|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 03 2012 05:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 05:30 kmillz wrote:On December 03 2012 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:On December 03 2012 04:54 kmillz wrote:On December 03 2012 04:41 sam!zdat wrote:On December 03 2012 04:31 kmillz wrote:On December 03 2012 04:18 sam!zdat wrote:
Oh, this is that "it was my money already" argument. how nice Yes, what is wrong with wanting your money? I've said this so many times but I'll say it again, why is that greedy? Why is wanting someone else's money NOT greedy? Because it's the commodity fetish. You are transforming a social relationship between people into a relationship between things. Money doesn't exist prior to society; it's therefore an error think that money can always-already belong to an individual. edit: the only thing which always-already belong to YOU is labor-power. Can you measure labor-power in dollars? No. You can however measure the market value of socially-necessary abstract labor time in dollars, as under capitalism labor is treated as a commodity. edit: you COULD treat labor-power as a commodity and measure it in dollars - that would be the case in a slave system. Why does the person have to be a slave in order for you to measure their labor power? Because labor enslaves.
I guess I need my hand held for this one, I'm simply talking about measuring how much money a person can make in terms of dollars such as $80,000/year earning potential. That earning potential only exists because of the system, but it still exists and I don't see why you can't measure it. I still don't see why paid labor is being compared to non-paid labor. I'm not trying to be a smart ass but what do you mean "because labor enslaves"?
EDIT: just read your response below
On December 03 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 05:30 kmillz wrote:On December 03 2012 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:On December 03 2012 04:54 kmillz wrote:On December 03 2012 04:41 sam!zdat wrote:On December 03 2012 04:31 kmillz wrote:On December 03 2012 04:18 sam!zdat wrote:
Oh, this is that "it was my money already" argument. how nice Yes, what is wrong with wanting your money? I've said this so many times but I'll say it again, why is that greedy? Why is wanting someone else's money NOT greedy? Because it's the commodity fetish. You are transforming a social relationship between people into a relationship between things. Money doesn't exist prior to society; it's therefore an error think that money can always-already belong to an individual. edit: the only thing which always-already belong to YOU is labor-power. Can you measure labor-power in dollars? No. You can however measure the market value of socially-necessary abstract labor time in dollars, as under capitalism labor is treated as a commodity. edit: you COULD treat labor-power as a commodity and measure it in dollars - that would be the case in a slave system. Why does the person have to be a slave in order for you to measure their labor power? Because labor-power is your ability to perform labor. That can't be traded as a commodity (and thus valued in dollars) unless you are a slave. In our system you can sell your labor (valued with respect to the metric of socially-necessary abstract labor time), but not your labor-power, because that's illegal. edit: you can only measure things as having an exchange-value (i.e. value in dollars) once they are brought to market and exchanged for other commodities. Since you can't bring labor-power to market, it can't be valued in dollars.
Ok I understand now, nvm the above statement.
These politics threads always make me feel like a little kid constantly asking my parents why? why? lol
|
On December 03 2012 05:41 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 05:32 farvacola wrote:On December 03 2012 05:30 kmillz wrote:On December 03 2012 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:On December 03 2012 04:54 kmillz wrote:On December 03 2012 04:41 sam!zdat wrote:On December 03 2012 04:31 kmillz wrote:On December 03 2012 04:18 sam!zdat wrote:
Oh, this is that "it was my money already" argument. how nice Yes, what is wrong with wanting your money? I've said this so many times but I'll say it again, why is that greedy? Why is wanting someone else's money NOT greedy? Because it's the commodity fetish. You are transforming a social relationship between people into a relationship between things. Money doesn't exist prior to society; it's therefore an error think that money can always-already belong to an individual. edit: the only thing which always-already belong to YOU is labor-power. Can you measure labor-power in dollars? No. You can however measure the market value of socially-necessary abstract labor time in dollars, as under capitalism labor is treated as a commodity. edit: you COULD treat labor-power as a commodity and measure it in dollars - that would be the case in a slave system. Why does the person have to be a slave in order for you to measure their labor power? Because labor enslaves. I guess I need my hand held for this one, I'm simply talking about measuring how much money a person can make in terms of dollars such as $80,000/year earning potential. That earning potential only exists because of the system, but it still exists and I don't see why you can't measure it. I still don't see why paid labor is being compared to non-paid labor. I'm not trying to be a smart ass but what do you mean "because labor enslaves"?
Heh, I was speaking more to the inherent artificiality of the reified productive capacity we know as "labor". I think Samz is more directly speaking to your point 
|
On December 03 2012 05:41 kmillz wrote:
I'm not trying to be a smart ass but what do you mean "because labor enslaves"?
he was the one being a smart ass 
On December 03 2012 05:41 kmillz wrote:
These politics threads always make me feel like a little kid constantly asking my parents why? why? lol
lol you're too hard on yourself, I'm the one with the "outdated" political economy. Actually there's no such thing as labor-power or socially-necessary abstract labor time, just freedom and the Right To Work.
|
Wow..ok now I ACTUALLY get it lol..It didn't make complete sense until I read:
Because labor-power is your ability to perform labor.
In laymen's terms:
You can't hand somebody cash in exchange for the ability to manage a restaurant, as you can't take it away from them and you can't obtain it, only pay them to utilize their skill.
The world makes sense again!!
|
yeah, exactly
|
On December 03 2012 05:54 sam!zdat wrote:yeah, exactly
I guess to get back to the original point that we diverged from a little bit, how does one come up with a decision on what is a fair tax rate for everybody? Everybody has their gripes about who they think should be taxed more or who should be taxed less, but where do you even begin to construct a system that is most fair for everybody? You obviously can't go too far one way or the other (0% tax or 100% tax) and how do you decide what rate is the most fair (flat tax, progressive tax, etc..) and why is that rate the most fair?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't think slavery has an accurate 'measurement' of labor power though, because slaves have no work incentive and thus you are not getting maximal efficiency from them.
in a wage labor system, particularly pay per unit of production, you get a better measure.
domination surely can happen under a wage-labor system, but it's not apriori to happen. the above discussion of labor always enslaves relies on a linguistic device to say that, working for the purpose of another is slavery. it's no different than the randoid claim that altruism is always selfishness.
|
On December 03 2012 05:53 kmillz wrote:Wow..ok now I ACTUALLY get it lol..It didn't make complete sense until I read: In laymen's terms: You can't hand somebody cash in exchange for the ability to manage a restaurant, as you can't take it away from them and you can't obtain it, only pay them to utilize their skill. The world makes sense again!!
You could hand cash to someone in exchange for the ability to manage a restaurant. Your cash would buy you a slave that has the ability to run a restaurant. But slavery is illegal.
|
On December 03 2012 06:01 kmillz wrote:I guess to get back to the original point that we diverged from a little bit, how does one come up with a decision on what is a fair tax rate for everybody? Everybody has their gripes about who they think should be taxed more or who should be taxed less, but where do you even begin to construct a system that is most fair for everybody?
hmm. I think it's a little hard to think about fairness in an abstract way like this, for me it is a matter of pragmatic social goal and not principle. In principle I suppose I'm a localist: in Utopia local communities, governed by unanimous consent, arrange things in the way they see fit and you don't have to worry about just taxation across a huge geopolitical entity like U.S.
In practice, though, in the current moment, mostly I just want to tax rich people, provide universal basic services and high-quality education, protect the environment for our children, and spend as little on military potlatch as possible. This is "fair" to me as, on my view, the process of capital accumulation has not been a peaceful process and there's nothing "fair" about rich people being as rich as they are.
On December 03 2012 06:02 oneofthem wrote:
i don't think slavery has an accurate 'measurement' of labor power though, because slaves have no work incentive and thus you are not getting maximal efficiency from them.
I don't think this affects things but I'm not sure. I don't really know how Marxian political economy would theorize slavery, it's not really a pressing concern for Marxists. But I think you would think about it in terms of the commodification of labor-power.
|
On December 03 2012 06:02 oneofthem wrote:
i don't think slavery has an accurate 'measurement' of labor power though, because slaves have no work incentive and thus you are not getting maximal efficiency from them.
in a wage labor system, particularly pay per unit of production, you get a better measure.
domination surely can happen under a wage-labor system, but it's not apriori to happen. the above discussion of labor always enslaves relies on a linguistic device to say that, working for the purpose of another is slavery. it's no different than the randoid claim that altruism is always selfishness.
Nah, "working for the purpose of another" is not really the basis for Marxism's critique of labor, instead it is something more along the lines of "our system of capital and labor engenders attitudes that conflate humanity with thingedness". And Randian criticism of altruism is founded in part upon normative impulses to change society; while some Marxists share this impulse, many do not.
|
Yes, it has nothing to do with working for the purpose of another. It has to do with the commodification of labor and the commodity fetish, through which social relationships between people are transformed into social relationships between things.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's called reification. but that's not a metaphysical fact in the laborer, but a frame change for the observer/theorist.
hardship can be imposed by natural conditions as well as artificial conditions.
|
are you talking to me? yeah, commodity fetish is a specific kind of reification. the other part seems like a non sequitur.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
we were talking about slavery and labor under capitalist exchange. this is not about how capitalists view the laborers, but about how exploited/estranged the laborers are from their own activities.
i am just saying this is not a necessary condition for paid labor. you can get cooperation and nice nice labor relations under capitalism. that someone has to give the orders in a complex production operation doesn't mean there is a demeaning hierarchy. (where a rhetorical scheme would see oppression) ownership of capital can be understood as a rent on tools, which is meh if the rent is reasonable.
the bit about reification is just to note that the fact that we have different representational systems that show a given situation in different natures is not that problematic. see quine on reification.
|
edit: wait...
edit: I don't have any thesis re: slavery except that I was wondering how one would theorize it in Marxian political economy. We seem to have drifted somehow to a discussion of the inevitability or non- of domination/oppression under capitalism and I never had a point to make about that exactly. We were just talking about commodity fetishism, arising from the context of the justness or non- of taxation.
|
|
|
Not really. Israel, or rather the right wingers in Israel, have long ago abandoned any expectation of European support. Why do you think Natanyahu went so overtly in his support for Romney in the elections? From Likud's pov, as long as they have the US veto then the world wide community cant really do anything to Israel. Obviously things are awkward for Bibi since the guy he bet on didnt win and American isnt going to be fighting Israel's war for it.
|
Sorry for replying late to this post, but I did not have the time to respond earlier. I still thought it important to reply (this is about the Benghazi attack), so here goes.
On November 29 2012 10:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2012 08:20 kwizach wrote:On November 29 2012 08:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 29 2012 07:43 kwizach wrote:On November 29 2012 07:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 27 2012 10:14 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 27 2012 08:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 27 2012 02:11 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 26 2012 10:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:a presumption of innocence is different than predetermining innocence. in one case, you wait for the evidence and then make your determination. in the latter case, you decide that evidence is unimportant and that no amount of evidence will suffice to determine guilt. I have an attitude of presuming innocence, and as of yet, I haven't accused the administration of doing anything that the evidence does not suggest it did. but I am not going to pretend that evidence doesn't exist to satisfy a misguided need to protect Obama's presidency and reputation. it is wrong to predetermine guilt (To Kill a Mockingbird), but it is just as wrong to predetermine innocence. Thanks for rephrasing the definition I linked. Okay, so let's say that you're the prosecuting side. You're attempting to interpret and present the evidence in a way that makes Susan Rice and the Obama Administration look bad. Fair enough, that's your job. However, from the evidence that we've seen, it is far from clear that there were any sort of shenanigans going on with Rice's statement. You have not proven guilt to any degree whatsoever. You are not the judge, you are the prosecutor, and whatever inductive leap you've made makes no sense to anyone or you've failed to convey it properly. Given McCain's recent softening of his stance, I think he's personally judged this to be a lost cause. the only possible way you could think there is nothing wrong with Rice giving completely false information, information that was known to be false days beforehand by everyone, including the media and people she was giving it to, is if you believe her story that she is incompetent. Susan Rice is either incompetent (doesn't review information before making statements about said information) or she is complicit (knowingly propagated false information at the behest of someone higher up). John McCain didn't really soften his stance, he just made the point that the President is the real problem and said he was eager to hear her explanation. I'll tell you, whenever I got in a lot of trouble as a kid, one of the things I would hear most out of the authority figures was something along the lines of "I'm eager to hear your explanation of this" it's a nice way of saying: "Yeah, go ahead and dig yourself deeper while you still can." http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/Links to full transcripts in the article. What she said each time was basically "we don't know for sure, but we don't think its premeditated and the investigation is ongoing". At most you could argue that the initial assessment was wrong and deliberately chosen to place blame on right-wingers, but I'd argue that it seemed like the most logical assumption. except we did know, for sure, that it was premeditated, and we did know, for sure, that there was no demonstration. we did know, for sure, that it was an Al-Qaeda affiliate. and we did know, for sure, that it wasn't about the stupid video. bottom line: she either didn't review the information or she didn't care. Do you understand that what she said was what the intelligence community gave her to say? Yes or no? do you understand that there was a classified report, which she had access too, which contradicted every one of the assertions made by her on her Sunday circuit? yes or no? no one is saying that the Obama administration didn't push the intelligence community to help cover it up, we're just saying that Susan Rice either didn't review the information/read her security briefings, or she knew that she was telling an untruth and told it anyway. the first is incompetent, the second is dishonest. You didn't answer the question. Her role was to deliver a message to the public based on what the intelligence community felt could be said at that point about the attacks. What she said was exactly what the intelligence community told her could be said. so is she claiming that she was told, by the intelligence community, to tell a lie to the American people? that's the crux of the question here: did she know that there was no protest going on? did she know that it was premeditated? we do know that the intelligence community had already sent out a classified memo saying that it was, and that there was no protest.
First of all, you seem misinformed about the timeline. When Susan Rice spoke on television on September 16, the intelligence community, and the CIA in particular, were still telling the administration that the attack seemed to have evolved from a protest. As you can read if you click on the link, intelligence officials started receiving conflicting information on September 15 and 16 indicating that there may not have been such a protest, but they did not communicate this to Rice prior to her appearing on television because they were not sure of the information (this is also reported here: "Despite their growing uncertainty, intelligence officials didn't feel they had enough conclusive, new information to revise their assessment. Ms. Rice wasn't warned of their new doubts before she went on the air the next morning and spoke of the attacks being spurred by demonstrations, intelligence officials acknowledged").
So when Rice went on air, she spoke based on what was legitimately believed by/the official position of the intelligence community at the time.
Here are two of the CIA talking points that were communicated to Rice:
"The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated."
(note that the CIA talking points did refer to extremists)
Here is what Rice said:
...we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy—
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
SUSAN RICE: —sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that—in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
As you can see, she directly stuck to the talking points that were provided to her by the intelligence community. And these talking points reflected the position that the intelligence community genuinely was the most confident in supporting at the time. Both Rice and the talking points made it clear that the investigation was still ongoing and that the initial assessment may very well be subject to change. There was therefore clearly no cover-up at all by Rice or the Obama administration.
On November 29 2012 10:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:
if she is a yes-man who doesn't bother to read the reports she has access too before going up in front of the country and saying something that everyone already knew was untrue, and that those reports will tell her is untrue, than I would argue that this shows a lack of competence that would preclude her from being Secretary of anything.
You are wrong. Again, on September 16, when she went on-air, the intelligence community's investigation results at that point were what was she was provided with and what she said. To assert that "everyone knew it was untrue" is simply false.
On November 29 2012 10:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Fox news had been reporting for days before she came on that it was terrorism. survivors of the attacks were saying that there was no demonstration. no one actually thought it was about the video, except, apparently Susan Rice. even the intelligence community, which apparently told her an obvious falsehood, had already reported in secret that it was premeditated, that there was no demonstration, and that it was most likely not motivated by the video.
You seem to have been influenced by Fox talking points and to be unaware of the information available on the matter - several reports have actually indicated that the attack may very well have been launched because of the video, regardless of the apparent absence of protests beforehand. In fact, that's apparently what the fighters themselves were declaring and it is corroborated by the testimonies of local witnesses. Of course, everything is still murky, but it being a terrorist attack and it being a response to the video (even among other reasons) are obviously not antithetical propositions. The idea that Fox News had the information "days before she came on" is simply not true, and their reports regarding the lack of role played by the video seem to have actually been wrong.
On November 29 2012 10:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and I don't think there is any excuse for her knowingly lying just because she was ordered to, which is what you seem to be suggesting. I don't care what the intelligence community, which is highly suspect in all this, determines is okay to lie about and not lie about, she has a responsibility to tell the truth. if she lied, than she needs to come clean and admit it. if she was duped, than she needs to come clean and admit it. as of now, she's showing a serious lack of moral character by helping stonewall Congress and the American people.
None of your accusations make any sense. When an event like this occurs, it takes some time to establish exactly what happened, if it's possible at all. The intelligence community genuinely believed there had been protests in Benghazi like in Cairo, and that the attack had evolved from these protests. Rice presented what was the actual belief of the intelligence community at the time, and made sure to underline that as more information became available this early assessment might be changed and that we should therefore remain very prudent. Nobody - and certainly not Susan Rice - did anything wrong.
edit: regarding your post about the fiscal cliff, paralleluniverse already replied to you so I won't repeat what he said.
|
your WSJ articles are only for subscribers, but I've got one of my own that addresses this exact topic:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSBRE89201220121003
Officials familiar with them said they contained evidence that members of a militant faction, Ansar al-Sharia, as well as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, were involved in the assaults.
The report did not allege the attacks were a reaction to the anti-Muslim film, but acknowledged it was possible that the attackers sought to use an outbreak of violence in Cairo over the film, which insulted the Prophet Mohammad, as a pretext for attacks.
One official said initial reporting suggested militants had begun planning attacks on U.S. targets in Benghazi before September 11, but may well have decided to use the protests as a pretext for moving forward that day.
Reuters reported on September 12, citing U.S. government officials, that the attacks may have been planned and organized in advance, and that members of Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM may have been involved.
Yet on September 15, administration officials, relying upon what they said was other information from intelligence agencies, circulated to members of Congress a set of talking points prepared by the CIA that purported to summarize what U.S. intelligence knew.
you are flat out wrong. there was an initial report which was edited, and this occurred about four-five days before Susan Rice went on the Sunday talk shows. if she actually believed her own story, which is far-fetched to say the least, there still is no reason why she didn't review the actual report instead of just repeating the edited talking points.
as for there being no cover-up.... well, since her and Obama were spinning a lie, Obama knowingly, her allegedly unknowingly, that is good evidence there is a cover-up. especially considering the fact that the CIA had already reported facts to the contrary of what the administration was telling the American people, they absolutely must have known that what they were saying was untrue. it is ludicrous that they shouldn't be held responsible for lying because they happened to comment that the investigation might turn up evidence that they were lying.
You are wrong. Again, on September 16, when she went on-air, the intelligence community's investigation results at that point were what was she was provided with and what she said. To assert that "everyone knew it was untrue" is simply false.
I somehow knew it was untrue, along with Fox News, pretty much most Republicans, a lot of Democrats, and the CIA and anyone else who read their unedited report, which you straight up ignored. the report was not edited on September 15th, but days before that. but Susan Rice, alone in all the world, seemed to think (with no evidence) that there was a protest, that it wasn't premeditated, and that it was all about the video. despite a CIA report telling her otherwise (which had then been edited by.... we don't know yet). you can keep shouting "talking points" all day but that doesn't change her responsibility to review the talking points with the actual intelligence, which would have told her that there was no protest, the attacks were premeditated, and that the video was just a red herring.
You seem to have been influenced by Fox talking points and to be unaware of the information available on the matter - several reports have actually indicated that the attack may very well have been launched because of the video, regardless of the apparent absence of protests beforehand.
except they had been targeting Steven's and the consulate for months now. and you definitely need to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_the_U.S._diplomatic_mission_in_Benghazi#Investigation_timeline
this puts a damper on that. we knew well before Sept. 16 that this was almost certainly not about any video. the fighters "declaring" that it was is the most laughable thing I've ever heard. I guess it's impossible for terrorists to lie about why they're attacking something... who knew?
it takes some time to establish exactly what happened, if it's possible at all.
funny how my first assessments were pretty spot on, and how Fox News was pretty spot on, and how Democrats have been pretty spot-off every time. this is irrelevant anyway, because we're not talking about it taking forever for Obama to get his story straight, we're talking about him and his administration directly ignoring or editing reports which contradicted his chosen story for what happened. the information was already out there, so this criticism of my point makes no sense.
The intelligence community genuinely believed there had been protests in Benghazi like in Cairo, and that the attack had evolved from these protests.
lol, no they didn't. the report that they sent out proves that, along with the eye-witness testimony of everyone on the ground, and even the Libyan President knew that that was bullshit. this is you making things up out of thin air.
|
On December 03 2012 04:44 aksfjh wrote:
It's not your money. It's the government's money.
did the government make that money?
and actually, if the government passed tax-cuts, then that would mean that the government has legally declared it as my money, not theirs.
seriously though, without any philosophical quibbling: how is never receiving money in the first place equatable with spending something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
