Does the perpetuation of inequality by neoliberal economic systems make it possible for Marx's predicted economic...

>it's another /pol/ vs /leftypol/ thread
moooooooooods

Venezuela and North Korea are ridiculously inequal though

You forgot the Great Depression that plunged party of Europe into the hands of anti-Capitalist populism, in the form of fascism. The USA had a similar development with the New Deal.

Only Keynesian policies of massive government intervention into the economy made Capitalism applicable after WW2

Why are leftists such horrible people?

They dont have Jesus

marx explicitly says capitalism feeds off Kondratiev cycles

There is not one-end-all massive collapse, but recurring collapses that allow private interest to gain more control over the economy. In Marx analysis, the perpetution of inequality is a means to an end. Rich are the carrot, "reserve army' of un-employed are the stick

Also, inequalities are higher in communist regimes, economical and legal power in the same hands, an extreme minority controls a very large share of wealth, while equality applies to all others. It's an optical illusion, peole have similar incomes, but qualify of life depends on how much you can afford on the black market, be it goods or "services" such as permits, safe passes, official position, etc...

No one pays 57% tax
Earnings above 150k euros are taxed at 45%, and if anything, pic related will probably lower that
Infowars is not a reliable source user

Fake news

You do realize that's not the only tax people pay, right?

For God's sake, don't be such a moron...

>He no doubt lacked the statistical data needed to refine his predictions.

Understatement of the millenia

But didn't Marx state that the success of capitalism would eventually be its own downfall? The progressive betterment of worker's conditions would eventually leave no one to be explored and thus cause the collapse
What I meant was if neoliberal systems, which increase productivity but stagnate wages, would perpetuate that inequality and make capitalism last forever

The first part is actually a good description of current Europe isn't it? Marx would probably explain current immigration trends by this.

In fact, wages are already stagnated in the USA as far as I know, and the push for immigration in Europe is so strong that they would rather wreck Libya into becoming a slaver hellhole than keep their own neutered populations. Income inequality is growing and growing A LOT; the gap between anyone here and the top 0.01% of the population is so immense that it would take billions of "middle class" people to match a single of the richest ones in wealth. Capitalism is such a huge success that it is now eating itself apparently (or, to put it better, eating its recipients). I suppose neoliberal policies do help perpetuate this without killing us off in the end, at leas not all of us.

What does "a classless society of equals" even mean in practise? Complete equality of ownership, tasks and income? It seems like everyone just makes up a new class as they go to describe the inevitable manifesting inequality of people regardless of system.

Neoliberalism can survive for centuries. It won't collapse.

...

Yeah, that's what mean. I just wonder if that's the neoliberals' game. To stave off the collapse of the system with perpetual inequality

stronghold is such a fun game

>no one pays 57% tax
K listen. First of all, someone making above 150 thousand euros pays 45% income tax. Then, when he actually buys stuff, there's a 20% VAT tax ( angloinfo.com/how-to/france/money/general-taxes/value-added-tax ).
That sums to 57% . It's something of a special case, so user's kind of a cunt, but it legit happens to a few people.

Not the guy you're responding to, and I've only recently started reading marxist theory, so somebody who's better read should correct me; as far as I can tell, Marx's claim is that people function according to their material conditions, which are defined by the division of labor. Under capitalism, a natural evolution from feudalism, its necessary conditions of private property and economic self-interest are contradictory with "general", "state", or "communal" interests (which, for Marx, aren't some innate Roussean drive that everyone magically has, but are simply the basic interdependence required by any social group).
This disjunction caused by private property and the labor division transforms all social relations into economic relations, even within the family unit. This spurs the pre-existing class dynamics that were continued from the feudal period, added with the new and revolutionary development of the bourgeoisie from industrialization.

Capitalism, by its very nature, overproduces in order to control the value of any given commodity; it must be wasteful in order to stabilize trade. A classless society of equals, therefore, must entail the co-ownership, or "nationalization", of the means of production, as well as a radically transformed division of labor, which can also only occur by restoring economic value to, at least in Marx, the labor theory of value. Seizing the means of production could then allow for equal distribution of all items needed for living. The elimination of private property (separate from "personal property") prevents the dynamics of capitalism from restarting itself. In conjunction, this will eliminate profit motive, labor alienation, and therefore class. "Income" doesn't exist. Labor tasks are decided democratically within each sector, the government, in its end goal, doesn't exist as a separate bureaucratic entity, but is rather the collective decisions by the citizenship.

I'd honestly rather live in Cuba than the US
>Among the highest literacy rate in the world
>Better education rate than US
>Poverty & Hunger largely eradicated
>Low infant mortality
>Some of the best doctors in the world
>More doctors per person than UK or US
>Government that actually cares about its citizens (compare Cuba's govt. response to hurricanes to Texas' and Trump's with Puerto Rico)

It's also pretty unfair to say that socialism doesn't work when the US kills about every other person who's ever tried to begin a socialist republic, pic related.

>Does the perpetuation of inequality by neoliberal economic systems make it possible for Marx's predicted economic collapse to be indefinetly staved off?

No, but it can be indefinitely staved off for other reasons. But by all means, continue to wait for the inevitable and guaranteed implosion of capital. I guess capitalism hasn't produced enough technology yet xDD

Cuba is slowly opening up intok becoming a market economy, with approval of the population

It's pretty incredible how people approve of international trade after decades of harsh sanctions by the world's leading economic powers. If we're talking pure stats, the average Cuban has an equal, if not better life than the average American, given the enormous weight taken off their back by sensible nationalization of basic needs. It has a higher home ownership rate than the US does, for example, as well as a poverty rate (5% in cuba v. 14.3% in US).

>First of all, someone making above 150 thousand euros pays 45% income tax.
This is not how it actually works. You will pay 45% tax on all your earnings above 150k, but not those under. So for instance if you make 153k a year, and if we ignore all other factors, you will NOT pay 45 % of 153k which is 68.85k. Instead you will pay 49200.54 euros, which is roughly 32 % of your income. The only part of your earnings that will be taxed at 45% are the 740 euros you won in addition of wining 152 260 euros. This is why it's called "imposition par tranche" or tiered imposition. service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F1419
Additionally, the TVA is not fixed at 20%, but depends on what you are buying. For instance, if you are paying for food the TVA is only 5.5%. TVA can even go as low as 2.1%. economie.gouv.fr/cedef/taux-tva-france-et-union-europeenne

To pay 57% taxes, you would have to be incredibly rich. In fact, ignoring TVA, you would have to win 350k a year to pay 57% taxes, which is about 16 times the median salary in France, and 26 times the minimum salary. This represent a negligible portion of the population.

People who win this much were subject to other form of imposition (taxe sur l'habitation, impôt sur la fortune, ect ...) which were much more constraining, but Jupiter (Macron) is actually canceling some of those. So all in all, the ultra rich are paying less and less taxes.

stats can be twisted to make any point you want to make. home ownership is all well and good, except it doesn't actually take into account that cubans are living in decaying shitholes, that nobody has renovated since the fifties.

Why did Jesus cast the money lenders out of the temple violently, then?

>whereas the most advanced European countries explored other, social democratic avenues—fortunately for their citizens.

Holy determinism.

Communists should all defect to Cuba. The brain surge would be useful. Cuba for all its putative poverty, is persisting. There’s still inequality but people are going to be human after all.

He didn't have Jesus

Source please. Cuban owned companies traded on stock market?

because it's a place of worship

No, neo-liberals play the marxist for the fool. They placate them and vilifiy opposition so that marxists actually believe them to be allies. Then they squeeze them for all the loose change they have at every opportunity using puppets loyal to the neo-liberals.

All that shit only matters if you're a nigger

>K listen. First of all, someone making above 150 thousand euros pays 45% income tax

you fucking dolt, get outta here with you rotten mongoloid cartoon-tax website
Only what is earned ABOVE 150000 is taxed at 45.
Pic related, simulation for a gross income of 170k, net taxable income 162k. Taxes in euros:53k, 32%. Source:literaly the government site to calculate your income tax, not some turbo-brit autistic website for dummies like you.

If you:
have children
employ house workers
are at a a net loss on a private financial portfolio
give to charity

you can deduce corresponding sums form your taxe due

>VAT yadada and whatever insane calculations you make adding percentage of taxe on income to percentage of consumption spending that goes to the state
before tackling taxes, you may want to refresh your maths and statistic 101, or maybe you're on LSD, dunno

VAT is the same for everyone, and is a taxe on consumption (you don't pay VAT on wealth, e.g portfolio, real estate...) Given that lower incomes do not possess such assets, and that the relative share on income consumed is higher as salary are lower (poor spends most of his income, rich part of it only), VAT is in effect the only tax which poor pay more than the rich, so not an argument for tax burden on high incomes

t.merger and acquisition consultant, far from being a leftie, but you are insane to think your contribution has any value. pure fake-business drivel, you can barely count properly motherfucker.

Maybe you should let the adults deal with these topics
Someone who

Economics is a shell game tied to a popularity contest tied to a collection of meaningless elaborate Shibboleths that barely need to be pronounced correctly if your skin color and other external facticity speak loudly enough to compensate, themselves built from the carcass of the theory and thought of intellectuals who were too stupid to recognize the world as it actually existed and believed that the adoption of their manners of speaking actually reflected tangible changes in the world in accordance with ideology.

I'm not saying Cuba's any paradise, and no shit the infrastructure is decaying because it's a fucking poor country, duh. It's strange, though, that violent crime is far more uncommon in Cuba than the US; I wonder if it has anything to do with everyone's basic needs being met? The fact of the matter is that Cuba is doing pretty fucking outstanding as compared to countries with similar economic status, and is in fact *better* than the US in a number of areas despite its weak economy. The benefits are directly correlated with its socialist political structure.

DESU I agree. It's incredible how they've been able to do so well despite the large history of brain-drain by the US.

You,re closer to Stalin than you think, revisionist. If you re-vision, that means you have no vision.

>It's strange, though, that violent crime is far more uncommon in Cuba than the US; I wonder if it has anything to do with everyone's basic needs being met?
i dunno, i took a far more simplistic view of it maybe doing something with the fact that it's a repressive authoritarian state. also, the cuban government doesn't release any official crime statistics so i would take anything regarding it with a grain of salt.

> it's a repressive authoritarian state
That's in large part just US propaganda, Cuba pales in comparison to the USSR and NK in terms of state suppression. Cuba has repressive and revisionist history, I'd never deny that, but it's also relaxed considerably, foreign media floats around without any state repercussion, and although capitalist groups and dissidents are suppressed (I can't honestly say I care that much), journalist's rights seem to be improving.

Again, I'm not saying it's any utopia, but let's actually deal with the facts we have about the place, especially given that foreigners can also, y'know, pretty actively go to Cuba and report on things there unlike NK.

Imagine thinking this is a politics board. You're as bad as the /pol/lack refugees.

You seem to know a fair deal about the French economy, which is of great interest to me.

What is Macrons endgame to improve the lackluster performance of France in the last decade? Will he try to make tax and welfare cuts, in a similar fashion to Germany?

It’s impossible to discuss anything properly on /pol/, so I welcome political refugees

i don't see what's at all commendable about it. you're pretty much just playing apologist for authoritarianism because of the clothing it wears. the only way cuba persists in it's current model that you seem so adamant in defending is for it keep being authoritarian and keeping its citizens poor and repressed.

this

source? There is no country with more inequality than the USA. Depending how you measure it.

mah nigga

I'd rather have my own shitty property than a fancy apartment that charges me if my 3 yr old knocks a hole in the wall.
Also, yes stats can be easily misinterpreted. That's why you actually have to do/read them yourself.

I thought about this, but then realized I am too selfish for that. I can get a better job here. It is what it is.

It's not /that/ repressive unless you openly campaign against communism.

>Does the perpetuation of inequality by neoliberal economic systems make it possible for Marx's predicted economic collapse to be indefinetly staved off? Is this the neoliberals' objective?

NOT
FUCKING
LITERATURE

NOT
FUCKING
LITERATURE

NOT
FUCKING
LITERATURE

there is a POLITICS board and a HUMANITIES board

Welcome them to your own forum then you shit, this is a literature board.

Every nation-state has benefits and drawbacks.

>the only way cuba persists in it's current model that you seem so adamant in defending is for it keep being authoritarian and keeping its citizens poor and repressed.
>poverty rating is lower than US
>completely ignores stats from UNICEF and UN
>poor economy is a result of its waning authoritarianism and not its long history of harsh sanctions from western capitalist countries
If anybody's being an ideologue here, it's you buddy. I'm not defending its authortarian history, but, unlike you, I'm also not ignoring Cuba's pretty remarkable achievements, ones that the US simply hasn't, and likely never will, meet or succeed.

>poverty rating is lower than US
how about you stop with this disingenuous bullshit? also, achievements are relative. yeah, it's a great achievement that people aren't starving anymore, yada yada. how do you even compare that with a country where the poor are so well fed that they're too obese to work?

I'm this guy. I don't really know a lot about the french economy, just what i learned in school, so maybe the other user will be able to answer more precisely.
As for Macron, yes he is planning tax and welfare cuts. To go a bit deeper politically, Macron is either an hardcore saint-simonien who think France needs to win the economic war to further its interests, or just a classical neo-liberal who thinks that economical growth should be the endgoal of all political actions. It's probably both, but in the end, it is clear that his goal is short to mid term economic growth. His reelection, and arguably the political future of neoliberalism in France, rest on his ability to actually deliver on those promises.
Also he nicknamed himself "Jupiter" so there's that.

> Well-fed
> Dying of malnutrition and obesity at the same time

It's almost like eating nothing but empty calories ruins the metabolism,damages the body, and increases hunger, leading to a vicious cycle desu

Americans aren't any happier than cubans i'd wager.

indeed. you can commend cuba for not having these problems but the reason why they don't have them in the first place are because they are problems endemic only to wealthy countries.
yeah, material well-being doesn't necessarily correlate with happiness. doesn't change the fact that people still want it.

here

yeah pretty much, his team his hunting for 13 billions savings, so it's going to be a close shave.

One thing that he wants to do differently than Merkel is keep salaries high, to create a buffer against deflationary (general drop of prices, this is actually bad on a macro level), Merkel used production to set a strong commercial balance, by creating super low payed contracts (people make eastern europe salaries basically, as low as 300e a month) which stiffles the demand bump needed for growth

tl:yes and no Macron whats less spending like Merkel, but he doesn't want to lower salaries and hopes that savings added to higher employment via tax-incentives offset the cost of these savings, as opposed to Merlkel who finances via a excendentary commercial balance which france could never dream of.

>also, try pulling that shit on the French and expect the whole country to go tits up, but winter is bad for riots, so I guess he 'll a few month so everyone can bash each other's head in in the sun.

>how about you stop with this disingenuous bullshit?
When you prove that they're somehow false.

>how do you even compare that with a country where the poor are so well fed that they're too obese to work?
>Getting fat means you eat well
Do you know anything about hunger? Being fat doesn't mean you're not malnourished. You can eat McDonalds every meal, doesn't mean that you're actually healthy. Obesity is due in large part to fucking access to food. When you're food insecure, you go to fast food restaurants because you can actually afford it.
nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/hunger/
theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us.

It's pretty fucking embarrassing that, in the richest country in the world, that 43 million citizens are below the poverty line, and 14+ million didn't have food security, especially given that the US wastes about 40% of its food production. Combine that with miserable access to healthcare, the US is far worse on these issues compared to Cuba, especially when considering our enormous wealth and infrastructure in place to, y'know, help people.
worldhunger.org/hunger-in-america-2016-united-states-hunger-poverty-facts/

>but the reason why they don't have them in the first place are because they are problems endemic only to wealthy countries
Probably because wealthy countries are capitalist with massive wealth inequality, lacking institutional distribution and regulation of basic human needs?

commies PLEASE go to cuba I will buy you a plane ticket if you promise not to come back
shoo, shoo, to your containment island

t. user of government invention (Internet) running on a government invention (computer)

no one is starving in us except by choice.
>capitalist with massive wealth inequality
wealth isn't a zero sum game. equality doesn't count for shit if you're all equally poor.
>lacking institutional distribution
what are you talking about? every western country has a pheltora of both private and public institutions that help people in need.

>no one is starving in us except by choice.
imagine having a childlike understanding of what free choice means

yeah and I'm drinking fanta an invention of the nazis does that make me a hypocrite for not gassing the jews

you can choose to go to any number of free, available soup kitchens and homeless shelters in the us if things go so bad. if you don't, it's your fault. i'd prefer nobody be reduced to that point, but people fall through the cracks in every system. the principal difference is that this is a bug in capitalism and a feature in virtually any attempted communist system.

>every western country has a pheltora of both private and public institutions that help people in need.

I dont know much about the USA. In Western Europe, we indeed have safety nets that prevents people from becoming homeless and starving, but they're a direct result of the Marxist union movement, not of Capitalism.

No clue how that works in the USA. You had a program named Great Society, but it had been rolled back since then.

>Marx's predicted economic collapse
Will never happen because it's bunk. Literally nothing Marx "predicted" has come to pass, not once. Not one of his ideas has shown to have any real world validity. The only reason anyone ever gave it the time of day is because his analysis of history and class struggle seemed to explain everything, and his predictions were just a continuation of his logic projected into the future. But nothing he predicted has happened. And really, what's to say his analysis was even right? It seems more likely that people just wanted it to be right because it appeals to their sensibilities. It's convenient to have a simplified version of history that explains everything, and even better if you can use it as a prophecy for the future.

Marxism is basically religion for the embittered poor.

>Marxist runs out of talking points
>redefines words so that he's right anyway

>no one is starving in us except by choice.
Ah, yes, the poor are poor because they choose to be poor. Maybe if they chose to be wealthy they wouldn't go hungry. Why don't coal miners, auto-workers, and unskilled laborers just get new jobs that aren't there and are getting replaced by automation?

Many places in the US where poverty is epidemic, i.e. small towns and inner-city ghettos, simply don't have those programs in place. Not to mention that they've been consistently undercut by legislation
mic.com/articles/186241/hungry-new-yorkers-have-lost-out-on-223-million-meals-because-of-food-stamp-cutbacks#.pOmFk3k3P
>this is a bug in capitalism
A bug that has persisted over 200 years on the richest country on earth and hardly exists in Cuba? Poverty is inherent to capitalism bud. "People fall through the cracks and there's nothing you can do" ideology is nonsense. Who knew people would go poor if you needed job insecurity and low wages to keep the whole system functioning.

The USA has government programs and charities that fight hunger. As for homelessness, most of the homeless are homeless by choice. Some of them simply prefer that life, some are mentally ill, some are just stubborn and proud and refuse to accept charity. People who want to get off the street have options that allow them to do so. The problem is it requires them to sacrifice dignity and personal liberty, which many of them prefer to housing and security.

I know this argument has been beaten too death, yet: China. Embracing free market policies after decades of Cumminism helped tremendously

as if i could find a fucking soup kitchen near me. Your spoilt ass has never seen poverty.

not the guy you were originally speaking to. You literally just don't understand structural constraints on choice.

>poor (first world poor) = starving
wew

post hometown

>As for homelessness, most of the homeless are homeless by choice
>housing costs skyrocking, forcing normal families out of their homes
>severe amount of homeless veterans
>competitive and insecure job market that wants younger workers, increasingly requires college degrees, that themselves are becoming more worthless
>market that hasn't recovered from '08 crash, leaving those laid off still without job security
>they choose to be homeless
Have you never left your basement, user?

>The problem is it requires them to sacrifice dignity and personal liberty
Ah yes, because being homeless is so respected in this country, given their systematic abuse by cities and policemen.
You'd have to be the most hardline Hobbesian to actually think these people have much choice for their condition.You're delusional user

>complaining about soft authoritarianism in Cuba
>cites country with some of the worst working conditions, income inequality, and oppressive state government on the planet
sure showed me. China's always been awful and implemented its backwards Maoist ideology horribly, I'll never defend them.

>You have to be a starving african child in order to "really be hungry"

>structural constraints on choice
I googled this and got a bunch of academic articles arguing about what those even are and what they mean. In other words you've substituted something with a straight forward definition with something that has no real definition and rely on jargon that must be googled to further obfuscate what you're talking about. Because you've run out of things to say.

Here are some examples of structural constraints on choice
>Wealth background
>Access to education
>Access to job training
>Markets accessible to you in your vicinity
>Job requirements
>Rent and housing costs
>Social spheres with access to jobs
>Age

>Have you never left your basement, user?
I got a new job earlier this year that pays 17.50/h and didn't require a college degree. It required a lot of dedication from me and a willingness to move 100 miles away and live off of rice and beans for 14 weeks. Now I'm actually making money, I can afford real food and will be able to live in a real apartment with roommates instead of renting an attic.

Before this I washed dishes at a Chili's. Before that I did landscaping for two summers. Before that I painted houses. I have never had trouble finding work even in this recession even without a college degree, but it was shit work that barely paid enough to live on. But I finally found an opportunity and I took it, now I'm finally doing good.

You're just lazy and petty.

Thank you.
Here is another one:
>brain damage and early or intense trauma

whoa whoa whoa, are you implying that i give a shit about your privilege?

I fail to see how any of those magically make you unable to choose what to do. You still have free will and can still choose to do or not do something.

Yeah it was my privilege to live off of federal minimum wage for the last 5 years, asshole. I had nothing going for me except a healthy body and a willingness to put it to work, which is more than your pampered lazy ass has probably ever done in his life.

It's amazing how mobile someone can be when they're young and don't have families to feed and care for, limiting their ability to move frequently. Your average homeless person is either a parent, or a child, 9 years old on average.

>You're just lazy and petty.
Somebody's getting defensive. I don't give a shit about your personal life story buddy. Unless you have social mobility charts to actually back up that your anecdote is anything but that, an anecdote, it's meaningless.

Crazy how poor people who live in poor communities have less choices to choose than the bourgeoisie.

...

>muh free will
Grow a spine and face your determined reality

>the assumptions
No, i just realize that people on the internet don't give a shit about my life story. That's honestly why i come here, you can be judged for your words rather than who you are.
That healthy body is a privilege, but so is the capacity to feel self-determinant. Or, as you say, "willingness to work." The Will does not come sui generis you dumb fuck.

Gee, can you not think of a single intervening variable or proximate cause or even methodological error in this chart? If not, kys.

>these people who are rich were once poor
>are all baby boomers who grew up in a radically different economy
>no actual figures about social mobility in the US
Sure showed me

Oh no, the /pol/ libertardian autism is leaking

>Grow a spine and face your determined reality
your inferiority complex is showing

I don't see what that has to do with living in a universe determined by causality but okay

The point isn't to obtain perfect equality, because that is impossible, and any attempt will only create more inequality and less freedom for the masses.

The point is to create a system in which no one is held down by any arbitrary government policies, in which any career is open to the talents.

No one is holding you down, and the people whom you most likely hate, are the ones who are actually capable of helping you move upp the job ladder.

You're just saying that to rationalize/justify your stupid behavior, you pathetic loser.

Not the guy you're responding to, but it appears you are missing the point. You are viewing the problem from within the capitalist system, because it's all you've ever known. Of course the people i hate could help me move up the ladder, but i'm not gonna suck their dicks just to have some other poor schmuck try to suck mine later.
I just hope you aren't the same guy who implied I'm a rich kid. But hey, whatever, go for the unfounded ad hominem. You make the /pol/lacks look stupid and that's good enough for me.

The point is to construct a political and economic system in which everyone can flourish and aid each other. At the moment the US has a system where a disproportionate amount of people are suffering and holding back progress for no good reason. It's not a problem of muh freedom, it's a problem of efficiency and fucking human decency.
>nothing is stopping you! Just pull yourself up!
Yeah, tell that to a dad who's working three jobs just to make sure his family survives, tell that to the homeless veterans who can't secure work because of the disabilities they earned in their service, tell that to that guy who fucking died the other day because he couldn't afford insulin, or every average Joe who gets laid off during economic crashes. You're living in pure ideology.

Pathetic. You can’t counter his points, so you’re trying to turn this discourse into a highschool drama about losers and winners

No, instead you want to rob people of their money by force.

I don't see how such a system is in any way, shape or form more preferable.

>You're living in pure ideology.
Your entire posts shows that you are the one doing that.

You, as like every other person on Veeky Forums it seems, fail to ask yourselves the question 'compared to what?'. The fact is, there are far less people living in poverty in countries where the dominant economic system is that of free markets and free trade than in countries that deviate from those ideals.

Comparing anything to perfection or to an arbitrary standard solves nothing, but I don't expect an ideologue to understand that.