When and why did the left abandon the working class and embrace

>>1440972
circa-Alinsky era

>>1440972
Because more money

>>1440972
1 9 8 0 ' s

The left has done no such thing. Liberals have coopted leftist terms and ideas for the benefit of the ruling class and to misdirect opposition.

>>1440972
Simple. The educated liberal elite slowly began to recognize its interests lie with the economic reactionaries. The white upper class liberals would give token lip service to civil rights issues, even though they did not know or have to deal with poor blacks or minorities, but they would underhandedly back the corporate shadow state in order to guarantee their own place in the status quo.

The working class was just a passing fashion for the liberal elite's self-serving sympathies, soon replaced by racial miorities or lgbt.

>>1441215

>what is the stay campaign of brexit

with the rise of identity politics and the replacement of a class focus with a race/gender/sex/identity focus?

It was more the other way around, with the working class embracing nationalism at the expense of their own interests.

>>1441261
explain

File: 1294727569139.jpg (18KB, 267x273px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 267x273px

>>1441261

>free trade, open borders, cheap foreign labour, no tarrifs, etc. benefit the working class

>>1441261
>expense of their own interests
>SHUT UP PLEBS WE KNOW BETTER THAN YOU

there's a certain amount of defeatism after first world governments so uniformly crushed all working class movements. liberals today have accepted capitalism because it has such a stranglehold on the world at large. they've moved to other forms of radicalism because leftist working class based movements are seen as a lost cause.

it was probably around the 1970s.

>>1441261
I wonder who could be behind this post.

File: image.jpg (119KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 800x600px

"Neoliberalism" is a meme. It just means pragmatic economics and not falling for the whims and complaints of minorities and pseudointellectual hipsters

>>1441261

Nationalism is what could prevent laborers being treated like goods and services, able to be circulated from country to country and freely drive down wages.

>>1441217
Implying the working class aren't racial minorities as well.

File: 1382172562977.jpg (63KB, 402x612px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 402x612px

>>1441281

>nothing to see here kiddies, corporations exploiting everyone and undermining democracy is protecting you from communism

>>1441288
They are, but their issues aren't being received under a socioeconomic interpretation. Instead words like institutional racism get used to explain away what are ultimately class phenomena.

File: image.jpg (329KB, 1455x837px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1455x837px

>>1440972
From the 1960s until the 1990s when economists finally realized the failures of socialism. Up until that point more than half of economists were actual Marxists and the other <50% was divided between the Austrians, Friedmanites, and Keynesians. When marxism failed the entire discipline shifted, the former marxists became the left Keynesians, the former Friedmanites became New Keynesians and the Austrians were and remained a minority among the views, although they outnumber the modern day Chicago School which is basically dead

>>1441261
He's right, fuck the working class. Lets do socialism where we remove them as class enemies

>>1441304
Their class status is based of of racist and racialist policies. to say it's one or another ignore the fact this is a caste issue more than race or class alone.

File: image.jpg (36KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 320x320px

>>1441297
>The corpotations man, that's why we need the government to help stop them! What's that? The government bailed them out? Impossible bro!

>>1441304
The issues of a black worker back in the day and a white one back in the day are pretty darn huge withdrawn being a huge factor.

File: Austism.jpg (46KB, 514x536px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 514x536px

>>1441305
>That graphic
Holy shit that is the most retarded thing I've ever seen. Have you read marx or have you just been told what it says?

>>1441310

i actually have no idea what your point is

>>1441320
Not an argument Bernie

>>1441323

he wasn't making an argument, he was asking a question. so yes, you are correct

The Left was never for the working class, it was always just in favor of change by any means necessary.
;)

>>1441322
Don't worry about it bro. I read huffington so I know what I'm talking about. Denmark is proof that communism works but North Korea and Venezuela are capitalist. Also, Stalin did nothing wrong

>>1441326
The fact that socialism can be debunked by a meme probably created by some 16 year old is really all you need to know regarding Marxist "Economics"

>>1441333
>He's not a maoist
Fucking faggot

File: 1325239974373.gif (469KB, 445x668px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 445x668px

>>1441333

i hope the fire from that straw man you just burnt keeps you warm lad

>>1441336

ok

>>1441327

what does that even mean?

File: 1458309016893.png (638KB, 495x597px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 495x597px

>>1441340
It means
>H
>R
>E

>>1441340
it means that he believes leftism to be some big conspiracy where elites who claim to act to benefit the many are actually trying to benefit themselves rather than the many

The split with the old left is, well, old.

I think the first major sign of it was when the SPD and other democratic socialist parties "betrayed" the revolutionary left by siding with with their various national governments in WWI, instead of unifying internationally as workers against the global bourgeoisie as Lenin thought they should. This set the stage for a future division between reformist "soft" parliamentary socialists and revolutionary socialists that increasingly became what we would now label "Communists". Especially as the Soviet Union rose and became a domineering force in global politics.

So the next big phase is the 60s. We already see reformists socialists (or their liberal equivalents in the American Democratic party) pivot to cultural issues as economic reform stalls. People that don't want to be commies define themselves by promoting equality through civil rights, feminism, and anti-war activism. And for a while this seems be VERY successful. The civil rights movement is a massive social revolution, women start entering the work place, Vietnam is stopped. So the commie faction already on the wane loses even more prestige.

Then the 80s. Gulag Archipelago is a household name. The USSR starts going into death spasms. It's hard to be even a fence sitting Trotskyist now. Welfareism in cooperation with capitalist business interests under the model of successful social democrat societies like Scandinavia fully solidify as an ideal unto itself rather than the gradual piecemeal destruction of capitalism. This is the start of the "third way". Blairism, Clintonism, Rogernomics, the hydra has different titles but it is all connected to one creature.

At this point also technology, the opening of China, and the general temporary pacification of the world with the close of the Cold War, I think, launched the phenomenon of outsourcing. This hid the most extreme concerns for workers rights from the eyes of the first world.

>>1441333
>he argues in liberal caricatures.

>>1441351
That has always been the history of leftism. Trying to "do the right thing" then fucking over the people who you were supposed to help

>>1441361
>caricatures

>>1441362
sure, but we're talking about what >>1441327 meant by his statement, not about the history of leftist movements. if you want to make claims like

>The Left was never for the working class, it was always just in favor of change by any means necessary ;)

you need to prove it with evidence. you need to prove that marx was secretly opposed to the working class and only wanted change that benefit him and his buddies. can you explain how the failure of leftist movements proves that leftism as a concept was never aligned with the working class or is some secret conspiracy to oppress them?

>>1441356

>outsourcing

not just in economic terms but in ideological terms too. today the state outsources its censorship to private individuals to enforce, i.e. the sjw.

>>1441373
>but we're talking about what >>1441327 meant by his statement, not about the history of leftist movements.
But that's literally what I meant
>can you explain how the failure of leftist movements proves that leftism as a concept was never aligned with the working class or is some secret conspiracy to oppress them?
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, it's just collective stupidity of which ambitious people can take advantage. Institutionalized as it is in the European and American Left, it's problematic.

>>1441378

fair enough, but what's the alternative? lay down and just let cunts rip you off for eternity? you gotta try

>problematic
lmao

>>1441356
I think the shift towards progressive politics in the 60s is definitely a big deal; the working class isn't particularly interested in the way that progressive politics have begun to dominate the discourse of the traditionally "left". Hippies and working class Joes are sort of a fundamentally unstable alliance in terms of interests.

>>1441383
>you gotta try
Where did I advocate inaction? Are you saying that doing the wrong thing and not trying to figure out the best course of action is the right way to do things? What do you advocate?
>lmao
I'm lmaoing at your insistence that using violence against a perceived oppressor because someone feels oppressed makes sense whether they're oppressed or not lmao fucking teenager

File: 1321324279727.jpg (143KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1920x1080px

>>1441387

>Hippies and working class Joes are sort of a fundamentally unstable alliance in terms of interests.

i think brexit showed this really clearly. working class (at least in england, i duno about scotland) was all Leave. hipsters were all Stay. hipsters (The Guardian etc) blamed success of Leave on brainwashing by UKIP etc.

wtf is that about?

>>1441389

i agree chill yr fanny

im lmaoing at "problematic", meme word

>>1441393
>im lmaoing at "problematic", meme word
I know lmao, I'm still lmaoing at you

>>1441389
>I'm lmaoing at your insistence that using violence against a perceived oppressor because someone feels oppressed makes sense whether they're oppressed or not lmao fucking teenager

do you believe that leftism does not offer a good enough argument as to why capitalism creates oppressive conditions for workers?

File: 1447551635859.jpg (85KB, 939x1190px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 939x1190px

>>1441421
I believe that it's not good at providing solutions to those problems, i.e. the USSR did not alleviate the problems of the Russian working class, neither did the CCP, they merely introduced new sets of problems with each attempted solution. The left advocates the annihilation of its enemies, by default. Pic related, the original Bernie Sanders. The only difference is that this guy was a Mason, not a Jew.

>>1441336

It goes both ways:

>Capitalism explained by Socialists

>Capitalism is an economic system that is part of the development of humanity, coming after feudalism. Like feudalism, it has its many contradictions, eventually leading to its failure and a new system being established. In Capitalism, there are two classes, the Proletariat, or working man, and the Bourgeois, the business owning class. The Bourgeois class, descended from the artisans of feudalism, are business owners, investors, etc., and own the land, factories,things needed to create products, called, unsurprisingly, the means of production. These means of production, however, are not worked by the bourgeois, as their small time artisan forefathers did during feudalism. Due technological advancement, it is easier, and cheaper, to make things, allowing for large scale production. In order for mass production to take place, one needs people to work to produce the products. Due to new technology, little training is needed, leading to many poor peasants looking for a better life in the city to be able to work these jobs. These workers work in factories for an hourly wage. In order to make a profit, the Capitalist cannot afford to compensate the work of the workers entirely, even though these workers are what gave the product value, transformed it from raw materials into something usable. Now, due to this injustice, there is conflict between the worker, who sees himself as cheated, as he does all the work while his boss, who by some combination of luck and hard work, has found himself as the owner of the means of production, does nothing, and the boss, who sees himself as a simple businessman trying to make a profit and satisfy his shareholders. This conflict cannot go unresolved(see Hegel's dialectic), meaning that eventually, the wage system, on which capitalism is built, must be destroyed.

>Socialism explained by Capitalists

>Da Government does everything and they cant do it well so it sucks.

>>1440972

When we realized that free trade / free markets benefit the whole world in the long run and drastically improve our foreign relations.

>>1441438
>Socialism explained by Capitalists

>Da Government does everything and they cant do it well so it sucks.

That's qt a strawman you've got there, my lad. Wew.

>>1441442
that was the point mate. he's trying to tell you the image in >>1441305 is not useful for discussion, because it presents a strawman of its opposition.

>>1441438
>he fell for the dialectical materialism meme

>>1441433
i don't think bernie advocated for annihilation of enemies. he wanted to tax his enemies heavier. the methods that robespierre and berns use are completely different, so i don't think you're using a good comparison.

regardless, i agree with you. i do not think that the soviet model is an adequate form of addressing class struggle between bourgies and proles. another path is necessary to discover.

>>1441433
>The left advocates the annihilation of its enemies, by default
>using Robespierre as an example
>not knowing he eliminated extremists on both sides which led to his ultimate downfall

>>1441465
>i don't think bernie advocated for annihilation of enemies.
He also never got the nomination.
>so i don't think you're using a good comparison.
They're both leftists, you apologist faggot. Taxation is theft, desu.

>>1441468
>eliminated extremists on both sides
So he was an extremist?

>>1441439
Translation: It makes yuppies everywhere richer.

But we don't care about yuppies. You guys will always do well.

>>1441471
Nobody is forcing you to live in the US.

You can leave any time.

The tax is the price you pay for your US citizenship, and if the number of people applying for citizenship is any indication, it's a pretty good deal.

>>1441483
>Nobody is forcing you to live in the US.
What does this have to do with anything? Where can I go that I won't have to pay taxes?
>The tax is the price you pay for your US citizenship, and if the number of people applying for citizenship is any indication, it's a pretty good deal.
I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying that taxation is theft. You go to jail if you don't pay your taxes in most countries. I'm not just talking about the US.

>>1441482
t. resentful judgmental Internet nobody
>Not even a yuppie

>>1441489
>Where can I go that I won't have to pay taxes?
Africa.

>>1441489
>Where can I go that I won't have to pay taxes?

Somalia.

Really, a lot of countries with a weak government.

You just have to be willing to give up the idea of physical security, legal protection, or any of the other functions associated with a state.

>>1441494
>>1441495
>You just have to be willing to give up the idea of physical security, legal protection, or any of the other functions associated with a state.
OK, but what does this have to do with taxation being theft?

>>1441438
>socialist states that have worked: 0
>capitalist states that have worked: dozens

>>1441471
>They're both leftists, you apologist faggot. Taxation is theft, desu.
Mitt Romney and Pinochet were both rightists. Just because they vaguely agree on a few very basic tenets and core teachings doesn't they handled power correctly.

Fuck off. Property is theft desu.

File: 1449630183330.jpg (52KB, 500x586px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x586px

When did the workers become a class?

>>1441501
>Mitt Romney and Pinochet were both rightists.
And?
Just because they vaguely agree on a few very basic tenets and core teachings doesn't they handled power correctly.
What?
>Property is theft desu
But taxation isn't?

>>1441499
It's a goods for services transaction.

You're paying for the services of the government, which include a bunch of nice shit.

There is a competitive market in these services. If the state you're in doesn't provide a good enough deal, you can shop around and find another one.

If you feel that you don't need the service at all, you can stop.

You only get thrown in jail if you stop paying taxes and continue to receive services. You can't steal electricity or squat on someone else's land either.

>>1441482

those yuppies use their wealth to buy your labor

>>1441508
>It's a goods for services transaction.
And?
>You're paying for the services of the government, which include a bunch of nice shit.
>nice
[citation needed]
>You only get thrown in jail if you stop paying taxes and continue to receive services.
Which is my point--I was born with my citizenship, I didn't go through a process to attain it, I didn't buy it, your analogy falls apart there. If I can't afford to pay taxes, do you think I can afford to move to a place with more economic opportunity than the place where I went bankrupt to the point where I got thrown in jail for failing to pay taxes? What if I never took advantage of governments services beyond things like roads and the services provided by a standing army?
Again, taxation is theft--you either pay taxes or get thrown in jail, just like in Somalia you get shot and lose your wealth or exert force and grow it.

>the left
>being consistent with their views

kek

File: fb548d416f8b473b9469746a9a862d6003c71016.jpg (281KB, 1639x774px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1639x774px

>>1441500
>Implying that either capitalism or socialism in their purest forms have ever been tried with success.
Wew lad.

People said the same thing about capitalism 500 years ago.
>Dude, look at the Knights Templar, there's no way a banking system can work! Its against church teaching, and you arent suggesting we trust jews, right?
>Name one capitalist society that has worked. You cant! Every one of them has been created by a divine monarchy!

File: Sagan Hypothesis.png (137KB, 220x624px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 220x624px

>>1441522
If you don't think it's nice, go get another one. They're available.

The market seems to think that it's quite valuable, as more people have applied for US citizenship than any other country on the planet.

>Which is my point--I was born with my citizenship, I didn't go through a process to attain it

And a baby doesn't buy their own health insurance or home either.

Once you're of the age of reason, you have every option to pick another state. The US will gladly stamp your visa and send you off to your new life.

> If I can't afford to pay taxes, do you think I can afford to move to a place with more economic opportunity than the place where I went bankrupt to the point where I got thrown in jail for failing to pay taxes?

Lucky for you, the US has a progressive income tax. You can literally never be too poor to pay taxes, because they're based on your income.

>What if I never took advantage of governments services beyond things like roads and the services provided by a standing army?

What if your health insurance plan costs a bunch of money because it covers dental and you don't care about dental? You can buy another one.

>Again, taxation is theft--you either pay taxes or get thrown in jail
>restaurants are theft, if I try to leave without paying, I get thrown in jail
>rent is theft, if I stop paying it they kick me out
>retail is theft, if I slip a bunch of CDs under my shirt and leave without paying

> just like in Somalia you get shot and lose your wealth or exert force and grow it.

You see, Somalia doesn't provide physical security. Physical security is one of the core services that you pay taxes to provide. That's why the Department of Defense is the largest department in the federal government.

If you like, there are minarchist states such as Hong Kong that offer police service but minimal social welfare. Shop around.

speaking strictly in terms of america:

for a long, long time now republicans and democrats have largely been the same party. the exception is a few social issues and a few legal stances (gun rights, abortion, etc), but in terms of larger economic ideology both parties are quite identical.

bush was absolutely crucified for his tax breaks for the wealthiest tax brackets. flash forward to barack obama, every single piece of policy that obama has initiated to "save" the economy has been predicated by the idea of making wealthy people much more wealthy.

republican or democrat the source of all political capital comes from the same place, the capitalist elite. liberals don't want to damage the capitalist system anymore than conservatives do because global capitalism pays for the political system that got them into power in the first place.

>>1441504
>what is the industrial revolution

>>1441542
>If you don't think it's nice, go get another one. They're available.
I asked you for a citation, you made a claim and should be prepared to back it up with more than a snarky comment like this.
>And a baby doesn't buy their own health insurance or home either.
So why should a baby be born with citizenship?
>Lucky for you, the US has a progressive income tax. You can literally never be too poor to pay taxes, because they're based on your income.
This is about a hypothetical country, you ignoramus, not about the actual US. We're talking about the nature of taxation, i.e. a universal quality.
>You see, Somalia doesn't provide physical security.
There are gangs in Somalia. Your flaw is that you see the state as something other than a very powerful gang.

>>1441504
The workers have always been a class since agriculture.

In the old feudalist system they were serfs, laborers, and craftmen. In the capitalist system that all falls away and everyone that doesn't get their income from ownership is pushed towards one super class of worker. The wage worker.

>>1441548
Define "nice."

It doesn't mean the same thing to every single person.

Some people would like the family values, and the more traditional government provided by the Islamic state.

Some people would like cradle to grave welfare, as in Sweden.

It's like asking me to prove that perfume is nice. I can tell you what the market thinks.

>So why should a baby be born with citizenship?

Because they're under the age of reason and they can't take care of themselves.

This is incidentally the same reason why babies can't opt out of medical care, and kids can't decide to go live at a friends house. If you'd like to tell me that childhood is inherently unjust, that is another discussion.

>This is about a hypothetical country, you ignoramus, not about the actual US. We're talking about the nature of taxation, i.e. a universal quality.

Well, we've established that taxation is not universally unfair, or universally overwhelming. If your position was "it is unfair to prosecute people for something out of their control" I'd buy that in a minute. Everyone would.

>There are gangs in Somalia. Your flaw is that you see the state as something other than a very powerful gang.

Weird, it's almost like hierarchy is a universal feature of human life in general.

You could always try to live out in the woods on your own.

Oh wait, it's almost as if humans are pack creatures, and depend on one another to survive.

>>1441540
>le no true socialism
That means that either you're lying or that socialists are so incompetent they can't properly implement a system

>>1441507
>Just because they vaguely agree on a few very basic tenets and core teachings doesn't they handled power correctly.
>What
Sorry I meant
>Just because they vaguely agree on a few very basic tenets and core teachings doesn't they handled power SIMILARLY.
FTFY

>>1441569
>Define "nice."
You're the one that made the claim, you should provide a defintion.
>It's like asking me to prove that perfume is nice. I can tell you what the market thinks.
You only like what the market likes?
>Because they're under the age of reason and they can't take care of themselves.
Why does this qualify them for citizenship?
>This is incidentally the same reason why babies can't opt out of medical care, and kids can't decide to go live at a friends house. If you'd like to tell me that childhood is inherently unjust, that is another discussion.
I don't see how this is pertinent.
>Well, we've established that taxation is not universally unfair, or universally overwhelming.
Neither is theft.
>If your position was "it is unfair to prosecute people for something out of their control" I'd buy that in a minute. Everyone would.
"Everyone?"
[citation needed]
>Oh wait, it's almost as if humans are pack creatures, and depend on one another to survive.
The state is not a replacement for friends, family, lovers, etc. I find this offensive.

>>1441494
"Africa" pays taxes though and you are pretty idiotic to think otherwise.

>>1441571
Feudalism was around for around 1000 years before capitalism came into its own, after many, many failed attempts. Capitalism has been around for less than half that time, and similarly, there have been many, many failed attempts at socialism. That does not mean, however, that there have not been things that have come close, or have appeared promising. Two examples would be Revolutionary Catalonia, which managed to achieve some level of actual communism before the war went south, and the Yugoslavia SFR, which under Tito was able to establish a system of worker owned enterprises that competed in a free markets (a system which could be used as a transitory period to socialism for larger economies with huge companies and corporations such as the US) with a large amount of success until ethnic conflicts flared up after Tito's death. Most of the time, external forces or unrelated got in the way just when things were actually starting to work. It just so happens the shittiest idea(soviet style central planning) happened to dominate.

>>1441582
Okay, how about I amend that claim to "services that command a high market price."

>You only like what the market likes?

In this case, I quite like US citizenship. It's not quite as laid back as a European welfare state, but there's a lot of opportunity and a lot of interesting people to meet.

>Why does this qualify them for citizenship?

Why are you complaining about being given free stuff. Children don't pay taxes. In fact, their parents get a tax exemption for them. Do you complain when the ice cream place lets you take a sample with the tiny spoon?

>I don't see how this is pertinent.

Because adults can participate in the market for citizenship, just as with any other service. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

>Neither is theft

Actually, I think theft is by definition unfair.

>The state is not a replacement for friends, family, lovers, etc. I find this offensive.

If you want to depend on your friends and family for all of your public services, there are many places that still function on a clan system.

Be aware, they want something in return for their labor.

I think you want something for nothing. You aren't going to get that, because people need to work to provide goods and services, and they aren't your slaves.

>>1441610
>Okay, how about I amend that claim to "services that command a high market price."
Amend what?
>In this case, I quite like US citizenship. It's not quite as laid back as a European welfare state, but there's a lot of opportunity and a lot of interesting people to meet.
Terrible bases by which to judge this kind of thing.
>Why are you complaining about being given free stuff.
>free
w e w l a d
>Actually, I think theft is by definition unfair.
Why is that?
>
If you want to depend on your friends and family for all of your public services, there are many places that still function on a clan system.
My point is that a 'pack' is a collection of organisms and a 'state' is a legal, political, and military entity. Your analogy is comical.

>>1441610
>>1441615

>I think you want something for nothing. You aren't going to get that, because people need to work to provide goods and services, and they aren't your slaves.
Oh, and then there's this--the welfare state is what gives 'something for nothing.' You seem like you're baiting me.

>>1441615
>Terrible bases by which to judge this kind of thing.

Well, you asked me for my opinion. I quite like the US. It's my prerogative as a consumer to make decisions that you find unreasonable. The US might not be the best place for you. If so, I'd like to recommend Svalbard. Cold, but there's no visa process, and plenty of mining jobs. Shop around before you commit to anything.

>free
>w e w l a d

I want you to clarify this.

Are you complaining that minors receive public services paid for by other people? If so, are you complaining on behalf of the minors or the people providing the service? Because the people providing the services voted for it, and the people receiving them generally want them.

>my point is that a 'pack' is a collection of organisms and a 'state' is a legal, political, and military entity. Your analogy is comical.

A tribe is a military, legal and political entity. It defends itself, enforces conduct, and selects political leadership.

A state is simply a group of humans that have achieved a monopoly on legal violence, and developed a legal framework that spells out what constitutes legal violence. It is composed of humans, although many of them have fancy buildings, and titles given to them by other humans.

I think that you want something for nothing. I think you want other people to work to keep you safe, and make your life easier, and you don't want to give them anything to do it. I think you're shit out of luck.

>>1441507
both taxation and private property are theft.

>>1441634
>Well, you asked me for my opinion.
And I'm telling you what I think of it.
>Are you complaining that minors receive public services paid for by other people?
I'm not complaining about minors receiving the services, I'm pointing out that they're funded by money taken from people by a system that they didn't necessarily consent to being a part of.
>A state is simply a group of humans that have achieved a monopoly on legal violence,
Are you really going to sit there and tell me that wolf packs are organized just like the modern state is? You're full of shit. You can keep making the same analogy, or you can provide a citation.

>>1441658
>by a system that they didn't necessarily consent to being a part of.

Well, in the United States, they had the ability to vote for the elected officials that draw up the budgets and create policy.

They also had the ability to go to a different country where they didn't have to pay for a bunch of little brats.

You could argue that taxation that doesn't serve the public interest, or that doesn't have the consent of the public is unjust.

This is why in Western countries, the terms autocracy and kleptocracy are considered pejorative.

>Are you really going to sit there and tell me that wolf packs are organized just like the modern state is? You're full of shit. You can keep making the same analogy, or you can provide a citation.

No, that's why we call them states instead of clans or tribes. The wolfpack would be closer to the human clan system, with genetically related individuals acting as an independent economic and social unit, with fluid hierarchy and roles.

A state has much more defined roles, deeper specialization, and frequently codification of laws and policy.

Frankly, I think it works pretty well, but you can opt to live like a wolf if you're into that. Many of the humans alive today depend partially or totally on forms of organization other than a state.

>>1441673
>Well, in the United States, they had the ability to vote for the elected officials that draw up the budgets and create policy.

People who aren't citizens can't vote. What are you talking about?
>They also had the ability to go to a different country
One can't choose one's birtplace.
>This is why in Western countries, the terms autocracy and kleptocracy are considered pejorative.
What?
>Frankly, I think it works pretty well, but you can opt to live like a wolf if you're into that. Many of the humans alive today depend partially or totally on forms of organization other than a state.
I'm not advocating statelessness or the abolition of taxation, stop being so juvenile about this. I'm simply pointing out that taxation is theft.

>>1441699
>People who aren't citizens can't vote

I don't think they pay US taxes either, unless they hopped the border illegally.

>One can't choose one's birtplace.

You can't choose your parents either. Most people consider this to be an acceptable price to pay in exchange for their time on earth.

>stop being so juvenile about this. I'm simply pointing out that taxation is theft

I've been trying to gently lead you to the idea that taxation and theft are two distinct concepts in our political culture.

Taxation is codified, consistent, and as the aphorism "no taxation without representation" would suggest, generally the work of democratic institutions, at least in the industrialized world.

Theft is unpredictable, any individual can engage in it, and if it becomes public knowledge, is generally punished by society.

Apples and Oranges.

>>1441281
>socidlism

>>1440972
Because of the 2K period, dumby

>>1441501
>Property is theft desu.
Literally untenable.

>>1440972
c. 1850's

1
9
9
1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbvhB3VokDY
They all knew they were screwed

I would say between the 50s and the 70s. In the 50s the American working class got much richer and there was a lot of upwards mobility, it wasn't a doggy dog society with robber barons and children starving in coal mines anymore. Ever since then the economic left slowly started turning into cultural left, embracing weird identitarian bullshit like white guilt, feminism, anti-colonialism and things like that. Then in the 70s the new leftists started infiltrating the government and the media and by now they've come full circle, flat out blaming the reactionary white American working class for misfortunes of blacks, trannies and whatever the fuck.

>implying the problem is the left and not simply the increase of lumpenproletariat compared to the rest of the working class

>>1441220
I know about leftists who voted stay not because they're pro EU, but because the leave campaign was based on racism and fear mongering, according to them. If the leave campaign was based on anti-neoliberal ideas, many leftists might have voted leave.

when boomers finished university and had to start their careers

Left abandoned economic issues (poverty, wealth inequality, workers' rights) in favor of cultural shit (trannies, faggots, feminism, muslims, beaners).

But the right was the other way around, they abandoned conservative cultural issues (nation, race, family, country, God) in favor of economic nonsense (free market, open borders, multinationals, FTAs).

Now the old right is coming back and everyone is freaking the fuck out.

>>1441220

>implying that the actual hardline left wingers weren't supporting leave
>implying Jeremy fucking Corbyn didn't fuck his own party up the arse with his 7.5 comment
>implying David Cameron and a fuckton of right-winger so weren't behind remain.

The "remainers are lefties" shit needs to die.

they white collar supremacists, crypto-bourgesiose

>>1441275

The 1970s weren't a very prosperous time precisely because of socialist policies.

>/his/ is not /pol/, and Global Rule #3 is in effect. Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates

>>1443944
>The 1970s weren't a very prosperous time

Wut.

>precisely because of socialist policies.
>social programs = socialist policies

>>1443967
Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign began 25 years ago, so there is an argument for this being historical.

>>1441261
Anti-nationalism solely benefits the rich.

>>1441281
>It just means pragmatic economics
Massive meme. Neoliberalism is literally shitting on the working class to benefit the rich, it isn't pragmatic.

For example Thatcher closing down the mines wasn't economically pragmatic, since the increased government interference required in the north after the shutdown to fight poverty, crime and drug use is more expensive than the subsidies were.

Not to mention the Humanitarian side, where several families and individuals were ruined. Unemployment causes a lot of damage.

>>1444089
I'd rather invest in welfare than pay people to move rocks around in empty coal mines.

Don't get me wrong, dumping a bunch of people suddenly out of work is no good thing, but it's generally better to just directly give people money than prop up inefficient industries.

>>1443985

There were rolling blackouts and telephone outages in the UK because of incompetently managed public services.

In the US the economy was stagnant with rapid inflation because of unemployment centred monetary policy and overspending by the government on the great society and Vietnam.

>>1441438

Marx is wrong with regards to dividing society in in proletarians and the bourgeous.

It makes as much sense (or even less) as dividing society in the private sector and the State.
The people who create wealth, be them owners, bosses or employees, and the people who live from the taxes imposed on the private sector, be them a senator, a major, a marxist sociologist working for a Public University, or a high school teacher.


The most important issue that determines social classes is intermarriage.
Most people marry in the same class.
And people freely have decided that income, not ownership of the means of production, is what decides class.
An employee of Microsoft who makes 300.000 dollars per year, and the owner of some business or shop who makes 300.000 dollars per year, belong to the same class.
Bourgeois dont marry other bourgeois much poorer than them, but will marry a high level high income employee.

Marxism also ignores that fact that never before so many people have been self employed, and never before factories have needed so few workers due to robots.

Factory workers are a minority, a small class, in all the world, and unemployment is a greater problem than worker exploitation currently.

>>1443967
>sissy little lefty can't handle anything outside of his hugbox

>>1444124
>Marxism also ignores that fact that never before so many people have been self employed, and never before factories have needed so few workers due to robots.

Really it shows its age. The world is very different from the late 19th century.

>An employee of Microsoft who makes 300.000 dollars per year, and the owner of some business or shop who makes 300.000 dollars per year, belong to the same class.

Yes, and no. A wage of that amount does not mean the same thing in say Houston as it does in LA. Cost of living has gone more dis-joined over time.

>>1444582
300k in San Fran isn't impressive.
300k in Atlanta, Memphis or some mid sized town though that's pure bliss.

>>1444587
In Houston 300k is a CFO of a mid-large company that is doing well and really wanted said person as CFO.


>Atlanta, Memphis or some mid sized town

Houston has 6,656,947 in its merto area, Atlanta has 5,710,795 in its merto area, San Francisco has 4,656,132 in its merto area. Its not even in the top 10 in the US.

However it does cost a lot to live there.

Working has made me realize socialism doesn't work.
I work in a storage facility. It's incredibly hot, so we drink a lot of water. Water ( goods ), and occasionally Gatorade ( luxury goods ). There is often a shortage of even normal bottled water.
Whenever we are lucky enough to get some gatorade, the dumb lazy niggers who are always avoiding work are the first to drink almost all the fucking gatorade, and when no gatorade is available they waste water by only drinking a bit then being dumb niggers and throwing and wasting the rest of the water. They do this shit. Every. Single. Day.

On a wider scale, this is why socialism will never work. You'll have stupid niggers wasting valuable resources for the dumbest of reasons, and then they hog all the luxury resources while not doing any of the work.

Why are my coworkers fired yet? Surprisingly, capitalism fails sometimes too if the employers are too nice. Sociopaths are required for capitalism to function properly it seems.

>>1444683
That doesn't really work as a critique compared to the other better written and though out ones desk.

>>1444683
The company probably decided that it's cheaper to pay for water than to cycle through new niggers looking for somebody who works an 8 dollar an hour job and isn't a dipshit.

You have to factor employee turnover into this stuff.

>>1444703
>Expecting professional critique of economic systems on a Taiwanese basket weaving forum

>>1444683
Well, if socialism doesn't work, then you as a worker aren't in a position to observe and correct failures in the workplace.

If you were consistent in your criticism, it leads to the position that you can't really call your co-workers lazy niggers.

>>1440972
Establishment politicians on the left always end up selling out to reestablished money. It's just the nature of the business. Then when they get called on it by leftists who are younger and more ideological, they spout the "Progressive who gets things done™" crap.

Mosley threw a bitchfit over this in the fucking thirties, it's not remotely modern

>>1444683
ideally you need a mentally healthy person who imitates the best qualities of socios out of principle, they are rare though

>>1444727
That and, as much as /pol/ bitches about how the left doesn't wear horsehair shirts as penance for the Soviet Union, one that fell, the end of history is declared and "Progressives who get things done" decided they won, and the radical left was too busy trying how not to look like failures to do anything.

>>1441261

>being this jewish

>>1444745
The Clinton Model of the "New Left" was never on the left, it was hardcore neoconservatism dressed up in lefty trappings. Given that the big icon of the lefts politics, the USSR, had just proved to be a fairly, it worked. 20 years later, the façade is slipping

>>1444762
>The Clinton Model of the "New Left" was never on the left, it was hardcore neoconservatism dressed up in lefty trappings.
Yes, I totally agree with that. But the left was so disrupted, even the anti-soviet left, because of this new cudgel the neocons had, that they were able to slip back into the left where they started.

>>1441716
>I don't think they pay US taxes either, unless they hopped the border illegally.
What does this have to do with anythign?
>You can't choose your parents either. Most people consider this to be an acceptable price to pay in exchange for their time on earth.
And yet citizenship isn't a necessary precondition of human existence. Biological parental units are. One cannot exist if one does not come into existence, but one can exist without citizenship.
>I've been trying to gently lead you to the idea that taxation and theft are two distinct concepts in our political culture.
But taxation is theft; even if they're viewed as being distinct, you are willfully blinding yourself to the fact that the state is just a gang of thugs that nobody is capable of overpowering.

>>1445179
>What does this have to do with anythign?

Well, they aren't either receiving or giving anything. What are you trying to say.

>And yet citizenship isn't a necessary precondition of human existence

Generally most babies don't due to great in nature.

If it isn't a state, it's a clan system or a tribe.

This detracts from the more important point that their parents are the one making the decision to keep them as citizens of a given country. Do you or do you not think that parents should have the ability to make decisions for their children?

>a gang of thugs that holds elections for their leadership, follows written laws, and commands the approval of a significant portion of the population

>>1441261
cucked
>>1444106
lots of the mines were actually profitable

>>1445302
Frankly, after the Winter of Discontent, an example needed to be made.

>>1445314
yes, but shutting down profitable mines isn't a good example

>>1445196
>What are you trying to say.
Taxation is theft.
>Generally most babies don't due to great in nature.
So what? That only means that the concept of citizenship in the modern state is unnatural, and that some precursor to citizenship allowed children to reap the benefits of being part of a tribe or clan prior to its emergence.
>their parents are the one making the decision to keep them as citizens of a given country
How does this change anything?
>Do you or do you not think that parents should have the ability to make decisions for their children?
I think parents have the power to do that, I see nothing wrong with it--I just think that citizenship is, in many cases, an imposition rather than something sought after. Even if I enjoy the benefits of my citizenship, it is still something I was given at birth without my consent.
>>a gang of thugs that holds elections for their leadership, follows written laws, and commands the approval of a significant portion of the population
That's a fine definition of "state." It's not a given that people in the state follow the law, by the way, you fucking idiot.

>>1445339
you were fed at birth without your consent too, autist

>>1445420
>Anyone who disagrees with me is an autist but I'm intelligent because I can't read
How many times do I have to say that I'm not claiming that birth into citizenship is a bad thing before you understand that I'm saying it?

>>1444106
No it's not. The effects of unemployment are worse than the effects of poverty.

>>1445430
>hurr

>>1445420
>he didn't cry bloody havoc for a mouthful of titty

>>1445442
>Not having a single mom with milkless breasts and sucking Daddy Government's cock the moment you come out of the birth canal

File: 13087923_978472285535806_7545658118934924905_n.png (320KB, 879x851px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 879x851px

>>1445453
Forgot pic

>>1445425
I'm a completely different person, I'm criticizing the whole action without my consent argument you keep spouting.

Some things should be done without consent, because they are beneficial. Such as being fed as a child or given citizenship.

>>1443752
There was a large contingent of labour voters who were pro-remain just as there was a large contingent of right wingers who voted remain, you're confusing the traditionalist right wing (leave voters) with the corporatist remain voters, and the unionists (leave voters) with the more (champagne) socialist wing of the labour party. In both cases you have a split in the left and right wings over the issue.

Similar things can be found with the australian greens party supporting the TPP. Even given they didnt read it, there is no reason a supposedly socialist, environmentalist, left wing group would support a deal that explicitly grants corporations increased powers over companies owned by the state, that gives corporations increased autonomy from environmental rules and regulations, that increases the cost of healthcare simply to increase the profits of corporations and that extends copyright.

But they supported it because they seemed to think it's a step towards removing boarders.

>>1441272

>wages decrease
>price of literally everything decreases as well due to access to a global market

>>1445549
Can you show me a single example of this actually happening? So far I've just seen short selling to kill local industries by transnationals before prices return to their previous or higher levels.

I mean hell, down here in australia we have constant issues with oil companies collaborating on price fixing, let alone woolworths and coles doing their best to kill off local and independent retailers with price gouging. And that's not considering the replacement of our shoe and book industries causing enormous price increases to the point where a pair of sneakers costs the same as a pair of italian leather shoes, or the recent replacement of our fishing industry which has lead to increases in price and decreases in quality.

Hell we even get the sydney, melbourne and auckland housing markets with sydney's median house price already in excess of a million and melbourne and auckland set to follow suit in the next year, with a reasonable amount of upwards pressure being generated by international markets and slow release of land for development.

>>1445549
Don't forget the supposed tendency of profit to fall.
>expenditure on labor goes down
>revenue from prices don't go down
>???
>less profit