You see, peasant, you don't *deserve* a living

Such bullshit.

Instead it aligns perfectly with the contempt they have for their workforce.

...

Nauseating.

Muh blessed job creators.

it's too early in the morning to be this angry

The name even sounds something you'd see in a movie depicting an evil corporation bent on world domination.

That's exactly what I was thinking

"Remember, you're stuck here forever"

...

Is that real?

Yes, it's from that post-post-post-ironic Coke advertisement starring Zizek himself.

The real is unfathomable.

Stopped reading right there. I'm not even an anarkiddie edgelord vandal and I would sabbotage the shit out of that board for insulting me like that.

Because they put an apostrophe in it?

No one deserves anything.

You are right, the capitalist parasites don't deserve to suck up the fruit of our labor time and therefore deserve to be gulaged.

The fruits of your labor? If you are able to create your own company and make it profitable. Fair enough.

If you cannot? Fuck off and either die in a ditch homeless or have a realistic understanding of the value of your skills and negotiate for wages. Better and more developed skills, better wages.

The only parasites we can agree on are Usury, speculators, and taxes. Which are actual problems.

I have no employees, carry no debt, own my own tools, and offer a service that anyone in any society needs. I make hand over fist and the only thing that steals my fruits is taxes.

You want the full value of your labor? Stop whining and blaming others and make yourself into the kind of person that is worth contracting.

Nobody creates a job, the job is there you idiot there for the worker to do, it always has been. A worker doesn't need a corporate owner to cut lumber, he doesn't need a boss to tell him to cut it. And no we are not talking here about "making your own company" since I was referring to the exploitation done BY the capitalists, and not the small time America utopia you have in your fantasies were everyone is a store owner petit bourgeois.

No, they are but a small part of the Capitalist machine, a mere cog in the collection of profit. Taxes go to the state were by security,welfare and public works are done. Usury is merely another name for the Bank, and as Capitalism cannot survive without banks, I don't understand why you reference them, are you against capitalism?

LMAO the miracle of Job creation!

I dont' really care who 'deserves" what. The bourgeoisie are in a conflict of interest with me and as such I will attempt to kill them. That is all.

No one is equal, and I have no childish delusions of utopia. I merely strive for a world where one is free to struggle to be as grand as one actually is.

The first capitalist, is the farmer. He uses his skills to make the land produce crops, more than his family needs, but the produce is still his. Now not everyone can be a farmer, but people need to eat. In exchange for something of value, the farmer is willing to part with some of his produce. Now, there tends to be more than he can reasonable sell himself.

So, he asks around town, and someone who was before idle, is willing to work for a cut of the profits. He is not stealing the labor of his employee, because the product is his, and without it the "job" would not exist.

Hell, I could use a few employees myself. I do not hire because in my experience most people want a job, but they do not want to work.

Considering the rather right-leaning tradesmen have a higher rate gun ownership than the military. Good luck with that.

I think I might kill myself if corporate branding campaigns started post-ironically deconstructing capitalism while still shilling their product

I am aware, and I have my own. But yes, I will need all the luck and cunning I can get.

Within my community, we have every skill needed for society.

Tell me, where are you plumbers, your electricians, your tool and die makers, your miners, your farmers, your bricklayers, your gunsmiths, or anyone involved seriously in the very professions that make life as you know it possible?

Hell, why are you in conflict with the "bourgeoisie"? Are you maimed and unable to work anything of actual value? Did you developed skills that are now worthless because you were wrong about what people needed?

To me it seems you have some personal failure, and rather than own up to it, you will blame anyone but yourself for your shortcomings.

...

...

You make fun of it. However, I came from the very bottom, and with hard work and refining my skills to be one of the best in my area, I have done better than what circumstance would have allowed.

You have to strive, you have to struggle. It is never easy, and if it gets easy you are not trying hard enough.

Damn straight.

T-Thanks master.

so the computer you're posting from was made by your neighbor's small business, made using raw materials extracted and refined by your other neighbor? Your internet comes from an ISP created and maintained by your neighbor? Using satellites your other neighbor built and launched? All of these neighbors of course working completely by themselves with no employees?
You only shop at stores owned by your neighbors, who make all of their products and manage the storefront all by themselves?
When you get sick you go to your doctor neighbor who runs a private practice with no nurses, janitors, nor bookkeepers? Your neighbor does all that work in addition to his practice?
You claim not to be a utopian but you're describing a fucking fantasy.

Did Zizek make it or is it a real commercial?

Cuck.

I've worked about 8 different jobs in my short existence and I disagree that there is no bad jobs. Also the boss has it easier then the laborer and some of them didn't deserve their position.
I agree that in life, you do what you can, not what you want. Not everyone can be an actor or singer.
I've seen people at work do just that and they got the same pay raise as everybody else
I'll bitch and moan and complain as much as I want. At one of my jobs I had to work with broken machinery and you bet your ass I complained.
I disagree, some circumstances don't help
I disagree, no one is made equal

...

Equal opportunity is good, but equal output is just silly.

This is what you actually believe

Yeah mate, I'm sure someone born in a wealthy family has equal opportunity compared to someone born in the slums.

Who said we want equal output? We want equal opportunity. ACTUAL equal opportunity, not the bullshit "You can be anything if you try hard enough" lolbertarians preach.

People don't, which is the problem. If they did, I don't we would be having this discussion. Also you misunderstood what I said

Pretty much this.

You're , right? You just disproved your own point.

Nope, just

And

You mean the proletariat?

Equal opportunity to do what? Surely not equal opportunity to exploit others.

Shit sucks when there's high supply and low demand for labor in your field. That's why you pick a job where the demand is higher than the supply, you then have the leverage to negotiate how much you sell your labor for.

Actually, the funniest thing is what you don't say. You do not ask where are the bankers, the landlords, the business owners, the speculators, the stock traders, the renters and the loaners. It is hilarious how, in your listing of the many people who are necessary for the functioning of society, you conspiciuously mentioned not one member of the parasitic bourgeoisie because it is clear that they produce nothing and yet demand to be given resources because they own property and the rights associated with said ownership.

Wrong, idiot.

The first "capitalist," by which I mean the monopolizer of the means of production, was the Latin land magnate that necessitated Roman Imperialism and subsequently became the landed aristocracy that eventually enslaved morons like you for over a millennium.

Wrong thread?

...

You ever watch the Lego Movie?

ITT:
People that haven't even played Vicky 2, let alone read Marx or anything.

RESERVE ARMY OF LABOR!

WE ARE BACK IN VICTORIAN TIMES!

...

Wage slaves are brought in to make the workers BARGAINING capacity go through the floor, so the bourgeois can do whatever they want.

If you only have the ability to be a janitor, and you are unable to rise past that, then that is the greatest you can be. Equality does not exist, and not everyone has the same potential.

Bankers, speculators, and stock traders have no place in society.

Landlords are needed because not everyone has the long-term financial discipline to purchase their own land.

I do own a few multi-plexes, and because I am a bit tight fisted, I maintain them myself. I fix anything that goes wrong, hell I am even able to fix the A/Cs if they go out. I produce a functioning domicile, and if you want to live it, that requires compensation, because it is mine.

I carry no debt, and therefore am not a slave and do not fall for any attempts to indebt me.

Crop growing is not the only set of skills worthwhile. My skill set barely includes farming. I make a fair bit with eggs, but chickens are not that hard to maintain. Hell, between my goats, chickens, and hydroponics garden I have not gone to the supermarket in a few months. I do sell my excess though.

How did you get your land?

This.

I worked my ass off, and did not purchase frivolous things. I was putting in 100 hour weeks to keep up with my customers needs. Thus had the saved capital to make a decent purchase.

When I got it, it was a moldy condemned wreck in a neighborhood with a high crime rate, thus carried a low price and did not need to go into debt for it.

I worked my ass off to get them to livable condition.

Without me, it would have been rotting mess that likely would not have seen redevelopment for a decade or more.

Nobody, literally nobody, says that you should not be compensated for productive labor. However, the problem is that under the capitalist system you are being rewarded for it by taking money from other people through property rights, not because you did labor. You still have unpaid value on the work you did improving the place.

Were things socially owned and provided for your work would have been given direct compensation, it's not like we don't recognize and reward hard work.

You have no idea what the difference between renting and owning is.

When you rent, you have the function of the home guaranteed. If it hails and the roof is damaged, the landlord fixes it. If you toilet fucks up and so on.

The owner is taking all the risk. Not every property is profitable. Renters do not share that risk.

I own my things, and screw anyone else trying to have a say over my labor, my efforts, and what I have produced. I know enough lazy pricks from my childhood who will never be better than section 8 and food stamp receiving parasites. Those morons get nothing I have worked for, without a cost.

My apologies for the double post.

Under the system you seem to be promoting. I would have done nothing to be who I am today. Hell, my cheeking teens years would have gotten me killed.

I am motivated by spite and self-interest and tend to believe most people are as well. Knowing myself, I would never contribute to s system that does not give me full ownership of my own labor and efforts. I would burn my multi-plexes to the ground before I'd let you lot have it for a second.

Quoted for truth.

Anyone who supports mass immigration is a tool of the corporate elite.

I'm starting to see why the USSR felt the need for gulags.

Personal property does not equal private property, if you built that all by yourself, and wanted to rent it out in exchange for recourses from the other persons work( or their capital though the ultimate goal is abolishing "money"), no one has any issue.

There is however, nothing you did that could not have been done by a socialized society. The reason it was a shithole is because people thought there was no reason economically to improve it. Landlords would become obsolete because the amount of people who were doing all the work on the house all the time by themselves( and thus be entitled for full compensation from any money gained from the house) would dramatically decrease.

You also should understand that is why it fell. The very kind of person that makes, is the very kind of person you would gulag, and it doesn't end.

What do you produce? I manufactured something, for something a century old. I have made at least a dozens function goods of high value today alone. What do you make?

...

Unless you literally did everything yourself, you did not make it. You needed the labor of others, in this society if you hired 10 guys to help you build it they would get an equal share of your profit relative to the amount of work they put in. If you do LITERALLY everything then okay, it's all yours and you aren't exploiting anyone to secure your financial gain.

Does the wild cat deserve a mouse? Does the small plant left to suffer in the shadow of the larger deserve sunlight?

I'm against (((neo-liberalism))), but the idea that you need to perform a service to earn money to eat is not some shocking idea. And they're right; you should feel lucky to have a job in today's shitty market. Because for all of your ideological purity and humorless, stale leftymemes, there are thousands of people who would take your job in an instant (now it's not even restricted to your fellow countrymen; the labor market is globalizing).

Every skilled tradesmen I know, every farmer, every person you would claim to be on your side, expresses the very sentiments I have.

You cannot have you socialized society because most of the skilled individuals and those able to become skilled will not participate. You might compel them to work, but you will never be able to compel them to work well.

They are free to buy their own land if they wish. If they cannot, not my problem.

No one is entitled to what I make, they must compensate me for it, or it will not be made, and if it is already made. It will be destroyed.

I do not hire, because by my standards most people who I could employ, should pay me for the opportunity to know what I know and the experience gained by working for me.

Also, people should negociate for what they are worth. If they do not like the offer, then do not take it. If you want $10 for a hunk of metal, do not take 8. By working for someone for an amount, you are agreeing to that share. Believe you are worth more? Then figure out how to get what you are worth.

Excellent spooks, but you're still my property in the end.

Does not compute.

meant to quote

I'm confused. I never said people aren't entitled to the benefit of their hard work. They should receive their full compensation.

Skilled people will participate knowing they will be compensated for their labor and their living expenses will be paid for while having more leisure time and being able to take their profession in directions that may not be relevant to their work immediately

This is something people are forced to agree to because if they don't accept their exploitation they will starve. In a socialized society they will already be receiving the full rewards that the owner would normally be keeping to themselves. If you built it all yourself, you have no issue.

I'm a turd positionist. You must work to live and earn money, but the state as the protector and advocate of the nation is to work with the private sector to ensure high wages for workers while allowing for profitability to the employers. It must also get rid of market speculating, private banks, and risky investment practices.

They are not forced. No one needs to live. Life in-within itself is a luxury afforded by struggle.

*turd positionist

based word filter

OK I guess it's a word filter lol

Go live in the mountains if you really abide by that rule.

Why don't slaves just buy their own slaves to subcontract their work to?

"Brought in" versus "allowed in" is an important distinction.
Mass immigration is voluntary on the part of the immigrants because they get a better life out of it. The decrease in bargaining power is secondary. Restricting and allowing immigration both inherently advance the interests of one section of the working class over another and entail accepting a false premise.
Though far tighter restrictions are eminently practical in current circumstances, they treat symptoms and not causes.

Real th!rd positionists are nationalistic socialists, not corporatists.

I am Nazi in principle, but corporatism is more realistic addition/alteration since the economy is globalized and one state can't be an autarchy as it could in the 20th century without getting in serious trouble.

Then get the fuck out and don't come back

You can have markets while still maintaining worker ownership.

Actually happened in ancient Rome.

However, land ownership is not that hard. Undeveloped land goes for regularly under 5k. Hell, I got my first plot while I was still working at fast food for minimum. Just a place to park my car and pitch a tent. I did make a bit on allowing hunters to use it during hunting season, but meh.

The amusing part about this statement, is I basically do.

...

Triggered.

How do worker-owned firms cooperate amongst one another and form over-arching economic policy?

investmentdominator.com/rei-crm/crm-00091/property-details.php?view=703

One minute and I found one under 1k. Come, and join the land owning club for less than most used cars.

Then get the fuck out and don't come back

Owning land and working for someone else who OWNS the land himself, is not the same my dear prole.

Don't you have a rally to get stabbed at?

I'm starting to see why you think like this.

Who says there won't be struggle? To live is to struggle. The only difference is we don;t want you being leeched off by for profit parasites. Period.

Struggle also includes trying to make society better, if even by a little bit. Perish the thought.

He's saying land ownership is a spook and retarded

Then get the fuck out and don't come back

Worker co-operatives are not the norm in Capitalism. If they were we would be having communism or at least socialism.

Capitalism begins by someone who owns the Capital. Theoretically you can trace worker co-operatives back to medieval guilds but even then they are not Capitalists in themselves since they id not own the Capital they produced, as it was owned by the feudal landlord.

The accumulation of Capital begins in Europe with Mercantilism in Italy/Netherlands, were banks, loans and trade became a crucial part of acquiring and selling capital by the merchants/burghers of the time.

Quit being a faggot and either BTFO him or ignore his ass.

Historical precedent tells me that communism and socialism becomes the most insatiable parasite.

I have not seen one example of communism or socialism making society better.

However, under capitalism, we have seen such great excess the good has literally made people sick. While I do not necessary agree with consumerism, my life style means I have very littler use for things which are not practical.

I've seen my frontal portrait spookbuster face pasted on to atleast two images now, but I've not actually seen someone use my original.

The former has never even been practiced, a stateless classless moneyless society, while the latter, workers owning the means of production, has been rarely successfully implemented, in small places. Worker co-ops, Catalonia, and a few others. The ones you may be referring to have had a statistic subversion. Revolutions don't always work out and can be subverted by the state. Stalin comes to mind.

Meanwhile you've also pointed out one of the many flaws of capitalism.

youtube.com/watch?v=Y4r-LzOQEho

youtube.com/watch?v=S8vlus86NRE

*Statist subversion Is what I meant.

So if I put a gun to a slaves head in the 1800s, tell him "work for me or die", and then if they work they "voluntarily chose" to work?

The corporations created WAR in their country, and promised them free tax money if they come over, there isn't any choice there, there's barely an illusion of a choice.

FUCK YOU

LEAVE THIS BOARD FUICKER!

This This Absolutely This.
I'm tired of liberal faggots shitting up this board.

Elaborate on what you mean by this.

kys

...

why is this wrong

because the ones making that claim in turn claim that they not only deserve a monopoly on the use of property but to retain all of the profits derived from the labor of those forced to work that property for them

I do not buy useless things, and I blame incompetence for those who fall for blatant bullshit they do not need. Even then a flaw of abundance is better than a flaw of starvation.

Either they are capable of providing for themselves, and thus parasites. Or they are unable to and therefore not my problem.

Taxation is theft, and I have no love for the parasitic class that relies on it. Be it welfare recipient, congressmen, or artificial monopolies.

Not a single legitimate success listed.

I think the point was that someone always comes along to stop it because it's seen as a threat.

If socialism is such an objective failure, why are capitalists so hellbent on stopping it wherever it crops up? Why not let it fail on it's own?

And what the fuck are we supposed to do about it? Just let them die?

Besides, socialism has nothing to do with taxes.

Yes, yes we are. Those without the resolve to live do not deserve pity.

Also, taking what is mine and saying it is everyone's is just 100% taxes.

Because it will kill millions. As it has repeatedly.

...

Nobody deserves anything, people only have the power to take what they may, for whatever reasons they have. When the workers realize that they collectively have exponentially more power than the capitalists, they will take it, and the bourgeois will have nothing to do but pray for undeserved table scraps.

Capitalism has killed an infinite number more people than socialism ever has.

...

One, access to my stuff is not easy. The joys have of having skills is the creative application of them. No one, and I mean no one is able to get to my stuff without my permission.

Two, they are too lazy to even support themselves, I doubt they have the ability to do anything more then shit the bed.

Again, you miss the point. You are not the workers, you have never actually represented the worker. The skilled workers are by and large right leaning or libertarian.

You can work or you can die. Saying you can't work is saying you can't live.

Is it easy? No. You can use a computer, figure out how to contribute something worthwhile to people with it.

Do phone IT or hell cab companies hire remote dispatchers.

A few pulled fingernails will take care of that easily.

If you want to torture me, understand one thing. All you will learn, is how many variations of "Blow it out your ass" I know.

However, thank you for proving you are nothing but a thief, willing to attempt to mobster people of what is theirs.

What if this hypothetical disabled guy is unable to secure a job that pays him well enough? What if he suffers workplace discrimination? What if the stroke that left him paralyzed also took some of his cognitive abilities? It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

Well, guess what. By exploiting your workers, you are taking what's theirs, and therefore they have a right to claim it.
(I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the bourgeoisie in general)

youre both faggots. now hand over your best memes or die putos

I like how you guys are are so hard-nosed and amoral when it comes to the suffering caused by private property, but always become teary-eyed moralists when it comes to defending private property.

Of course I don't represent "the worker" nobody represents anyone but one's self. Even if voted for, the leader of a nation would only represent me insofar as he echoes my personal sentiments. It's also irrelevant where the worker stands politically in this day and age, that's a matter of limited exposure to leftism, and a vision of capitalism obscured by tradition and moralism. I've come to the conclusion that a greater happiness can be acquired by a greater number of people through common ownership and democratic operation of production than through capitalism, state, anarcho, "crony" or otherwise.

Oh yeah, and don't tell me I'm not a worker. Most of my working life I've been a warehouse worker.

also most people who own guns aren't able to use them effectively at least in the US, rednecks can barely shoot straight

You have quite severely misunderstood me, you fucking retard.
I'll go through it slowly, point by point.

No. This is *precisely* the distinction I'm making between "allowed in" and "brought in." Slaves were brought in against their will, immigrant wageslaves are making clearly optimal tactical choices in response to coercive conditions which are more fundamental than whether or not they immigrate. Direct vs indirect coercion.
Yes. This is an inexorable result of the contradictions of capitalism. This occurs regardless of western immigration policy, which is a more deliberate tactical choice on the part of the bourgeois and its representatives (which is why there is serious policy-level disagreement.) Capitalism creates an incentive to immigrate to the west much in the same way that it creates an incentive to take a $12.5/hr job over a $10/hr one when the two are identical, itself voluntary, though one is clearly strictly optimal, while the "choice" of whether or not to work in the first place is not a voluntary one. Direct vs indirect.
Incentive to make a tactical choice.
Bourgeois immigration policy is disjoint from bourgeois-created conflict and poverty, that is, the bourgeois is free to advance either restrictive or permissive immigration policies given the same conditions they cause in the third world.
That permissive policy is thusly independent and that it is all they need to *cause in fact* any desired level of immigration is what I mean by "voluntary." "Get a better life out of it" should have clued you in. They do.
As in, *is a secondary effect.* Meaning "happens as a natural aggregate result of many individuals' optimal tactical choices."

This is to say that the conflict between workers of different nations expressed by the depression of native wages on immigration and the clear incentive for foreign immigration is not itself fundamental but results from more fundamental factors. Arguing for a restrictive or permissive immigration policy as an end in itself inherently means treating this antagonism as fundamental, rather than as a secondary effect of the contradictions of global capital.

Like, christ dude, keep your self-righteous outrage in check long enough to actually read a post more than once and understand what it's saying. It doesn't hurt to actually read theory either.

Top kek, you throw the other bourgeoisie under a bus to save your own skin and the socialists cant even get their shit together enough to take down any of you

…
honestly, I don't even have language to adequately describe how fucked-up that shit is

…

Been NEET for a little while now.
THAT SHIT is why I contemplate anhero over returning to FT employment

No, this has a ex-tools middle manager written all over it.
HR are far more subtle about this shit. Just as vicious, but a lot more subtle like "But, we're your friiieeend"

At least this cunt was honest about company policy. HR never are.

t. first-hand experience

And there you go. "Communications" is just another reactionary term for propaganda dept, just like HR is for "Masters of Whip".

I'm glad they're being put through the ringer for this shit. It's obvious their culture is just THAT toxic that their whippers are posting shit like that.

ON WHAT PLANET NOW?!

yeah like its a joke or something
but, like the managers at any job will tell you, they do believe they are doing favors to people

I don't care for your domiciles. I do care for your sunny patch of land though, how many guns do you own and how happy are your renters with their slavery?