Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Russia Today)   Corporate CEO's have picked up on a trick of the Unions/Democrats, now turning their employees into Republican foot soldiers   (rt.com ) divider line 190
    More: Spiffy, Republican, subsidiary  
•       •       •

1427 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Oct 2012 at 10:42 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



190 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-16 10:43:43 AM  
Oh hey Pete.
 
2012-10-16 10:45:48 AM  
Unions endorse candidates, but cannot fire employees regarding how they vote.....there is a difference. Again though, any liberal working for the Koch brothers obviously cares more about money than their convictions so deep down they are republican anyways.
 
2012-10-16 10:46:25 AM  
It wasn't all that great when unions did it either.

What we need to return to one citizen, one vote. Everyone else from corporations to the Fraternal Lodge of Elks can go pound sand. No money from any entity except a citizen with a per-person cap of $10,000 per year in total political donations.

/problem solved
 
2012-10-16 10:47:01 AM  
FTFA: Unbelievably - coercing employees like this to support certain political candidates is not illegal. And it's just the latest example of how the super-rich have a lot more free speech rights now in America than working people do

The Russian press is now reporting on US politics more accurately than the American press. We're through the looking glass here.
 
2012-10-16 10:47:09 AM  
How is this legal?

This may be free speech but it's extortion.
 
2012-10-16 10:47:12 AM  
We need this to happen, have a terminated employee put a bullet into the CEO, and then watch a jury member nullify and acquit.
 
2012-10-16 10:48:01 AM  
If a union ever threatened their members over politics the Right would be calling for an end to unions. Ubber rich threaten their employees, so what they are on our side,
 
2012-10-16 10:48:35 AM  
Workers need to stop buying into this big corporate lie. Hard work will not make you rich. Your boss is not your friend. The only true friend of the working class is the socialist, anarchist or the communist. Yet most of the flak that these groups get comes from the very people they are trying to defend and promote. The working man has no greater ally than the far left. Don't trust your boss, don't trust democrats or republicans. When you see someone waving a red flag, a black flag or a red/black flag thank them for standing up for you. Thank them for going to jail for you. Thank them for getting pummeled by the police for you.
 
2012-10-16 10:48:37 AM  

mekki: How is this legal?

This may be free speech but it's extortion.


You could take a voter intimidation angle. That is a felony in many states.
 
2012-10-16 10:49:12 AM  

madgonad: We need this to happen, have a terminated employee put a bullet into the CEO, and then watch a jury member nullify and acquit.


For reason by insanity. The CEOs drove him to snap under stress with their threats.
 
2012-10-16 10:49:54 AM  
Republican foot cat soldiers

i51.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-16 10:50:07 AM  

FarkedOver: Workers need to stop buying into this big corporate lie. Hard work will not make you rich. Your boss is not your friend. The only true friend of the working class is the socialist, anarchist or the communist. Yet most of the flak that these groups get comes from the very people they are trying to defend and promote. The working man has no greater ally than the far left. Don't trust your boss, don't trust democrats or republicans. When you see someone waving a red flag, a black flag or a red/black flag thank them for standing up for you. Thank them for going to jail for you. Thank them for getting pummeled by the police for you.


The anarchists aren't on anyone's side. They are just hooligan dickbags.
 
2012-10-16 10:50:18 AM  

nmemkha: It wasn't all that great when unions did it either.

What we need to return to one citizen, one vote. We need to allow people to only engage in our political system as citizens. Everyone else from corporations to the Fraternal Lodge of Elks can go pound sand. No money from any entity except a citizen with a per-person cap of $10,000 per year in total political donations.

/problem solved


/FTFM
 
2012-10-16 10:51:20 AM  
Picked up on? Corporate CEOs were using this as a tactic against the labor movement from day one. They really are trying to bring back the days of the robber barons, aren't they?
 
2012-10-16 10:51:23 AM  

madgonad: The anarchists aren't on anyone's side. They are just hooligan dickbags.


Not anarcho-communists or anarcho-syndicalists. There's many different schools of thought when it comes to anarchism.
 
2012-10-16 10:51:24 AM  
Just vote how you want and then lie to your employer. This isn't the Spanish Inquisition.

/Still think it's repulsive.
 
2012-10-16 10:51:39 AM  

madgonad: mekki: How is this legal?

This may be free speech but it's extortion.

You could take a voter intimidation angle. That is a felony in many states.


Then why isn't anyone doing this? You would think a lawyer would take a look at this and start drooling over the potential class action lawsuit. But no one has budged.
 
2012-10-16 10:52:31 AM  

mekki: madgonad: We need this to happen, have a terminated employee put a bullet into the CEO, and then watch a jury member nullify and acquit.

For reason by insanity. The CEOs drove him to snap under stress with their threats.


No, defense attorney might even argue justification. The shooter was effectively having their voting rights compelled by someone. Nobody did anything to stop it.

But in reality, they defense would be looking for a disaffected person that hates 'the man' and would let it slide for political reasons. It is the flip side of all of the juries that convict 'because he is black'.
 
2012-10-16 10:52:51 AM  

LeftOfLiberal: ...the Right would be calling for an end to unions.


Wow, you should write speculative fiction. Your ability to imagine an alternate world so vastly different than our own is amazing.
 
2012-10-16 10:52:58 AM  
Telling them how to vote is one thing.

Threatening their jobs over it is another. Because that's what it is. A veiled threat.

/Republicans still suck.
 
2012-10-16 10:53:05 AM  
how dare you question the job creators, you should be down on your knees pleasing them for the chance to one day serve the job overlords
 
2012-10-16 10:56:36 AM  
Chalk it up to just another asinine, unachievable request from a corporate boss.

"We have to make these forecast numbers" is every bit as achievable as "We have to get Romney elected" when you have no control over the situation.
 
2012-10-16 10:57:44 AM  

mekki: madgonad: mekki: How is this legal?

This may be free speech but it's extortion.

You could take a voter intimidation angle. That is a felony in many states.

Then why isn't anyone doing this? You would think a lawyer would take a look at this and start drooling over the potential class action lawsuit. But no one has budged.


I'm sure someone is. And if they start taking action right now, maybe it will get into court in time for the 2016 elections. The Koch brothers could keep this tied up in the courts for a decade if they really wanted to.
 
2012-10-16 10:59:06 AM  
so lets see...abuse the f*ck outta your wages slaves, underpay them, give them a crappy working environment and poor leadership and fight against giving them even minimal health care. Then you lean on your workers and tell 'em that they have to vote for Romney or they'll lose their jobs.

I don't think this is going to work out as well as these CEOs think it'll work out....
 
2012-10-16 10:59:37 AM  
Unions do threaten their members.

Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals. It is because of the government, the lawyers, the environmentalists, and other anti business groups. It is because of you that business will continue to leave the US. Prices will continue to rise as the cost of doing business here increases. It is funny to me that you complain of jobs and then turn around and demonize companies.
 
2012-10-16 11:01:09 AM  

FarkedOver: madgonad: The anarchists aren't on anyone's side. They are just hooligan dickbags.

Not anarcho-communists or anarcho-syndicalists. There's many different schools of thought when it comes to anarchism.


What about the Judean People's Front?

/the anarchists that just want to break things have to go
//the rest need to understand that if they actually got their way - billions would die due to distribution issues
 
2012-10-16 11:01:24 AM  

mekki: How is this legal?

This may be free speech but it's extortion.


www.supershadow.org

I will make it legal.

I couldn't help it. sorry.
 
2012-10-16 11:01:50 AM  

gearsprocket: Unions do threaten their members.

Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals. It is because of the government, the lawyers, the environmentalists, and other anti business groups. It is because of you that business will continue to leave the US. Prices will continue to rise as the cost of doing business here increases. It is funny to me that you complain of jobs and then turn around and demonize companies.

 
2012-10-16 11:02:30 AM  

gearsprocket: Unions do threaten their members.

Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals. It is because of the government, the lawyers, the environmentalists, and other anti business groups. It is because of you that business will continue to leave the US. Prices will continue to rise as the cost of doing business here increases. It is funny to me that you complain of jobs and then turn around and demonize companies.


img229.imageshack.us
 
2012-10-16 11:03:33 AM  

gearsprocket: Unions do threaten their members.

Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals. It is because of the government, the lawyers, the environmentalists, and other anti business groups. It is because of you that business will continue to leave the US. Prices will continue to rise as the cost of doing business here increases. It is funny to me that you complain of jobs and then turn around and demonize companies.


No, it's because they can pay people next to nothing there. Full stop. No other motivation is needed.
 
2012-10-16 11:04:01 AM  

gearsprocket: Unions do threaten their members.

Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals. It is because of the government, the lawyers, the environmentalists, and other anti business groups. It is because of you that business will continue to leave the US. Prices will continue to rise as the cost of doing business here increases. It is funny to me that you complain of jobs and then turn around and demonize companies.


BS

Businesses offshore because it is cheaper and some/all of their competitors do it. Offshoring = more money for executives and shareholders

There is NOTHING that can't be done cheaper overseas, NOTHING.

New Balance hasn't offshored and they have no problem competing against Nike. They just aren't as profitable. It is all about management/ownership wanting a bigger piece of the pie and free trade eliminates all barriers to it.
 
2012-10-16 11:04:15 AM  

gearsprocket: Unions do threaten their members.

Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals. It is because of the government, the lawyers, the environmentalists, and other anti business groups. It is because of you that business will continue to leave the US. Prices will continue to rise as the cost of doing business here increases. It is funny to me that you complain of jobs and then turn around and demonize companies.


um...no.

companies move jobs overseas because they'd rather pay labor .30 cents on the dollar rather than US minimum wage. the rest is just smoke and mirrors - it comes down to labor costs. chinese slave labor is dirt cheap, plus you can abuse the shiat outta chinese workers and they line up to thank you for it.

what always confuses me is how Republicans can consider themselves 'good christians' while endorsing de facto slave labor practices...I just don't get that.
 
2012-10-16 11:06:10 AM  
How in the Hell would these plutocrats even know which candidate the drones voted for? Aren't votes not tied to any citizen for just this very reason?


If Obama wins, can't the drones blame it on that evil 47% that Romney hates?
 
2012-10-16 11:06:30 AM  

gearsprocket: Unions do threaten their members.

Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals. It is because of the government, the lawyers, the environmentalists, and other anti business groups. It is because of you that business will continue to leave the US. Prices will continue to rise as the cost of doing business here increases. It is funny to me that you complain of jobs and then turn around and demonize companies.


Could your company be more profitable if you made 20% less? Why haven't you demanded that pay cut?
 
2012-10-16 11:06:42 AM  
ytrewq.com

Maybe this will spur individuals to take personal responsibility for their actions and be more proactive in choosing who they want to do business with or support by buying their products.
 
2012-10-16 11:06:49 AM  
personally, I think it's AWESOME to see the 1% abuse their wage slaves and then turn around and try to force them to vote in favor of their chosen elite political candidate. I can think of no better recruiting tool for the Democrats.
 
2012-10-16 11:07:43 AM  

gearsprocket: Unions do threaten their members.

Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals. It is because of the government, the lawyers, the environmentalists, and other anti business groups. It is because of you that business will continue to leave the US. Prices will continue to rise as the cost of doing business here increases. It is funny to me that you complain of jobs and then turn around and demonize companies.


"Liberals" are not the boogeyman. Look at this way: We have 2 competing groups. We have employers and the employed. The employed must sell their labor in order to live since they own no capital. The employers own the means of production yet produce nothing. The employed group is being trampled on in the name of profits, nothing more nothing less. The employer exists not to create jobs or benefit society; they exist to make a profit and they will do this any which way they can. The employed are inherently exploited because of the fact that their employers need for profit. The employed must do whatever necessary for their right to live (which includes having to work) and to be as free from exploitation as possible. This is a class issue, not partisan liberal/conservative BS. After all, even the libbiest liberal that ever liberaled is still a capitalist.
 
2012-10-16 11:07:43 AM  

Weaver95: gearsprocket: Unions do threaten their members.

Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals. It is because of the government, the lawyers, the environmentalists, and other anti business groups. It is because of you that business will continue to leave the US. Prices will continue to rise as the cost of doing business here increases. It is funny to me that you complain of jobs and then turn around and demonize companies.

um...no.

companies move jobs overseas because they'd rather pay labor .30 cents on the dollar rather than US minimum wage. the rest is just smoke and mirrors - it comes down to labor costs. chinese slave labor is dirt cheap, plus you can abuse the shiat outta chinese workers and they line up to thank you for it.

what always confuses me is how Republicans can consider themselves 'good christians' while endorsing de facto slave labor practices...I just don't get that.


Have you ever considered that they are, in fact, terrible hypocrites?
/above statement could be applied to a wide array of conservative policies
 
2012-10-16 11:07:48 AM  

nmemkha: It wasn't all that great when unions did it either.

What we need to return to one citizen, one vote. Everyone else from corporations to the Fraternal Lodge of Elks can go pound sand. No money from any entity except a citizen with a per-person cap of $10,000 per year in total political donations.

/problem solved


Either way, it's totally unenforceable. There isn't any record of who voted for whom. And if you really wanted to cover your tracks you can also donate via a prepaid card or something.
 
2012-10-16 11:08:15 AM  

madgonad: the rest need to understand that if they actually got their way - billions would die due to distribution issues


Really? Would we? So there's no possible way to organize society without a ruling class?

Rather, I should think, if we got our way, millions would stop dying due to distribution issues and false scarcity. Localism and horizontalism have always proven better and more efficient methods of organization; that was the whole issue with the USSR, right? Authoritarian centralism proving unable to adequately meet the needs of the populace or adapt to changing conditions quickly? Why does this not apply to "representative" democracy or multinational corporations?

Anyway, FarkedOver is right. The ruling class doesn't have your best interests at heart. No ruling class in the whole history of the world has ever been either willing or able to actually perform the duties supposedly delegated to it and our corporate aristos are no exception. You're grist for the mill. Keep telling yourself that the people trying to organize on the ground are your enemies and not the ones who think of you as prey.
 
2012-10-16 11:08:33 AM  
As long as the threats are veiled they're good to go.
 
2012-10-16 11:08:43 AM  

gearsprocket: Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States?


Because at less than pennies on the dollar, manufacturing in China is cheaper and when you spread the guilt around to a Board of Directors and Shareholders everyone gets to sleep soundly at night believing that it wasn't THEM directly responsible for the conditions where basic human rights are being ignored.

Any other questions I can help answer for you?
 
2012-10-16 11:09:03 AM  

madgonad: What about the Judean People's Front?

/the anarchists that just want to break things have to go
//the rest need to understand that if they actually got their way - billions would die due to distribution issues


Which is why I am not an anarchist. I think socialism is a much better way to go.
 
2012-10-16 11:09:56 AM  

gearsprocket: Unions do threaten their members.

Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals. It is because of the government, the lawyers, the environmentalists, and other anti business groups. It is because of you that business will continue to leave the US. Prices will continue to rise as the cost of doing business here increases. It is funny to me that you complain of jobs and then turn around and demonize companies.


Yes, lets race China, Malaysia and sub-Saharan Africa to the bottom.

fark clean water and safety regulations. If you get killed on the job because of some cost-cutting by your boss, well maybe the company will go out of business because no one will work for them, right? Free-market safety is the way to go. Some company spills toxins and ruins your well? Just stop buying their shiat.
 
2012-10-16 11:10:03 AM  

gearsprocket: Unions do threaten their members.

Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals. It is because of the government, the lawyers, the environmentalists, and other anti business groups. It is because of you that business will continue to leave the US. Prices will continue to rise as the cost of doing business here increases. It is funny to me that you complain of jobs and then turn around and demonize companies.


Yes, having breathable air and a decent living wage surely is a horrible thing. Especially when it gets in the way of a CEO's FOURTH house.

/8/10
 
2012-10-16 11:12:01 AM  

TV's Vinnie: How in the Hell would these plutocrats even know which candidate the drones voted for? Aren't votes not tied to any citizen for just this very reason?


If Obama wins, can't the drones blame it on that evil 47% that Romney hates?


Votes are secret, but political contributions are public, except when you're not donating millions to SuperPACs.
 
2012-10-16 11:12:21 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: madgonad: the rest need to understand that if they actually got their way - billions would die due to distribution issues

Really? Would we? So there's no possible way to organize society without a ruling class?

Rather, I should think, if we got our way, millions would stop dying due to distribution issues and false scarcity. Localism and horizontalism have always proven better and more efficient methods of organization; that was the whole issue with the USSR, right? Authoritarian centralism proving unable to adequately meet the needs of the populace or adapt to changing conditions quickly? Why does this not apply to "representative" democracy or multinational corporations?

Anyway, FarkedOver is right. The ruling class doesn't have your best interests at heart. No ruling class in the whole history of the world has ever been either willing or able to actually perform the duties supposedly delegated to it and our corporate aristos are no exception. You're grist for the mill. Keep telling yourself that the people trying to organize on the ground are your enemies and not the ones who think of you as prey.


USSR did have a ruling class - the party and party leaders. There is always going to be a ruling class. Just like there will always be managers. If you get rid of the old bosses there will just be new bosses. Far better to create rules and barriers that shift the wealth away from the top (insert FDR). The problem is that most people don't vote in their own interest. They vote based upon abortion or wanting a big tax break when the become millionaires next year.
 
2012-10-16 11:15:05 AM  

madgonad: USSR did have a ruling class - the party and party leaders. There is always going to be a ruling class. Just like there will always be managers. If you get rid of the old bosses there will just be new bosses. Far better to create rules and barriers that shift the wealth away from the top (insert FDR). The problem is that most people don't vote in their own interest. They vote based upon abortion or wanting a big tax break when the become millionaires next year.


You believe there will always be class divisions? You really don't think much of the human race do you? There will be life after capitalism, I know it's hard to fathom but it will happen.
 
2012-10-16 11:15:41 AM  
This seems like a good thing, but the asshat who wrote the article seems not to grasp it.

This line in particular seems out of touch: "And since many Americans are desperate for a job - they have to go along with what their bosses say just to be able to keep food on the table - knowing full well that a vote for Mitt Romney is against their own best interests."

Let's break that down for a moment-

since many Americans are desperate for a job ..... they have to go along with what their bosses say

How many out of work people have bosses? I'd laugh if these two comments were a paragraph apart, but it's unsettling that they are back to back almost as though the author lost his train of thought mid sentence and just said fark it and kept typing.

"knowing full well that a vote for Mitt Romney is against their own best interests"

So out of work people who seemingly still have bosses "know full well" that electing Mitt Romney is against their best interests? Is fixing the economy that contrary to these people's best interests? Or is his record as a moderate too scary for working out of work people who like gridlock?

I cannot say strongly enough how much of a dipshiate the author is.
 
2012-10-16 11:16:32 AM  

Weaver95: it comes down to labor costs


um...no.

It comes down to how much its consumers are willing to pay for their products. When cheap foreign products are imported and undercut the price of domestic products, companies have no choice but to lower their costs and prices to compete, else they go out of business. Since the cost of raw materials have leveled out over the years, the only way to cut costs are through labor. If the OTHER countries had laws/rules that forces them to pay their workers better wages, then this would be a non-issue and more products would be made here.
 
2012-10-16 11:17:25 AM  

dinomyar: Weaver95: it comes down to labor costs

um...no.

It comes down to how much its consumers are willing to pay for their products. When cheap foreign products are imported and undercut the price of domestic products, companies have no choice but to lower their costs and prices to compete, else they go out of business. Since the cost of raw materials have leveled out over the years, the only way to cut costs are through labor. If the OTHER countries had laws/rules that forces them to pay their workers better wages, then this would be a non-issue and more products would be made here.


you just talked yourself around into agreeing with me.
 
2012-10-16 11:18:02 AM  

madgonad: USSR did have a ruling class - the party and party leaders. There is always going to be a ruling class. Just like there will always be managers. If you get rid of the old bosses there will just be new bosses. Far better to create rules and barriers that shift the wealth away from the top (insert FDR). The problem is that most people don't vote in their own interest. They vote based upon abortion or wanting a big tax break when the become millionaires next year.


Of course the USSR had a ruling class, that's kind of my point. Class structure like that has never worked in the whole history of the world. And, yes, we have taken steps on the road away from that. The fact that you're even talking about voting is proof of that.

Liberals make me crazy. When you buy a car, do you start haggling at the sticker price?
 
2012-10-16 11:18:39 AM  

dinomyar: If the OTHER countries had laws/rules that forces them to pay their workers better wages, then this would be a non-issue and more products would be made here.


OR imagine if workers of the world united in common cause against their overlords..... Ahhh the end of capitalism can't come soon enough.
 
2012-10-16 11:19:53 AM  

Leeds: since many Americans are desperate for a job ..... they have to go along with what their bosses say

How many out of work people have bosses? I'd laugh if these two comments were a paragraph apart, but it's unsettling that they are back to back almost as though the author lost his train of thought mid sentence and just said fark it and kept typing.


Those actually aren't contradictory in the slightest. Currently many people who have jobs are very much aware that they can be easily replaced at any time since there are plenty of unemployed people with similar skills to theirs. They know that this is an employers market, not an employees.

Which is exactly how the "Job Creators" like it.
 
2012-10-16 11:21:10 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: madgonad: USSR did have a ruling class - the party and party leaders. There is always going to be a ruling class. Just like there will always be managers. If you get rid of the old bosses there will just be new bosses. Far better to create rules and barriers that shift the wealth away from the top (insert FDR). The problem is that most people don't vote in their own interest. They vote based upon abortion or wanting a big tax break when the become millionaires next year.

Of course the USSR had a ruling class, that's kind of my point. Class structure like that has never worked in the whole history of the world. And, yes, we have taken steps on the road away from that. The fact that you're even talking about voting is proof of that.

Liberals make me crazy. When you buy a car, do you start haggling at the sticker price?


The USSR had potential. That was all dashed with Stalin. If you read Lenin's State & Revolution he basically says at the end of the day Communists and Anarchists want the same thing, it's just a matter of how we get there. There needs to be more unity among red and black. Would it help if us reds apologized for Kronstadt?
 
2012-10-16 11:23:19 AM  

Weaver95: dinomyar: Weaver95: it comes down to labor costs

um...no.

It comes down to how much its consumers are willing to pay for their products. When cheap foreign products are imported and undercut the price of domestic products, companies have no choice but to lower their costs and prices to compete, else they go out of business. Since the cost of raw materials have leveled out over the years, the only way to cut costs are through labor. If the OTHER countries had laws/rules that forces them to pay their workers better wages, then this would be a non-issue and more products would be made here.

you just talked yourself around into agreeing with me.


If we were really interested in "free trade" we would place massive tariffs on imports from countries that did not maintain a base amount of labor rights. We're still the largest market and because of that, we still have weight to throw around. Since we don't do that any more, the globe is open for any shiathole tin-pot country to undercut developed nations with near slave labor, unsafe working conditions along with world-affecting pollution just so you can get your Galaxy SIII for $50.
 
2012-10-16 11:23:30 AM  
How the fark are they going to know who you voted for unless you tell them? It's a bluff, and a poor one at that. But I'm sure some people will fall for it, because they are sheep.
 
2012-10-16 11:24:21 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: gearsprocket: Unions do threaten their members.

Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals. It is because of the government, the lawyers, the environmentalists, and other anti business groups. It is because of you that business will continue to leave the US. Prices will continue to rise as the cost of doing business here increases. It is funny to me that you complain of jobs and then turn around and demonize companies.

No, it's because they can pay people next to nothing there. Full stop. No other motivation is needed.


That and they can dump whatever toxins they want into the Chinese air and water.
 
2012-10-16 11:25:26 AM  

FarkedOver: A Dark Evil Omen: madgonad: USSR did have a ruling class - the party and party leaders. There is always going to be a ruling class. Just like there will always be managers. If you get rid of the old bosses there will just be new bosses. Far better to create rules and barriers that shift the wealth away from the top (insert FDR). The problem is that most people don't vote in their own interest. They vote based upon abortion or wanting a big tax break when the become millionaires next year.

Of course the USSR had a ruling class, that's kind of my point. Class structure like that has never worked in the whole history of the world. And, yes, we have taken steps on the road away from that. The fact that you're even talking about voting is proof of that.

Liberals make me crazy. When you buy a car, do you start haggling at the sticker price?

The USSR had potential. That was all dashed with Stalin. If you read Lenin's State & Revolution he basically says at the end of the day Communists and Anarchists want the same thing, it's just a matter of how we get there. There needs to be more unity among red and black. Would it help if us reds apologized for Kronstadt?


The USSR never had potential. Lenin was as much a totalitarian as Stalin, just slightly less genocidal.

The Bolshevik program was always based on repression and setting up the "Vanguard Party" as a ruling class. Lenin was too impatient and decided to take the short cut of forcing change through terror, not education.
 
2012-10-16 11:25:26 AM  

gearsprocket: Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals.


It's because US workers have had a living wage for a long time, thanks to the unions. That living wage gave us a strong middle class, and that strong middle class fueled our strong economy.

Now dickheads like you want to tear that all down in the name of making the rich richer.
 
2012-10-16 11:25:31 AM  

FarkedOver: The USSR had potential. That was all dashed with Stalin. If you read Lenin's State & Revolution he basically says at the end of the day Communists and Anarchists want the same thing, it's just a matter of how we get there. There needs to be more unity among red and black. Would it help if us reds apologized for Kronstadt?


You know, I really have no problem with communists and socialists. As you say, at the end of the day we're all pointing in the same direction; Soviet-style communism was a failed experiment, we learn from it, we move on. My issue is with people we should be making common cause with who would rather side against their own interests for fear that they might actually get the things they are ostensibly interested in.
 
2012-10-16 11:27:17 AM  

Weaver95: gearsprocket: Unions do threaten their members.

Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals. It is because of the government, the lawyers, the environmentalists, and other anti business groups. It is because of you that business will continue to leave the US. Prices will continue to rise as the cost of doing business here increases. It is funny to me that you complain of jobs and then turn around and demonize companies.

um...no.

companies move jobs overseas because they'd rather pay labor .30 cents on the dollar rather than US minimum wage. the rest is just smoke and mirrors - it comes down to labor costs. chinese slave labor is dirt cheap, plus you can abuse the shiat outta chinese workers and they line up to thank you for it.

what always confuses me is how Republicans can consider themselves 'good christians' while endorsing de facto slave labor practices...I just don't get that.


It's because of the religion itself. When you believe you've got a deity's blessing there is absolutely nothing that can't be rationalized away. Remember how many christians supported slavery.

Then remember one of those supporters of slavery was actually Christ himself.
 
2012-10-16 11:28:01 AM  
For 47 percent of Americans, Obama is their boss.

Or so I've heard.
 
2012-10-16 11:28:21 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: The USSR never had potential. Lenin was as much a totalitarian as Stalin, just slightly less genocidal.

The Bolshevik program was always based on repression and setting up the "Vanguard Party" as a ruling class. Lenin was too impatient and decided to take the short cut of forcing change through terror, not education.


Lenin is some what of a strange character. He wrote a lot of nice things but never implemented them. Hey! Kind of like Candidate Obama and President Obama!
 
2012-10-16 11:29:12 AM  
1. Pay your employees so little that they have to utilize government welfare to survive.
2. Insist that your employees vote for the candidate that wants to cut government welfare.
3. Profit.
 
2012-10-16 11:32:50 AM  
How the hell is a CEO or a union going to know who you voted for?
 
2012-10-16 11:36:10 AM  

FarkedOver: Which is why I am not an anarchist. I think socialism is a much better way to go.


I think socialism is great... for certain things. Socialism works great for the military, police, fire, and health care. For things that we all need or will need - socialism is the best way to efficiently provide services, reduce free-riders, and save money. Those services don't really play by capitalist rules very well anyway. People forget that many police functions were once private sector - remember the Pinkertons? What we have now is much better.

However, capitalism works best for most goods and services.
 
2012-10-16 11:38:18 AM  

FarkedOver: The USSR had potential.

 

i957.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-16 11:39:15 AM  

madgonad: gearsprocket: Unions do threaten their members.

Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals. It is because of the government, the lawyers, the environmentalists, and other anti business groups. It is because of you that business will continue to leave the US. Prices will continue to rise as the cost of doing business here increases. It is funny to me that you complain of jobs and then turn around and demonize companies.

BS

Businesses offshore because it is cheaper and some/all of their competitors do it. Offshoring = more money for executives and shareholders

There is NOTHING that can't be done cheaper overseas, NOTHING.

New Balance hasn't offshored and they have no problem competing against Nike. They just aren't as profitable. It is all about management/ownership wanting a bigger piece of the pie and free trade eliminates all barriers to it.


From Wiki: 70% of New Balance shoes are now made in China. 5% Vietnam
 
2012-10-16 11:39:54 AM  

jigger: How the hell is a CEO or a union going to know who you voted for?


oh that's the best part! see, they won't know for sure who voted for whom. I suppose if they wanted to make an effort, they could get a hold of the voter rolls and find out who is registered democrat and if they voted in the election. it's a matter of public record after all. then use THAT list to decide who gets fired and who doesn't. But again...that's effort. I think it far more likely that these guys will simply fire people as they often do and use Obama as the excuse.
 
2012-10-16 11:40:01 AM  

Weaver95: companies move jobs overseas because they'd rather pay labor .30 cents on the dollar rather than US minimum wage. the rest is just smoke and mirrors - it comes down to labor costs


dinomyar: um...no.

It comes down to how much its consumers are willing to pay for their products. When cheap foreign products are imported and undercut the price of domestic products, companies have no choice but to lower their costs and prices to compete, else they go out of business. Since the cost of raw materials have leveled out over the years, the only way to cut costs are through labor. If the OTHER countries had laws/rules that forces them to pay their workers better wages, then this would be a non-issue and more products would be made here.


So, it all comes down to labor costs. That sure was a lot of words to say "You're right, Weaver95"
 
2012-10-16 11:40:51 AM  

madgonad: Socialism works great for the military, police, fire, and health care. For things that we all need or will need - socialism is the best way to efficiently provide services, reduce free-riders, and save money.


The military saves money? Police forces save money? Ok, if you say so.
 
2012-10-16 11:40:54 AM  

FarkedOver: madgonad: USSR did have a ruling class - the party and party leaders. There is always going to be a ruling class. Just like there will always be managers. If you get rid of the old bosses there will just be new bosses. Far better to create rules and barriers that shift the wealth away from the top (insert FDR). The problem is that most people don't vote in their own interest. They vote based upon abortion or wanting a big tax break when the become millionaires next year.

You believe there will always be class divisions? You really don't think much of the human race do you? There will be life after capitalism, I know it's hard to fathom but it will happen.


No, I don't. Humans are vile, selfish, and cruel animals. Population densities greater than 10 per square mile require control to prevent people from killing each other. The days of families clinging together during westward expansion is over. The environment is not a universal threat that unites us in common purpose anymore. There are just too many of us - it requires tight management, constant technology advancement, and a fixed power structure to keep resources flowing. Katrina is a prime example of what happens, even with small populations, when the boot of authority is lifted and necessities become scarce.
 
2012-10-16 11:41:04 AM  

Weaver95: personally, I think it's AWESOME to see the 1% abuse their wage slaves and then turn around and try to force them to vote in favor of their chosen elite political candidate. I can think of no better recruiting tool for the Democrats.


This.

CSB. We've been bombarded all year with political themed e-mails supposedly from our CEO telling us how important it is to vote in the companies best interests this year. So much so that at the "Open Town-hall" style meeting he held with us two weeks ago the number one comment from everyone in attendance was "Stop telling us how to vote" or in a few awesome cases, the more pro-active "I'm gonna vote for the other guy just to piss you off". At first the CEO didn't know what e-mails everybody was talking about (of course), then after one of his Homunculi whispered in his ear he told us that if we didn't like them we should just add them to the junk mail folder, at that point somebody stood up and told him that if you try to add him to the junk mail list you get a 'this function disabled by company policy' message (which is true you can't add any of the Executives in the company to the junk mail senders list in Exchange). He said he'd look into it, answered 2 more questions and then hustled out of the auditorium with his group of handlers.

Last week, got three "Vote for Romney" e-mails (without actually mentioning Romney by name) e-mails. Still can't block them.
 
2012-10-16 11:44:35 AM  

madgonad:
No, I don't. Humans are vile, selfish, and cruel animals. Population densities greater than 10 per square mile require control to prevent people from killing each other. The days of families clinging together during westward expansion is over. The environment is not a universal threat that unites us in common purpose anymore. There are just too many of us - it requires tight management, constant technology advancement, and a fixed power structure to keep resources flowing. Katrina is a prime example of what happens, even with small populations, when the boot of authority is lifted and necessities become scarce.


I liked it when the cops started looting stores and shooting citizens who were looking for help/assistance. yeah - GREAT example of authority in action there, lemme tell ya!
 
2012-10-16 11:45:17 AM  

jigger: madgonad: Socialism works great for the military, police, fire, and health care. For things that we all need or will need - socialism is the best way to efficiently provide services, reduce free-riders, and save money.

The military saves money? Police forces save money? Ok, if you say so.


Just because the United States has such small penises that we have to dump 5-7% of our GDP on guns and bombs doesn't mean the rest of the world does. Wasting money on defense is a uniquely American thing to do.

And the police are actually quite good. The prison system is the boondoggle in law enforcement - and looky there - for-profit prisons. That and making ever more laws to incarcerate for meaningless crimes (drugs). That is capitalism creeping in and raising costs.
 
2012-10-16 11:46:18 AM  

Weaver95: jigger: How the hell is a CEO or a union going to know who you voted for?

oh that's the best part! see, they won't know for sure who voted for whom. I suppose if they wanted to make an effort, they could get a hold of the voter rolls and find out who is registered democrat and if they voted in the election. it's a matter of public record after all. then use THAT list to decide who gets fired and who doesn't. But again...that's effort. I think it far more likely that these guys will simply fire people as they often do and use Obama as the excuse.


Party registration just determines if you can vote in primaries and only in states with closed primaries. People register under a party sometimes just to skew primary results. It doesn't say who you voted for.
 
2012-10-16 11:47:10 AM  

gearsprocket: Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States?


I already know. It's because they can work Chinese people to death and nobody will stand up for them.
 
2012-10-16 11:48:06 AM  

HeartBurnKid: gearsprocket: Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States?

I already know. It's because they can work Chinese people to death and nobody will stand up for them.


Mitt Romney will stand up for the businesses that work Chinese people to death.
 
2012-10-16 11:48:59 AM  

jigger: madgonad: Socialism works great for the military, police, fire, and health care. For things that we all need or will need - socialism is the best way to efficiently provide services, reduce free-riders, and save money.

The military saves money? Police forces save money? Ok, if you say so.


It saves money over everybody having to hire private security.

/also, less of a clusterfark
 
2012-10-16 11:49:08 AM  

jigger: Weaver95: jigger: How the hell is a CEO or a union going to know who you voted for?

oh that's the best part! see, they won't know for sure who voted for whom. I suppose if they wanted to make an effort, they could get a hold of the voter rolls and find out who is registered democrat and if they voted in the election. it's a matter of public record after all. then use THAT list to decide who gets fired and who doesn't. But again...that's effort. I think it far more likely that these guys will simply fire people as they often do and use Obama as the excuse.

Party registration just determines if you can vote in primaries and only in states with closed primaries. People register under a party sometimes just to skew primary results. It doesn't say who you voted for.


it gives you a starting point though. if a company wanted to purge their rank and file of 'socialist elements' and achieve political purity they could easily start with the voter rolls.
 
2012-10-16 11:49:16 AM  

Weaver95: madgonad:
No, I don't. Humans are vile, selfish, and cruel animals. Population densities greater than 10 per square mile require control to prevent people from killing each other. The days of families clinging together during westward expansion is over. The environment is not a universal threat that unites us in common purpose anymore. There are just too many of us - it requires tight management, constant technology advancement, and a fixed power structure to keep resources flowing. Katrina is a prime example of what happens, even with small populations, when the boot of authority is lifted and necessities become scarce.

I liked it when the cops started looting stores and shooting citizens who were looking for help/assistance. yeah - GREAT example of authority in action there, lemme tell ya!


The shootings were suburban cops shooting/chasing-off the blacks from New Orleans that were trying to flee because help wasn't coming. The cops shifted from their previous rolls to local parochial/tribal enforcers since there wasn't a State or Federal presence to provide order.
 
2012-10-16 11:51:39 AM  

madgonad: jigger: madgonad: Socialism works great for the military, police, fire, and health care. For things that we all need or will need - socialism is the best way to efficiently provide services, reduce free-riders, and save money.

The military saves money? Police forces save money? Ok, if you say so.

Just because the United States has such small penises that we have to dump 5-7% of our GDP on guns and bombs doesn't mean the rest of the world does. Wasting money on defense is a uniquely American thing to do.

And the police are actually quite good. The prison system is the boondoggle in law enforcement - and looky there - for-profit prisons. That and making ever more laws to incarcerate for meaningless crimes (drugs). That is capitalism creeping in and raising costs.


Police forces, especially in America, have multiple redundancies. There are a ridiculous number of layers and heirarchies of police and a ridiculous number of agencies. The number of police officers and police agencies in this country is absurd. Not to mention all the expensive gadgets, weapons, and vehicles they squander money on.
 
2012-10-16 11:52:17 AM  

HeartBurnKid: jigger: madgonad: Socialism works great for the military, police, fire, and health care. For things that we all need or will need - socialism is the best way to efficiently provide services, reduce free-riders, and save money.

The military saves money? Police forces save money? Ok, if you say so.

It saves money over everybody having to hire private security.


I seriously question that. Yeah, the US military is that stupidly expensive.
 
2012-10-16 11:52:48 AM  

madgonad: Weaver95: madgonad:
No, I don't. Humans are vile, selfish, and cruel animals. Population densities greater than 10 per square mile require control to prevent people from killing each other. The days of families clinging together during westward expansion is over. The environment is not a universal threat that unites us in common purpose anymore. There are just too many of us - it requires tight management, constant technology advancement, and a fixed power structure to keep resources flowing. Katrina is a prime example of what happens, even with small populations, when the boot of authority is lifted and necessities become scarce.

I liked it when the cops started looting stores and shooting citizens who were looking for help/assistance. yeah - GREAT example of authority in action there, lemme tell ya!

The shootings were suburban cops shooting/chasing-off the blacks from New Orleans that were trying to flee because help wasn't coming. The cops shifted from their previous rolls to local parochial/tribal enforcers since there wasn't a State or Federal presence to provide order.


There were plenty of shootings by the NOPD. 5 were convicted for the Danzinger bridge murders.
 
2012-10-16 11:52:52 AM  

Weaver95: it gives you a starting point though. if a company wanted to purge their rank and file of 'socialist elements' and achieve political purity they could easily start with the voter rolls.


If they wanted to...
 
2012-10-16 11:53:16 AM  

madgonad: Weaver95: madgonad:
No, I don't. Humans are vile, selfish, and cruel animals. Population densities greater than 10 per square mile require control to prevent people from killing each other. The days of families clinging together during westward expansion is over. The environment is not a universal threat that unites us in common purpose anymore. There are just too many of us - it requires tight management, constant technology advancement, and a fixed power structure to keep resources flowing. Katrina is a prime example of what happens, even with small populations, when the boot of authority is lifted and necessities become scarce.

I liked it when the cops started looting stores and shooting citizens who were looking for help/assistance. yeah - GREAT example of authority in action there, lemme tell ya!

The shootings were suburban cops shooting/chasing-off the blacks from New Orleans that were trying to flee because help wasn't coming. The cops shifted from their previous rolls to local parochial/tribal enforcers since there wasn't a State or Federal presence to provide order.


no, the cops just figured 'what the hell' and started looting just like everyone else. they also seized guns, shot innocent bystanders and basically accelerated the collapse of local government. yay authority!
 
2012-10-16 11:55:02 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg:
There were plenty of shootings by the NOPD. 5 were convicted for the Danzinger bridge murders.


I'll say one thing - if i'm ever in a 'collapse of civilization' type situation i'm not going to automatically trust ANYONE. i'll stay quiet, observe from a distance and keep a low profile until i'm sure who is doing what to whom.
 
2012-10-16 11:56:36 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: So, it all comes down to labor costs. That sure was a lot of words to say "You're right, Weaver95"


No. Weaver95 said it is because businesses would "rather pay labor .30 cents". It is not about how much they are willing to pay. It is about costs to be competative. If labor was the same overseas as here, and materials were cheaper, they would still be sending work overseas to stay competative.
 
2012-10-16 11:57:40 AM  

Weaver95: gearsprocket: Unions do threaten their members.

Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals. It is because of the government, the lawyers, the environmentalists, and other anti business groups. It is because of you that business will continue to leave the US. Prices will continue to rise as the cost of doing business here increases. It is funny to me that you complain of jobs and then turn around and demonize companies.

um...no.

companies move jobs overseas because they'd rather pay labor .30 cents on the dollar rather than US minimum wage. the rest is just smoke and mirrors - it comes down to labor costs. chinese slave labor is dirt cheap, plus you can abuse the shiat outta chinese workers and they line up to thank you for it.

what always confuses me is how Republicans can consider themselves 'good christians' while endorsing de facto slave labor practices...I just don't get that.



You've just never read the teachings of Supply-Side Jesus.
 
2012-10-16 11:59:43 AM  

gearsprocket: Unions do threaten their members.

Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals. It is because of the government, the lawyers, the environmentalists, and other anti business groups. It is because of you that business will continue to leave the US. Prices will continue to rise as the cost of doing business here increases. It is funny to me that you complain of jobs and then turn around and demonize companies.


Toll attempt 3/10.....you forgot the part about gays and Muslims.
 
2012-10-16 12:00:28 PM  

Bag of Hammers:

Last week, got three "Vote for Romney" e-mails (without actually mentioning Romney by name) e-mails. Still can't block them.


Can't you make a rule of some kind that marks the email as "read" and then deletes it?
 
2012-10-16 12:00:38 PM  
I can't wait for the shareholders revolt.

Crippling your own company by refusing to grow it while your competitors are under no such constraint, and BROADCASTING that fact will make for some upset shareholders.
 
2012-10-16 12:02:23 PM  

Weaver95: oh that's the best part! see, they won't know for sure who voted for whom. I suppose if they wanted to make an effort, they could get a hold of the voter rolls and find out who is registered democrat and if they voted in the election. it's a matter of public record after all. then use THAT list to decide who gets fired and who doesn't. But again...that's effort. I think it far more likely that these guys will simply fire people as they often do and use Obama as the excuse.


No need to find out who votes for whom. Just say that if the county in general votes for Obama, I'll fire half of you. The community will keep each other in line.
 
2012-10-16 12:05:01 PM  
Right, because corporate CEOs convincing employees to vote against their own interests is JUST LIKE unions.

HERPITY DERPITY F*CKING DERP, asshole.
 
2012-10-16 12:05:12 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: There were plenty of shootings by the NOPD. 5 were convicted for the Danzinger bridge murders.


That is exactly what I was talking about. No control coming from State/Federal turned cops into local armed thugs - protecting the turf they live in.

Weaver95: no, the cops just figured 'what the hell' and started looting just like everyone else. they also seized guns, shot innocent bystanders and basically accelerated the collapse of local government. yay authority!


Authority doesn't come from the badge - it comes from a working system. They weren't even doing their jobs - enforcing laws - they were just using their guns and badge to do what they wanted. This all proves my point - we need to ruling class and the power structure to control the locals. Otherwise, anyone with a gun and a big mouth will take over.
 
2012-10-16 12:05:37 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: Weaver95: oh that's the best part! see, they won't know for sure who voted for whom. I suppose if they wanted to make an effort, they could get a hold of the voter rolls and find out who is registered democrat and if they voted in the election. it's a matter of public record after all. then use THAT list to decide who gets fired and who doesn't. But again...that's effort. I think it far more likely that these guys will simply fire people as they often do and use Obama as the excuse.

No need to find out who votes for whom. Just say that if the county in general votes for Obama, I'll fire half of you. The community will keep each other in line.


that might cross the line into extortion though. far better to leave things vague and use implied threats. less chance of a lawsuit that way.
 
2012-10-16 12:07:28 PM  

madgonad:

Authority doesn't come from the badge - it comes from a working system. They weren't even doing their jobs - enforcing laws - they were just using their guns and badge to do what they wanted. This all proves my point - we need to ruling class and the power structure to control the locals. Otherwise, anyone with a gun and a big mouth will take over.


so once everyone is tightly controlled and crushed underfoot, we can all be free? I think you're in the wrong country my friend. perhaps you'd feel better living in the middle east? North Korea might also suit you better.
 
2012-10-16 12:08:11 PM  
Its totally different. Workers establish unions themselves to serve their own interests. When your boss tell you how to vote -- with the implicit threat that you could be fired if you don't go along -- its because in his or her interest.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-16 12:09:49 PM  
We just need to make sure that corporations follow the same restrictions as unions. the board of directors and CEO should be elected by the workers just like they are in unions.
 
2012-10-16 12:10:29 PM  

Johnson: Bag of Hammers:

Last week, got three "Vote for Romney" e-mails (without actually mentioning Romney by name) e-mails. Still can't block them.

Can't you make a rule of some kind that marks the email as "read" and then deletes it?


If I was an Admin on my workstation, yes. They keep us peons pretty locked down (we can't even change our wallpaper)
 
2012-10-16 12:11:34 PM  

tricycleracer: Just vote how you want and then lie to your employer tell your employer it's none of his damn business and maybe he should get back to his job. This isn't the Spanish Inquisition.

 
2012-10-16 12:13:27 PM  

gearsprocket: Unions do threaten their members.

Have you ever wondered why businesses are outsourcing and leaving the United States? It is because of liberals. It is because of the government, the lawyers, the environmentalists, and other anti business groups. It is because of you that business will continue to leave the US. Prices will continue to rise as the cost of doing business here increases. It is funny to me that you complain of jobs and then turn around and demonize companies.


Cute.
 
2012-10-16 12:16:23 PM  
And I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2012-10-16 12:20:21 PM  

nmemkha: It wasn't all that great when unions did it either.

What we need to return to one citizen, one vote. Everyone else from corporations to the Fraternal Lodge of Elks can go pound sand. No money from any entity except a citizen with a per-person cap of $10,000 per year in total political donations.

/problem solved


I'd support the shiat out of this.
 
2012-10-16 12:23:18 PM  
Don't worry, Peons... Romney's for "100%" of Americans.

Don't worry about details and things like that... You can totally trust the Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, Karl Rove, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan. They are all honorable men who grew up in the Middle Class and always put the good of the people before their own personal well-being.
 
2012-10-16 12:28:10 PM  

FarkedOver: Workers need to stop buying into this big corporate lie. Hard work will not make you rich. Your boss is not your friend. The only true friend of the working class is the socialist, anarchist or the communist. Yet most of the flak that these groups get comes from the very people they are trying to defend and promote. The working man has no greater ally than the far left. Don't trust your boss, don't trust democrats or republicans. When you see someone waving a red flag, a black flag or a red/black flag thank them for standing up for you. Thank them for going to jail for you. Thank them for getting pummeled by the police for you.


Oh, come off it. Workers didn't get a much better shake under communism, and anarchy looks like Somalia when applied to any group larger than about 50 people. Go talk to the flag-waving idiots. What you'll hear is a mixture of naivete, ignorance, and impractical, doctrinaire nonsense rigidly insisted upon. It's like talking to a typical Republican in mirror image.
 
2012-10-16 12:28:49 PM  

Mithiwithi: Picked up on? Corporate CEOs were using this as a tactic against the labor movement from day one. They really are trying to bring back the days of the robber barons, aren't they?


Bring back?
 
2012-10-16 12:47:36 PM  

Weaver95: what always confuses me is how Republicans can consider themselves 'good christians' while endorsing de facto slave labor practices...I just don't get that.


Jesus was pro slavery though. So it kind of makes sense when you look at the whole picture.
 
2012-10-16 12:57:56 PM  

forgotmydamnusername: Oh, come off it. Workers didn't get a much better shake under communism, and anarchy looks like Somalia when applied to any group larger than about 50 people. Go talk to the flag-waving idiots. What you'll hear is a mixture of naivete, ignorance, and impractical, doctrinaire nonsense rigidly insisted upon. It's like talking to a typical Republican in mirror image.


It's nice that you when you think communism and socialism your knee-jerk response is "USSR". Real socialists don't endorse what the USSR did. Even the CPUSA (a stalinist organization) has worked as strike breakers and even endorsed democrats on a regular basis, which is weird for a supposed anti-capitalist organization.

I ask you sir, to come off it. I ask you to actually read Das Kapital. Read Revolution Betrayed. Read State and Revolution. Most people in socialist/anarchist organizations are the most well read and bright people. There's a reasons intellectuals gravitate toward leftist politics, because capitalism is unsustainable. It's cute that you'll grasp at any straw to justify the exploitation of the majority over the minority. Just because all you've ever known and all you've ever been taught is "free market economics" doesn't make it any more correct than say mercantilism or feudalism.
 
2012-10-16 01:00:34 PM  

FarkedOver: forgotmydamnusername: Oh, come off it. Workers didn't get a much better shake under communism, and anarchy looks like Somalia when applied to any group larger than about 50 people. Go talk to the flag-waving idiots. What you'll hear is a mixture of naivete, ignorance, and impractical, doctrinaire nonsense rigidly insisted upon. It's like talking to a typical Republican in mirror image.

It's nice that you when you think communism and socialism your knee-jerk response is "USSR". Real socialists don't endorse what the USSR did. Even the CPUSA (a stalinist organization) has worked as strike breakers and even endorsed democrats on a regular basis, which is weird for a supposed anti-capitalist organization.

I ask you sir, to come off it. I ask you to actually read Das Kapital. Read Revolution Betrayed. Read State and Revolution. Most people in socialist/anarchist organizations are the most well read and bright people. There's a reasons intellectuals gravitate toward leftist politics, because capitalism is unsustainable. It's cute that you'll grasp at any straw to justify the exploitation of the majority over the minority. Just because all you've ever known and all you've ever been taught is "free market economics" doesn't make it any more correct than say mercantilism or feudalism.


He'll be one of the first against the wall when the Glorious Worker's Revolution comes, right? Just like your hero Lenin would have wanted.
 
2012-10-16 01:02:24 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: He'll be one of the first against the wall when the Glorious Worker's Revolution comes, right? Just like your hero Lenin would have wanted.


Have I advocated violence? I may have missed that.
 
2012-10-16 01:06:29 PM  

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: He'll be one of the first against the wall when the Glorious Worker's Revolution comes, right? Just like your hero Lenin would have wanted.

Have I advocated violence? I may have missed that.


So you reject the violence Lenin supported in State and Revolution?
 
2012-10-16 01:07:04 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: He'll be one of the first against the wall when the Glorious Worker's Revolution comes, right? Just like your hero Lenin would have wanted.


oi49.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-16 01:09:12 PM  

dinomyar: Ctrl-Alt-Del: So, it all comes down to labor costs. That sure was a lot of words to say "You're right, Weaver95"

No. Weaver95 said it is because businesses would "rather pay labor .30 cents". It is not about how much they are willing to pay. It is about costs to be competative. If labor was the same overseas as here, and materials were cheaper, they would still be sending work overseas to stay competative.


This is definitely true. I've never understood how we can, as a country, just allow this to happen. We have such high standards for what workers must be paid and the conditions that they are allowed to work in compared to many parts of the world, which is definitely a good thing, so I don't understand how we can be so OK with free trade with countries like China who treat their workers in a way that we would find abhorrent if it were American workers being treated in the same way. Why do we not have tariffs on importing cheap goods from China and elsewhere? The reason that corporations keep sending work overseas is because it is so much cheaper and, honestly, how can we expect them to compete when they have to pay people so much more, pay overtime for over 40 hours a week, have reasonable safety standards, and reasonable environmental protections? Even an extremely innovative company that is as streamlined as it can get is going to find it impossible to compete with a Chinese company who is paying 50 cents an hour and dumping toxic waste wherever they like. It's one thing to have free trade with European countries and places that treat their workers in a way that is comparable to the US, but there are a lot of places that don't meet that standard. I keep using China because it's so common, but obviously there are several others.

Why don't we impose a tariff that levels the playing field for our own companies. If we basically said, "OK, we can't stop you from paying your workers 50 cents an hour but in America our minimum wage is X dollars so we will have a tax of Y amount to make your product cost the same as if you had paid them at the same rate we pay our workers," it would remove the incentive for our companies to ship jobs there and might even benefit the people working in those countries at the same time.
 
2012-10-16 01:11:20 PM  

Citrate1007: Unions endorse candidates, but cannot fire employees regarding how they vote.....there is a difference. Again though, any liberal working for the Koch brothers obviously cares more about money than their convictions so deep down they are republican anyways.


Or, they own a house in the area, and they cannot move because they'd take a huge loss in the housing market. Koch took over their business, and there are no other employers in the area.

/Know someone in a similar situation
 
2012-10-16 01:13:32 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: He'll be one of the first against the wall when the Glorious Worker's Revolution comes, right? Just like your hero Lenin would have wanted.

Have I advocated violence? I may have missed that.

So you reject the violence Lenin supported in State and Revolution?


I reject violence. Do I reject the suppression of the capitalist class? No. Upon reading State and Revolution what made the most sense is if you do not smash the "State" as we know it today, it will come back. It will be more vile than ever. He says something to the effect that we need to get rid of everything that was once used to oppress us, i.e. religion, i.e. owners.

Now, what would happen if there was a workers revolution and there was no suppression of the ruling class? I kindly ask you to look at the Paris Commune. Thousands of communards were murdered for their efforts. Look at what happened when Spain elected a leftist government in the 30s (not even a radical leftist government), the capitalist backlash caused a civil war and was the precursor to WW2.

What is the point of having a workers "state"? I mean he even goes on to say that a workers "state" isn't even really a "state" as we've come to know it today. the workers state is a means to the end of no state at all. It withers away when all forms of the old state (which is set up to oppress and protect the monied class, as we know) is gone.

Suppression does not have to equal violence.
 
2012-10-16 01:14:10 PM  

Weaver95: oh that's the best part! see, they won't know for sure who voted for whom. I suppose if they wanted to make an effort, they could get a hold of the voter rolls and find out who is registered democrat and if they voted in the election. it's a matter of public record after all. then use THAT list to decide who gets fired and who doesn't. But again...that's effort. I think it far more likely that these guys will simply fire people as they often do and use Obama as the excuse.


Unless they start telling employees that they have to vote absentee. Then they can require the employee mail the ballot from work. I am waiting for that one.
 
2012-10-16 01:16:04 PM  

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: He'll be one of the first against the wall when the Glorious Worker's Revolution comes, right? Just like your hero Lenin would have wanted.

Have I advocated violence? I may have missed that.

So you reject the violence Lenin supported in State and Revolution?

I reject violence. Do I reject the suppression of the capitalist class? No. Upon reading State and Revolution what made the most sense is if you do not smash the "State" as we know it today, it will come back. It will be more vile than ever. He says something to the effect that we need to get rid of everything that was once used to oppress us, i.e. religion, i.e. owners.

Now, what would happen if there was a workers revolution and there was no suppression of the ruling class? I kindly ask you to look at the Paris Commune. Thousands of communards were murdered for their efforts. Look at what happened when Spain elected a leftist government in the 30s (not even a radical leftist government), the capitalist backlash caused a civil war and was the precursor to WW2.

What is the point of having a workers "state"? I mean he even goes on to say that a workers "state" isn't even really a "state" as we've come to know it today. the workers state is a means to the end of no state at all. It withers away when all forms of the old state (which is set up to oppress and protect the monied class, as we know) is gone.

Suppression does not have to equal violence.


So how are you planning on suppressing me if I disagree with your Glorious Workers Revolution? The Gulag?
 
2012-10-16 01:19:34 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So how are you planning on suppressing me if I disagree with your Glorious Workers Revolution? The Gulag?


So it's ok for the ruling class to suppress the working class? Ok, glad we go that straight.

Workers should be armed to protect their interest. Is the ruling class going to give up their power without a fight? Probably not.

When workers seize the means of production it is in their and society's best interest to defend that against their former exploiters. If there is a workers revolution, you are more than welcome to try and regain control of your old means of exploitation. :)
 
2012-10-16 01:21:25 PM  

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So how are you planning on suppressing me if I disagree with your Glorious Workers Revolution? The Gulag?

So it's ok for the ruling class to suppress the working class? Ok, glad we go that straight.

Workers should be armed to protect their interest. Is the ruling class going to give up their power without a fight? Probably not.

When workers seize the means of production it is in their and society's best interest to defend that against their former exploiters. If there is a workers revolution, you are more than welcome to try and regain control of your old means of exploitation. :)


I thought you reject violence? That sounds a whole lot like violence...
 
2012-10-16 01:22:42 PM  

runin800m: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So how are you planning on suppressing me if I disagree with your Glorious Workers Revolution? The Gulag?

So it's ok for the ruling class to suppress the working class? Ok, glad we go that straight.

Workers should be armed to protect their interest. Is the ruling class going to give up their power without a fight? Probably not.

When workers seize the means of production it is in their and society's best interest to defend that against their former exploiters. If there is a workers revolution, you are more than welcome to try and regain control of your old means of exploitation. :)

I thought you reject violence? That sounds a whole lot like violence...


Self defense sucks. We should just let the ruling class run roughshod all over us because hey that's the way it's always been and we should accept it like good little drones.

I've seen the error of my ways. You're a wise man.
 
2012-10-16 01:23:13 PM  

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So how are you planning on suppressing me if I disagree with your Glorious Workers Revolution? The Gulag?

So it's ok for the ruling class to suppress the working class? Ok, glad we go that straight.

Workers should be armed to protect their interest. Is the ruling class going to give up their power without a fight? Probably not.

When workers seize the means of production it is in their and society's best interest to defend that against their former exploiters. If there is a workers revolution, you are more than welcome to try and regain control of your old means of exploitation. :)


I am asking you how you propose to suppress me if I disagree with your policies. Do you propose to use the same methods of suppression as the running dog capitalist stooges? Shall I be shot, imprisoned, tortured? Please tell us what lengths you will go to to ensure that those you view as exploiters are destroyed?
 
2012-10-16 01:24:34 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I am asking you how you propose to suppress me if I disagree with your policies. Do you propose to use the same methods of suppression as the running dog capitalist stooges? Shall I be shot, imprisoned, tortured? Please tell us what lengths you will go to to ensure that those you view as exploiters are destroyed?


That's the million dollar question. It all depends on what the reaction of the ruling class is.
 
2012-10-16 01:25:52 PM  

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: I am asking you how you propose to suppress me if I disagree with your policies. Do you propose to use the same methods of suppression as the running dog capitalist stooges? Shall I be shot, imprisoned, tortured? Please tell us what lengths you will go to to ensure that those you view as exploiters are destroyed?

That's the million dollar question. It all depends on what the reaction of the ruling class is.


So you don't reject violence any more than Lenin did.
 
2012-10-16 01:26:35 PM  
Sure are a lot of Marxists on Fark during working hours.
 
2012-10-16 01:26:53 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: I am asking you how you propose to suppress me if I disagree with your policies. Do you propose to use the same methods of suppression as the running dog capitalist stooges? Shall I be shot, imprisoned, tortured? Please tell us what lengths you will go to to ensure that those you view as exploiters are destroyed?

That's the million dollar question. It all depends on what the reaction of the ruling class is.

So you don't reject violence any more than Lenin did.


When it comes to defending yourself I do not reject violence.

"Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery"

--Malcom X
 
2012-10-16 01:27:39 PM  

Weigard: Sure are a lot of Marxists on Fark during working hours.


It's my little way of hurting the capitalists bottom line :)
 
2012-10-16 01:30:54 PM  

FarkedOver: runin800m: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So how are you planning on suppressing me if I disagree with your Glorious Workers Revolution? The Gulag?

So it's ok for the ruling class to suppress the working class? Ok, glad we go that straight.

Workers should be armed to protect their interest. Is the ruling class going to give up their power without a fight? Probably not.

When workers seize the means of production it is in their and society's best interest to defend that against their former exploiters. If there is a workers revolution, you are more than welcome to try and regain control of your old means of exploitation. :)

I thought you reject violence? That sounds a whole lot like violence...

Self defense sucks. We should just let the ruling class run roughshod all over us because hey that's the way it's always been and we should accept it like good little drones.

I've seen the error of my ways. You're a wise man.


So, to you, self defense is taking up arms and stealing shiat from people who you think have too much, and killing them if they try and prevent that?

You seem like an awesome person. :)

Philip Francis Queeg: I am asking you how you propose to suppress me if I disagree with your policies. Do you propose to use the same methods of suppression as the running dog capitalist stooges? Shall I be shot, imprisoned, tortured? Please tell us what lengths you will go to to ensure that those you view as exploiters are destroyed?


I think he made it pretty clear. He talks about them taking up arms and seizing control of the means of production, obviously he would intend to kill anyone who tried to defend their property and in some crazy way would believe that to be "self defense". Basically, he's a lunatic.
 
2012-10-16 01:31:58 PM  
JESUS CHRIST. the Koch brothers are some evil ass mother farking villains.

Please know that the above statement was not made out of surprise, but out of outrage. Those farkers are just about comically 'Monty Burns' evil. Except, ya know... real.
 
2012-10-16 01:32:54 PM  

runin800m: So, to you, self defense is taking up arms and stealing shiat from people who you think have too much, and killing them if they try and prevent that?

You seem like an awesome person. :)


Thanks man! But yeah, when that capital and property is used to exploit an entire class of people, they have forfeited the right to "ownership"
 
2012-10-16 01:35:13 PM  

runin800m: I think he made it pretty clear. He talks about them taking up arms and seizing control of the means of production, obviously he would intend to kill anyone who tried to defend their property and in some crazy way would believe that to be "self defense". Basically, he's a lunatic.


You want to talk lunacy?

How about nets that surround Apple factories in China because people are throwing themselves from buildings protesting working conditions? All in the name of money. Mmmmm sweet delicious money!
cache.gawkerassets.com
 
2012-10-16 01:38:39 PM  

FarkedOver: Thanks man! But yeah, when that capital and property is used to exploit an entire class of people, they have forfeited the right to "ownership"


So, when they don't use their property and money in a way that you think they should, you just want to take up arms and take it from them? That seems like the logical thing to do, in your opinion, like a good long term strategy? If you just take from those bastards and evenly distribute it things will be all peachy keen from then on, just like in all of the other communist/socialist countries that are a paradise where everyone is equal and the common man is so well off. You know, like China or Somalia, etc.. Now it's your turn to say how it doesn't work in Somalia or USSR or China or wherever else because it just wasn't implemented correctly and if it were just implemented the way you want then it would work perfectly.

What are you, like a college freshman or something?
 
2012-10-16 01:41:06 PM  

FarkedOver: runin800m: I think he made it pretty clear. He talks about them taking up arms and seizing control of the means of production, obviously he would intend to kill anyone who tried to defend their property and in some crazy way would believe that to be "self defense". Basically, he's a lunatic.

You want to talk lunacy?

How about nets that surround Apple factories in China because people are throwing themselves from buildings protesting working conditions? All in the name of money. Mmmmm sweet delicious money!
[cache.gawkerassets.com image 300x400]


If you read upthread I actually already made my feelings on that pretty clear. Somehow I think my solution might be a litter better and more practical than civil war. Obviously you disagree, but then you seem pretty gung ho on the violent revolution thing.
 
2012-10-16 01:42:15 PM  

runin800m: So, when they don't use their property and money in a way that you think they should, you just want to take up arms and take it from them? That seems like the logical thing to do, in your opinion, like a good long term strategy? If you just take from those bastards and evenly distribute it things will be all peachy keen from then on, just like in all of the other communist/socialist countries that are a paradise where everyone is equal and the common man is so well off. You know, like China or Somalia, etc.. Now it's your turn to say how it doesn't work in Somalia or USSR or China or wherever else because it just wasn't implemented correctly and if it were just implemented the way you want then it would work perfectly.

What are you, like a college freshman or something?


I know this idea is CRAZY, but imagine a work place that was run democratically..... without *gasp* OWNERS!!! THE HORROR!!! We need to be told what to do, because we are incapable of it without someone with power and money telling us what needs to be done.

Your defending a small cabal of people who dominate you and your fellow man on a daily basis. Feel proud of that.
 
2012-10-16 01:47:27 PM  

runin800m: If you read upthread I actually already made my feelings on that pretty clear. Somehow I think my solution might be a litter better and more practical than civil war. Obviously you disagree, but then you seem pretty gung ho on the violent revolution thing.


Your ideas would never sit with the capitalists class either my friend. Tariffs? HA! If they cared it would have been done by now. It just gets in the way of profits. They only way things are going to change is through mass class awareness of the working class on an international scale.
 
2012-10-16 01:49:16 PM  

runin800m: If you read upthread I actually already made my feelings on that pretty clear. Somehow I think my solution might be a litter better and more practical than civil war. Obviously you disagree, but then you seem pretty gung ho on the violent revolution thing.


One could simply do the same thing the capitalists have done and engage in mass social engineering. Would it be horrible to rescind corporate charters and move to a system that promotes cooperative and labor ownership rather than one that promotes hierarchical corporate structures? Would it be infeasible to migrate local governance to horizontal public councils rather than elected "representative" governments? Your proposed "reforms" are a compromise of a compromise and will solve nothing (assuming, given that you're starting your negotiation from the furthest right position you can accommodate, that you somehow ever managed to see them implemented).

Further to that, when, in your opinion, is it okay to engage in violence? When the state inevitably starts killing leftist agitators again, can we defend ourselves?
 
2012-10-16 01:56:35 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Further to that, when, in your opinion, is it okay to engage in violence? When the state inevitably starts killing leftist agitators again, can we defend ourselves?


Funny, when socialists and anarchists are protesting who usually shows up looking for a fight? 10 times out of 10 it's the police, in full riot gear. I know people with red flags and black bandanas are scary, but we never show up armed...
 
2012-10-16 01:59:43 PM  

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: I am asking you how you propose to suppress me if I disagree with your policies. Do you propose to use the same methods of suppression as the running dog capitalist stooges? Shall I be shot, imprisoned, tortured? Please tell us what lengths you will go to to ensure that those you view as exploiters are destroyed?

That's the million dollar question. It all depends on what the reaction of the ruling class is.

So you don't reject violence any more than Lenin did.

When it comes to defending yourself I do not reject violence.

"Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery"

--Malcom X


So which leads us back to the question, will forgotmydamnusername be one of the first up against the wall during your glorious workers revolution? If he or I oppose your policies can we expect summary execution?
 
2012-10-16 02:06:41 PM  

The Why Not Guy: LeftOfLiberal: ...the Right would be calling for an end to unions.

Wow, you should write speculative fiction. Your ability to imagine an alternate world so vastly different than our own is amazing.


Predicting the reaction of the right is not hard, just think unjustified outrage and run from there. The left, pissed at Obama's weak performance in the debate. The right spends a week making excuses for Ryan. Yes, predictable.
 
2012-10-16 02:07:20 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So which leads us back to the question, will forgotmydamnusername be one of the first up against the wall during your glorious workers revolution? If he or I oppose your policies can we expect summary execution?


If there is a class struggle and there is armed conflict people will probably die. If he hires a bunch of goons and mercs to storm a democratic work place and dies in the ensuing battle, yes there will be violence. If he comes up to a democratic work place run by workers and is like "Hey guys! Give it back and come work for me again! I'll be a better boss this time!" He'll probably just be laughed at.
 
2012-10-16 02:41:44 PM  

runin800m: dinomyar: Ctrl-Alt-Del: So, it all comes down to labor costs. That sure was a lot of words to say "You're right, Weaver95"

No. Weaver95 said it is because businesses would "rather pay labor .30 cents". It is not about how much they are willing to pay. It is about costs to be competative. If labor was the same overseas as here, and materials were cheaper, they would still be sending work overseas to stay competative.

This is definitely true. I've never understood how we can, as a country, just allow this to happen. We have such high standards for what workers must be paid and the conditions that they are allowed to work in compared to many parts of the world, which is definitely a good thing, so I don't understand how we can be so OK with free trade with countries like China who treat their workers in a way that we would find abhorrent if it were American workers being treated in the same way. Why do we not have tariffs on importing cheap goods from China and elsewhere? The reason that corporations keep sending work overseas is because it is so much cheaper and, honestly, how can we expect them to compete when they have to pay people so much more, pay overtime for over 40 hours a week, have reasonable safety standards, and reasonable environmental protections? Even an extremely innovative company that is as streamlined as it can get is going to find it impossible to compete with a Chinese company who is paying 50 cents an hour and dumping toxic waste wherever they like. It's one thing to have free trade with European countries and places that treat their workers in a way that is comparable to the US, but there are a lot of places that don't meet that standard. I keep using China because it's so common, but obviously there are several others.

Why don't we impose a tariff that levels the playing field for our own companies. If we basically said, "OK, we can't stop you from paying your workers 50 cents an hour but in America our minimum wage is X dollars so we will ...


If we did this, it would raise the cost of living, and that would impact the poor more than the not poor, and we cant have that. "roll eyes".. But I agree that that is about the only option that would level the playing field.
 
2012-10-16 03:04:17 PM  
Ahh thank you, Farked Over, for having amply proven my point. Marxism doesn't work because Marx was insufficiently street-wise. He didn't account for how people actually behave. It's much the same problem as Milton Friedman has, actually.
 
2012-10-16 03:07:38 PM  

forgotmydamnusername: Ahh thank you, Farked Over, for having amply proven my point. Marxism doesn't work because Marx was insufficiently street-wise. He didn't account for how people actually behave. It's much the same problem as Milton Friedman has, actually.


Marx never predicted when a workers revolution would take place. Most of his work was a critique of capitalism. If you have read Capital there isn't one thing he says about capitalism that isn't true.
 
2012-10-16 03:25:18 PM  

forgotmydamnusername: Ahh thank you, Farked Over, for having amply proven my point. Marxism doesn't work because Marx was insufficiently street-wise. He didn't account for how people actually behave. It's much the same problem as Milton Friedman has, actually.


Individual Fascism vs Collective Democracy.
 
2012-10-16 03:31:26 PM  

FarkedOver: forgotmydamnusername: Ahh thank you, Farked Over, for having amply proven my point. Marxism doesn't work because Marx was insufficiently street-wise. He didn't account for how people actually behave. It's much the same problem as Milton Friedman has, actually.

Marx never predicted when a workers revolution would take place. Most of his work was a critique of capitalism. If you have read Capital there isn't one thing he says about capitalism that isn't true.


The only point you've proven is that you don't like Lenin (who I have been quoting most of this time). I have yet to quote Marx in detail! MUHAHAHA.

Though if you feel so inclined here are some links you might enjoy:

State and Revolution: Link

Das Kapital: Link

Monthly Review: Link

Revolution Betrayed: Link
 
2012-10-16 03:41:20 PM  

LeftOfLiberal: Predicting the reaction of the right is not hard, just think unjustified outrage and run from there. The left, pissed at Obama's weak performance in the debate. The right spends a week making excuses for Ryan. Yes, predictable.


My point was that the Right is calling for an end to unions NOW... you don't have to speculate "what if?" for that to be true.
 
2012-10-16 03:47:58 PM  

FarkedOver: madgonad: USSR did have a ruling class - the party and party leaders. There is always going to be a ruling class. Just like there will always be managers. If you get rid of the old bosses there will just be new bosses. Far better to create rules and barriers that shift the wealth away from the top (insert FDR). The problem is that most people don't vote in their own interest. They vote based upon abortion or wanting a big tax break when the become millionaires next year.

You believe there will always be class divisions? You really don't think much of the human race do you? There will be life after capitalism, I know it's hard to fathom but it will happen.


Preach it, comrade.
 
2012-10-16 03:51:59 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So how are you planning on suppressing me if I disagree with your Glorious Workers Revolution? The Gulag?

So it's ok for the ruling class to suppress the working class? Ok, glad we go that straight.

Workers should be armed to protect their interest. Is the ruling class going to give up their power without a fight? Probably not.

When workers seize the means of production it is in their and society's best interest to defend that against their former exploiters. If there is a workers revolution, you are more than welcome to try and regain control of your old means of exploitation. :)

I am asking you how you propose to suppress me if I disagree with your policies. Do you propose to use the same methods of suppression as the running dog capitalist stooges? Shall I be shot, imprisoned, tortured? Please tell us what lengths you will go to to ensure that those you view as exploiters are destroyed?


He'll eat you. That's the bottom line:

imageshack.us
 
2012-10-16 03:55:38 PM  

Leeds: Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So how are you planning on suppressing me if I disagree with your Glorious Workers Revolution? The Gulag?

So it's ok for the ruling class to suppress the working class? Ok, glad we go that straight.

Workers should be armed to protect their interest. Is the ruling class going to give up their power without a fight? Probably not.

When workers seize the means of production it is in their and society's best interest to defend that against their former exploiters. If there is a workers revolution, you are more than welcome to try and regain control of your old means of exploitation. :)

I am asking you how you propose to suppress me if I disagree with your policies. Do you propose to use the same methods of suppression as the running dog capitalist stooges? Shall I be shot, imprisoned, tortured? Please tell us what lengths you will go to to ensure that those you view as exploiters are destroyed?

He'll eat you. That's the bottom line:

[imageshack.us image 451x800]


Nah, just advocating a dictatorship of the proletariat and the eventual withering away of the "state" into a classless stateless society.

What a terrible thing. Maybe I should just give up and accept my lot in life as a wage slave who should feel lucky just to lick the boot of my corporate masters. Ahhh the path of least resistance is so much easier. Living in moderate comfort while workers are oppressed so that I can live my hedonistic American lifestyle! USA! USA! USA!
 
2012-10-16 03:56:16 PM  
I'm amazed there aren't corporations that are telling their employees to vote absentee and take a picture of the filled-out ballot, to ensure they're voting for the "acceptable" candidates.
 
2012-10-16 04:03:48 PM  

FarkedOver: When workers seize the means of production it is in their and society's best interest to defend that against their former exploiters. If there is a workers revolution, you are more than welcome to try and regain control of your old means of exploitation. :)

I am asking you how you propose to suppress me if I disagree with your policies. Do you propose to use the same methods of suppression as the running dog capitalist stooges? Shall I be shot, imprisoned, tortured? Please tell us what lengths you will go to to ensure that those you view as exploiters are destroyed?

He'll eat you. That's the bottom line:

[imageshack.us image 451x800]

Nah, just advocating a dictatorship of the proletariat and the eventual withering away of the "state" into a classless stateless society.

What a terrible thing. Maybe I should just give up and accept my lot in life as a wage slave who should feel lucky just to lick the boot of my corporate masters. Ahhh the path of least resistance is so much easier. Living in moderate comfort while workers are oppressed so that I can live my hedonistic American lifestyle! USA! USA! USA!


I consider you to be well spoken, considerate and by no means crazy. But I cannot agree with you for one simple reason- Capitalism is the only system that is based on motivating society using the incentive system.

I do not think that you have taken the time to think through your utopian idea of scrapping the incentive system for one where we just hope and pray that everyone chooses to work hard and everyone chooses to live without the spoils of their personal labor.

I can sympathize with you though. I once thought as you did. There was a time in middle school when I was intrigued by the concepts of socialism and communism. But I never understood them well enough to change my allegiance over to them. Then, over time I finally realized that the reason capitalism is the only practical solution (save a monarchy, oddly enough) is because it is set up to incentivise people to do things that are of a benefit to society as a whole. Remove the incentives and society becomes unsustainable and it fails.

Why the hell would I work if we all got the same government cheese for dinner every night regardless of our efforts or abilities?
 
2012-10-16 04:11:59 PM  

Leeds: FarkedOver: When workers seize the means of production it is in their and society's best interest to defend that against their former exploiters. If there is a workers revolution, you are more than welcome to try and regain control of your old means of exploitation. :)

I am asking you how you propose to suppress me if I disagree with your policies. Do you propose to use the same methods of suppression as the running dog capitalist stooges? Shall I be shot, imprisoned, tortured? Please tell us what lengths you will go to to ensure that those you view as exploiters are destroyed?

He'll eat you. That's the bottom line:

[imageshack.us image 451x800]

Nah, just advocating a dictatorship of the proletariat and the eventual withering away of the "state" into a classless stateless society.

What a terrible thing. Maybe I should just give up and accept my lot in life as a wage slave who should feel lucky just to lick the boot of my corporate masters. Ahhh the path of least resistance is so much easier. Living in moderate comfort while workers are oppressed so that I can live my hedonistic American lifestyle! USA! USA! USA!

I consider you to be well spoken, considerate and by no means crazy. But I cannot agree with you for one simple reason- Capitalism is the only system that is based on motivating society using the incentive system.

I do not think that you have taken the time to think through your utopian idea of scrapping the incentive system for one where we just hope and pray that everyone chooses to work hard and everyone chooses to live without the spoils of their personal labor.

I can sympathize with you though. I once thought as you did. There was a time in middle school when I was intrigued by the concepts of socialism and communism. But I never understood them well enough to change my allegiance over to them. Then, over time I finally realized that the reason capitalism is the only practical solution (save a monarchy, oddly enough) is because it is set up ...


Well, you might do work because you find it interesting and take personal satisfaction from it. Problem: There aren't enough jobs like that for everyone, and the garbage has to get collected, too. So for the rest of us, there's cash.
 
2012-10-16 04:20:45 PM  

Leeds: I consider you to be well spoken, considerate and by no means crazy. But I cannot agree with you for one simple reason- Capitalism is the only system that is based on motivating society using the incentive system.

I do not think that you have taken the time to think through your utopian idea of scrapping the incentive system for one where we just hope and pray that everyone chooses to work hard and everyone chooses to live without the spoils of their personal labor.

I can sympathize with you though. I once thought as you did. There was a time in middle school when I was intrigued by the concepts of socialism and communism. But I never understood them well enough to change my allegiance over to them. Then, over time I finally realized that the reason capitalism is the only practical solution (save a monarchy, oddly enough) is because it is set up to incentivise people to do things that are of a benefit to society as a whole. Remove the incentives and society becomes unsustainable and it fails.

Why the hell would I work if we all got the same government cheese for dinner every night regardless of our efforts or abilities?


Thank you for hearing me out. I must say your concept of what I believe is somewhat skewed. Utopian socialism and scientific socialism are two very different things. I am not an advocate for utopian socialism, nor was Marx for that matter (as he addressed in many of his works). Socialism, from a Marxist perspective, is a struggle. It is something to be achieved. Marx went so far as to say capitalism was necessary. It is the step prior to that of socialism (socialism being the step before communism). Capitalism is the step that rapidly industrializes a populace (we can argue this is why socialism in the USSR because they were not by any stretch of the imagination a capitalist country at the time of the revolution).

I'm glad you once thought as I did. It's a shame you didn't expand upon your views as you saw them when you were 13, it seems you've regressed to objectivism, which is sad. Are you, or anyone else arrogant enough to hang your hat on capitalism and say "Good enough, that's as far as I'm willing to progress economically and socially." I, for one, am not willing to make that concession. A better world, a better society can be achieved when TRUE democracy is allowed to flourish, i.e. when the world is controlled by the majority rather than a minority. Is the world ready? Probably not yet, but as information spreads, as technology spreads the world is becoming one step closer every day. Cell phones in the hands of the youth in Iran or workers in Africa are a good example of this. See, this is where capitalism is necessary, getting the means of production ramped up and getting people their goods and needs.

But what happens after capitalism? Will capitalism always be? I say it will not always be. Feudalism met its end. Mercantilism met its end. Slavery met its end. How can we sit here and say that Capitalism will never end?
 
2012-10-16 04:23:17 PM  

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So which leads us back to the question, will forgotmydamnusername be one of the first up against the wall during your glorious workers revolution? If he or I oppose your policies can we expect summary execution?

If there is a class struggle and there is armed conflict people will probably die. If he hires a bunch of goons and mercs to storm a democratic work place and dies in the ensuing battle, yes there will be violence. If he comes up to a democratic work place run by workers and is like "Hey guys! Give it back and come work for me again! I'll be a better boss this time!" He'll probably just be laughed at.


What are the workers going to seize that factory wholly non-violently? What if management and some of their other workers just laugh at the Party Members when you say you are taking the factory in the workers name? Would that justify violent acts?
 
2012-10-16 04:26:19 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: What are the workers going to seize that factory wholly non-violently? What if management and some of their other workers just laugh at the Party Members when you say you are taking the factory in the workers name? Would that justify violent acts?


If there wasn't a majority on board I doubt they would seize the means of production. There are so many variables at play in a supposed workers revolution. You can rest easy and stop clutching your pearls because you and I both know this day will (probably) never come in our lifetimes in the US.
 
2012-10-16 04:30:37 PM  

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: What are the workers going to seize that factory wholly non-violently? What if management and some of their other workers just laugh at the Party Members when you say you are taking the factory in the workers name? Would that justify violent acts?

If there wasn't a majority on board I doubt they would seize the means of production. There are so many variables at play in a supposed workers revolution. You can rest easy and stop clutching your pearls because you and I both know this day will (probably) never come in our lifetimes in the US.


What happens to the minority then? Oh that's right., they get "suppressed". By any means necessary, right? So sad that you won't live to help "suppress" enemies.
 
2012-10-16 04:31:09 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: What happens to the minority then? Oh that's right., they get "suppressed". By any means necessary, right? So sad that you won't live to help "suppress" enemies.


So sad that you live to serve.
 
2012-10-16 04:35:11 PM  

FarkedOver: Leeds: I consider you to be well spoken, considerate and by no means crazy. But I cannot agree with you for one simple reason- Capitalism is the only system that is based on motivating society using the incentive system.

I do not think that you have taken the time to think through your utopian idea of scrapping the incentive system for one where we just hope and pray that everyone chooses to work hard and everyone chooses to live without the spoils of their personal labor.

I can sympathize with you though. I once thought as you did. There was a time in middle school when I was intrigued by the concepts of socialism and communism. But I never understood them well enough to change my allegiance over to them. Then, over time I finally realized that the reason capitalism is the only practical solution (save a monarchy, oddly enough) is because it is set up to incentivise people to do things that are of a benefit to society as a whole. Remove the incentives and society becomes unsustainable and it fails.

Why the hell would I work if we all got the same government cheese for dinner every night regardless of our efforts or abilities?

Thank you for hearing me out. I must say your concept of what I believe is somewhat skewed. Utopian socialism and scientific socialism are two very different things. I am not an advocate for utopian socialism, nor was Marx for that matter (as he addressed in many of his works). Socialism, from a Marxist perspective, is a struggle. It is something to be achieved. Marx went so far as to say capitalism was necessary. It is the step prior to that of socialism (socialism being the step before communism). Capitalism is the step that rapidly industrializes a populace (we can argue this is why socialism in the USSR because they were not by any stretch of the imagination a capitalist country at the time of the revolution).

I'm glad you once thought as I did. It's a shame you didn't expand upon your views as you saw them when you were 13, ...


Because capitalism most efficiently meets supply and demand when properly controlled. Left completely unregulated, its collection of internal contradictions and perverse incentives tend to result in capitalism eating itself. However, a top-down, planned economy will always result in stifled innovation and the production of crap no one wants, because the planners are incapable of sufficient omniscience to always or even usually correctly allocate production priorities. The lack of incentives also tends to result in people slacking off even more than they do in giant American corporations, or, as they said in Russia, "They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work!" Notions of hierarchy and private property and some sefish impulses also appear to be hard-wired in the human psyche. While these can certainly become quite destructive, I don't think it's really possible to root them out entirely, and the best one can hope for is managing them a bit.
 
2012-10-16 04:37:26 PM  

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: What happens to the minority then? Oh that's right., they get "suppressed". By any means necessary, right? So sad that you won't live to help "suppress" enemies.

So sad that you live to serve.


Yep, that's me, Running dog lackey of capitalism. You sure have me pegged, Comrade.

Seriously, you are in college, right? You'll outgrow your naive flirtation with Leninism and see Leninism for what it is, merely an excuse to oppress even more than the previous oppressor.
 
2012-10-16 04:40:07 PM  

forgotmydamnusername: Because capitalism most efficiently meets supply and demand when properly controlled. Left completely unregulated, its collection of internal contradictions and perverse incentives tend to result in capitalism eating itself. However, a top-down, planned economy will always result in stifled innovation and the production of crap no one wants, because the planners are incapable of sufficient omniscience to always or even usually correctly allocate production priorities. The lack of incentives also tends to result in people slacking off even more than they do in giant American corporations, or, as they said in Russia, "They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work!" Notions of hierarchy and private property and some sefish impulses also appear to be hard-wired in the human psyche. While these can certainly become quite destructive, I don't think it's really possible to root them out entirely, and the best one can hope for is managing them a bit.


I agree to a point, but at it's nature capitalism exploits. Capitalism alienates. Hey man, congrats, you put your unwavering faith into a capitalistic society, that's part of what makes it move. All I'm saying is that we will move beyond it at some point in the future. Humans do have self interest, we do want to feel good, but that's only part of the equation. We also have it hard wired in us to be cooperative, to work together, to achieve things together. Money and greed will not be what moves society forward. It's cooperation that moves us forward.
 
2012-10-16 04:41:37 PM  

FarkedOver: I know this idea is CRAZY, but imagine a work place that was run democratically..... without *gasp* OWNERS!!! THE HORROR!!! We need to be told what to do, because we are incapable of it without someone with power and money telling us what needs to be done.

Your defending a small cabal of people who dominate you and your fellow man on a daily basis. Feel proud of that.


You are aware that some tasks actually do require a central decision maker, right? And that some of those tasks can break down catastrophically if even one person decides not to follow said decision maker, right? How do you propose to accomplish such tasks in your utopia?
 
2012-10-16 04:42:43 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Seriously, you are in college, right? You'll outgrow your naive flirtation with Leninism and see Leninism for what it is, merely an excuse to oppress even more than the previous oppressor.


I'm a recovering democrat, actually, approaching 30. I'd consider myself more of a Trotskist and not a Leninist. Anti-Stalinist for sure as well as anti-fascist.
 
2012-10-16 04:44:17 PM  

blahpers: You are aware that some tasks actually do require a central decision maker, right? And that some of those tasks can break down catastrophically if even one person decides not to follow said decision maker, right? How do you propose to accomplish such tasks in your utopia?


Democratically run work places have flourished in many places and continue to do so to this day. That's right.... the workers run the business and own the business. Insanity, I know.
 
2012-10-16 04:47:34 PM  

FarkedOver: Thank you for hearing me out. I must say your concept of what I believe is somewhat skewed. Utopian socialism and scientific socialism are two very different things. I am not an advocate for utopian socialism, nor was Marx for that matter (as he addressed in many of his works). Socialism, from a Marxist perspective, is a struggle. It is something to be achieved. Marx went so far as to say capitalism was necessary. It is the step prior to that of socialism (socialism being the step before communism). Capitalism is the step that rapidly industrializes a populace (we can argue this is why socialism in the USSR because they were not by any stretch of the imagination a capitalist country at the time of the revolution).

I'm glad you once thought as I did. It's a shame you didn't expand upon your views as you saw them when you were 13, it seems you've regressed to objectivism, which is sad. Are you, or anyone else arrogant enough to hang your hat on capitalism and say "Good enough, that's as far as I'm willing to progress economically and socially." I, for one, am not willing to make that concession. A better world, a better society can be achieved when TRUE democracy is allowed to flourish, i.e. when the world is controlled by the majority rather than a minority. Is the world ready? Probably not yet, but as information spreads, as technology spreads the world is becoming one step closer every day. Cell phones in the hands of the youth in Iran or workers in Africa are a good example of this. See, this is where capitalism is necessary, getting the means of production ramped up and getting people their goods and needs.

But what happens after capitalism? Will capitalism always be? I say it will not always be. Feudalism met its end. Mercantilism met its end. Slavery met its end. How can we sit here and say that Capitalism will never end?


I can honestly say that I believe that an incentive-based economic system is a hard requirement for any system of governance. At this point it would seem that both socialism and communism lack this vital element and that is why they are forever doomed to failure. Capitalism isn't the only system that uses incentives for coercion, but it is the most fair one we have invented thus far.

Human beings are charitable up to a point. After that, we require incentives to make us do all of the other things that need to be done as a society.
 
2012-10-16 04:50:02 PM  

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: Seriously, you are in college, right? You'll outgrow your naive flirtation with Leninism and see Leninism for what it is, merely an excuse to oppress even more than the previous oppressor.

I'm a recovering democrat, actually, approaching 30. I'd consider myself more of a Trotskist and not a Leninist. Anti-Stalinist for sure as well as anti-fascist.


So if you are a Trotskist you support spreading the Glorious Worker Revolution by invading neighboring countries and "suppressing" your enemies there and not keeping the "suppression" merely to your own country?
 
2012-10-16 04:54:23 PM  

Leeds: Human beings are charitable up to a point. After that, we require incentives to make us do all of the other things that need to be done as a society.


Some could argue that, that is a learned behavior. In fact, I intend to haha. One could say that "domestication of animals and plants following the Neolithic Revolution through herding and agriculture was seen as the turning point from primitive communism to class society as it was followed by private ownership and slavery."*(from wikipedia primitive communism article)

Prior to the Neolithic Revolution things were held communally. There was no private property and people worked for the good of the group.

NOW, I am not arguing that herding and farming are bad things, it enabled the human race to expand outward, but brought about some nasty societal changes (as listed above.) I'd say that is interesting take on the argument and could be see that humans learned to be greedy and learned to fetishize accumulation.
 
2012-10-16 04:57:04 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So if you are a Trotskist you support spreading the Glorious Worker Revolution by invading neighboring countries and "suppressing" your enemies there and not keeping the "suppression" merely to your own country?


To which event are you referring?
 
2012-10-16 05:02:46 PM  

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So if you are a Trotskist you support spreading the Glorious Worker Revolution by invading neighboring countries and "suppressing" your enemies there and not keeping the "suppression" merely to your own country?

To which event are you referring?


That's the very core of Trotskyism and the Fourth International. Trotsky believed that the Russian revolution failed because it was not spread to the rest of the planet in opposition to Stalin's "Socialism in one country" policy. I would think a good Comrade like you would know that about the founder of the Red Army.
 
2012-10-16 05:08:34 PM  

FarkedOver: Leeds: Human beings are charitable up to a point. After that, we require incentives to make us do all of the other things that need to be done as a society.

Some could argue that, that is a learned behavior. In fact, I intend to haha. One could say that "domestication of animals and plants following the Neolithic Revolution through herding and agriculture was seen as the turning point from primitive communism to class society as it was followed by private ownership and slavery."*(from wikipedia primitive communism article)

Prior to the Neolithic Revolution things were held communally. There was no private property and people worked for the good of the group.

NOW, I am not arguing that herding and farming are bad things, it enabled the human race to expand outward, but brought about some nasty societal changes (as listed above.) I'd say that is interesting take on the argument and could be see that humans learned to be greedy and learned to fetishize accumulation.


One could also say that religions were the turning point in society because once religion became popular, each cult started looking after their own and killing the outsiders. Something that up until that point only happened on a family by family basis.

But throughout all of history there was need for incentives to keep people productive or at the very least alive. Initially these incentives were self-evident: store enough food for winter or your family will die. Now we have a larger net of people that we declare to be "us" and as such we have more complex incentives.

But scrapping the incentive system so that everyone shares in the wealth equally means that no one has any incentive to actually do anything at all. That's why communism and socialism have always been and will always continue to be absolute failures.

Have you ever noticed union members being complemented on their work ethics? Just another case of too few incentives. Since union member A and union member Z are judged only on how long they've been paying union dues, does it matter if union member A works twice as hard as union member Z? Of course not, since he'll not receive any compensation for his efforts. That's why union members are lazy. It's not their fault, it the fact that they are caught in a system where they have no incentive to be good (productive) people.
 
2012-10-16 05:10:17 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So if you are a Trotskist you support spreading the Glorious Worker Revolution by invading neighboring countries and "suppressing" your enemies there and not keeping the "suppression" merely to your own country?

To which event are you referring?

That's the very core of Trotskyism and the Fourth International. Trotsky believed that the Russian revolution failed because it was not spread to the rest of the planet in opposition to Stalin's "Socialism in one country" policy. I would think a good Comrade like you would know that about the founder of the Red Army.


Oh I wasn't aware of what you were trying to say when spun with all those negative connotations. Yes, I believe in a worldwide socialist movement and Stalins stance of socialism in one country was anti-Marxist.
 
2012-10-16 05:11:17 PM  

Leeds: Have you ever noticed union members being complemented on their work ethics?


You undermine your whole rant with this, given that union workers are almost universally better and harder workers than non-union, rightist propaganda aside. Try to compare non-union miners or carpenters or theater techs or steelworkers to their organized counterparts and see who does better work.
 
2012-10-16 05:12:25 PM  

Leeds: Have you ever noticed union members being complemented on their work ethics? Just another case of too few incentives. Since union member A and union member Z are judged only on how long they've been paying union dues, does it matter if union member A works twice as hard as union member Z? Of course not, since he'll not receive any compensation for his efforts. That's why union members are lazy. It's not their fault, it the fact that they are caught in a system where they have no incentive to be good (productive) people.


Bullshiat. Serious fraking bullshiat.

Most union workers are in jobs that require them to work harder on a single day than a weeks worth of work for the fat assed middle management guys sitting at their computers on Fark complaining about the lazy Union guys.
 
2012-10-16 05:14:32 PM  
Have you ever noticed union members being complemented on their work ethics? Just another case of too few incentives. Since union member A and union member Z are judged only on how long they've been paying union dues, does it matter if union member A works twice as hard as union member Z? Of course not, since he'll not receive any compensation for his efforts. That's why union members are lazy. It's not their fault, it the fact that they are caught in a system where they have no incentive to be good (productive) people.

At the same time we see people breaking their backs doing the job of 2 or 3 people at a non union job and what is their incentive? Salary freezes, and just be lucky to have a job. Wages do not accurately reflect productivity regardless of union or non union jobs.
 
2012-10-16 05:14:48 PM  

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So if you are a Trotskist you support spreading the Glorious Worker Revolution by invading neighboring countries and "suppressing" your enemies there and not keeping the "suppression" merely to your own country?

To which event are you referring?

That's the very core of Trotskyism and the Fourth International. Trotsky believed that the Russian revolution failed because it was not spread to the rest of the planet in opposition to Stalin's "Socialism in one country" policy. I would think a good Comrade like you would know that about the founder of the Red Army.

Oh I wasn't aware of what you were trying to say when spun with all those negative connotations. Yes, I believe in a worldwide socialist movement and Stalins stance of socialism in one country was anti-Marxist.


Yes, I see negative connotations in a world wide violent revolution spread by the Heroic Red Army. Shocking isn't it?
 
2012-10-16 05:16:00 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Leeds: Have you ever noticed union members being complemented on their work ethics?

You undermine your whole rant with this, given that union workers are almost universally better and harder workers than non-union, rightist propaganda aside. Try to compare non-union miners or carpenters or theater techs or steelworkers to their organized counterparts and see who does better work.


Bullspit.

If a union worker was actually motivated and good at what he did he'd quit the union and work for an actual American company where he could receive benefits based on his performance.
 
2012-10-16 05:16:34 PM  

Leeds: A Dark Evil Omen: Leeds: Have you ever noticed union members being complemented on their work ethics?

You undermine your whole rant with this, given that union workers are almost universally better and harder workers than non-union, rightist propaganda aside. Try to compare non-union miners or carpenters or theater techs or steelworkers to their organized counterparts and see who does better work.

Bullspit.

If a union worker was actually motivated and good at what he did he'd quit the union and work for an actual American company where he could receive benefits based on his performance.


Look how stupid you are.
 
2012-10-16 05:18:02 PM  

FarkedOver: forgotmydamnusername: Because capitalism most efficiently meets supply and demand when properly controlled. Left completely unregulated, its collection of internal contradictions and perverse incentives tend to result in capitalism eating itself. However, a top-down, planned economy will always result in stifled innovation and the production of crap no one wants, because the planners are incapable of sufficient omniscience to always or even usually correctly allocate production priorities. The lack of incentives also tends to result in people slacking off even more than they do in giant American corporations, or, as they said in Russia, "They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work!" Notions of hierarchy and private property and some sefish impulses also appear to be hard-wired in the human psyche. While these can certainly become quite destructive, I don't think it's really possible to root them out entirely, and the best one can hope for is managing them a bit.

I agree to a point, but at it's nature capitalism exploits. Capitalism alienates. Hey man, congrats, you put your unwavering faith into a capitalistic society, that's part of what makes it move. All I'm saying is that we will move beyond it at some point in the future. Humans do have self interest, we do want to feel good, but that's only part of the equation. We also have it hard wired in us to be cooperative, to work together, to achieve things together. Money and greed will not be what moves society forward. It's cooperation that moves us forward.


Capitalism has numerous weaknesses and unfortunate features. However, it sucks just slightly less than everything else, most of the time. If it ceases, it will probably be because we've exhausted so many resources so much faster than any solutions to the scarcity could be come up with, that the Dark Ages will once again be upon us. It will be succeeded by the former system of feudalism. Cooperation and altruism only happen because of some perhaps only half-perceived idea of creating a storehouse of good will for the future, or some possibility of at least indirect benefit. You're still going to need incentives somewhere in that system to get sufficient buy-in, and standard Marxist-Leninist thinking simply doesn't allow for that, short of creating a North Korean-style 100% brainwashed anthill-state. You're welcome to that. I propose to shoot anyone that seeks to enforce my participation in such a thing.
 
2012-10-16 05:20:09 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So if you are a Trotskist you support spreading the Glorious Worker Revolution by invading neighboring countries and "suppressing" your enemies there and not keeping the "suppression" merely to your own country?

To which event are you referring?

That's the very core of Trotskyism and the Fourth International. Trotsky believed that the Russian revolution failed because it was not spread to the rest of the planet in opposition to Stalin's "Socialism in one country" policy. I would think a good Comrade like you would know that about the founder of the Red Army.

Oh I wasn't aware of what you were trying to say when spun with all those negative connotations. Yes, I believe in a worldwide socialist movement and Stalins stance of socialism in one country was anti-Marxist.

Yes, I see negative connotations in a world wide violent revolution spread by the Heroic Red Army. Shocking isn't it?


I'm sorry you're a fan of overthrowing exploitation. We can argue til we are blue in the face neither of us will budge. I'd say we have more in common than you think, though :)
 
2012-10-16 05:22:15 PM  

forgotmydamnusername: I propose to shoot anyone that seeks to enforce my participation in such a thing.


And what about those who resent being forced to participate in the capitalist system?
 
2012-10-16 05:24:15 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: forgotmydamnusername: I propose to shoot anyone that seeks to enforce my participation in such a thing.

And what about those who resent being forced to participate in the capitalist system?


Tough shiat is the usual response.
 
2012-10-16 05:26:26 PM  

FarkedOver: A Dark Evil Omen: forgotmydamnusername: I propose to shoot anyone that seeks to enforce my participation in such a thing.

And what about those who resent being forced to participate in the capitalist system?

Tough shiat is the usual response.


Well, yes, but I'm always interested in getting people to bang their neurons together and at least think about what it is they believe.
 
2012-10-16 05:27:48 PM  

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So if you are a Trotskist you support spreading the Glorious Worker Revolution by invading neighboring countries and "suppressing" your enemies there and not keeping the "suppression" merely to your own country?

To which event are you referring?

That's the very core of Trotskyism and the Fourth International. Trotsky believed that the Russian revolution failed because it was not spread to the rest of the planet in opposition to Stalin's "Socialism in one country" policy. I would think a good Comrade like you would know that about the founder of the Red Army.

Oh I wasn't aware of what you were trying to say when spun with all those negative connotations. Yes, I believe in a worldwide socialist movement and Stalins stance of socialism in one country was anti-Marxist.

Yes, I see negative connotations in a world wide violent revolution spread by the Heroic Red Army. Shocking isn't it?

I'm sorry you're a fan of overthrowing exploitation. We can argue til we are blue in the face neither of us will budge. I'd say we have more in common than you think, though :)


How many "exploiters" will need to be "suppressed" by violent means during your Gloriuous Workers Revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat? 10 Million? 20 Million? 100 Million?

Here's the thing. Marxist/lLeninist revolutions of the type you advocate tend to define "exploiters" as "My neighbor who had slightly more than I did".
 
2012-10-16 06:08:16 PM  

Leeds: If a union worker was actually motivated and good at what he did he'd quit the union and work for an actual American company where he could receive benefits based on his performance.


how farking retarded do you have to be to write something like that. The reason you are told to hate unions by the people who tell you what to think is because they cost the employer more money because of higher wages, tradesmen don't get paid more in non-union shops you farking buffoon. .
 
2012-10-16 06:40:39 PM  

Headso: Leeds: If a union worker was actually motivated and good at what he did he'd quit the union and work for an actual American company where he could receive benefits based on his performance.

how farking retarded do you have to be to write something like that. The reason you are told to hate unions by the people who tell you what to think is because they cost the employer more money because of higher wages, tradesmen don't get paid more in non-union shops you farking buffoon. .


You seem to have missed the point. I am not knocking union workers, I'm suggesting that when you remove the incentives to do a good job, by and large people cease to do a good job.
 
2012-10-16 07:05:19 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: How many "exploiters" will need to be "suppressed" by violent means during your Gloriuous Workers Revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat? 10 Million? 20 Million? 100 Million?

Here's the thing. Marxist/lLeninist revolutions of the type you advocate tend to define "exploiters" as "My neighbor who had slightly more than I did"


I'm not talking about taking the mom pop business owners out to the gulag until they see the light. They are just as exploited as the wage slave. What my organization does is we have public meeting. We want to change things through education. We want people to realize that as a class we have more potential united than we do divided. We reach out to the community and we stand with picket lines, we protest the jailing of political prisoners, we send what money we can to strikers through our international (CWI). We attempt to explain the many, many pitfalls of capitalism. We do this unarmed and people are free to come and go as they please. I hope that explains what I (and my organization) attempt to do.
 
2012-10-16 07:08:16 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: FarkedOver: A Dark Evil Omen: forgotmydamnusername: I propose to shoot anyone that seeks to enforce my participation in such a thing.

And what about those who resent being forced to participate in the capitalist system?

Tough shiat is the usual response.

Well, yes, but I'm always interested in getting people to bang their neurons together and at least think about what it is they believe.


It's tough to get people to understand that the way things have always been done might not be the best way. People are hesitant, and I understand that. I mean I didn't just one day wake up and become a socialist. It's a process, to say the least.
 
2012-10-16 07:12:32 PM  

FarkedOver: A Dark Evil Omen: FarkedOver: A Dark Evil Omen: forgotmydamnusername: I propose to shoot anyone that seeks to enforce my participation in such a thing.

And what about those who resent being forced to participate in the capitalist system?

Tough shiat is the usual response.

Well, yes, but I'm always interested in getting people to bang their neurons together and at least think about what it is they believe.

It's tough to get people to understand that the way things have always been done might not be the best way. People are hesitant, and I understand that. I mean I didn't just one day wake up and become a socialist. It's a process, to say the least.


Neither did I. I was a conservative capitalist growing up (at least inasmuch as a young teenager can be), and then I started to get older, and I grew up and got a job and spent a lot of time reviewing why the things that I believed didn't bear out in the real world.
 
2012-10-16 08:34:12 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: forgotmydamnusername: I propose to shoot anyone that seeks to enforce my participation in such a thing.

And what about those who resent being forced to participate in the capitalist system?


You're not really forced. No one is holding a gun to your head. It's just that it's much, much easier for most people if they participate. If you'd rather not, go build yourself a hut out of bark in the woods someplace, and start scrounging for roots and berries. Native Americans managed to live like that for approximately 13000 years. If you attempt to opt out of a Communist system, the best you can hope for is 10 years under prison conditions designed to make it unlikely that you'll last the whole stretch.
 
2012-10-16 08:54:23 PM  

Leeds: Headso: Leeds: If a union worker was actually motivated and good at what he did he'd quit the union and work for an actual American company where he could receive benefits based on his performance.

how farking retarded do you have to be to write something like that. The reason you are told to hate unions by the people who tell you what to think is because they cost the employer more money because of higher wages, tradesmen don't get paid more in non-union shops you farking buffoon. .

You seem to have missed the point. I am not knocking union workers, I'm suggesting that when you remove the incentives to do a good job, by and large people cease to do a good job.


A good manager finds other incentives, when the pay scales are all the same. Some unions, although not the construction industry trade unions like the one I'm a member of, do make it more difficult to fire people. There are ways around that if you're clever, too. The unionized workforce at his job never stopped Dear Old Dad from dumping subordinates he wanted to be rid of, once he made it into middle management.
 
Displayed 190 of 190 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report