Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)21:18 No.11002365

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)21:18 No.11002365

can someone explain ? or you don't care ?

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)21:19 No.11002414

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)21:19 No.11002414

Replies: >>11003293

Americans don't see class structures thanks to the way 50s consumerism and "The American Dream" has shaped their psyche. Therefore the politicized middle class does not care while the poor either delude themselves or brood angrily.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)21:21 No.11002480

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)21:21 No.11002480

The "system" effectively quells class struggle. Intentional or not, the "system" is highly effective at this.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)21:25 No.11002596

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)21:25 No.11002596

>>11002067 (OP)
Every single American knows about the class issues and the growing distance between upper and lower and a disappearing middle class. It is just something that we never talk about in the mainstream media because I guess we are all too apathetic or something. I don't know blame the jews or something.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)21:25 No.11002622

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)21:25 No.11002622

Still, racism or sexism are tools used to divide inferior classes. For example, paying less illegal immigrants or women isn't so far in the interest of the working class but it's in the interest of capitalists.
Even trade-unions don't believe in class struggle in America. How can it be ?

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)21:47 No.11003218

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)21:47 No.11003218

File: 1362710859813.jpg-(118 KB, 1000x711, Armed_strikers_ludlow_str(...).jpg)

118 KB JPG

Because of New Left faggotry. We need to bring back the Old Left and their focus on the rights of the working class.

The wealthy elites have already realized class is the only identity politics that matters, the rest of us just have to wake up and acknowledge that too.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)21:50 No.11003293

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)21:50 No.11003293

Replies: >>11004462 >>11009583

File: 1362711017897.jpg-(67 KB, 712x502, tumblr_m48fumv15e1rwuapho(...).jpg)

67 KB JPG

This quote is 100% accurate and the answer to your question.

>>11002414
is related

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)21:51 No.11003327

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)21:51 No.11003327

Because a "class" struggle would unite the masses.

The purpose of the various struggles is to divide and instigate destabilization within society, race, sex, sexuality, anti-theism, etc etc all of which have been outlined within critical theory. If you dont understand the fundamentals of critical theory then todays social unrest would appear to be mere chaos.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)21:52 No.11003350

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)21:52 No.11003350

>Do they truly think that Condoleeza Rice was more oppressed than a random working class white trash ?

Probably. The old leftists never bought into that bullshit, though.

>What social distinction is there between a white and a black deck-hand on a Mississippi steamboat? Is it visible even with the aid of a microscope? They are both slaves, work side by side, sometimes a bunch of black slaves under a white “boss” and at other times a herd of white slaves under a black “boss.” Not infrequently you have to take a second look to tell them apart—but all are slaves and all are humans and all are robbed by their “superior” white brother who attends church, is an alleged follower of Jesus Christ and has a horror of “social equality.” To him “a slave is a slave for a’ that”—when he bargains for labor power he is not generally concerned about the color of the package, but if he is, it is to give the black preference because it can be bought at a lower price in the labor market, in which equality always prevails—the equality of intellectual and social debasement.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)21:54 No.11003410

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)21:54 No.11003410

>>11002067 (OP)
because the American Left are all ivory tower coast liberals who hate the 'lower' class.

Igniting a class war would see them up against the wall as invariably as it would see republicans.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)21:58 No.11003518

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)21:58 No.11003518

Replies: >>11003539 >>11003582 >>11007327

I'm more surprised that modern conservatives and white nationalists hate the idea of unions, even though historically capitalists have been the anti-white race traitors and unions have been the heroic defenders of the white working class.

Pic related.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)21:59 No.11003539

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)21:59 No.11003539

File: 1362711578726.png-(218 KB, 335x318, tonopahunion.png)

218 KB PNG

>>11003518
Forgot my pic.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:01 No.11003582

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:01 No.11003582

>>11003518
because they aren't racists like democrats?

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:01 No.11003590

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:01 No.11003590

Replies: >>11003646 >>11005027

You confuse leftists with liberals. They aren't the same thing.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:03 No.11003646

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:03 No.11003646

Replies: >>11003759 >>11005027

>>11003590
This. Modern "liberals" are the cancer killing the American left, and have been for over 50 years now.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:06 No.11003759

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:06 No.11003759

Replies: >>11005027

>>11003646
because they are not leftists they are bourgeoisie or more likely petty bourgeoisie, they have poisoned the working class struggle with identity politics, which is really just a form of fascism.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:13 No.11003965

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:13 No.11003965

Replies: >>11004404 >>11004581

File: 1362712393694.gif-(5 KB, 150x122, 1sextant.gif)

5 KB GIF

Because the middle class doesn't se itself as the middle class. From the time they can speak, Americans are told to work hard in school, go to a good college, get job, and make lots and lots of money. So they study and they work hard and they make a fairly decent salary, but all without ever approaching the level of wealth experienced by the upper class and yet they continue to believe tat they are a part of the upper class. The reason why this occurs is because the alternative to the go-to-college-make-money plan is be-a-failure-and-flip burgers. Middle class Americans see there as only being two possibly stations in life, high class, and burger class. And rather than acknowledge the rality that they are located somewhere between the two, they choose to identify themselves with the upper class because the lower class carries such a connotation of destitution and failure, and self-identifying with such concepts woul require one to admit having failed in all aspects of life. Meanwhile, the actual lower class is tooo busy working three jobs to feed their five kids to make any attempt to better themselves or expose the imbalance in modern society.

pic unrelated

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:14 No.11004004

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:14 No.11004004

File: 1362712467043.png-(69 KB, 1557x246, unions.png)

69 KB PNG

Liberals have it too easy nowadays and have been brainwashed with identity politics propaganda, which is a distraction from class struggle.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:18 No.11004155

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:18 No.11004155

>>11002067 (OP)
there's no american left, it's a joke the population is almoste entirely brainwashed into right-wing doctrine.

Closest thing to a 1984-esque scheme, much closer than the USSR ever came

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:19 No.11004176

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:19 No.11004176

Replies: >>11004298

The left and liberals here actively dislike the white working class and rural and urban poor.

I had to explain to a class of social justice and sociology majors on my campus today (in my education class these fucks are trying to become teachers) that going on about white privilege is a myth and that going on about crap like this does a disservice to poor whites and gave an example with Appalachian whites. They started hooting and hollering about how it isn't right that whites in congress represent a country that is 30% black. My response was that they were elected by straight, gay, poor, rich, black and white votes, I got glares the entire rest of the day.

These hooligans don't care about you in the least bit unless you are LGBT or colored plain out and simple and they haven't cared since the 1960's when liberals realized they couldn't keep white working class voters and bend over backwards for every new alphabet soup special interest group.

You want to see the proof look up records on how the white working class has voted since the 40's and look at the social policies being enacted.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:19 No.11004195

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:19 No.11004195

>muh working class

People still believe this leftist garbage?

eat shit

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:23 No.11004291

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:23 No.11004291

Replies: >>11004316

Wasn't OWS about classes?

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:23 No.11004298

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:23 No.11004298

Replies: >>11004323 >>11004551

>>11004176
>>11004176
>>11004176
so much this. The left is actively anti-working class. The whole anti-gun thing is a reaction to the culture of interior America.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:24 No.11004316

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:24 No.11004316

>>11004291
it was about middle-class kids wanted their shitty education to get them good jobs.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:24 No.11004323

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:24 No.11004323

Replies: >>11004425 >>11004551 >>11004647

>>11004298
I'm a leftist and I'm not anti-working class. You are confusing leftists with liberals. Stop that.

I also support the right to own guns.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:27 No.11004404

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:27 No.11004404

>>11003965
I tend to think it boils down more to a lack of understanding regarding geography shown by the lower classes.

Anyone of the "Lower Class" could own some land and rapidly throw themselves solidly into the middle class with a bit of savings, because they do not they spiral into a never ending cycle of poverty.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:27 No.11004425

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:27 No.11004425

>>11004323
You are a minority amongst your population.

Speak up more and change those you associate with.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:28 No.11004460

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:28 No.11004460

Replies: >>11004516 >>11004694

Also, if all american left is not liberal does a relevant antiliberal left exist ? And does it have any influence on society ?
For example, France antiliberal left is around 13-14% at elections (trotskists + communists + democratic socialists) and last year 750 000 people demonstrated during May Day. Also, radicals run three big unions (FSU, CGT, Solidaires-SUD). Do american radicals have any influence on working movement ?

btw, thanks for your answers. It's very interesting.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:28 No.11004462

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:28 No.11004462

Replies: >>11004773

>>11003293
>Implying there exists anywhere in the world a real Socialism.

You are deluded to think that what we have now in the world is anything more than various shades of paternal capitalism.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:30 No.11004516

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:30 No.11004516

>>11004460
No, and they will never hold any power until the NLRA is repealed.

Thanks to the way labor relations work in this country we have created a system where the government controls the unions and where the heads of the unions bend over backwards to work with local government.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:31 No.11004551

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:31 No.11004551

>>11004298
Entirely agreed, these people have never handled guns and they don't know a damn thing about them they feel that we shouldn't have them based solely on irrational fear propagated the by the media and their dimwitted boomer parents who grew up in an age when you could check your gun at school because you would go hunting or have marksmanship practice.

>>11004323
The lines are so blurred here in the states man, I'm a socialist and firmly in support of peoples rights to own and use weapons, however I know many seudo left liberals who despise them with every fiber of their being as well as some socialist who think they can be done away with altogether.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:32 No.11004581

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:32 No.11004581

File: 1362713559496.jpg-(9 KB, 295x171, school is for fools.jpg)

9 KB JPG

>>11003965

>to feed their five kids

Did someone force them to have five kids? My pity stops right fucking there. Maybe they should have thought twice before whipping out the dick or opening their legs and having a huge family they couldn't afford--and then maybe they'd have the time and money to invest in themselves.

But no. They don't take their free education (perhaps the greatest gift we could ever give any child) seriously, they drop out of high school 2 years early, collect welfare, and meanwhile complain about how they're downtrodden and abused by the evil rich.

It's true that there are less opportunities for the economically disadvantaged, but it's just as true that there ARE ways out, if only they would take them.

But don't you know? School is for fools.

>note the plasma TV in the background
>proof that money does not solve the problem

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:33 No.11004605

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:33 No.11004605

Replies: >>11004778

>b-b-bit unions are responsible for the middle class, not increases in productivity

fucking lol
fuck your working class
sage

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:33 No.11004617

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:33 No.11004617

>Do they truly think that Condoleeza Rice was more oppressed than a random working class white trash ?


Of course they do

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:34 No.11004647

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:34 No.11004647

>>11004323
east coast? I'm guessing not.

Look at New England vs the rest of the country. You get some idea of how divergent the culture in our country is from presidential elections.

Cosmopolitan coastals vote for democrats. everyone else, republicans of one form or another. A few exceptions for states with very large cities with... demographic anomalies.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:34 No.11004666

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:34 No.11004666

The Cold War poisoned socialist terminology in the U.S. Also everyone thinks of themselves as middle class.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:35 No.11004694

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:35 No.11004694

>>11004460
understand there is no american left. the "liberals" in america are simply another variety of neoliberalism.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:36 No.11004721

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:36 No.11004721

Replies: >>11004865 >>11004936

File: 1362713788129.jpg-(35 KB, 213x257, 1264098820082.jpg)

35 KB JPG

>tfw you want to identify as a Leftist, but hate the LGBT crowd and what government support can do to the working class

I don't believe "well if the poor are starving they should've bootstrapped themselves up into a better job", but when you know women that are third generation (!) single moms...

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:37 No.11004773

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:37 No.11004773

Replies: >>11004829

>>11004462
I think that he meant the socialist movements and not socialism as a economic regime.
The previous comments are pretty much interesting. How can liberals in one hand criticize police and in the other hand support that only governement authority should own guns ?

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:37 No.11004778

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:37 No.11004778

>>11004605
Productivity gap, care to explain how that is not the fault of the collapse of private unions?

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:38 No.11004829

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:38 No.11004829

Replies: >>11005397

>>11004773
My point being you are deluded if you think there has ever been Socialism in this world.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:38 No.11004847

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:38 No.11004847

Replies: >>11005397 >>11006513

>class struggle
I am not a worthless prole. I am an upper middle class professional. Sure, I may not be a capitalist, I have to go to work every morning and new cars and extravagant vacations are a luxury rather than an everyday convenience. But my interests are sure as hell closer to those of the upper class than to those of the working class. The things that benefit an unskilled laborer working for minimum wage are unlikely to benefit me, and if they come out of taxes they are going to cost a lot more to me than to him. At least deregulation and low taxes keep prices low and my income high, fighting to change this would just be stupid.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:39 No.11004865

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:39 No.11004865

>>11004721
I know that feeling. What to do?

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:40 No.11004936

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:40 No.11004936

Replies: >>11005090 >>11005130 >>11005140

>>11004721
Let's start a moderate to conservative party based around the economic ideas of the New Deal, let's put the work back in welfare, build new infrastructure, create programs to make classes more fluid again and make every man a king.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:41 No.11004953

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:41 No.11004953

Unions should have no "rights" and employers should be able to fire people for whatever reason they which.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:42 No.11005027

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:42 No.11005027

>>11003759
>>11003646
>>11003590

wow, 3 good posts in a row.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:44 No.11005079

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:44 No.11005079

because they're sane and dont want to live in poverty?

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:44 No.11005090

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:44 No.11005090

Replies: >>11005501 >>11005596

File: 1362714249198.jpg-(38 KB, 468x334, 1307044418747.jpg)

38 KB JPG

>>11004936
We will rebuild!

...or overthrow the government, resulting in a brutal purge of the ranks that ends with the rise of a dictator entirely alien to the original principles professing himself has a "devout follower" of aforementioned principles...

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:44 No.11005130

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:44 No.11005130

Replies: >>11005248 >>11005501

>>11004936
shit nigga, in your stinking america of today,new deal keynesianism is like saying trotskist left wing revolution killthemall

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:45 No.11005138

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:45 No.11005138

>>11002067 (OP)
because 'left' has no application in America

workers only suck the cock of the federal government (and not local government, private unions, religion)

you basically have a 'fascist democrat' party versus a 'capitalist republican' one.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:45 No.11005140

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:45 No.11005140

Replies: >>11005501

>>11004936
>new deal
>not responsible for the great depression and starvation of millions of americans
lel

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:47 No.11005235

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:47 No.11005235

because our billionaires are jews

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:47 No.11005248

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:47 No.11005248

Replies: >>11005352 >>11005746

>>11005130
One of the most retarded thing I've read on here in a while, considering every president within memory has used Keynesian stimulus.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:48 No.11005313

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:48 No.11005313

Replies: >>11005381 >>11005403

Labor unions are a product of the free market.

In their own self-interest, labor organized to protect their rights. This organization guaranteed them good working conditions and fair pay which in turn increased productivity and attracted good workers to further improve the business. This was spontaneous and occurred without government intervention.

The problem is when the government decides to get involved. Power corrupts.

Unions realized they could become powerful political lobbies. They pushed through labor laws that had nothing to do with their industry, their work, or their union, but merely squeezed their employers for yet more concessions. Now the unions controls who gets a job and who doesn't in certain industries; suddenly, you have to know people again to get a cushy job--people that are already in a union. And so some of them have become as bad as the people they set out to defeat, concerned only with more money for less effort, choking the golden goose to death for one more egg.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:49 No.11005352

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:49 No.11005352

>>11005248
>One of the most retarded thing I've read on here in a while, considering every president within memory has used Keynesian stimulus.
> implying every president since FDR hasn't been a communist shill created by the Jewish conspiracy of alien robots

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:49 No.11005381

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:49 No.11005381

>>11005313
Okay guys, lolbertarian here, I want you to watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54z4SI85WgM

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:50 No.11005397

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:50 No.11005397

Replies: >>11005517 >>11005577

>>11004829
I don't but i think that the seeds of self-management and communism existed in a few moments in History.
>commune of Paris
>1917-1918 revolutionary russia
>1920 revolutionary ukraine
>1936-37 revolutionary spain
>199x-nowadays chiapas
>1968, 1956, arab revolutions (check what's going on at Port-Said)

>>11004847
You are a part of working class aristocracy and still are exploited. You are paid $4000 but how much do you produce ? (considering that $ is a valuable way of counting resources and wealth)

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:50 No.11005403

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:50 No.11005403

Replies: >>11005676 >>11005732

>>11005313
>Unions realized they could become powerful political lobbies.

>implying Gilded Age corporations didn't pioneer this practice

Either you hate all lobbyists or you're a hypocrite.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:51 No.11005501

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:51 No.11005501

Replies: >>11005718

>>11005090
We can do it we can rebuild

>>11005130
True, but it is what everyone deep down in their guts wants, the lack of it is the only thing keeping these "two" parties in office.

>>11005140
Fuck off neoliberal cunt, just because you keep saying it does not make it true.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:52 No.11005517

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:52 No.11005517

Replies: >>11005867

>>11005397
>implying those weren't all authoritarian states

>b-but the workers vanguard

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:53 No.11005577

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:53 No.11005577

Replies: >>11006005

>>11005397

Whats going on in port said?

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:53 No.11005596

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:53 No.11005596

>>11005090
>...or overthrow the government, resulting in a brutal purge of the ranks that ends with the rise of a dictator entirely alien to the original principles professing himself has a "devout follower" of aforementioned principles...

Damn you Oliver Cromwell, you ruined everything.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:54 No.11005661

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:54 No.11005661

Replies: >>11006214 >>11006888

File: 1362714894062.jpg-(17 KB, 200x179, Cerealbuy background.jpg)

17 KB JPG

>>11002067 (OP)
>Why does american left never speak of class struggle ?

Nobody talks about class struggle in the US, because the US does not really have classes. The US never had feudalism. It didn't and doesn't have an aristocracy, as Europe would know it. The people who successfully colonized this land were people like John Rolfe, who were willing to do "dirty" things like plant crops and work the soil, which that most nobles and aristocrats of the time would never do. The country was founded on the rejection of the idea that if your father was a serf then you must be one as well. Instead we believe in the Horatio Alger's idea of rags to riches. While this may not actually happen all that much in practice, it's still accepted as possible.

There's fully a divide between rich and poor, make no mistake. But deep down there's the acceptance that you can jump that divide with enough work.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:55 No.11005676

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:55 No.11005676

Replies: >>11005832

>>11005403
They are the most powerful lobbies you fucktard.

Private ones drove almost every american car company out of business. Public ones have bankrupted most of the states and cities they can sink their claws in.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:55 No.11005718

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:55 No.11005718

>>11005501
>neoliberal
haha those guys are a bunch of socialists

Quit apologizing for all those killed in the great depression lefty.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:56 No.11005732

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:56 No.11005732

>>11005403

I absolutely hate all lobbyists. Corporations are even worse than big labor. Have you seen the money the pharmacy industry spends on Washington and pushing the FDA every which way it wants to go?

I work in a pharmacy, by the way. Shit's fucking ridiculous. Not only are all the drug regulations fucked up, but medicare and medicaid are fucked to hell.

Back on topic, thanks to big labor having Washington pass labor laws, I can't work more than 40 hours a week unless I get paid overtime. On top of that, it's not even worth it to work overtime because of the increased taxes unless I get more than 4 hours extra. I'm young, I want to work hard and make money, and most of my bosses really like me and say I do good work, but my employer has an incentive to hire 500 part-timers rather than give me more time because it's cheaper.

I can't make the labor bargain I want to make because laws pushed through by unions to enhance their $30 an hour jobs fuck over the little guy just starting out (i.e., me).

Don't believe me? Check 60%+ unemployment in the US for people between the ages of 18-25

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:56 No.11005746

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:56 No.11005746

Replies: >>11005857 >>11005878

>>11005248
Yeah but big corporations make sure the people think that anything even remotely intervening the economy is bad.

what's retarded is that you don't realize the country's brainwashed

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:58 No.11005832

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:58 No.11005832

>>11005676
>Private ones drove almost every american car company out of business.

>2013
>actually believing this bullshit

I bet you think unions put Hostess out of business too, right?

>Public ones have bankrupted most of the states and cities they can sink their claws in.

I agree, cop and firefighters unions are greedy fucks who should be shut down. Ask Stockton, Vallejo, etc. who put them into bankruptcy, the cops and firefighters, or the teachers.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:59 No.11005857

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:59 No.11005857

>>11005746
>big corporations make sure the people think that anything even remotely intervening the economy is bad

Big corporations are some of the biggest lobbyists for government regulation and intervention. See: Big Pharma screaming and kicking whenever the issue of drug patents and generic drugs come up.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:59 No.11005867

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:59 No.11005867

>>11005517
They were not authoritarian state, if you knew a little bit about working class/social movements history you would have known that, actually, a lot of radicals criticized the lack of authority in these insurrections. Marx said that they have been crushed because the workers' vanguard organized refused to set on proletariats dictartorship.
Personnaly, i don't believe in proletariat dictatorship but this can be debated. In my union (i am a student and also work part-time in railroads) i have no problems struggling side by side with marxists-leninists.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)22:59 No.11005878

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)22:59 No.11005878

Replies: >>11006071

>>11005746
America is so retarded that they dont realize that the bailout was so interventionist of the economy that not even communist ussr rusia would have dared use it

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:01 No.11005942

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:01 No.11005942

Replies: >>11006214

People still believe unions bring people out of poverty?

Seriously? Are you economic illiterates seriously this retarded?


>b-b-but muh feelings, muh surplus labour, economics is racist!!!

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:02 No.11006005

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:02 No.11006005

>>11005577
Army, police and local governors have been kicked out. Since a few days, precarious but however true workers' and neighborhoods councils have emerged. A general strike is going on.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:03 No.11006054

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:03 No.11006054

Replies: >>11006598

Protip:
It's theoretically impossible for unions to do anything at all to improve the conditions of the working class, living standard improvements and lower working times come from increases in production. You know, more products and services for people? It's common sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54z4SI85WgM

>but why have wages stagnated
Government controls, usa's world reserve currency, fiat money, massive inflation etc

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:03 No.11006071

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:03 No.11006071

>>11005878
>govt and bank collusion fucks over millions of families
>HEY LETS GIVE YOUR TAX MONEY TO BANKS
>wait... wouldn't it be better to give it to the people who got fucked over and let those terrible banks fail
>NO BAILOUTS BAILOUTS BAILOUTS

welcome to realpolitik.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:07 No.11006214

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:07 No.11006214

Replies: >>11006350 >>11006362 >>11009289 >>11009581

>>11005942
Not all unions but unioning is a tool to set a balance of power to get rights, better wages, share work, etc.

>>11005661
As you said, they believe but it's not truly a fact. Even OECD says that America is in term of social mobility one of the worst country ever. By the way, the fact that 1/100 poor can become billionaire if he has a great idea or some shit like that doesn't justify the exploitation of others. And billions that he would earn would be mainly stolen from his workingmen.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:11 No.11006350

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:11 No.11006350

>>11006214
>Not all unions but unioning is a tool to set a balance of power to get rights, better wages, share work, etc.

Well not really, actually pure market competition of labour will increase wages more than unions would.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:11 No.11006362

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:11 No.11006362

Replies: >>11006486

>>11006214

>And billions that he would earn would be mainly stolen from his workingmen
>stolen from his workingmen
>stolen

False premises? There goes your argument.

For a detailed analysis of why the labor theory of value is bullshit:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/#3

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:13 No.11006415

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:13 No.11006415

>>11002067 (OP)
>Why does american left never speak of class struggle ?

Because the American Left are wealthy / rich upper-class, who complain about feelings since they have nothing else to complain about.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:14 No.11006486

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:14 No.11006486

>>11006362
>For a detailed analysis of why the labor theory of value is bullshit:
>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/#3


>b-b-but muh durplus labour muh working class

;.;

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:15 No.11006513

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:15 No.11006513

Replies: >>11006558

>>11004847
first against the wall

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:16 No.11006558

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:16 No.11006558

>>11006513
>first against the wall
enjoy being an angry brainwashed pleb

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:17 No.11006598

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:17 No.11006598

Replies: >>11006726 >>11007149

>>11006054
>Protip:
>It's theoretically impossible for unions to do anything at all to improve the conditions of the working class, living standard improvements and lower working times come from increases in production. You know, more products and services for people? It's common sense.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54z4SI85WgM

Wow a 15 minute lecture from a basement dweller. Thanks for proving incontrovertibly that Unions contributed nothing to america with this brilliant argument.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:20 No.11006710

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:20 No.11006710

Replies: >>11006931

File: 1362716442531.jpg-(131 KB, 600x461, march-of-tyranny-far-right.jpg)

131 KB JPG

They're controlled opposition

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:21 No.11006726

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:21 No.11006726

Replies: >>11006963 >>11007149

>>11006598
>no actual rebuttal

Where would the extra resources to give to all these workers come from?
it has to exist first

idiot

things have to be produced before they can be consumed, its a fact of reality, the rich arent hiding anything from you

you're blaming the wrong thing for your ills

wake up

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:25 No.11006888

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:25 No.11006888

Replies: >>11006977 >>11009289

>>11005661
Bullshit. America imported the old British aristocracy in the form of Crown Corporations.

You think the fucking lords who shooed settlers off of their lands to make room for the Virginia Company weren't aristocrats? Whose tea do you suppose was dumped in the harbors at Boston?

Of course there was a class element in America, there has been since the beginning.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:26 No.11006931

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:26 No.11006931

>>11006710
is this the explanation of why both the ussr and the us goverment have been accused of being a "jew puppet" (and both cultures are strongly anti-semitic)

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:27 No.11006963

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:27 No.11006963

Replies: >>11007119

>>11006726
>Where would the extra resources to give to all these workers come from?

The capitalists.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:27 No.11006977

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:27 No.11006977

Replies: >>11007039

>>11006888
yes they were against the government granting monopolies and government controlling land and giving it to whoever they want

the founders wanted capitalism instead of mercantilism/fascism/socialism

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:29 No.11007039

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:29 No.11007039

Replies: >>11007119

>>11006977
>founders wanted capitalism
Capitalism was invented in the fucking mid-1800s with the onset of the industrial revolution.

Also, capitalism is not a synonym for freedom

Also a people who kept slaves to produce the wealth they consumed, while highly capitalist, do not care about freedom

Go back to LvMI

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:30 No.11007082

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:30 No.11007082

>Why does american left never speak of class struggle?

Because all of the politicians on the left are just as rich as the ones on the right.

If they started talking about the poor rising up against the rich, they would be creating enemies for themselves.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:30 No.11007089

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:30 No.11007089

Replies: >>11007149 >>11007368

Your whole argument hinges on the idea that the goods produced in an economy are somehow exogenous and unaffected by the bargaining power of various parties in society.

That's a foolish assumption, and everything you build upon it is equally foolish.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:31 No.11007119

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:31 No.11007119

Replies: >>11007188 >>11007211

>>11006963
>The capitalists.
lol but they dont actually have anything when were talking about resources

they may have slightly bigger houses but thats it?

what you want their money?

thats the money that is used to grow the economy

those consumer goods dont actually exist

money does not equal consumer goods

Bottom line is all resources the workers produce they actually fucking consume. The capitalist is irrelevant.
What we need is more production through capital investment.

>>11007039
>Also, capitalism is not a synonym for freedom
Sure, but "free market" is. A free market is just what naturally happens when the government goes away.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:32 No.11007149

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:32 No.11007149

>>11007089
was meant for >>11006726
>>11006598

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:33 No.11007188

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:33 No.11007188

Replies: >>11007243 >>11007368

>>11007119
>lol but they dont actually have anything when were talking about resources
They own all of the fucking productive machinery. They own the factories and shipping containers and land mines and utilities and everything else.

And we're not talking about "a free market", we're talking about capitalism.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:34 No.11007211

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:34 No.11007211

Replies: >>11007337 >>11007368

>>11007119
>A free market is just what naturally happens when the government goes away.

That is an incredible display of ignorance. The capitalist system grew and developed alongside the state. Capitalism can't exist without the state.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:35 No.11007243

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:35 No.11007243

>>11007188
>land mines
I meant "land and mines", the State owns all the land mines.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:37 No.11007327

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:37 No.11007327

>>11003518
May have used to be that way, but the huge unions now are jewified corrupted husks of what they used to be.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:37 No.11007337

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:37 No.11007337

Replies: >>11007432

>>11007211
a free market, by which I mean a free market and not A Free Market, is not capitalism or even remotely capitalistic.

a free market, properly envisioned, should (in a society of our size and labor division level) come out to be some sort of roughly credit-based economy with a strong gift economy element (particularly in terms of "intellectual labor")

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:38 No.11007368

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:38 No.11007368

Replies: >>11007439 >>11007525 >>11007597 >>11008210

>>11007188
>They own all of the fucking productive machinery. They own the factories and shipping containers and land mines and utilities and everything else.


YES

YOU CANT EAT FACTORIES CAN YOU?
That's my point, its not consumer goods.

Capitalists have nothing for you. They do nothing but improve your living standards.

>>11007211
>The capitalist system grew and developed alongside the state. Capitalism can't exist without the state.
This is what brainwashed leftists actually believe.

Actually whenever the state went away, markets formed. All real anarchist societies in history were anarcho capitalist.

http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm

Does this upset you?

>>11007089
>Your whole argument hinges on the idea that the goods produced in an economy are somehow exogenous and unaffected by the bargaining power of various parties in society.
Actually the only thing unions and bargaining power can really do in the power is destroy production.

Look at detroit if you want to see unions in action.

AnarchoCapitalist
03/07/13(Thu)23:40 No.11007432

AnarchoCapitalist 03/07/13(Thu)23:40 No.11007432

>>11007337
MUTUALIST DETECTED

YOU ARE A MASSIVE FA-
Pretty cool guy, but you're still wrong on some things.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:40 No.11007439

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:40 No.11007439

Replies: >>11007498

>>11007368
>Look at detroit if you want to see unions in action.

Detroit is screwed because of Civil/Public unions, jackass.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:42 No.11007498

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:42 No.11007498

>>11007439
phhhttt, economically its almost the same thing

All unions really do is take jobs away from poorer people.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:42 No.11007525

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:42 No.11007525

Replies: >>11007704

>>11007368
>YOU CANT EAT FACTORIES CAN YOU?
>That's my point, its not consumer goods.
you're missing the point.

Factories produce consumer goods.

Capitalists demand a hefty share OF these consumer goods (in the form of the money that buys them)

Capitalists get away with this because they, amd they alone, have the machinery which produces wealth. They can take their shovel and go home; no more holes get dug, even if they aren't the ones doing any digging.

If the workers have the shovels, the workers can cut out the capitalists

Therefore, the total produced wealth of society will go to those who made it, and not to those who use their ability to deprive access to others to extort a living without producing.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:44 No.11007597

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:44 No.11007597

Replies: >>11007777

>>11007368
>Actually whenever the state went away, markets formed
Most anthropologic accounts suggest that money was directly invented by States. States create markets, and in the absence of States these markets merely PERSIST.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:48 No.11007704

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:48 No.11007704

Replies: >>11007909

>>11007525
>Capitalists demand a hefty share OF these consumer goods
What? Themselves, personally?
No, not really.

> (in the form of the money that buys them)
The money they get from profits does NOT go to their personal consumption, this is good, it means those resources are not being used by society and that money can be used to increase production.

>Capitalists get away with this because they, amd they alone, have the machinery which produces wealth.
Because they were workers who underconsumed for years and had amazing ideas and planned the structure of production.

>If the workers have the shovels, the workers can cut out the capitalists
lol no they can't labour is worthless without economic planning of the structure of production
if the workers got a hold it and "voted" on what to do it would quickly break down
but the funny thing is worker can do this if they wanted to, they just chose not to because its a difficult job

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:50 No.11007777

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:50 No.11007777

Replies: >>11007964

>>11007597
> States create markets, and in the absence of States these markets merely PERSIST.

but thats totally bullshit and anthropological evidence shows many prestatist cultures having currency, court systems etc

if you look at the link it shows many anti-statist societies and they were ALL ancap

socialism requires a state
except mutualism, but that would quickly turn into anarcho capitalism

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:54 No.11007909

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:54 No.11007909

Replies: >>11008338 >>11008426

>>11007704
>What? Themselves, personally? No, not really.
I guess millions of dollars a year in personal income doesn't amount to much.

>The money they get from profits does NOT go to their personal consumption, this is good, it means those resources are not being used by society and that money can be used to increase production.
Actually, much of it IS, albeit in the form of extremely luxurious working conditions, expense accounts, and other personal benefits which are billed as company expenses.

>Because they were workers who underconsumed for years and had amazing ideas and planned the structure of production.
Primitive accumulation is a bourgeois nursery tale. Statistically speaking the number one indicator of entrepreneurial success is "recieved a large gift or inheritance"; the idea that they switched to Top Ramen and saved their paychecks until a multinational corporation was amassed in their savings accounts is a lie someone told you.

>lol no they can't labour is worthless without economic planning of the structure of production
You'd have been a fan of this place called the USSR, they thought the same thing.
>if the workers got a hold it and "voted" on what to do it would quickly break down
Actually all empirical evidence suggests that cooperative workplaces are more stable and resilient.
>but the funny thing is worker can do this if they wanted to, they just chose not to because its a difficult job
no, they can't, because they lack access to the necessary capital. That's the point. That's why they want to seize the factories.

Anonymous
03/07/13(Thu)23:55 No.11007964

Anonymous 03/07/13(Thu)23:55 No.11007964

Replies: >>11008621

>>11007777
>but thats totally bullshit and anthropological evidence shows many prestatist cultures having currency
Rarely, and in all such instances this "currency" is primarily a social token, used for settling blood feuds or arranging marriages. Certainly not for obtaining food or clothing.

Go ahead and name a culture. Name one culture that had money before it had a State.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:03 No.11008210

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:03 No.11008210

Replies: >>11008621

>>11007368
>>Your whole argument hinges on the idea that the goods produced in an economy are somehow exogenous and unaffected by the bargaining power of various parties in society.
>Actually the only thing unions and bargaining power can really do in the power is destroy production.
unsupported assertion

>>11007368
>Look at detroit if you want to see unions in action.
Sure, buddy. All of detroit's problems are due to the unions. I'll just take your word for it.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:06 No.11008338

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:06 No.11008338

Replies: >>11008615 >>11008657

>>11007909
>I guess millions of dollars a year in personal income doesn't amount to much.
They don't CONSUME that many resources. Not only is this physically impossible for them personally but economically impossible because if they waste all their money their firm will fail.

On top of all of this, in a free market the capitalist would have much less profit.

>Actually, much of it IS
lololol fuck no, they may have a slightly bigger house than the rest of us, but they can only eat 3 meals a day.
We're talking about resources they actually consume. Not how much money they make.

>bourgeois
hahaha oh god never use that word again in a political debate

>Statistically speaking the number one indicator of entrepreneurial success is "recieved a large gift or inheritance";
bullshit dude, the vast majority started from the bottom up, even if you disagree their parents who gave them this money were originally labourers.

>You'd have been a fan of this place called the USSR, they thought the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
lol wait you think labour is valuable without having capital and having resources planned efficiently. If this does not occur nothing will be produced to meet the demands of society
>Actually all empirical evidence suggests that cooperative workplaces are more stable and resilient.
If this wishful thinking were true they would clearly outcompete capitalist firms

>no, they can't, because they lack access to the necessary capital.
haha holy shit, this isn't true, all firms started from the ground up by saving money.
and no only a certain percentage of society is intelligent enough to plan the structure of production. Also most people don't want to do this because it's too much time and effort.

>That's why they want to seize the factories.
Well fuck them.
and no they dont only naive socialists do

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:08 No.11008426

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:08 No.11008426

Replies: >>11008651

>>11007909
Anyway, do you understand my point, if the workers gained control of the firm and magically got all the profits, not only would the firm fail from not being able to compete with firms who don't waste their money.

But they would not benefit at all due to no new resources being created for society.

99.9% of the resources the workers are creating get consumed BY THEM.

What more do the capitalists have that you want? nothing.

because if you take their money it wont buy you anything

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:13 No.11008615

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:13 No.11008615

Replies: >>11008736

>>11008338
I can't even with you

http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/3252.html
There's a source on the "gift or inheritance" bit.

http://www.ilo.org/empent/Publications/WCMS_108416/lang--en/index.htm
There's a source (there are PLENTY more) on the resilience of cooperatives

I'm not going to engage you in a dialogue on theory if you're not even square on the facts.

You've already acknowledged ITT that our economy is no free market, and yet you dismiss arguments about capitalism on the grounds that "the free market wouldn't allow it". WHAT free market? Remember how we don't have one?

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:13 No.11008621

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:13 No.11008621

Replies: >>11008857 >>11009155

>>11008210
>unsupported assertion
lol its not unsupported, all they can do is whine and complain and maybe use the state to force the business to give up more of its profits to the union
not only does this destroy production but it creates a barrier for new employees to join that firm
also unions are lazy

>All of detroit's problems are due to the unions.
No but most of them are.

>>11007964
>social token
lol what does that even mean

>Certainly not for obtaining food or clothing.
lol bull fucking shit you're making excuses

anthropological evidence shows it wasn't used for that, it was fucking everywhere and used for everything
why?
because currency is a way of facilitating trade, it benefits all.

>Go ahead and name a culture. Name one culture that had money before it had a State.
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/dedicating-a-lifetime-to-ancient-site-of-aslantepe.aspx?pageID=238&nid=28104

Your worldview is bunk. Snap out of it.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:14 No.11008651

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:14 No.11008651

Replies: >>11008919

>>11008426
>not only would the firm fail from not being able to compete with firms who don't waste their money.
Why is it a waste for the workers to get the profits, if it's not a waste for the capitalist to get the profits. This doesn't make any sense on its own terms.>>11008426
>But they would not benefit at all due to no new resources being created for society.
When it comes to the workers at that one factory, it's hard to see how they would not benefit from recieving the profits, since they would now command additional purchasing power.

>>11008426
>What more do the capitalists have that you want? nothing.
Control over capital and decisions about production?

>>11008426
>because if you take their money it wont buy you anything
You seem to be entirely delusional there. In the case of a single factory, it's entirely unambiguous that the workers would gain by having the profits on top of their wages.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:14 No.11008657

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:14 No.11008657

Replies: >>11008958

>>11008338
>haha holy shit, this isn't true, all firms started from the ground up by saving money.
Or massive acts of theft, conquest, and corruption
http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:16 No.11008736

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:16 No.11008736

Replies: >>11009015

>>11008615
So youre not going to respond to the other things I said which destroy your ideology.

"You've already acknowledged ITT that our economy is no free market, and yet you dismiss arguments about capitalism on the grounds that "the free market wouldn't allow it". WHAT free market? Remember how we don't have one?

Oh wait youre a mutalist or whatever that thinks the reason coop firms are not the dominant firm is because we arent a free market

I think thats really cute,

yeeeaah all those small businesses that everyone starts out arent coops because of crony capîtalism, riiight.

Extremely doubtful. Its not even that difficult to make a cooperative firm yet nobody does it because its very inefficient

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:20 No.11008857

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:20 No.11008857

Replies: >>11009160

>>11008621
>lol what does that even mean
Wampum for example was traded between families to arrange marriages but was not exchanged for consumables. We call it "money" but it isn't.

Also I followed your link, the article mentions nothing about money but it DOES mention that the site being excavated is estimated to be a government center for the ancient culture meaning even if they DID find money it wouldn't prove your point.

David Graeber, a well-respected anthropologist, recently wrote a book on the origins of money and commerce called "Debt", which echoes arguments made (and ignored by economists) as far back as a hundred years ago; all, and I mean ALL, anthropological evidence points to a progression of
Gift economy > credit economy > currency economy, with the last almost universally arising alongside governments.

Get your facts straight.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:22 No.11008919

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:22 No.11008919

Replies: >>11009713

>>11008651
>Why is it a waste for the workers to get the profits, if it's not a waste for the capitalist to get the profits.
because the workers usually spend their money right away
But what im really trying to say is that you're asking for MORE money than the firm is able to produce, so other firms who dont waste resources on this will be able to offer lower prices and higher quality and destroy your worker owned firm.

>When it comes to the workers at that one factory, it's hard to see how they would not benefit from recieving the profits, since they would now command additional purchasing power.
Do you not realize what I'm saying?

Money does not equal consumer goods. Its just a means to acquire goods.
If all the workers in ALL firm took the profits from the firm there would be nothing to more to buy. youd be in the same exact position you were before, but a lot worse because you destroyed the people who were efficiently planning the structure of production

>Control over capital and decisions about production?
Then fuck you. The consumers/society should be in control of production, not you losers.

>You seem to be entirely delusional there. In the case of a single factory, it's entirely unambiguous that the workers would gain by having the profits on top of their wages.
MONEY DOES NOT EQUAL CONSUMER GOODS

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:24 No.11008958

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:24 No.11008958

Replies: >>11009203

>>11008657
>Or massive acts of theft, conquest, and corruption
Lol really all the companies you see in the yellow pages came from violent acts and crony capitalism?
The ones on the very top did, but clearly not the vast majority.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:25 No.11009015

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:25 No.11009015

Replies: >>11009087 >>11009310

>>11008736
>So youre not going to respond to the other things I said which destroy your ideology.
Engaging in ideological debate is pointless until you get your facts straight, it's like arguing gun control with someone who thinks guns kill 60 billion people per year.

I can't engage your "ideas" if they're grounded on wishes and fairy dust.

So far you refuse to acknowledge:
Historical evidence that violence is at the heart of the formation of inequalities in capital distribution
Anthropological evidence that money and markets do not precede the State
Empirical research suggesting that cooperative firms are more resilient than hierarchies

You want me to engage your ramblings about how "the workers would fuck up the company" and you can't even build that on a firm empirical basis because the evidence contradicts it.

Get your facts straight, do some reading, and if you still believe that capitalism is what freedom looks like, come back and I'll be happy to engage you further.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:28 No.11009087

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:28 No.11009087

>>11009015
I'm a democrat so tell me what I want to hear not how it really is

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:29 No.11009155

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:29 No.11009155

Replies: >>11009366 >>11009481

>>11008621
>lol its not unsupported, all they can do is whine and complain and maybe use the state to force the business to give up more of its profits to the union

and why not? The state protects the property and contracts of the capitalists.

You continue to ignore my point that the nature of production is not exogenous to the relative bargaining power of different segments of society. Changing the balance of bargaining power will change the distribution of income. Changed distribution of income will change the demand for goods produced. That, in turn will alter the structure of production, which goods are produced, how they are produced, etc.

There is reason to believe that in the long term, a change in the bargaining power of the working classes could alter significantly their standard of living.

>not only does this destroy production but it creates a barrier for new employees to join that firm

You haven't established how produciton is destroyed by sharing more profits with the workers.

>also unions are lazy
Oh I'm sure that's well supported in the lolbertarian literature.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:30 No.11009160

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:30 No.11009160

Replies: >>11009506

>>11008857
>Wampum for example was traded between families to arrange marriages but was not exchanged for consumables. We call it "money" but it isn't.
But all these ancient societies did use money, for fucking everything. Wait, you think they bartered for everything? Or they somehow shared everything? A market is what a society is.
>Also I followed your link, the article mentions nothing about money but it DOES mention that the site being excavated is estimated to be a government center for the ancient culture meaning even if they DID find money it wouldn't prove your point.
Alright there's evidence that it was a stateless society but I cannot find the link.

Here's some more examples.
www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_10_3_04_thompson.pdf
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_16_04_01_mayor.pdf

>David Graeber, a well-respected anthropologist, recently wrote a book on the origins of money and commerce called "Debt", which echoes arguments made (and ignored by economists) as far back as a hundred years ago; all, and I mean ALL, anthropological evidence points to a progression of
Gift economy > credit economy > currency economy, with the last almost universally arising alongside governments.

Then he would be fucking wrong, you do know there are many disagreements in anthropology.

Bottom line is that these societies had currency, trade, police, judges and obviously private property.

Why? because it benefits them

ALSO there were many more examples in the past 1000 years of anarchy being anarchocapitalism even in america, check the link
royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:31 No.11009203

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:31 No.11009203

Replies: >>11009522

>>11008958
>all the companies in the yellow pages

Hey do you remember posting some apologia about how the success stories that inherited their wealth got it FROM people who worked hard?

Did you ever consider that wealth accumulated in the past affects wealth distribution in the present?

Did you know they did a study in the UK and you can accurately predict wealth gaps just by looking at last names?

Come on.

Your arguments are inconsistent. Your apologetics contradict each other but you can't see it because you don't argue beyond the individual point in question.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:33 No.11009289

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:33 No.11009289

File: 1362720834968.jpg-(3 KB, 126x114, Cerealguy back.jpg)

3 KB JPG

>>11006888
> America imported the old British aristocracy in the form of Crown Corporations.
>You think the fucking lords who shooed settlers off of their lands to make room for the Virginia Company weren't aristocrats? Whose tea do you suppose was dumped in the harbors at Boston?
That only supports my point. Opposition to the vestiges of such aristocracy is exactly what founded the country.

>>11006214
But regardless of social mobility, America is very much a classless society as far as traditional class roles are concerned. America has a wealthy elite, but not aristocrats. America has plenty of poor, but we don't have peasants. What defines you as rich or poor in the American mind is the purely amount of wealth you own, not who you are or how old your family is.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:34 No.11009310

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:34 No.11009310

>>11009015
>Engaging in ideological debate is pointless until you get your facts straight
lol WHAT?
So you nitpick one tiny thing and therefore all the other argument which destroy your ideology are wrong?

>Historical evidence that violence is at the heart of the formation of inequalities in capital distribution
No, I agree, and this is all due to the state, economic controls and central banking.
>Anthropological evidence that money and markets do not precede the State
fucking lel, so much wishful thinking
>Empirical research suggesting that cooperative firms are more resilient than hierarchies
What empirical research? Why don't they outcompete capitalist firms? There's much of our economic which is still deregulated. Why the fuck can't they outcompete capitalist firms. Stop making excuses.

>"the workers would fuck up the company"
Do you actually think all "the workers" voting on what to produce would be better for meeting the needs of consumers than a team of highly skilled professional that went to school for years or are simply highly adept at planning the structure of production? lel

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:36 No.11009366

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:36 No.11009366

>>11009155
You don't believe in contracts and personal property, do you

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:39 No.11009481

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:39 No.11009481

>>11009155
>Changing the balance of bargaining power will change the distribution of income.
MONEY DOES NOT EQUAL CONSUMER GOODS YOU FUCKING SILLY IDIOT

Wow you're really not getting this, we're talking about common sense shit here.

Forget bargaining power and all that marxist garbage. Will giving the workers more of the firms money improve their living standards one bit? Maybe for like a week or so until you run out of consumer goods. Al the resources the workers were already consuming still exist, NO NEW RESOURCES WILL BE CREATED. The workers are in the same exact position they were before.

>There is reason to believe that in the long term, a change in the bargaining power of the working classes could alter significantly their standard of living.
Im sorry to break this to you but whining does not create more resources for everyone.

>You haven't established how produciton is destroyed by sharing more profits with the workers.
The firm has less money to produce?

>Oh I'm sure that's well supported in the lolbertarian literature.
They are fucking lazy.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:40 No.11009506

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:40 No.11009506

Replies: >>11009620

>>11009160
>But all these ancient societies did use money, for fucking everything. Wait, you think they bartered for everything?
Barter societies are something Adam Smith pulled out of his ass.
>Or they somehow shared everything?
It's called a gift economy, they are well-documented, and YES.
>Harappan
A very interesting paper on public goods, however the urbanization was linked to trade with mesopotamia... And the mesopotamian governments verifiably DID coin money, for the purposes of administering temple resources and trade, which exogenously introduces it.
That's sort of me moving the goalpost, I know, but I don't find the evidence that the Harappans INVENTED money for their own purposes very compelling. Still, even if we cede the point, it's definitely a rarity in the anthropological longview.
>Then he would be fucking wrong, you do know there are many disagreements in anthropology.
Actually the credit theory of money is WIDELY regarded as accurate by everyone except economists.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:41 No.11009522

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:41 No.11009522

>>11009203
>Did you ever consider that wealth accumulated in the past affects wealth distribution in the present?
Very very fucking little when it comes to the average businesses you come in contract with in everyday life. The vast majority of companies in the yellow pages came from your average joe starting a company.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:42 No.11009581

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:42 No.11009581

Replies: >>11009761

File: 1362721378220.png-(98 KB, 900x900, Cereal Guy in HD.png)

98 KB PNG

>>11006214
>By the way, the fact that 1/100 poor can become billionaire if he has a great idea or some shit like that doesn't justify the exploitation of others. And billions that he would earn would be mainly stolen from his workingmen.

"The machine, the frozen form of a living intelligence, is the power that expands the potential of your life by raising the productivity of your time. If you worked as a blacksmith in the mystics' Middle Ages, the whole of your earning capacity would consist of an iron bar produced by your hands in days and days of effort. How many tons of rail do you produce per day if you work in a modern factory? Would you dare to claim that the size of your pay check was created solely by your physical labor and that those rails were the product of your muscles? The standard of living of that blacksmith is all that your muscles are worth; the rest is a gift from the industrialist."

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:43 No.11009583

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:43 No.11009583

Replies: >>11009656

>>11003293

I love this quote, because Steinbeck captures that spirit of hope held by even the poorest Americans, some of that drive and unbridled optimism that's unique to America, they don't victimize themselves and bleat about "proletariat exploitation" or "class struggle" whilst infantilizing themselves to the state as their paternalistic savior, as is the European fashion, they imagine that their poverty is just a temporary setback, that they can be a millionaire one of these days if they bust their asses or get lucky or seize an opportunity.


Nobody who knows real poverty is a socialist, it ironically seems to be the case that the further removed one is from the "working class" or the very act of "working" itself (students, intellectuals, union supremos, etcetera) the more one is likely to loudly proclaim that they are "socialists" or "for the workers" or "fighting for the proletariat" No "socialist workers revolution" in history was organized by the actual workers, but by demagogues and political radicals.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:43 No.11009596

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:43 No.11009596

>American left

>American
>left

Their left wing, is what we call the moderate right wing.

They don't have an actual left wing. They are two brands of right-wingers, conservatives and liberals, both capitalist with similar ideals, that fight over the presidency and thus personal interest.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:44 No.11009620

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:44 No.11009620

Replies: >>11009746 >>11009942

>>11009506
>Barter societies are something Adam Smith pulled out of his ass.
This is hilarious. You're directly opposed to the anthropological evidence. They USED currency for everything.

It's fucking hilarious you think the state is somehow responsible for markets. People will naturally trade without a state which inevitably leads to currency. They do this because it benefits them.

What a sad sheltered life you must live.

I guess all those stateless societies in medieval iceland, medieval ireland and the american midwest who were anarcho-capitalists through and through didn't happen

lel

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:45 No.11009656

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:45 No.11009656

>>11009583
>Not realising that steinbeck was mocking the American dream and the delusions of a working class that trully believes it won't work into its grave.

You are taking his sarcasm literally, which coincidentally is a symptom of autism.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:47 No.11009713

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:47 No.11009713

Replies: >>11009927

File: 1362721651761.jpg-(45 KB, 464x275, 1354772106561.jpg)

45 KB JPG

>>11008919
>>Why is it a waste for the workers to get the profits, if it's not a waste for the capitalist to get the profits.
>because the workers usually spend their money right away
Libertarians usually argue that it's fine for people to spend their cash as they see fit, but whatever. If that's how you want to roll, I don't see how I can judge you.

>>11008919
>But what im really trying to say is that you're asking for MORE money than the firm is able to produce, so other firms who dont waste resources on this will be able to offer lower prices and higher quality and destroy your worker owned firm.

So you are forced to assume that the workers will 'eat their seed corn' once they control the factory? I could just as well say that firms that don't waste money on distributing profits to owners and upper management will be out-competed by workers cooperatives.

>>11008919
>If all the workers in ALL firm took the profits from the firm there would be nothing to more to buy. youd be in the same exact position you were before, but a lot worse because you destroyed the people who were efficiently planning the structure of production

If all the workers in all the firms took the profits from the firms, there would be a large gain for the workers as a group, but only a small one for each worker, since they would now each control some of the purchasing power formerly held by capitalists. The real change would come over time as the structure of production changes to privilege the goods, services, and working conditions demanded by the newly dominant workers. Production would be diverted from production of mansions, luxury goods and household servants towards other things.


tb continued...

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:48 No.11009746

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:48 No.11009746

Replies: >>11009978

>>11009620
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron, but more importantly, standards of value happen to have coinceded with the ancient states of slave-owning societies.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:49 No.11009761

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:49 No.11009761

Replies: >>11009817 >>11009968 >>11009978

>>11009581
>The standard of living of that blacksmith is all that your muscles are worth; the rest is a gift from the industrialist
There's a brilliant Karl Marx quote about land's contribution to production that I can't recall

but essentially the gist is "yes, land contributes, but to ask an economist you'd think it got up on two legs and walked about. We ask what the LANDLORD contributes".

Noting that technological advancements in capital machinery increase wealth production capability proves nothing. The capitalist is not the factory, he is the one with the title to it.

The factory increases production just as much if it is deeded to the worker. The question is not what does CAPITAL contribute, it is WHAT DOES THE CAPITALIST CONTRIBUTE?

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:51 No.11009795

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:51 No.11009795

>>11002067 (OP)
because they don't want people to unite on a class based level because then the common man would have more powah

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:52 No.11009817

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:52 No.11009817

>>11009761
Low case letters my friend.

Next you'll try to explain to them how the free-market has fuck all to do with capitalism or socialism.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:56 No.11009927

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:56 No.11009927

File: 1362722180847.jpg-(261 KB, 822x1024, 1350192837495.jpg)

261 KB JPG

>>11009713
>Production would be diverted from production of mansions, luxury goods and household servants towards other things.

Oh god oh god oh god lol
You really think a few "mansions" and yachts are the reason less consumer goods are being produced for society and going towards the super rich capitalists? Lol oh god really?

Protip: If we took the amount of resources produced by the economy. The amount consumed by the super rich capitalists is a drop in the fucking bucket compared to the amount consumed by the rest of us. Yes this is a fact.

Why would you even care? They're doing you and society a massive service? Do you not think it's good that the market creates massive incentives for innovators and producers which increase wealth for us all? If some bro saves his money and wants to create a space elevator is that bad?

I have to sleep now, but the rest of your post is obviously bunk for this very reason.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:56 No.11009929

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:56 No.11009929

In a multi-racial society, ideology, class and any other divide goes out the window. Or rather, ideology and class struggle becomes a race struggle. The poor whites in America are now dwarfed by tens of millions of desperate Third World colonists who have nothing whatsoever in common with them.

As in South Africa, poor, lower-class whites will and are being ground under in a society where their labor commands a pittance. There is no place for poor whites in a society where cheap coloured labour is in abundance - and in America this will lead either to poor whites being absorbed into the mixed-race horde, or becoming a class of criminals, fraudsters and degenerates, as happened to the petit-blancs in the West Indies (Redlegs).

http://bajan.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/red-legs-in-barbados/

The only struggle in America is - and probably will be for the next 100 years or so - the struggle between the declining white soon-to-be-white-minority and non-whites led by the Jewish elite who use them against us.

tl;dr there is no class solidarity, national solidarity or any other kind in America because the racial divide precludes any.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:57 No.11009942

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:57 No.11009942

>>11009620
Okay we're done.

You are wrong.

You are parroting economist thought experiments as if they were anthropological evidence.

Also you think that medieval Ireland as a society preceded the State even though kings existed. Also I'm familiar with Leeson's work on the American West, but America had a State and markets well-established LONG before that period of "lawlessness".

THE FACT IS, GIFT BECOMES CREDIT, CREDIT BECOMES CURRENCY. You sound like a creationist trying to disprove evolution. You are wrong.

I am not disputing the value of markets. But to suggest that people invented money because barter was a hassle is a fucking myth.

You are wrong. Please, I URGE you to at the very least read Debt by Graeber. I don't expect you to dig up all the old work on the Credit Theory of Money (though plenty has been written since the 1880s at least), but at least read the pop-anthropology summary of the idea.

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:58 No.11009968

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:58 No.11009968

File: 1362722280930.jpg-(42 KB, 245x271, Cerealbubblepipe..jpg)

42 KB JPG

>>11009761
"When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved the money to risk on the untried and the new, for the work of the engineer who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the work of the inventor who created the product which you spend your time on making, for the work of the scientist who discovered the laws that went into the making of that product, for the work of the philosopher who taught men how to think and whom you spend your time denouncing."

Anonymous
03/08/13(Fri)00:58 No.11009978

Anonymous 03/08/13(Fri)00:58 No.11009978

>>11009761
>WHAT DOES THE CAPITALIST CONTRIBUTE?
lol, underconsumption, innovative ideas which help us all, doing the incredible difficult task of planning the structure of production(lol durr wat is that?).

>>11009746
>Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron
Lol yeah, lets just ignore the fact almost every anarchist society in history WAS anarcho capitalist.
http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm