[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/R9K/ - Robot - 9000

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble


File: 1739997481316.png ( 442.96 KB , 879x486 , not-important.png )

 No.7979

I don't know exactly how I feel about you people; I haven't lurked long enough. I definitely don't like the "woke left". For me that boils down to a collage of the pronoun people, the alphabet people, the cancel pigs, the "blame whitey" crowd, feminists, and a few other types like that cuck Destiny. Regardless, I'd say we both want a world where we don't have to deal with each other.

Why not build an alliance forged in mutual hate? We could work together to separate ourselves from a system we are forced to share, and never have to see each others ugly faces ever again. No more squabbling for power. No more chafing under each others dumb rules. You can have your "communism" over here and we can have our "fascism" over there, and never the twain shall meet.

Can we be frenemies?
>>

 No.7980

The purest and most blatant manifestation of Fascism as a political system in the world today is Zionism. Theoretically, I do not care that much about what any individual believes ideologically, I prefer a broad workers' movement based on shared class interests. The problem here is partly that Fascism is class collaborationist, undermines class politics with politics of identity, and the ideal of a fully militarized ethnostate is one which reaches towards the very worst things which exist today and seeks to replicate those things. I would have no problem with Fascists if it wasn't for all the Fascism.
>>

 No.7985

>>7979
You already live under fascism, why aren't you happy?
>>

 No.7986

>>7985
>You already live under fascism, why aren't you happy?
I put "fascism" in quotes because it's mostly a stand-in word for tyranny. No one gives a fuck about the literal meaning of fascism besides academics, NAZI LARPers & autists. On the other hand Trudeau (Castro's bastard) forced Canadians to choose between taking a dangerous vaccine against their will or else loosing their jobs and not being able to put food on the table (aka medical "fascism"). It was woke leftists who supported the mandates and the lockdowns and cerfews and censorship of so-called mis-information during the COVID years. You even saw "Antifa" protesters shouting down doctors who spoke against all the heavy-handed actions of our governments. The left, mobilized by their hatred of right-wing conservative people, supported the very government authoritarianism they claim to fight against.

The left and right are too polarized to coexist, our values and worldview can't be reconciled. The only real thing we could possibly agree on at this point is an amicable divorce.
>>

 No.7987

>>7986
>I put "fascism" in quotes because it's mostly a stand-in word for tyranny.
Then what exactly is it that you even believe in?

You're opposed to vaccine mandates? Ok, me too, who cares?

If you actually think that a polarizing (not really along strict left/right lines) response to a historic plague is an irreconcilable political divide, that seems kind of dumb. If you aren't an actual Fascist, what am I supposed to care what you think of mRNA vaccines? I don't even know what I think of mRNA vaccines. I certainly didn't trust Donald Trump and his top physician, the guy who botched the AIDs crisis, to tell me what to think of mRNA vaccines.
>>

 No.7991

>>7986
I agree that what was going on in Canada at the time is an example of fascism. It was certainly authoritarianism and did more harm than good. It could even be considered eugenics.

Also many users on this site (maybe you noticed) are highly critical of the woke left. I call those people liberals and I don't consider them leftists at all.

Are you sure you're not a communist? After all at its basis it's a criticism of the current system we live in, which we call capitalism. Maybe we are critical of the same things but draw different conclusions? Either way I hope you keep lurking and asking questions.
>>

 No.7992

>>7991
I really dislike this splitting of hairs. I think that it's stupid for the IWW to put furries on their posters and shit, but, the core concept of people being furries should be protected as a concept itself. Like, if you care what fetishes people have then you have a problem.
>>

 No.7995

>>7992
Excuse me WHAT, where did I mention furries? Are you lost?
>>

 No.7998

>>7987
>Then what exactly is it that you even believe in?
Agorism, social conservatism, some manosphere stuff, since I believe women have been effectively weaponized against men.
I think the agorism part might be a possible ideological bridge between right and left.

>If you actually think that a polarizing response to a historic plague is an irreconcilable political divide, that seems kind of dumb.

Some differences in worldview can't exist together in peace under the same roof. Resentments and radicalism will only fester if you try. But total isolationism isn't needed either. There's lots of neutral ideological ground where people can coexist without having to agree. But in cases where compromise is impossible, people need their own separate structures. Otherwise you end up with things like right-wing conservatives getting censored, demonetized & banned from the online public square, because Big Tech is run by or panders to the woke left & globalist elites.

>>7991
>Are you sure you're not a communist?
Holy shit-stains of Carl Marx, Batman! Fuck no! You can criticize capitalism without being a communist.
>>

 No.7999

OP, you're making the mistake of confusing libleftism with communism.

Also, right wing conservatives non existent in the west
We have right wing liberals.
>>

 No.8000

>>7995
OP is grasping at straws here

>>7998
>Agorism, social conservatism, some manosphere stuff, since I believe women have been effectively weaponized against men.
>I think the agorism part might be a possible ideological bridge between right and left.

Wtf is agorism?
Also, women aren't being effectively weaponised against men
Men are just dumbass simps that infantilised women too much.
>>

 No.8001

Idealistic babble slop, the dominant mode of production is inescapable.
>>

 No.8002

File: 1740317712924.jpg ( 10.87 KB , 622x350 , agorism.jpg )

>>8000
>Wtf is agorism?
You never heard? Well why the fuck not? You've got flags for every other kind of anarchy. Agorism espouses a principle of counter-economics (the black market, gray market) that I thought might be of interest to leftists who want to hurt le evil capitiliste.

The right-wing chans are too paranoid about federal agents hiding under their floorboards to be willing to talk about things like counter economics, let alone build private contact networks in pursuit of any sort of goal. This is partly why I'm testing the waters on a leftist board to see if things are any different.

>Also, women aren't being effectively weaponised against men Men are just dumbass simps that infantilised women too much.

Two things can be true at the same time. Simps are a plague. They undermine their gender and teach women to be both ugly AND entitled. Simps should get catfished with fake dating profiles of fat ugly feminist bitches who look like triggly-puff, then exposed on camera and shamed for their simpery when they show up looking for that ugly roast-beef pussy.

>>8001
>Idealistic babble slop
No, that would be nit-picking through all the shades and hues of ideology, like >>7999 , as if ideologies don't bleed in together, or mean slightly different things to different people. That's why I only gave a one-line answer about what I believe instead of delivering an autistic manifesto about my amazing doctrine and worldview.

>the dominant mode of production is inescapable

And what's that?
>>

 No.8004

Anyone that whines about "woke"ness is always a huge cunt on the way to being a full blown CHUD. So you probably wouldn't gel here.
>>

 No.8006

>>7979
Said it once and I'll say it again this is terminally online idealistic babble.
>>

 No.8007

>>8004
This. The biggest irony is that anti woke is exactly the same as pro woke
>>

 No.8016

File: 1740666321258.jpg ( 48.02 KB , 460x508 , f499a67e9b440bee08f9a1ebbc….jpg )

>>7998
>I think the agorism part might be a possible ideological bridge between right and left.
Left-wing economics is fundamentally about stealing "sharing" property with productive people. You can't do that if you don't have power over them. Live and let live is the worst possible philosophy for a parasite.

Leftists will never leave us alone. Some principled marxists might try to start a commune first but when they run out of food they will revert right back to "muh class struggle" and "why do you have more stuff than me you must of stole it somehow".

>>7986
>I put "fascism" in quotes because it's mostly a stand-in word for tyranny.
Except the people who throw this word around have no problem with tyranny as long as reddit and the new york times assures them the "good guys" are in charge, like we saw during covid.

It's more of a stand in for racism these days.

Ask a normie what's wrong with hitler they will say racism, hated jews, holocaust etc. At a push they will say nationalism bad. But nobody has a problem with the socialist part of national socialist, they won't say he banned the stock market, centralized the means of production under the state and implemented labor vouchers.

>It was woke leftists who supported the mandates and the lockdowns and cerfews and censorship of so-called mis-information during the COVID years.

I'd cut leftists some slack here. Being a leftist is just the default at the moment. Everybody identifies as being on the left because somebody accusing you of being right-wing is worse than being a pedophile.

What really happened is that the billionaires who own the media lied their asses off about covid to boost profits for the billionaires who owned the vaccine companies. It's not like any real marxists fell for any of this covid corporate propaganda.
>>

 No.8017

File: 1740668850955.jpg ( 103.22 KB , 1080x911 , adam smith landlords.jpg )

>>8016
>Left-wing economics is fundamentally about stealing "sharing" property with productive people.
That's landlordism actually.
Also capitalism in practice, but landlordism especially.

>Leftists will never leave us alone.

It's wild you came here just to say that.

>But nobody has a problem with the socialist part of national socialist, they won't say he banned the stock market,

Yeah, because they coined "privatization" to describe Hitler's actual economic policy of privatizing previously nationalized industries. People don't complain about Hitler's "socialism" because he wasn't a socialist and he made the German social democrats who preceded him look like Soviets by comparison.
>>

 No.8020

>>8017
>That's landlordism actually.
Let's see. A landlord is a person who saved a substantial amount of capital and locked it away in a somewhat risky asset and has agreed to let you use the asset in exchange for a fee. You are free to accept or decline or negotiate the terms. Nope, that does not fit any definition of "stealing".

When the government demands 40% of your pay check so they can buy more bombs to blow up children in Gaza and if you refuse they send armed men to kick down your door and drag you to jail: that's stealing.

If you're angry because you want to buy a house but can't afford it then keep in mind the reason for high house prices is because government keeps inflating the money supply forcing people to park their wealth in real estate they don't need and government bails out failed banks which incentivizes them to give high mortgages to people they shouldn't and government keeps importing migrants and giving them free housing and government taxes and regulates the construction industry to a stand still.

All this government intervention which is artificially lowering supply and increasing demand is the reason you can't afford a house, not landlords. Indeed if renting houses was illegal former landlords would still hog empty houses instead of putting their money in a bank where it gets eroded by inflation. The only difference is you'd be homeless.

>Adam-labor-theory-of-value-Smith said it therefor you have to believe it

Adam Smith is a free market capitalist the same way Kamala Harris is a marxist.

>It's wild you came here just to say that.

Aww, do you feel bullied? head pats

>they coined "privatization" to describe Hitler's actual economic policy

I don't think so
<The term privatizing first appeared in English, with quotation marks, in the New York Times, in April 1923, in a translation of a German speech referring to the potential for German state railroads to be bought by American companies.[5] In German, the word Privatisierung has been used since at least the 19th century.[6] Ultimately, the word came to German through French from the Latin privatus

>Hitler's actual economic policy of privatizing previously nationalized industries

<The term reprivatization, again translated directly from German (Reprivatisierung), was used frequently in the mid-1930s as The Economist reported on Nazi Germany's sale of nationalized banks back to public shareholders following the 1931 economic crisis.
Even Lenin reprivitized collectivized farms in the early 1920s when it became economically critical to do so. That doesn't mean Lenin and Hitler were actually secret capitalists all along. Overall the National Socialists were extremely hostile to private property even though they made tactical concessions on occasion.

Just like any other brand of socialism the nazis believed in centralizing the means of production under the state and then using state control of the economy to maximize the "greater good". The main difference is that they defined the greater good along racial lines rather than class lines.
>>

 No.8021

>>8020
>Let's see. A landlord is a person who saved a substantial amount of capital and locked it away in a somewhat risky asset and has agreed to let you use the asset in exchange for a fee.
Or they just inherited a property. Or they just inherited a bunch of money and put that into land. Or they already have capital from investments in labor, but it's lower risk to just move a bunch of capital into land, which is where a lot of capital actually ends up instead of investing in production.

Buying up a fixed resource which you did not create and have no right to monopolize, relying upon the state to enforce that monopoly, is not a good or a service. The location value is created by others' labor and by others' need, landlords only serve to reduce the supply and to reap where others sowed.

>You are free to accept or decline or negotiate the terms. Nope, that does not fit any definition of "stealing".

According to a spooked conception of capitalism where the state doesn't have to enforce property rights even where they deprive others of natural rights, such as land, maybe. But this is a delusional, ahistorical conception of capitalist economics - it's completely immaterial, where the idea of property rights as an abstract overwhelm any consideration for the actual material conditions required to uphold a completely idealized version of capitalism. Neoliberals love this kind of ideological, immaterial idiocy, but Smith had no reason to pretend that a deadweight "investment" like land speculation was anything other than parasitism.

>When the government demands 40% of your pay check so they can buy more bombs to blow up children in Gaza and if you refuse they send armed men to kick down your door and drag you to jail: that's stealing.

When the landlord demands as much of your paycheck and then kicks you out of a place the landlord doesn't live and solely owns as an asset protected by the state, that's stealing. Two things can be true.

>If you're angry because you want to buy a house but can't afford it then keep in mind the reason for high house prices is because government

I'll finish that for ya: because government does nothing about rampant land speculation. Government is infested with folks who share your neoliberal delusion, that you can allow the unchecked hoarding of fixed natural resources without it causing problems exactly like this. It's been about 18 years since the last land bubble burst, which means we're coming up quickly on the next one. You can pretty much set your watch to this stuff.

If you want to know who gives the land speculators the "right" to drive the prices up and to periodically wreck the economy with massive speculative land bubbles, it's the state. The prioritizing of the "right" of land monopoly over the "right" of an individual to land, to shelter, to the basics they need to live, is a conscious decision of the state, and it has been getting worse because the state is so incredibly out of touch, and so bought-off by lobbies for real estate, for war, etc. that it has embraced an ideological version of capitalism where there is a need to address fantasies like not having enough freedom to hoard land and have the state protect it but no need to address realities like homelessness and the choking out of productive businesses by parasitic commercial landlords' destructive rent hikes.

This was a problem understood at the dawn of capitalism, but which is decidedly ignored by neoliberal idealists. You talk a lot about the government, but oddly omit something very major which the government does, which is protecting monopolistic land rights at the public expense and not disincentivizing that sort of economic activity. I don't deny that the parasitic landlords and the state are on the same side, but if I acknowledge that the endeavors of the state are theft and not some kind of ingenious entrepreneurial feat, them I'm no more inclined to pretend that landlords and their lobbyists are any better.

>Adam Smith is a free market capitalist the same way Kamala Harris is a marxist.

A market centered entirely around the unchecked hoarding of unearned, unproductive wealth at the expense of others' freedom is not a "free market." Adam Smith met the low bar of basing his economics on actual observations rather than on a purely ideological conception of capitalism as an abstract divorced from material reality.

Quoting a wiki article at me which doesn't even support your case - the next line (which you've also quoted!) reads: The term reprivatization, again translated directly from German (Reprivatisierung), was used frequently in the mid-1930s as The Economist reported on Nazi Germany's sale of nationalized banks back to public shareholders following the 1931 economic crisis.[8]
The concept of privatization as a policy, and its existence as a specific English word, seems to have entered English entirely to describe what the Nazis were doing with previously state-owned industries. The Latin root is broader and doesn't refer solely to the same specific thing, and the previous German translation of a single use of "privatizing" once to refer to a different proposal which never materialized isn't a compelling alternative origin, even if it's a neat enough piece of trivia to say "actually, a variation of the same word appeared in English one time prior to describe something which never happened prior to the Nazis popularizing the variant we're talking about with stuff they actually did."

The same article begins the 20th century history of privatization with: The first mass privatization of state property occurred in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1937: "It is a fact that the government of the National Socialist Party sold off public ownership in several state-owned firms in the middle of the 1930s. The firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyard, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition to this, delivery of some public services produced by public administrations prior to the 1930s, especially social services and services related to work, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to several organizations within the Nazi Party."

>Even Lenin reprivitized collectivized farms in the early 1920s when it became economically critical to do so.

The NEP was short-lived and nowhere near as broad.

>Just like any other brand of socialism the nazis believed in centralizing the means of production under the state and then using state control of the economy to maximize the "greater good". The main difference is that they defined the greater good along racial lines rather than class lines.

Except what the Nazis actually did, in practice, was remove the means of production from open, direct state control in a way which reduced the public accountability and responsibility of the state and of industry without actually mitigating the centralized power, effectively obfuscating the control of both the private and public parts of the state by the very same upper class. Racial, religious, and national chauvinism also helped with that a good bit, though!
Nazi leadership and German industrialists broadly shared the same class interests, and in that circumstance you can have privatization without it hurting your totalitarianism at all; if anything, the two compliment eachother when the political leadership and big business will just collude anyway.
>>

 No.8022

>>7999
"Conservative" is a relative term that's never meant anything consistently anyway. Marxists in modern China would be considered conservative.
>>

 No.8023

>>8020
>When the government demands 40% of your pay check so they can buy more bombs
>he thinks the government pays the military-industrial complex with tax money
>>

 No.8024

>>8021
>Buying up a fixed resource which you did not create and have no right to monopolize
The person who did create the resource (house) transferred all those rights to the buyer in exchange for money. That's what buying is.

>relying upon the state to enforce that monopoly

If you don't believe in property rights then we can settle this right now. Tell me your address and I will come over and take your stuff. Don't you dare call the police to enforce a "monopoly" for you.

>it's completely immaterial, where the idea of property rights as an abstract overwhelm any consideration…

What are you rambling about? Nobody is forcing you to give any money to landlords. They are selling a service and you are free to buy it or leave it. That's the point you quoted and then forgot to address.

>When the landlord demands as much of your paycheck

The landlord isn't demanding anything. You agreed to pay him money in exchange for using his property. That's like saying workers "demand" salary from their boss.

>a place the landlord doesn't live and solely owns as an asset protected by the state

Houses don't just appear in nature. Somebody did work to build a house. That act of mixing one's labor with an unowned natural resource is what creates property. As the owner of that property the homesteader can do what he wants including rent it out or sell it to somebody who rents it out.

>I'll finish that for ya:

I'd prefer it if you addressed the points I actually wrote. If you think I'm wrong then explain why. If you don't then I assume it's because you can't.

>Government is infested with folks who share your neoliberal delusion

I'm not a neoliberal. If that's what you think after sincerely reading my post then you have serve learning difficulties.

>The prioritizing of the "right" of land monopoly over the "right" of an individual to land, to shelter, to the basics they need to live

You do not have a "right" to other people's labor.

>You talk a lot about the government, but oddly omit something very major which the government does, which is protecting monopolistic land rights at the public expense

Most land is "owned" by the government. If they released it all for public use you would rush out and build your own house? Is that how you think you're going to solve the housing shortage? I didn't mention it because it is not relevant.

>A market centered entirely around the unchecked hoarding of unearned, unproductive wealth at the expense of others' freedom is not a "free market."

Adam Smith lived under a monarchy. The man with the biggest sword declared himself king and decided all the land belonged to him. Of course that's unearned. What do you think you're arguing against? Adam Smith got a lot of things wrong, if the reason you're quoting him is because you think he is the capitalist version of Marx or something then you are wasting your time.

>Quoting a wiki article at me which doesn't even support your case - the next line (which you've also quoted!)

You said privatization was coined in the 1930s. The first quote shows that it was coined earlier.
You said Hitler's policy was to privatize industries. The second quote shows that he only privatized one thing on one occasion due to an emergency.
<Even Lenin reprivitized collectivized farms in the early 1920s when it became economically critical to do so. That doesn't mean Lenin and Hitler were actually secret capitalists all along. Overall the National Socialists were extremely hostile to private property even though they made tactical concessions on occasion.

>Except what the Nazis actually did, in practice, was remove the means of production from open, direct state control

Your claim is that nazis, one of the most ruthlessly authoritarian governments to ever exist, gave up control of private industry. While at the same time they were building up their military and planning for widespread war no less. You're smarter than that. Next you're going to tell me the holocaust happened because of free speech.

>Nazi leadership and German industrialists broadly shared the same class interests, and in that circumstance you can have privatization without it hurting your totalitarianism at all; if anything, the two compliment eachother when the political leadership and big business will just collude anyway.

Nazi leadership were interested in war materiel. German industrialists were interested in not getting kidnapped and tortured by the SS. You're kidding yourself if you think German industrialists voluntarily retrofitted their factories for war production in exchange for imaginary hilter-bucks because that was more profitable than selling products on the international market for hard currency.
>>

 No.8025

>>8024
Not that anon, but I have a simple question for you: Do you believe that someone should be allowed to own an entire planet?
>>

 No.8026

>>8023
>he thinks the government pays the military-industrial complex with tax money
That's the scam my dude
>you pay taxes
>government pays corpos
>corpos employ some minimum wage factory workers
>yay we created jobs
>99% of the cash goes to shareholders
>shareholders lobby government for the next war
And you dumb leftist fucks fall for it everytime. Slava Ukraini.
>>

 No.8027

The left can't meme.
>>

 No.8028

>>8025
>Not that anon, but I have a simple question for you: Do you believe that someone should be allowed to own an entire planet?
What I was referring to his the homesteading principle. You mix your labor with a natural resource and the result is your property.

Some classic examples
>You plant a tree, water it, trim it, take care of it, the tree and fruit becomes your property.
>You find an unoccupied patch of land and build a house on it, the house and the land under it becomes your property.
>You can't just build a big fence and say everything inside this fence belongs to me now.

So to answer your question, can Elon Musk land on Mars and say this whole planet belongs to him? No I think that's bullshit. If he builds an Artemis style bubble city or something then that specific structure would be his property but the rest of the planet is still in its untouched wild state waiting for homesteaders.

I guess the other way to look at it is, if Elon Musk could legitimately acquire enough capital not through his crony government contracts to somehow buy every patch of land from the rightful owner? I guess somebody could own a whole planet like that.

From my perspective as long as the property is homesteaded (somebody created value from nothing) or the property was legitimately purchased (trading value for value with no fraud or force involved) then it's fine.
>>

 No.8029

>>8028
>Do you believe that someone should be allowed to own an entire planet?
The conversation got a bit confusing because >>8021 keeps doing a motte and bailey between land and housing.

I think we agree that most land ownership is unearned since the way it became "owned" by the government or aristocrats is because they had a monopoly on violence and seized it.

He then tries to pivot to landlords renting out houses that they didn't "earn" which is where I disagree because somebody did labor to build that house. Or they did labor to earn money to buy it from the builder.

>inb4 muh inheritance

Inheritance is basically just a gift. The person who did "earn" the property gave it voluntarily to a person they are close to. There is nothing unfair about that, people can give their property to whoever they want. Keep in mind they also could have sold it and wasted the money on safari vacations before they died and left their inheritors nothing. It's literally none of your business either way.
>>

 No.8030

>>8024
>The person who did create the resource (house) transferred all those rights to the buyer in exchange for money. That's what buying is.
Except that the investment of a landlord is primarily in the land. The location value isn't just generated by the house, but by the work of the community. A landlord buys a lot, or a building, in a city because there is already value in the city, because people have lived there, have built things, have labored, and that has created a place where people want to go. The landlord's role is to then come in and mooch up that value, and, often times, to strangle it.

>If you don't believe in property rights then we can settle this right now. Tell me your address and I will come over and take your stuff. Don't you dare call the police to enforce a "monopoly" for you.

Even Marxists differentiate between private property and personal property. Occupation and use is a crucial determining factor here, and it's also the principal which Marxists use to determine who should own a factory.

If you come over and try to take anything I need to live, I won't need to call the police, but you will. However, if you were to try to take my factory, or emerald mine, or anything like that which I only own on paper, from a distance, to derive absentee profit from, on account of you being a factory worker or a miner or someone else laboring on site for my profit, then the situation would be quite different. Without the police, I could hardly prevent those who produce the wealth I collect from taking ownership of that wealth and refusing to hand it over to me. It's much easier to say a man is the natural owner of his home than it is to say he is the owner of someone else's home, or of someone else's place of work, or of someone else's labor, yet when it comes time to determine who is in ownership of these things, who holds all the cards, the state always sides with the man who owns another's home on paper over the man whose home is the place he lives in real life, and the state seeks to reinforce the extortion of those with a great deal of unearned wealth over those who work for all they have and still have very little.

>What are you rambling about? Nobody is forcing you to give any money to landlords.

This is a childish statement to make when the result of this fantasy reasoning is rising homelessness in spite of a surplus of homes.

>Houses don't just appear in nature. Somebody did work to build a house. That act of mixing one's labor with an unowned natural resource is what creates property. As the owner of that property the homesteader can do what he wants including rent it out or sell it to somebody who rents it out.

Most land speculators, and especially those who own the most properties, are not homesteaders.

>I'd prefer it if you addressed the points I actually wrote. If you think I'm wrong then explain why. If you don't then I assume it's because you can't.

The problem you're talking about predates every single one of the grievances you list, which are, frankly, mostly just used to obfuscate the pre-existing problem and distract people from the very obvious way they're being ripped off. Blaming the government singularly isn't adequate when much of what the government does is in concert with the very same extractive rentseeking interests which were already a problem 250 years ago. The separation of the corporate state and the political state is mostly an illusion, and has been for some time.

As for migrants, they're a convenient scapegoat. The US has been deporting record numbers for years. Net migration is down, people are leaving the US, and yet, if I walk downtown, there are still, for some reason, rows of empty buildings. There are still empty apartments, and despite the surplus, this is all very expensive. Businesses are still shutting down because the complexes their storefronts are in are sold to "new management" who are jacking the rents way up for everybody. Some people want me to blame Mexicans!
And none of this is to say that mass migration isn't a problem, and in that area the government really is at fault - the sanctions on Venezuela, attacks on West Asia, sanctions on people all over the world, have demonstrably created waves of misery and migration. Then many come in and, for some reason, are hired by our noble business professionals to undercut American labor, and to exploit the desperation of those who our government's policies of drug-running, war, and economic assault displace. It's presumably only just a convenient coincidence that this same government, to punish violations of labor law, disproportionately pursues migrant workers rather than the wealthy interests who use these workers to skirt labor law, and increasingly does so in gratuitous spectacles as though the real aim is just to frighten migrant workers into complacency rather than to actually deal with any perceived numbers problem.

>I'm not a neoliberal. If that's what you think after sincerely reading my post then you have serve learning difficulties.

Still, you share their delusion on this one.

>You do not have a "right" to other people's labor.

Welcome, Comrade! ☭☭☭

>Most land is "owned" by the government. If they released it all for public use you would rush out and build your own house? Is that how you think you're going to solve the housing shortage?

There literally are tons of empty houses right now. Tons of empty apartments, too. No occupants. No use. Just owners who don't live there and don't store stuff there and don't want anyone else to live there.

>Adam Smith lived under a monarchy. The man with the biggest sword declared himself king and decided all the land belonged to him.

This hasn't actually changed.

>Adam Smith got a lot of things wrong, if the reason you're quoting him is because you think he is the capitalist version of Marx or something then you are wasting your time.

I'm quoting Smith because his analysis had an actual basis in what material reality was and is, and not just what he wanted it to be. A problem which neoliberalism constantly runs into is that its ideal is unpalatable… even when you have writers who understand economics, the rollout of neoliberalism, Austrianism, etc. will never go well because it isn't actually a thing most people want when they see it in real life. It's a thing the capitalist class want because they've convinced themselves, wrongly, that it can play out in real life the way it does on paper; which isn't actually how it works out, or, if it does, that's still just going to be something which screws most people over. If it doesn't then you just get collapse. Marx's predictions, frankly, had a lot of similar issues, and he tended to be much more into vague, presumptive stuff than Engels was; at their best, they were very good at describing things as they exist and existed, much better historians than they were prophets. In the case of neoliberalism, we get bad historians and bad prophets who occasionally can at least make concessions, as academics, that their end goal can't be reached by merely sacrificing a chicken to the free market God. The Austrians, the neoliberals have the worst tendency of early Marxists to get ahead of themselves in their projections, but in the service of a stupid, revisionist take on liberal economics. So I think Smith had a better grip.

>You said privatization was coined in the 1930s. The first quote shows that it was coined earlier.

The first quote is about a direct translation of a German speech which uses ing rather than ation, and the speech is referring to a thing that didn't actually happen. Usage of "privatization" as an English word, in the English press, being used by English authors to describe an actual policy which was being done, seems to have started with Hitler. If you want I'll concede that Hitler's actions merely gave the term a definition and popularized it with common use in the English-speaking press, and that it or a related word was quoted from German in the English-speaking press one time a decade earlier.

>You said Hitler's policy was to privatize industries. The second quote shows that he only privatized one thing on one occasion due to an emergency.

It doesn't say that. That quote says that the term was discussed in the context of privatizing the banks, but the quote I included later elaborates that the Nazis privatized major industries in many sectors, considerably more than Lenin ever did.

>Your claim is that nazis, one of the most ruthlessly authoritarian governments to ever exist, gave up control of private industry.

The trick is getting people to think that removing the organs of the state from the political gov't is "giving up control." No, the Nazis, the class interests which they represented, were still in control. If the corporate state and the military state had actually been at odds, then it wouldn't have worked. It's similar to the policy which the Nazis had on guns; for Jews and communists, they were illegal. For good Nazi Aryans, they were encouraged and the laws were loosened from what they had been in Weimar Germany. The German capitalists were largely willing collaborators, and they were Hitler's class allies, and German workers were brought in to do their bidding with race/nation legal privileges which elevated a good Nazi over others whether or not their class interests actually aligned with those at the top.

>Nazi leadership were interested in war materiel. German industrialists were interested in not getting kidnapped and tortured by the SS.

Ah, like Peter Thiel, and Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg, and Erik Prince… of course, the richest men in the country, or on Earth, would never possibly do anything evil of their own volition, for profit. That's just the domain of the politicians they hang out with, pay off, and support, and who invest in a lot of the very same lethal industries and profit off of them themselves. The German industrialists were all good boys who were forced! into it by the wicked hand that paid them a bunch of money.
>>

 No.8062

>>7986

This is why to me you're a cancer to humanity and someone should hang your shoes to dry just like anyone that has the same beliefs as you. Not only because you spend 0% percent of the day trying to even think of a way to make the system better. But also because it's just tantrums. Like how whiny do you have to be that you prefer to risk a virus wiping out a percentage of the population because "muh freedom" Go live in a fucking jungle if you want to be free. Now measles is making a comeback because of retards like you.
>>

 No.8063

>>8030

Hero
>>

 No.8065

>>8030
good post

Unique IPs: 12

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome