or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by SamSpade

As I said - his philosophical musings about how communism necessarily represents the "end of history" and how everything preceding it is basically "man coming onto himself" are an important strand of his thought, but have nothing to do with him ever claiming that history will follow some deterministic course and to how he applied his method to studying actual historical events.and i have no special commitment to marx going beyond the fact that he simply was/is right about...
I don't think Marx made any grand predictions about the "unfolding of history". There is a tendency to confound his stuff on political economy with his philosophical/humanist ideas. He never postulated any historical determinism/inevitability. In fact, he allowed for plenty of human agency in historical change, qualifying that possible actions are constrained by the contemporaneous circumstances of the different societies.
13 colonies with competing interests, and competing elite factions. Obviously they had to come up with some sort of mutually acceptable political process. What was not acceptable was widespread popular democratic participation. Hence, such blatantly un-democratic institutions such as the electoral college, the senate, and the little fact that only white men with property could vote (which continued to be the case for more than 20 years after the constitutional convention)
Democracy certainly doesn't mean "mob rule". The main reason the Founding father did not want a democracy and did everything they could to create an anti-democratic process was to preserve their own privileges.
Wage slavery combined with little or no democratic input in the most important decisions affecting society isn't anybody's idea of freedom (except perhaps for the few at the top). Of course there is a better system - an actual democracy, one that extends in all spheres of social life, including the workplace and the economy. charity is bullshit and waste of time - it provides band-aid relief to problems that are structural in nature.
Part of the debate on the navy SC can be simplified if we agree on whether the suit is an essential. If you remove the suit from the list of essentials, then the navy SC wins, because it can be brought up almost to a suit level - e.g. if combined with the black cap toes, the grey pants, white shirt, and the wedding tie (or a solid). In fact, most people IRL don't even get the suit-coat distinction and upon seeing the above would simply say - "nice suit". Of course, the...
of course you can and should pass judgment on "economic efficiency" - why on earth would anybody accept is as a moral guiding principle in itself, if it has no such content. this is like saying that you should not treat a sick patient because, ya know, it's the "natural course of things".individual rationality does not preclude aggregate irrational outcomes of the market.conventional oil has peaked since 2005 - see IEA data - for now the decline has been offset by...
In economics, the concept of "efficiency" is far removed from any engineering, political, or moral understanding of efficiency. Yeah, it may be economically efficient for resources to be allocated to pet grooming, neckties, and elaborate cocktails - rather than to feeding malnourished children. But it is also incredibly stupid and indefensible from any perspective. As for cars, leaving aside the inconvenience, polution etc. - this is the biggest misallocation of...
LOL! Meeting social needs is not effective use of resources??? What ELSE are resources to be used for??? Please explain to me what is the reason for an economy to exist? To produce and allocate the things we need, no? If an economic system does not serve the needs of society, then it is by definition inadequate and must be changed. And let's not even get started on the "efficiency" of some market choices - such as the dependency on most inefficient and wasteful form of...
I'm surprised a pair of gunboats/longwings in black or burgundy wasn't mentioned as a bare necessity in footwear. Goes with jeans, khakis, and suits. It's called the OneShoe for a reason , esp. given that you can actually get away with one (sic) pair.. Also, the debate over whether a navy blazer is an essential can be easily resolved by simply replacing it with a navy suit. Then, the coat can be worn separately as a navy blaz., assuming ok fit. Close enough.
New Posts  All Forums: