Why are there so many Communist/Socialist apologists on this board, and why does it seem that a disproportionate number of them are Irish.
Why are there so many Communist/Socialist apologists on this board...
Aiden Green
Other urls found in this thread:
mises.org
forbes.com
ideas.repec.org
research.stlouisfed.org
research.stlouisfed.org
research.stlouisfed.org
research.stlouisfed.org
twitter.com
Jason Martinez
wew lad
Nathan Butler
Because most people on Veeky Forums are jobless, or wage enslaved, fucks from moderately well off backgrounds, like Marx.
Essentially, they're mad that they're not casually wealthy, and can only afford moderately priced luxuries, confusing moderate wealth with poverty.
As for youth as a whole, the Universities they go to for their basket weaving degrees are expensive, and they have to work shitty jobs to repay massive loans.
They think Socialism means taking from the rich people and getting super awesome stuff all the time, instead of shit tier NHS, at best, Socialism, and Commieblocks and Beet rations at worst, communism.
Basically, it's because of entitlement
Julian Hernandez
>liberal student strawman meme
> ok
Aiden Morales
So you've never been seated next to some nu-male who shouts "Vote Sanders" in the middle of a chem lecture, then?
Landon Rogers
Not him but I go to a pretty lib university, and I can honestly say no one has tried pushing a political agenda outside of subjective discussiom about politics.
>So basically, well memed :^)
Jose Wilson
Boards like Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums that are mainly composed of "intellectuals" tend to attract a lot of commies, not because they are smart and correct, but because communism tends to benefit intellectuals.
>"Probably the intellectual has more difficulty than the common man in freeing himself from this ideology which, like the State which derives from it, is his especial handiwork. The Soviet government rules in the name of a doctrine elaborated by an intellectual whose life was spent in libraries and interpreted for the past century by countless other intellectuals. Under a Communist régime the intellectuals, sophists rather than philosophers, rule the roost. The examining magistrates who unmask deviations, the writers coerced into socialist realism, the engineers and managers who are supposed to execute the plans and to interpret the ambiguous orders of the central authority—all must be dialecticians. The Secretary-General of the Party, master and arbiter over the lives of millions of men. is also an intellectual: at the end of a triumphal career he offers to the faithful a theory of capitalism and socialism—as though a book represented the highest accomplishment. The emperors of old were often poets or thinkers; for the first time the emperor actually reigns qua dialectician, interpreter of the doctrine and of history."
Raymond Aron, The Opium of the Intellectuals
Jack Jenkins
Other good quote:
>The explosive component in the contemporary scene is not the clamor of the masses but the self-righteous claims of a multitude of graduates from schools and universities. This army of scribes is clamoring for a society in which planning, regulation, and supervision are paramount and the prerogative of the educated. They hanker for the scribe's golden age, for a return to something like the scribe-dominated societies of ancient Egypt, China, and Europe of the Middle Ages. There is little doubt that the present trend in the new and renovated countries toward social regimentation stems partly from the need to create adequate employment for a large number of scribes. And since the tempo of the production of the literate is continually increasing, the prospect is of ever-swelling bureaucracies.
Eric Hoffer, The Ordeal of Change
Jace Bailey
Mises has a good theory on why so many so called artists and intellectuals suppoert socialism and other statist policies.
mises.org
Tl;dr they think they're worth more than they really are and blame capitalism for their hurt ego s.
>entitlement
Also this. Well put.
Thomas Stewart
>Mises
I'm no commie, but Austrian memeonomics is heterodox trash. Literally Marxism tier.
Michael Young
Because it's a board for the humanities, an area in which leftism has been prominent for decades.
>why does it seem that a disproportionate number of them are Irish
What?
Jack Fisher
>Because most people on Veeky Forums are jobless, or wage enslaved, fucks from moderately well off backgrounds, like Marx.
Not gonna deny this is right for me.
>Essentially, they're mad that they're not casually wealthy, and can only afford moderately priced luxuries, confusing moderate wealth with poverty.
I'm also mad my life is shit but could be better, and, yes, I blame capitalism. It's not just a case of money. In fact the that's the least of the concerns and only counts because of what money can buy in modern society: security (like not having to live in an "urban" shithole), respect, health, fun. The basic structure of how we organize our society is sick and there are those of us that end up on the more cancerous side of modern life. Hell even getting a gf would be easier and happier in a classless stateless society. I'm dead serious.
>As for youth as a whole, the Universities they go to for their basket weaving degrees are expensive, and they have to work shitty jobs to repay massive loans.
Nope, but students loans are covert slavery and if you have critical thinking skills you know it. Jobs are bullshit for everyone, STEM will not protect you from effects of the cancer. Look at employment rates for newly graduated mechanical engineering majors and communications for example.
>They think Socialism means taking from the rich people
Straight up wrong. In fact it's the reverse. I think socialism has revealed the truth that being rich means taking from the poor. No one "earns" a billion dollars. How would they? Single handedly building half of New York? Curing cancer? It's not a process without waste either. A humble baggage handler must grind out hours working till 2 am so the parasites gain the luxury to fly to Paris at a moments notice. That kind of power doesn't come free. Someone must suffer for it. We must suffer for it. For no good reason, I think.
>Basically, it's because of entitlement
As the racist shitheads at /pol/ would say, good goy.
Dominic Jones
...
William Garcia
>Communism, having killed 100 million humans, has been prominent in humanities
Terrible irony.
Sebastian Brooks
>Mises
Anti-empiricist garbage just like socialism. Real economists are spending countless hours finding empiracal models while they just prax things out because "empiricism is impossible". Its garbage.
Not sure on the article though. Will read.
Socialism hasn't proven that. Show me the math.
>How would they
Well, a lot of it is generational wealth, but some of it is building companies that are much larger than a billion dollars, which pay billions in wages, create jobs, and invest in the stock market so other companies can grow all while increasing their size.
Money isn't zero sum.
Landon Butler
Maybe its just me but it seems like both Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums are populated by a fuckton Irish people, many of them being proponents of leftist ideologies.
Levi Fisher
Leftist like to posture themselves as intellectually superior, despite all people being equal, so they tend to visit boards with titles to confirm this baseless view
Ryder Jackson
>Socialism hasn't proven that. Show me the math.
I'm not really sure how to show this. It's the basics of exploitation. If you're interested in an autistic breakdown read Kapital and look into all that M-C-M’ circuit stuff. The whole book series was written to basically do exactly that.
Ask yourself WHERE money comes from for the rich. Follow it exactly with a material mind of the type that doesn't assume it just pops into existence magically at some point. When a company is very profitable the owners and their favored dogs like the CEO get to buy gold plated yachts. But where does that come from? From the buyers surely, but where do they get their money? They just work for another Capitalist owner and receive all they own from "his" incomes via wage - so they can't be magic money trees. And all the companies are trying to be profitable all at once as well, taking money from the same wage earner consumers. How? It's a secret tax. Just as you are paying for your own healthcare in your jobs health "benefits" from the same pool of what would be your wage (which imo I don't see the difference in paying it to the government as universal healthcare instead), some goes to the boss' yacht fund.
Consider the mentioned student loans. The basics of usury is that you get more money than you started with. So every even middle class person that accepts student loans are giving back thousands of dollars in interest. They have to work not only to pay of 100k over the years but extra for the permission to be middle class. But who does all that accumulated interest from millions of people go to? That's right. That's how you get truly rich. Your money works for you. The STEM major has to work his butt off to give that extra thousand while the usurer didn't have to do anything but shift his money with a click of the account button.
>Money isn't zero sum.
True physical wealth is because we live in a Newtonian universe. There is only so much GDP at any one time.
Grayson Hernandez
I'm not either.
But you get /pol/fags on this board as well.
Adrian Robinson
It's not zero sum because there's no such thing as objective value.
Zachary Rivera
The money from the rich comes from how much the company wants to pay them. The companies make money off of people who buy there products. There is a direct exchange where the consumer says "I would rather have X than my money" and chooses to buy the product or service. Now, I'm not going to argue that consumers are rational, but if I were to offer my products and services cheaper, then customers would more likely be going to me, than my competitors. Consumers can be swayed by advertisements of course, but that's a company expense anyway and hasn't shown to be a lasting source of income.
>Companies profitable once as well
That's because they offer similar prices or are in completely different fields. Consumer choice only lowers prices.
>There is only so much GDP at any one time.
Yeah, and the next second its higher. GDP is constantly growing, and having companies (rich people) do well is a good sign that our GDP can grow and we can print money without huge issues.
>student loans
You are correct, but they also gain much more money by going to college. So student loans allow them to pay for college, but in turn, they get much higher salaries after 4-10 years. Not sure where you got student loans go to the rich, but student loans are almost always go directly into the government which uses them how they please.
Bentley Cooper
>Go read a book not based on empirical evidence and believe every one of its conclusion fits the world perfectly.
Austin Butler
Oh and BTW, I have read the first volumes of Kapital. Its a mess of praxeology and equations that he made up. I respect it for a mass of logic.
But it inherently is flawed based on making up equations instead of deriving it from studies. The use of these equations and functions of critiques isn't intellectually honest
I used to be a socialist. So I kinda know the drill. The problem is just self-referencing can go too far.
Connor Clark
>It's not zero sum because there's no such thing as objective value.
There very obviously is. There is only so many hours in a work day. The average human can only swing a hammer so many times per those hours. Therefore there is only so many things that can be produced by that human. There are only so many people alive at any one time and only so many people our resources can sustain. A job swinging a hammer is a job not cooking, or singing, or planning to build a bridge. There are only so many pounds of steel that can be produced in a year even with current technology.
There is only so much space on the beach front for beach front property. Who gets it? There are only so many houses in San Francisco and personally I'd like to move there but holy fuck those prices. Only so many houses can be built within the core city area while maintaining the ambiance of San Francisco and not turning it into California presents: New York.
If there is no objectivity and everything is one big subjective feels fest then how about you lend me $10,000? I won't because I'm irrational and think money represents stocks which can have objective value that I can objectively lose, but you can just subjectively value yourself the difference. Hell, let's eliminate sweatshop labor and give the world universal healthcare. Fuck healthcare for just the USA, let's go big. I want the same high quality of care for the ass end of Angola as exists in Switzerland. Wait, let me guess, suddenly there is not enough money. Suddenly you remember economics is a game of distribution of SCARCE resources into haves and have nots.
Evan Wood
Materialist swine drunk on resentment, truly disgusting.
Jaxson Parker
>There is only so many hours in a work day.
Please don't go on about the Labor Theory of Value. For example, if my product sells 1 unit for 16000000 dollars, my product has more value to the company than a product that sells 1 unit at 1 dollar.
>There is only so much space on the beach front for beach front property. Who gets it?
Rich people. Because they can afford it. Not sure the point here.
>If there is no objectivity and everything is one big subjective feels fest then how about you lend me $10,000?
The point is when you have two balancing lines: value as a function of work, and value as a function of money brought to a company, this creates a plane with many possible points of intersection. You can't really say "this point is the objective balance not this one". Anyways, there are several competing theories of value. Personally I prefer Keynes' but of course this is debatable.
>Fuck healthcare for just the USA, let's go big. I want the same high quality of care for the ass end of Angola as exists in Switzerland.
Do you know that this is one of the biggest reasons why the US has the highest healthcare costs? We fund other countries' healthcare and both our private and public sectors fund measures to increase healthcare to places like angola. We have to make back profits to keep it sustainable, so drug prices are higher among other things. (personally not a fan of the long patents and the wars against generic brands either. USA Heathcare isn't perfect)
Brandon Baker
>The money from the rich comes from how much the company wants to pay them. The companies make money off of people who buy there products.
And where do the people that buy the prodects get their money? From their wage. Which comes from their employing company, which gets their money to pay wages from people that bought their products. Okay, but keep in mind: profit = incomes - expenses (including all wage payments to workers, overhead costs for machines, payments for services and materials). All companies are trying to be sustainably profitable. So... they are all taking in more incomes than they paying out in expenses towards wages to consumers. Something is amiss here.
The only way this can all make sense is somehow the costs are being lowered and the sensible explanation is that workeres are being underpayed i.e. stolen from by company sellers i.e. capitalist owners/wage distributors.
>GDP is constantly growing
Via technology. That is, getting more from equal or less due to having a new tool. Yet the people that invent those tools are not rich. Bill Gates is rich, not the guys that actually invented DOS or coded Windows. Wealth from productivity increases go to business owners, not the workers who productivity is increased via new technology like personal computing. The GDP grows, but only when a new objective way to generate more of the then total wealth pie. And it's asymmetrically distributed. Before the power loom England could only produce so many spools of wool in a year. After the invention it could produce much more. Without the technology there is an objecive limit to the wealth in textiles.
Nathaniel Sullivan
Wew.
Kevin Bell
Because Veeky Forums is contrarian as FUCK.
Anything unpopular, the users of this site love to bandwagon. This includes fascism, monarchism, communism, anarchism, etc.
Lucas Martin
>Wealth from productivity increases go to business owners, not the workers who productivity is increased via new technology like personal computing.
That's pretty much untrue. Unless 8.1% = 0 in your world.
Christian Murphy
Going out of order, there is no evidence that technology is the only reason for GDP growing. I definitely need a source.
>And where do the people that buy the prodects get their money? From their wage. Which comes from their employing company, which gets their money to pay wages from people that bought their products.
This would provide a conflict of interest if there wasn't sufficient competition. If I work at IBM I can still buy products from SAS. They are taking in more from income than they are making....because they are one company out of a billion other companies. Those billion other companies all can buy from company a while only paying for company b.
Competition also doesn't only exist for prices, it exists for wages. I lived in an oil field boomtown growing up. I was a busboy making 11.00/hr plus we were a company that encouraged tipping. Our Domino's pizza was paying 14.00/hr. This is in Texas with relatively low priced area.
Compensation is tricky for me. To me it corrects for inefficiencies such as paying for healthcare that I might not use. Yes, it paints a more clear picture, but at the same time many of the things it corrects for are bad practices.
Not a fan of companies paying for healthcare desu.
Dominic Torres
It also corrects for benefits which the employer will pay out upon your termination like payed vacation, sick and personal.
Nevertheless. His point is not borne out by the evidence. Especially if we look back pre-1973.
Cooper Cruz
This. /Thread
/b/ was full of Nazi sympathizers as was Veeky Forums with Communists, before /pol/ and Veeky Forums were created to accommodate these beliefs better.
Jordan Hill
Yeah. Its justvnot something I'm really sold on. If you use wages, then it doesn't take into account the factors we just talked about. If you take compensation, then it adds to me are things that aren't used properly (will look into things on this more). If you take median income, then it doesn't take into account falling hours worked and more leisure time.
Andrew Johnson
Based as fuck
The universities must be liquidated
Xavier Lee
>real economists
Like Paul Krugman and Thomas Pikekky?
Top laff
Charles Russell
You are positing something I never said and then laughing at me not saying it?
Krugman is fairly respectable but his most intense academic contributions are behind him.
Piketty on the other hand is nowhere near the top cited or important and is more of a meme.
Josiah Peterson
>wages are the only component of employment compensation
Aiden Anderson
I'm an Irish American leftcom
Do I count?
Jack Murphy
? That chart shows compensation which takes into account things other than wages.
If you want other charts.
research.stlouisfed.org
research.stlouisfed.org
Adrian Jones
Jesus Christ workers have been making a killing
Logan Perez
This is not adjusted for inflation or anything
research.stlouisfed.org
Shows weekly income adjusted for CPI and seasonal things.
It may look rocky and barely upwards, but at the same time
research.stlouisfed.org
Its still going upwards with much less hours worked.
Adam Wood
Not sure about the board demographic thing, but you aren't wrong in that a lot of us tend to be more liberal-minded from what I seen although I can't personally attest to the communist/socialist apologist since I'm staunchly opposed to it.
Might just be that a large portion of people who post on Veeky Forums favor certain extremes and like to make it known such as pol or b are so vocal with their hatred of niggers
Carson Evans
That's not Pareto though, famiglia.