What the fuck happened to the labor movement? Socio-economic

The general prosperity of post WW2 America made them impotent as many companies could afford to just buy off employee loyalty with generous compensation so that most workers didnt feel the need to unionize.

>>2571238
Nowadays most workers are getting cucked hard though, why isn't the labor movement revitalizing?

>>2571223
It was thoroughly crushed by the Third Way, which rapidly and effectively replaced it as "What the Left stands for" in the eyes of most Western political laymen.

>>2571223
Coz fuck baby boomers and their neoliberalism. Someone post the video or quote about the economic advisor of Thacter expressing his fear that the administration might have kept unemployment up to fuck the unions and engage full on neoliberal policies

>>2571246
Class consciousness is at a all time low coz of identity politics

People are just taught to swallow the Big Business Cock, my grandmother was born in 1925 and simply can't comprehend why people like my cousin who work 70 hours a week as a CPA in a big four accounting firm don't unionize.

>>2571270
Unions are cancer

>>2571255
Neoliberals infiltrating labour parties definitely fucked shit up but I think it went wrong in the 70s when class struggle was replaced by identity politics.

>>2571289
>unions are cancer
care to explain?

with the soviets gone americans highjacked the political left and turned it into neo liberalism

>mfw the so called leftists would be the first ones sent to camps and have their assests redistributed

>>2571295
They restrict the operations of businesses and stand in the way of free market capitalism.

I'm all for good working conditions, but some unions take things too far and hold businesses as hostage.

File: goldface.jpg (145KB, 1111x597px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1111x597px

>>2571321
>greedy workers are demanding too much from the hard working job creators
found the neoliberal

File: image.jpg (29KB, 404x399px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 404x399px

>>2571298
>mfw the urge to gulag rises when people insist that neoliberal are leftists
This is the worst Orwellian shit in our age

>>2571339
All these well off "leftists" living in gated communities and recently turbo gentrified cities these days were hardcore Maoists in the 70s as teenagers, it's simply the circle of capitalism.

File: image.jpg (54KB, 500x370px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x370px

>>2571321
>I'm all for good working conditions, but some unions take things too far and hold businesses as hostage.
>I want the reward, but I am too squmish to do the necessary steps to get it

>>2571335
Who's the one taking risks? The company, not the workers.

The workers get a salary and can leave at any time they want if they don't want the job. Why ruin the company with unions if they don't like the job? Just leave.

The company owners are the one taking risks and ultimately are creating value for society.

Reminder that Nordic countries are in the top 10 or so in freest economies in the world and unionization rates of around 80% for workers in all of them.

>>2571370
Name 3 products in most people's house that's created by the Nordick companies.

>>2571381
Anything made by Ikea

>>2571321
t. poorfag that will never own a business shitting out richfag propaganda

>>2571365
Based Big Bill

>>2571294
They didn't "infiltrate" them. Leftists decided that LGBT and pro-immigration crap was more important than actual economic leftism. Stop passing the buck. Hillary verbatim said something to the effect of "oh, if we smashed the banks, would that solve oppression of gay and transgender people?" or something to that effect.

Also the left just aren't interested in running state owned enterprises efficiently, they see their purpose as stuffing as many people on the public payroll in sinecure positions as possible.

Has anyone ITT read Zola's novel Germinal? Set in a squalid french mining town in the mid 1800s it offers a pretty cynical portrayal of the socialist revolutionary fervor of the 19th century.

>Tfw grandpa was a union leader
Socialism would get my sympathies if it had not turned into a white man hating ideology.

>>2571395
I am a poorfag, but I can see the benefit to society that businesses produce.

The problem with commies is that they're jealous of the rich, and want everyone to be just as poor as them.

Steinbeck said it best "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires". I do have hopes to be rich someday, but if not - then I know someone has due to the wonderful system we have.

>>2571295

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq7wnMvLYg4

America had a captive export market from about 1950 to 1970, then other players started ramping up capital intensive exporting industries, e.g. Germany and Japan.

Problem is that America doesn't have a core of nationalists who actually care about the country like the Japs do. Japanese business leaders care about Japan as a nation - likewise for Chinese elites, whereas American business leaders see America as a sort of geographical expression almost - not really a country. Just a place where labor and capital should be allowed to pass through unhindered.

Their mistake is in thinking that the rest of the world outside of the West thinks like this (protip: they don't).

>>2571430
Troof

Although honestly globalism is probably a calculated effort by American elites to placate the rest of the world and discouraging them from waging open warfare on the west

>>2571430
Haven't heard of the Jap lost 2 decades, their economy is shit. And every rich Chinese family do everything they can to move their money out of China.

So no, the US economy is doing a lot better than them, or really any other country. Protectionism has no place in the globalized world we live in.

>>2571437
There's nothing calculated about it. The people in charge of America, Britain, France etc genuinely, in bona fide terms, believe that the rest of the world is simply going to "catch up" with their notions of racelessness and universality and that we're all going to mix together and form some sort of united world government free of warfare and strife.

Make no mistake. Western elites are transnational elites who genuinely believe the shit they spout.

>>2571448
More like they don't care either way and will laugh all the way to the bank as progressive multicultural societies free of hate devolve into race wars as they laugh from their gated communities and sip champagne with a Saudi princeling.

>>2571409
>neoliberals
>left

You just proved his point, bruh.

>>2571443
>Haven't heard of the Jap lost 2 decades, their economy is shit

Because it's hyperbole at best, often pushed by the Japs to get concessions at trade deals.

The Japanese economy from 1991 to 2007 grew by about 1.5% on average according to the World Bank while their labor force declined by about 2% throughout this same period. The American economy grew on average by about 2.4% with a labor force that increased by something like 20% throughout this same period.

What this means is that Japanese growth is pure productivity growth, whereas American growth is just population growth - or more specifically growth of credit creation and consumption because of a larger domestic consumer market.

>So no, the US economy is doing a lot better than them, or really any other country

Name three areas of capital intensive manufacturing where the US beats the Japanese.

During your so called lost decades the Japanese forced the Americans out of the SMC silicon market (Monsanto used to operate in this space) and now the market essentially functions as a Japanese duopoly. There isn't a single car assembly plant in the world that can function without Japanese producer's goods either.

The Japanese DOMINATE intermediate goods.

File: adolftip.jpg (16KB, 500x435px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 500x435px

>>2571369
>rent seeking is risky

File: 7289793278927892.jpg (24KB, 500x369px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x369px

>>2571467
Well most business are not rent seekers.

Even if that was the case - if it's so easy, why don't workers setup their own rent seeking business?

>>2571467
it is though

>>2571464
You know a lot more about this than I do, interesting stuff - I'll need to read up on it.

File: image.jpg (56KB, 352x768px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 352x768px

>>2571420
>taking the most potent criticism from socialists as a badge of honor
Wew lad

>>2571518
A lot of people are okay with their socio economic status as long as there is an element of luck and ability to advance within the system. Marxcucks don't understand a lot of people don't want to trade the casino for a sure thing.

>>2571464
>What this means is that Japanese growth is pure productivity growth, whereas American growth is just population growth

Actually by the figures you cited the Japanese productivity increased by 29% and American productivity increased by 22%. Hardly "just population growth".

>>2571266
>Class consciousness
The least important collective.

>>2571531
I'm not talking about the actual metric for productivity, that's something different and obfuscated by a number of other factors - I'm talking about measuring GDP growth versus labor force aggregate numbers.

A lot of American growth is simply growth of the population via artificial means, coupled with the fact Americans don't have high savings rates and have much easier access to consumer credit.

America's economy is driven by consumption. And it is vendor-financed for this reason.

>>2571511
Give Fingleton's stuff a read, also read MITI & The Japanese Miracle, it was written in the 1970s but it explains how the Japanese state works pretty well.

Don't believe any western moron who talks about how Japan is in some sort of terminal stagnation and decline. Japanese living standards are rising, real estate is actually becoming more affordable for young first time buyers and so on. Japanese companies dominate capital intensive manufacturing - They even manufacture Boeing wide-body airliner wings now (wings are perhaps the most difficult part of an airframe to manufacture) which is why they've been able to start launching their own small to mid sized airliners (MRJ being very successful so far in terms of order numbers).

>>2571538
Why cite figures which do nothing to strengthen your argument? Just to dazzle people who don't know better?

>>2571555
>which do nothing to strengthen your argument?

The figures I cited show the Japanese economy growing at a modest rate in spite of an overall decline in the aggregate size of the labor force. There is literally no other way this can be achieved other than by increases in per-worker productivity. It's basic arithmetic dumbass.

I bet you think the PRC is "on the verge of collapse" too, you delusional, wishful thinking libtard.

If only you knew how hard western elites have fucked you and your kin.

>>2571538

I've often wondered why so much emphasis is placed on GDP in the west rather than other figures. I guess it's because you can inflate GDP pretty easily just by letting more people into your country to buy stuff, regardless of the long term consequences of all this.

>>2571524
Your analysis skills are comparable to those of a mongoloid sloth


Or maybe you're just american

>>2571570
Yeah, it's textbook capitalism: Exponentially increase the size of markets.

And it is supported by 90% of leftists these days, lol.

File: jean-luc-melenchon-le-23-aout-2015-a-paris_5443955.jpg (33KB, 640x358px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x358px

>>2571594
"Leftists"

You mean neoliberal sheep.

File: 1464037549295.png (225KB, 768x1152px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 768x1152px

>>2571223
>liberals and their social progress by making everyone comfy

in 2017, liberals call this the universal income and it will fail to stop people being unhappy, precisely because liberals fail to see that stopping unhappiness is not done through money nor material goods nor sensuality.

>>2571590
My analysis is spot on and describes the reality of the average person's mentality outside of people living in absolute squalor in the third world eating donated beans and rice.

>>2571295
Transport for London unions
Just look how rich their boss is and what they're complaining about

File: 009.jpg (48KB, 400x435px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 400x435px

>>2571223
>he thinks standard of living hasn't improved in the last 10 years

>>2571616
It's ok bro keep praising a fair world hypotesis system which gives everything to the 1% and treats the 99% (in which you are and will always be included) as absolute dogshit

>>2571632
>anarchy is better than stable inequality
Ah yes that's why the peasants weren't constantly rebelling against their barons and why everywhere has Friesland freedom

File: 1490484591366.jpg (9KB, 248x233px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 248x233px

>>2571632
I chalked up the capitalist system to basically a casino nor did I necessarily explicitly defend it, I simply described the mentality most people have, clearly you are not only an ideological zealot but your reading comprehension is shit as well. Good day.

>>2571651
You also post asuka


Worst economic system and worst girl, congratulations

File: 1473044579133.jpg (14KB, 180x200px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 180x200px

>>2571666
Capitalism is pretty terrible, but you'd have to be crazy to say that best girl is worst girl.

>>2571646
>literally forgetting the one time the peasants rebelled so hard that everybody got a lot freer
Soon.jpg

>>2571651
Yes wow and most people's mentality are shit. So?

We sold out our individual power to globalists

>>2571223
Capitalists won.

>hey maybe the profit margin between employer's capital ownership and employees labour productivity could be a bit more balanced
>OMG WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL THE RICH BECAUSE YOU ARE ENVIOUS?

Why are lower middle-class so hellbent on defending their master's interest?

>>2571994
Like the nobility of old the lower middle-class derives its power and wealth from their master as such defending the interest of their master is defending their own interest.

File: themasterchillswithmiyazaki.png (266KB, 634x374px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 634x374px

>>2571651
>>2571666
>>2571670

Fuck off pricks. I come to /his/ to get away from waifu war identity politics.

File: 1488012507386.jpg (68KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x600px

>>2571994

Funny to see how only low class failures and NEETs from middle-class households are so hellbent on overthrowing the system.

Basically crybaby gibsmedats. Learn to play the game better, you sour failures.

>>2572070
>gibsmedats

Because it's the poor that funnels money through 157 channels and hires 37 different creative accountants to not pay taxes to a system they benefit most from.

>>2572077
>creating jobs is bad

>>2571934
No it was peasants just dying and so you could say unionisation trough death that brought social change

File: 1480528306790.jpg (50KB, 639x380px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 639x380px

>>2572077

>Sour grapes trying to reason to himself why his unemployment is virtuous

Kek.

Don't worry pinko, Capitalism can be improved and reformed if we get our senses together and defeat crony capitalism. We don't need your communist/socialist bullshit.

>>2572084
>diluting the workforce is good
The production line really was for the worse for the people

>>2571223
>Socio-economic developments aren't leading to an increased standard of life anymore for most people.

But that's wrong

Just like Feminism, Unions turned from wanting just treatment to wanting special treatment. At least that's how it is here. Their job is to make employers bend over to retarded "must-haves" like 5 hour working days and complete inability to fire someone if the employee decides that he doesn't want to be fired.

>>2572070
Let me reword my first post for you

>hey maybe the profit margin between employer's capital ownership and employees labour productivity could be a bit more balanced
>OMG WHY IS IT THE LOSERS THAT WANT TO OVERTHROW THE SYSTEM?

Understand better my temporarily embarrassed millionaire friend? Because your brain directly defaults to shittalking the poor whenever someone criticises the failings of a system.

Enjoy defending the people who would go through hell and back to make more profit from your labour for free.

File: 2b41934dabcd80e2e4d772b0a62ba3010ca24ff2.png (239KB, 553x369px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 553x369px

>>2572087
>What is the French Revolution?

>>2572093
>implying this isn't business as usual

File: 1487733469919.gif (873KB, 320x235px) Image search: [Google]

873KB, 320x235px

>>2572109

>oh everyone that is poor must be poor because of the system, not personal traits, circumstances and variables!

You're giving your sorry unemployed ass way too many excuses, buddy.

File: 9ad550215cbe2ecf8202bb91e0524656d032370f62a471bc0d02a6182a1184ee.jpg (427KB, 1000x848px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1000x848px

>>2572119
>thinking a system with inheritance and old boy networks are somehow meritocratic
>projecting this hard

>>2572126

>Thinking anyone that is at least slightly successful is successful only due to nepotism

Your defeatist attitude is what made you a NEET in the first place

>>2572126
>A system has a few flaws from time to time
>Why don't we destroy the entire system instead of fixing it's few flaws
Anon please

>>2572126

Is there any way to have any system that doesn't invariably lead to "old boy networks" to some degree

The communist parties of the USSR and Cuba turned into one huge centralized old boy network

File: 1489621119091.jpg (50KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 499x499px

>tfw make $35 an hour doing light physical labor as a stagehand for Broadway plays and the union leader always stocks the fridge full of bacon and cheese for our mandated one hour and fifteen minute breaks
I'm sorry but if you're not in a Jewish controlled and staffed union you are basically a stupid goyim cuck

File: 836.gif (2MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x200px

>>2572119
I said the relationship between capital owner and employee could be more balanced. I literally said nothing about virtue, personal traits, the unemployed, wealth or welfare yet you keep talking about the poor and welfare.

How does it feel to be so indoctrinated your brain malfunctions and defaults to talking about poor in completely unrelated topics?

File: 62ca9e0dd9e7a6be809c8503009299449329c38b1c3dac7b8ee195d502187a3a.jpg (221KB, 1173x882px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1173x882px

>>2572131
>Some successes justifies a broken system
>still pretending every critic is a NEET coz it makes you feel better about yourself

>>2571381
h&m clothes, ikea, norwegian salmon, volvo, angry birds

>>2572136
I actually believed in the system until 08 happened. Nobody went to jail

>>2572137
This. Commie systems leads to people being judged on factors besides how effective they are. In a free market economy, if you can't provide value to society you starve.

>>2571412
I've got nothing against Zola, but for all his focus on social conditions he wasn't sympathetic to radical revolutionaries

File: 1480477645507.jpg (538KB, 934x837px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 934x837px

>>2572141

>some failures in a system justifies complete dismantling and overthrow of the system

Bad communism/socialism is much worse than rotten-apple capitalism.

And yes it does feel good to know most of you gommies are literal sour grape NEETs.

>>2571420
>but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires".
that was supposed to be a critique, you idiot. since you take it literally, you're admitting you're adhering to an economy fantasy constructed for you to make you work harder

File: when you are accused of being someone else.jpg (456KB, 2880x1800px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 2880x1800px

>>2572156
>Whataboutism intensifies
>Still being deluded than i am a NEET

>>2572149

well fix that then.

>>2572165

I said MOST, maybe not you.

I'll see you at the local Starbucks. Have my coffee ready and warmed up, skaterdude.

>>2572149
We live in a democracy where we can get rid of the politicians who we think don't serve our best interests. The people simply didn't give a shit about what happened to the bankers who created that mess - otherwise political pressure would have forced politicians to act. So blame the people first, and politicians second. Businessmen are simply working under the laws we have, its up to us to enforce them.

>>2572163
It's not a fantasy if I see that capitalism produces far more wealth than any other system.

>>2572173
Kek, why must you persist in delusion to feel right?

>>2572175
>I didn't know how 08 actually happened: the post
The businessmen were untouchable coz of lobbying groups. Hmmm i wonder what system empowers them to be like that?

File: hi.jpg (631KB, 726x1000px) Image search: [Google]

631KB, 726x1000px

>>2572196

>Kek, why must you persist in delusion to feel right?

No need to get your panties in a bunch.

>Hmmm i wonder what system empowers them to be like that?

That's what happens when shit corrupt laws get in the way of free market and businesses

It's sad that real capitalism was never tried :(

>>2572196

>implying literal gommunism is better

like fighting fire with gasoline

>>2571369
Should we do it like 200 or so years ago, and have kids working, for 16 or so hours, with no insurance if they get hurt from the toxic fumes in the factory, or if something falls on their head because the guy in charge wanted to save a pretty penny.

Who would build factories in an communist society, and why would they do it how would they motivate the factory building workers to build the factory? How would hospitals/schools/police/army function would they have leaders or? How would you pay for scientific programs? How do you even make decisions, democracy? What if 10 people vote to kill a single person they dont like, who would prevent that?

Outsourcing and automation.

>>2571223
China

>>2571295
Most of them have become little more than bloated rackets meant to enrich the guys at the top and force members to engage in things they might not agree with or face persecution.

>>2572156
>And yes it does feel good to know most of you gommies are literal sour grape NEETs.

I'm not that guy, and I know it's strictly an anecdote, but the only genuine communists I know are all workers. One works with the handicapped as a care-aid, the other is a baker by trade.

This line of criticism is always baffling, because when it's rebutted, the immediate response is "well they're just jealous of the rich" (see: when Nestor Makhno is brought up) or when they are already kind of rich (Mikhail Bakunin, Friedrich Engels) the response is "theyv'e never represented the working class.

The fact is, like all ideologies, socialists come from a variety of backgrounds and have a variety of motives for being socialists.

>>2572218
Real and unchecked capitalism corrupted the laws and broke the unions, We had real capitalism before and this is the end product whether you like it or not

>>2572229
more whataboutism

>>2572298

A collection of anecdotes in an internet debate is worth just as much as a single anecdote (as in worthless). Sorry dude!

>>2572248
>Who would build factories in an communist society, and why would they do it how would they motivate the factory building workers to build the factory?

Person A sees a need that needs to be addressed, brings it up at whatever organization function they normally attend.

>How would hospitals/schools/police/army function would they have leaders or?

Collectively and democratically. You can find examples during periods of civil unrest in certain places. Makhno's army in Ukraine, while not strictly democratic was mostly democratic IIRC.

>How would you pay for scientific programs? How do you even make decisions, democracy?

Direct democracy is the standard proposal, though there's also consensus (things don't happen until everyone agrees).

>What if 10 people vote to kill a single person they dont like, who would prevent that?

Presumably that same urge to prevent society from becoming all against all that keeps ours from descending into this kind of behavior too often.

Note: I'm not a communist, I'm just explaining the ideas as best I understand them. Communists in general reject the notion of coming up with every facet of their society in advance, since that pretty much just leads to naval-gazing utopianism.

>>2572308
It's worth more than continually asserting that everyone that disagrees with you is a NEET. I brought up specific historical figures.

File: 1483579048750.jpg (18KB, 500x507px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 500x507px

>>2572302

I want more 100% AMERICAN whataburger, not your unironic use of obscure Soviet buzzwords.

Also all communist uprisings led by powerful vanguard parties (because nobody is going to fucking share a nickel with you, okay poor boy?) end up with USSR's. That's why "Real communism" always end up with autocratic dipshits.

File: quote-the-first-lesson-of-economics-is-scarcity-there-is-never-enough-of-anything-to-fully-thomas-sowell-27-84-72.jpg (68KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 850x400px

>>2571570
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/02/28/283477546/the-invention-of-the-economy
It was the times of the "roaring twenties", things were going nicely, everyone was getting into this whole "trade stock" thing, but then inexplicably at the end of the decade, titles went all of sudden down, a group of millionaires even decided, to inject money in the market to sparkle faith back into it.

Yadda yadda great depression, what happened? Well 2 things, 1 they did not know how the economy was actually going, 2 they thought that supply created demand and not the other way, too much stuff that was not being bought.

So the GDP was invented, the GDP is what allows to measure the result of an economy system as a whole.

How does GDP works, here's an example:
let's say you have 2 businesses, one makes yarn, and sells it to the second that uses it to make fabric, both of them sustain every year some costs, to simplify let's say these costs are merely the the salaries, so not even the raw materials cost.
Biz 2 buys the entirety of production of Biz 1, so the returns of the latter are the cost of the first.
Thus
Biz 1
Costs: Salaries 80
Revenues: yarn sales 100
Profit: 20
Biz 2
Costs: raw materials 100, salaries: 80
Revenues: Fabric sales: 210
Profit: 40

But one should count only the final goods, else you count the yarn value twice, so the value of the actual production of this economic system is: 210
So the GDP can be expressed as the value of the final goods produced in a certain country in a certain period of time, usually 1 year, BUT you also have to take in account the prices, a different result might be worse or better depending on the year of comparison, taking in account the inflation or deflation.

And so on and on and on. You should read something like "Basic economics" by Thomas Sowell.

>>2572248
Not a communist but an anti-capitalist here:

First, a level of production on par with Capitalism is unnecessary. Capitalism's excessive production produces things like obesity, global warming, and cultural disharmony.

With that said, you're right, some labor is still needed. A lot of that is provided with automation; whatever gap between the needs of the people and what the robots produce can be provided via the selfish desire to be a person worth remembering, altruism, or patriotism.

Democracy is the general idea, yes, but probably not parliamentary, party versus party elections with "natural rights" like we see right now; a lot more direct, a lot more collective consensus, a lot less divisive. As to unjust laws, Communists would say people are inherently good and wouldn't do such things lacking material pressure, but IMO the better way of looking at it is for the people to recognize the guy they don't like as either their own countryman and deserving of life even if he's a git or someone else's countryman and best not disturbing lest war erupt with their country.

Liberals think humanity are naturally bad and must have their evil be opposed to their desire for material goods and comfort
Communists think humanity are naturally good and are only evil because they lack in material goods
Fascists think a man is naturally good to those whom he knows and evil to those whom he does not know, and attempts to minimize both his power over those unlike him and the power of those unlike him over him

File: feudalism.png (170KB, 1365x393px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1365x393px

>>2571994
People like to get cucked.

>>2572346

>Failures that are cucked by the current system are the ones that want to overthrow it.

Like pottery

File: tolerantleft.jpg (63KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 960x540px

>>2572355
>people who are systematically disadvantaged don't like the system
wtf I hate the french revolution now, dumb bourgeoisie should've respected the aristocracy

>>2571223
>Socio-economic developments aren't leading to an increased standard of life anymore for most people.

Only for subhuman Ameritard cucks. Superior Europeans are constantly improving in their societal quality of life

>>2572367
Given the impending collapse of the EU, 15-20% unemployment everywhere, 30-50% youth unemployment, etc. I don't think Europe is doing so well

>>2572367

The EU has multiple member states with unemployment hovering around FIFTY PERCENT

they are riding a bubble

>>2572366

Something that is primarily a political overthrowal led by a diverse group of disgruntled folks

=/=

an economic revolution led by TRIGGERED poor fucks that hate the game and the players

>>2572380
>>2572386
t.Subhuman butthurt Americans

>>2572367
>implying EU isn't a bastion of neoliberalism

>>2572389

Just wait until we stop footing your defense bill and you have to start reckoning with the eternal slav on your own

File: 1487674901366.jpg (143KB, 1596x1013px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1596x1013px

>>2571223
Neoliberalism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdZp5iw-UEo

Thatcher/Reagan kicked them in the teeth (particularly evil on PATCO, since they endorsed Reagan), then when they tried to run for help Blair/Clinton spat in their faces and told them to deal with it.

>>2571369
>Who's the one taking risks?
You should talk with a steel mill employee once.

>>2572535

>muh feelings

>>2571223
- Unions are now part of the problem and are led by managers, not people who care for workers. They have a cushy place in the system and won't risk it by fighting for bigger reforms.
- During the cold war, the west pumped money into welfare systems to keep people from falling for the "workers paradise" propaganda of the commies. Now they reduce these systems, but there is no tradition of fighting for workers rights anymore, as the last system-critical fights were decades ago
- Optimized media gives no opportunity for a counter-public, which is necessary for people to realize that they are getting fucked in the ass and to unite. Plus the push for identity politics.
- With communism demonized, the theoretical left turned to retardation in 1968 and died. Up to the 70s there was theoretical work on workers movements, by the 90s post-modernism has stopped any effort to unite workers

>>2571994
Because their incomes have risen very slightly. I don't have the data to hand, but it comes up in "The Trap" by Adam Curtis.
>Poorest have seen their incomes decline
>Middle-Class have seen their incomes rise, just barely.
>Rich have seen their incomes climb like a Mexican at a border-fence.

So the middle desperately feel they've got to protect their pitiful gains from the poor, even though nobody wants to take away their shit-tier gains.

>>2572093
>le socialism = redistribution of end goods xD meme

socialism = bake a loaf, get a loaf.
capitalism = bake 10 loaves for your employer, earn enough to buy a sandwich

>>2572175
Our democracy is completely artificial.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/fdb484c8-99a1-32a3-83be-20108374b985 for the UK, and it's even worse in the USA since there's even less restriction on corporate interference.

>>2572367
The EU is strangling France, Italy and Greece to death to fund German exports.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/26/robert-mundell-evil-genius-euro

The Euro is neoliberal "starve the beast" by design.

File: wqQm6A0.jpg (312KB, 1000x624px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1000x624px

>>2572576
socialism = people wait for bread
capitalism = bread waits for people

File: 1468699328664.jpg (124KB, 920x960px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 920x960px

>>2572872
>it's another episode of state-capitalism = socialism
here's a little protip for you, if the means of production are owned by the states and you labor for a wage, it ain't socialism.

>>2572110
>French Revolution
Oh I thought we were talking about the end of actual serfdom
And yeah French Revolution in short term did fuck all compared to Black Death
And whatever the French Revolution did was bound to happen so it was a matter of when rather than what would change >>2572583
>anything other than total democracy is evil
Calm down Corbyn, even the soviets used Parliament style politics

Socialism is crippled by dogmatism.

Socialism could work. I say this as a somewhat libertarian who got bored of memes and studied it a little. Corporations carry out the will of shareholders very well and this could easily be transplanted to socialism. The ~5% lower organizational efficiency due to having to call committees and whatnot wouldn't totally cripple a worker owned business and could be offset by capital advantage. In the developed world at least it is feasible for workers to save money and buy their place or work or sufficient assets to support something like it.

The problem is, as you can see among the /leftypol/posters ITT, they are ensnared by politicians who are either outright corrupt kleptocratic authoritarians who rant about conspiracy theories to deflect or they are meek jellyfish pussies like Noam Chumpsky who only tell people what they want to hear. In order to graduate from shareholders to worker's councils you need people just as determined and competent as traders on the stock market, people who would lose a lot of money if they were as irrational.

File: 1481639714609.jpg (176KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 900x675px

>>2572576

If only it was easy to actually do that in practice :(

Sigh, it seems like real socialism and communism will NEVER be tried.

What a sad tragedy of a great idea :(

>>2573043
Never be implemented, not never be tried.
Change one fucking word and this stupid meme actually makes sense.

File: 1482994881726.png (2MB, 1523x1348px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1523x1348px

>>2572576

Plain dumb. Your labor of 10 baking 10 loaves of bread is not worth 10 loaves.

It is ignoring the whole chain of production. If you grew the wheat, built a furnace, collected other ingredients, supplied oven fuel, and baked the loaves yourself, then you deserve the 10 loaves.

Otherwise you are working for someone else and what is valued is your labor, not the product of your labor.

If that triggers you, nothing is stopping you from growing your own wheat. Nothing in capitalism bars you from that- unless you're a poor loser that doesn't have any money saved up.

>I cry because I don't even have money to start up! A vicious cycle!

You soc/coms insult everyone that succeeded and success itself. You folks don't have the will to live and do nothing but complain.

Now go back to collecting your NEETbucks.

>>2573048

>Correcting specifics instead of facing the cold hard truth

noice

>>2573076
Ignores that at the root of that productive process, at every single stage, is a worker not keeping the full product of his labor.

The farm worker growing the wheat doesn't get to keep all the wheat and transfer it himself, he's paid a wage and has the surplus extracted. The workers who built the furnace are paid a wage lower than the value of the furnace itself, the men who extracted and transported the fuel were not paid the full value of the fuel, or the value of the transportation itself - they too were paid a wage, on top of which a boss extracted surplus value.

>nothing is stopping you from growing your own wheat
The state arbitrarily restricting the usage of land.

>>2573048
>Never be implemented
Why is that I ask?

Socialism is perfect, it's just that reality is imperfect!!!

File: 1481706546416.jpg (926KB, 2722x2722px) Image search: [Google]

926KB, 2722x2722px

>>2573092

No "arbitrary" restrictions. If you got cash, you get the goods. How liberating is that? So much potential in Capitalism for anyone with ambition and good planning.

Obviously you're not playing the game correctly like everyone else-

People that suck at the game tend to hate it so that makes sense.

>>2573084
"Never been tried" would imply that there wasn't an attempt. A ridiculous attempt, but an attempt. Throwing yourself off a building holding a toaster might well be trying to fly, but everyone knows how it's going to end.

If however circa 1700 you said "A flying machine has never been implemented" you would be entirely accurate - but lord knows many had tried. The problem comes in the implementation.

(And communism will never be implemented, lel, but that's an important distinction to make. The USSR-et-al were all attempts, but only in the same sense as the retard with the toaster. When two bike-makers come along suggesting an alternative method, comparisons to the toaster-holder look ridiculous.)

>>2573100
>Why is that I ask?
Because of a flurry of organisational difficulties that probably won't be resolved before mankind kills itself off.
You're not getting a list of reasons we failed to make functioning airplanes before the 1900s either.

>>2573106

excuses and not getting to the point: the post

>>2573103
>ending homesteading in 1976 wasn't arbitrary.
>the state refusing to transfer land it has never had a legitimate right to in the first place isn't arbitrary
Yet I bet you'll argue taxation is arbitrary theft :^)

>>2571532
Hey there soros, whatcha doing? Work for the white/black/gay race and take paycuts, right?

>>2573003
I'm one of those /leftypol/posters but I agree 100%. The skill of modern day businessmen, brokers, entrepreneurs etc. will still be useful in socialism.

>>2573128
What skills do brokers have? They litterally do nothing but gamble. And "businessmen and entrepreneurs" is such a vague term, ranging from purely parasitic hedgefund managers to small bussiness owners who work next to their workers.

>>2573116

Nope, we tend to want a smaller government that sticks to the essentials and lowered taxes.

Taxes are essential for a proper nation.

Of course idiots like you might think that and also believe that you are entitled to the entire world just because you exist. Narcissism at its finest.

>>2573148
>Nope, we tend to want a smaller government that sticks to the essentials and lowered taxes.
And of course it's absolutely essential they pay someone to come and wreck my shit for the crime of sustenance farming on completely unused land...

File: 1483543038829.png (154KB, 330x319px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 330x319px

>>2573155

LOL how poor are you that you have to sneak some potatoes in a stranger's land?

>Anyone relying on sustenance farming
>Le current year

Man you're making one incorrect life decisions after another. Just end it man. Your weakness don't belong in this world.

>>2573170
>a stranger's
The state isn't a stranger, it's an arbitrary abstraction. If the land was claimed by another human being, no matter how arbitrary the claim it would have more legitimacy than that of the state.
(Absentee landlords are another problem altogether.)

>>2573155
If you do not own the land you have no right to farm on it. The Rule of law is more important than your individual desires. If you want to have a farm first you buy the land. Dirty hipster millennial scum.

>nobody was using it, so I can do whatever I want to it.

>>2573192
>You're free to do whatever you want dude, it's a fair system!
>Except being a farmer. Fuck off. Go work in the factories.
why
>Because I say so.
can i buy the land
>No. Go work in the factories.
FREEEDOM

File: 1483735202114.gif (24KB, 60x95px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 60x95px

>>2573181

Jesus just give this man a plot of land.

He can't even think to work a bit to collect money to buy land. You know how cheap farmland is here in Georgia? Once you buy it it's yours; you can call the police if a few losers try to plant some plants on your land. It's beautiful.

Even working at McDonalds for 2 years will get you more than enough land for sustenance. You can be self-sustainable wilderness man and die happily.

Instead you just complain about how you're entitled to free shit online. Get your shit together chap. Chop chop. Move it.

>>2573192
I cant own my own company because i dont have money
>lol just go farm
but the state owns the land
>lol just buy it
but i dont have money
>you deserve to die go work in my factoreeeeeeeeee
Erry tim
And you wonder why we oppose capitalism?

>>2573135
Brokers and sales professionals will still have valuable negotiation and risk assessment skills. Mediation, negotiation, and risk assessment could be useful in social enforcement bureau, planning and development bureau, interrogators for the intelligence bureau. Knowing people and how to manipulate them will always be a useful Machiavellian skill, no matter what bullshit stage of society you think you are in.

>>2571295
being from sweden i know unions suck, they force small buisnesses, like a bakery to sign collective agreement aka union made agreement, but the workers dont want to, usually ends up with every1 losing jobs and companies because of unions. Beside membership in a union is like 500SEK, a salary is like 15-16k its expensive also.
The bosses and heads of those unions are also the biggest pigs, typical "leechers"

>>2573202
Do you want a link to a website that sells farmland?

Or are you simply obtuse and poor?

>>2573212
>Brokers
>negotiation skills
They litterally work with numbers. Succesfull brokers are the most autistic people on the planet.

>>2573219
How dare people be born without rich parents, right?

>>2573214

Unions lost their direction long ago. Give them too much power and slowly they turn into a pseudo-authoritarian bully.

The neoliberal train has no brakes.

>>2571223

retarded boomers.

>>2573211
Wrong, the state has the highest and most valid claim on unused state owned land.

Just because the land is owned by the state doesn't mean you, a citizen of the state can do whatever you want on it. It doesn't just belong to you. It belongs to the people of that state. We as a people of a representative democracy have the right to determine the fate of that state owned land. We can vote to sell it to you, or keep it as a state property. The state cannot allow one individual to do whatever they want with public property. That is a crime against all the people of that representative democracy to exercise oversight of the public resource.

Public land means that we all get a say in how land is used. Either by petition of our representatives or ballot measure, or what have you. You don't get to dictate to the rest of the population what happens to our collective property. You fascist.

Learn what private property is and you will open your brain to the first notions of individual liberty and responsibility.

File: 1483288173246.jpg (219KB, 1273x1024px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1273x1024px

>>2573228

>ignoring how cheap farmland is

You implied you just want enough for sustenance. Farmland is already dirt poor (pun intended), a plot enough for sustenance will be literally a brief stint at your local supermarket.

>going straight to attributing success to rich parents

You insult everyone that succeeded. You are completely helpless and worthless.

>>2571370
>free as in do whatever u want
>1st nanny state index
>highest tax rates
we're slaves to the capitalist machine here, or should i say the capitalist machine of the government?
we could be 10 times richer if we werent commies ffs

>>2572546

t. Soft hands

>>2571353
That really doesn't change the fact that 'leftists/liberals' and 'neoliberalism' are two very different things and are not terms to be used interchangeably.

The modern political left and the resurgence of economic neoliberalism are not the same thing.

>>2573240
It's weird that you'd use that authoritarian rhetoric then advocate personal liberty. Either the state owns and controls every scrap of land under its dominion and parcels it out as it sees fit, or it doesn't. In the former, the guy you're arguing is just as legitimate in arguing for a socialist system as you are in arguing against it, in the latter you can't legitimately sustain the current market controls that prevent workers from striking out independently.

>>2573240
I like how you completely avoid my point and just go back to saying "hurr i dont believe in mutualism".

Also
>Democracy
>existing today
I wish

>>2573248

>study harder
>get better jobs

Soft hands, but deserve more than those that just brings arms and legs.

File: Untitled-1.png (297KB, 918x1368px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 918x1368px

>>2571321
How the fuck are they in the way of free market capitalism. Collective labour agreements are the epitome of the free market because you have the workforce and owners each cooperating with each other without state influences. If you're a libertarian or the slightest pro-capitalist then you should love unions unless you're just a corporate bitch thinking you're pro-capitalist while in reality you just like the taste freshly sucked corporate cock in your mouth

>Old agreement is about to end, discussion for what's needed in the new one is starting
>After a few months it goes nowhere and the day the old agreement is bust the union put the guy at the construction site that's working the crane on strike
>WOOOOOW HOW CAN YOU DO THIS YOU'RE HOLDING MY BUSINESS HOSTAGE I CAN'T FIND SOMEONE ELSE TO REPLACE THIS GUY FAST ENOUGH WHAT THE FUCK STOP BULLYING ME ;_;

Get fucked corporate cuck

>>2572155

Because radical revolutionaries were/are idiots. Reform is the only way.

>>2573223
I am a poor landless peasant. I own nothing and my bank is empty bit I am mature enough to admit I picked the wrong major and have little earning potential. I don't blame society or the state for not giving me land, or letting me use public land however I want.

I am not going to abandon thousands of years of advancement in individual liberty and property rights just so I can have something that the state took from someone else. The devils bargain doesn't lead to good outcomes.

No go work, revolt, or shit up. But stay off public land. It's not yours alone. It belongs to us all. You don't get to dictate its use. Our representative government is responsible to the voters for that land.

I bet you don't even vote do you.

>>2573262
This: the pro-market types really don't think through their positions all that well, and it seems that "pro-market" typically translates to "pro-corporation at the expense of everything else."

>>2571321
>stand in the way of free market capitalism

That's literally the entire fucking point you cretin

>>2573274

In your simplistic 2D world view, yes, everyone that disagrees with you looks like that.

>>2573266
wew the definition of a wagecuck

Did you study art or something? Jesus fuck.

> I can have something that the state took from someone else
The state already own it, and it was stolen from whoever lived there before the state existed. Hint: The state did not exist eternally. I have just as much right to the land of my ancestors, if not more, than the "state".

>>2571624

It's gone down

>>2573276
I don't really have a dog in this race. I'm not pro-capitalism, but I'm not pro-any other system in particular either. I think our economic system will continue to evolve by necessity as material conditions change, but I have no clue what form it will take.

I just think it's really funny that you sorts go on about the merits of a free market, and then screech like terrified apes when a free market mechanism takes place to shift the balance of power somewhat out of the hands of corporate bosses.

>>2571624
It's actually lower than it was in 1999

File: Working 300 times as hard ceo.png (699KB, 1423x2048px) Image search: [Google]

699KB, 1423x2048px

Anyway as usual the americans are retarded "temporarily poor millionaires and the rich deserve it" so Im going to fuck off again and do more usefull stuff than argue on a shitty imageboard.

File: sub.jpg (297KB, 1080x1350px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1080x1350px

>>2573275

>Asking for dues
>bullying and extorting non-Union workers
>Union head honchos corrupt as fuck
>Union workers work less because they know they can't be fired (or get tons of shit if they do)
>Union wages and union-tier production level increase prices for everyone
>Entire economy suffers due to ripple effect.

Literally parasitic. You never saw cancer until you saw union sons of bitches

>>2573291

>hard work determines pay

doesn't matter how hard you work if all you're doing is digging a hole and then filling it back up again.

It has to do with expertise and effectiveness, specialist knowledge.

>>2573254
Because in the U.S. We still have representative government. That government so long as it is voted on my me, and composed of representatives fairly elected, is a valid and ultimate authority in a legal sense.

We vote on the representatives.
Representatives vote on the laws.
We don't like the laws?
We vote for new representatives.
New representatives vote for new laws.
The Rule of Law is absolute authority.

There is nothing else to it. The Constitution guarantees this. When that system collapses feel free to create whatever government you like and obey it disobey or follow that governments laws.

But so long as you live in this country with me, you are as bound to follow the law as I am. We both can vote. The government is equally ours and our responsibility to create.

Using public land that belongs to you and me collectively without my permission via the representative system of government is a violation of the public trust and my public ownership and oversight. The public land is in the public trust as we are all stakeholders not just you.

Dont like that? Buy your own land. Public and private land is for sale in many places.

File: 1480638113679.jpg (47KB, 799x960px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 799x960px

>>2573291

Capitalists want to fix crony capitalism. There are multiple theories and debates are still going on in economics. Better monetary and fiscal policies and other business reforms can make capitalism better than ever.

It's just annoying how retarded NEETs want to introduce Gommunism in its stead. See how well that fixes anything.

Normal people with steady income want capitalism fixed; they're not willing to give NEET commie losers a single undeserved cent

>>2573291
>Somebody actually made that image thinking it makes an interesting point
Nobody says "the ceo works 300 times harder", that's a strawman people like you create so you can defeat it easily.
People are going to say stuff like "people capable of handling a position as a ceo are far more difficult to find than retard kyle working a metal press" or "a ceo's action can make the company earn a lot more money than anything retard kyle using the mop might ever do".

File: voltaire121.jpg (169KB, 789x789px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 789x789px

>mfw temporarily embarrassed millionaires defending the %1 itt

>>2573261

>pencil pushing creates wealth

>>2573320
No wonder you people always end up mismanaging every single economy you control, you have severe difficulties understanding the most basic economic principles.

>>2573308
Alright, but why are you assuming he wants to go use this land illegally? He said that our current system is geared to ensure that workers have no option but to labour under a boss, and proposes that this should be changed. So why shouldn't he continue to advocate for socialist ideals (and presumbly reforms and politicians as well)?

Further, if you think the government has legitimate claims to all land under its dominion, what makes it illegitimate in expropriating this land in these hypothetical reforms, and before you say the constitution consider two things: 1) that it can be changed and 2) how much shit gets continually backdoored into your government without regard for it anyway.

>>2573310
>Capitalists want to fix crony capitalism.

This is pretty much an "up with the good, down with the bad" position to take. What if these problems are indeed inherent to this particular economic system, much as crippling authoritarianism was inherent to Lenin's experiment?

>>2573278
The state ownership, so long as the government is fairly and freely elected is PUBLIC ownership. It belongs to everyone collectively. It's use must also be determined collectively. You cannot just take land from your fellow citizens and use it however you want. That land belongs to us all. We all have a say in what happens on it.

That's what voting is.

Is this what happens when they stop teaching civics and government is schools?

>>2573232
>Unions lost their direction long ago.
yeah in the 50s i guess, nationwide unions are retarded thought, would never join a union. Union should only be in a company, not needed in small companies and nationwide specific market orientated unions are also retarded. Big frauds that take workers money

File: 1485364582464.png (76KB, 500x432px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 500x432px

>>2573320

Looks like I found the unemployed high school dropout. You think these grapes are sour? Nope. It's sweet like candy.

But you have to study your ass off. You think it's easy? Is manual labor your only valued labor? Very simple minded

Leave a bunch of manual labor idiots like you without supervisors with learned experience and the whole "factory" (why do gommies like to use "factory analogies?) will shut down and rust.

>>2573332
Well, countries such as Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany that attempted to build a capitalist democracy that improved living standards largely succeeded.

Countries such as Russia and China that attempted to improve living standards with a dictatorship of the proletariat failed miserably.

>>2573334
>The state ownership, so long as the government is fairly and freely elected is PUBLIC ownership. It belongs to everyone collectively. It's use must also be determined collectively. You cannot just take land from your fellow citizens and use it however you want. That land belongs to us all. We all have a say in what happens on it.

I wonder if you realize the hilarity in your sentiment here, because these are EXACTLY the same arguments socialists make against private property in the first place. Pierre Proudhon's famous quote "property is theft" is built on exactly this.

>>2573332
>He said that our current system is geared to ensure that workers have no option but to labour under a boss, and proposes that this should be changed

You commies could literally pool resources together and start coops all the time. Instead, you just complain and whine, whine and complain, without doing shit all 99% of the time.
If you didn't project the image of lazy bums who want others to do their work for them, maybe people would be more inclined to believe you when you say nonsense like "under communism people would focus on self improvement" or "people would still work without capitalist incentives!".

>>2573344
Those countries you listed are all heavily unionized and have a robust set of government regulations keeping a handle on their economy; they also all have very robust networks of public services. They are at their core, mixed systems. Many of their gains were a product of organized labour and socialist agitation.

>>2573332

Then we'll try other offshoots of capitalism, just like how socialists/communists promise everytime that the next socialism will be "Different" [copyright and trademark symbol here]

That was easy

>all these buttblasted neets whining
geez, its obvious that you people are real losers in everything you do, you cant even argue for anything,
>wagecuck
its funny how /leftypol/ fails to see that their /pol2.0/ but without the irony, making you guys literal autists

>>2573294
This. There are few things as damaging as unions to an economy.

>>2573357
This is what I'm getting at.

Free market capitalism is inefficient.

Communism is insane.

Mixed economics are for patricians.

>>2573332
>What if these problems are indeed inherent to this particular economic system, much as crippling authoritarianism was inherent to Lenin's experiment?
government is the root of evil here, or people in charge of other peoples money...

>>2573356
I'm not a communist and both sides of this particular economic question agree that our current economy is structured primarily to disincentivize entering the market and protect large interests from smaller competition.

I wouldn't pool my resources to take on such a task because I don't particularly want much; I'd prefer to be able to join a robust union or coop and have more say in my workplace conditions, but it's not really that big of a deal for me. But there are some pretty glaring issues with our economic systems, and this kind of insane partisanship is just encouraging us to turn a blind eye to them (and on the other side, to turn a blind eye to the failures of the proposed solutions).

I'd wager even Marx and Smith would reject the kind of ideological puritanism you see in these discussion.

>>2571994
Because you package that reasonable proposition up with shit like

>hey let's have no borders whatsoever and allow ourselves to become a minority in every formerly white majority country!

Don't bullshit yourself. The working classes aren't opposed to socialism per se, just the libtard shit you faggots wrap it up with.

>>2573367

oohkay I can get behind that but what would this "mixed economics" be?

>>2573321

>middle manager thinks he is the 1%

>>2573340

Ad hominem + not an argument

>>2573384
Nordic model, Rhine capitalism, that sort of thing.

High levels of government investment in education in order to drive up labor productivity, unions to represent the workers on a federal level, a substantial social safety net designed to integrate poor people into the economy and turn them into productive workers.

All you need to do is keep the fucking Somalis out and you're golden.

>>2573359
Communists and socialists don't promise that the next socialism will be different, because they still (for reasons I simply cannot fathom) insist on trying the same century old experiment started with Lenin that failed horrifically in literally every attempted application.

>>2573369
Government is just one facet of the particular stone we're trying to examine here. You can't just separate it from this and say "ahah! we've found the problem." Because it's intertwined with everything else.

>>2573363

They're*

>class analysis
>pol

Pick 1

File: 1481002890337.jpg (13KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x480px

>>2573389

Oh because YOU made an argument? You make useless posts shorter than your goddamn resume.

I only gave you what you deserved. You're lucky you got any word from me. Get the fuck out of here.

>>2573367
Mixed economies have been demonstrably the most successful, no doubt. The problem with any other economic system is that you wind up with something built primarily on ideology, which is just fucking stupid, since the economy is a product of very real material things that wont conform to ideological tenets.

>>2573348
That would be true if we were arguing that there should only be public ownership or only private ownership. So long as there is the right to both this argument indeed protects them both and is invalid as an argument for there only existing one or the other.

Private ownership of private property is what gives the state power to hold public property as the public trust and public property. ITS THE SAME RIGHT. One is expressed between the individual and the state and the other expression is between the state and the people who elect and govern that state.

The problem is when you try and limit property to only individual or only public.

>>2573366

Except unregulated corporations

>>2573219
I don't want to buy farmland off a private owner, I want the state to stop making arbitrary claims to potential farmland that is going completely unused.

>>2573416
>tax property
>absentee land owners pay a price for owning land
>if they leave the land fallow, they lose money

>>2573412

stay mad lumpen

>>2573340
>Leave a bunch of manual labor idiots like you without supervisors with learned experience and the whole "factory" (why do gommies like to use "factory analogies?) will shut down and rust.

Coops actually work pretty will. There's a mill in Nanaimo that managed to turn its fortunes around when the workers bought it out.

>>2573415

Both unregulated corporations and shit corrupt unions are products of each other and they are draining the economy

>>2573240
like nigga just lay down some common grazing goddamn

>>2573413
Unfortunately, memes are an extremely powerful social force

>muh free market
>muh invisible hand
>muh socialism

>>2573247
Not really. You'd just wind up with a massive amount of rent-seeking.

>>2573428

Agreed

>>2573414
You wind up with an arbitrary standard of legitimacy no matter how you slice it. You've drawn your line in the sand in a different place than Proudhon is all. All ownership of property exercises an act of exclusion that can be considered "theft."

>>2573427
If they can out compete more conventional management structures, there's a fairly simple way to bring about change

>get j00
>buy up factory
>fire the management and turn it into a coop
>factory makes more stuff
>factory is more valuable
>sell the factory for more than you paid for it
>repeat until the country is a workers paradise and you are swimming in moni

File: 1460553399149.jpg (108KB, 1005x289px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1005x289px

y'all niggas need keynes

>>2573422

You're wasting my time.

>>2573356
>people would still work without capitalist incentives
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
Interesting look at incentives in financial terms.
(Doesn't directly translate to "and thus, gommunism" but still.)

>>2573441

>Stagflation kills the keynes

>>2573416
It is not an arbitrary claim. Of a piece of land is owned by the state is owned by every citizen of that state in trust. It is the least arbitrary claim there could be. That land is held collectively by every citizen. The fare of that land is determined by the laws passed by the representatives of the voters. The there is nothing arbitrary. You don't get to just do whatever because your fellow voters also have a stake in the fate of that land. The big scary government boogy man who is oppressing you is the one created by your fellow voters. If you don't like the laws we have you can advocate to change them, petition your representatives, ballot proposition, or vote for someone different. Not liking the law does not give you the right to violate it.

Public ownership is collective. You do not get to steal land. You have to buy it like everyone else.

>>2573439
It's an uphill battle, because we're talking about an economic system where large business interests and government are closely intertwined. In theory, that should be a workable idea, and I whole-heartedly encourage people to do just that, but our economic system still needs to be subject to constant scrutiny and criticism, because it's not a perfectly meritocratic arrangement.

File: 1484790762850.png (79KB, 1450x414px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1450x414px

>>2573446
Stagflation kicked in after the Nixon shock killed Breton woods (and thus the end of that pseudo-keynesian period), and was almost entirely down to cost-pull inflation from soaring oil prices (Thanks Arabs!)

Bancor now

>>2573447
Not that guy, but do you seriously discount the possibility of a government no longer representing its citizenry through corruption?

>>2573449
Considering how much disposable income left-leaning yuppies have, I'm pretty sure coops would have outmaneuvered and vanquished corporations if they were more profitable.

People may lie, but money don't lie.

>>2573455

That's we got now

>>2573436
I drew my arbitrary line at the ballot box. We have a collective ability to determine how property rights are expressed and enforced as a representative voting population. If we don't like how property is handled we can collectively vote on it. Individual property rights are well protected from collective action. public property rights are not as well protected and subject to the will of the voters through thier representatives. How is that arbitrary?

The collective will, the equal right to vote, creates equal stake in public property. That is hardly an arbitrary decision making process

>>2573462
That mill (Harmac Pacific) was a pretty special circumstance, since the workers happened to have access to both a failing mill (thus an opening in the market) and the necessary funds to do it. You're overlooking the role inertia plays in our economies and just how thoroughly well protected from competition large corporate interests are.

>>2573455
I don't discount it, but that problem is entirely correctible as long as the voting is free and fair. So long as that is the case, then representatives can be replaced and the corruption corrected.

>>2573468
>How is that arbitrary?

The fact you've picked a starting point that doesn't have any inherent "propriety" to it in the scheme of legitimacy.

You also have a really idealized view of the representative democratic process. Overlooking the disproportionate effect money and business interests have in a representative government, and how easy it is for such a government to wind up detached from their voters.

>>2573470
But communism has existed for a more than a century in its current form.

A very large numbers of businesses have risen and fallen. Entire new industries have come about.

It seems to me that the basic problem is that management is necessary for an economy to function, so "just let the workers run it" tends to create inefficient uses of resources compared to the more specialized structures of corporate America.

>>2573301
>not working hard
lazy fucking liberals

>>2573485
Come on man. I'm not even arguing for communism. I'm just saying that there's a lot of inertia behind our current economic model and that our system is more or less structured to protect its biggest players (not necessarily for bad reason either, one of them failing could cause a lot of havoc), and no communist system implemented (for more than a few years anyway) actually allowed workers to run shit; they were all Leninist vanguard experiments.

>>2573505
Well, communism has been tried in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Angola, and a bunch of other places.

I'm still 90% sure that if coops were more efficient than the competition, they would have won by now.

>>2573500

>if you work hard you will get rich

I love this fairytale

File: 1481328910048.jpg (15KB, 500x378px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 500x378px

>>2573517

>trying really, really hard to justify your unemplyment and pathetic life

better luck in your next life, lazy fucking liberal

>>2573128
The problem is these skills are the result of the system they are in. No one gives a shit if they go out of business (unless they are "too big to fail", but that is another matter) , they either embrace reality or there is a 99.9% chance it will kick them hard in the gonads.

Unions will intentionally stunt technological development because a machine would replace a worker. Short term gain for long term loss.

Some investors are short term gamblers like >>2573135 says but it is investors who play the long game like George Soros and Warren Buffett who accumulate ridiculous amounts of capital.

Political movements like socialism depend on popularity and looking good subjectively while success in capitalism is quantified, you either beat the market average or you don't.

>>2573348
Private property accumulated through someone's own efforts without exploiting anyone represents the will and the liberty of that individual. Taking it from them violates that liberty and is immoral.

You might argue "the land they built their business on belongs to everyone". Though what if you were both initially workers with the same wage and you decided to spend your money on beer while they decided to buy the land? It makes no difference.

>in b4 property/morality is a spook
yeah, well, the belief you are moral and socialism is a moral cause is a spook too then

>>2573513
Again, literally every one of those places was Leninist. Coops have functioned well where they've cropped up, but we've never been able to actually examine them in a vacuum, since they're either fighting a heavily entrenched business model that's benefited extensively from state involvement in the economy (as in capitalist countries) or are quickly crushed and replaced by vanguard controlled businesses (in the case of communist countries).

The proof of concept is there; worker control of business doesn't result in businesses outright collapsing.

>>2573524

Jokes on you i live in daddy's mansion, but he sure as hell didn't get it from working hard for wages

>>2573484
So how do you represent "the people"? What is this collectivized blob that represents all that is good and right in the world?

>>2573484
>inherent "propriety" to it in the scheme of legitimacy.

That is not a legal concept that governs the actions of states and individuals, let alone property rights. Inherent propriety is not a legal standard that can override it negate other claims.

I'm not saying land wasn't taken from x in the past and sold to y. I'm married to a native American. I know all that I could ever hope to know about illegitimate claims and stolen land. What I am talking about is how we move forward from the current situation going forward. Legal claims as they stand now must be interpreted entirely by the rule of law. There is no room in our system for abstract notions of ownership based in inherent propriety. There is no patch of land, in any place in history that could pass the standard of inherent propriety.

For the sake of preventing meltdown and strife, I advocate the rule of law as absolute so long as the representative government is fairly elected. If those conditions are true, there is no outcome that cannot be fairly achieved as long as it is the will of the majority and in line with the current SCOTUS interpretation of the constitution.

I'm not advocating an arbitrary start to a rule on all claims. I'm contending that the only way for all parties to have a shot at objective fair outcomes I adherence to established legal practice and reliance on representative democracy for incremental change.

>>2573525
>Private property accumulated through someone's own efforts without exploiting anyone represents the will and the liberty of that individual. Taking it from them violates that liberty and is immoral.

Proudhon actually doesn't disagree here either. People often bring up that first quote, and overlook his second "property is liberty" quote.

Acknowledging that all property is built on theft (to some degree or another) is vital in building a fair economic system, it just shouldn't be where you outright discard the notion in its entirety.

My point in regards to him is that he doesn't have any inherent legitimacy in saying that the government can't expropriate businesses while at the same time saying they can exercise absolute control of the land in their dominion.

>>2573526
How specifically do conditions in the United States and Western Europe discriminate against coops?

Sure, there are natural monopolies and entrenched interests, but there's also a large number of craft industries, and hippies.

If one person you meet seems like an asshole, he's an asshole.

If every person you meet seems like an asshole, you're an asshole.

File: 1490578288068.png (630KB, 1000x534px) Image search: [Google]

630KB, 1000x534px

>>2573531

>everyone that succeeded were born in mansions

What an extremely disgusting view of life. You don't even have the will to live.

That perspective of yours won't get you out of your mom's basement. Crossing your fingers that gommunism will give you free shit later won't help you much.

>>2573533
Truth be told, I don't have an answer.

>>2573535
My point is that your standard is as arbitrary and immaterial as any other. It's not handed down by god, it's not etched in the substructure of the universe and it can't be proven mathematically. You've drawn a line in the sand that will serve as your foundation and you have no inherent legitimacy in so doing. His argument for using the apparatus of the state to expropriate businesses is just as legitimate as your argument for using the apparatus of the state to prevent people from claiming unused land.

File: angry.png (456KB, 498x488px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 498x488px

>>2573517
>>2573531

I usually say this as a joke, but for you:

Seriously, just kill yourself. It would be better for you.

>>2573533
The people should be represented collectively by free and fair elections of democratically elected representatives. It may look like a blob, but it should make no claims to moral or social imperative to its actions. It's only legitimate claim is the representing to the best of it's ability the will of its constituent voters. The farther we get from that standard of representation and imperative the worse the outcomes.

>>2573545
Mostly in the protection of entrenched interests that can out-compete smaller contenders readily by virtue of economies of scale. It generally takes extraordinary luck for a smaller contender to enter the marketplace, and these smaller contenders are almost entirely drawn from pools of people who already have access to large amounts of capital.

Groups of workers are discouraged from banding together in this fashion by the fact that doing so could very well wind up with them on the street if they fail in the attempt; so people who have the luxury of losing a hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars on a risky venture have an advantage.

>>2573565
The problem with representatives is that they become all but completely detached from the people they represent once in office, and a few years is a long time to make people forgot about bad behaviour through good publicity.

File: 1427423760926.gif (291KB, 499x365px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 499x365px

>>2573551

>Upward mobility is certain for everyone if they just work enough hours!
>admitting this means you are a communist

>>2573563

No ty, gotta use the sauna today

>>2573558
Well I am not willing to wait until "God" or science hands us down a mathematical formula to determine who owns what. We have to keep living and functioning today. I never claimed my standard is absolutely inherently flawless. I claimed it is fair, as in all people have a vote and a say in its direction through fair and free elections creating representative democracy.

I think you were contrasting arbitrary against the notion of objectively true.

Whereas I was contrasting the notion of arbitrary against the notion of fair (equally representative).

>>2573308
The problem with that sentiment is many-fold. Many voters feel their representative isn't the problem, its OTHER representatives, this is documented in plenty of questionnaire studies. Another problem is that politicians with lots of exposure are more likely to win than those who don't have much exposure in the media, this shows that voters are ill-informed and/or create their opinions (and thus their votes) based partially on saturation. Another problem is a sort of departure from party ideologies and general logic due to either direct ethical corruption or indirect manners such as falling in line with other legislature members/parties and/or aligning against others as part of a natural social mechanism. Even if changes are made, many of the powers that be are in long-held positions or are simply using money serve as a sort of de facto incumbency. None of that speaks to more obvious issues like gerrymandering (which I guess includes unintentional loss of votes within the system of districting aswell) and PACs/superPACs

>>2573571
>that can out-compete smaller contenders readily by virtue of economies of scale

But small businesses still do exist in America.

>It generally takes extraordinary luck for a smaller contender to enter the marketplace

But small competitors do enter the marketplace.

Google and Facebook didn't exist when I was born, and I'm not that old.

>these smaller contenders are almost entirely drawn from pools of people who already have access to large amounts of capital.

But coops are founded. And why wouldn't coops have swept agriculture back during the pre-Monsanto days when it was all small businesses and wasn't capital intensive to get into.

If something has never worked, anywhere, the simpler explanation is that it simply does not work.

>>2573310
>True Capitalism has never been tried I swear!

>>2573517
I was being sarcastic

>>2571289
You're retarded

File: go.jpg (97KB, 610x784px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 610x784px

>>2573580

Okay just don't do anything and get your handouts, you useless collection of whining flesh.

Don't even bother to reply to me because I don't really take you seriously anyways.

>>2573604

Well technically he's got a point. Even Chomsky says real capitalism would be preferable to the existing situation which is more like state capitalism. In really existing capitalism (lel) companies wouldn't be bailed out. As it stands now risk is socialised and profit privitsed. In real capitalism risk would also be private and not supported by tax payers.

>>2573604

That's the gist of it, wise guy :)

>>2573600
Google and Facebook are terrible examples, both entered their respective industry very early. Choose different ones

>>2573630
>>2573629
>>2573604
I'm not memeing when I say that I think that "true ________ism has never been tried" is true to a considerable extent in many prominent cases (where my communes at???)

File: 1470327814944.jpg (31KB, 681x224px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 681x224px

>>2573480
It's solvable only in theory. In practice, corporate and other interests have manipulated things to death.

I mean to tie back into the point of the thread: You're a union member circa 2005.
You can vote for the Labour party (neoliberals, will not repeal thatcherite anti-union legislation, bring back the right to sympathy strike, anything like that. Basically just exists to suck up your money.), the Conservative party (basically the same thing, but lead by a joke candidate who people only remember because in 1997 he wouldn't say whether-or-not he threatened to overrule someone) or the Liberal Democrats (Nice guys who don't actually have a chance of winning the election but at least they didn't want to invade Iraq without UN approval I suppose. p.s. they sell out in 2010.)

Viewers in Scotland have the option of punting a seat to the SNP, Welsh get Plaid Cymru, London has "Respect", NI has it's own thing and one guy got elected over something about hospitals, but none of these are of any importance because it's a system that consistently swings between Labour and Conservative majorities. (Save for 2010.)

None of these parties, not one of them actually reflects the views of the British public. Indeed, all of them hold those views in contempt. Yet people are still manipulated into voting for them. The system is reasonably free and fair on paper, but in practice it's a complete sham. (Mostly because it's built around two parties with strongly different ideologies acting confrontationally, but has coalesced into two parties with the same ideology and a different set of financial backers.)

And it's the same story elsewhere. NZ ("Rogernomics") and Australian Labo(u)r parties actually began the implementation of neoliberal policies in their countries, for example, and had this gleefully continued by National ("Ruthanasia") and Liberal parties.

And now I'm angry. Jesus fucking Christ. They got away with it. They'll get away with it.
Jesus fucking Christ.

>>2573636
So you're saying coops can't enter a new industry?

If your hypothesis was that the market was too full for new models to enter, then you'd have to explain why coops can't enter new, unexpected markets where small, new companies routinely beat older, larger ones into the industry.

Besides that, there are corporate raiders and activist shareholders.

If switching from a pyramidal structure to a coop made a company 10% more profitable, people could buy companies, fire the management, and sell them for big bucks.

There are a lot of people who make their career buying companies and making them more efficient.

In the hundreds of years that private corporations and coops have existed, the coops have consistently failed to achieve higher profitability and market share.

Occam's razor is becoming dangerously sharp here.

>>2573649

Wut

>>2573600
>But small businesses still do exist in America.

They also fail with incredible frequency.

>Google and Facebook didn't exist when I was born, and I'm not that old.

That would be that extraordinary luck I was talking about. They managed to get in on their respective industries right at the ground floor, and now that they're entrenched have no meaningful competition.

>But coops are founded. And why wouldn't coops have swept agriculture back during the pre-Monsanto days when it was all small businesses and wasn't capital intensive to get into.

Something being discouraged does not mean it being impossible.

>If something has never worked, anywhere, the simpler explanation is that it simply does not work.

The Mondragon corporation, while not a perfect example (it still has top-down elements to its structure and has benefited from preferential treatment in taxes) is an example of a successful cooperative. I provided you another example (Harmac Pacific) of a business that wound up functioning better as a cooperative than in a top-down management fashion. The basic proof of concept is present.

You completely discount the role inertia has to play in our societal models, why do you do this? It's like you think every business gets to start in a tabula rasa of an economy.

U>>2573596
Everything that you listed is a flaw of human character and foresight. Those problems are not inherent to the system. They are failings of human nature. While we cannot correct human nature, we can design a system that most fairly represents them while at the same time limiting the damaging effects of both voter ignorance (representation, 1st amendment, ect) and government overreach (Supreme Court, elections, the 2nd amendment).

There is nothing wrong with our system that cannot be corrected by wise and careful refinement of that system. There is nothing the people cannot achieve with wise leadership and judicious education.

>>2573656
>If switching from a pyramidal structure to a coop made a company 10% more profitable, people could buy companies, fire the management, and sell them for big bucks.

That's an idiotic position to take, because a cooperative model would cut into the personal profits of most shareholders.

Unions are cancer.

>>2573693

Corporations are cancer

>>2573650
Failure in leadership. Run for office. If they don't have the answers to the problem and you do, you have a duty to you people to show them.

>>2573678

What are some examples of failed coops?

>>2573678
>You completely discount the role inertia has to play in our societal models, why do you do this?

Well, the competition between different business models has occurred over centuries.

US economy has been essentially demolished and rebuilt several times over.

And the US isn't the only country on the planet. We've seen countries like Japan, Sweden, Argentina, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, pursue development strategies that aren't Leninist, and have little resemblance to American systems.

None of them have eliminated corporate management.

And our current system isn't static. It's quite common for old companies to die, new companies to appear, and for old companies to totally reorganize.

If it was possible to achieve better productivity with any kind of structural innovation, I believe it would have happened on a national scale, or at least on the sale of an entire industry.

I don't see a whole lot of three legged animals, and I don't see a whole lot of factories with no managers.

I think it's just evolution at work.

>>2573698

see >>2573294

Things only look good in theory

>>2573636
Google wasn't the first search engine and Facebook wasn't the first social network. They both out-competed everyone in the market, and justly are reaping the rewards.

>>2573678
>They also fail with incredible frequency.
Nothing wrong with businesses failing at all. Much better than the state propping up state owned companies who can't meet the market demand.

>>2573716

Just like corporations. Biggest corrupt parasites on the planet.

>>2573710
Oh ffs. This is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen. You're champion for a completely static status quo that never actually asks questions of our economic model under the guise of "evolution?" Bah, what fucking doublethink is this?

Our societal models are not "competing" with one another, cooperation, collusion, nepotism, and apathy play just as much a role in the status of our society as any presumption of competition.

I already disproved your original claim (that worker controlled businesses are destined to flounder) and now you're trying to hide that under rhetoric, it's pathetic.

Here's a list of notable co-operatives, have fun with it, but I'm done with your dumb ass.

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

>>2573702
Simply does not work out in practice, as the list of parties who gained zero seats can attest to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005#Results
(Even more-so if you look at the 2015 election, where UKIP got >10% of the vote and one seat.)

I can have all the answers in the world and people will still ignore me in favour of a more established candidate. Doubly so when they've got massive infrastructure in place to shill for themselves as the lesser evil, large corporate backers, think tanks and so on. Even if I could take a single constituency to give myself a platform the end result would still be being dumped on the garbage-heap of history like that guy who was elected over hospitals.

Most notably you can actually see in Scotland, where Scottish Labour's strategy since the 70s was telling people "If you vote SNP, you'll let in the Conservative party.", which people were dumb enough to fall for until they stood literally arm-in-arm with the Conservatives to argue against independence. Similarly part of Tory strategy in 2015 was telling people a vote for UKIP would let in Labour. Even then, both SNP and UKIP are broadly within the bounds of our present social and economic consensus.


This problem is amplified by the fact most people simply do not have the time to sit down and listen to a verbal Das-Kapital tier flood of arguments from each candidate before voting.
(And that's before you pile on other shit like the Kinnock effect where a man with all the answers can still lose because he's an ugly ginger weirdo and people don't want to be lead by ugly ginger weirdos, even if they like their ideas more than normal looking evil people.)

>>2573736
I do understand your frustration. Imagine if you have exactly 2 parties, and only two parties that ever have any seats. We have other parties but they have zero seats in any chambers. I know parliamentary party politics can be Machiavellian and treacherous but the fluctuations in power are much more rapid.

Here we have only two viable parties in any and every election and zero alternatives the monolithic monstrous power of the two party system seemed all but unchallengeable until recently. There are small glimmers of hope, but barring some unforeseen political paradigm shift, it will be a while before we get viable 3rd party candidates.

That being said. I refuse to believe in a humanity that cannot be learn and grow. What has history shown if not that people are always looking for better, stronger, and in the best cases, wiser leadership. We may both live in countries where monied interests such as corporations and parties are benefiting by making people feel helpless and dependant upon them alone. But still I have hope. We can disagree about everything and still make progress to a greater, more prosperous and more free humanity. We cant give up. Believe in humanity, and believe in yourself. There may be more at stake than we cannuet see.

>>2571295
When the governing structure of a union ignores the inputs of its constituents and imperils the solvency of the company they work for and refuses to back down, then a union is become a parasitic entity.

>>2572163
>you're admitting you're adhering to an economy fantasy constructed for you to make you work harder

No, he's admitting the reality of American prosperity. More than half of the American population will spend at least one year of their life in the top 10%.

>>2573973

>More than half of the American population will spend at least one year of their life in the top 10%.

gona need some sauce on that comrade

>>2573544
I think he was talking in the context of farmers who labor on the land versus landlords who rent it out.

The issue is what happens when the salt of the earth hard working farmer decides to use their savings to buy land and rent it out. Do the fruits of their labor become stolen property?

To the capitalist there is no difference, the p/e on the S&P 500 is about 25 so a pile of apples nurtured and harvested with his own hands is worth the plot of orchard that yielded 1/25 that amount. No crime has been committed, trading those apples for an acre to rent to a neighbor is no different than trading them for groceries.

tbqh the capitalist is right, the abstraction socialists are making is pointless. If there is some inherent evil to eternal ownership of a plot of land it has been quantified and marketized, if it is so important that the government owns it, it should pay the full market value and resist the temptation to sell it to those willing to front the high prices and pay the property taxes to boot. Anything else is an injustice.

>>2571223
The mafia.

>>2572126
>thinking a system with inheritance and old boy networks are somehow meritocratic

It is if you allow the rich inheritors to be bankrupted of their money for making foolish and unwise decisions with them. In the 2008 crisis had Congress simply allowed the big banks to fail, then a whole host of those 1 per centers which you so decry would have cleaned out of house and home, and perhaps better yet in jail with their assets seized for fraud.

>>2574022
That's why I love Bernie Maddoff - he swindled the rich and well connected.

>>2573092
>The farm worker growing the wheat doesn't get to keep all the wheat and transfer it himself, he's paid a wage and has the surplus extracted. The workers who built the furnace are paid a wage lower than the value of the furnace itself, the men who extracted and transported the fuel were not paid the full value of the fuel, or the value of the transportation itself - they too were paid a wage, on top of which a boss extracted surplus value.

>Being so retarded as to think value operates on a linear aggregation of its parts.
Under that kind of ridiculous logic the value of bricks should be composed of the mud and wood used to produce it. It simply is not how value operates.

A farmer who owns his own land and grows his own crop and uses his own labor, establishes a value for this work and then ADDS another additional component of value when selling because people are willing to buy his good for a greater value than its aggregate parts.

>>2574090
That's not the point being made at all, though.
Let's not use wheat, let's use Potatoes for example, because you can eat Potatoes without much further processing.
The farm laborer plants them. Later he extracts them. Naturally, even the simple act of extracting them from the ground adds some value because you can't eat them when they're buried.

But he doesn't get the full value when they're sold. The boss of the farm does, even though at no point did he contribute to the productive process. He simply owns the land on which this is performed.

He could plant-and-extract 500 potatoes a day and still wind up being paid only enough to eat thrice a day by his boss. That's the point being made.

There's a constant slight-of-hand at work here where the boss winds up being considered entitled to the full profits of these sale on the back of another worker. The point isn't that these workers add nothing (they too should be compensated entirely) it's that they too are exploited. If the farmer is using, say, a shovel owned by the boss - this is used as an excuse to "entitle" him to the full product of the farmer's labor. That's the point being made: The boss didn't make the shovel either, another exploited worker did that.

>>2573265
yes i'm agreed about reform. the problem is to think that all unions are corrupt and shady and that all businessmen are dindus who create jobs and only exploit labor to stay competitive. it's also disingenuous to say that workers are "selfish" for wanting to better their working conditions at the expense of profits and efficiency.

They called it "labor solidarity" for a reason. To turn all types of workers against each other using the reasoning that "these workers are stealing your and your societies' wealth so they can get a fat pension, benefits and work hours" is to distort the bigger picture. First of all, to say that a few hundred workers make now 50 instead of 35 dollars is stealing from society is ridiculous or "more equality means communism and less wealth for all". The paradox is that if union membership were to grow, the fact of the matter is that "competing" workers would probably benefit from supporting union workers because, historically, when union workers have agitated for better pay and conditions and their membership is strong, their actions reverberated through the economy.

>>2573558
>>2573565
but "property is theft" is a moral judgment, if you want to declare an individual stole property from the people you need that blob

>>2573988
>at least one year of their life in the top 10%.
I think he means top 10% of the world population, which, i think, doesn't take cost of living into account.
>>2572188
thats the thing. you don't "see" the billions of people laboring to produce goods for the first world. sure, many have been lifted above the poverty line in the least decade, but i don't think that makes their life magically better now they make $2 dollars more than the official poverty line. It's all made worse by growing third world populations which produces a giant workforce of cheap labor, but i believe maximizes suffering. for example, there are nearly as many Indians under the poverty line (270 million) than there were the population of Indians in 1947 (330 million). Even if we do give these billions some semblance of a western materialism, that will only accelerate the the environmental degradation of our world many times over, causing untold misery for everyone in 100 years or less.

File: 1475264154992.png (37KB, 637x513px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 637x513px

>>2572188
Varies highly dependant on how developed your country is.
The USSR rocketed from a backwater to a superpower at record speeds (worth noting from the chart that Japan's economic bubble was about to burst), then stalled once it hit the developmental stage where people start demanding consumer goods. (By 1990 the USSR had been stagnant for a while, naturally. Still the 2nd greatest ratio at that point.)

File: 1478951222559.jpg (67KB, 530x800px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 530x800px

>>2574301
>realize after posting it's only 1990 constant dollars, the ratio is 1928:1970, meaning the bit about the Japanese bubble and ongoing stagnation was meaningless.
don't analysis when drunk kids. just post data and keep quiet.

>>2574301
Japan grew faster and didn't crash nearly as hard.

>>2574154
>He simply owns the land on which this is performed.

And that adds a value to final good being used.
Without the land, there is literally no crop. Furthermore, it is the boss who decides when, where and how to sell the crop in order ensure that the value returned for selling the crop is not less than the value put into creating the crop, and indeed is the most critical phase of production. Should the boss continually fail in this endeavor, the whole process fails. The boss is not some Medieval gentry Lord demanding goods for survival, the boss provides and integral component of the whole enterprise. If the individual or collective of workers in the enterprise feel that their boss over inflates their worth ( a very real possibility, especially in large organizations with a great supply of rent-seeking middle managers) then the workers may unite to demand a greater share of profits.

File: 1474464810908.gif (299KB, 500x373px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 500x373px

>>2574346
>And that adds a value to final good being used.

>>2574352
Please tell me more on how you intend to grow potatoes without land. Real potatoes are infinity more valuable than imaginary potatoes floating in the aether.

>>2574360
Please tell me why you're entitled to own land.

>>2574366
Because a thousand generations ago it was agreed upon amongst men, that for the harmony of all the territory where a man worked would be considered "his." It is simply the social compact.

>>2574390
>the territory where a man worked
So the farmer gets the farm, right? Not the guy down in London who just happens to hold a bit of paper saying "You get the farm"

>>2574400
>So the farmer gets the farm, right?
Nice strawman, that would mean that your house which was most certainly not have been built by you, can never be owned by you and never will be unless you yourself construct it.

I am elucidating where the origin of the concept of ownership came from. In time this has transferred over to the modern concept of ownership. It simply is a facet of society which has developed over time. Ownership confers value and an owner can choose to improve on the value of his goods or leave it be. The system simply is, and has functioned well enough.

Regardless, you are focusing only on a small portion of my argument. The bulk of my original post was spent describing the hidden jobs that an owner provides. Most successful owners aren't simply rich men sitting in town homes drinking chiante while laughing at the plight of the proletariat.

File: 1465990892208.jpg (104KB, 500x632px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 500x632px

>>2574438

they got rendered irrelevant because the mass entry of women, immigrants, and developing nations into the global market place have caused the price of labor to race towards the bottom? Why put up with pinko slums when there are entire continents subsisting on cents?

>>2574438
>I am elucidating where the origin of the concept of ownership came from.

The concept of ownership came from force. Nothing more. Someone was in a position to tell others that they couldn't use this thing he "owned" and he had the might to back it up.

>>2574559
>Someone was in a position to tell others that they couldn't use this thing he "owned" and he had the might to back it up.

And if the whole village or tribe disagreed he would be dead. Few men are strong enough to hold back 8 other men attacking at the same time.

And again, the origin is pointless. Property ownership is a system which has withstood the test of time as an idea and conferred a great many benefits which people appreciate.

>>2574544
Those were mostly true back in 91 when the article was published. Except outsourcing wasn't as rampant

>>2573656
>In the hundreds of years that private corporations and coops have existed, the coops have consistently failed to achieve higher profitability and market share.
MONDRAGON

>>2574022
but it doesn't. So what do you have to say now bitch?

>>2574787
>but it doesn't. So what do you have to say now bitch?

Kill lobbyists and corporate cronyism. Communism is not immune to such interference either.

>>2575009
>deal with the symptoms and not the disease
I agree that Marx-Leninism is suceptible too but so? More whataboutism to distract from the point

>>2574677
One has to wonder if the article presumed a Labour victory at the next election. (As the polls showed at the time)
Which in some ways, it not occurring was a good thing for the party (the economy crashed nearly immediately afterwards taking the Conservatives credibility away, if they'd won they'd probably never shake the reputation for wrecking economies they unfairly earned.) but in others was a disaster. (This was the last time they'd stand on a manifesto other than third-way garbage.)

>>2571430
>Chinese elites care about china
So is that why they are desperately fleeing with their money to America & Canada?