Leftists hate workers, why should I support them?

I said it offers me greater possibilities. I don't care about being rich, I'm not a materialist. In this society I can freely choose my profession, yet in a "workers paradise" like the DDR I'm forced to do things against my will.

How? The left wants to raise the tax leaving me with even less. And any tax that is gathered is instantly wasted by the politicians.

Social mobility provided by welfare state can more effectively improve your hit of "opportunities" when compared to what free market capitalism has to offer.

The DDR isnt a worker's paradise, nor do we support state mandated labor.

The left doesn't want more taxes. In fact, we want no taxes, and many of us want no state. See the problem? You mistake liberals for leftists.

liberals and democrats.
under socialism, work = money.
under capitalism your labor is worth X but you're receiving much less than X because you're being exploited, squeezed.

read wage labour and capital

workers in canada are a disaster of ideologies.

I'd say more than half of them are right wing and completely buy into the 'hard work makes you rich' 'i'm just going to work hard one day then i'll be rich' 'i went through shit so everyone else has to too' memes

and if you try and gentle prod them towards anything else. they just double down even harder into capitalist ideology

I'm trying to hate them less, but when they complain in the break room about how the unionized retail workers across town make almost double their pay, and are mad at those workers, they get hard not to hate.

- there is no ethical consumption under capitalism
- consumerism =/= capitalism
- slaves used their masters' tools, ate food given to them by the master, wore clothes given to them by the master. serfs used their lords' land and tools. the proletariat buys products by the bourgeoisie.
your point?

But they do.

They hate people who work hard in the current system and create a life for themselves.

They hate people who work harder and create opportunities for other people to find success.

I've literally only seen praise from any leftist heaped on someone who never works and only leeches.

social mobility (which is almost always exaggerated by tokenism and 'exceptions are the rule) do nothing but teach the worker they can make change within capitalism. the state always knows this and uses it to protect long term capitalist interests, while helping very very few workers.

That's why using left/right division is stupid. Welfare state as proposed by Sandman is not what far-left cares about

liberals and social democrats =/= communists

can you provide *ANY* real examples of leftists (not liberals) hating (non-bourgeoisie) workers?

soo many workers making either below, or paying at the very minimum income tax bracket (and of course ZERO capital gains taxes) make this argument. I really don't know why they argue for lower taxes for the rich.

It does help workers trough since it allows members of working class to ascend their socio-economic status, making them potential leadership material for trade unions and political parties of the left.

...

A welfare state only survives with debt. Any money given to the state is wasted. Or I should clarify, any tax money that doesn't directly go back to the taxpayer (services such as healthcare, education etc.) is wasted (politicians pay, upkeep etc.)

They are all in the same political parties, it doesn't matter.

no it reproduces bourgeois ideology within the proletariate in general. they only think 'if that one did it, so can! so can my kids!' which is just neo-liberal individualism. They don't say 'he got out, now let him lead our communist party'

and besides, most of those who get out of poverty just think they had a leg up - but again, it was 'hard work of the individual'

This is not factual. If we take a look at Sweden for example that has managed to cut its national debt in half despite up keeping the framework of welfare state.

How does one develop such jaded and cynical view of the working class?

it's frustrating but it's not entirely their fault. everyone is extremely misinformed and uneducated on basic government and economic functions largely because schools are failing to teach students properly.
i was told that Not Socialists were socialists. i was told that, under communism, everyone makes the same amount of money no matter what and everyone is poor. i was told that taxes only serve to hurt the rich.

it's ridiculous. i don't know what i expect from an institution ran by porky in the end, though.

that's literally false. we hate democrats.

we might as well have a sticky with big red letters saying "we are not and do not like liberals" at this point. Assuming these all aren't falseflagging Holla Forumsyps.

are you from sweden?

some of it's largest employers:
Securitas AB - 280 000

Basically Sweden is making money with a private security police force that protects private property and capital world wide

H & M -100 000
Clothes made at 19th century conditions by exploited workers in Bangladesh.

Sweden is parasitical and props up their welfare state and cut its debt by exploiting proletariate abroad. Sweden only knows how to pillage foreigners, as it always has.

i guess i hate the workers sometimes b/c i hate ideology and they are just ideology

It does say in the FAQ but that would clearly be too much effort to read.

Yet they have
Debt per Citizen
$21,876
And rising
That's a whole years income for some!

we fight for workers but ya it can be frustrating to interact with classcucked workers. we have to fight for them too, though.

muh job creators!

99% of pro-worker legislation comes from leftists though, and the labor movement has always been spearheaded by anarchists, communists and socialists.

You do realise that if you don't pay politicians, nobody poor can afford to hold political office. Then again it doesn't change much, most polticians are bourgie anyway

Welfare states are often economically more resilient than their laissez-faire competitors. Higher standards of education, healthier population translate to higher efficency. Fairer spread of wealth means evenly spread and more consuption - etc.

We do have that. It's just everyone comes here high on ideology, huffing and puffing with their 'new and unique' debunking of leftism so they don't read the sticky

Under the assumption that this isn't bait…

This is a liberal meme. You are *not* free to choose your profession. You are subject to market forces.

If the field you want to work in is saturated, you might have to work for below subsistence wages, or for free in some cases as an unpaid intern or volunteer. In the worst case, you might be unemployable in the area you want to work in.

Do you think walmart workers choose their profession? Why hasn't everyone become a politician, a great athlete or a movie star?

The answer is that there is only room for a few people in those areas and competition is fierce. If you aren't in the minority of people who can hack it, you've got no chance.

The majority of the workforce, by definition, can't do this. If you're in the position of only having average ability, education or wealth, you'd want to be secured from homelessness and starvation.

The only way you're guaranteed to be able to choose your profession is if you carve out a spot with your own money, which requires you to be rich.

I'm a social democrat, so I don't really know how command economies allocate labour, but we want full employment and a good standard of living for the working class.

No, the (moderate) left wants to redistribute the wealth, and we use a progressive tax system to do this. The wealthy get taxed more, and that money goes to pay for food, healthcare and education that goes to the benefit of all.

If you're a poorfag we don't want to tax you more.

Interestingly, in america the most conservative states are also the highest recipients of federal aid, since the great depression and the tenessee valley authority.

Not really in your question, but also keep in mind that most people who recieve government assistance are working at least part time. We call these the 'working poor'.

why are your goals bourgeois? (full employment)

why isn't your goal marxist - a chance for all people to achieve their rich and varied abilities?

why is meritocracy bad?
How is this different from taxing me, it's still taking someone money and wasting it

As a short term objective. Full employment secures the workers against the fear of unemployment and empowers them to strike or quit in the face of piggy shenanigans.

With full employment comes higher wages, less fear of the boss and enough security to stop thinking all the time about bare survival.

Then we can move forward to cooperatives, nationalization or a mix of the two.

the end goal is communism though right?

...

Can't wait for full wageslavery

Its not meritocracy that's bad, its going from that to 'average people must be treated badly'. If you're the most average, middle of the road person in america, you are not going to be able to choose your profession.

You have 'freedom' in the sense that you have a slim chance. That's exactly what you'll get in a command economy.

In both cases you have to satisfy the gatekeepers.

For U

You can`t expect improvements in social conditions of developing or underdeveloped economies without higher participation in trade unions. We should indeed improve those conditions by supporting international trade unions across the globe.

apologize

We have to work with the world as it is. Full employment is a much better place than overtime for some and neetdom for others.

No.

Because a school or a hospital is more useful than some fat cat's third holiday home. I maintain that it is more useful even to the fat cat in the long term, as his pool of labour to exploit is better educated and healthier.

much better than full employment is minimum employment - ie working as little as possible and democratically deciding what is necessary labour, so we can self-actualized.

it is like you want to make the most capitalist country : S

aufheben the work/play opposition tbh

Full employment means everyone has a job, not 'everyone must work 48 hours a day'.

If everyone is guaranteed a job, you can negotiate with a lot more power and bargain down your hours.

In fact what will probably happen is a gradual decline in weekly hours per worker with increases in productivity. Do you know what happens now? Some workers are laid off, and the remainder work for lower pay because they're scared of joining the unemployed.

Its like you've never heard of the reserve army of labour

pork isn't going to go for your plan. only in democratically/collectively owned firms will you be able to just get shorter hours when productivity is increased.

it's like you want everything communism gives, but think porky will hand it over?

And you plan to accomplish this through the bourgeois state? We'd have to make them do it at gunpoint, at which point we might as well implement FALC.

Even if one agreed that meritocracy is not bad, you can never have a real meritocracy under capitalism. The class system reproduces inequality across generations. An example. A rich politician will probably send his kid to a expensive private school, then use his connections to ensure the kid gets in to a top rated university and put the kid on the fast track to political power. At the same time a working class kid with a better head on his shoulders is flipping burgers instead of reading.
Look at the Bushes and the Clintons, such political dynasties would not exist in a meritocracy. The only way to have a true meritocracy would be some kind of communist regime where you test everyone and literately pick the best people for any given job. But personally I don't think society should be shaped to create an elite of rulers. Seems anti worker to be honest.

...

basically
hating classcucks is pointless and counter-productive. we have to educate them and continue to fight for the entirety of the working class, not just communists.

Organization of workers must take place at least by trade unions to exploit this power for collective bargaining.

When people realise that it is possible to move to socialism, we push porky out of his ideological mask of 'freedom', and he will be exposed.

Increasing the power of the workers is essential. After porky is forced into declaring his true aims, the proles will have to decide whether they want to go back to the old days when they had no power.

Every single state in history was balls-deep in debt. It doesn't matter. It is arguably required for a state to function at all.

Most rightist normies aren't necessarily classcucks, though, unless you live in Burgerland.

yeah, i'm america. everyone's brainwashed and refuses to read any communist theory

If you change the title and the aurthor on the cover of some books, like transforming "Wage Labour and Capital" by Marx into something like "how economy works" by Rush Limbaugh, i'm sure some burgers would give it a try.

in some ways you have it better than us, in europe we have people who have family that lived in the eastern bloc and they can tell you all about how horrible communism is

this is what you did to us, tankies

waa waa rich people complaining about communism when they weren't even living under communism

good idea. some burgers should do this.

No you weren't.

...

My god

Majority of people from eastern block countries still vote left and think life was better under communism.

I understand the warsaw pact countries since they were russian client states. But russia itself? The soviet union split into fragments, the economic ties of the republics were severed, and shock therapy created porky heaven. It took a decade for GDP alone to recover.

And did they get democracy? Yeltsin was an autocrat who pretended that free market fundamentalism was the same as freedom. When the duma tried to stop his porkish plans he ordered the army to shell the parliament building.

Tell them that medicare is government controlled healthcare, and that all we want to do is extend it to cover everyone.

They will accuse you of being a liar and demand that you get your government hands off their medicare.

the time period after the dissolving of the USSR isn't equal to the USSR. most people were happy in the USSR. just because it dissolved and the dissolving created a lot of issues doesn't mean the fact it existed in the first place was bad.

youtube.com/watch?v=fWXc3ttPYxU sad

that's what I meant… The collapse was a bad thing.

i misunderstood, i thought you were implying that the dissolving was so bad that it should have never existed to begin with

So many fallacies on one post either false flag or unenlightened halfwit

Nice try Holla Forums

As usal OP is a faggot

The stereotypical leftist is an upper class yuppie, university student. These people despise the working class, fetishize it.
They especially despise working class white people and rural peoples.
The democratic party isnt leftist, it isnt for the worker, it isnt int the union halls, it works in the interest of their donors, Hollywood, big business, silicon vally.
A pervasive identity politics which divides people of the same material conditions is promoted, all the protests after trump won weren't about economics, they were about women and muslims and spics.

Democrats always wonder why white people vote against their own interest, when the democratic party are passing life destroying trade bills, bailing out banks, expanded private prison programs.
There is nothing for a lower class white person in the democratic party.
The republicans appeal to white identity politics, so white people vote republican.
While both parties fuck them over.

The leftist is cynical, effeminate, a giant faggot basically.
They despise that lower class people have traditions, or like guns, or are religious, that they dont have guilt for shit that happened a million years ago.

You'll never live like common people
You'll never do whatever common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
And dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do

You will never understand
How it feels to live your life
With no meaning or control
And with nowhere left to go
You are amazed that they exist
And they burn so bright
Whilst you can only wonder why

youtube.com/watch?v=4KjAVr1WSu0

In my country, university is open to all, no matter how poor.

Burgers are the most classcucked people on the planet.

Do you have downsyndrom?

yes there are a lot of uni student commies out there (myself included though I tend to resent a lot of these types) and yes, most of them are awful. especially all the ones who are basically just progressive democrats (most of these types hang out in various trot/socdem student groups). But none of this really seems like a good reason to reject communism to me. I'm interested in this though:
what exactly do you mean when you say that?

...

lol look at this fucking retard and laugh

...

One positive about not going to uni is that I can escape the stereotype of the "uni commie"

Thats one positive about life. No matter how bad my country gets it will never be as class cucked as America.

After reading your posts, I can tell yoj are an insufferable faggot, I would hate you too

Same here, that what I was trying to say. Leftists are all academia people. The working class have abandoned the left, or to be more accurate, the left has abandoned the working class.

I can choose if I become a History teacher or a truck driver, a politician or an artist. Communist countries tend to force people into a certain profession,

In my country all schools are "free" (paid by the taxpayer)

You can choose to pursue those things, but you can't choose to get those jobs, you dumb idiot. Whoever is hiring at whatever faceless corporation you're applying to decides if you get a job or not, and some board of assholes you've never met decides if there are even any jobs for you at all.

...

the people in academia are workers
they do not own the means of production, they are proletariat
That said, they have failed to communicate their ideas in a way that other proles can understand and get behind.

Subhanallah, I could not fathom being a classcuck to this level. Imagine believing that the elite give a damn about your interests.

A) No they didn't.

B) Even if they did, nobody here is advocating such policies, nor are they inherent to communism.

You seem earnest, so I'll try to charitably engage with what you've said.

m8, no. Not at all. Your ability to take on a profession is contingent on how much wealth you/your family has. Yeah, you could definitely be an artist or a truck driver.

But to become a history teacher, guess what you need? That's right: a college education. And how do you get that? With money. Money that a large amount of the population does not have.

To be a politician is even more unlikely, if not impossible. How many lower-income politicians do you hear about? And for the few stories of those who exist, how many go on to shill for neoliberal anti-poor policies and take on speaking fee after speaking fee (see: Bill and Hill Clinton).

Whatever these countries may do, has little to do with what socialism actually promotes. Socialism is about workers owning the means of production. Workers are to be liberated, and have a say in what they do from day-to-day. Completely different from what life is like now for the masses who get incredibly frustrated at having to get up on Mondays. Karl Marx wrote in The German Ideology:

oh I'm sure you were

[citation needed]

It's pretty clear what happened. The Eternal Boomer.

Guess OP is trying to imply he got wiser

I doesn't. Unless you were born with a million dollars or a million-dollar talent, there is no appreciable advancement.

I doubt it. Can choose to be areal estate developer? Without a ton of capital, you cannot.
This shows you shallowness. Politicians provide a useful managerial function.

tl,dr, you just have a very big chip on your shoulder.

HAHAHAHAAHAHA
They've haven't worked a day in their lives and sit jerking each other off while taking government handouts (paid by the hard working taxpayer) Then they go and blame the taxpayers for being so intolerant.

At least this is how it is in my country where schools are free. (including universities)

Lmao you mean like Trump who literally has an international fucking brand, and has Goldman Sachs in his cabinet?

You are the biggest band of hypocritical autists.

Of all the posts you pick to read is that one.

All that took me to become a socialist was learning exactly what the fuck it is and your image is EXPLICITLY false.

Democrats/liberals like Hillary Rodham do, not actual marxists/leftists.

who talked anything about trump?

...

...

tfw leftist that isn't at uni

...

Academics are workers by definition, and universities are mostly funded privately.

What should I consider about these posts? I tried to answer most of the more serious ones.

Not in my country

OP is going to sleep
Sweet dreams Holla Forums keep dreaming about your commie Utopia naive fuckers.

Could you respond to mine?

youtube.com/watch?v=zIddCEBCKHQ

Damn you sure showed us

...

Keep lick boots classcuck
Maybe one day your employer will let you move on to licking his balls

Read an economy book user, you're embarrasing yourself

Public debt is a very important issue, as it is what the bourgy uses as an excuse to engage in privatization

If you owe $300 dollars to the state, the state owns you, If you owe $300,000,000,000 dollars to it, you own it

Intersectionalism.

I hate when leftists disown leftists because of popularity.