FabioTheNewOrder @ FabioTheNewOrder @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

118

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't feel the need to get into the weeds on the meaning of words with you.

Oh my, I'm sorry you commented on my post, I'll try to avoid you commenting again in future to my replies. Facepalm

You're not intent on living in reality - in fact, you believe Marx coined the term "capitalists."

I've never said Marx coined the word "capitalists". I agreed with the OP to this thread that he was together with Hegel the one rationalising and explaining class warfare to the masses.

Strong agree.

Less LMAOs and more debate then

This is not a "succession planning" the owners of the companies left and the workers were faced with a choice: loose their jobs or take the place of those who betrayed them. They went for the latter option and re-arranged the companies structures by themselves, proving that workers can do the management job without problems. Read the article that I attached to my comment please. I still haven't heard one single example of the contrary from you.

It would be literally impossible for me to explain in a single comment how disastrous that was for the company.

It was such a disaster that you are not able to explain it in a comment nor to find an external reference which may do that in your place. Must be hard being this comfortable in your world view without any supporting evidence. Furthermore I reckon this company is still up and running. Tell me, would an equal percentage of the working force had left instead of the middle and senior management do you think you would still have a job today?

Almost as spectacular as the void left by your reply. You assess I misinterpreted the literal vocabulary definition of "capital" yet you don't provide any alternative definition to counter my argument

lmao

Risus abundat in ore stultorum

On the other hand I can bring you countless examples of factories and plants shut down due to mismanagement caused by the company upper echelons. The presence of a management is not the reason why companies provides their goods and services to their customers, it's the workforce behind them the reason why they are able to maintain their businesses.

Point proven, there are many instances of companies whose management left due to financial hardships which were picked up by their unionised workforce who were able to continue and grow the company business (https://www.mitbestimmung.it/workers-buyouts-a-growing-trend-in-italy-50-companies-saved-by-workers-in-last-5-years/). I'm not aware of any example of the contrary tho, can you bring any to the table?

The banking system: as far as private banking goes I'm with you, a stop the their activities would be a blow to the world economy. But, even in this turbo-capitalist system, we still do have central banks which answer to the states and which would be required to intervene in a catastrophic event such as a general strike to limit its ramifications. We would loose access to our savings, that's true, but with enough cooperation between workers and states, I'm sure we would be able to bring the bankers to their knees.

Lastly, here in Europe we do have union for managers and CEOs, none of whom has ever called for a strike. One might think it has to do with the fact that they are the ones taking the decisions and therefore don't need to have their voices heard but the reality is far more mundane: nobody would give a shit should they quit their job and workers would be more than qualified to obtain their positions should they never come back to work.

That's exactly what capitalism is. The root definition of capital is: "wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available for a purpose such as starting a company or investing"

So yes, if someone has money available for anything other than basic necessities and sufficient to help him start a business enterprise he or she can be defined as "capitalist".

Just because we didn't use this name for kings, nobles and priests in the past doesn't mean that capitalists never existed before the advent of Marx

Well, one of the two parties available is bent over in respecting corporate interests while eroding societal safety nets, the other is doing the same but with an accent on religious authoritarianism in service of an orange Cheeto.

There would be more than enough space for them to cooperate on common ground but, unfortunately for the oligarchs, the latter party seems to have lost the script of the standard political play and is now giving it's leading roles to real nutsacks who are (unwillingly) exposing the inner workings of the political machine for everyone to see. As I see the situation from Italy this can only be a good thing as seeing the innards of a broken machine is the first step to start its necessary maintenance

You recognize all conservatives to be authoritarian pieces of shit, you dunk on them at any chance you get both IRL and on line and you go on with your life.

How does that sound?

But-but can't you think about the implications for their political careers??? Poor Bois would have to abandon a life of ease and good food to start actually working in the society they helped create. Imagine the HORROR!!

Well, to be fair one doesn't need to be a philosopher to see this truth in his everyday life: why is that the only class capable of organising strikes which can paralyze society is the WORKING class and not the managerial one? Maybe because it's the working class providing the services and activities needed to maintain our societies functional?

Try organising a strike of the management and banking system, my guess is that we would keep on living as nothing really happened (given that banks would maintain our access to our founding, on the contrary I still think workers would be able to survive much longer than the corporate counterparts should they be able to attain a minimum level of cooperation).

Of course the resourcing to violence by the ruling class through police forces and mandate working could be an issue but those working for law enforcement should be ready to attack their friends and families and I don't think everyone of them would be able to do so

I think he meant they were inspired in their writing to provide an answer to fuckwits like the one in the article. Evil capitalists are not a modern occurrence, they existed in the whole of human history unfortunately

Well, a fall from a high window is not the best way to survive captivity :)

I already did but you are too centrist to understand evidently.

Maybe you'll grow up with time, maybe not.

Have a good centrist life :D

The issue is that you don't even KNOW the law you are blabbering about. And please note that I'm not even American but still know your system better than you.

Must be all that not blind partisanship keeping you from understanding the reality around you

Problem is that communist views don't threaten the American constitution as the case Yates Vs. United States has confirmed. With this decision the high court has set a precedent where a distinction was made between political positions that advocate for abstract points are not the same as advocating for immediate or future actions.

Since this beast of a woman has already shown her disregard for the American constitution by supporting the people who tried to golpe the political system, adding another tally to the treasonous list must not be a big deal for you, who are such an enlightened centrist.

Not a conservative but not an intelligent person either I see. You therefore must be a centrist :)

Of course he will be discredited as a doctor and he will be found to be a west-paid spy for a large number of years before falling from the window of his prison cell (in Russia they are so humane prison cells don't have bars on them).

I sure hope Putin's next doctor won't be as careful when dosing his medications. I'd love to see some ipecac being distributed in the coffe cups of a closed meeting between Putler and the north-korean bimbo

Because that's not how a functional society works. If Texas wanted to secede from the USA the whole USA would have to be called in this decision. You can't do what Puidgemont did in Catalunya, call for a referendum in the specific region, count the votes and declare independence from the central government. You are part of the government, if you want to secede this must be a common choice.

If you were an adult you might understand this with a (non-perfect) similitude with divorce: you cannot divorce by yourself, you need to sign the documents as a couple for divorce to take place.

That's also why Russia's claim of annexation of the Ukrainian regions has no value for the international law, it's a faux secession with no bearing on the Ukrainian national rights

Ah-eh, support of the sedicious insurrection happened on January the 6th 2022 is still not enough to be qualified as "something"?

I love when conservatives pull shit like these comments out of their brains to defend the human garbage they voted into Congress

As much as I'd love to agree with you I unfortunately do not. Disability can absolutely be a tool to teach ableist people how does it feel to be in the shoes of people on the other side of the fence. I've seen too many people realizing what meant living a disabled life following an illness or an accident to refuse the simple truth that ableists and people unable to empathize with lives lived with disabilities or illnesses can be thought the real impact of disability by disability itself.

I'm absolutely not punching down at disabled people, in the contrary I'd love for those who punch you down to feel what is like to live your life so that maybe they could understand why disabled people need laws and regulations which may help them in their day-to-day life, that's all

I'd like to suggest a cancerous growth in a very painful area or a debilitating illness which may prevent them from functioning as a normal human being to make them understand the feeling of being in a helpless situation.

But it would be enough for them to lose their next election and therefore the right to issue legislations against the common good while seeing the American politic shifting towards a more progressive future and being unable to steer the course the modern world has taken.

God, I'd love nothing more than seeing this bunch of retrograde ape-men and women being forced to live in a world where their religion is tolerated but completely inconsequential to the democratic process. Let them rot away in complete silence and watch them ravel in their uselessness

Because due to the system in place at the moment and due to the culture surrounding American politics USA can only operate in the two parties system. Organising, raising and keeping a third party is not a viable option at this time as many different candidates and elections have shown us. The easier way to improve American politics is to get involved in the democratic party and to change it from within as many of the newly elected representatives are trying to do, with quite positive outcomes I might add.