Poll

Will Trump get re-elected in 2020?

Yes
No

Author Topic: POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD  (Read 2231510 times)

The desire to break away from mandated work hours, annoying bosses, and work that makes you unhappy is something that most people could relate to. These are explicitly the product of a late capitalist "wage slavery" state. What you are experiencing is not the desire to stop working and lay at home all day, as this society would have you believe in order to shame you, but rather the desire to take control of your own labor. It is the desire to do a job that you want to do, not because you are contractually obligated to do it, but because you enjoy doing it. Because you are able to do it on your own accord, and you enjoy that sense of autonomy.

>wage slavery

opinion noted and discarded, this is literally the /r9k/ bullstuff reiterated every day because people don't like their stuffty retail job(s)

try entertaining the notion that all these problems may be symptomatic of a cultural issue rather than an economical issue

then it's awfully strange then that communist dystopias usually seem to enforce labor under penalty of law and disappear underperforming managers and workers innit

but i'm sure those gulags were completely coincidental and had nothing to do with an authoritarian regime forcing its citizens to work to death over the course of years so that they could maintain their impoverished living standards and technological inferiority
I've explained this before, but the reason the USSR and China ended up so authoritarian and stuffty is because of the poor timing and execution of their respective revolutions. Both countries were in, essentially, monarchist states and completely unindustrialized. In order to become more sustainable, you want to have some degree of automation beforehand, or at least the results of being unindustrialized and attempting communism have led people to believe this. Communist states were very much at threat of crumbling from a lack of efficiency or an inability to defend themselves from regimes attempting to destroy them. This led to rapid industrialization, which was enforced by authoritarianism. It worked really well, but I'm guessing you already know what the side effects of this were. Though honestly, unindustrialized communism could work on smaller scales, but as we have seen in the case of Catalonia, it leaves them vulnerable to military destruction. Then again, maybe Catalonia was already moderately industrialized, I'm not entirely sure.
try entertaining the notion that all these problems may be symptomatic of a cultural issue rather than an economical issue
The "it's a cultural issue" notion is such a garbage argument. Many countries have had economic collapses due to the enforced scarcity -> lowered demand cycle. In fact, this is the base cause of most recessions, depressions, and collapses. When something happens as routinely as it does, it's hard to tell the entire world to just change their attitude, and be more willing to continue spending 5 figures in debt. Here's an example. Companies want to make more of a profit, but people aren't being paid enough to afford the quota of goods that the company wants to sell. They wouldn't pay their employees more so that they could afford the items they want to spend, because that's a lowering of their profit. What's the solution, then? Credit cards. Just go into debt so you can buy our goods, you can pay it off later. Works well for everyone, right? Well, unfortunately, most people do not want to dip into serious debt, because god forbid something happens that makes it significantly harder to pay off their debt, their life would be ruined. People see this and have the nerve to say "well that's just a cultural issue, people shouldn't be so afraid to go into debt!"

In the 1920's, it's safe to say that this "cultural issue" wasn't very prevalent in America. Everything worked out well, people were buying on credit like there was no limit, everyone was prosperous! Great, right?
I'm guessing I don't need to tell you what happened next as a result of this credit spending.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2017, 03:12:02 PM by Karl Marx »

Like if you wanna talk about legitimate "Wage slavery" you shouldn't beat around the bush like a pusillanimous individual. There's people out there right now that can't get livable wages, that live paycheck to paycheck and eat stuff because they can't afford to move to a better job, can't afford to get better education and are stuck in a stuffty living condition with a stuffty lifestyle with almost zero to no money left to circulate. Nothing is helping them, and yet our system is still failing them. Here you are talking about laziness and unhappiness like an starfish, thinking you're coming from place for the people. Get real. There's a lot more to this than attacking capitalism in an ideological level. You can't just suggest a different mode of system like it's a magic fix-all, because there's such a big wet mess of hot garbage still in circulation that may take literal generations to untangle, and I can guarantee you wholeheartedly that at this point in time there is so much conflict of interest at play that we may never have the right mix of things to actually start fixing what's actually wrong.

People express desire to sit at home and lay down and do nothing because we've reached a point in society where the common man doesn't feel like anything more than a cog in a machine, and that sort of existential dread is what's leading to higher Self Delete rates, missed opportunities and unsustainable lifestyles. And thanks to the west's abysmal take on mental health and worsening opiate crCIA, things are only bound to get worse for the common man.

Everything you're rambling about is this jumbled mess of leftist talking points and I've had a hard time even working up the gumption to respond unironically because it's hard deciphering the point, so here's my jumbled rambling. Take it however you will.


The "it's a cultural issue" notion is such a garbage argument.

A hell ton of issues with our workforce stems from a cancerous work culture. It's not as bad as some of the eastern countries but holy stuff is it bad. It's not just a cultural issue no, but to deny that it may have some deal of involvement is completely loving stupid.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2017, 03:11:26 PM by IkeTheGeneric »

Like if you wanna talk about legitimate "Wage slavery" you shouldn't beat around the bush like a pusillanimous individual. There's people out there right now that can't get livable wages, that live paycheck to paycheck and eat stuff because they can't afford to move to a better job, can't afford to get better education and are stuck in a stuffty living condition with a stuffty lifestyle with almost zero to no money left to circulate. Nothing is helping them, and yet our system is still failing them. Here you are talking about laziness and unhappiness like an starfish, thinking you're coming from place for the people. Get real. There's a lot more to this than attacking capitalism in an ideological level. You can't just suggest a different mode of system like it's a magic fix-all, because there's such a big wet mess of hot garbage still in circulation that may take literal generations to untangle, and I can guarantee you wholeheartedly that at this point in time there is so much conflict of interest at play that we may never have the right mix of things to actually start fixing what's actually wrong.

People express desire to sit at home and lay down and do nothing because we've reached a point in society where the common man doesn't feel like anything more than a cog in a machine, and that sort of existential dread is what's leading to higher Self Delete rates, missed opportunities and unsustainable lifestyles. And thanks to the west's abysmal take on mental health and worsening opiate crCIA, things are only bound to get worse for the common man.
I'm not trying to beat around any bushes. I'm fully aware of this problem, and I'm fully aware of how hard it is to fix. It's still worth trying to fix, because we have no other option. Recognition of the failure inherent to our system is the first step to achieving some real change, but blaming it on the immigrants taking our jobs as republicans often do is about 10 steps backwards.
Everything you're rambling about is this jumbled mess of leftist talking points and I've had a hard time even working up the gumption to respond unironically because it's hard deciphering the point, so here's my jumbled rambling. Take it however you will.
It's not exactly a simple or linear discussion. Hell, my knowledge of the debate is pretty juvenile compared to some people. A good way to understand it better is to seriously consider these ideas, ask for clarification, or read some well-known books on the matter. Maybe my argument comes off as scrambled because leftist ideology has many branches and approaches better suited for specific arguments and personal beliefs. That's why people generally spend more time pointing out flaws in capitalism than they do debating the specifics of their ideology.
A hell ton of issues with our workforce stems from a cancerous work culture. It's not as bad as some of the eastern countries but holy stuff is it bad. It's not just a cultural issue no, but to deny that it may have some deal of involvement is completely loving stupid.
Alright, consider this. Capitalism essentially defines our culture, and enforces this stuffty culture that you speak of whether it's in our best interests or not. Try explaining to a caveman why it feels satisfying to get a slip of paper redeemable for other slips of paper.

money evolved out of need to trade goods that isnt direct. imagine if its harvest season and you had a bunch of fresh food you are willing to trade. however the other dude you need clothes from doesnt have any completed clothes rn, but he does need food. you'll likely trade with him anyways and get a promise for clothes as soon as possible in return.

now imagine you need tools, but the tools guys doesnt need food, but rather needs clothes. this is where money starts coming into existence since straight bartering isnt gonna cut it as things get more complicated.

having satisfaction in getting money comes from being able to afford things you want past things you need. capitalism arises from people wanting security and leisure/luxury for themselves, and thus hoarding money.

unless you can eliminate want from society, no form of socialism is going to work, as somebody will want more than what they have and work harder for it > gain value/wealth/respect > consolidation of "wealth"





this post ended completely separate from where it started, woops

It's still worth trying to fix, because we have no other option.

We don't have options to begin with. It was futile to think there's anything we can do to "Fix" what's wrong with our country when you can't even really grasp what the core problems are in the first place.

You keep attacking capitalism as the sole root cause of what's wrong with society, and straight up shoot down any notion that our culture may have something to do with the fact of why workers are treated like stuff.


Recognition of the failure inherent to our system is the first step to achieving some real change, but blaming it on the immigrants taking our jobs as republicans often do is about 10 steps backwards.

And rattling pans about radical change is any better? At the end of the day it's a bunch of hacks circlejerking about why their line of thinking is superior to the opponents.


Maybe my argument comes off as scrambled because leftist ideology has many branches and approaches better suited for specific arguments and personal beliefs. That's why people generally spend more time pointing out flaws in capitalism than they do debating the specifics of their ideology.

Your argument comes off as scrambled because you're taking a hodgepodge of leftist talking points and smashing them together in one long jamble of forget. That's why it's hard responding to anything specific because you completely lose the narrative beat after the beginning of the next paragraph.


Try explaining to a caveman why it feels satisfying to get a slip of paper redeemable for other slips of paper.

Is this supposed to be ironic or serious?
« Last Edit: August 10, 2017, 04:32:45 PM by IkeTheGeneric »

Its funny how Kimon pretends to give a stuff about the working class when he was just yesterday stuffting on me for being a blue collar worker.

Its funny how Kimon pretends to give a stuff about the working class when he was just yesterday stuffting on me for being a blue collar worker.
I thought you're in college for graphic design. Do you lay pipe as a side job?

my boy beachbum lays pipe alright

he's been laying gas pipes since 1939

I thought you're in college for graphic design. Do you lay pipe as a side job?

For the last year I've been doing construction 12 hours a day. I'm going to DmD in september

"99% of people do not want to sit around doing absolutely nothing with their lives because that's loving depressing
which is why in a capitalist system, people go to work, school, and yknow, have time for personal use to travel, etc.

the only difference being that capitalism tends to reward success financially. Those that provide desirable goods or services will tend to be paid more than those that offer relatively common, low-demand services. This is why lawyers have such a high salary, but electricians and plumbers, despite doing blue collar work, can make six-figure salaries as well. Finding a niche in the market for yourself and your skillset generally is rewarded with money.

"But cappy," I can already hear you say, "greedy business owners will hire talented people and profit from someone else's work!"

Yes, that's how a business works. I hire people because they provide a surplus of value. The service they provide for my business is worth more than their wage. It doesn't make sense to employ people that cost the same or more than the value of goods/services they produce.

This is why turnover rate in certain careers such as fast food is high. Wages are low because flipping burgers isn't a special talent and workers that are slow, lazy, or incompetent will be fired quickly because they do not provide that surplus of value and there is an endless number of unskilled workers to step into their place.

A doctor, however, has much more overhead than someone flipping burgers. Med school costs money and is challenging, but thus it benefits people to learn medicine because they will be entering into a specialized field. Doctors make more money because their skillset is much more rare and have more job security because provided they do not make errors which negatively affect their patients' health, doctors are much harder to replace and thus there is incentive to not fire them unless they get your firm into legal trouble.

Is it inherently unfair that a fast food worker is much more likely to lose their job and makes 1/4 the money that a doctor will make on average? In my opinion it's perfectly fair. Entry level, low skilled labor should not be compensated in the same way as someone who has been through almost a decade of higher education.

Very few people would want to become doctors if they weren't paid well. The opportunity cost would be too high. This is why communist countries have to designate labors. Some jobs under communism are so much more stuffty that nobody wants them.

something interesting i guess to bring up here is that wages/salaries are often decided by the employer and not by the person selling their labor, so the employer is paying what they think the labor is worth rather than the laborer deciding what they think they're worth. i'm sure things happened this way for a reason, but that might be a big factor to consider. some careers, however, don't operate in this manner. if you're running a law firm or repair service, then you're probably naming your prices and fees rather than being offered a price from the people you're selling your skills to. supply-demand obviously plays a big role here; market forces would inevitably drive these things down if they were in high supply or low demand, but i think the party involved actually deciding the value of labor is important, because obviously, if you're paying for something, you're probably gonna bargain lower rather than higher. and that i think can be explained as a cultural/structural problem, because it could easily have developed the other direction and it would still be a valid capitalist society
« Last Edit: August 10, 2017, 06:13:46 PM by otto-san »

Yes but the employer-employee relationship is entirely consensual and in most situations non-binding.

If you don't like your wage, you don't have to work that job, nothing is forcing you other than need for money.

For certain trades, paid apprenticeships exist where you can expand your skillset while also being paid, at no additional cost to you.

Labor in capitalism isn't slavery. It isn't compelled by force. Nobody is holding a gun to your head telling you that you HAVE to work a particular job. Ironically, this is commonplace in communism.

on top of this, people like to rag on management a lot, but management is a legitimate job in its own right.

for example, its incredibly important in the coding industry cause coders aren't really equipped to switch gears from writing technical code to trying to organize the portions of the project everyone is working on. managers in coding companies exist as a buffer between individual coders, coordinating effort and decisions, and making sure they can work in peace since even the smallest distraction can make them lose their focus/momentum.

they also represent the coder when they ask for better working environments or explaining their progress to higher-ups. on top of that they take responsibility for making sure whatever job they're given is completed

do they need to be paid so much? questionable, and likely no. does every manager/most managers have this kind of positive impact on/role towards employees? definitely not everyone, but i wouldn't say only a few do.
without a hierarchical system it would be impossible to coordinate many people towards one large goal due to communication overhead.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2017, 06:40:37 PM by Conan »