If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
The working class would NOT include "the super-rich working to grow their wealth and build relationships on the golf course".
That is what is wrong with Marxism....
Many, many of the rich were not rich when they began building wealth, and it is thru hard and smart WORK that they earned their wealth...
Marx used the term "working class" to describe the world as he saw it under a capitalist system. A world divided between those who are required to work to earn a living, and those who are not. Whether or not you support Marxist solutions, please let us not confuse the terminology. The working class would NOT include "the super-rich working to grow their wealth and build relationships on the golf course".
Have I got that correct Bob A.?
What is not working is Marxism, anywhere it has been tried.
As we discuss this topic, we are teasing out side issues, and getting closer to the core issue of how to get society to perceive the issue as URGENT, as it is.
Society is seeing World Capitalism chugging right along, and is being lulled into a sense that all will be well, despite the bad statistics being put forward. Or alternatively that “SOMEHOW” we'll miraculously solve the problem at the last minute, just before climate change suicide begins. As one CT'er noted here, Capitalism is very good at solving problems. So although Capitalism is not going to give up short-term profit by implementing solutions to climate change yet, when its profits are shown clearly to be at risk, it will solve the problem.
I, personally, do not share such optimism....when Capitalism decided to forego short-term profits, and tackle climate change, it will be too late, even for vaunted Capitalism to save us.
It is getting harder for the thread viewers to come up with points of discussion as we hone in on the core problem. Thus our stats this week lag behind last weeks, and further behind the 2022 daily stats per day to date.
Thank you for the link, Bob G.
The commentary rightly points out: 1. The illegitimate power of the super-rich corporations 2. The abuse of power by governments 3. The corruption in the media.
So: Can we 1. Reduce the power of money by making capital freely accessible to all with capability, thereby providing enormous competition to the current super-rich, and simultaneously creating a great demand for the services of Marx's 'working class', thereby improving their income 2. Reduce the power of governments (because politicians just cannot avoid abusing it) 3.Accelerate the current information technolgy's transformation away from the CNNs and Foxes of the world and towards alternate sources of information...
....when Capitalism decided to forego short-term profits, and tackle climate change, it will be too late, even for vaunted Capitalism to save us.
......
The super-rich, whether they be capitalists or not, have absolutely no intention of "saving us". They all own private bunkers that they will flee to when the shit starts hitting the fan. These bunkers are safe from everything, including nuclear radiation, and are stocked with several years' supply of fresh water, food, vitamin supplements, medicines, movies for entertainment, and probably even toilet paper (3-ply LOL).
I think many of them are likely even relishing the coming collapse, so that they can put their feet up and relax. I am sure they even have slaves in readiness to go with them.
Thank you for the link, Bob G.
The commentary rightly points out: 1. The illegitimate power of the super-rich corporations 2. The abuse of power by governments 3. The corruption in the media.
So: Can we 1. Reduce the power of money by making capital freely accessible to all with capability, thereby providing enormous competition to the current super-rich, and simultaneously creating a great demand for the services of Marx's 'working class', thereby improving their income 2. Reduce the power of governments (because politicians just cannot avoid abusing it) 3.Accelerate the current information technolgy's transformation away from the CNNs and Foxes of the world and towards alternate sources of information...
Exactly what are you proposing with your first suggestion? There is money available right now in most developed nations, via loans, via angel investing and venture funds etc.
What new mechanisms of funding for ideas are you proposing? And especially, how would you see decisions being made as to what is a reasonable idea for funding? Right now what entrepreneurs generally do is prepare a business plan, would you do away with that and just give money to any idea at all? The devil is in the details.
That is what is wrong with Marxism....
Many, many of the rich were not rich when they began building wealth, and it is thru hard and smart WORK that they earned their wealth...
An amazing part of American Capitalism is the rags to riches story. There's like 8 million multi- millionaires, 89,000 over 50 million, 788 billionaires. But for every early investor in Microsoft or Facebook, there were investments in 1,000s of other companies that blew up. There's timing, location and luck involved.
Over 60% of the wealthiest come from wealthy White families. They may be "self-made" richer than their parents, but their families had the money to put them through school: lawyer, accountant, engineer, performing artist, or athlete. Gave them a car. Hired them in the family business. Or invested in their business start ups. And some rich kids failed and got bailed out. And networking at private schools lead to future business contacts, marriages into money, insider business funds, and off-shore banking.
Most people do not have access to that level of financial support. The rich kids can also sit on their wealth and real estate and let managers do the work of investing it. When one has capital (such as a bank or investment fund) it is profitable to research and invest in those poorer people developing new products. Big companies can donate to politicians and influence government policy, get government contracts, buy out and close down competitors (destroying the economic base of a small town) and run monopolies.
Yes, small-business entrepreneurs work their ass-off and risk losing money. 60% go bankrupt within 3 years. But everyday working people also work very hard for long hours, often at jobs that will cause body damage. There is no correlation between hard work and wealth.
Jeff Bezos has stated that his success wouldn't have been possible without the technology advancements already in place, the telecommunication network, US Postal Service, and credit cards. And consumers with money and time to shop. Money is not made in a vacuum but in a community maintained by a government.
Customers want low prices. Amazon and Wal Mart also use very-low paid workers and third world factories. Profits can also be increased by throwing out waste and polluting the environment. To make money that way isn't being smart, but ruthless and vicious.
But everyday working people also work very hard for long hours, often at jobs that will cause body damage. There is no correlation between hard work and wealth.
Thank you Erik. This is the best post I have seen in a long time.
The entire post is a gem, but this is my favourite passage.
I had an interesting political discussion with a friend yesterday. We got onto the topic of Marxism and Libertarianism.
I am certainly no expert on either, in fact my friend began with "but Bob, you don't understand" to which I totally agreed.
He went onto explain that Marxism and Libertarianism share much in common.
He claimed that "both propose to do away with government completely."
That concept fully blows my mind. I can't even envision a world without some form of government.
Now I presume there must be a spectrum of Marxism and Libertarian viewpoints: spanning no government to some form of limited government?
Anyway, if anyone wants to comment and explain how a world devoid of government is even possible or desirable. Explain it to Bob G.
Marx did not suggest no government.......what he wanted was a socialist government by the workers (He used the term Communism as the type of socialism; USSR Communism is a heresy of Marx thought - it does not follow his main line of thinking on democracy)......the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is pure theory that the proletariat state will at some point be so perfect that it will wither away. Democratic Marxism puts no value on this speculation.
Here is the explanation of the state "withering away":
The State Withers Away
P. Stuchka, The Last Act of the State: It Withers Away. 1926
Original Source: From Uchenie o gosudarstve proletariata i krestianstva i ego konstitutsii (5th ed. rev.; Moscow-Leningrad 1926), 288-91.
From our definition of the state as an apparatus of class domination it follows that the existence of the state will come to an end simultaneously with the disappearance of classes, i.e., with the introduction of a classless society. Engels used the expression “withers away” to describe the disappearance of the state. In doing this, he stressed the fact that the disappearance of the state will not be an instantaneous event but a protracted process.
This is simply a logical conclusion of the whole history of class society:
When at last the state becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as class rule and the individual struggle for existence based on our present anarchy in production disappear, and along with them the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary … State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous and withers away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not abolished; it withers away (Engels, Anti-D hring).
Communists are not alone in demanding the abolition of the state. Anarchists, too, demand its abolition. However, as Lenin stated:
We do not at all disagree with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as an aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, temporary use must be made of the instruments, means, and methods of the state power against the exploiters, just as the dictatorship of the oppressed class is temporarily necessary for the annihilation of classes. Marx chooses the sharpest and clearest way of stating his position against
the anarchists: when they have cast off the yoke of the capitalists, ought the workers to “lay down arms” or ought they to use them against the capitalists in order to crush their resistance? But what is the systematic use of arms by one class against the other, if not a “transitional form” of the state (State and Revolution).
From this it follows that there is a great difference between the “fall” of a bourgeois state and the withering away of the Soviet state. According to Engels, “The bourgeois state does not ‘wither away’ but is ‘destroyed’ by the proletariat in a revolution. And it is the proletarian state or semi-state that withers away after that revolution.”
I am no expert on Marxism, though I have studied it and did take a course on it. It seems to me that individuals, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, for example, did use Marxist ideas/principles to take power, but once they obtained power they proceeded to throw the book out the window. The ideology was used to motivate the lowly masses, but these same masses were tossed to the dogs once the ideology had successfully allowed the strongmen to take power.
Marx did not suggest no government.......what he wanted was a socialist government by the workers (He used the term Communism as the type of socialism; USSR Communism is a heresy of Marx thought - it does not follow his main line of thinking on democracy)......the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is pure theory that the proletariat state will at some point be so perfect that it will wither away. Democratic Marxism puts no value on this speculation.
Thanks Bob, good answer. So the whole state withering away is a lot of incomprehensible theoretical nonsense.
Bob G - yup - purely utopianism (Common at the time) creeping into Engels thinking, and less so into Marx'. It is a nice dream, that's all....in my understanding of Democratic Marxism.....like John Lennon's Imagine.
Tweet
Comment