No, it is literally all the people who vote and don't vote that tip it one way or the other.
It's ok to be angry about capitalism
- Thread starter XsjadoBlaydette
- Start date
This is just flim-flam.
One could likewise argue that in the top left quarter arc of a circle, there are infinite individual points (by breaking down the arc into smaller and smaller divisions). Yet no matter how much you do this, it doesn't turn the top left quarter of a circle into any other part of the circle.
At worst, this is getting towards some weird scorched earth or fudging tactic of waffling bollocks because you'll do anything not to have to admit your argument is plainly stupid. Protip: stubbornness is not the same as insight.
I'll have some extra syrup with those waffles. Dude, you are essentially arguing that the definition of a word is whatever is most convenient at the time for you. Language doesn't work that way, and even if it did, you would not be the arbiter.
If I said the SPD weren't socialist because the KPD was, you'd give me the same answer.
Well, I'd certainly call you wrong, just like I'm calling you wrong for claiming the SPD were conservative. And that's because you are wrong.
People aren't angry at capitalism. the nordic countries are capitalistic. What they are angry at are the elites and a greed-based mindset, there are poor white people, rich pro-capital gen z, and oppressed poor men. This isn't about feminism, baby boomers, and race those are linked but at the same time separate issues. This is about the idea that some people "deserved" radically more resources in life while others suffer for things outside of their control 80 to 90% of the time. At what point do we say to ourselves enough?
I don't think anyone is willing to say that poor or rich. Americans aren't willing to say it because they are on top vs many people in many countries, the Europeans aren't willing to say it because they are a beneficiary of the American-led order, China isn't willing to say it because they are growing as a superpower and want their time in the sun again, and many rich people in the global south and academics aren't acting in good faith because they too want to be on top against their own countrymen, and would likely do the same things the Americans or elite if they were in the same position, and want the same position.
I don't think anyone is willing to say that poor or rich. Americans aren't willing to say it because they are on top vs many people in many countries, the Europeans aren't willing to say it because they are a beneficiary of the American-led order, China isn't willing to say it because they are growing as a superpower and want their time in the sun again, and many rich people in the global south and academics aren't acting in good faith because they too want to be on top against their own countrymen, and would likely do the same things the Americans or elite if they were in the same position, and want the same position.
And after pointing out the error in conclusion, you'd point to the error in the logic that lead there.
Yes, it's been explained to you multiple times by multiple people why you are wrong.
Your sum response to any of those explanations is nothing at all, unless we count ignoring it. And yet here you are, farting vacuously into the ether still.
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,558
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
French police accused of using excessive force during pension protests
Human rights watchdog say people angry at Macron’s pension law had right to protest peacefully
www.theguardian.com
No shit.
Except in the woods from bears, if we're asking whether the French police tend to use excessive force.French police accused of using excessive force during pension protests
Human rights watchdog say people angry at Macron’s pension law had right to protest peacefully
No shit.
What does "proven largely wrong" mean in that context?
Like, Marx died nearly 140 years ago. I don't think anyone reads Marx and thinks "wow, he's perfectly described the society we live in" because he wasn't trying to, he was describing society as it existed more than a century ago using the theory and terms available at the time.
I don't think this is just leftist-bias either, because I'd apply the same case to Weber or Durkheim. All three are foundational to understanding social science as it exists today. Whether they were actually right has kind of stopped being relevant, we still have to engage with them because their work is the starting point on which whatever you think is right has been built.
And I would actually say, of those three, Marx is probably the one who has held up best, with Weber a close second.
Marx also did make predictions about the way society (or societies) were going, based on then current trends that didn't continue, though.
OTOH, of course, he also was big on saying stuff like kids shouldn't be in factories, they should be in state run schools, which don't seem as outlandish today.
OTOH, of course, he also was big on saying stuff like kids shouldn't be in factories, they should be in state run schools, which don't seem as outlandish today.
The main problem with Marx is that he mostly describes Capitalism and its failings. He is surprisingly vague about how Communism is supposed to work in practice.
Other than that, yes, he is severely outdated. The workforce today looks very different from the factory workers of his time.
Other than that, yes, he is severely outdated. The workforce today looks very different from the factory workers of his time.
this is the sort of thing that people say when they want to give the impression of having an informed opinion about Marx without having looked at the text
Hey? Are not many of the sort of reforms Marx was demanding (in the Victorian age) things we take for granted nowdays? Admittedly, there are some who seem to want to take us back to the good old days of no safety regulations.
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,558
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
Same with feminism, or the 1968 social-cultural revolts. There's those who shit on all societal advances, either failing to conceive that there was a "before" without all the progress they benefit now (in terms of holidays, social security, sexual freedom, etc - common sense just cannot process what rights used to be lacking or even unthinkable) or directly wanting to erase these gains and go back to a time where workers could be all the more explicitely exploited, where social castes were all the more rigid, and where women had their kitchens for sole horizon.
But hey, to some, wishing to build up on these few acquired rights instead of ditching them is "clinging to the past" ("hah, these progressives, they are so conservative, cuz they want to conservate, see"). Words are empty rhetorical tools, and stupidity is always a powerfully stable currency.
That is true.
But the more important difference is that Marx describes a workforce where workers can easily replaced (not only because there are many workers but also because training is short), are not well educated and have no negotiating power because savings are not a thing and a worker can't afford the time to turn a job down and look for another.
Now look around : While such jobs and such labor still do exist, they are not particularly common anymore. Most jobs nowadays require extensive specialized knowledge and additionally long training periods. The latter makes employers reluctant to hire the wrong person and the former makes filling positions harder. Similarly the long training periods and other difficulties make employers more reluctant to fire anyone who can do the work.
It is not uncommon for employers to have a position open for more than half a year or for workers to take as long to find their next job. That is just a very different situation and the relationship between employees and employers has shifted as well.
A century ago (which is still well after Marx) the kind of people that are like the average employees nowadays did exist as well, but they were generally not even counted among the working class because they were seen as culturally too distinct and as having a different niche.
More reluctant than they were in Victorian times, perhaps, but hardly very reluctant. It is exceptionally common for someone to have fuck-all savings and to need their job to get through the next few months. The balance of leverage is still overwhelmingly in favour of the employer, while the employee simply cannot afford to lose it. Training periods are still woefully inadequate (hell, my own position-- which does require extensive knowledge of a specific area-- is testament to that).
In reality these factors have been ameliorated. But not overcome, not by a long-shot.
Of course if we're talking about the likelihood of Marx's predictions coming to pass, we can point out that if the abject circumstances of the 1800s didn't provoke proletarian revolution, then the comparatively milder circumstances of today (for the majority) are less likely to.
I don't know if the UK is a stand out in this one or if these stats are similar across similar countries (there's nowhere like the UK you say! Lucky bastards I say!), but on savings:
The average person in the UK has £17,365 in their savings.
34% of adults had either no savings, or less than £1000, in a savings account.
Almost two-thirds (65%) of people believe they wouldn’t be able to last three months without borrowing money.
These are not good figures!