Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Alcofribas said:

i don't understand the question you're asking. why would she "suddenly become a capitalist?" 

@cyanobacteriahas been pretty explicit that private property would still be allowed in his Marxist wunderland, which I believe included running small stores.

 

6 hours ago, Alcofribas said:

presumably this person hires people to assist with the work. the so-called "workers." as she expands she will likely not be doing the stuff you're talking about (rather vague stuff i might add -- "inventory flow?" lol) - this is all stuff that workers will do. for instance, as a regular staff member at a family owned bookstore i have been responsible for "inventory flow" (purchasing/ordering inventory, pricing it, processing it through the inventory system, shelving it on the sales floor, POS transactions, etc) absolutely 0 of which the owner of the store participated with in any way. this is just normal stuff that falls to the workers of a normal small business, owners are not typically in the trenches ordering pens and receipt paper or ringing people up at the register. i think your picture of the small business owner is a little out of touch - in my experience they relegate as much actual work as possible to people they under pay who never see any serious income boost when business does well and the owners just kind of "manage" whatever they want. typically they will enjoy all the perks, buy themselves nice things like new cars or homes or whatever.

they're definitely not ordering "resources" or dealing with inventory in any way. this is for workers and managers. sure, if they are so small they can barely hire any help they will have to do this - but this is generally not the condition of a "successful" small business and basically every business owner will try to ascend from having to do everything by themselves. you should also keep in mind that small businesses typically exploit workers in many other ways precisely bc they are too small to divide the share of work fairly. additionally, they have a lot of boundary fluidity with what they ask of staff - for instance, at the same job i mentioned above i regularly had to drive to the owner's sister's storage units to help her manage and move her massive collection of stuff. it's been completely normal for me as a worker in small businesses to do stuff like this - the owner just asks their employees all kinds of random shit. so when you talk about supply/demand/second stores you definitely have to be more realistic about what that really means on the ground for the people actually doing all that shit. it's quite cringe to see you comment about how the business owner should be "compensated with respect to her responsibility and risk." basically any worker at a small business would find this amusing ime

So if I read you right, you're saying they're already capitalist. I can't speak about your personal experiences, but in my own experience I know and have worked for owners who do work in the trenches. Considering the above statistic of 99% of firms in American being small businesses, with the majority of those firms having fewer than 100 employees, it is not implausible for owners to be doing a lot of that. My uncle owns (actually owned he's sold it since) a small hotel/pub/restaurant in Cornwall, UK, which had a staff of about 20 in the peak season (tourist place). I worked there for a summer (well a bit more than a summer) and while I definitely didn't make enough to buy a Rolls, I was able to work, live, bought a small motor, and traveled across England. My uncle did quite well out of it, but he also worked long hours doing so, as well as taking on all the risk by putting up the initial investment etc.

I use the example of a bakery because I knew some people who worked for a local bakery in Vancouver that did fantastically, and have opened up two other locations. The people I knew who worked there never (rarely may be a better choice of words) had to do anything outside of their job description, and certainly not for free. My wife also worked for a small business in Vancouver, and since she was essentially the office manager her work was quite varied but she was well compensated for it. The owner, while not doing much of the managerial work, did ironically do work which was the main thrust of the company.

Ultimately, decision making in small business lies at the feet of the owner, and so they are risking quite a lot for incorrect decisions. I have yet to see a persuasive argument for why an owner shouldn't be rewarded commensurate to their risk? Bookstores may not necessarily be highly capital intensive but there is still risk involved. And many owners would also feel badly should the business fail and their employees' livelihoods suffer (maybe not in the wacky cut-throat world of American small business?).

6 hours ago, Alcofribas said:

i mean, basically every single job i have has depended on workers doing way too much work to keep things going. and nearly every single job i have witnesses people working well beyond the efforts put in by the business owners. literal situations where if one under-payed person decided to leave the business would collapse. this is so common that it's kind of stupid to even mention it. it's so common for business owners and even regular managers to have absolutely no idea what's going on in their business. yeah, they're taking a financial risk - and they are also taking all the reward.

If those businesses are so fragile and the under-paid person knows it, that is significant leverage. Now, of course in the US unions and workers' rights have been eroded significantly, so that leverage is harder to wield. In countries where workers rights haven't been eroded as badly, that leverage becomes an important tool.

Sorry for being cringe.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 764
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

not 100% sure why i thought of this thread when i saw this video  

Marxism is an attractive idea to teenagers who think they're overflowing with compassion for every living being, but sadly they don't have enough experience of the nature of the human. They are p

exploiting the loletariat

Posted Images

56 minutes ago, xox said:

After 26 pages, is Marx still relevant? 

776.gif

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

@cyanobacteriahas been pretty explicit that private property would still be allowed in his Marxist wunderland, which I believe included running small stores.

please provide direct quotes of this claim.  also, "my" "marxist paradise"?  what kind of nonsensical phrase is that? what is a "marxist geographical region" anyway? marxism is a way of analyzing political economy, not a political system.

29 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

So if I read you right, you're saying they're already capitalist. I can't speak about your personal experiences, but in my own experience I know and have worked for owners who do work in the trenches. Considering the above statistic of 99% of firms in American being small businesses, with the majority of those firms having fewer than 100 employees, it is not implausible for owners to be doing a lot of that. My uncle owns (actually owned he's sold it since) a small hotel/pub/restaurant in Cornwall, UK, which had a staff of about 20 in the peak season (tourist place). I worked there for a summer (well a bit more than a summer) and while I definitely didn't make enough to buy a Rolls, I was able to work, live, bought a small motor, and traveled across England. My uncle did quite well out of it, but he also worked long hours doing so, as well as taking on all the risk by putting up the initial investment etc.

I use the example of a bakery because I knew some people who worked for a local bakery in Vancouver that did fantastically, and have opened up two other locations. The people I knew who worked there never (rarely may be a better choice of words) had to do anything outside of their job description, and certainly not for free. My wife also worked for a small business in Vancouver, and since she was essentially the office manager her work was quite varied but she was well compensated for it. The owner, while not doing much of the managerial work, did ironically do work which was the main thrust of the company.

Ultimately, decision making in small business lies at the feet of the owner, and so they are risking quite a lot for incorrect decisions. I have yet to see a persuasive argument for why an owner shouldn't be rewarded commensurate to their risk? Bookstores may not necessarily be highly capital intensive but there is still risk involved. And many owners would also feel badly should the business fail and their employees' livelihoods suffer (maybe not in the wacky cut-throat world of American small business?).

If those businesses are so fragile and the under-paid person knows it, that is significant leverage. Now, of course in the US unions and workers' rights have been eroded significantly, so that leverage is harder to wield. In countries where workers rights haven't been eroded as badly, that leverage becomes an important tool.

Sorry for being cringe.

it's entirely possible that some owners do labor as well, but if they get all of the profits then the labor can be considered a side hobby next to surplus labor value extraction.  all the profits come from the workers.  i'm failing to see how you're justifying withholding profits from workers for the benefit of the private owner.  you have your oft-repeated statement of "the capitalist takes on risk" but they are definitely -not- doing so or they wouldn't be a capitalist.  they aren't risking their stability, future, and large amounts of time in proportion to the aggregate risk and time input of the actual workers.  youre just repeating capitalist propaganda and a bunch anecdotes not representative of most peoples' experience. and it's not even as relevant given that the primary issue of our time is third world worker exploitation, not even first world.

why do you have so much empathy for the business owner and seemingly none for the workers?  the poor business owner, so wealthy they can somehow buy or rent various retail locations and purchase a means of production, is risking so much in comparison to the wage workers who do not have this wealth.  the class orientation of your posts are so consistent, so skewed almost entirely in favor of the rights of the bourgeoisie, that it's just hard to take them seriously given the small percentage of the population they made up in comparison to wage laborers whose rights are more important given that they are being trampled more often and they constitute more individuals

every piece of bread sold by this business, which the business owner probably didn't even bake let alone assist in the productive labor for the manufacturing of the input materials like flower, is providing 100% of the revenue to the business owner which they can choose to provide crumbs of to the wage laborers according to their personal whims

it's truly an outrage

Edited by cyanobacteria
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

the unnecessary deaths caused by starvation and lack of medical care in even the richest capitalist countries are actually alright because the bourgeoisie is just trying really hard to provide for our material needs but they just can't keep up with all we expect of their hard working selves. it's not their fault that they have to own everything in the world, in fact it must be a hassle.  they're relieving us of the burden of being able to have democracy in the workplace by just giving us dictatorial orders from on high, which if we disobey will result in us being homeless.  in fact this threat of homelessness keeps us working hard, without them punishing us the global proletariat wouldn't get work done.  thank you bourgeoisie for punishing us like we deserve.  i'm a pathetic slave who not only has been physically colonized by the expectation of wage labor, but mentally colonized by the ideology of the bourgeoisie

You have some weird fetish where you think everyone who think Marxism is not the "greatest gee-willikers just the best way to ensure prosperity for all" must think that capitalism is 100% infallible. This is obviously not true. the issue is that Marxism and central planning will not improve on this lot, on the contrary, it will make it worse.

Here is a very good easy to understand PDF about why central planning has inefficiencies that lead to the downfall of the state, using the USSR as an example. https://carleton.ca/vpopov/wp-content/uploads/CPEs-IO-and-structural-inefficiencies.pdf, (I'll note here that the author of this paper graduated from the Economics Department of Moscow University in 1976). Here he has a paper on the new socialism and how it may be competitive. You should read it, you'll like it.

 

27 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

it's entirely possible that some owners do labor as well, but if they get all of the profits then the labor

Clearly they don't.

 

27 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

why do you have so much empathy for the business owner and seemingly none for the workers?

Why do you insist on erecting this strawman? How many times have I said in this very thread that strong regulation, strong unions, workers rights, pensions that adjust for inflation, universal health care, etc. are all necessary to provide for the dignity of workers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

You have some weird fetish where you think everyone who think Marxism is not the "greatest gee-willikers just the best way to ensure prosperity for all" must think that capitalism is 100% infallible. This is obviously not true. the issue is that Marxism and central planning will not improve on this lot, on the contrary, it will make it worse.

Here is a very good easy to understand PDF about why central planning has inefficiencies that lead to the downfall of the state, using the USSR as an example. https://carleton.ca/vpopov/wp-content/uploads/CPEs-IO-and-structural-inefficiencies.pdf, (I'll note here that the author of this paper graduated from the Economics Department of Moscow University in 1976). Here he has a paper on the new socialism and how it may be competitive. You should read it, you'll like it.

 

Clearly they don't.

 

Why do you insist on erecting this strawman? How many times have I said in this very thread that strong regulation, strong unions, workers rights, pensions that adjust for inflation, universal health care, etc. are all necessary to provide for the dignity of workers.

why are you equating socialism and communism with central planning or claiming that I've done so?

why are you denying that the owners get all the profits? they DO.  and they get to decide how to pay the employees, and almost always decide to give them the absolute minimum required to keep them around rather than their fair share.  they also oppose quality of life improvements electorally to help their workers get an edge up on them

regulation, unions, workers rights, inflation adjusting pensions, universal health care are all necessary for worker dignity, but not sufficient.  you've yet to explain how to get it or explain why capitalism so regularly fails to provide those things, and in many cases provides them at one point in time then removes them later with the workers being unable to win it back electorally.  you are a utopian saying it would be great if they had that, and that it's theoretically possible to have that under capitalism, so capitalism is okay, when in reality capitalism opposes that.  it's like you haven't read marx at all as you barely if even are precognisant of the obvious refutations of the bourgeois ideological drivel you write

Link to post
Share on other sites

chenGod you've got some patience. I'm pretty sure he's taking the piss at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

you're better off asking whether we want a microsoft given their history of monopolizing software markets to the detriment of customers.  same for bmw and shell.  given their insistence on not fixing climate change to maintain their profits.  i oppose them for the same reason i oppose too much of a focus on industry-tied workers' unions under socialism.  the oil workers union cannot be allowed to override the decision to fix climate change just like the corporations should not be allowed to, yet the corporations themselves are more powerful than the states.  corporations are not a natural outgrowth of business activity, they are a particular type of organization of private property rights and a pool of maintained wage laborers or otherwise. 

That is an interesting question: do we want a microsoft? A heavily regulated microsoft might not be bad, considering their software (as much as I dislike using it) does power large amounts of economic activity. And Bill Gates apparently was one of those who could actually code (the quality of his code is in dispute, but apparently you couldn't bullshit him) and run a business.

Corporations and corporation-like business arrangements have been in existence since 3000 B.C. in Mesopotamia, for example, (see p.15 of the linked PDF), in Assyria (see linked PDF), and so on throughout history. Yes formal corporations didn't exist until 1555 with the Muscovy Company, but the practice and type of company organization has been in existence for almost as long as there has been "civilization".

 

9 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

that baker is not taking on risk, the workers are taking on more risk than her since presumably they have less capital to pay for their life tragedies, given that they've resorted to wage labor.  she may be "risking" money if the new business fails, but that money was earned from what exactly? from the labor of the workers in her business.  you ask questions presumably on how these topics are interpreted within a marxist lens but still fundamentally are incapable of understanding that lens yourself given the assumptions in your questions

Generally, to start a business, you take on a loan from a bank. This is not without considerable risk, given that close to 50% of small businesses fail in a given year. The money was not earned from workers in her business, as her business didn't exist yet. Your last sentence is the perfect example of why others think you arrogant: I understand the Marxist lens well enough, but I was interested to hear your thoughts and interpretation. Instead you merely parrot back Marx, and rehash the same material over and over. When confronted with data and evidence about your claims, you ignore it (see my refutation of your interpretation of Chinese "democracy", discussion on the mix of private/public enterprise and its efficacy in providing good mass public transit, your claims on North Korea, etc.), so as such, I am no longer interested in hearing your interpretation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Your last sentence is the perfect example of why others think you arrogant: I understand the Marxist lens well enough, but I was interested to hear your thoughts and interpretation. Instead you merely parrot back Marx, and rehash the same material over and over. When confronted with data and evidence about your claims, you ignore it (see my refutation of your interpretation of Chinese "democracy", discussion on the mix of private/public enterprise and its efficacy in providing good mass public transit, your claims on North Korea, etc.), so as such, I am no longer interested in hearing your interpretation.

I would apply this statement likewise to you, you repeat bourgeois propaganda constantly and defend the owning class unceasingly.  it exposes your class preference.  those who "take risk" by taking loans, i.e. receiving free money which will be paid back through profits extracted from the workers.  it's excellent that you aren't interested because I'm not interested in responding to the same tired capitalist tropes over and over again.  you can pretend like you're merely requesting my thoughts and no longer want to, but in reality you are putting forward your own, and cannot deal with people disagreeing with them

your position is merely the status quo, with some minor tweaks which you have no systemic concept of how to implement, apart from hoping each country in the world can achieve social democracy somehow, despite it requiring brutal capitalists dictatorships to exist in the global south to prop them up.

the US, the primary agent of capitalist global hegemony, has just prevented its own proletariat from achieving petty social democratic reform, and yet you parrot your ineffective ideology when its track record is one of absolute and utter failure, to the detriment of all the struggling proletariat in that country.  not only is this an indicator of the depraved depths of bourgeois desire to exploit the proletariat, but surely the deeper exploitation they impose abroad where they are not even democratically accountable to their workers. 

you may think i seem arrogant, on the contrary i aim in all of my words to be an unceasing advocate at the very least of the wellbeing of the global proletariat.  you however are more concerned with small business owners being rewarded for the "risk" they supposedly take on, despite their countless loopholes and abilities to entirely get out of this risk if their business fails, or push it off entirely onto the workers who shoulder the financial burden of the failure business and the material burden of the failing capitalist economy during downturns.  you cannot admit to being wrong, so you pretend i am arrogant and rehashing marx.  it's not my fault marx is right

Edited by cyanobacteria
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chenGOD said:

@cyanobacteriahas been pretty explicit that private property would still be allowed in his Marxist wunderland, which I believe included running small stores.

 

So if I read you right, you're saying they're already capitalist. I can't speak about your personal experiences, but in my own experience I know and have worked for owners who do work in the trenches. Considering the above statistic of 99% of firms in American being small businesses, with the majority of those firms having fewer than 100 employees, it is not implausible for owners to be doing a lot of that. My uncle owns (actually owned he's sold it since) a small hotel/pub/restaurant in Cornwall, UK, which had a staff of about 20 in the peak season (tourist place). I worked there for a summer (well a bit more than a summer) and while I definitely didn't make enough to buy a Rolls, I was able to work, live, bought a small motor, and traveled across England. My uncle did quite well out of it, but he also worked long hours doing so, as well as taking on all the risk by putting up the initial investment etc.

I use the example of a bakery because I knew some people who worked for a local bakery in Vancouver that did fantastically, and have opened up two other locations. The people I knew who worked there never (rarely may be a better choice of words) had to do anything outside of their job description, and certainly not for free. My wife also worked for a small business in Vancouver, and since she was essentially the office manager her work was quite varied but she was well compensated for it. The owner, while not doing much of the managerial work, did ironically do work which was the main thrust of the company.

Ultimately, decision making in small business lies at the feet of the owner, and so they are risking quite a lot for incorrect decisions. I have yet to see a persuasive argument for why an owner shouldn't be rewarded commensurate to their risk? Bookstores may not necessarily be highly capital intensive but there is still risk involved. And many owners would also feel badly should the business fail and their employees' livelihoods suffer (maybe not in the wacky cut-throat world of American small business?).

If those businesses are so fragile and the under-paid person knows it, that is significant leverage. Now, of course in the US unions and workers' rights have been eroded significantly, so that leverage is harder to wield. In countries where workers rights haven't been eroded as badly, that leverage becomes an important tool.

Sorry for being cringe.

i guess i'm just kind of unmoved by this obsession with the "financial risk." living in our society is a constant state of financial risk for most people. the specific reverence for the risk of the business owner is begging the question, it's already taking the status quo for granted obv. 

i absolutely believe your stories about working for honest business owners but they don't align with my experience at all. having significant leverage, being well compensated, only being asked to perform duties within your job description - yeah man, none of this adds up to me lol. i mean, at the restaurant i currently work at i am basically managing service now every single night, guiding staff and directing the flow with BOH, training new staff, re-ordering bottles and other bullshit, cutting people when it's slow, etc. - doing all manner of things that should fall into the role of the manager but there is no manager on duty on any night of service. none. he currently spends all his time at a different restaurant which makes it literally impossible for him to perform any of those duties. so i do them. for the same wage i made when i did not do them. i do them bc they need to be done and i am a responsible person. but i have no "leverage" here whatsoever. my manager will likely take whatever credit he wants and downplay my role and since he is an intermediary between the workers and the owner he controls that narrative entirely. the owner is some rich guy who has various restaurants. i don't think i've ever once spent a second of my life respecting his "initial investments" and risks and shit, nor does he care about me in any way whatsoever. he might "feel badly" in some general sense if his risk isn't profitable enough to reap the rewards but this means nothing to me whatsoever lol. 

i think it's extremely normal for hard working people to do way more than their job description with no corresponding pay. this too is a kind of risk bc they could be making more money in a different job, or doing something else with their time that would make their lives more meaningful and interesting. i would be willing to bet this is quite in keeping with the experiences of regular working americans. 

i'd also add that it's the employees who pay the price for bad decisions but do not share anywhere near the same onus when it comes to the rewards. this is all quite obvious of course. doing a bunch of work for some other person who can control my life in myriad ways bc they took out a loan or whatever - idk, this just doesn't seem cool to me ngl

this is all "lived experience" bullshit but i think this type of argument is just never going to fly imo. it's like when you were talking about the sushi chef stuff. it sounds nice and all and i'm sure it happens all around but it's not the world i see.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

i guess i'm just kind of unmoved by this obsession with the "financial risk." living in our society is a constant state of financial risk for most people. the specific reverence for the risk of the business owner is begging the question, it's already taking the status quo for granted obv. 

i absolutely believe your stories about working for honest business owners but they don't align with my experience at all. having significant leverage, being well compensated, only being asked to perform duties within your job description - yeah man, none of this adds up to me lol. i mean, at the restaurant i currently work at i am basically managing service now every single night, guiding staff and directing the flow with BOH, training new staff, re-ordering bottles and other bullshit, cutting people when it's slow, etc. - doing all manner of things that should fall into the role of the manager but there is no manager on duty on any night of service. none. he currently spends all his time at a different restaurant which makes it literally impossible for him to perform any of those duties. so i do them. for the same wage i made when i did not do them. i do them bc they need to be done and i am a responsible person. but i have no "leverage" here whatsoever. my manager will likely take whatever credit he wants and downplay my role and since he is an intermediary between the workers and the owner he controls that narrative entirely. the owner is some rich guy who has various restaurants. i don't think i've ever once spent a second of my life respecting his "initial investments" and risks and shit, nor does he care about me in any way whatsoever. he might "feel badly" in some general sense if his risk isn't profitable enough to reap the rewards but this means nothing to me whatsoever lol. 

i think it's extremely normal for hard working people to do way more than their job description with no corresponding pay. this too is a kind of risk bc they could be making more money in a different job, or doing something else with their time that would make their lives more meaningful and interesting. i would be willing to bet this is quite in keeping with the experiences of regular working americans. 

i'd also add that it's the employees who pay the price for bad decisions but do not share anywhere near the same onus when it comes to the rewards. this is all quite obvious of course. doing a bunch of work for some other person who can control my life in myriad ways bc they took out a loan or whatever - idk, this just doesn't seem cool to me ngl

this is all "lived experience" bullshit but i think this type of argument is just never going to fly imo. it's like when you were talking about the sushi chef stuff. it sounds nice and all and i'm sure it happens all around but it's not the world i see.

 

edit:

should also point out in fairness that the restaurant where i work is co-owned by some (now rich) guy who fronted/borrowed all the money, yes. the other owner is a sushi chef who absolutely works his ass off and is "in the trenches" with me every day and beyond. but he's certainly not facilitating any advancement of my career and has no interest in improving my wage afaik. in his eyes the manager deals with such things. i'm there to work for him and he's a fine enough person to work for. he is fairly reserved japanese guy who intensely believes in sushi so he just wants me to be like the perfect server and only comments on my performance in this role to criticize me lol. my job is quite decent though, i have it fairly good i think. i only work 4 days a week and make a decent living for the most part. most people have it way worse than me and i would really hate to tell them to have more respect for the risk taking owners or something. 

for those who are curious, i work at a cum factory.

Edited by Alcofribas
  • Burger 1
  • Farnsworth 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

intensely believes in sushi

finally something useful from this thread.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@cyanobacteria

I'm curious to know:

- have you ever left your country of birth, which I presume is America? For holiday, business or other?

- do you personally know anyone (irl) not raised in America? Why did they move to America?

- do you read political pieces that are not Marxist, jargon-laden propaganda?

- do you analyse as critically socialist literature as you do non-socialist literature?

- do you mediate?

- have you ever been to psychotherapy?

 

 

Screenshot_2021-05-11-09-30-13.png

  • Farnsworth 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Thu Zaw said:

@cyanobacteria

I'm curious to know:

- have you ever left your country of birth, which I presume is America? For holiday, business or other?

- do you personally know anyone (irl) not raised in America? Why did they move to America?

- do you read political pieces that are not Marxist, jargon-laden propaganda?

- do you analyse as critically socialist literature as you do non-socialist literature?

- do you mediate?

- have you ever been to psychotherapy?

  • yes i have, what does this have to do with anything?
  • yes i have many friends from all over the world and many acquaintances who moved to america
  • everything is propaganda
  • of course
  • what does this have to do with anything
  • yes multiple times what does this have to do with anything
Link to post
Share on other sites

i have no patience for fascists, if i see someone repeating bourgeois propaganda upholding the socioeconomic class system as a requirement for modern society ill call it out, some people cant handle the idea of everyone being treated with human dignity and having equal access to material needs regardless of ability or past accomplishments

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's questions you didn't answer.

I pose my questions because I'm interested in why you have such an oversimplified, binary view of humanity. I'm interested to understand your character, and why you seem so ill-at-ease with life and believe that your ideas are the one true path to salvation of humanity. It comes across as dogmatically religious.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thu Zaw said:

There's questions you didn't answer.

I pose my questions because I'm interested in why you have such an oversimplified, binary view of humanity. I'm interested to understand your character, and why you seem so ill-at-ease with life and believe that your ideas are the one true path to salvation of humanity. It comes across as dogmatically religious.

i dont have an overly simplified binary view of humanity, im very happy to provide elaborations on any positions you think i have that are binary and overly simplified

Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to insist that people are either bourgeoisie (wealthy capitalists) or proletariat (worker drone). Do any people exist inside this extreme binary?

You seem to insist that societies are either capitalist or socialist. Are there valid viewpoints that exist inside this binary extreme?

Can you explain your ideas without reliance upon Marxist/Communist jargon?

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Why do you insist on erecting this strawman? How many times have I said in this very thread that strong regulation, strong unions, workers rights, pensions that adjust for inflation, universal health care, etc. are all necessary to provide for the dignity of workers.

It's a classic "debate" tactic by communist zealots and other people pushing an ideology, religion or similar. If you don't support their very narrowly defined dogmatic thinking then you are the enemy of the people/God/nation/nature/whatever and that's that. It's meant to make you feel bad unless you subscribe to the exact same agenda they are pushing.

R.A.Wilson said all kinds of stupid things but I think he was correct when he wrote "when dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases".

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Thu Zaw said:

You seem to insist that people are either bourgeoisie (wealthy capitalists) or proletariat (worker drone). Do any people exist inside this extreme binary?

You seem to insist that societies are either capitalist or socialist. Are there valid viewpoints that exist inside this binary extreme?

Can you explain your ideas without reliance upon Marxist/Communist jargon?

please point out where i insisted this. i would never make such a black and white claim, reality is much more nuanced with intermingling concepts

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Thu Zaw said:

Can you explain your ideas without reliance upon Marxist/Communist jargon?

It's funny to see the walls of Marxist babble. I thought this shit died at latest in the 90s. Like @dcom here I was exposed to communist and socialist thinking all through my childhood. We had a portrait of Fidel Castro on the wall, ffs. So I'm so used to it that it's basically meaningless. It's not like I'm going to convert to communism suddenly now because someone is furiously writing about the proletariat and bourgeois and the same things I've read and heard a hundred times starting from the 80s. Might as well be quoting bible or Koran verses.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One last thing @cyanobacteria

You asked earlier why I referenced central planning, because of course you have said numerous times in this thread and elsewhere that central planning can work. It can, but it is less efficient than a well-regulated market, and the links I posted that came from a Soviet educated economist which show that central planning doesn't work you conveniently ignored.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, zkom said:

It's a classic "debate" tactic by communist zealots and other people pushing an ideology, religion or similar. If you don't support their very narrowly defined dogmatic thinking then you are the enemy of the people/God/nation/nature/whatever and that's that. It's meant to make you feel bad unless you subscribe to the exact same agenda they are pushing.

R.A.Wilson said all kinds of stupid things but I think he was correct when he wrote "when dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases".

Completely!

I think @cyanobacteriathinks of himself as a free-thinking, radical, political theorist.

Personally, I think he's a religious fundamentalist. He has chosen and read his Bible. His "ideas" are simply regurgitated, jargon-laden dogma, filled with fantasy and logical fallacies.

People are either believers or ethically corrupt heretics. Resistors to the one true faith must convert, surrender or be "eliminated".

This is religion, dude. 

Edited by Thu Zaw
Typo
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thu Zaw said:

This is religion, dude. 

Who was that politically opinionated bearded hipster guy that said "religion is the opium of the people"?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Farnsworth 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...