The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
Well, if you're only going to talk about nations, it's gonna be a bit difficult to have an exchange with a non-statist communist.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but there hasn't been an example of communism (I'm not talking about communes, I'm talking about nations) where the country has not become statist. It is fundamentally Marxism in practice.ecdanc said:
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this response, but you said "the wealth goes to the statist government." I'm not a statist communist.mrussel1 said:
I don't struggle at all. You don't recall me writing about Leninism, Stalinism, or talking about how pieces of communism, as articulated by Marx are already in place in our society? You must not be an attentive reader. Go back a few pages. I've also pointed out multiple times that we aren't capitalist, that we are mixed. And some of that mix are Marxist ideas.ecdanc said:
You really struggle with the fact that there are different variants of communism. Here's a fun quiz for you that might help: https://www.gotoquiz.com/which_type_of_socialist_are_you?fbclid=IwAR2YbD2HSVj736vKPbuU_LiF8vyXNNdJ84Tq06j3qbHcVC7pkm1wwSVyeJQmrussel1 said:
Oh right, you're a real communist. Okay, so the wealth goes to the statist government and then is redistributed to the robots who did all the work. Got it. I love a great 18th century agrarian economic philosophy at work in the modern age.ecdanc said:
Who said anything about wages?mrussel1 said:
What's the proper wage rate for a robot?ecdanc said:All wealth belongs properly to labor. The accumulation of capital relies fundamentally upon exploitation (Buffett is actually a great example: his “honest” fortune derives almost entirely from “investment”).0 -
Yes, but your idea relies on the notion that the proletariat will rise up around the world, successfully overturn its governments, and then form a worldwide economic system controlled by... no one? It's fanciful, at best. And the world moves further from Marx's vision every single day. It was simple when Marx wrote his book. You had workers and capital. Now, those lines are blurred.ecdanc said:
Well, if you're only going to talk about nations, it's gonna be a bit difficult to have an exchange with a non-statist communist.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but there hasn't been an example of communism (I'm not talking about communes, I'm talking about nations) where the country has not become statist. It is fundamentally Marxism in practice.ecdanc said:
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this response, but you said "the wealth goes to the statist government." I'm not a statist communist.mrussel1 said:
I don't struggle at all. You don't recall me writing about Leninism, Stalinism, or talking about how pieces of communism, as articulated by Marx are already in place in our society? You must not be an attentive reader. Go back a few pages. I've also pointed out multiple times that we aren't capitalist, that we are mixed. And some of that mix are Marxist ideas.ecdanc said:
You really struggle with the fact that there are different variants of communism. Here's a fun quiz for you that might help: https://www.gotoquiz.com/which_type_of_socialist_are_you?fbclid=IwAR2YbD2HSVj736vKPbuU_LiF8vyXNNdJ84Tq06j3qbHcVC7pkm1wwSVyeJQmrussel1 said:
Oh right, you're a real communist. Okay, so the wealth goes to the statist government and then is redistributed to the robots who did all the work. Got it. I love a great 18th century agrarian economic philosophy at work in the modern age.ecdanc said:
Who said anything about wages?mrussel1 said:
What's the proper wage rate for a robot?ecdanc said:All wealth belongs properly to labor. The accumulation of capital relies fundamentally upon exploitation (Buffett is actually a great example: his “honest” fortune derives almost entirely from “investment”).
What is the customer service manager at Bank of America, who gets paid 75k a year, and stock grants that vest over three year schedules? Are they proletariat or bourgeois? Are the white collar workers on the phone that get paid less, but are promoted to supervisors or managers at a 15% per year rate really proletariat?0 -
To be fair, a flat tax is also decided by an arbitrary group (congress) just like progressive taxation. I'm anti-flat tax myself. The result will disproportionately affect the lower middle to lower class. When this was actually an aggressive policy position for the conservatives about 10 or 15 years ago, most budgets showed that the income tax rate would have to be 28-30% flat, in order to raise the same revenue as progressive. That's a very high rate and would double the income tax of a huge group of Americans. If you make 50 a year and your taxes go from 5-7k per year to 15k, that would decimate a class of people.hedonist said:
Don't agree with the rates either.mrussel1 said:
I don't know that I agree with your rates but I agree with your concept. But Sanders did say there should be no billionaires. Under that concept, at some point the tax rate must be 100%. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/09/24/politics/bernie-sanders-ultra-wealth-tax-billionaires/index.htmlSpiritual_Chaos said:
its up to the laws and tax codes to make sure they do it honestly.ecdanc said:How does one make a billion dollars honestly?
I reckon a roughly 25% tax on salarys and then an extra 20% on everything above 5-6000 a month is resonable.- 0% from 0 dollars to 2000 dollars
- Circa 25%: from 2000 dollats to 5000 dollars
- 25%+ 20%: from 5000 dollars to 6000 dollars
- 25%+ 25%: above 6000 dollars
I dont see a problem initself that people make money
Personally, I prefer a flat tax vs. some arbitrary group deciding what at what dollar level increased taxes are justified. I'm not all that familiar with tax terminology so perhaps "flat" is incorrectly used, but my hope is that all pay the same percentage - perhaps with more give for those with lower income.
By the way, I don't think $6000 a month is ridiculous.0 -
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.mrussel1 said:
Yes, but your idea relies on the notion that the proletariat will rise up around the world, successfully overturn its governments, and then form a worldwide economic system controlled by... no one? It's fanciful, at best. And the world moves further from Marx's vision every single day. It was simple when Marx wrote his book. You had workers and capital. Now, those lines are blurred.ecdanc said:
Well, if you're only going to talk about nations, it's gonna be a bit difficult to have an exchange with a non-statist communist.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but there hasn't been an example of communism (I'm not talking about communes, I'm talking about nations) where the country has not become statist. It is fundamentally Marxism in practice.ecdanc said:
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this response, but you said "the wealth goes to the statist government." I'm not a statist communist.mrussel1 said:
I don't struggle at all. You don't recall me writing about Leninism, Stalinism, or talking about how pieces of communism, as articulated by Marx are already in place in our society? You must not be an attentive reader. Go back a few pages. I've also pointed out multiple times that we aren't capitalist, that we are mixed. And some of that mix are Marxist ideas.ecdanc said:
You really struggle with the fact that there are different variants of communism. Here's a fun quiz for you that might help: https://www.gotoquiz.com/which_type_of_socialist_are_you?fbclid=IwAR2YbD2HSVj736vKPbuU_LiF8vyXNNdJ84Tq06j3qbHcVC7pkm1wwSVyeJQmrussel1 said:
Oh right, you're a real communist. Okay, so the wealth goes to the statist government and then is redistributed to the robots who did all the work. Got it. I love a great 18th century agrarian economic philosophy at work in the modern age.ecdanc said:
Who said anything about wages?mrussel1 said:
What's the proper wage rate for a robot?ecdanc said:All wealth belongs properly to labor. The accumulation of capital relies fundamentally upon exploitation (Buffett is actually a great example: his “honest” fortune derives almost entirely from “investment”).
What is the customer service manager at Bank of America, who gets paid 75k a year, and stock grants that vest over three year schedules? Are they proletariat or bourgeois? Are the white collar workers on the phone that get paid less, but are promoted to supervisors or managers at a 15% per year rate really proletariat?
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.0 -
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?ecdanc said:
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.mrussel1 said:
Yes, but your idea relies on the notion that the proletariat will rise up around the world, successfully overturn its governments, and then form a worldwide economic system controlled by... no one? It's fanciful, at best. And the world moves further from Marx's vision every single day. It was simple when Marx wrote his book. You had workers and capital. Now, those lines are blurred.ecdanc said:
Well, if you're only going to talk about nations, it's gonna be a bit difficult to have an exchange with a non-statist communist.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but there hasn't been an example of communism (I'm not talking about communes, I'm talking about nations) where the country has not become statist. It is fundamentally Marxism in practice.ecdanc said:
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this response, but you said "the wealth goes to the statist government." I'm not a statist communist.mrussel1 said:
I don't struggle at all. You don't recall me writing about Leninism, Stalinism, or talking about how pieces of communism, as articulated by Marx are already in place in our society? You must not be an attentive reader. Go back a few pages. I've also pointed out multiple times that we aren't capitalist, that we are mixed. And some of that mix are Marxist ideas.ecdanc said:
You really struggle with the fact that there are different variants of communism. Here's a fun quiz for you that might help: https://www.gotoquiz.com/which_type_of_socialist_are_you?fbclid=IwAR2YbD2HSVj736vKPbuU_LiF8vyXNNdJ84Tq06j3qbHcVC7pkm1wwSVyeJQmrussel1 said:
Oh right, you're a real communist. Okay, so the wealth goes to the statist government and then is redistributed to the robots who did all the work. Got it. I love a great 18th century agrarian economic philosophy at work in the modern age.ecdanc said:
Who said anything about wages?mrussel1 said:
What's the proper wage rate for a robot?ecdanc said:All wealth belongs properly to labor. The accumulation of capital relies fundamentally upon exploitation (Buffett is actually a great example: his “honest” fortune derives almost entirely from “investment”).
What is the customer service manager at Bank of America, who gets paid 75k a year, and stock grants that vest over three year schedules? Are they proletariat or bourgeois? Are the white collar workers on the phone that get paid less, but are promoted to supervisors or managers at a 15% per year rate really proletariat?
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.0 -
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.mrussel1 said:
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?ecdanc said:
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.mrussel1 said:
Yes, but your idea relies on the notion that the proletariat will rise up around the world, successfully overturn its governments, and then form a worldwide economic system controlled by... no one? It's fanciful, at best. And the world moves further from Marx's vision every single day. It was simple when Marx wrote his book. You had workers and capital. Now, those lines are blurred.ecdanc said:
Well, if you're only going to talk about nations, it's gonna be a bit difficult to have an exchange with a non-statist communist.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but there hasn't been an example of communism (I'm not talking about communes, I'm talking about nations) where the country has not become statist. It is fundamentally Marxism in practice.ecdanc said:
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this response, but you said "the wealth goes to the statist government." I'm not a statist communist.mrussel1 said:
I don't struggle at all. You don't recall me writing about Leninism, Stalinism, or talking about how pieces of communism, as articulated by Marx are already in place in our society? You must not be an attentive reader. Go back a few pages. I've also pointed out multiple times that we aren't capitalist, that we are mixed. And some of that mix are Marxist ideas.ecdanc said:
You really struggle with the fact that there are different variants of communism. Here's a fun quiz for you that might help: https://www.gotoquiz.com/which_type_of_socialist_are_you?fbclid=IwAR2YbD2HSVj736vKPbuU_LiF8vyXNNdJ84Tq06j3qbHcVC7pkm1wwSVyeJQmrussel1 said:
Oh right, you're a real communist. Okay, so the wealth goes to the statist government and then is redistributed to the robots who did all the work. Got it. I love a great 18th century agrarian economic philosophy at work in the modern age.ecdanc said:
Who said anything about wages?mrussel1 said:
What's the proper wage rate for a robot?ecdanc said:All wealth belongs properly to labor. The accumulation of capital relies fundamentally upon exploitation (Buffett is actually a great example: his “honest” fortune derives almost entirely from “investment”).
What is the customer service manager at Bank of America, who gets paid 75k a year, and stock grants that vest over three year schedules? Are they proletariat or bourgeois? Are the white collar workers on the phone that get paid less, but are promoted to supervisors or managers at a 15% per year rate really proletariat?
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.0 -
C'mon, you know what people do for a living in this country. People who labor? Do people on the phones in customer service labor? Bank tellers? Shift supervisors on the Amazon waterhouse floor?ecdanc said:
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.mrussel1 said:
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?ecdanc said:
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.mrussel1 said:
Yes, but your idea relies on the notion that the proletariat will rise up around the world, successfully overturn its governments, and then form a worldwide economic system controlled by... no one? It's fanciful, at best. And the world moves further from Marx's vision every single day. It was simple when Marx wrote his book. You had workers and capital. Now, those lines are blurred.ecdanc said:
Well, if you're only going to talk about nations, it's gonna be a bit difficult to have an exchange with a non-statist communist.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but there hasn't been an example of communism (I'm not talking about communes, I'm talking about nations) where the country has not become statist. It is fundamentally Marxism in practice.ecdanc said:
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this response, but you said "the wealth goes to the statist government." I'm not a statist communist.mrussel1 said:
I don't struggle at all. You don't recall me writing about Leninism, Stalinism, or talking about how pieces of communism, as articulated by Marx are already in place in our society? You must not be an attentive reader. Go back a few pages. I've also pointed out multiple times that we aren't capitalist, that we are mixed. And some of that mix are Marxist ideas.ecdanc said:
You really struggle with the fact that there are different variants of communism. Here's a fun quiz for you that might help: https://www.gotoquiz.com/which_type_of_socialist_are_you?fbclid=IwAR2YbD2HSVj736vKPbuU_LiF8vyXNNdJ84Tq06j3qbHcVC7pkm1wwSVyeJQmrussel1 said:
Oh right, you're a real communist. Okay, so the wealth goes to the statist government and then is redistributed to the robots who did all the work. Got it. I love a great 18th century agrarian economic philosophy at work in the modern age.ecdanc said:
Who said anything about wages?mrussel1 said:
What's the proper wage rate for a robot?ecdanc said:All wealth belongs properly to labor. The accumulation of capital relies fundamentally upon exploitation (Buffett is actually a great example: his “honest” fortune derives almost entirely from “investment”).
What is the customer service manager at Bank of America, who gets paid 75k a year, and stock grants that vest over three year schedules? Are they proletariat or bourgeois? Are the white collar workers on the phone that get paid less, but are promoted to supervisors or managers at a 15% per year rate really proletariat?
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.0 -
Yes.mrussel1 said:
C'mon, you know what people do for a living in this country. People who labor? Do people on the phones in customer service labor? Bank tellers? Shift supervisors on the Amazon waterhouse floor?ecdanc said:
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.mrussel1 said:
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?ecdanc said:
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.mrussel1 said:
Yes, but your idea relies on the notion that the proletariat will rise up around the world, successfully overturn its governments, and then form a worldwide economic system controlled by... no one? It's fanciful, at best. And the world moves further from Marx's vision every single day. It was simple when Marx wrote his book. You had workers and capital. Now, those lines are blurred.ecdanc said:
Well, if you're only going to talk about nations, it's gonna be a bit difficult to have an exchange with a non-statist communist.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but there hasn't been an example of communism (I'm not talking about communes, I'm talking about nations) where the country has not become statist. It is fundamentally Marxism in practice.ecdanc said:
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this response, but you said "the wealth goes to the statist government." I'm not a statist communist.mrussel1 said:
I don't struggle at all. You don't recall me writing about Leninism, Stalinism, or talking about how pieces of communism, as articulated by Marx are already in place in our society? You must not be an attentive reader. Go back a few pages. I've also pointed out multiple times that we aren't capitalist, that we are mixed. And some of that mix are Marxist ideas.ecdanc said:
You really struggle with the fact that there are different variants of communism. Here's a fun quiz for you that might help: https://www.gotoquiz.com/which_type_of_socialist_are_you?fbclid=IwAR2YbD2HSVj736vKPbuU_LiF8vyXNNdJ84Tq06j3qbHcVC7pkm1wwSVyeJQmrussel1 said:
Oh right, you're a real communist. Okay, so the wealth goes to the statist government and then is redistributed to the robots who did all the work. Got it. I love a great 18th century agrarian economic philosophy at work in the modern age.ecdanc said:
Who said anything about wages?mrussel1 said:
What's the proper wage rate for a robot?ecdanc said:All wealth belongs properly to labor. The accumulation of capital relies fundamentally upon exploitation (Buffett is actually a great example: his “honest” fortune derives almost entirely from “investment”).
What is the customer service manager at Bank of America, who gets paid 75k a year, and stock grants that vest over three year schedules? Are they proletariat or bourgeois? Are the white collar workers on the phone that get paid less, but are promoted to supervisors or managers at a 15% per year rate really proletariat?
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.0 -
So white collar upwardly mobile jobs are labor. Good luck convincing them on your revolution. I won't plan on liquidating my assets into cash to hide anytime soon. So we'll leave it there and let the thread get back to reality based discussions, like the Dem candidates.ecdanc said:
Yes.mrussel1 said:
C'mon, you know what people do for a living in this country. People who labor? Do people on the phones in customer service labor? Bank tellers? Shift supervisors on the Amazon waterhouse floor?ecdanc said:
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.mrussel1 said:
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?ecdanc said:
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.mrussel1 said:
Yes, but your idea relies on the notion that the proletariat will rise up around the world, successfully overturn its governments, and then form a worldwide economic system controlled by... no one? It's fanciful, at best. And the world moves further from Marx's vision every single day. It was simple when Marx wrote his book. You had workers and capital. Now, those lines are blurred.ecdanc said:
Well, if you're only going to talk about nations, it's gonna be a bit difficult to have an exchange with a non-statist communist.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but there hasn't been an example of communism (I'm not talking about communes, I'm talking about nations) where the country has not become statist. It is fundamentally Marxism in practice.ecdanc said:
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this response, but you said "the wealth goes to the statist government." I'm not a statist communist.mrussel1 said:
I don't struggle at all. You don't recall me writing about Leninism, Stalinism, or talking about how pieces of communism, as articulated by Marx are already in place in our society? You must not be an attentive reader. Go back a few pages. I've also pointed out multiple times that we aren't capitalist, that we are mixed. And some of that mix are Marxist ideas.ecdanc said:
You really struggle with the fact that there are different variants of communism. Here's a fun quiz for you that might help: https://www.gotoquiz.com/which_type_of_socialist_are_you?fbclid=IwAR2YbD2HSVj736vKPbuU_LiF8vyXNNdJ84Tq06j3qbHcVC7pkm1wwSVyeJQmrussel1 said:
Oh right, you're a real communist. Okay, so the wealth goes to the statist government and then is redistributed to the robots who did all the work. Got it. I love a great 18th century agrarian economic philosophy at work in the modern age.ecdanc said:
Who said anything about wages?mrussel1 said:
What's the proper wage rate for a robot?ecdanc said:All wealth belongs properly to labor. The accumulation of capital relies fundamentally upon exploitation (Buffett is actually a great example: his “honest” fortune derives almost entirely from “investment”).
What is the customer service manager at Bank of America, who gets paid 75k a year, and stock grants that vest over three year schedules? Are they proletariat or bourgeois? Are the white collar workers on the phone that get paid less, but are promoted to supervisors or managers at a 15% per year rate really proletariat?
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.
0 -
You should post them on Ebay just to be safe.mrussel1 said:
So white collar upwardly mobile jobs are labor. Good luck convincing them on your revolution. I won't plan on liquidating my assets into cash to hide anytime soon. So we'll leave it there and let the thread get back to reality based discussions, like the Dem candidates.ecdanc said:
Yes.mrussel1 said:
C'mon, you know what people do for a living in this country. People who labor? Do people on the phones in customer service labor? Bank tellers? Shift supervisors on the Amazon waterhouse floor?ecdanc said:
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.mrussel1 said:
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?ecdanc said:
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.mrussel1 said:
Yes, but your idea relies on the notion that the proletariat will rise up around the world, successfully overturn its governments, and then form a worldwide economic system controlled by... no one? It's fanciful, at best. And the world moves further from Marx's vision every single day. It was simple when Marx wrote his book. You had workers and capital. Now, those lines are blurred.ecdanc said:
Well, if you're only going to talk about nations, it's gonna be a bit difficult to have an exchange with a non-statist communist.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but there hasn't been an example of communism (I'm not talking about communes, I'm talking about nations) where the country has not become statist. It is fundamentally Marxism in practice.ecdanc said:
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this response, but you said "the wealth goes to the statist government." I'm not a statist communist.mrussel1 said:
I don't struggle at all. You don't recall me writing about Leninism, Stalinism, or talking about how pieces of communism, as articulated by Marx are already in place in our society? You must not be an attentive reader. Go back a few pages. I've also pointed out multiple times that we aren't capitalist, that we are mixed. And some of that mix are Marxist ideas.ecdanc said:
You really struggle with the fact that there are different variants of communism. Here's a fun quiz for you that might help: https://www.gotoquiz.com/which_type_of_socialist_are_you?fbclid=IwAR2YbD2HSVj736vKPbuU_LiF8vyXNNdJ84Tq06j3qbHcVC7pkm1wwSVyeJQmrussel1 said:
Oh right, you're a real communist. Okay, so the wealth goes to the statist government and then is redistributed to the robots who did all the work. Got it. I love a great 18th century agrarian economic philosophy at work in the modern age.ecdanc said:
Who said anything about wages?mrussel1 said:
What's the proper wage rate for a robot?ecdanc said:All wealth belongs properly to labor. The accumulation of capital relies fundamentally upon exploitation (Buffett is actually a great example: his “honest” fortune derives almost entirely from “investment”).
What is the customer service manager at Bank of America, who gets paid 75k a year, and stock grants that vest over three year schedules? Are they proletariat or bourgeois? Are the white collar workers on the phone that get paid less, but are promoted to supervisors or managers at a 15% per year rate really proletariat?
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.0 -
Vinyl isn't the extent of my assets.ecdanc said:
You should post them on Ebay just to be safe.mrussel1 said:
So white collar upwardly mobile jobs are labor. Good luck convincing them on your revolution. I won't plan on liquidating my assets into cash to hide anytime soon. So we'll leave it there and let the thread get back to reality based discussions, like the Dem candidates.ecdanc said:
Yes.mrussel1 said:
C'mon, you know what people do for a living in this country. People who labor? Do people on the phones in customer service labor? Bank tellers? Shift supervisors on the Amazon waterhouse floor?ecdanc said:
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.mrussel1 said:
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?ecdanc said:
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.mrussel1 said:
Yes, but your idea relies on the notion that the proletariat will rise up around the world, successfully overturn its governments, and then form a worldwide economic system controlled by... no one? It's fanciful, at best. And the world moves further from Marx's vision every single day. It was simple when Marx wrote his book. You had workers and capital. Now, those lines are blurred.ecdanc said:
Well, if you're only going to talk about nations, it's gonna be a bit difficult to have an exchange with a non-statist communist.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but there hasn't been an example of communism (I'm not talking about communes, I'm talking about nations) where the country has not become statist. It is fundamentally Marxism in practice.ecdanc said:
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this response, but you said "the wealth goes to the statist government." I'm not a statist communist.mrussel1 said:
I don't struggle at all. You don't recall me writing about Leninism, Stalinism, or talking about how pieces of communism, as articulated by Marx are already in place in our society? You must not be an attentive reader. Go back a few pages. I've also pointed out multiple times that we aren't capitalist, that we are mixed. And some of that mix are Marxist ideas.ecdanc said:
You really struggle with the fact that there are different variants of communism. Here's a fun quiz for you that might help: https://www.gotoquiz.com/which_type_of_socialist_are_you?fbclid=IwAR2YbD2HSVj736vKPbuU_LiF8vyXNNdJ84Tq06j3qbHcVC7pkm1wwSVyeJQmrussel1 said:
Oh right, you're a real communist. Okay, so the wealth goes to the statist government and then is redistributed to the robots who did all the work. Got it. I love a great 18th century agrarian economic philosophy at work in the modern age.ecdanc said:
Who said anything about wages?mrussel1 said:
What's the proper wage rate for a robot?ecdanc said:All wealth belongs properly to labor. The accumulation of capital relies fundamentally upon exploitation (Buffett is actually a great example: his “honest” fortune derives almost entirely from “investment”).
What is the customer service manager at Bank of America, who gets paid 75k a year, and stock grants that vest over three year schedules? Are they proletariat or bourgeois? Are the white collar workers on the phone that get paid less, but are promoted to supervisors or managers at a 15% per year rate really proletariat?
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.0 -
Also Beanie Babies and the world’s largest collection of autographed Alan Greenspan memorabilia?mrussel1 said:
Vinyl isn't the extent of my assets.ecdanc said:
You should post them on Ebay just to be safe.mrussel1 said:
So white collar upwardly mobile jobs are labor. Good luck convincing them on your revolution. I won't plan on liquidating my assets into cash to hide anytime soon. So we'll leave it there and let the thread get back to reality based discussions, like the Dem candidates.ecdanc said:
Yes.mrussel1 said:
C'mon, you know what people do for a living in this country. People who labor? Do people on the phones in customer service labor? Bank tellers? Shift supervisors on the Amazon waterhouse floor?ecdanc said:
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.mrussel1 said:
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?ecdanc said:
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.mrussel1 said:
Yes, but your idea relies on the notion that the proletariat will rise up around the world, successfully overturn its governments, and then form a worldwide economic system controlled by... no one? It's fanciful, at best. And the world moves further from Marx's vision every single day. It was simple when Marx wrote his book. You had workers and capital. Now, those lines are blurred.ecdanc said:
Well, if you're only going to talk about nations, it's gonna be a bit difficult to have an exchange with a non-statist communist.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but there hasn't been an example of communism (I'm not talking about communes, I'm talking about nations) where the country has not become statist. It is fundamentally Marxism in practice.ecdanc said:
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this response, but you said "the wealth goes to the statist government." I'm not a statist communist.mrussel1 said:
I don't struggle at all. You don't recall me writing about Leninism, Stalinism, or talking about how pieces of communism, as articulated by Marx are already in place in our society? You must not be an attentive reader. Go back a few pages. I've also pointed out multiple times that we aren't capitalist, that we are mixed. And some of that mix are Marxist ideas.ecdanc said:
You really struggle with the fact that there are different variants of communism. Here's a fun quiz for you that might help: https://www.gotoquiz.com/which_type_of_socialist_are_you?fbclid=IwAR2YbD2HSVj736vKPbuU_LiF8vyXNNdJ84Tq06j3qbHcVC7pkm1wwSVyeJQmrussel1 said:
Oh right, you're a real communist. Okay, so the wealth goes to the statist government and then is redistributed to the robots who did all the work. Got it. I love a great 18th century agrarian economic philosophy at work in the modern age.ecdanc said:
Who said anything about wages?mrussel1 said:
What's the proper wage rate for a robot?ecdanc said:All wealth belongs properly to labor. The accumulation of capital relies fundamentally upon exploitation (Buffett is actually a great example: his “honest” fortune derives almost entirely from “investment”).
What is the customer service manager at Bank of America, who gets paid 75k a year, and stock grants that vest over three year schedules? Are they proletariat or bourgeois? Are the white collar workers on the phone that get paid less, but are promoted to supervisors or managers at a 15% per year rate really proletariat?
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.0 -
mrussel1 said:
So white collar upwardly mobile jobs are labor. Good luck convincing them on your revolution. I won't plan on liquidating my assets into cash to hide anytime soon. So we'll leave it there and let the thread get back to reality based discussions, like the Dem candidates.ecdanc said:
Yes.mrussel1 said:
C'mon, you know what people do for a living in this country. People who labor? Do people on the phones in customer service labor? Bank tellers? Shift supervisors on the Amazon waterhouse floor?ecdanc said:
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.mrussel1 said:
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?ecdanc said:
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.mrussel1 said:
Yes, but your idea relies on the notion that the proletariat will rise up around the world, successfully overturn its governments, and then form a worldwide economic system controlled by... no one? It's fanciful, at best. And the world moves further from Marx's vision every single day. It was simple when Marx wrote his book. You had workers and capital. Now, those lines are blurred.ecdanc said:
Well, if you're only going to talk about nations, it's gonna be a bit difficult to have an exchange with a non-statist communist.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but there hasn't been an example of communism (I'm not talking about communes, I'm talking about nations) where the country has not become statist. It is fundamentally Marxism in practice.ecdanc said:
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this response, but you said "the wealth goes to the statist government." I'm not a statist communist.mrussel1 said:
I don't struggle at all. You don't recall me writing about Leninism, Stalinism, or talking about how pieces of communism, as articulated by Marx are already in place in our society? You must not be an attentive reader. Go back a few pages. I've also pointed out multiple times that we aren't capitalist, that we are mixed. And some of that mix are Marxist ideas.ecdanc said:
You really struggle with the fact that there are different variants of communism. Here's a fun quiz for you that might help: https://www.gotoquiz.com/which_type_of_socialist_are_you?fbclid=IwAR2YbD2HSVj736vKPbuU_LiF8vyXNNdJ84Tq06j3qbHcVC7pkm1wwSVyeJQmrussel1 said:
Oh right, you're a real communist. Okay, so the wealth goes to the statist government and then is redistributed to the robots who did all the work. Got it. I love a great 18th century agrarian economic philosophy at work in the modern age.ecdanc said:
Who said anything about wages?mrussel1 said:
What's the proper wage rate for a robot?ecdanc said:All wealth belongs properly to labor. The accumulation of capital relies fundamentally upon exploitation (Buffett is actually a great example: his “honest” fortune derives almost entirely from “investment”).
What is the customer service manager at Bank of America, who gets paid 75k a year, and stock grants that vest over three year schedules? Are they proletariat or bourgeois? Are the white collar workers on the phone that get paid less, but are promoted to supervisors or managers at a 15% per year rate really proletariat?
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.Is Bloomberg foolish for running ads based on climate change? Will that be his super bowl ad?
whose vote is he winning with that topic?0 -
He has money to burn so no... but I think a health care ad would be better. Did you hear that was the target of his SB ad?Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
So white collar upwardly mobile jobs are labor. Good luck convincing them on your revolution. I won't plan on liquidating my assets into cash to hide anytime soon. So we'll leave it there and let the thread get back to reality based discussions, like the Dem candidates.ecdanc said:
Yes.mrussel1 said:
C'mon, you know what people do for a living in this country. People who labor? Do people on the phones in customer service labor? Bank tellers? Shift supervisors on the Amazon waterhouse floor?ecdanc said:
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.mrussel1 said:
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?ecdanc said:
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.mrussel1 said:
Yes, but your idea relies on the notion that the proletariat will rise up around the world, successfully overturn its governments, and then form a worldwide economic system controlled by... no one? It's fanciful, at best. And the world moves further from Marx's vision every single day. It was simple when Marx wrote his book. You had workers and capital. Now, those lines are blurred.ecdanc said:
Well, if you're only going to talk about nations, it's gonna be a bit difficult to have an exchange with a non-statist communist.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but there hasn't been an example of communism (I'm not talking about communes, I'm talking about nations) where the country has not become statist. It is fundamentally Marxism in practice.ecdanc said:
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this response, but you said "the wealth goes to the statist government." I'm not a statist communist.mrussel1 said:
I don't struggle at all. You don't recall me writing about Leninism, Stalinism, or talking about how pieces of communism, as articulated by Marx are already in place in our society? You must not be an attentive reader. Go back a few pages. I've also pointed out multiple times that we aren't capitalist, that we are mixed. And some of that mix are Marxist ideas.ecdanc said:
You really struggle with the fact that there are different variants of communism. Here's a fun quiz for you that might help: https://www.gotoquiz.com/which_type_of_socialist_are_you?fbclid=IwAR2YbD2HSVj736vKPbuU_LiF8vyXNNdJ84Tq06j3qbHcVC7pkm1wwSVyeJQmrussel1 said:
Oh right, you're a real communist. Okay, so the wealth goes to the statist government and then is redistributed to the robots who did all the work. Got it. I love a great 18th century agrarian economic philosophy at work in the modern age.ecdanc said:
Who said anything about wages?mrussel1 said:
What's the proper wage rate for a robot?ecdanc said:All wealth belongs properly to labor. The accumulation of capital relies fundamentally upon exploitation (Buffett is actually a great example: his “honest” fortune derives almost entirely from “investment”).
What is the customer service manager at Bank of America, who gets paid 75k a year, and stock grants that vest over three year schedules? Are they proletariat or bourgeois? Are the white collar workers on the phone that get paid less, but are promoted to supervisors or managers at a 15% per year rate really proletariat?
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.Is Bloomberg foolish for running ads based on climate change? Will that be his super bowl ad?
whose vote is he winning with that topic?0 -
I thought his SB ad is supposed to be about gun controlmrussel1 said:
He has money to burn so no... but I think a health care ad would be better. Did you hear that was the target of his SB ad?Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
So white collar upwardly mobile jobs are labor. Good luck convincing them on your revolution. I won't plan on liquidating my assets into cash to hide anytime soon. So we'll leave it there and let the thread get back to reality based discussions, like the Dem candidates.ecdanc said:
Yes.mrussel1 said:
C'mon, you know what people do for a living in this country. People who labor? Do people on the phones in customer service labor? Bank tellers? Shift supervisors on the Amazon waterhouse floor?ecdanc said:
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.mrussel1 said:
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?ecdanc said:
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.mrussel1 said:
Yes, but your idea relies on the notion that the proletariat will rise up around the world, successfully overturn its governments, and then form a worldwide economic system controlled by... no one? It's fanciful, at best. And the world moves further from Marx's vision every single day. It was simple when Marx wrote his book. You had workers and capital. Now, those lines are blurred.ecdanc said:
Well, if you're only going to talk about nations, it's gonna be a bit difficult to have an exchange with a non-statist communist.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but there hasn't been an example of communism (I'm not talking about communes, I'm talking about nations) where the country has not become statist. It is fundamentally Marxism in practice.ecdanc said:
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this response, but you said "the wealth goes to the statist government." I'm not a statist communist.mrussel1 said:
I don't struggle at all. You don't recall me writing about Leninism, Stalinism, or talking about how pieces of communism, as articulated by Marx are already in place in our society? You must not be an attentive reader. Go back a few pages. I've also pointed out multiple times that we aren't capitalist, that we are mixed. And some of that mix are Marxist ideas.ecdanc said:
You really struggle with the fact that there are different variants of communism. Here's a fun quiz for you that might help: https://www.gotoquiz.com/which_type_of_socialist_are_you?fbclid=IwAR2YbD2HSVj736vKPbuU_LiF8vyXNNdJ84Tq06j3qbHcVC7pkm1wwSVyeJQmrussel1 said:
Oh right, you're a real communist. Okay, so the wealth goes to the statist government and then is redistributed to the robots who did all the work. Got it. I love a great 18th century agrarian economic philosophy at work in the modern age.ecdanc said:
Who said anything about wages?mrussel1 said:
What's the proper wage rate for a robot?ecdanc said:All wealth belongs properly to labor. The accumulation of capital relies fundamentally upon exploitation (Buffett is actually a great example: his “honest” fortune derives almost entirely from “investment”).
What is the customer service manager at Bank of America, who gets paid 75k a year, and stock grants that vest over three year schedules? Are they proletariat or bourgeois? Are the white collar workers on the phone that get paid less, but are promoted to supervisors or managers at a 15% per year rate really proletariat?
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.Is Bloomberg foolish for running ads based on climate change? Will that be his super bowl ad?
whose vote is he winning with that topic?0 -
It seems weird for a professor to minimize intellectual property/effort. Isn’t that what teaching is? I for one think that has value.mrussel1 said:
You put zero value in the idea and the work that went into starting the factory. If one received zero for such things, what's the point of having an idea, and how do humans advance? Again, you can look at Soviet era technological advancements compared to the US. We don't need theories when we have results.ecdanc said:hippiemom = goodness0 -
1) Have to see an ergonomic study on the work, but if as described it is awful.ecdanc said:
You think Amazon warehouse workers have a decent salary and benefits? Not sure they agree with you. https://jacobinmag.com/2019/07/amazon-strike-prime-day-shakopee-fulfillment-centerpjl44 said:
No, they're paid a wage for their work. One of my first jobs was with a large multinational company. The CEO made piles of money and I had a decent salary and benefits. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.ecdanc said:
2) this quote caught me off guard “ (In case you’re wondering, yes, it is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act to surveil workers engaged in protected, concerted activity, or to punish them for acting in concert in defense of their rights.”
this was in reference to employee walking out on their shifts. Personally I think it’s a crazy comment as anyone who left early or showed up late for any job would be held accountable for it. So not sure what the hell they are talking about.
hippiemom = goodness0 -
That would be weird. Let me know if you see a professor doing that.cincybearcat said:
It seems weird for a professor to minimize intellectual property/effort. Isn’t that what teaching is? I for one think that has value.mrussel1 said:
You put zero value in the idea and the work that went into starting the factory. If one received zero for such things, what's the point of having an idea, and how do humans advance? Again, you can look at Soviet era technological advancements compared to the US. We don't need theories when we have results.ecdanc said:0 -
What part confused you? The NLRA protects work actions (amongst other things, obviously); the article describes one way in which they are protected.cincybearcat said:
1) Have to see an ergonomic study on the work, but if as described it is awful.ecdanc said:
You think Amazon warehouse workers have a decent salary and benefits? Not sure they agree with you. https://jacobinmag.com/2019/07/amazon-strike-prime-day-shakopee-fulfillment-centerpjl44 said:
No, they're paid a wage for their work. One of my first jobs was with a large multinational company. The CEO made piles of money and I had a decent salary and benefits. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.ecdanc said:
2) this quote caught me off guard “ (In case you’re wondering, yes, it is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act to surveil workers engaged in protected, concerted activity, or to punish them for acting in concert in defense of their rights.”
this was in reference to employee walking out on their shifts. Personally I think it’s a crazy comment as anyone who left early or showed up late for any job would be held accountable for it. So not sure what the hell they are talking about.0 -
ecdanc said:
They don't need to do that- they get plenty fucked already by low wages and poor working conditions. And they and most of us pay all the taxes while Bezos pays none and buys his islands!
Post edited by brianlux on"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help