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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
I can get just about anything delivered to my door, sometimes within a couple hours. And I can stream a couple movies while I wait. Bezos can buy an island for all I care.
And his warehouse workers can go fuck themselves, eh?
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.
I put the ultimate value on the work that went into starting the factory. Capital =/= work.
I can get just about anything delivered to my door, sometimes within a couple hours. And I can stream a couple movies while I wait. Bezos can buy an island for all I care.
And his warehouse workers can go fuck themselves, eh?
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.
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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
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.
I can get just about anything delivered to my door, sometimes within a couple hours. And I can stream a couple movies while I wait. Bezos can buy an island for all I care.
And his warehouse workers can go fuck themselves, eh?
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.
I put the ultimate value on the work that went into starting the factory. Capital =/= work.
"starting the factory"? What does that mean? The highest value is to the person laying the first brick? Is that the guy in the crane? Or is that the brick delivery guy, who had the unique skill set of being CDC licensed and able to put the truck in "D". Your theory seems quite random.
I can get just about anything delivered to my door, sometimes within a couple hours. And I can stream a couple movies while I wait. Bezos can buy an island for all I care.
And his warehouse workers can go fuck themselves, eh?
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.
I skimmed the article and didn't see anything about their average salary and benefits. Did I miss it? It's their right to negotiate or even strike for a better deal, but I have no idea whether they're being reasonable or unreasonable without that information.
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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
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.
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.
I can get just about anything delivered to my door, sometimes within a couple hours. And I can stream a couple movies while I wait. Bezos can buy an island for all I care.
And his warehouse workers can go fuck themselves, eh?
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.
I put the ultimate value on the work that went into starting the factory. Capital =/= work.
"starting the factory"? What does that mean? The highest value is to the person laying the first brick? Is that the guy in the crane? Or is that the brick delivery guy, who had the unique skill set of being CDC licensed and able to put the truck in "D". Your theory seems quite random.
You're the one who said "starting the factory." Capital =/= work is not random.
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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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?
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.
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.
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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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?
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.
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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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?
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?
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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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?
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.
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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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?
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.
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?
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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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?
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.
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?
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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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?
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.
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?
Yes.
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.
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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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?
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.
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?
Yes.
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.
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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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?
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.
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?
Yes.
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.
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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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?
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.
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?
Yes.
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.
You should post them on Ebay just to be safe.
Vinyl isn't the extent of my assets.
Also Beanie Babies and the world’s largest collection of autographed Alan Greenspan memorabilia?
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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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?
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.
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?
Yes.
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.
Is Bloomberg foolish for running ads based on climate change? Will that be his super bowl ad?
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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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?
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.
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?
Yes.
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.
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?
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?
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's the proper wage rate for a robot?
Who said anything about wages?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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?
"Fanciful" is the honest billionaire.
Yes, it's complicated. Lots of difficult things are worth doing.
Fine, then define the proletariat in America today. Who are they?
I did just say "it's complicated," but roughly it would be those who must labor.
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?
Yes.
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.
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?
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?
I thought his SB ad is supposed to be about gun control
I can get just about anything delivered to my door, sometimes within a couple hours. And I can stream a couple movies while I wait. Bezos can buy an island for all I care.
And his warehouse workers can go fuck themselves, eh?
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.
It seems weird for a professor to minimize intellectual property/effort. Isn’t that what teaching is? I for one think that has value.
I can get just about anything delivered to my door, sometimes within a couple hours. And I can stream a couple movies while I wait. Bezos can buy an island for all I care.
And his warehouse workers can go fuck themselves, eh?
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.
1) Have to see an ergonomic study on the work, but if as described it is awful.
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.
I can get just about anything delivered to my door, sometimes within a couple hours. And I can stream a couple movies while I wait. Bezos can buy an island for all I care.
And his warehouse workers can go fuck themselves, eh?
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.
It seems weird for a professor to minimize intellectual property/effort. Isn’t that what teaching is? I for one think that has value.
That would be weird. Let me know if you see a professor doing that.
I can get just about anything delivered to my door, sometimes within a couple hours. And I can stream a couple movies while I wait. Bezos can buy an island for all I care.
And his warehouse workers can go fuck themselves, eh?
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.
1) Have to see an ergonomic study on the work, but if as described it is awful.
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.
What part confused you? The NLRA protects work actions (amongst other things, obviously); the article describes one way in which they are protected.
I can get just about anything delivered to my door, sometimes within a couple hours. And I can stream a couple movies while I wait. Bezos can buy an island for all I care.
And his warehouse workers can go fuck themselves, eh?
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
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
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.
whose vote is he winning with that topic?
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.
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!