowing $100k to earn $30/day is an abysmal rate of profit, so no one would do that. Yet that is the direction the economy goes in all industries. You see it even now with how difficult it was for mega-corporation Alphabet to break into the broadband internet with Google Fiber.
Is this a joke about coffee having a laxative effect?
Leaving this comment as a bookmark. My initial thought is no, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall can be derived without any reference whatever to natural resource availability. The root cause of capitalist crisis is a contradiction: capitalism compels producers to minimize labor (and resource!) inputs in order to maximize value. The ideal end of this would be a kind of singularity in which value can be produced without labor. Contradiction.
Another thought is that value is strictly non-physical, although it is embodied in physical commodities. Andrew Kliman has argued at length against what he calls a “physical quantities” or physicalist interpretation of value theory.
The same wool coat can be worth 1 hour or 10 hours (in monetary terms, say $10 or $100) depending on the development of the industry at the time. The thing that is constant, independent of all changes in productivity, is that 1 working day contains 1 working day. It may be split up among varying physical quantities, but the value produced per day is essentially constant.
Both of those statements ought to be attributed to Lenin, since the first one seems to be Lenin’s paraphrasing (in What Is To Be Done?) of this letter written by Marx
Referring to hemophilia as a “market” is evil
It’s wild that people talk about ECP like it’s some highly theoretical string theory that we could never test empirically. The largest corporations today are managing production far larger in scale than entire countries back when Marx was writing, or even during the Bolshevik era. Amazon is proof of not merely the possibility, but the current ability to coordinate production of a national economy.
Marx himself thought that the development of complex division of labor within private capital would produce the conditions for socialist production. This is obviously the case and it’s why capitalism undermines itself.
Some people have learning disabilities. That is why we must have a slave class
Hate crimes are the norm, so no it wouldn’t change anything
I hate that I typed that
That makes it populism, which is a threat to our Democracy
Nordic countries have good transit too, but admittedly nowhere near the same throughput as a metro in China