Are these mingy little beasts really the champions of the working class? - Page 21 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15070553
SolarCross wrote:
99% of communist "thought" is slander and stereotyping against (((capitalists))) and (((reactionaries))). You can dish it out but not take it, what a pussy.



This is just more slanderous bullshit.

You're forgetting that capitalism *is the problem*.

There's a better way of doing social production, and that's to have the actual *workers* in collective charge of all of it, instead of 'middlemen' private interests. The world no longer has to use an intermediary layer of abstracted exchange values.

Here's a model for a post-capitalist political economy that I developed, and advocate:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image
#15070554
ckaihatsu wrote:This is just more slanderous bullshit.

You're forgetting that capitalism *is the problem*.

There's a better way of doing social production, and that's to have the actual *workers* in collective charge of all of it, instead of 'middlemen' private interests. The world no longer has to use an intermediary layer of abstracted exchange values.

1. "capitalism" is not the problem.
2. there is no such thing as social production, you made that up.
3. the actual workers are in charge because companies are run by managers and directors who do the work of managing and directing. 99% of the time those managers and directors are in those positions because they demonstated some actual competance for that purpose either through work experience or academic qualifications and usually both.

Shareholders and creditors generally do not make any executive decisions beyond whether they feel safe lending their capital to the enterprise, which is an absolutely fair concern.

Maybe if you actually went out into the real world and got a real job you might learn about how things are actually done in the real world.

Anther point is that in the real world there is no hard legal barrier separating shareholder and creditors from workers and managers. You absolutely can do both or neither. For this reason attempting to agitate for a civil war between them makes no sense. You might as well agitate for a civil war between "consumers" and "workers". Most people are both at the same time, lol.

4. You can not say truthfully that your way IS better because you have not demonstrated a working model or prototype. The fact that it seems to be at most a very superficial rehash of earlier attempts at "collectivism" ALL of which were grotesque and tragic failures hardly helps your credibility.

5. You do not get to decide what the world needs.

6. You make only dogmatic statements but provide no reasoned justification or proof for them at all. ie: "The world no longer has to use an intermediary layer of abstracted exchange values." You are being beyond absurd.
#15070557
SolarCross wrote:
1. "capitalism" is not the problem.



Yes, it is, because profits are a *cost* to funding.

The 'private property' basis of capitalism is *not* working out, and we see the resulting 'income inequality' disparity.

Workers all around the world are the ones doing the work, to produce what everyone needs for life and living, yet workers are impoverished due to getting the short end of the stick under capitalism.


SolarCross wrote:
2. the is no such thing as social production, you made that up.



'Social production' just means all of the goods and services that a society produces.


SolarCross wrote:
3. the actual workers are in charge because companies are run by managers and directors who do the work of managing and directing.



These are *capitalists*, directing *capital* -- they are *not* workers. Shuffling data around and making executive decisions is in the interests of *private ownership* of social production, with workers having no say in these decisions even though it's the workers doing the actual work of production.


SolarCross wrote:
99% of the time those managers and directors are in those positions because they demonstated some actual competance at for that purpose either through work experience or academic qualifications and usually both.



It's a *specialized* position, and particular to the interests of *private accumulations*. It's not decision-making from the workers, and it's not bottom-up or democratic, either.


SolarCross wrote:
Shareholders and creditors generally do not make any executive decisions beyond whether they feel safe lending their capital to the enterprise, which is an absolutely fair concern. Maybe if you actually went out into the real world and got a real job you might learn about how things are actually done in the real world.



This isn't about me or anyone else in particular -- it's about the *whole system* of capitalism, that you're trying to avoid and wriggle-out-of. Capital serves the interests of capital, and not the interests of the workers, who are *exploited* as a matter of course within capitalism.


SolarCross wrote:
Anther point is that in the real world there is no hard legal barrier separating shareholder and creditors from workers and managers. You absolutely can do both or neither. For this reason attempting to agitate for a civil war between them makes no sense. You might as well agitate for a civil war between "consumers" and "workers". Most people are both at the same time, lol.



It *already is* a civil war, globally, but it's just a *one-sided* civil, or class, war, and it needs to be a *two-sided* class war.

Workers need a political economy that works for *workers*, and not for capitalists.


SolarCross wrote:
4. You can not say truthfully that your way IS better because you have not demonstrated a working model or prototype. The fact that it seems to be at most a very superficial rehash of earlier attempts at "collectivism" ALL of which were grotesque and tragic failures hardly helps your credibility.



You don't understand history in the *least*, and you're using a facile historical caricature of past 'state socialism' as a substitution for what socialism *is*, which is the collective control of society's production by the world's working class.


SolarCross wrote:
5. You do not get to decide what the world needs.



I don't want to, nor should I -- the point isn't to bring back *monarchical reign*, whether Trump, or myself, or anyone else. The point is to have the *workers* collectively controlling social production.


SolarCross wrote:
6. You make only dogmatic statements but provide no reasoned justification or proof for them at all. ie: "The world no longer has to use an intermediary layer of abstracted exchange values." You are being beyond absurd.



Well, it's true -- in the past, before industrialization, capitalism and capital *did* play a historically-progressive social role, but now that the world has the means of fulfilling mass human need, the system of capitalism is a *fetter* on further global social development.

Abstracted exchange values -- capital -- is just getting in the way now. My 'Emergent Central Planning' model shows how workers can collectively, centrally, control social production, bottom-up, without the further use of money whatsoever.
#15070562
ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, it is, because profits are a *cost* to funding.

The 'private property' basis of capitalism is *not* working out, and we see the resulting 'income inequality' disparity.

Workers all around the world are the ones doing the work, to produce what everyone needs for life and living, yet workers are impoverished due to getting the short end of the stick under capitalism.

Everything is a cost for benefit. If profits are a cost to funding, then wages are a cost for labour. There is no such thing as a free lunch. That is not a problem except for extreme misers.

So you assert without proof that "income inequality" is the result of "private property".

1. Where is the casual relationship?
2. Why is income inequality a problem?
3. What problem is it and for whom?
4. At least some inequality seems entirely fair, because someone who does a good deed should be rewarded over someone who does a bad deed.
5. Why do you ASSUME "equality" is a goal or a virtue? The implications are horrendous.
6. By definition workers do all the work but work must include managing and directing because it is work and people would not do it if they did not get paid to do it. If no one does it then the entreprise is not organised at all and cannot function or operate intelligently. How well would you body operate it is robbed of its central nervous system? (actually in your case there probably would be no difference)
7. Generally workers are not impoverished and standards of living are rising all over the world have been for millenia. The only time the improvement of standards have reversed has been under communism...

ckaihatsu wrote:'Social production' just means all of the goods and services that a society produces.

Which society?

ckaihatsu wrote:These are *capitalists*, directing *capital* -- they are *not* workers. Shuffling data around and making executive decisions is in the interests of *private ownership* of social production, with workers having no say in these decisions even though it's the workers doing the actual work of production.

This is why you need to get a job. You have ZERO clue at all how shit gets done in the real world.
#15070569
SolarCross wrote:
Everything is a cost for benefit. If profits are a cost to funding, then wages are a cost for labour. There is no such thing as a free lunch. That is not a problem except for extreme misers.



You're missing the point.

The point is that society does not need to enrich an elitist layer of private (corporate) ownership, to get things produced. The working class should be in control of social production, to produce for society's human needs.

There's nothing about capitalists being born that makes them *entitled* to benefit from workers' labor -- you should be telling *them* to 'get a job' so that they can be socially productive, instead of just expropriating wealth from the efforts of workers, like the global aristocracy that they are.


SolarCross wrote:
So you assert without proof that "income inequality" is the result of "private property".



Well, how do *you* explain it?



There are a wide variety of types of economic inequality, most notably measured using the distribution of income (the amount of money people are paid) and the distribution of wealth (the amount of wealth people own). Besides economic inequality between countries or states, there are important types of economic inequality between different groups of people.[1]

Important types of economic measurements focus on wealth, income, and consumption. There are many methods for measuring economic inequality, with the Gini coefficient being a widely used one. Another type of measure is the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index, which is a statistic composite index that takes inequality into account.[2] Important concepts of equality include equity, equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity.

Research suggests that greater inequality hinders economic growth, with land and human capital inequality reducing growth more than inequality of income.[3] Whereas globalization has reduced global inequality (between nations), it has increased inequality within nations.[4]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality



---


SolarCross wrote:
1. Where is the casual relationship?



It's called 'wealth'.


SolarCross wrote:
2. Why is income inequality a problem?



See the Wikipedia entry above.


SolarCross wrote:
3. What problem is it and for whom?



I've already covered this -- it's called 'class'.



Class stratification is a form of social stratification in which a society is separated into parties whose members have different access to resources and power. An economic, natural, cultural, religious, interests and ideal rift usually exists between different classes. People are usually born into their class, though social mobility allows for some individuals to attain a higher-level class or fall to a lower-level one.

Process of class stratification

In the early stages of class stratification, the majority of members in a given society have similar access to wealth and power, with only a few members displaying noticeably more or less wealth than the rest.

As time goes on, the largest share of wealth and status can begin to concentrate around a small number of the population. When wealth continues to concentrate, pockets of society with significantly less wealth may develop, until a sharp imbalance between rich and poor is created. As members of a society spread out from one another economically, classes are created.

When a physical gap is added, a cultural rift between the classes comes into existence, an example being the perception of the well-mannered, "cultured" behavior of the rich, versus the "uncivilized" behavior of the poor. With the cultural divide, chances for classes to intermingle become less and less likely, and mythos becomes more and more common between them (i.e. "the wrong side of the railroad tracks"). The lower class loses more of its influence and wealth as the upper class gains more influence and wealth, further dividing the classes from one another.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_stratification



---


SolarCross wrote:
4. At least some inequality seems entirely fair, because someone who does a good deed should be rewarded over someone who does a bad deed.



It's *not* a meritocracy out there -- you're thinking that your moralizing reflects the way the world works, and it *doesn't*. Those who have capital already are in a much better position to get even *more* capital, or wealth. That's how the capitalist world works.


SolarCross wrote:
5. Why do you ASSUME "equality" is a goal or a virtue? The implications are horrendous.



No, they're not -- the world has the capacity to produce for everyone's human needs and basic requirements for life and living, but the world isn't *organized* to fulfill that goal.

My framework model approach *detaches* work inputs from material rewards so that the entire post-capitalist economic direction is instead driven by *human need*. Those social needs that are needs-in-common will receive more prominence and visibility, for the efforts of available-and-willing liberated labor, wherever those workers may be. The 'labor credits' are a societal *incentive* for communist-gift-economy liberated-labor efforts, and can be thought of as discrete portions of post-private-property political power in the direction of future liberated-labor organizing, going-forward. Economically labor credits are non-financial liberated-labor IOUs that are either debt-based, or not-debt-based (in terms of labor hours). They continue to circulate after being actually 'paid-for' by the collective liberated-labor work efforts from those of the locality that *issued* the debt-based labor credits in the first place. (Also see the first scenario from the 'Emergent Central Planning' diagram.)


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


---


SolarCross wrote:
6. By definition workers do all the work but work must include managing and directing because it is work and people would not do it if they did not get paid to do it.



Yes, I agree that a social component of social organizing of production is necessary, but as things are now, it's *private ownership* that gets to determine what's produced, and what isn't, and those mega-owners are disproportionately rewarded for having this elitist power. Workers can certainly include this kind of co-administrative role as a regular part of their productive routines at work.

Work, and its material proceeds (goods and services), do *not* have to be commodified, as you're suggesting. Money / currency / exchange values are no longer needed -- our modern, high-tech society needs a 'social-software' 'upgrade'.

As long as enough people are contributing to the collective commons, then human needs will be met for those who have unmet needs, and then society can collectively decide where to do from there -- what kind of a civilization to bring about on collectivized industrial implements, with everyone's basic needs met.


SolarCross wrote:
If no one does it then the entreprise is not organised at all and cannot function or operate intelligently. How well would you body operate it is robbed of its central nervous system? (actually in your case there probably would be no difference)



(See the previous segment.)


SolarCross wrote:
7. Generally workers are not impoverished and standards of living are rising all over the world have been for millenia. The only time the improvement of standards have reversed has been under communism...



Well, I don't defend bureaucratic elitism any more than I defend private-property elitism.

Yes, capitalism's regular incremental improvements have increased many people's standards of livings, generally, but look at the human cost involved -- two world wars, ongoing privation, substandard housing and amenities for entire *continents*. The unevenness of it all can't be ignored.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
'Social production' just means all of the goods and services that a society produces.



SolarCross wrote:
Which society?



The current *global*, *human* society.


SolarCross wrote:
This is why you need to get a job. You have ZERO clue at all how shit gets done in the real world.



I think *you* need a job so that you'll keep your facile opinions off of this board. Follow your own moralizing and do some busywork for the next few decades. You'll get into heaven easily that way.
#15070571
ckaihatsu wrote:You're missing the point.

The point is that society does not need to enrich an elitist layer of private (corporate) ownership, to get things produced. The working class should be in control of social production, to produce for society's human needs.

If you do not need it then you can do without it.

ckaihatsu wrote:There's nothing about capitalists being born that makes them *entitled* to benefit from workers' labor -- you should be telling *them* to 'get a job' so that they can be socially productive, instead of just expropriating wealth from the efforts of workers, like the global aristocracy that they are.

It is not the birth that entitles a shareholder to his dividend, nor a creditor to his repayment. It is the fact they chose to allow someone else to use money they could have spend on themselves instead on the AGREEMENT that there would be some reward for doing that.

Your problem is you want something for nothing and are willing to lie, cheat and kill to get it. You should realise that lying, cheating and killing are NOT free of cost themselvs. There is a cost to everything including thievery.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, how do *you* explain it?

"Inequality" is just a feature of life. Google pareto distributions. It is not just economic it is also biological. This planet has produced trillions and trillions of different species over its 4 billion year history but so far only ONE of those species has had enough brains to do high technology. That species is homo sapiens of course and we utterly dominate because of that one little advantage, and in the future we will probably go on to utterly dominate the whole solar system and beyond. That is a profound inequality right there. For all your whining about inequality I do not see you drilling holes in your head to make yourself equal in intelligence to an amoeba.

Your dad shot countless billions of sperms out of his winky but only one was lucky enough to get an egg to fertilise to make you. Do you want to be made "equal" to all the loser sperms than ended up a stain on the mattress?

Where is the equality in communism anyway? If you look at the USSR you have Stalin who gets thousands of 50 foot statues made of him and the absolute impunity to have whoever he wants killed on a whim and then everyone else who has to live in terror and starvation. Yeah nice "equality" that.

Your equality is a lie.
#15070594
SolarCross wrote:Stalin... the absolute impunity to have whoever he wants killed on a whim

Pot calling the kettle black.

Killed in the name of "FREEDOM" - Over 12 million have died in America's wars since World War II.


:lol:
#15070625
To another poster, SolarCross wrote:You make only dogmatic statements but provide no reasoned justification or proof for them at all.

In this thread, you have repeatedly and dogmatically claimed that humans need to be divided into different dog breeds-style classes (mutts packing grocery bags, purebred Greyhounds running bus lines, Pugs and Bulldogs running the world) and your only justification for this as being the ultimate goal of human existence is... what exactly?

It just seems so? :eh:

ckaihatsu has retorted with several 5000-word critiques of your use of words and grasp of historical concepts, but please, don't accuse anyone else of just running on the vapors of acquired opinions alone.

That humans should be sub-divided into dog-type breeds is NOT a fact that you can build a worldview or economic system (or argument) upon. But that's what you have done in this thread.

Methodological weakness: You have not reached "dog-hood" as a conclusion, but have used it as a starting point - an unproven assertion that grounds all of your text in this thread.

It is extremely DOG-matic. Of YOU.
#15070648
About basing his worldviews on human dog-ism, SolarCross wrote:You are barking up the wrong tree or barking mad (nice puns eh?) I have never made any of those claims. Everything you believe is a delusion.


And yet, a few pages earlier, he wrote:I think you will find that middle class tossers just have too much class consciousness. They are "victims" of their own stupid selves. Fact is for the better half of the working classes to go up, the worst half of the middle classes have to go down, relatively speaking. Most of these dregs go to college only because they want to stay in the same "middle class" their parents achieved (often without a college degree). The reality is they are just fooling themselves because they did not inherit the talent or grit that their parents had and their proper place is working in bars, stacking shelves, making coffee and cleaning toilets. None of those things require a $100k education in gender-queer studies.


You worldview is grounded in the above quote. You might dance around various ideologies or political ideas that you've sampled, but your opinions are grounded in the notion that humans, like ants, need to be specialized into classes like: dregs, better half of working class, worse half of working class... etc.

Humans created dog breeds for the same purpose. To create different single-function animals to use for their own purposes. Breeding for purpose is always cruel and un-Darwin. But that you would want to apply this to YOUR OWN SPECIES adds treason and sadism to the sickness.

Cruelty, treason, and sadism are not healthy things to build a social structure (or argument) upon.
#15070651
QatzelOk wrote:You worldview is grounded in the above quote. You might dance around various ideologies or political ideas that you've sampled, but your opinions are grounded in the notion that humans, like ants, need to be specialized into classes like: dregs, better half of working class, worse half of working class... etc.

No I am just playing the same retarded game you ant people play here on pofo. Only I do it better.
#15070834
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're missing the point.

The point is that society does not need to enrich an elitist layer of private (corporate) ownership, to get things produced. The working class should be in control of social production, to produce for society's human needs.



SolarCross wrote:
If you do not need it then you can do without it.



"Me" -- ??

You're trying to *individualize* this? As though *I'm* the outlier, subjectively irked by the powers-that-be, and no one else is -- ??

Don't you realize that your playbook is already well-known -- ?

You're doing the divide-and-conquer thing, to make people feel as though they're the only ones being affected this way, by an entire *system* that preys on working people and social minorities, in order to justify its hegemony over everything.

You're showing yourself to willingly be with the bullshit industry, when the whole point should be to *get rid* of bullshit, and not to *cultivate* it like plants in your garden.


SolarCross wrote:
It is not the birth that entitles a shareholder to his dividend, nor a creditor to his repayment. It is the fact they chose to allow someone else to use money they could have spend on themselves instead on the AGREEMENT that there would be some reward for doing that.

Your problem is you want something for nothing and are willing to lie, cheat and kill to get it. You should realise that lying, cheating and killing are NOT free of cost themselvs. There is a cost to everything including thievery.



No, you're *projecting* again -- you're describing the behavior of *corporations* and *capitalist government*, and then pinning it on me personally, with another attempt at character assassination.

You're making the wealth-owner sound like a charitable *donor*, when that's far from how capitalism works. There are no 'donations', or 'contributions' -- it's all investment / equity capital, to exploit labor, to realize a profit.

Here's from that entry again:



A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000. The three richest people in the world possess more financial assets than the lowest 48 nations combined.[8] The combined wealth of the "10 million dollar millionaires" grew to nearly $41 trillion in 2008.[9]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality



Keep in mind that this is the world that young people are *born into*, with no agency of their own beforehand (and not until adulthood).


---


SolarCross wrote:
"Inequality" is just a feature of life.



So this is just how 'life' is supposed to be, and we all gotta take a huff of it, huh?

You're like a professional de-enabler, like a Tony Robbins in reverse -- 'Shut up and get used to it' is the line that you'll be known for.


SolarCross wrote:
Google pareto distributions. It is not just economic it is also biological. This planet has produced trillions and trillions of different species over its 4 billion year history but so far only ONE of those species has had enough brains to do high technology.



It's not the brains, it's the *social organization* (and thumbs, too, I think).


SolarCross wrote:
That species is homo sapiens of course and we utterly dominate because of that one little advantage, and in the future we will probably go on to utterly dominate the whole solar system and beyond. That is a profound inequality right there. For all your whining about inequality I do not see you drilling holes in your head to make yourself equal in intelligence to an amoeba.



Yeah, see, you *want* it to be a 'race to the bottom' -- fuck everyone else, so you can rise to the top like the scum that you are.


SolarCross wrote:
Your dad shot countless billions of sperms out of his winky but only one was lucky enough to get an egg to fertilise to make you. Do you want to be made "equal" to all the loser sperms than ended up a stain on the mattress?



'Loser sperms'. That's rich -- yeah, *fuck* those guys, they're not *me* -- ! (Haha....)


SolarCross wrote:
Where is the equality in communism anyway? If you look at the USSR you have Stalin who gets thousands of 50 foot statues made of him and the absolute impunity to have whoever he wants killed on a whim and then everyone else who has to live in terror and starvation. Yeah nice "equality" that.

Your equality is a lie.



Stereotyping again, as though the exploited and oppressed world is crying-out for a reincarnation of Stalin. Whatever. Shove off.

Take a look at my model -- you'll get a better sense of what could be possible.
#15070837
ckaihatsu wrote:"Me" -- ??

You're trying to *individualize* this? As though *I'm* the outlier, subjectively irked by the powers-that-be, and no one else is -- ??

Don't you realize that your playbook is already well-known -- ?

You're doing the divide-and-conquer thing, to make people feel as though they're the only ones being affected this way, by an entire *system* that preys on working people and social minorities, in order to justify its hegemony over everything.

You're showing yourself to willingly be with the bullshit industry, when the whole point should be to *get rid* of bullshit, and not to *cultivate* it like plants in your garden.

You are not god, you can not separate yourself from your own dogma. You are an individual and all your nonsense is your own particular individual quirk. When you realise that then you will stop trying to speak for other people without their knowledge or permission. I do not give you permission to speak for me.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're *projecting* again -- you're describing the behavior of *corporations* and *capitalist government*, and then pinning it on me personally, with another attempt at character assassination.

You're making the wealth-owner sound like a charitable *donor*, when that's far from how capitalism works. There are no 'donations', or 'contributions' -- it's all investment / equity capital, to exploit labor, to realize a profit.

Here's from that entry again:

The worker is as much "exploiting" the "corporation" as the other way around. I do not sign up to stack shelves in a supermarket because I love the boss, or the customers, I do it because I want to exploit the corporation's need to make a profit and the customers need to find goodies on the shelf to make myself some money for me to spend. That is the nature of trade. Mutual exploitation for mutual benefit.

ckaihatsu wrote:Keep in mind that this is the world that young people are *born into*, with no agency of their own beforehand (and not until adulthood).

So? This world is fricking amazing. I love it. Cars, supermarkets, computers, lots of lovely food, fun for all the family. Capitalism is great!

ckaihatsu wrote:So this is just how 'life' is supposed to be, and we all gotta take a huff of it, huh?

You're like a professional de-enabler, like a Tony Robbins in reverse -- 'Shut up and get used to it' is the line that you'll be known for.

You asked me why inequality, I answered why. My description is not an endorsement, but a caution against tinkering with things you do not understand.

ckaihatsu wrote:It's not the brains, it's the *social organization* (and thumbs, too, I think).

Trade.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, see, you *want* it to be a 'race to the bottom' -- fuck everyone else, so you can rise to the top like the scum that you are.

Communism is the race to the bottom. Capitalism is the race to the top. But not everyone wins a race. Stalin lost the race to the bottom of communism and you lost the race to the top in capitalism. We all find our level eventually.

ckaihatsu wrote:'Loser sperms'. That's rich -- yeah, *fuck* those guys, they're not *me* -- ! (Haha....)

The problem with envy based ideology is there is always someone unluckier who will use your own ideology to drag you down too. I laugh at all those middle class crybabies whining about the 1%. To me they are the 1%... I should drag them out of the houses and rob their bank accounts? That would give them something to cry about. Except I am, as a westerner, the 1% to all those Africans and Bangladeshis. We are all the 1% to someone or something.

ckaihatsu wrote:Stereotyping again, as though the exploited and oppressed world is crying-out for a reincarnation of Stalin. Whatever. Shove off.

Take a look at my model -- you'll get a better sense of what could be possible.

You are crying for a new Stalin, I am not interested thanks.
#15070851
SolarCross wrote:
You are not god, you can not separate yourself from your own dogma. You are an individual and all your nonsense is your own particular individual quirk. When you realise that then you will stop trying to speak for other people without their knowledge or permission. I do not give you permission to speak for me.



*Of course* I'm not synonymous with my politics. I have my own life, personal interests, etc., as does everyone else.

My politics are not based on *belief*, so they're not 'dogma'. My politics is based on real data from the world as it is. It's not 'nonsense'.

I'm not trying to speak for you, or others -- we're on a discussion board, so people can speak for themselves, individually. It just so happens that many people don't want to tolerate the ruling class capitalist status quo, so there is a fair amount of 'overlap', or agreement -- this is called 'politics'.

Here's a depiction of the different 'levels' of society, based on scale. I'm not synonymous with my politics.


‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image



And here's a depiction of politics-in-common, or 'politics':


Anatomy of a Platform: The News Cycle -- Anti-Trump-Dynasty

Spoiler: show
Image



---


SolarCross wrote:
The worker is as much "exploiting" the "corporation" as the other way around.



This is bullshit, because of labor value -- the products of a worker's labor efforts are sold for more than what the worker is paid, in wages, so that's *economic exploitation*, as a regular part of capitalist business.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



---


SolarCross wrote:
I do not sign up to stack shelves in a supermarket because I love the boss, or the customers, I do it because I want to exploit the corporation's need to make a profit



That's not *economic* exploitation -- it's a choice of phrasing.


SolarCross wrote:
and the customers need to find goodies on the shelf to make myself some money for me to spend. That is the nature of trade. Mutual exploitation for mutual benefit.



No, it's *not* mutual -- the worker is *compelled* to work, for wages, for the necessities of life and living. The business is using *excess* funds as *capital*, to activate the labor-exploitation process, to make profits.


---


SolarCross wrote:
So? This world is fricking amazing. I love it. Cars, supermarkets, computers, lots of lovely food, fun for all the family. Capitalism is great!



Hey, enjoy -- whatever. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that labor and capital are on even ground.


SolarCross wrote:
You asked me why inequality, I answered why. My description is not an endorsement, but a caution against tinkering with things you do not understand.



I've just proven that *you're* the one who doesn't understand capitalist economics.


SolarCross wrote:
Trade.



No, human biological development surpassed that of other primates long ago, around a million years back.


SolarCross wrote:
Communism is the race to the bottom. Capitalism is the race to the top. But not everyone wins a race. Stalin lost the race to the bottom of communism and you lost the race to the top in capitalism. We all find our level eventually.



No, this is too glib -- the communist position is that society and its production doesn't have to be a 'race', especially now that we have such prolific production technology.

See this thread:


BASTANI'S _FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY COMMUNISM_

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=176863


---


SolarCross wrote:
The problem with envy based ideology is there is always someone unluckier who will use your own ideology to drag you down too. I laugh at all those middle class crybabies whining about the 1%. To me they are the 1%... I should drag them out of the houses and rob their bank accounts? That would give them something to cry about. Except I am, as a westerner, the 1% to all those Africans and Bangladeshis. We are all the 1% to someone or something.



You're obviously unable to see the *systemic* dynamics at work -- capitalism is not some perfect-world amalgamation of everyone's personal attitudes, as you're making it out to be. Capitalism has a functioning all of its own, like machinery, that strips profits out of human labor. It's right here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitat ... y_of_value


SolarCross wrote:
You are crying for a new Stalin, I am not interested thanks.



You cannot find *any* content of mine that calls for a new Stalin -- you're *lying*.
#15071055
SolarCross wrote:
Okay well I hope you enjoy your grass-eating terror state. May you enjoy all that communism has to offer.



Is George Soros paying you to say that? Sweet gravy train...!

Please leave your nightmares to your bedroom and use your brain a little when you're awake, like now. Thanks.

Next Halloween I'll be dressed as *full automation*. Boo!
#15071057
ckaihatsu wrote:Is George Soros paying you to say that? Sweet gravy train...!

Please leave your nightmares to your bedroom and use your brain a little when you're awake, like now. Thanks.

Next Halloween I'll be dressed as *full automation*. Boo!

I wish he or someone was but I guess they have better things to do with their money. It is not like there is any chance at all of communism happening again anyway. Basically I am trying to help the left get better, because I am sad for the stupid waste of life that is leftism. I wasted my life, maybe I can help others not waste theirs? It is my redemption crusade.
#15071059
SolarCross wrote:
I wish he or someone was but I guess they have better things to do with their money. It is not like there is any chance at all of communism happening again anyway. Basically I am trying to help the left get better, because I am sad for the stupid waste of life that is leftism. I wasted my life, maybe I can help others not waste theirs? It is my redemption crusade.



Tell them this:


All Power to the Soviets!

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ ... jul/18.htm
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 35

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/12667954341[…]

@jimjam At the time you attended college, unio[…]

It is nonsense because it over-simplifies the pro[…]

Election 2020

Even Trump is not so crazy. He's not. I am cri[…]