>tfw you read economics and realize right-wingers are full of shit, most social problems can be traced directly back to exploitative economic relations, and we need to create an economy based on worker councils and democratically-controlled enterprises if we want a decent society
When is this website going to quit its identity politics and focus on real issues? I mean Jesus Christ, we're focused on insane jewish conspiracies instead of fighting the actual neoliberal elite, what's wrong with us?
Other urls found in this thread:
>He thinks he understands something
>babby takes econ 101
Fug off.
Literally this, college freshman goes left.
>let's storm heaven (again)!
>surely we'll build a proper utopia this time!
And I assume in your enlightened college graduate years you turned into a retarded nazi?
Great arguments.
>he isn't a Hoppean libertarian
step it up pinko
/proletarianrevolution/ when?
You think you're a spookbuster but you haven't even abandoned the ultimate spooks of private property and individuality.
>material economic relations are spooks
The West has spent the last 100 years spreading propaganda to prevent leftist ideas taking hold. The result has been 2 different kinds of liberals fighting over identity, and the far right coming up as a counter-cultural response because, whoops we forgot about those guys, too busy fighting communists :^).
>democratically controlled enterprises
Fantastic until your democratically controlled enterprise that can't agree on a single goal or path gets outcompeted by a normal corporation run by a trained executive team.
We need a King desu. Corporate power isn't allowed to run rampant under absolute monarchies because it represents a threat to the throne and by extension the nation.
The neoliberal elite are the Jews, you stupid cuck.
You forget the contrarian, anti-social nature of this board as well as Veeky Forums in general.
Veeky Forums ultimately wants the same as normal people but pretends it doesn't.
Actually, research shows cooperatives can be equally or more effective than corporate tyrannies, so you're full of shit.
Are you the one who is monitoring my torrent traffic?
No. Believing in the idea of material economic relations to the point that you orient your action around this idea makes you "spooked." I'm not denying the utility of Marxism as an economic lens, I'm saying it ceases to be used and becomes a user in the case of OP, who looks like he's trying to be a cipher for syndicalism.
>discussion of economic policies
>le nazi
kys yourself, cretin
>the jews are marxists
>the jews are liberal capitalists
>the jews are Thatcher-Reaganites too
Okay... Which political stance ISN'T Jewish, according to your literal insanity?
Evola was a jew too.
>research
p>0.05 for all left-handed grandmothers who cleaned up three times a week for a co-op, more like
If cooperatives are more effective/equally as effective than classical corporate structures, why haven't they risen to equal prominence? Try not to phrase your answer in the form of a conspiracy theory.
>When is this website going to stop following partisan identity politics of the right-wing and switch to partisan identity politics of Socialism?
Great idea, let's cure cancer with cancer.
Have you read about the problem of economic calculation yet? It's worth a go
>he thinks anything that happens to him is not a part of grand jewish plan
That only applies to centrally planned state capitalism, not decentralized systems like anarcho-syndicalism of market socialism.
>one's objective relations to the means of production is an "identity"
This is your brain on capitalism.
>market socialism
The great Yugoslavian meme surely delivered.
>anarcho-anything
Only useful to score points with your professor.
You don't get it nigga
a democratic society for the worker is NOT desirable. It's literal nihilism, and you are one of Tennyson's lotus eaters, willing sleep and peace rather than war and struggle
Read the prologue to Thus Spoke Zarathustra
The ECP was btfo by schumpeter in the 40's. Not an argument.
Although maybe the ECP and the TRPF are both correct.
Don't you get it? The rich banker jews want to use their rich banking power to spread communism throughout the Western world and debase the only source of their own power.
>It's a /leftypol/ acts as if class isn't an identity episode
I hate that one.
Hey, it's not Yugoslavia's economy's fault that there were a bunch of S*rbs living in it.
>democratically-controlled enterprises
Great idea, let's give factory workers who barely passed high school the lion's share of the say in how the most powerful entities on earth operate. Surely nothing will go wrong.
What does effectiveness have to do with prominence?
What?
>muh technocratic meritocracy
This thread needs more idealistic retards divorced from reality we live in.
>The ECP was btfo by schumpeter in the 40's. Not an argument.
[source needed]
If coops were more effective they would be more commonplace as they would be more profitable, but they are not.
All power should go to a small elite caste of wise philosophical swole artists. Neither the bourgeoisie, nor the proletariat, nor anyone else can fully appreciate that power.
Debate me, faggots.
>the global elite is not a jewish conspiracy
Not so fast Soros
>Effectiveness is profitability
>Effectiveness leads to prominence
>Profitability leads to prominence
NEWSFLASH: ever since the assassination of JFK we have all been just puppets in one giant show completely planned and orchestrated by the international jewry, there is nothing they have not planned
A democratically-controlled enterprise is a business run by the workers. Workers tend to be undereducated. Businesses, especially large ones, are highly influential and can cause severe social/environmental/economic damage when run poorly. Putting the power of Goldman Sachs, for instance, behind its tellers would cause the company to either self-destruct (overspending on employees is the obvious problem, but there are several others) or do even more harm than it does now. Possibly both.
Capitalism is bad, but it's stable. This proposed solution, however, is bad and unstable. No idealism or belief in meritocracy required.
For orthodox Marxism to gain enough traction, it must stand on the side of the oppressed and the marginalized (despite the fact that no society can function without marginalization and oppression in some way) and the only way to do that is by picking up identity politics. If you reduce everything to singular causes and explain everything based on class struggle, you are engaged in identity politics.
Also what Capitalism are we talking, the Capitalism during the time of Karl Marx, the Capitalism during Lenin, Russian Capitalism, Icelandic Capitalism, Dutch Capitalism.
You can't reduce Capitalism to these transcendent ideals, Capitalism is not a unified entity but a practice and process.
Plus neither of us can make economic claims worth anything, we can grasp at basic economic interactions and maybe a little deeper knowledge of micro and macro economic concepts but no deeper than that.
You can say that Marxism sounds prefereable and that's fine, but to actively excercise the process of altering a society towards Socialism is unethical.
Why a caste lol what if at some point there ends up being a terrible bunch of people who belong to that caste speaking for it instead of some better philosophically swole artist born elsewhere
>Workers tend to be undereducated.
You step a little lighter than when you were saying 'barely passed highschool'
>social/environmental/economic damage
Yeah to the neoliberal system -- of course the structure of society and the economy would undergo a radical transformation if workers held the means of production. But something tells me that even the least educated workers aren't going to use GS to cause environmental harm.
I don't mean hereditary caste like in India. I mean a socially distinct class of society that's institutionally privileged above the rest.
And that would be different from the present how exactly?
>sex, race, creed, doesn't matter if you're either worker or owner
>It's identity politics!
Old crusty lawyers and businessmen are not wise philosophical swole artists.
its autism it what it is
>wahh i hate working for mister moneybags
>instead i want to slave just as hard for probably less compensation from the state
you people disgust me
Ok but how would you guarantee that this special version of socialism would thrive in a revolution? Most likely the consensus of state socialism would win and then we would all go to gulag or the wall
Or would it be implemented gradually, parallel to the actual system and slowly replacing it? How would that work? Is there a productivity-"humanity" tradeoff that makes it more difficult for this system to outperform the current one? Etc
So we're not talking about Marxism now?
Why did you jump to the workers council conclusion?
im not who you were talking to i just hate you people's obsession with working
>Effectiveness leads to higher levels of profit
>if it's more profitable more people will do it
Are you an idiot?
Fair enough.
The WPSA's, tho. So basically like a Brahmin class, but with more art and less prayer? Are they lazy fat geniuses or do they have to be like Guardians as well? Do you mean like visual art, or as in, 'I think this map would look prettier if Poland was a different color?'
There are two big examples of possible anarchist organization today: open source software and cryptocurrency
Every radical politics that deliberately ignores those is outdated from the start
>fat
No I already said they have to be swole.
>Do you mean like visual art, or as in, 'I think this map would look prettier if Poland was a different color?'
I mean art as in literature, painting, drama that kind of thing.
>babby forms conjectures about the economic system after the first few weeks into his intro to economics course
Neither are organizations and you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.
"I get off on Nietzsche's prose and this is literally why we should stop trying to minimize economic inequality and suffering."
This, when we pull down all the ideology, is at the basis of right-wing thought. They don't want a decent society for the maximum amount of people, they want everyone else to suffer. They'll come up with any amount of bullshit philosophy to distract themselves from the fact that we have every material basis to remove wageslavery altogether. "Muh struggle", "muh aristocratic spiritual strengthening from bloodshed and war", how about you stop LARPing you stupid fucking idiot.
>This entire thread
>how about you stop LARPing you stupid fucking idiot
How about you suck my fat Hyperborean nob, you plebeian.
>They don't want a decent society for the maximum amount of people
Utilitarian drivel.
Go fuck yourself, Mr Herbert Spencer.
>Effectiveness leads to higher levels of profit
Hahaha what?
They are organizations in the sense that they are ways of different people to organize towards a single goal
They are anarchistic in the sense that they are radically decentralized, without central organization (even though some OSS have internal hierarchy it's spontaneous, and you can always just fork the project and make your own, as it happens normally)
And they are possible in the sense that they actually exist, actually produce results and actually work for the people involved in it
>If I call myself anti-political, it means I am!
Sorry, but Nietzsche was a proto-fascist. He was just smart enough to ignore racism.
Well in the free market sense you measure effectiveness by profitability
What sense of effectiveness were you referring to when you said that co ops are more effective than traditional companies?
If you define effectiveness as doing something with the least amount of effort and waste possible it trivially leads to higher profit
>private property
it's easy to see that it's not an end in itself and can easily be operated with as tool in a non-spooky way
>individuality
It's necessary to defend it as long as there are power structures trying to lead you into machine-like wage slavery.
So it's a just defense mechanism
I'm not the guy who initially said that so my argument has been that you haven't been careful enough if you're equating 'effectiveness' (whatever he meant) with profitability without understanding what he meant by effectiveness.
To me though it seemed effectiveness preceded profitability and even though profitability may result from effectiveness it's not the same thing. and shouldn't be interpreted as such.
But since I took over he probably left.
>You step a little lighter than when you were saying 'barely passed highschool'
I'll admit, that's an overstatement. But the point remains, these people aren't qualified to make difficult decisions.
>But something tells me that even the least educated workers aren't going to use GS to cause environmental harm.
Decisions about efficient use of electricity, paper, etc. involve lots of complex analysis, and, left to a vote, will probably wind up being made incorrectly. Even if it isn't deliberate, non-trivial harm is still caused. Besides, most people don't care about the environment in the first place, so optimizing these types of things would only be under consideration in the first place if it had the potential to save money.
>Effectiveness """"leads"""" to higher levels of profit
>you're """"equating"""" 'effectiveness' (whatever he meant) with profitability
Why are you on Veeky Forums if you can't read yet?
>people still exist who aren't economically centrist
Explain this
You're the one taking shortcuts son. Effectiveness is a quality separate from profitability.
Nobody argued otherwise, you absolute dunce.
underrated
>If coops were more effective they would be more commonplace as they would be more profitable
Something can be effective at making decisions and being 'competitive' without being profitable.
It depends on the research the guy didn't post.
>economically centrist
What did he mean by this?
>nietzsche
>fascist
Fascism is a populist movement for plebs. Hardly Nietzsche.
>Effectiveness
>The degree to which something is successful in producing a desired result; success.
For organization whose goal is generating profit effectiveness and profitability are synonymous.
This. Why the fuck did we need ten posts to establish that when I said "effectiveness" in the context of group entities functioning in a capitalist medium, I meant effective in the natural-selection, Darwinian sense of "If this idea was such a good one why doesn't it dominate the market?"
This question will never be answered because the only way to say "syndicalism/everything-is-a-democratically-operated-coop-now-ism is better at making money than a traditional hierarchal corporation AND hasn't outcompeted all other corporate organizations is because of [grand conspiracy theory]," which is something I knew a was coming and headed off at the pass when I said the guy wasn't allowed to use conspiracy theories.
The problem is we think we're separate from the world and from each other
All we need is food clothing and shelter.
You don't need to have all this extra ultra-nightmare infrastructural military industrial prison bullshit around
We just need to grow food. Everything else is a massive unnecessary complication
He's likely using some other measure of effectiveness like the actual quality of product produced to measure effectiveness, and I can't see why a co-op type system would necessarily move towards that.
>being a dirty hippie in 2017
>not having a real rebuttal
>current year
What product when we're solely discussing organizational structures over completely empty abstracts? Are you mentally ill?
I'm trying to have a civil discussion here. If you are who I was replying to then I whole heartedly agree with you, so stop acting like a confrontational prick.
What I'm saying here is, that in the context of a production based business (as an example) a measure of effectiveness could conceivably be the higher quality of product produced.
Not him, but do you have any suggestions for how your ideas could be feasibly implemented?
Everybody can read his post and then yours retard, you look like a pants-shitting fool
You're right. There's literally no other way to define "effectiveness" in this debate besides:
>profitable
And the syndicalist gesturing vaguely towards "research" that "proves" the superiority of his organizational structure over the dominant form, despite the absence of any citation or even real-world examples of his structure outperforming corporations, isn't inspiring great swells of leftist thought within me.
Yeah put seeds in the ground and water them
>unironically anprim in current cyberyear
read land
Scundered desu
The problem is that most people in society don't even have a 101 understanding of economics. This ignorance is how things like trickle down economics gains credence.
more like read moldbug to be honest family
Trickle down is legit.
Business always aims to maximize profits. Effectiveness of a business is always measured in profitability indicators. Spec quality of products/services is another characteristic which doesn't necessary correlate with effectiveness. You can redefine terms however you wish, but it doesn't add anything to discussion really. Agreed upon terminology is there for a reason.
Look around, my guy, does it look like it worked?
Rich people merely accumulate wealth to no greater purpose when they don't have to give as much to the government.