Kolibri

joined 10 months ago
[–] Kolibri@hexbear.net 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

The last few chapters really interesting like chapter 33, and then comparing it to today's time. Where a lot of things are done with bank accounts. One of the things this reminded me of is people who say money is dead or dying? But I think Marx shows that won't ever be the case since there will be plenty of times money will always be needed, especially in times of in crises? At least in capitalist production. Also it's really interesting that the last few chapters talked about crises more to.

Talk about centralisation! The credit system, which has its focus in the so-called national banks and the big money-lenders and usurers surrounding them, constitutes enormous centralisation, and gives to this class of parasites the fabulous power, not only to periodically despoil industrial capitalists, but also to interfere in actual production in a most dangerous manner — and this gang knows nothing about production and has nothing to do with it. The Acts of 1844 and 1845 are proof of the growing power of these bandits, who are augmented by financiers and stock-jobbers.

Isn't this what happen in 2008?

[–] Kolibri@hexbear.net 1 points 8 hours ago

I found this footnote from chapter 30 interesting, mainly on Engels talking about crises.

[As I have already stated elsewhere [English edition: Vol. I. — Ed.], a change has taken place here since the last major general crisis. The acute form of the periodic process with its former ten-year cycle, appears to have given way to a more chronic, long drawn out, alternation between a relatively short and slight business improvement and a relatively long, indecisive depression-taking place in the various industrial countries at different times. But perhaps it is only a matter of a prolongation of the duration of the cycle. In the early years of world commerce, 1845-47, it can be shown that these cycles lasted about five years; from 1847 to 1867 the cycle is clearly ten years; is it possible that we are now in the preparatory stage of a new world crash of unparalleled vehemence? Many things seem to point in this direction. Since the last general crisis of 1867 many profound changes have taken place. The colossal expansion of the means of transportation and communication — ocean liners, railways, electrical telegraphy, the Suez Canal — has made a real world-market a fact. The former monopoly of England in industry has been challenged by a number of competing industrial countries; infinitely greater and varied fields have been opened in all parts of the world for the investment of surplus European capital, so that it is far more widely distributed and local over-speculation may be more easily overcome. By means of all this, most of the old breeding-grounds of crises and opportunities for their development have been eliminated or strongly reduced. At the same time, competition in the domestic market recedes before the cartels and trusts, while in the foreign market it is restricted by protective tariffs, with which all major industrial countries, England excepted, surround themselves. But these protective tariffs are nothing but preparations for the ultimate general industrial war, which shall decide who has supremacy on the world-market. Thus every factor, which works against a repetition of the old crises, carries within itself the germ of a far more powerful future crisis. — F. E.]

Since the part of about "But these protective tariffs are nothing but preparations for the ultimate general industrial war, which shall decide who has supremacy on the world-market. Thus every factor, which works against a repetition of the old crises, carries within itself the germ of a far more powerful future crisis" Reminds me a lot of Lenin's work on Imperialism. Also feels like Engels kind of saw the great depression?

Also I like the footnote of Engels talking about a childhood story in 29.

[–] Kolibri@hexbear.net 2 points 8 hours ago

We're half way through vol three meow-bounce

[–] Kolibri@hexbear.net 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Excuse me? Are you seriously trying to use what I went through to justify your point? Especially when OP and his relationship with his mom is a lot different than mine? And it's up to OP to decide what he wants to do with his relationship, not any of us?

[–] Kolibri@hexbear.net 11 points 2 days ago (4 children)

What a weird question. No I didn't! I even stuck to her to the very end on the day she died. But I can't forget some of the hurtful things she said.

[–] Kolibri@hexbear.net 13 points 2 days ago (6 children)

The boundary seemed to be to just stop talking so much about Trump. But Vernon_Tennessee clarified and that doesn't seem to be it. Besides you don't need to tell me that an adult will see their parent decline. Since I'm seeing my dad drink himself to death and I saw my mom decline before she died. But I kind of got upset because again, my mom was starting to take a lot of shit out on me, especially by getting very transphobic towards me before she died.

[–] Kolibri@hexbear.net 11 points 2 days ago

Sorry it just seem liked from reading into your post it seemed like a boundary of sorts.

[–] Kolibri@hexbear.net 23 points 2 days ago (11 children)

I legitimately don't care. It seems like the creator of the thread expressed boundaries and his mom can't respect that. Or what, just because his mom is his mom gives his mom excuse to walk all over that?

[–] Kolibri@hexbear.net 22 points 2 days ago (13 children)

Maybe you should grow up. Before my mom died she got extremely transphobic and directed a lot of it at me due to being trans. If I listen to you, I wouldn't have any right to get upset at her for anything she said. And I made it very clear a few times to her that I wasn't going to tolerate her transphobic shit.

[–] Kolibri@hexbear.net 29 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

This is reminding me of a few years ago when this ghoul claimed to have struck at isis-k when really, the u.s killed an aid worker and his family. Just the blatant lying. Yahya Sinwar will be remembered as a hero, and history will remember him as one, not what this ghoul claims he was.

view more: next ›