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

/tech/ - Technology

"Technology reveals the active relation of man to nature"
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1722381700519.jpeg ( 381.86 KB , 828x803 , 1713970069771.jpeg )

 No.13115

Back when they were making 200-300k a year if you mentioned unionizing they would laugh and scoff and snub all the proles. They saw anyone making a normal prole wage as subhuman.

Now that porky decides theyve forgotten their place and lays them off, they have no savings left, and no jobs like every other prole they come crawling back and start talking about unionizing.

Tech workers are class traitors, barely different from cops. Its a great time to see them get crushed and experience the poverty they thought they were so immune to. Their demographic is literally typical smug atheist centrist libs, let them burn

This. Find an apolitical woman from a conservative family that way you make sure her core values are in the right place. Ideally working class. Then you introduce her to communism as an strictly political ideology keep her away from libshittery at all costs. You'd be surprised how much she will relate to it.
>>

 No.13116

>>13115
I'm a unionized tech worker. I even leak internal documents n shit.
>>

 No.13117

>>13116
>I even leak internal documents n shit.
kek.
>>

 No.13119

>>13115
Op, we can't afford sentimentality, we're not going to say "No" to class struggle and unionizing just because some people are hypocrites.
>>

 No.13120

>>13119
The whole basis of marxism is smouldering envy for anybody more successful than you.
>>

 No.13121

>>13120
>envy
So slaves were just envious of their masters, they should have just been grateful for the opportunity, is that what you're saying?
>>

 No.13122

>>13120
Marxism has a systemic critique of capitalism, one that nobody has managed to refute. Mainstream economics has degenerated into a sort of chorus of pseudo intellectuals that just make up shit to justify what a given ruling class wants to do. And the only serious economists are Marxists or schools of economic thoughts very similar to it.

Capitalism creates artificially large wealth inequalities and that makes the system very inefficient. Because ruling classes divert resources towards entrenching their status, towards conquest and towards increasing their share of the economic pie rather than growing it.

But hey lets not get side tracked by hard facts, when we can go for emotional appeals.
>>

 No.13124

>when they were making 200-300k a year
>they didn't want to be affiliated with anti-bourg action not to lose the wagemine too early
>now that bourgs decided they're not so profitable anymore and lays them off
>they start turning towards defending their wage position
Anything new, uyghur?

>Find an apolitical woman from a conservative family

Apolitical === compliant with the present state of things. One who already has everything they think they want has no reason to "turn" political (= against the present state of things). Go on, fag, lets see how fast you'r gonna get ratted out by turning to centrists lmaokek.
>>

 No.13125

File: 1722532628739.jpg ( 29.73 KB , 460x383 , zzz2.jpg )

>>13121
>So slaves were just envious of their masters,
Slaves want to be free. You are not a slave. You can book a plane ticket to Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea right now if you wanted to. You don't because you know that would be a major step down in standard of living.

>>13122
>Marxism has a systemic critique of capitalism, one that nobody has managed to refute.
Try reading a different book. Don't project your own ignorance onto everybody else.
https://libgen.is/search.php?req=Marxism+Philosophy+and+Economics+&open=0&res=25&view=simple&phrase=1&column=def

>Mainstream economics has degenerated into a sort of chorus of pseudo intellectuals that just make up shit to justify what a given ruling class wants to do.

That doesn't mean marxism is the answer. Reverse stupidity is not intelligence. The fact that you can go into any high street book store and find marxist books on the shelves or the fact that you have thriving communities on reddit while other political subs have been nuked from orbit should tell you that you're not the resistance you think you are.

>Capitalism creates artificially large wealth inequalities and that makes the system very inefficient.

That's a dumb argument. A capitalist who uses resources efficiently makes a profit which they can reinvest into more resources. A capitalist who wastes resources loses money and will have less capital to waste resources in the future. The "inequality" of capitalism is a feature not a bug, it ensures that resources are handled by people who use them efficiently (as judged by the market) and people who waste resources are eventually removed from the market thus limiting the waste.

In reality the government intervenes to bail out their favorite companies and shareholders instead of letting them fail but that's not free market capitalism. When the government does stuff that's socialism.

>Because ruling classes divert resources towards entrenching their status, towards conquest and towards increasing their share of the economic pie rather than growing it

It's not the 1800s anymore. The much bigger problem now is that money has no basis in reality anymore. The 1% are the 1% because they print dollars out of thin air and give it to themselves. That's what is driving the insane wealth gap since 1971. But just like how the bible has no opinion on quantum physics das kaptial has no opinion on fiat money.

>>13124
>Apolitical === compliant with the present state of things. One who already has everything they think they want has no reason to "turn" political (= against the present state of things).
That's not true. The compliant people do "rebel" but only against things that are safe to rebel against. They will "protest" for BLM or against Trump because the corporate media told them that's what good citizens do but they would never protest for real issues like lockdowns or mass immigration. If you don't have a single opinion that would get you banned from reddit then you are more of a compliant NPC than you think you are.
>>

 No.13126

>>13125
>That doesn't mean marxism is the answer.
I don't see anything else in terms of economic theory when you don't want to simply read ideological econ stories.

>A capitalist who uses resources efficiently makes a profit which they can reinvest into more resources.

That's a nice ideological story, but the capitalists who make the most profits don't produce anything. The highest returns are on wallstreet, the second highest go to arms dealers, weapons aren't part of the productive economy.
>The "inequality" of capitalism is a feature not a bug
<It's a feature not a bug
used to be a satirical comment to mock attempts at polishing a turd, using it unironically only show how deep you fell into ideology.

>inequality

>ensures that
>people who waste resources are eventually removed from the market
In the real world inequality enabled the people at the top of the pyramid to bribe politicians, to remove them selves from market discipline and implement to big to fail bail outs.
Markets aren't particularly efficient at allocating resources to begin with, markets can only do adequate. The cause for this is rather simple.
Many of the most efficient solutions are very hard to commodify. For example the most efficient land transportation is trains, but it's very hard to turn train-tracks into a commodity. The currently most efficient energy source is nuclear power and that has also proven difficult to turn in to a commodity. The most efficient medical healthcare will likely be genetic cures where single retroviral injections fix a huge number of health issues for much cheaper. But the pharma industry will not go for it because they want to sell a treatment commodity that only manages a health problem, over and over, instead of one time cures that fixes shit in perpetuity.

>The much bigger problem now is that money has no basis in reality anymore. The 1% are the 1% because they print dollars out of thin air and give it to themselves. That's what is driving the insane wealth gap since 1971.

Inequality cannot be reduced to a monetary phenomenon that began in 1971. The victorian era of capitalism also had high inequality and they did use precious metal backed currency. I agree with you that going off the gold standard has made things worse, but it's not the cause.

>But just like how the bible has no opinion on quantum physics das kaptial has no opinion on fiat money.

If you do what Marx wanted, and use labor-time as unit of economic accounting instead of money, inflation becomes impossible. You can't print time.
>>

 No.13137

>>13125
>You can book a plane ticket to Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea right now if you wanted to.
I can't just go on vacation, I have work on Monday.

Also North Korea doesn't just give out citizens to randos, if you mean immigrating there.
>>

 No.13148

>>13126
>I don't see anything else in terms of economic theory
And how many have you looked at? I don't know you but you really sound like a fundie who thinks the bible is true because it's the only book he's read.

>The highest returns are on wallstreet

That's because they are close to the money spigots. Money is not real. The federal reserve adds money to the economy in order to centrally plan the market according to political interests. Banks and hedge funds and the stock market in general is one way the new money is transferred into the economy. And the people who work in those industries take a cut of the money passing through and use it to buy up hard assets like real estate before the extra money pushes prices up. That's the real reason you can't afford a house.

>the second highest go to arms dealers

The second way that new money is injected into the economy is through government spending. The government creates bonds or gilts out of thin air and exchanges them for money the central bank created out of thin air. The government then spends the fake money on real shit that is relevant to their interests. Like weapons.

>the capitalists who make the most profits don't produce anything

The people who print money out of thin air and use it to centrally plan the economy are not "capitalists". Central banking is part of Marx's communist manifesto. Throwing central bankers out of a helicopter because they're communists is part of Kiyosaki's capitalist manifesto.

>used to be a satirical comment to mock attempts at polishing a turd

I don't see any argument here. You just take it on faith that "inequality" is bad or "capitalism" is inefficient but you don't have any arguments to back it up.

>In the real world inequality enabled the people at the top of the pyramid to bribe politicians, to remove them selves from market discipline and implement to big to fail bail outs.

Correct. That's why free market capitalism means no government interference. The people who rise to the top are the people who have provided the most value to other people.

>Markets aren't particularly efficient at allocating resources to begin with

Markets that are not being bailedout or fucked with by political forces are efficient for the same reason evolution is efficient: the inefficient shit gets selected out of the system naturally.

>the most efficient land transportation is trains, but it's very hard to turn train-tracks into a commodity

Profitable railways existed before the government got involved. The new york subway for example used to be private and profitable. Privately built cross country railways were more profitable than the publicly funded ones. Because the private ones had to go from A to B with as little cost as possible to maximise profits. The public ones had to weave around to include every congressman's home town and since they were paid by the yard sometimes they backtracked and ran in parallel lines just to get extra funding because that's how they maximized profits. Not to mention the violence. Public railways got free protection from the militery so they bulldozed through indigenous lands without a care in the world. The private railways quickly found out it was cheaper to pay the indigenous people a fair price for their land instead of hiring mercenaries and fighting for it.

This all reinforces my point that free markets hold people accountable for their actions whereas state interference provides them a shield. That's why free markets will always be more efficient than central planning.

>The victorian era of capitalism also had high inequality and they did use precious metal backed currency.

That was a period when inequality was decreasing though.

>Inequality cannot be reduced to a monetary phenomenon that began in 1971.

It marks the point where inequality reversed and started going up again.
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

>If you do what Marx wanted, and use labor-time as unit of economic accounting instead of money, inflation becomes impossible. You can't print time.

Not all "labor-time" is the same though. You obviously have to pay doctors more than poets otherwise everyone will be a poet. And if you're not letting the market decide which jobs get how many tokens then you're letting a central planner decide. And those central planners will be the overlords of your communist paradise and you will merely be a serf.

>>13137
>I can't just go on vacation, I have work on Monday.
You don't have to go to work. If you don't turn up then they stop paying you. That's it. The police don't come with dogs and whips to force you back to work. That's why you're not a slave. Not to mention the obvious one, slaves don't get paid in the first place.
>>

 No.13149

>>13148
>And how many have you looked at?
I went by process of elimination.
First thing i did was eliminate the loony theories like praxology that don't explain shit.
Second thing that got eliminated was theories that assumed market equilibrium, it's obviously not in equilibrium, so those theories contradict reality.
Third round of elimination was every theory that tried assign a beneficial purpose to the boom-recession cycle. Having an economy that behaves like a mental patient with severe bi-polar disorder isn't beneficial. If you want a machine analogy a boom is a feed-back-loop that builds up an overload, and the recession is a cascade failure. Theories that try to gaslight you into thinking that's a good thing are obviously not applicable. Then i was left with Marxism.

>I don't know you but you really sound like a fundie who thinks the bible is true because it's the only book he's read.

I don't treat it like a orthodox holy scripture. Marx is wrong about the tendency for profit equalization, that doesn't happen. That's been fixed by other marxists who corrected Marx's theories with a tendency for demographic decline caused by the rise in the rate of exploitation.

>That's because they are close to the money spigots. Money is not real. The federal reserve adds money to the economy in order to centrally plan the market according to political interests. Banks and hedge funds and the stock market in general is one way the new money is transferred into the economy. And the people who work in those industries take a cut of the money passing through

I mostly agree with this, but i just see monopoly power extracting rent. Capitalist monopolies do get destroyed sometimes and then they grow back in a different form. That's what this is, it's not set up like historic monopolies, but it still is the old phenomenon.

>The people who print money out of thin air and use it to centrally plan the economy are not "capitalists". Central banking is part of Marx's communist manifesto. Throwing central bankers out of a helicopter because they're communists is part of Kiyosaki's capitalist manifesto.

I think the redeeming quality of Central banks is that they can curtail the reach of multinational corporate superpowers like the infamous East India company. Central banks can also be used to throw a monkey-wrench into trade-wars. There are many downsides to this institution too. I can't fathom why you think that it is communist, capitalists build this institution. Communist societies have also build banks that share many parallels with capitalist banks, that's just a concession to a reality where the world economy is dominated by capitalism.

>You just take it on faith that "inequality" is bad or "capitalism" is inefficient but you don't have any arguments to back it up.

Capitalists declared that inequality is efficient, without backing it up. That's why i can just dismiss it. If it can be asserted without evidence it can be rejected just as easily. Besides it's just a rhetorical game that revolves around how you define efficiency. Marxists define efficiency by 2 things. The economy is efficient if it improves the productive forces so that it takes less time and effort to create wealth, and second it improves the material conditions for all people.

>That's why free market capitalism means no government interference.

Capitalists don't want free market competition, they want to be monopolists. If there's any hope creating your utopian free market capitalism, you need an activist government that vigorously interferes with monopoly formation, and ruthlessly annihilates forming monopolies in the early stages.

>The people who rise to the top are the people who have provided the most value to other people.

Statistically speaking if you are a capitalist in the productive sector that produces commodities "that provide value" for people, you won't even make it out of the lower third of the capitalist pyramid.

>Markets that are not being bailedout or fucked with by political forces are efficient for the same reason evolution is efficient: the inefficient shit gets selected out of the system naturally.

First evolution is just selecting for organisms that reproduce, it's not selecting for anything else, not efficiency, not fitness, not competitiveness, none of that, stop projecting ideology onto biology. Photosynthesis in plants converts at most 2% of solar energy, engineered solar panels can do over 20%. There simply never was a evolutionary pressure that made plants evolve more efficient photosynthesis, 0.1 to 2% was good enough for plants to reproduce and that's what evolution selected for.

Second in the current economic system, the means of production are controlled by capitalists and that why i consider it capitalism.
This system did bailouts and hence that's why i consider bail-outs to be part of the capitalist system.

I can see that you disagree with the current system, maybe you ought to consider that what you want is something other than capitalism. The goal of capitalism is maximizing short term profits and entrenching the class-power of capitalists. If you want an economic system where the goal is maximizing value for customers you want another system.

>Profitable railways existed before the government got involved.

In the neo-liberal period, many publicly run rail-ways got privatized. You know what happened ? Prices increased and quality decreased. They just ran it into the ground, extracting as much profits as they could until the rail-networks were degraded. After than they bugged out and now those rail-networks are rotten. Check out this:
https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=9X2A2f6E5DI

>Victorian era was a period when inequality was decreasing though.

>1971 marks the point where inequality reversed and started going up again.
The underlying claim is that tying money to a commodity like gold reduces inequality. I don't know, i think inequality in capitalism goes down when workers gain more bargaining power. I think that if you really wanted to go for a commodity-locked currency, it might be better to use a basket of goods as reference and lock the currency to that. The dollar went off the gold-standard because countries started to pull gold reserves out of the US. If you do a basket of goods reference that can't happen.

>Not all "labor-time" is the same though.

From an overall economics perspective it is. The point of doing accounting with labor-time is because you want to economize on labor-time. You know, get stuff done while wasting as little human time as possible. What kind of labor doesn't really matter on this scale.

>You obviously have to pay doctors more than poets otherwise everyone will be a poet.

You can do separate incentive bonuses for specific types of labor, that way you don't skew your time economizing efforts. Doctors would fetch a bonus incentive because that's a difficult profession, but in a society where everybody has the same opportunity to be the best they can be, we might end up having to give incentive payments to jobs that currently aren't considered very glorious.

>And if you're not letting the market decide which jobs get how many tokens then you're letting a central planner decide. And those central planners will be the overlords of your communist paradise and you will merely be a serf.

THE Market is not an agent that makes decisions, it's a price finding mechanism. Economic planning is about calculating prices. The promise here is that if this gets more accurate prices, than those one can find with a market-mechanism, we would have more rational allocation of resources and thus a better performing economy. That's it. Neither the market nor the planning algorithm is an overlord that makes THE Decisions. It's about dialing in the number on the price-tag, just right.
>>

 No.13152

>>13149
>Marx is wrong about the tendency for profit equalization
Are you the same blowhard who ghosted me in the book thread. Go and respond there instead.
>>

 No.13153

>>13152
You said
<a fundie who thinks the bible is true because it's the only book he's read.
in your previous post

There are a few "textual" Marxists, who are not religious fundies by any stretch, but they do care more about reading the contents of marx's books than treating Marxism like a more scientific discipline that does empirical reality-checks from time to time. An example would be the TSSI marxists, they have something called temporal pricing that is supposed to rescue marx's profit equalization tendency. To me it always sounded like mental gymnastics for the sake of treating Marx as infallible.

The reason for bringing this up, is because the accusation you made, would not be entirely wrong, with regards to the textual wing of Marxism. I'm on the more scientific wing of Marxism, that does throw out elements of marx's original theory that didn't pan out.

This is a rather academic dispute within Marxism and i realize that you probably didn't even know about it. Anyway, now you know why this hole profit equalization topic came up.

Unique IPs: 7

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