Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantThe First Amendment limits the government’s ability to “abridge” speech. There are no such restriction on what Corporations can do. They can do whatever they want.
Yep.
I find this to be the case especially with people on the political right. They often confuse the right to free speech with the right to access vehicles and platforms for communication. Even within the limited realm of “Congress can not legislate,” there has never been a “right” to access those platforms or vehicles of communication. And it would be impossible to enforce such a “right” even if it existed.
That would mean every person turned down for a book deal, a radio show, a TV show, a part in the movie, etc. etc. . . . could sue on the basis of denial of free speech.
Platforms and vehicles for speech aren’t speech. When a university turns down a speaker, for example, that is not a violation of their “free speech.” That is a choice they obviously, logically have to make every time they choose this or that speaker over dozens or hundreds of others. Same thing with books, records, movies, newspaper columns, etc. etc.
Billy_TParticipantAnother key thing that goes unsaid all too often, even by leftists:
Our participation in social media extends (and makes far easier) the era of free content pillaging by capitalists. It’s yet another innovation in getting consumers to both buy stuff and work for free. We willingly provide intellectual property to capitalists for nada, and they add insult to injury by also plundering all the stuff we don’t volunteer: our personal meta-info. It’s yet another evolutionary step well beyond self-service gas-stations, etc.
As Jason Hickel describes so well in Less is More, capitalism was built on endless pillaging of formerly free externals, follows that with forced and artificial scarcity, and must continue this, world without end. It must always take far more than it gives. Social media provides one of its easiest routes to plunder, evah.
In short, leftists, IMO, should be investing in our own, democratically controlled media — to the extent possible. Thinking we can “democratize” Twitter is . . . . um, well, absurd. It’s not gonna happen. And until that happens, we need to find ways to use it, instead of being used by it.
I know. Easier said than done.
Billy_TParticipantI think the main problem is that too many Americans don’t get that democracy and capitalism are in direct opposition, and always will be. They’re permanently incompatible. Far too many seem to believe the two are natural fits, while some even believe the former can thrive when the latter is in place.
Economic apartheid (capitalism) will never support political democracy. It can’t. True democracy, if it were in place, would rightfully obliterate capitalism, and it’s hard to imagine that capitalists don’t get that, especially rich creeps like Musk. When capitalism is in place, democracy exists in name only, as a gadfly of sorts, with occasional victories and measures, here and there, but that’s it. Some nations, with Scandinavia likely leading the way, extend the range of the gadfly more than others, but in most cases the range is all too narrow and always precarious. With the exception of the all too brief Keynesian period (FDR thru LBJ, roughly), it’s been far worse than just precarious.
Social media allows “free speech” only to the extent that it helps generate capital accumulation. As in, only under its own rules, which means it doesn’t really exist there.
Another issue, of course, is the meaning of “free speech” itself. That is yet another scene of grotesque misunderstanding, even beyond the absurdities of assuming we’ll ever have “democratic rights” under capitalism.
Billy_TParticipantZooey,
Thanks for asking. Yeah, doing okay, all things considered. Hope you and yours are well too.
Jason Hickel is well worth reading. Both books, as mentioned. Less is More makes the case for what is to me all too obvious: We need rapid degrowth, not more growth, if we’re to avert ecological catastrophe. “Green capitalism” won’t do it, for a host of reasons, but especially cuz it keeps capitalism’s Prime Directive in place, which is exponential GDP growth, year after year. That growth will wipe out the gains (net) that we can make even if we do the necessary thing and go “green.” Species and resource extinction, climate, forever chemicals, the nine plus tipping points, etc.
I like Hickel’s truly holistic analysis and his ability to put things in plain terms, even with the facts galore. He’s also excellent when it comes to pointing out the obscenely unequal repercussions/fault lines when it comes to disasters . . . The Global north generating the vast majority of pollution and climate degradation and the Global south receiving the vast majority of the pain for this. Throw in his spot-on historical review of what got us here, and umpteen directions for further reading in the notes, and you have a great spur to thought and (hopefully) action.
Colonization and enclosure, for roughly five centuries, and it’s still ongoing. The Divide is excellent for setting the table for Less is More, especially on the world finance/global inequality front. But you don’t need to read it first. Another important voice along similar lines is Jason W. Moore.
I’m gonna concentrate on this topic in the near-term. Basically, global inequality, ecology, degrowth, ecosocialism. Hickel very briefly suggests — so far, at least — that the latter needs to include the degrowth movement within socialist practices. If it is in fact missing, he’s right.
We can’t sustain life on earth under capitalism . . . but even under socialism, which gives us a fighting chance, we can’t do it if “growth” remains the norm.
Billy_TParticipantA thread.
“People often assume that capitalism is defined by “markets and trade”. But markets and trade existed for thousands of years before capitalism. Capitalism is only 500 years old. So what is distinctive about this economic system? Three things (well, more, but three for now):” — Jason Hickel (@jasonhickel) April 18, 2022</p>
I’m reading Hickel’s Less is More right now, and it’s excellent. His The Divide is as well. Must-reads, both. I’m roughly 40% of the way through.
He deals with Climate Change, ecological destruction overall, global inequality, and the history of capitalism — and it’s very accessible, comprehensive, and concise.
Will likely start a thread on it once I’ve finished. Reading it via my public library/ebook.
Billy_TParticipantGood work, Zooey, getting the context, etc.
Seeing the name Jack Posobiec was enough for me to know it was a bogus ploy. He’s a well-known alt-right lunatic, and a truly despicable con man. Hopefully, you haven’t had a run in with him on Twitter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Posobiec
John Michael Posobiec III (/pəˈsoʊbɪk/ pə-SOH-bik; born December 14, 1985)[1] is an American alt-right[7] and alt-lite[2][8] political activist, television correspondent and presenter,[9] conspiracy theorist,[10] and provocateur.[11][12][13] Posobiec is known for his pro-Donald Trump comments on Twitter, as well as using white supremacist and antisemitic symbols and talking points, including the white genocide conspiracy theory.[14][15][16][17] He has repeatedly planted false and derogatory claims about political figures in an effort to damage his opponents. He has promoted fake news, including the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory claiming high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring.[18] From 2018 to 2021, Posobiec was employed by One America News Network (OANN), a far-right cable news television channel, as a political correspondent and on-air presenter.[9] He left OANN in May 2021 to begin hosting a show for the conservative student organization Turning Point USA, and to join conservative news site Human Events as a senior editor.[19]
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 7 months ago by
Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantZooey,
I don’t trust any of it off hand, including photos about photos about photos. They can be doctored too. Paranoia has no end, etc.
No attempted defense of the Centrist News Network, but I’d have to see the actual TV feed myself to believe they were faking their Ukraine coverage from . . . would that be (Edmonton) Canada? I’m betting the picture of the feed is itself a fake.
Why would CNN do that? It’s not as if they have to pretend stuff is on fire during a war. It’s not like wars don’t provide a ton of horrors to film. Why would they need to invent any of that and film the war in Ukraine from somewhere else?
All kinds of propaganda out there, from all kinds of different places, including the kind that tries to make us doubt all Western media.
Billy_TParticipantReading the Ramswire article makes it just that much more . . . baffling. Poor clock-management. Cost them nearly 4 million net, just because of timing.
The FO gets a lot of slack because of the Super Bowl, of course. But still. This trade was just flat out botched. And it looks worse to me after the Tyreek Hill trade. I’d rather have Woods on my team than Hill. A thousand times over, even with his crazy speed. Woods’ intangibles versus Hill’s? With his past and recent violence? Come on. So Woods nets a 6th rounder in next year’s draft — which has the value of a 7th this year — and Hill brings in a 1st round plus?
I do think they got a steal with Robinson, his talent, his contract. But they could have Robinson and Woods . . . or Woods in return for a lot more. Woods was just worth a lot more to the Rams than a 6th and a few million off the cap.
Depressing
Billy_TParticipantLooking at the compensation for the Wentz and Ryan trades — two 3rds, and one 3rd, respectively — it makes the 6th rounder for Woods all the more absurd. Wentz is basically a bust. Ryan is the better player, but he’s 37. Woods deserves at least similar returns. Worst case scenario: a 4th this year. At worst. If we’re comparing his overall game, and his intangibles, to Davante Adams . . . I’m thinking the Rams should have gotten at least a 2nd.
Woods is actually a 1st round receiver, and proven many times over. But, yeah, the age and injury thing kick in too. So I get that.
Billy_TParticipantI haven’t seen anything in the media yet on another aspect to Woods’ game, but I think it’s important:
Kupp learned a hell of a lot from him. I don’t think Kupp is the player he is now if Woods isn’t a teammate. Several key elements, IMO, but I’d say his blocking and his sneaky run-after-the-catch are most obviously influenced by Woods. Deceptive speed, quickness, and the ability to utilize that, weave his way through traffic, etc. Incredibly efficient in his movements, picking and choosing, finding the flow, the right gear, and so on. Woods is a master at all of that.
Kupp and the Rams are really going to miss him.
Billy_TParticipantOne problem with this method: Later round picks tend to take longer to develop. Teams generally draft players early who should be ready Year One. You should, for example, be able to find starters in the first, second, and third rounds, unless you’re already stacked with talent. Later round players can end up being as good or better than the early guys, but they tend to take longer to get there. That’s one of the possible reasons they’re still left over. Or, they have fewer dimensions to their game, or they’re just less athletic. But the talent is going to be there, even after the draft. It’s just unusual to find players late who can start right away. Exceptions, of course. But it’s rare.
So, the Rams can find really good players like SJD (6th round), but end up letting him go right when he’s coming into his own. Personally, I would have worked harder to keep him. Prime age, a budding star, right at his peak. I re-sign him. You can get too clever with letting wave after wave of that kind of player walk, hoping the “next man up” works for you. Problem is, the next man up may not be ready. He may be one of those later rounders or UDFAs who still need more time to develop.
In short, I don’t think this strategy works for long. And it can work better if there is greater focus on re-signing younger, ascending vets. Plus, no more Tutus!
;>)
Billy_TParticipantNot sure there’s any real rhyme or reason to these things, if we compare other receivers. For instance, Devante Adams netted a 1st and 2nd rounder in a recent trade, and he turns 30 in-season. Is he that much better than Woods? Two high draft picks versus a 6th rounder in 2023?
More homerism, but I’d rather have Woods than Adams. Same age. And while I don’t know how good Adams is as team guy/presence, all reports are that Woods is fantastic in that realm, plus overall intangibles. Woods is faster too.
Amari Cooper turns 28 in June, so he’s slightly younger. But I haven’t heard any great things about him as a locker-room paragon. His production has been up and down too.
Anyway . . . I think this is part of an overall pattern wherein the Rams are willing to trade away high draft picks, but don’t seem to require them in return when they make deals for picks.
I’d like to see them get better along those lines, or just not make the deals at all.
Billy_TParticipantAnd I don’t buy the idea that it’s just because of Woods’ salary or his age.
It was neither. It was because they gave Woods the final say in choosing which team he wanted to be traded to. He chose the team he wanted most, and the Rams, out of respect to him, just accepted the Titan’s low bid. They weren’t out for the highest bidder, they were honoring Woods’s choice of teams, out of deference to what he meant to the Rams and how he conducted himself as a player and leader.
I have no way of knowing this (obviously), one way or another, but that strikes me as FO talk, not necessarily the truth. But if it is the case, I still don’t like it. “Respect” for Woods would include getting much more for him in return. “You were traded for the 2023 6th rounder?”
etc.
I don’t think that looks so great on a player’s record.
Personally, I just don’t do the trade, with that as compensation. I find a way to keep Woods, which is showing him more respect, right?
Billy_TParticipantAfter a Super Bowl win, this is going to sound very cold. But this extension scares me. Far too much guaranteed, and the cap hits in 2024 thru 2026 are at Rodgers’ levels. He can’t be traded, and if he gets hurt, the Rams are in trouble. His age is also an issue . . . even though Brady reset that debate.
Personally, I think TB is an anomaly, and it’s a mistake for FO’s to think in those terms. Humans decline physically as they age, especially NFL players. They just do. And Stafford has been hurt far more often than Brady.
I’m all for rewarding him and the rest of the team. Loved their championship year. They played above and beyond. But there’s a difference between reward and albatross.
Here are the full details of Matthew Stafford’s contract, including yearly cap hits
Billy_TParticipantI agree that the compensation was awful. Snead really does seem to hate draft picks. And I don’t buy the idea that it’s just because of Woods’ salary or his age. The Rams did the same thing, draft-wise, giving away Kenny Young — their starting and best linebacker at the time.
I was thinking they might get a 2nd. Though, in hindsight, that was my homerism talking. He’s just an excellent receiver, can do it all, and, most importantly, locker-room gold. But he was apparently worth far more to the Rams than to anyone else.
One of my all-time favorite Rams, from any era.
March 18, 2022 at 1:52 pm in reply to: Rams sign Allen Robinson… & the trade talk this sets off (Woods?) #137696Billy_TParticipantHave not seen any serious speculation regarding what the Rams would get for Woods.
The talk is that the Rams would trade Woods to Minnesota for a primier pass rusher. It sounds plausible on paper because the Vikes head coach, O’Connell, was McVay’s O-coordinator last season.
The Vikings: Danielle Hunter, if he’s healthy, would be a great addition to the Rams. He’s another player I wanted the Rams to draft. Exceptional athlete for his size, and he’s been very productive. Will turn 28 in-season, so a three-year contract would be just about right. I’d make that trade, if he checks out. But I don’t want the Rams to give up an additional draft pick in the bargain. Woods for Hunter straight up . . . or find a trade with another team to get another pick.
<caption>Pre-draft measurables</caption>
Height Weight Arm length Hand span 40-yard dash 10-yard split 20-yard split 20-yard shuttle Three-cone drill Vertical jump Broad jump Bench press 6 ft 5+1⁄8 in
(1.96 m)252 lb
(114 kg)34+1⁄4 in
(0.87 m)10+1⁄2 in
(0.27 m)4.57 s 1.57 s 2.67 s 4.35 s 6.95 s 36.5 in
(0.93 m)10 ft 10.5 in
(3.31 m)25 reps All values from NFL Combine and Pro Day<sup id=”cite_ref-14″ class=”reference”>[14]</sup> Billy_TParticipantThings are moving really fast today, so not sure if he’s still available. But I’d love to see the Rams sign Lorenzo Carter from the Giants. A very fast edge/olb guy, who could finally live up to his potential in LA. Sub-4.5 speed, good size, etc.
And, of course, Wagner. Those two guys would solidify the Front Seven and make losing Miller a lot easier.
Rams have eight draft picks, and a pretty good track record of finding hidden gems late. Though they also tend to lose them just as they’re coming into their own — like SJD and Oko. I wish they could have re-signed both of them.
They should also look for kick return help, and find players who double at another position. This article suggests four of them for the Rams.
March 18, 2022 at 9:00 am in reply to: Rams sign Allen Robinson… & the trade talk this sets off (Woods?) #137690Billy_TParticipantRobert Woods is a ‘prime trade candidate,’ Rams already getting calls
Have not seen any serious speculation regarding what the Rams would get for Woods. If the Rams are offered a 2nd, I take it. They save 7 million on the cap, too. He’s one of my favorite Rams, evah, but I want the Rams to get better, and that extra draft pick could help them at positions of need. The wide receiver room is stacked right now, and there just aren’t enough footballs to go around. So, I trade him, though I wish Jefferson were the guy on the trading block, not Woods.
March 17, 2022 at 9:14 pm in reply to: Rams sign Allen Robinson… & the trade talk this sets off (Woods?) #137673Billy_TParticipantBilly_T wrote:
This also tells us a bit about Tutu — perhaps
I felt the same way about Atwell the second they picked him that I did back when they picked Trung. Rams draft really well overall but it’s interesting that they’re not as strong in the 2nd round as they are on lower round picks. To be honest, I suspect that’s because McV is more involved with round 2 and has a thing he wants when it’s time to pick. I think the “eye for the draft” is more Snead than McV.
That makes a lot of sense. McVay falls in love with a player, and doesn’t waver, perhaps. Doesn’t listen to the scouts? Snead may follow his scouts more, and finds those hidden gems late.
I wasn’t a fan of the Rapp pick, either. A try-hard guy, but kinda slow. Not exceptional in any one area. Akers worries me now. Saw some article about him that detailed his relative decline thru the Super Bowl, which hit me too while I watched the Big Game. The writer used some Next Gen stats to show his reduced “make ’em miss” plays, as well as fewer broken tackles. He may have come back too soon. If memory serves, he came back roughly six months early?
Hope the off-season gives him a shot at a full recovery. They need him. It was the one “hit” for McVay, if your theory about the 2nd round holds, and it looks solid to me.
Regardless . . . I like the Rams’ chances to repeat, though a lot of teams got significantly better, and they haven’t even drafted yet . . .
March 17, 2022 at 8:14 pm in reply to: Rams sign Allen Robinson… & the trade talk this sets off (Woods?) #137669Billy_TParticipantI had not even heard of him, until about a week ago, when all the talking-heads on a video absolutely raved about him. They pointed out that he has never had a decent QB throwing to him. Apparently, one narrative is: he’s another Stafford. A topnotch player trapped on a bad team. w v
I liked his game before he was drafted, and wanted the Rams to take him in 2014. Good height, nearly 6’3″, and has NBA-type hops. Not a great 40 time, but had a surprisingly good 10-yard split, 20-yard shuttle, vert and broad. I thought the 40 time had to be an outlier for him, and he’s played like it was.
Very good pick-up for the Rams. Again, this gives them a shot at moving Woods or Jefferson, too. I’m hoping it’s Jefferson, and for draft pick. I have no idea what that would be. But they need more shots at bringing in young players with upside and rookie contracts, etc.
March 17, 2022 at 5:33 pm in reply to: Rams sign Allen Robinson… & the trade talk this sets off (Woods?) #137661Billy_TParticipantThis also tells us a bit about Tutu — perhaps.
He doesn’t seem to be in their plans. Not now, or tomorrow. Obviously, they won it all, so it’s kinda sorta moot. Snead’s T-shirt, etc. But that was a truly very bad no good awful 2nd round pick.
Can he play slot corner?
;>)
Btw, folks: Amazon Music has an excellent channel for Saint Patrick’s Day. Enjoying meself ever so much with the rowdy tunes. Just finished a fine Irish Coffee to go along with them. Saving the Guinness for later tonight, and the viewing of Once. Not in the same league as the Irish coffee I had in Ireland, of course, along the profoundly beautiful Ring of Kerry. But it was still refreshing!
March 17, 2022 at 4:44 pm in reply to: Rams sign Allen Robinson… & the trade talk this sets off (Woods?) #137653Billy_TParticipantLove this pick-up. Robinson is an excellent athlete for his size. Gives the Rams someone who can go and get the 50/50 throws, and can body-out in the End Zone. Has never really had a good QB to work with, but still was highly productive. Stafford/McVay could make him an All-Pro.
Smart move by the Rams, especially given the iffy status of Woods and OBJ.
IMO, if they bring back OBJ, they need to trade Van Jefferson before the upcoming draft. Even if they can’t bring him back, they should consider it.
Robinson is a true #1 . . . so the Rams now have three legit top dogs, even before OBJ comes back.
Get Wagner and Lorenzo Carter and this is an excellent FA period so far.
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantThe American mind is fascinating
Who thinks 20% of people are transgender? Or that 30% of Americans are Jewish?
Most likely, people who watch Fox News, read Breitbart, listen to Steve Bannon podcasts, etc.
Right-wing media is very effective at creating hysteria over absolutely nothing. And it’s a double hit of stupid. As in, no one should care if the percentages of this or that minority were that high . . . plus, they obviously aren’t.
Billy_TParticipantThe American mind is fascinating pic.twitter.com/BGxCrUf7IA — Brandon Canning (@CanningBrandon) March 16, 2022
Reminds me of a study done years ago (cerca 2010) on the perception of inequality in America. Dan Ariely and Michael Norton were the leads. Things have gotten a hell of a lot worse since then, with skyrocketing inequality on top of the obscene levels they discussed back then.
Good video breakdown of this from 2013 (?), with stunning graphs about the massive gap between perception and reality, and those monstrous levels of concentration. Stupid comments about “socialism” aside, it’s worth watching.
Billy_TParticipantZooey,
Good definition of the right’s version of libertarian. It’s a shame they hijacked the term.
I know you know this . . . but the left’s version predates the right’s by a coupla centuries. William Morris, Petr Kropotkin, Oscar Wilde, Kafka, James C. Scott, and Noam Chomsky fall into that left-libertarian, libertarian socialist, libertarian communist camp, as do I. In another forum, some time ago, I ID’d as such and was told there is no such thing. Had to point them to the relevant literature, etc.
The right’s version is pretty much astroturfed by the Koch brothers, with assists from Milton Friedman, the Austrian School, and Ayn Rand . . . though the latter claimed not to be one. Most Americans assume that’s the only kind. Ron Paul, Tyler Cowen, etc. etc.
Oh, well.
Billy_TParticipantThe Rams, apparently, are really careful about their comp picks — collecting them, not losing them. They try their best to sign players who don’t negate those totals. Outright cuts before a certain date, I think, means no losses. Not sure if that formula changes once the formal free agency period starts (today?), but that would make sense.
Wagner, so far, seems to be the best from that group. A pro-bowler who also won’t cost them comps. I’d love to see them sign him for two years or so.
I’d say no to Greg the leg. He was a great Ram, but his game seems to have fallen off. The Rams have a more productive (and much younger) kicker already on their roster.
I’d also kick the tires on Saffold, though his pass-blocking has declined. If the Rams think they can “fix” that, he’d be a strong addition too. It’s a shame the Rams are in cap hell, because it would be great to bring back Corbett, Noteboom, and Allen. But they’re likely going to lose at least two of them, if not all three.
Hekkers is a likely cap cut, so they need to look for punters. Corners, edge, more O-line as well. The Rams have been good at finding gems cast off by other teams, and they’ve had to, given the lack of draft picks. That, hopefully, continues this year.
Billy_TParticipantSay I own a bake-shop. I just made 20 brownies, and usually have 25 customers for those wonders of nature. I always sell them and then eat the 5 left over. But today is different, for some reason. There’s a rumor that I’m using a secret ingredient, which I may or may not have started meself. So I have a line out the door and around the block.
I could raise my prices. Or, I could even lower them. Nothing forces me to raise, lower, or keep them the same. It’s my choice. I might even be able to expand my business by lowering the prices, bake more secret recipe brownies, and lose weight, because I won’t have as many leftovers
My call, etc.
Oil companies could lower prices and likely bring in new customers. But they won’t, of course, because they’re greedy-ass planet-killers, and capitalism makes it legal to screw over workers, consumers, taxpayers, and the earth.
Oh, and another part of our conditioning: We tend to blame government, not the folks who actually set the prices, wages, and create artificial crises, etc. etc.
No economic system in the history of the world has evolved such an effective gaslighting complex. It’s not close.
Billy_TParticipantAmericans — and most of the rest of the world — have been conditioned to just accept capitalist bullshit. Like that “supply and demand” dictate prices. Um, no. There is no physical, logical, mathematical, or even economic law that says anyone has to raise their prices if demand exceeds supply. It’s just a myth with wings.
If it were the case, capitalist economies would be in an almost permanent state of deflation, because capitalism always produces more shit than people can afford to buy (or want, or need), on the macro level. That’s how it’s set up. Wages always lag waaay behind production. Workers can never afford to buy all the crap they produce. There is no profit/concentration of capital at the top if there were a match up.
The gap is enormous, and unique to capitalism. Exchange-value instead of use-value; production for future sales instead of current needs; mass production instead of localized, family production, etc.
And, of course, capitalism makes it legal to hoard supplies, to create artificial shortages, the most famous perhaps being diamonds . . . but oil is a biggie too.
It’s phony, fake, mendacious, a lie. In short, bullshit.
Billy_TParticipantI’m waiting for the capitalist-media to tell me Putin is murdering babies in incubators. w v
Tragically, (as you know) virtually all the world’s media are capitalist, though it would actually be easier than many believe to change that**.
The key for me is just tell the truth, be accurate, no matter who pulls the strings. IMO, however, it’s not helpful to answer one cartoonish portrayal with another. As in, if Putin is being portrayed as a Marvel super-villain, it’s not productive to paint the US and the West in the same way. No cartoons, period, is better.
___
**Took a look at Caitlin Johnstone’s About page, after your h/t. Found it interesting, but I think she’s a bit confused as to what “capitalism” actually is and isn’t. She could actually receive direct payment for her craft and remain non-capitalist. She doesn’t have to ask for donations only to stay clean.
Long before capitalism existed, writers, craftsmen, artists, artisans, small farmers, etc. etc. took payment for their work. It’s not “money for work” that makes one a capitalist. It’s buying labor (as a commodity) to produce a commodity for money that does it. M-C-M and exchange value, with the capitalist appropriating the surplus value of his or her workforce as if he or she did all the work. The larger picture adding competitive laws of motion, Grow or Die, etc. That endless trap of production for profit, growth, pollution, waste, more, more, and more. All of that creates neck-breaking hierarchies and guarantees horrific levels of inequality too.
Ms. Johnstone could write for payment and stay clean, and leftist media could do the same, scale up, share ownership, share the fruits, and stay clean. Flatten hierarchies to the extent possible. Logically, that flattens inequality too — at least when and where this is applied.
Billy_TParticipantFrom my point of view, pretty much everything the right believes is dead wrong, and dangerously so. Their track record for being accurate on the issues is basically 0 for 2 gazillion. So it’s not a good sign when some leftists are on the same page with the far-right, and when it comes to Russia, it seems to happen all too often.
Being skeptical about government info is wise. On a case by case basis, it often warrants much stronger reactions than that — outright dismissal all the way thru fury. What’s unwise is to assume that we should only feel that way about the US or “the West,” and not the rest of the world’s ruling classes, establishments, institutions, etc.
A pox on all their houses.
In short, I think some leftists (with audiences) are all too eager to (instantly) believe the worst about the US and the West, while failing to properly vet the info they utilize. In the case of Ukraine, more often than not, that info comes from the GOP or Putin, not objective, credible sources.
I know that saying the above isn’t likely to be popular with some of my fellow leftists. But I think it’s incontrovertibly true. Skepticism should be applied across the board, especially in times of war.
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 7 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
