Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
Sort
Coming soon

Come here, show off the fact that you have dollars or some shit and someone will probably fall on your lap. If you have a Venezuelan friend I'd highly recommend visitting. There's some fun to be had here and you'll be treated like a king for pennies on the dollar.

see more

You're advising him to go somewhere and exploit women who are poor. Great advice, jerk. Good luck finding someone who will love you.

0 points · 7 hours ago · edited 7 hours ago

Nah man. What you think that this is Cuba or Africa that some woman will suckle on your pecker for a piece of bread? (I mean a few will I guess, but that's not what I'm suggesting) You completely misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was telling the guy to go to a bar or something well dressed and order a few "expensive" things. Girls will take notice. And if you are a foreigner to boot? Theyll definitely take notice.

see more

Fuck off disgusting prick

Load more comments

Socialism is not about the mode of production. It's about who owns the means of production. You can wish it wasn't true, but you will just be wishing.

Perhaps the actual definition will help.

so·cial·ism ˈsōSHəˌlizəm noun a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

https://www.google.com/search?q=socialism&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjswPazjsXdAhWQ2lMKHUVWD28Q_AUICSgA&biw=1920&bih=943&dpr=1

Thanks for playing.

see more

Socialism is not about the mode of production. It's about who owns the means of production. You can wish it wasn't true, but you will just be wishing

Socialism is both a mode of production and a form of social property relation.

You're a fucking idiot

Reeeeeeeeeeee! It's an international conspiracy to change the definition of socialism!!!!!

Let me guess, the capitalists are hoarding all of the sources for your magical definition?

see more

You're the one who needs to study. Ask any economist whether or not the Venezuelan economy is socialist or not. You will be disappointed that your world-view is not coherent with fact.

Load more comments

i'm so sick of these liberals with overtly simplistic and archaic views that hard work solves poverty. how many times does that need to be debunked?

see more

All class societies have weird myths and superstitions surrounding the act of labour. Wonder why?

Original PosterScore hidden · 20 hours ago

He himself is anti-capitalist, but his argument is without judgement. Just that the rise of bullshit jobs may mean that we don’t actually live under what Marx, Hayek, or Keynes would recognize as capitalism anymore.

see more

Which is a completely stupid point of view. Of course it's fucking capitalism.

Comment deleted1 day ago

Nobody is supporting it.

Comment deleted1 day ago

That's not the same as calling for the killing of white people.

He is also talking about the EFF, which will survive after his leadership and he is long dead. His point is that he can not decide what will happen after he dies, and it is an open question how the South African society will develop in the lack of a proper closure.

It takes a fucking idiot to jump to the same conclusions as you have.

Load more comments

58 points · 2 days ago

Who's to say they're not in on it? More positive reviews increase sale, which increases Amazon's cut (they get a set percentage of every sale), AND they could make additional money off of selling review filtering. Worked well for YELP, except Amazon is too big that it can get away with whatever and not lose many customers. Article says it's against Amazon policy, but these things are complicated and can have gaping loopholes. "Oh, the person who removed them was actually authorized to remove or edit any review they deem necessary. While we don't encourage review manipulation and will recommend that they stop, they will so be disciplined while we hope this all blows over and we can reassign the task to another group"

see more

And when they are caught, blame it on a scapegoat.

But that in the end just hurts amazon over time (maybe not right now). When customers have less and less faith in the product they are buying they stop buying from that source. If you bought something from amazon and got a dodgy product once you'd wright it off as a one off. When you get 4-5 in a row then customers will start to think they are just in the process of selling dodgy ripoff/broken crap and not bother buying again.

So does it make sense they are actively choose not to do anything? Or does it cost more to do something than the amount of customers they lose because of it?

see more

The idea that consumers in the market are generally rational actors is pure ideology.

4 points · 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago

Union jobs didn't get exported to China because "unions were too stubborn"

You don’t really know much about economics, do you? Jobs moving to other countries is not a bad thing, as long as the workforce is flexible enough to find new jobs. In fact, the protectionist sympathies of some unions actually hurts workers as a whole because it drives up prices and leads to an overreliance on the protected sectors.

I’m also not blindly anti-union, like you claim. I support unions, but take a realistic look at the effect very powerful ones can have.

see more

Jobs moving to other countries is not a bad thing

Never said it was bad for the Chinese. I'm just saying that it's a bad thing that union jobs are being exported to create non-union jobs, and that it isn't the fault of unions, but of capitalism in normal function.

as long as the workforce is flexible enough to find new jobs

What jobs? Union jobs got replaced with non-union jobs. We all know it, and we joke about Uber and Amazon all the time. Do you read the front page of Reddit very often?

In fact, the protectionist sympathies of some unions actually hurts workers as a whole because it drives up prices and leads to an overreliance on the protected sectors.

No, it hurts capitalists, who workers rely on for food & shelter. The capitalists then in turn attack labour unions and worker rights legislation.

I think the both of you make good points however your last point at the end of the day is what is most important right now at a day to day level for the overwhelming majority of people. There has been (And always will be in a heavily capitalist mode of economic production) a race to the bottom. And what we are seeing now with capital having the freedom of movement transnationally for labor is a global race to the bottom. Do unions put these corporations into difficult positions when profitability and shareholder value need to be maintained? Sure. But so to does our economic system. The unions only have 1 fundamental obligation and that's to its workers.

see more

Do unions put these corporations into difficult positions when profitability and shareholder value

need

to be maintained?

The falling rate of profit implies that profitability will eventually run out regardless of whether or not there is a union movement.

Load more comments

8 points · 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago

Sweden/Scandinavia isn't successful because we have social democracy. We have a social democracy because we are "successful" as a western imperialist power (lots of exports and war industry). Most people get the order of these things completely wrong. Scandinavian welfare was built on imperialism, not good political leadership.

The problem with a lot of people is they seem to think that if Easter Island became a socialist state that all of a sudden it is expected to become an industrial powerhouse. Socialism in the 20th century was a reaction to the inherent contradictions in global capital, that which exploits many of the less developed parts of the world for raw resources and creates puppet monocrop states. The real story of the 20th century is the fact that the proletarians of the west failed to liberate the world by finishing the job of ousting western imperialist powers, at a time when the colonial world was rising up against imperialism all over the globe. That's where you have the origins of Scandinavian "success". In the betrayal of class solidarity.

That's how we got the cat at my place. She wandered into my roommates old place and was like "I live here now".

see more

That's called stealing where I live

This is why I didn't quite understand another post in this sub about sugar daddies (where a young woman—usually woman—agrees to have sex/a relationship—but mostly sex—with a man in exchange for a decent amount of money).

Some people in that thread were saying it's okay, let's not demonize sex workers, etc. Which, yeah, okay, don't demonize sex workers, but let's also not pretend that all exchanges involving sex are the same. If someone chooses to have sex with people as a job, if that's what they want to do, and there's a certain degree of equality or reciprocity between the sex worker and the "consumer," then fine. But in situations like this with sex-for-rent, and I imagine in many cases with sugar daddies, clearly one side is taking advantage of the other's financial precariousness. It sets up a dynamic not very different—probably worse—than between worker and owner in general.

see more
10 points · 6 days ago · edited 6 days ago

It sets up a dynamic not very different—probably worse—than between worker and owner in general.

Sex slavery... that's the word you are looking for

In b4 some liberal troll comes in here and claims "But it's a voluntary contract! You can terminate it at any time!".

...because I'm sure that's exactly how it feels for the victims /s

The biggest celebrators of "free will" ideology are the ones who have no fucking clue what freedom actually is.

So your point is that the petite burgeoise is worse than the haute burgeoise?

Because they want fascism to oppress their workers more to make up for the profits that gets stolen from them by the haute burgeoise?

A very weird way to look at it. Because it kinds of makes people cheer for the haute burgeoise especially when they try to set up themselves as socialist burgeoise with their plans for UBI and welfare reform.

Should we then ally ourselves with the haute burgeoise because they temporarily provide better solutions? Or should we oppose both?

see more

So your point is that the petite burgeoise is worse than the haute burgeoise?

Not at all, just that reaction tends to spring out of the petty bourgeoisie. I never made a claim whatsoever that one is worse than the other - that sort of moral dichotomy doesn't appeal to me.

Should we then ally ourselves with the haute burgeoise because they temporarily provide better solutions? Or should we oppose both?

Lmao

This is where I disagree with Marxist analysis, it's very narrow and inflexible.

Look I have seen fascists on the streets, big buff body builders with swastikas tatooed on them, motorcycle club members with white supremacy symboled leather jackets, tons of drunk white males in bars. These are perfect grounds to recruit intolerant toxic male authoritarians from.

And yes you will find sometimes soldiers and cops in there too, but the bulk of the movement is made up of these sorts of people.

They are marginalized by society (because they are agressive brutes) so they think they are oppressed, fascism is just a fake "liberation" doctrine that fools reactionaries into thinking that they are oppressed.

I mean this whole movement that talks about "white genocide" and crap like that. It perfectly fits into this doctrine.

They are recruiting from intolerant, patriarchic, aggressive segments of the population, and use them as cannon fodders for the burgeoise.

see more

This is where I disagree with Marxist analysis, it's very narrow and inflexible.

Class-based materialist analysis is scientific. If that's what you consider to be narrow and inflexible then that's because truth is.

Load more comments

In terms of minimizing the problem of absolute poverty and maximizing prosperity, will you acknowledge that market economies have thus far proven to be more prosperous and less poor than communistic economies?

The poorer half of the globe revolts against global imperialist capitalism because of exploitation. Then people like yourself think you are clever when you condemn them for being poor.

That's basically why they even revolted in the first place lmao.

A complete lack of historical and material contextual understanding ITT.

Since June I've made $30 of totally passive income. For a poor college student, it's not too bad. I'm excited to see what the magic of compounded interest does for my portfolio over the next 40 years.

see more

It's been over 10 years since the last major financial crisis. Don't get your hopes up too high, the market has a tendency to disappoint.

Capitalism not being an ideology is pure ideology.

see more

*sniff*

When learning socialism it is common in the beginning to slowly but surely get used to the idea of free association and production based solely on need.

I am extremely proud to have you here. We are working towards the liberation of our class from exploitation, and the eventual abolishment of class itself. It is a monumental task and every body counts. The best thing you could do to learn is to find a local organization - don't worry, even though there are many different groups you can always leave and join another one if you eventually feel like you've reconsidered your theoretical alignment.

Just be open wth everyone that you are new to socialism and they will most often be very understanding and helpful.

Original Poster3 points · 8 days ago

Thank you for your encouragement. If I can find one in rural Oklahoma it'll be a blessing

see more

Here's a list of north american organizations. There are more organizations in the USA than those mentioned in the OP, but these are the most established in the nation. Send away some questions and ask around different orgs to see if they have branches near you.

[deleted]
0 points · 8 days ago

No, didn't say that.

Not wanting to work with you is freedom of association. Not wanting to give you shut I built for nothing is freedom of association.

I don't know how you cooked up that slavery non sequitur. Probably you don't know what the fuck you are saying.

see more

> Not wanting to give you shut I built

The owners of capital don't actually build capital, labour does. The workers are the ones giving away free shit.

[deleted]
0 points · 8 days ago

Bollocks, capital pays for labor.

see more

keyword here being pays, as in not labour.

Load more comments

To be fair, we all started somewhere, most of us were "liberals" at some point.

see more

The difference being most of us plebs aren't millionaires living in palaces on Palatine Hill.

West Germany vs. East Germany. In many ways that wall is still there.

see more

You're completely wrong, of course, but Reddit doesn't care as long as they to criticize socialism.

13 points · 9 days ago · edited 9 days ago

The south built their economy on the backs of slaves. Slavery was abolished, they had to figure out another way, and the great grandkids of those people are still mad about it today, but they’re experiencing and showing it more subtle ways. Saying “we want slavery back” isn’t on the radar, but the underlying racial and economic resentment still lingers. Arguing that slavery benefited America is fanning this sentiment. America didn’t benefit from slavery, slave owners benefited from slavery. The racial, social, and cultural problems far outweigh any economic benefits. Saying America benefitted from slavery is like saying Rwanda benefitted from genocide. It’s a repulsive argument.

see more

Saying America benefitted from slavery is like saying Rwanda benefitted from genocide

TIL that genocide and slavery are comparable in this context.

One exploits labour, the other one eliminates it. To compare these two as similar is disingenuous fucking bullshit.

You are a utopian

Very helpful criticism.... How this helping the OP? Just stop being a smart ass like most leftcoms and actually engage with the OP ideas.

see more

(here)

Original Poster1 point · 10 days ago

Anarcho-Capitalism is even more absurd. It's a joke word and it has no meaning in the real world. The closest I would imagine would be some sort of feudalist system in the early dark ages, where a nobleman would have his "private army" and merchants in his town would trade stuff and pay no taxes, and of course the rest of the population would be enslaved.

see more

You forgot to mention how anarchy and capitalism is a complete impossibility together. Private property is but a piece of paper without enforcement by armed bodies of men, which is the cornerstone in the definition of a state.

Original Poster-1 points · 10 days ago

Armed bodies of men is not necessarily a state, that is a very post-modernist view. It is rather the hierarchy and domination inside the property system which creates the state.

see more

that is a very post-modernist view

No it isn't. It's the classical Marxist definition.

> It is rather the hierarchy and domination inside the property system which creates the state.

...which is the armed bodies of men we are talking about. They are a part of the property system. That's what the state essentially is. It's not the fact that you have a boss at work which is what constitutes the state, if that's what you are suggesting. That would be bullshit.

7 points · 10 days ago · edited 10 days ago

The combination of all that reading, arguing, learning is - well, it's centrism. I'm a liberal democratic capitalist, and we're in the majority for good reason. I don't have to convince anyone to get my way, because we're all living it every day

As much as I disagree with your viewpoints because I find them to be very defeatist, this is the sad truth that most people on this sub simply do not realize. This is the actual silent majority, people who accept capitalist driven liberal democracies.

For every "Capitalism has lifted millions out of poverty," claim, it's actually "Liberal Democracies with large private sectors coupled with a strong public sector," did that.

see more

For every "Capitalism has lifted millions out of poverty," claim, it's actually "Liberal Democracies with large private sectors coupled with a strong public sector," did that.

Based of course on centuries of global imperial and colonial super profits.

She's definitely gotten better than she was a year ago when she made some video talking about how welfare is socialism, or whatever, you know the drill. However, quoting fucking Chomsky on the USSR is pretty fucking bad because Chomsky is a utopian socialist with liberal tendencies. I mean, saying that the working class in the USSR were "almost like slaves"? For fucks sake, please shut up Chomsky.

And saying that Cuba is not a democracy is liberal trash. I'm critical of the Cuban state but it is by far more democratic than the USA, or most (all?) bourgeois nations for that matter.

We need to make a pocket guillotine.

see more

And make a video game called "Pokétine", where you run around as Robespierre in 18th century Europe collecting final statements and handing out last meals.

4 points · 11 days ago · edited 11 days ago

Bourgeois democracies on top of the list is "gate keeping"? The private sector in Sweden spends dollars on the election in the hundreds of millions, and that's a lot for an economy 1/26 the size of the USA. The private sector think tanks are twenty times the size/funding of the union think tanks, which only have a few hundred thousand dollars to spare. Source

The article doesn't mention it either, but private donations for the bourgeois parties are in the millions of dollars as well, a huge proportion which is donated to the most reactionary wing in parliament - the xenophobic SD.

That's what you call "democracy"? Where money and capital literally rules over who wins the most votes?

We have publically funded elections but the amount of public funds is a drop in the ocean, and the parties that represent the working class have nothing in comparison to the massive amount of capital behind the bourgeoisie. And being allowed to buy influence in an election in that manner is far from what I would refer to as a "democratic society". It's about as democratic as the Roman Empire or Classical Greek republics, which is what bourgeois "democracies" are inspired by anyways.

u/hero123123123
Karma
9,221
Cake day
July 23, 2016
Trophy Case (1)
Two-Year Club

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.