On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours!
I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys!
boys? i see what you did there
if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different
....except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies.
Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade.
I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades.
How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency.
PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding.
It's not indispensable for YOU.
Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper.
if people didn't need planned parenthood it wouldn't exist but it does therefore it must
If people didn't need Walmart it wouldn't exist either.
On October 22 2012 12:45 BlueBird. wrote: Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
On October 22 2012 12:45 BlueBird. wrote: Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
Heh, yeah I bet PBS is endorsing Obama too. Seriously, that's your argument? They're endorsing the candidate that isn't pulling their funding? Nothing about them being, by far, the most effective sexual health care provider for low income women?
On October 22 2012 11:51 turdburgler wrote: specifically on supply side economics there are 2 pretty obvious reasons it doesnt work, and a few more which require a little thinking. the first is in the name, supply side. just because you have the capitol to increase supply doesnt increase demand. if you are selling 1000 products a week, thats how much demand there is and thats that, unable to shift more product you will pocket the tax break and buy a new jet.
secondly, the main purpose of business is NOT to serve more customers or to shift more of a product. its to make money. there is no innate desire for a company to produce more when it has more. they will again just pocket the tax break.
Demand is not a static thing. Demand can be increased by increasing supply to expand the market or by lowering the price of a product. Making business more profitable through a tax cut does just this - what was once a non economic expansion becomes a profitable expansion and so the market grows / prices fall and demand increases.
That's not to say that its a flawless approach or necessarily the best approach in a given circumstance, but its an approach never the less.
On October 22 2012 12:45 BlueBird. wrote: Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
ok so you dont like them because they endorse obama, but if romney won and if he chose to cut their funding and they were unable to fufil their role nationally, what would be your preferred plan of action?
if millions more americans were unable to receive screenings for cancer, and tests for STI's because either their insurance didnt cover it or they were uninsured, what would be your position? this is why i asked the question 20 minutes ago. while you guys are all arguing over irrelevant topics like this, no one can discuss anything because i dont understand if you are against the idea of free public health information/services or specifically against this organisation?
do you think people who have to be insured to get services like this? do insurers have a mandate to provide this in basic cover? if no to the first question how would you change the current PP system for it to continue to receive funding?
On October 22 2012 12:45 BlueBird. wrote: Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
Heh, yeah I bet PBS is endorsing Obama too. Seriously, that's your argument? They're endorsing the candidate that isn't pulling their funding? Nothing about them being, by far, the most effective sexual health care provider for low income women?
PBS explicitly asked the Obama campaign to leave them out of it.
Sesame Workshop is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization and we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns. We have approved no campaign ads, and as is our general practice, have requested that the ad be taken down.
On October 22 2012 12:45 BlueBird. wrote: Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
ok so you dont like them because they endorse obama, but if romney won and if he chose to cut their funding and they were unable to fufil their role nationally, what would be your preferred plan of action?
if millions more americans were unable to receive screenings for cancer, and tests for STI's because either their insurance didnt cover it or they were uninsured, what would be your position? this is why i asked the question 20 minutes ago. while you guys are all arguing over irrelevant topics like this, no one can discuss anything because i dont understand if you are against the idea of free public health information/services or specifically against this organisation?
do you think people who have to be insured to get services like this? do insurers have a mandate to provide this in basic cover? if no to the first question how would you change the current PP system for it to continue to receive funding?
My original post was to move PP funding to a different organization.
Though some people think that this is an unworkable thing to do.
On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades.
How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency.
PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding.
It's not indispensable for YOU.
Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper.
other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure.
and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory?
because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position.
HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow!
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
On October 22 2012 11:58 farvacola wrote: [quote] How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency.
PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding.
It's not indispensable for YOU.
Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper.
other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure.
and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory?
because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position.
HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow!
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
On October 22 2012 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding.
It's not indispensable for YOU.
Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper.
other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure.
and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory?
because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position.
HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow!
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
So? I don't get free prostate screenings.
PP provides those, and you really should.........
News to me. Regardless, there is no reason this stuff can't just be provided by doctors and medical centers.
On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades.
How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency.
PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding.
It's not indispensable for YOU.
Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper.
other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure.
and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory?
because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position.
HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow!
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack.
On October 22 2012 11:58 farvacola wrote: [quote] How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency.
PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding.
It's not indispensable for YOU.
Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper.
other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure.
and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory?
because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position.
HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow!
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack.
Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer.
On October 22 2012 12:45 BlueBird. wrote: Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
This doesn't bother me at all. Planned Parenthood is defending themselves, thats fine with me, since I enjoy their services and use them.
And yes you can get prostate screenings at planned parenthood, they might not be free, their prices depends on your financial situation and your states funding etc.
On October 22 2012 12:45 BlueBird. wrote: Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
This doesn't bother me at all. Planned Parenthood is defending themselves, thats fine with me, since I enjoy their services and use them.
And yes you can get prostate screenings at planned parenthood, they might not be free, their prices depends on your financial situation and your states funding etc.
You really think that makes it OK? Imagine if the Heritage Foundation was kept afloat with Federal funding. Obama declared he wanted to cut that funding. Would it then be ok for them to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on pro-Romney ads? It's ludicrous. federal money shouldn't be used for advertising partisan opinions.
On October 22 2012 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding.
It's not indispensable for YOU.
Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper.
other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure.
and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory?
because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position.
HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow!
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack.
Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer.
Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective.
Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions.
On October 22 2012 12:45 BlueBird. wrote: Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
This doesn't bother me at all. Planned Parenthood is defending themselves, thats fine with me, since I enjoy their services and use them.
And yes you can get prostate screenings at planned parenthood, they might not be free, their prices depends on your financial situation and your states funding etc.
You really think that makes it OK? Imagine if the Heritage Foundation was kept afloat with Federal funding. Obama declared he wanted to cut that funding. Would it then be ok for them to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on pro-Romney ads? It's ludicrous. federal money shouldn't be used for advertising partisan opinions.
Well, I'm not sure it is being used for that; the not-for-profit Planned Parenthood Action Fund is a separate entity, and if Planned Parenthood has any sense (which they do) it's run through donations and revenue, not federal funds. And the SuperPAC is, well, a superPAC, so blame bs like that on Citizen's United.
On October 22 2012 12:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote: [quote]
It's not indispensable for YOU.
Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper.
other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure.
and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory?
because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position.
HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow!
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack.
Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer.
Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective.
Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions.
Much better to be like every other interest group and just give money to everyone.
On October 22 2012 12:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote: [quote]
It's not indispensable for YOU.
Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper.
other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure.
and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory?
because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position.
HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow!
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack.
Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer.
Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective.
Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions.
On October 22 2012 12:45 BlueBird. wrote: Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
This doesn't bother me at all. Planned Parenthood is defending themselves, thats fine with me, since I enjoy their services and use them.
And yes you can get prostate screenings at planned parenthood, they might not be free, their prices depends on your financial situation and your states funding etc.
You really think that makes it OK? Imagine if the Heritage Foundation was kept afloat with Federal funding. Obama declared he wanted to cut that funding. Would it then be ok for them to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on pro-Romney ads? It's ludicrous. federal money shouldn't be used for advertising partisan opinions.
i assume you will be getting on a similar high horse about churches that side with either candidate?
On October 22 2012 12:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote: [quote]
It's not indispensable for YOU.
Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper.
other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure.
and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory?
because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position.
HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow!
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack.
Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer.
Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective.
Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions.
Speculative? Do you know the cost of these kinds of services in hospitals at the moment? Chucking them some money (which would be spread out amongst multiple times more clinics) is not going to make them as efficient.
And I don't care if they've "dug their own grave," as I don't give a single damn about political repercussions. The argument at hand is on whether this funding should continue or not and why. I mean, jeezes, it was freaking Nixon who introduced federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Surely the Republicans at the time saw merit in its services.
In any case, this whole argument is insane. THIS IS A GOOD THING GUYS. People are getting the help they need! Rejoice! Smile! If you fear you're going to contract testicular cancer, you can rest assured because Planned Parenthood will be here to save the day one of your balls!
On October 21 2012 10:17 sam!zdat wrote: ugh, the impending collapse of your entire economic paradigm is not a minor inconvenience
2008 was just the beginning
how can everybody spend all their time talking about how fast the world is changing and then expect the world not to change???
Collapse has been impending for 140 years now
no it hasn't
edit: I don't believe that you are a sincerely motivated participant in rational discourse, so I'm not really interested in engaging in said discourse with you. For the benefit of others who might be interested, however, the reason your point is facile is because there wasn't a revolution in the mode of production during that period (this has only begun to happen in the last few years) and so there was no impending collapse. Capitalism is the best way to run an industrial society - we are no longer an industrial society. I'll say it again, because I think this cuts to the heart of the matter: how can people talk so much about how things are changing, and expect things not to change?
Projection is a fascinating phenomenon.
c'mon dude you need a new line. Used that one last time. I mean, it's a step up from "I know you are but what am I" but I really think you can do better. You also used "ash can of history" before as well, so I guess you must be real proud of that one.
At any rate, I feel that there is a clear difference in the way that you and I comport ourselves. Your posting is among the most petty and vitriolic on the entire board. I mostly just see you insulting people and acting like a child.
The collapse of the plutocracy and the bourgeoisie hasn't been impending for 140 years? Quick, someone tell Karl. He'll be very disappointed.
citation please
You've already proudly proclaimed your ignorance of all things Marx, so unless you're going to provide citations I'm not really interested in what you think he thought (and, of course, just because Marx thought something doesn't mean contemporary Marxists think that anyway - it's not a fucking religion, your protestations notwithstanding. Mostly what I spend my time reading is Marxists discussing the flaws and holes in the corpus that Marx left behind, as well as the ways in which his thought has to be modified and adapted to fit a very different world...).
You betray just how ignorant you are by saying that there hasn't been a revolution in the mode of production during that period. There were two, maybe three, depending how you look at it.
Yes, interesting, can you elaborate? There are certainly stages within capitalism that correspond to changes in the mode of production, but nothing I would call a revolution - certainly nothing as earth-shattering as that which accompanied the transition from feudalism to capitalism. There are certainly important changes in the MOP within capitalism (e.g. containerization) which have had important impacts on its history - this is all quite in accordance with the basic Marxian way of looking at things.
I would be fascinated to hear your analysis of this topic, as you seem to fancy yourself an expert. What do you think were the most important changes (leaving aside the question of whether or not they are "revolutionary") in the mode of production, and what do you think were their social impacts? What makes these things different (insofar as "non-revolutionary") compared to the original process of industrialization?
We aren't an industrial society? We may not be an industrial-dominant society the way we were before the computer, but we are certainly still an industrial society.
Tell that to Detroit.
I'll say this because it actually cuts to the heart of the matter: things are changing within the paradigm, but nothing externally or internally threatens its existence. Maybe in your head it does, but not in the real world.
Well, you can insult me, or you can say why you think that. I think that we have barely begun to enter into the information age, and that information technology, particularly with advances in biotech and 3d printing e.g., will have a far greater impact on the mode of production than we have yet really realized. I would be interested to know why you think this would not be the case (again, if you can manage to do so in some fashion other than your typical ad hominem mode which just makes this thread so much less friendly than it might otherwise be).
Furthermore, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on historical change in general. Would you endorse a Fukuyaman thesis that our current way of doing things is an "End of History," and that things will largely not change for the remainder of human history? If things will change, how far in the future, and why? If things won't change, can you offer a reason why I should believe that our moment is special in a way that all other previous moments were not (i.e. they changed, why not our moment)?
When you say "the paradigm," can you say what you mean? What is the paradigm? What things might change within it, and what things are its constitutive features which will remain constant?
In the course of all this polite and thoughtful discourse in which you are about to engage, try to respond in such a way that doesn't rely on assumptions about what I do or do not believe w/r/t your belief that I am a Stalinist. Thanks.
EPT
