When and why did the left abandon the working class and embrace corporate globalism and neoliberal economics...

>free trade, open borders, cheap foreign labour, no tarrifs, etc. benefit the working class

>expense of their own interests
>SHUT UP PLEBS WE KNOW BETTER THAN YOU

there's a certain amount of defeatism after first world governments so uniformly crushed all working class movements. liberals today have accepted capitalism because it has such a stranglehold on the world at large. they've moved to other forms of radicalism because leftist working class based movements are seen as a lost cause.

it was probably around the 1970s.

I wonder who could be behind this post.

"Neoliberalism" is a meme. It just means pragmatic economics and not falling for the whims and complaints of minorities and pseudointellectual hipsters

Nationalism is what could prevent laborers being treated like goods and services, able to be circulated from country to country and freely drive down wages.

Implying the working class aren't racial minorities as well.

>nothing to see here kiddies, corporations exploiting everyone and undermining democracy is protecting you from communism

They are, but their issues aren't being received under a socioeconomic interpretation. Instead words like institutional racism get used to explain away what are ultimately class phenomena.

From the 1960s until the 1990s when economists finally realized the failures of socialism. Up until that point more than half of economists were actual Marxists and the other

He's right, fuck the working class. Lets do socialism where we remove them as class enemies

Their class status is based of of racist and racialist policies. to say it's one or another ignore the fact this is a caste issue more than race or class alone.

>The corpotations man, that's why we need the government to help stop them! What's that? The government bailed them out? Impossible bro!

The issues of a black worker back in the day and a white one back in the day are pretty darn huge withdrawn being a huge factor.

>That graphic
Holy shit that is the most retarded thing I've ever seen. Have you read marx or have you just been told what it says?

i actually have no idea what your point is

Not an argument Bernie

he wasn't making an argument, he was asking a question. so yes, you are correct

The Left was never for the working class, it was always just in favor of change by any means necessary.
;)

Don't worry about it bro. I read huffington so I know what I'm talking about. Denmark is proof that communism works but North Korea and Venezuela are capitalist. Also, Stalin did nothing wrong

The fact that socialism can be debunked by a meme probably created by some 16 year old is really all you need to know regarding Marxist "Economics"

>He's not a maoist
Fucking faggot

i hope the fire from that straw man you just burnt keeps you warm lad

ok

what does that even mean?

It means
>H
>R
>E

it means that he believes leftism to be some big conspiracy where elites who claim to act to benefit the many are actually trying to benefit themselves rather than the many

The split with the old left is, well, old.

I think the first major sign of it was when the SPD and other democratic socialist parties "betrayed" the revolutionary left by siding with with their various national governments in WWI, instead of unifying internationally as workers against the global bourgeoisie as Lenin thought they should. This set the stage for a future division between reformist "soft" parliamentary socialists and revolutionary socialists that increasingly became what we would now label "Communists". Especially as the Soviet Union rose and became a domineering force in global politics.

So the next big phase is the 60s. We already see reformists socialists (or their liberal equivalents in the American Democratic party) pivot to cultural issues as economic reform stalls. People that don't want to be commies define themselves by promoting equality through civil rights, feminism, and anti-war activism. And for a while this seems be VERY successful. The civil rights movement is a massive social revolution, women start entering the work place, Vietnam is stopped. So the commie faction already on the wane loses even more prestige.

Then the 80s. Gulag Archipelago is a household name. The USSR starts going into death spasms. It's hard to be even a fence sitting Trotskyist now. Welfareism in cooperation with capitalist business interests under the model of successful social democrat societies like Scandinavia fully solidify as an ideal unto itself rather than the gradual piecemeal destruction of capitalism. This is the start of the "third way". Blairism, Clintonism, Rogernomics, the hydra has different titles but it is all connected to one creature.

At this point also technology, the opening of China, and the general temporary pacification of the world with the close of the Cold War, I think, launched the phenomenon of outsourcing. This hid the most extreme concerns for workers rights from the eyes of the first world.

>he argues in liberal caricatures.

That has always been the history of leftism. Trying to "do the right thing" then fucking over the people who you were supposed to help

>caricatures

sure, but we're talking about what meant by his statement, not about the history of leftist movements. if you want to make claims like

>The Left was never for the working class, it was always just in favor of change by any means necessary ;)

you need to prove it with evidence. you need to prove that marx was secretly opposed to the working class and only wanted change that benefit him and his buddies. can you explain how the failure of leftist movements proves that leftism as a concept was never aligned with the working class or is some secret conspiracy to oppress them?

>outsourcing

not just in economic terms but in ideological terms too. today the state outsources its censorship to private individuals to enforce, i.e. the sjw.

>but we're talking about what meant by his statement, not about the history of leftist movements.
But that's literally what I meant
>can you explain how the failure of leftist movements proves that leftism as a concept was never aligned with the working class or is some secret conspiracy to oppress them?
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, it's just collective stupidity of which ambitious people can take advantage. Institutionalized as it is in the European and American Left, it's problematic.

fair enough, but what's the alternative? lay down and just let cunts rip you off for eternity? you gotta try

>problematic
lmao

I think the shift towards progressive politics in the 60s is definitely a big deal; the working class isn't particularly interested in the way that progressive politics have begun to dominate the discourse of the traditionally "left". Hippies and working class Joes are sort of a fundamentally unstable alliance in terms of interests.

>you gotta try
Where did I advocate inaction? Are you saying that doing the wrong thing and not trying to figure out the best course of action is the right way to do things? What do you advocate?
>lmao
I'm lmaoing at your insistence that using violence against a perceived oppressor because someone feels oppressed makes sense whether they're oppressed or not lmao fucking teenager

>Hippies and working class Joes are sort of a fundamentally unstable alliance in terms of interests.

i think brexit showed this really clearly. working class (at least in england, i duno about scotland) was all Leave. hipsters were all Stay. hipsters (The Guardian etc) blamed success of Leave on brainwashing by UKIP etc.

wtf is that about?

i agree chill yr fanny

im lmaoing at "problematic", meme word

>im lmaoing at "problematic", meme word
I know lmao, I'm still lmaoing at you

>I'm lmaoing at your insistence that using violence against a perceived oppressor because someone feels oppressed makes sense whether they're oppressed or not lmao fucking teenager

do you believe that leftism does not offer a good enough argument as to why capitalism creates oppressive conditions for workers?

I believe that it's not good at providing solutions to those problems, i.e. the USSR did not alleviate the problems of the Russian working class, neither did the CCP, they merely introduced new sets of problems with each attempted solution. The left advocates the annihilation of its enemies, by default. Pic related, the original Bernie Sanders. The only difference is that this guy was a Mason, not a Jew.

It goes both ways:

>Capitalism explained by Socialists

>Capitalism is an economic system that is part of the development of humanity, coming after feudalism. Like feudalism, it has its many contradictions, eventually leading to its failure and a new system being established. In Capitalism, there are two classes, the Proletariat, or working man, and the Bourgeois, the business owning class. The Bourgeois class, descended from the artisans of feudalism, are business owners, investors, etc., and own the land, factories,things needed to create products, called, unsurprisingly, the means of production. These means of production, however, are not worked by the bourgeois, as their small time artisan forefathers did during feudalism. Due technological advancement, it is easier, and cheaper, to make things, allowing for large scale production. In order for mass production to take place, one needs people to work to produce the products. Due to new technology, little training is needed, leading to many poor peasants looking for a better life in the city to be able to work these jobs. These workers work in factories for an hourly wage. In order to make a profit, the Capitalist cannot afford to compensate the work of the workers entirely, even though these workers are what gave the product value, transformed it from raw materials into something usable. Now, due to this injustice, there is conflict between the worker, who sees himself as cheated, as he does all the work while his boss, who by some combination of luck and hard work, has found himself as the owner of the means of production, does nothing, and the boss, who sees himself as a simple businessman trying to make a profit and satisfy his shareholders. This conflict cannot go unresolved(see Hegel's dialectic), meaning that eventually, the wage system, on which capitalism is built, must be destroyed.

>Socialism explained by Capitalists

>Da Government does everything and they cant do it well so it sucks.

When we realized that free trade / free markets benefit the whole world in the long run and drastically improve our foreign relations.

>Socialism explained by Capitalists

>Da Government does everything and they cant do it well so it sucks.

That's qt a strawman you've got there, my lad. Wew.

that was the point mate. he's trying to tell you the image in is not useful for discussion, because it presents a strawman of its opposition.

>he fell for the dialectical materialism meme

i don't think bernie advocated for annihilation of enemies. he wanted to tax his enemies heavier. the methods that robespierre and berns use are completely different, so i don't think you're using a good comparison.

regardless, i agree with you. i do not think that the soviet model is an adequate form of addressing class struggle between bourgies and proles. another path is necessary to discover.

>The left advocates the annihilation of its enemies, by default
>using Robespierre as an example
>not knowing he eliminated extremists on both sides which led to his ultimate downfall

>i don't think bernie advocated for annihilation of enemies.
He also never got the nomination.
>so i don't think you're using a good comparison.
They're both leftists, you apologist faggot. Taxation is theft, desu.

>eliminated extremists on both sides
So he was an extremist?

Translation: It makes yuppies everywhere richer.

But we don't care about yuppies. You guys will always do well.

Nobody is forcing you to live in the US.

You can leave any time.

The tax is the price you pay for your US citizenship, and if the number of people applying for citizenship is any indication, it's a pretty good deal.

>Nobody is forcing you to live in the US.
What does this have to do with anything? Where can I go that I won't have to pay taxes?
>The tax is the price you pay for your US citizenship, and if the number of people applying for citizenship is any indication, it's a pretty good deal.
I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying that taxation is theft. You go to jail if you don't pay your taxes in most countries. I'm not just talking about the US.

t. resentful judgmental Internet nobody
>Not even a yuppie

>Where can I go that I won't have to pay taxes?
Africa.

>Where can I go that I won't have to pay taxes?

Somalia.

Really, a lot of countries with a weak government.

You just have to be willing to give up the idea of physical security, legal protection, or any of the other functions associated with a state.

>You just have to be willing to give up the idea of physical security, legal protection, or any of the other functions associated with a state.
OK, but what does this have to do with taxation being theft?

>socialist states that have worked: 0
>capitalist states that have worked: dozens

>They're both leftists, you apologist faggot. Taxation is theft, desu.
Mitt Romney and Pinochet were both rightists. Just because they vaguely agree on a few very basic tenets and core teachings doesn't they handled power correctly.

Fuck off. Property is theft desu.

When did the workers become a class?

>Mitt Romney and Pinochet were both rightists.
And?
Just because they vaguely agree on a few very basic tenets and core teachings doesn't they handled power correctly.
What?
>Property is theft desu
But taxation isn't?

It's a goods for services transaction.

You're paying for the services of the government, which include a bunch of nice shit.

There is a competitive market in these services. If the state you're in doesn't provide a good enough deal, you can shop around and find another one.

If you feel that you don't need the service at all, you can stop.

You only get thrown in jail if you stop paying taxes and continue to receive services. You can't steal electricity or squat on someone else's land either.

those yuppies use their wealth to buy your labor

>It's a goods for services transaction.
And?
>You're paying for the services of the government, which include a bunch of nice shit.
>nice
[citation needed]
>You only get thrown in jail if you stop paying taxes and continue to receive services.
Which is my point--I was born with my citizenship, I didn't go through a process to attain it, I didn't buy it, your analogy falls apart there. If I can't afford to pay taxes, do you think I can afford to move to a place with more economic opportunity than the place where I went bankrupt to the point where I got thrown in jail for failing to pay taxes? What if I never took advantage of governments services beyond things like roads and the services provided by a standing army?
Again, taxation is theft--you either pay taxes or get thrown in jail, just like in Somalia you get shot and lose your wealth or exert force and grow it.

>the left
>being consistent with their views

kek

>Implying that either capitalism or socialism in their purest forms have ever been tried with success.
Wew lad.

People said the same thing about capitalism 500 years ago.
>Dude, look at the Knights Templar, there's no way a banking system can work! Its against church teaching, and you arent suggesting we trust jews, right?
>Name one capitalist society that has worked. You cant! Every one of them has been created by a divine monarchy!

If you don't think it's nice, go get another one. They're available.

The market seems to think that it's quite valuable, as more people have applied for US citizenship than any other country on the planet.

>Which is my point--I was born with my citizenship, I didn't go through a process to attain it

And a baby doesn't buy their own health insurance or home either.

Once you're of the age of reason, you have every option to pick another state. The US will gladly stamp your visa and send you off to your new life.

> If I can't afford to pay taxes, do you think I can afford to move to a place with more economic opportunity than the place where I went bankrupt to the point where I got thrown in jail for failing to pay taxes?

Lucky for you, the US has a progressive income tax. You can literally never be too poor to pay taxes, because they're based on your income.

>What if I never took advantage of governments services beyond things like roads and the services provided by a standing army?

What if your health insurance plan costs a bunch of money because it covers dental and you don't care about dental? You can buy another one.

>Again, taxation is theft--you either pay taxes or get thrown in jail
>restaurants are theft, if I try to leave without paying, I get thrown in jail
>rent is theft, if I stop paying it they kick me out
>retail is theft, if I slip a bunch of CDs under my shirt and leave without paying

> just like in Somalia you get shot and lose your wealth or exert force and grow it.

You see, Somalia doesn't provide physical security. Physical security is one of the core services that you pay taxes to provide. That's why the Department of Defense is the largest department in the federal government.

If you like, there are minarchist states such as Hong Kong that offer police service but minimal social welfare. Shop around.

speaking strictly in terms of america:

for a long, long time now republicans and democrats have largely been the same party. the exception is a few social issues and a few legal stances (gun rights, abortion, etc), but in terms of larger economic ideology both parties are quite identical.

bush was absolutely crucified for his tax breaks for the wealthiest tax brackets. flash forward to barack obama, every single piece of policy that obama has initiated to "save" the economy has been predicated by the idea of making wealthy people much more wealthy.

republican or democrat the source of all political capital comes from the same place, the capitalist elite. liberals don't want to damage the capitalist system anymore than conservatives do because global capitalism pays for the political system that got them into power in the first place.

>what is the industrial revolution

>If you don't think it's nice, go get another one. They're available.
I asked you for a citation, you made a claim and should be prepared to back it up with more than a snarky comment like this.
>And a baby doesn't buy their own health insurance or home either.
So why should a baby be born with citizenship?
>Lucky for you, the US has a progressive income tax. You can literally never be too poor to pay taxes, because they're based on your income.
This is about a hypothetical country, you ignoramus, not about the actual US. We're talking about the nature of taxation, i.e. a universal quality.
>You see, Somalia doesn't provide physical security.
There are gangs in Somalia. Your flaw is that you see the state as something other than a very powerful gang.

The workers have always been a class since agriculture.

In the old feudalist system they were serfs, laborers, and craftmen. In the capitalist system that all falls away and everyone that doesn't get their income from ownership is pushed towards one super class of worker. The wage worker.

Define "nice."

It doesn't mean the same thing to every single person.

Some people would like the family values, and the more traditional government provided by the Islamic state.

Some people would like cradle to grave welfare, as in Sweden.

It's like asking me to prove that perfume is nice. I can tell you what the market thinks.

>So why should a baby be born with citizenship?

Because they're under the age of reason and they can't take care of themselves.

This is incidentally the same reason why babies can't opt out of medical care, and kids can't decide to go live at a friends house. If you'd like to tell me that childhood is inherently unjust, that is another discussion.

>This is about a hypothetical country, you ignoramus, not about the actual US. We're talking about the nature of taxation, i.e. a universal quality.

Well, we've established that taxation is not universally unfair, or universally overwhelming. If your position was "it is unfair to prosecute people for something out of their control" I'd buy that in a minute. Everyone would.

>There are gangs in Somalia. Your flaw is that you see the state as something other than a very powerful gang.

Weird, it's almost like hierarchy is a universal feature of human life in general.

You could always try to live out in the woods on your own.

Oh wait, it's almost as if humans are pack creatures, and depend on one another to survive.

>le no true socialism
That means that either you're lying or that socialists are so incompetent they can't properly implement a system

>Just because they vaguely agree on a few very basic tenets and core teachings doesn't they handled power correctly.
>What
Sorry I meant
>Just because they vaguely agree on a few very basic tenets and core teachings doesn't they handled power SIMILARLY.
FTFY

>Define "nice."
You're the one that made the claim, you should provide a defintion.
>It's like asking me to prove that perfume is nice. I can tell you what the market thinks.
You only like what the market likes?
>Because they're under the age of reason and they can't take care of themselves.
Why does this qualify them for citizenship?
>This is incidentally the same reason why babies can't opt out of medical care, and kids can't decide to go live at a friends house. If you'd like to tell me that childhood is inherently unjust, that is another discussion.
I don't see how this is pertinent.
>Well, we've established that taxation is not universally unfair, or universally overwhelming.
Neither is theft.
>If your position was "it is unfair to prosecute people for something out of their control" I'd buy that in a minute. Everyone would.
"Everyone?"
[citation needed]
>Oh wait, it's almost as if humans are pack creatures, and depend on one another to survive.
The state is not a replacement for friends, family, lovers, etc. I find this offensive.

"Africa" pays taxes though and you are pretty idiotic to think otherwise.

Feudalism was around for around 1000 years before capitalism came into its own, after many, many failed attempts. Capitalism has been around for less than half that time, and similarly, there have been many, many failed attempts at socialism. That does not mean, however, that there have not been things that have come close, or have appeared promising. Two examples would be Revolutionary Catalonia, which managed to achieve some level of actual communism before the war went south, and the Yugoslavia SFR, which under Tito was able to establish a system of worker owned enterprises that competed in a free markets (a system which could be used as a transitory period to socialism for larger economies with huge companies and corporations such as the US) with a large amount of success until ethnic conflicts flared up after Tito's death. Most of the time, external forces or unrelated got in the way just when things were actually starting to work. It just so happens the shittiest idea(soviet style central planning) happened to dominate.

Okay, how about I amend that claim to "services that command a high market price."

>You only like what the market likes?

In this case, I quite like US citizenship. It's not quite as laid back as a European welfare state, but there's a lot of opportunity and a lot of interesting people to meet.

>Why does this qualify them for citizenship?

Why are you complaining about being given free stuff. Children don't pay taxes. In fact, their parents get a tax exemption for them. Do you complain when the ice cream place lets you take a sample with the tiny spoon?

>I don't see how this is pertinent.

Because adults can participate in the market for citizenship, just as with any other service. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

>Neither is theft

Actually, I think theft is by definition unfair.

>The state is not a replacement for friends, family, lovers, etc. I find this offensive.

If you want to depend on your friends and family for all of your public services, there are many places that still function on a clan system.

Be aware, they want something in return for their labor.

I think you want something for nothing. You aren't going to get that, because people need to work to provide goods and services, and they aren't your slaves.

>Okay, how about I amend that claim to "services that command a high market price."
Amend what?
>In this case, I quite like US citizenship. It's not quite as laid back as a European welfare state, but there's a lot of opportunity and a lot of interesting people to meet.
Terrible bases by which to judge this kind of thing.
>Why are you complaining about being given free stuff.
>free
w e w l a d
>Actually, I think theft is by definition unfair.
Why is that?
>
If you want to depend on your friends and family for all of your public services, there are many places that still function on a clan system.
My point is that a 'pack' is a collection of organisms and a 'state' is a legal, political, and military entity. Your analogy is comical.

>I think you want something for nothing. You aren't going to get that, because people need to work to provide goods and services, and they aren't your slaves.
Oh, and then there's this--the welfare state is what gives 'something for nothing.' You seem like you're baiting me.

>Terrible bases by which to judge this kind of thing.

Well, you asked me for my opinion. I quite like the US. It's my prerogative as a consumer to make decisions that you find unreasonable. The US might not be the best place for you. If so, I'd like to recommend Svalbard. Cold, but there's no visa process, and plenty of mining jobs. Shop around before you commit to anything.

>free
>w e w l a d

I want you to clarify this.

Are you complaining that minors receive public services paid for by other people? If so, are you complaining on behalf of the minors or the people providing the service? Because the people providing the services voted for it, and the people receiving them generally want them.

>my point is that a 'pack' is a collection of organisms and a 'state' is a legal, political, and military entity. Your analogy is comical.

A tribe is a military, legal and political entity. It defends itself, enforces conduct, and selects political leadership.

A state is simply a group of humans that have achieved a monopoly on legal violence, and developed a legal framework that spells out what constitutes legal violence. It is composed of humans, although many of them have fancy buildings, and titles given to them by other humans.

I think that you want something for nothing. I think you want other people to work to keep you safe, and make your life easier, and you don't want to give them anything to do it. I think you're shit out of luck.

both taxation and private property are theft.

>Well, you asked me for my opinion.
And I'm telling you what I think of it.
>Are you complaining that minors receive public services paid for by other people?
I'm not complaining about minors receiving the services, I'm pointing out that they're funded by money taken from people by a system that they didn't necessarily consent to being a part of.
>A state is simply a group of humans that have achieved a monopoly on legal violence,
Are you really going to sit there and tell me that wolf packs are organized just like the modern state is? You're full of shit. You can keep making the same analogy, or you can provide a citation.

>by a system that they didn't necessarily consent to being a part of.

Well, in the United States, they had the ability to vote for the elected officials that draw up the budgets and create policy.

They also had the ability to go to a different country where they didn't have to pay for a bunch of little brats.

You could argue that taxation that doesn't serve the public interest, or that doesn't have the consent of the public is unjust.

This is why in Western countries, the terms autocracy and kleptocracy are considered pejorative.

>Are you really going to sit there and tell me that wolf packs are organized just like the modern state is? You're full of shit. You can keep making the same analogy, or you can provide a citation.

No, that's why we call them states instead of clans or tribes. The wolfpack would be closer to the human clan system, with genetically related individuals acting as an independent economic and social unit, with fluid hierarchy and roles.

A state has much more defined roles, deeper specialization, and frequently codification of laws and policy.

Frankly, I think it works pretty well, but you can opt to live like a wolf if you're into that. Many of the humans alive today depend partially or totally on forms of organization other than a state.

>Well, in the United States, they had the ability to vote for the elected officials that draw up the budgets and create policy.

People who aren't citizens can't vote. What are you talking about?
>They also had the ability to go to a different country
One can't choose one's birtplace.
>This is why in Western countries, the terms autocracy and kleptocracy are considered pejorative.
What?
>Frankly, I think it works pretty well, but you can opt to live like a wolf if you're into that. Many of the humans alive today depend partially or totally on forms of organization other than a state.
I'm not advocating statelessness or the abolition of taxation, stop being so juvenile about this. I'm simply pointing out that taxation is theft.

>People who aren't citizens can't vote

I don't think they pay US taxes either, unless they hopped the border illegally.

>One can't choose one's birtplace.

You can't choose your parents either. Most people consider this to be an acceptable price to pay in exchange for their time on earth.

>stop being so juvenile about this. I'm simply pointing out that taxation is theft

I've been trying to gently lead you to the idea that taxation and theft are two distinct concepts in our political culture.

Taxation is codified, consistent, and as the aphorism "no taxation without representation" would suggest, generally the work of democratic institutions, at least in the industrialized world.

Theft is unpredictable, any individual can engage in it, and if it becomes public knowledge, is generally punished by society.

Apples and Oranges.

>socidlism

Because of the 2K period, dumby

>Property is theft desu.
Literally untenable.

c. 1850's

1
9
9
1
youtube.com/watch?v=nbvhB3VokDY
They all knew they were screwed

I would say between the 50s and the 70s. In the 50s the American working class got much richer and there was a lot of upwards mobility, it wasn't a doggy dog society with robber barons and children starving in coal mines anymore. Ever since then the economic left slowly started turning into cultural left, embracing weird identitarian bullshit like white guilt, feminism, anti-colonialism and things like that. Then in the 70s the new leftists started infiltrating the government and the media and by now they've come full circle, flat out blaming the reactionary white American working class for misfortunes of blacks, trannies and whatever the fuck.