Andreyich

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@SleepingSilence
Okay you got me, but, here's this, it's "should have," not "should of." Checkmate.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

We can actually see communism being deconstructed in early history. The hunter-gatherer societies where all was shared and such were the ones that stayed primitive as they were; the ones with bartering and things being commodified are the ones that went on to actually form civilizations. Civilization as it is known and loved was only ever capitalist. Only several thousand years later did the war against communism sort of begin when Romans pacified and conquered various tribes or the Russian Empire went east in glorious conquest and finally got Tatars/Mongols to fuck off. This was even seen in Mesoamerica, the vaguely capitalist tribes went on to build great civilizations and make wonderful contributions to, well, everything whilst the collectivist/socialist/communist ones went on to keep on live on eating their own shit. So yeah, as it stands, history, nature, and the universe itself continuously tells us that marxism be it economic or cultural is not worth a shit, whilst more conservative societies are the ones to go on to stay societies rather than little warm pools of shit.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

You didn't answer my question. She pays taxes, right? Does this not mean, that in some small way, she in complicit in supporting the regimes of country's that are personally invested in invading poor countries for their oil? I think, being in a country that isn't being violently mined for oil might have something to do with the fact that she can make jewelry, but what do I know.

That doesn't matter. The country they invaded was also capitalist and the people there live better now under a government that at least pretends to be secular and such. Not to mention, the war in the middle east only went on to bring huge monetary losses even if nefarious ebil American Imperialist ambitions were behind it.

You're right. Microsoft's business practices are all squeaky clean!

We're not arguing about it's business practice but about business overall. Business puts these laws there in the first place, at most you can blame microsoft for violating laws that it - by extension - placed upon itself which is not a very smart thing to do.

Again-- bigger picture, most of these things aren't even businesses, first off-- but more avenues for expressing creativity or some type of art, that people have to monetize, because of they don't, they'd literally starve to death. Let's take this away from a focus on the American poor, or even the global poor.

But art was commodified before the existence of money; people couldn't just make it on spare time, prehistoric artists would have someone bringing them their food in exchange for their works. It seems, that before the invention of capitalism it was already better than communism. Not to mention, that it is the choice of the artist to monetize their art. As such, you should blame the artists rather than capitalism. I for one wouldn't mind shooting a hipster making music on soundcloud, they are annoying fucks aren't they?

The intrinsic ties between sates-- some corrupt and democratic, some corrupt and "communist" some somewhere in between-- and the prevailing global economic beast we call "capitalism." I think it's clear there are many people that suffer because of it-- I find it's more prudent to focus on the fact that if we were to look at this as some "pyramid" where the things that get fucked over most end up on the bottom: and it's the planet. By having so many countries that encourage infinite growth of wealth and resources, the thing that gets fucked over most ALWAYS is the environment. And in fucking over the environment, we fuck over ourselves.

Does that mean EVERY business owner is LITERALLY hurting someone who works for them? No. But, by funneling money to the top, by continuing to allow the system to continue in it's current form, we are all complicit the crimes of the 1%, of states fighting over material resources at the behest of lobbyists. We're all fucking over the planet, and the animals (read: us) that rely on it's resources to live.

People don't suffer, they only do better by it. Communism was tried over and over (no matter how much you bitch and whine that it wasn't real communism) and it didn't work, stop trying to destroy stable society. The environmental concern is also a kind of bullshit thing to bring up too since it's just there to make you look like the good guy freedom fighter against us ebil imperialists wanting to save the earth. In truth, socialist Chile was razing and clearing forests and Vietnam has so much fucking smog that cars are all but banned there. Communist countries are always very backwards and still haven't even heard of alternative fuel sources. So once again, Capitalists are heroes and communists are the ones turning our planet to shit. We are not complicit in the crimes of the one percent, I know I'm not. I don't eat McDonald's and I eat mama's cutlets instead, I don't drink your filthy coca cola but make my own Kvass from shit I grow in my backyard and in a few vases. So once more, you're plain wrong and your argument continuously trips up over itself.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

What the fuck is up with people posting random fucking gifs to replace like, two words
"hehe lol it's jontron xddd
hehe lol it's random asian dude who I'm pulling out of context but it's okay xdddd"

Even unattended, capitalism does. Namely, for the benefit of his own self-image or wealth whether direct or indirect ownership of computers or the software that made computers the consumer platform that they became that he helped developed is not equally owned by the people who worked on it.

That's not really his fault, and those people did not make equal contribution to it, and regardless he owns it; if someone moved my swing a bit that doesn't mean he gets to play on it as much as me. It's my fucking swing and if anyone tries to hop onto it I'm blasting their face off.

The individuals working on Gates development of Windows - whether in the beginning or in the future Windows corporation - do not have ownership of the product they created, and ownership instead goes to the company or the boss; this is one of the fundamental three forms of alienation, the alienation of the worker from the product of his labor. While they are not being paid, the fact millions and millions still goes into the pockets of company bosses means that the individuals doing the actual work aren't getting the full value of their own ownership of the product by simply being there to work on it.

What do you mean "while they are not being paid." They get paid for hour, but only receive it in paychecks, but you see with same elementary school math we can see that it evens out to the same thing, believe it or not.

Extending the example, computers require semi-conductive materials that are not universally distributed. The main source for the materials needed are often sourced from third-world sources like the Congo, where proxy wars had been fought between the United States and Soviet Union for the country's vast mineral deposits required to build, operate, and maintain advanced equipment such as jet aircraft and computers. The people working these mines do not have ownership of their labor, easily even: they're not much better off than slaves. Being paid bare wages they get forced to dig up rare materials by bosses who take a large sum of the profit from the enterprise for themselves for little or no work themselves; they keep it on the merit that they're 'the owner' and often hire armed mercenaries to keep the miners from revolting.

The very fact these materials are so prized by high-tech first-world countries and are so valuable also means in times of Civil War these mines are prized by guerrilla factions who seize them and sell the product to the market which takes the materials and pays them to keep up the war.

The people in these mines are better off than they ever were. Look at the ooga boogas in Africa 100-200 years ago and look at them now. Thanks to this """evil""" Imperialism they at least have medicine, food and water. They actually think before some crazy bitch tells them to kill all their cattle though their continuation to try and be socialist/communist keeps them shitholes, despite the best efforts of Rhodesian and South African heroes to slaughter this red filth. If the miners revolted, they'd die without anyone delivering food to them on a daily basis anyway. And you see, guerillas may like these mines but it's us evil Westerners that gave them this work in the first place.

tl;dr your example is shit and you should feel shit

Now, let's keep going: your sister in making jewelry must ultimately get materials that, like with the minerals of the Congo, are derived from the Earth. And is most often the case gold and silver must be dug up through the use of miners often paid menial wages, such as is most often the case in Southern America. Local miners go to work in a mine for low wages to dig up gold, facing extreme conditions jeopardizing their health and safety, being in contact with harsh polluting chemicals in the process, all to give it to their boss who sells the gold and keeps a vast majority the gold's value to himself. The miners do not own the gold, and as Big Bill Haywood said, "The mine owners' did not find the gold, they did not mine the gold, they did not mill the gold, but by some weird alchemy all the gold belonged to them!'"

That's why we got these funny things called wages. You can say they are low but at least they get them.

See, people on the left aren't very smart so they keep on spouting shit like "give the worker freedom from wages," but they do not see that the only natural freedom is to die. Without being offered these wages they would keep on with their little hunter-gatherer societies on the verge of cannibalism. But this is not the case, for Western men are kind enough to let them into the wonderful secret of economic contracts.

The same pattern of alienation from the product of labor extends into the first world where while we have higher wages over all and a better range of benefits in support of the worker we do not often get full value for our work nor any sort of ownership. A man at Ford can't pick out a car of his choice and drive it off as is, despite having built so many cars for Ford he's certainly earned through labor the right to take one as he sees. But in the nuanced world of minimum wage and raising it forever, the end cost of a product will itself go up; lending in my mind a raise in minimum wage should be tied to a proportion of the shit done and income brought in.

Once again, people on the left aren't very smart so they don't understand that this is simply not how it works. His work alone is not enough to have made the cars. He was given the opportunity to work there, and his specific work alone is not enough to make a car. He hasn't earned the right, as said earlier the only rights one is born with is existence and subsequent (or perhaps even, consequent) death. Additionally, believe it or not people have to eat and drink, and much of his labour's wages went towards that. Via capitalism, he doesn't have to work on a shit farm to make his food, and he can actually buy some after a mere 8-12 hour working day.

This is of course not the only expression of exploitation through alienation, but it is the most handy.

Exploitation is not inherently bad, if you use the

ex·ploit
verb
ikˈsploit/Submit
1.
make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).
"500 companies sprang up to exploit this new technology"
synonyms: utilize, harness, use, make use of, turn/put to good use, make the most of, capitalize on, benefit from; informalcash in on
"we should exploit this new technology"

definition anyway, since anything else is wasteful.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Ammunition

Good one.

Krupp started with steel for railways and home building, and to his employees he offered housing, healthcare, and their children education (and to the employees too if it was necessary). If you're going to prance around bullshitting we may as well end now.

Harming the poor is how every economic system has worked since we invented currency-- even before then tbh.

Okay, tell me how the medieval farming communities along the Danube hurt the poor. The trouble is that you're getting butthurt over the fact that economies work on social constructs and because you don't like them you like to pretend they hurt people which is not a very smart thing to do.

Right, I forgot there's no McDonalds in Canada.

>literally one example
wew lad

anyways, McDonalds provides jobs, it doesn't trample the so called proletariat.

That's fair-- the Binding of Isaac didn't hurt a fly. However, I'd argue the commodification of art within a capitalist system is a crime perpetuated by the bougies against the proletariat.

I'm actually dying here. Video games are only occasionally worthy of being called art and even then, the commodification of art is necessary to ensure the actual existence of artists, another thing communists just can't really wrap their head around.

Lmao no you couldn't, if you could you would have mentioned AN instance of ethical capitlaism among mega-corps.

Give me an example of ethical communism.

In short, your whole stance can be summed up as "yo why everything cost money???" without any hyperbole involved.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Andreyich I don't know if you're joking or not, but Notch aside. He didn't harm anyone making minecraft or selling it to Microsoft. So yeah...it is an example.

As is everyone self employed person making a profit. (as long as they're on the up and up.) I can't believe someone though the people that found the cure for polio was somehow maliciously stomping on poor people when he created and sold the cure. I can't get into that frame or mindset. :/

@SleepingSilence

Not really joking, I just picked that as an exaggerated example to say that in even the most mundane of fields you can succeed without others suffering as a result.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

No, it's because big business can afford big strict regulations. And small ones can't.

thenewamerican.com/economy/economics…

washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/12…

bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingto…

That's just parrotting what I said with a bit of neo-connery thrown in.

Free country. You can't. If a company wants to move to Europe entirely, you can't stop them in America...(as much as Trump seems to want that to be a thing.)

I'm talking about a fictional imaginary country or how I would want things to be. You should be able to stop that; forbid companies from operating within your state if they want to use foreign slave-labour. Only foreign branches of a company should be able to use foreign labour, you shouldn't be able to get 20th world mongo bongos to die making jeans for nothing and then sell them in another country for sixty bucks.

I'm not sure exactly what this is even trying to say, but America's emissions already have been declining. Were doing just fine and the EPA will not solve any of our problems. :/

businessinsider.com/heres-one-example…

An example of an EPA rule, actually killing a small business. To put it bluntly, all of the overreach does more harm than good. And I don't really know any current example where it was proven to be a "good thing".

I won't pretend to know shit about the EPA so you got me stymied on that account, I suppose.

The problem is, a lot of the 'eat the rich' (envious mentality) comes from immoral arguments anyway...The Fight for 15. Why 15? Who cares, the number doesn't matter (it's not thought out at all.) It just sounds nice. It's arguing people that flip burgers should make the same hourly wage as an actual profession that can't be done by literally everyone. And you can argue it all you want, or go "well that just means those actual professions should be paid MORE." But that's not how businesses work. People can't seem to grasp the reality of life that people pay what they think your worth. If you think that sucks, thank god there's free market competition. Or they wouldn't HAVE a choice. Money doesn't grow on trees and it seems like even some politicians haven't learned that concept yet...

Mentioning things like communism, they didn't want you to be -paid- for work at all. :/

Yeah, silly internet. It's obvious that 99% percent of science people agree anyway. That's how science works right? /s

But getting off topic...

That has a lot of disconnect but okay... I'm not saying the rich should make as much as the poor, skilled labour should naturally be paid more and business owners naturally have the right to gain larger profits for a more successful business, all I am saying is that modern, mainstream (particularly American) Conservatives should not get their way and turn things into ancap with no taxation or anything. Slight increments with earning is not going to turn you into the USSR or China, and make all the rich kids run off to Monaco.

Fun. Though I don't really know what the solution to that is...clearly it wasn't making rules and regulations. Because they lied about meeting them...The government is apparently doing nothing about it either, but they're still the one we need to come up with the solution? Like, I don't know where to even go from there...

spiegel.de/international/business/vw-…

That's why there should be change in government(s).

If income inequality was getting worse and worse in American, as people claim it does. Let's take the word for it. Then again, our poor wouldn't be doing better than the middle class globally...and this wouldn't exist.

heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/r…

Was is the key word, it was getting worse until wossname, FDR I think used policy that would get anyone trying it in the modern day get called a commie, at least by neo-cons.

When completion thrives, more products get made and more productive become cheaper. That's why the most expensive phone a few years ago, cost next to nothing after that. :/ So, citation very much needed if you're going to state otherwise. Socialist policies help eh? Where has it helped?

Every single depression was solved by taking policy that gets called socialist.

Admittedly, giving something to the lower classes so they once again have funds with which to spend shit to once again put money back into the economy only gets called socialist to make people be forced to choose between neo-conservatism or liberals.

Also, your constant mentioning that America's poor are better off than middle classes elsewhere is moot when other countries have much higher HDI, and if adjusted for inequality America is pretty close to 2nd world/East Europe.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by Darcs>

Are you literally fucking kidding me? :I

No, that's not how the economy works at all...

How about all single gaming/music/crafting projects made by one person? Who sells their stuff, makes profit and hurts nobody in the process? There's a few more than one. -.- Or just self-employed people in general?

My sister. She makes jewelry by herself. Owns her own company/website. Exploits no one and makes a profit...pray tell, how does that effect anyone else? I'd love to hear it. <.<

@SleepingSilence

That's actually a great example. The guy who made minecraft did not trample the faces of the proletariat to get rich.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Literally show me one person who created wealth, from a business, without exploiting the excess value of the labor of others.

Krupp

Harming the poor is how every economic system has worked since we invented currency-- even before then tbh.

That's plain wrong, I'm afraid.

Our poor do better than the average global middle class, because, like I've said, our state in inherently tied to our businesses, and the only poor we leech from more than our own is the poor in other countries.

That's interesting, people in Japan, Canada, Norway, etc. have the highest HDI and they too are very capitalist yet I don't seem to recall them ever oppressing the proletariat. Furthermore, countries that drifted to a capitalist system saw a drastic shift to a higher HDI. Even my little shithole of Belarus became significantly better before my eyes as we drifted away from communism/socialism. And yet, I do not recall us ever exploiting the poor (admittedly that's the whole of our country) who merely put in an honest day's work and that's all to make their country better.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Yes, they really do. Regulations do hurt small businesses (more than big ones.) if you didn't think that was true. You wouldn't say we need to use them on only big businesses.

Only from the perspective that big businesses can afford to skirt around them and little ones can't.

And if you don't think applying too many restrictions on big business won't lead to negative consequences, I don't even know what to tell you other than linking to how many jobs are being outsourced for that reason...

that's why you stop outsourcing

You say you want mostly environmental restrictions and quality of life kind of stuff. Like making sure there's no lead 'put' in lipstick, right? But are you arguing you only want to make big corporations to go under those restrictions? (correct? Like I'm not talking over you am I? Do you want restrictions on all business? Or "big" ones?)

Don't try to distract me by linking to something vaguely related but not pertinent. I'm talking about emissions and other such things when speaking environmentally and while clickbait does mislead companies there should nevertheless be more quality control. Technically, little businesses can't really outsource and are much easier to be inspected/made irreputable so they can't and won't but if they do, sure restrict them too.

And how big, is big business? (again there's many problems with that.) And why do you think we need the government to try environmental restrictions? Like Europe going with a cap and trade system. (making their carbon emissions skyrocket upwards...)

I'm not really up for deciding alone what is big business, I'm simply to insignificant doing naught but arguing on a memeing creep's thread on a site to make stories involving weird shit on. This guy's mention "climate change hysteria" is also kind of silly going along with the "lol the changes we are experiencing are mostly natural :))))" crowd.

I'm also not suggesting using the European model, but nevertheless there are blatant moments of overstepping boundaries like the Volkswagen scandal.

Also, income inequality also hurts economies because then the poor can buy less products and put back less into the economy which what like, all depressions were about, which was solved by some measure of socialist policy.