HenryKrinkle posted:karl marx wasn't right about everything so.
what da f`ckey?
HenryKrinkle posted:karl marx wasn't right about everything so.
wow just wow. mods ban this chucklefuck with fire
HenryKrinkle posted:karl marx wasn't right about everything so.
finally, someone else has the courage to stand up and say what's right
HenryKrinkle posted:*watches millions of impoverished peasants herded into detention camps and kicked out of the country from relative comfort of own apartment*
OH MAN I SURE AM ENJOYING THE INEVITABLE DOWNFALL OF CAPITALISM
actually this would largely disrupt capitalism and improve wages. 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'- barack obama
thirdplace posted:To be clear, I'm not supporting Trump and don't recommend anyone else do so. In 2016 we'll all have the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to vote for someone Directly Responsible for the elimination of a former Something Awful moderator with occasionally offensive but ultimately milquetoast center-right opinions and I for one think we'd be crazy not to take it
you mean first of two, cause clinton's don't settle for one term
Agnus_Dei posted:Consider as well that Trump wants to soothe relations with Russia, Iran, Syria, etc. He strongly opposed the Iraq War and openly mocks those who supported it. Bernie on the other hand hates Russia and is pro-Israel all the way.
Only Trump can go to Damascus, is it...
History may work in mysterious ways; but that doesn't mean I am obligated to vote for all of its practical jokes.
The comprehensive adjudication of praise, blame,and mercy to all is a distinct matter from the question of what I, with the brief span and limited powers allotted to me, ought (or ought not) to do.
RBC posted:what the fuck are you babbling about
how many more times do you plan to try out this post
RBC posted:what the fuck are you babbling about
Trying to explain why I don't think the (very uncertain) possibility that Trump would, by some not unconcievable historical irony, end up being a reasonable player in international affairs is a good enough reason to endorse the neo-Know Nothing candidate.
HenryKrinkle posted:accelerationism is dumb.
while boycotting elections and voting third parties is the right way to go we should refrain from outright advocating making things worse in the vain hopes that they will get better. that's just lazy thinking imho. it also comes off as sadistic.
Voting for third parties legitimates the electoral system even more than voting for Sanders by the implication that a third party candidacy is possible. We are only going to have the choice of either Democrat or Republican until the system falls. Same goes for boycotting. Here the implication is that if everyone stopped voting we would get something else, as if the electoral system exists by our choice or is the only form of control imposed upon us. Elections are a forced choice, and forced choices are not things you can just back away from. It just isn't productive to blame people for voting against white revanchism, even if the alternative is a softer form of white supremacy. And in a way, realistically participating in elections while arguing against their legitimacy and for their dismantling has a greater rhetorical power. "I'm voting because we don't live in a democracy" "I'm voting because I don't have choice" "I'm voting for you but you will pay" This last slogan not being the normal threat that we will vote for someone else, but the declaration that we will build a movement outside the electoral system and that those that forced us to vote for them will one day see justice for mocking our capacity for freedom.
Agnus_Dei posted:Consider as well that Trump wants to soothe relations with Russia, Iran, Syria, etc. He strongly opposed the Iraq War and openly mocks those who supported it. Bernie on the other hand hates Russia and is pro-Israel all the way.
Trump doesn't want to soothe relations with anyone but America's allies, only opposes the Iraq War because we didn't overtly grab their oil and is just as pro-Israel as Bernie.
haha just a little reference (joke) there. everyone can either take this crapola classic to the Faily Planet, where tpaine is law, or pack their things for a ride in the ban van.
cars posted:
Caught some Yezhovshchina-fever tonight, I see.
le_nelson_mandela_face posted:HenryKrinkle posted:*watches millions of impoverished peasants herded into detention camps and kicked out of the country from relative comfort of own apartment*
OH MAN I SURE AM ENJOYING THE INEVITABLE DOWNFALL OF CAPITALISMactually this would largely disrupt capitalism and improve wages. 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'- barack obama
i don't see why, they would just deported to the periphery and work in sweatshops etc building things, it's not like they would suddenly be removed from the global capitalist system
cars posted:
this is the best gif and lives in the gif hall of fame forever
le_nelson_mandela_face posted:HenryKrinkle posted:*watches millions of impoverished peasants herded into detention camps and kicked out of the country from relative comfort of own apartment*
OH MAN I SURE AM ENJOYING THE INEVITABLE DOWNFALL OF CAPITALISMactually this would largely disrupt capitalism and improve wages. 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'- barack obama
Speaking of disrupting Capitalism, here's another angle to consider relevant to that aim:
"From a social point of view, therefore, the working-class, even when
not directly engaged in the labour-process, is just as much an
appendage of capital as the ordinary instruments of labour. Even its
individual consumption is, within certain limits, a mere factor in the
process of production. That process, however, takes good care to
prevent these self-conscious instruments from leaving it in the lurch,
for it removes their product, as fast as it is made, from their pole
to the opposite pole of capital. Individual consumption provides, on
the one hand, the means for their maintenance and reproduction: on the
other hand, it secures by the annihilation of the necessaries of life,
the continued re-appearance of the workman in the labour-market. The
Roman slave was held by fetters: the wage-labourer is bound to his
owner by invisible threads. The appearance of independence is kept up
by means of a constant change of employers, and by the fictio juris of
a contract.
In former times, capital resorted to legislation, whenever necessary,
to enforce its proprietary rights over the free labourer. For
instance, down to 1815, the emigration of mechanics employed in
machine making was, in England, forbidden, under grievous pains and
penalties.....
The Times published on the 24th March,
1863, a letter from Edmund Potter, a former president of the
Manchester Chamber of Commerce. This letter was rightly called in the
House of Commons, the manufacturers’ manifesto. We cull here a
few characteristic passages, in which the proprietary rights of
capital over labour-power are unblushingly asserted....
Mr. Potter then shows how useful the cotton trade is, how the “trade
has undoubtedly drawn the surplus-population from Ireland and from the
agricultural districts,” how immense is its extent, how in the year
1860 it yielded 5/13 ths of the total English exports, how, after a
few years, it will again expand by the extension of the market,
particularly of the Indian market, and by calling forth a plentiful
supply of cotton at 6d. per lb. He then continues:
'Some time ...,one, two, or three years, it may be, will produce the
quantity.... The question I would put then is this — Is the trade
worth retaining? Is it worth while to keep the machinery (he means the
living labour machines) in order, and is it not the greatest folly to
think of parting with that? I think it is. I allow that the workers
are not a property, not the property of Lancashire and the masters;
but they are the strength of both; they are the mental and trained
power which cannot be. replaced for a generation; the mere machinery
which they work might much of it be beneficially replaced, nay
improved, in a twelvemonth Encourage or allow (!) the working-
power to emigrate, and what of the capitalist?... Take away the cream
of the workers, and fixed capital will depreciate in a great degree,
and the floating will not subject itself to a struggle with the short
supply of inferior labour.... We are told the workers wish
it” (emigration). “Very natural it is that they should do so....
Reduce, compress the cotton trade by taking away its working power and
reducing their wages expenditure, say one-fifth, or five millions, and
what then would happen to the class above, the small shopkeepers; and
what of the rents, the cottage rents.... Trace out the effects upwards
to the small farmer, the better householder, and ... the landowner,
and say if there could be any suggestion more suicidal to all classes
of the country than by enfeebling a nation by exporting the best of
its manufacturing population, and destroying the value of some of its
most productive capital and enrichment .... I advise a loan (of five
or six millions sterling), ... extending it may be over two or three
years, administered by special commissioners added to the Boards of
Guardians in the cotton districts, under special legislative
regulations, enforcing some occupation or labour, as a means of
keeping up at least the moral standard of the recipients of the
loan... can anything be worse for landowners or masters than parting
with the best of the workers, and demoralising and disappointing the
rest by an extended depletive emigration, a depletion of capital and
value in an entire province?' "
From Volume 1 of Capital by Marx
c_man posted:my mind continually boggles at people who think that the guy who's campaign platform is essentially "white supremacy now" is better than the mild liberal who calls himself a socialist.
Hey Einstein... we're white.
RedMaistre posted:I am sure that, in Donald's own mind, Mexico and the United States are locked in an indefinite, undeclared, state of war with each other
You are right, that is what I think. And you know what? I want Mexico to win.
MarxUltor posted:the bern doesnt want to bomb other countries
HenryKrinkle posted:accelerationism is dumb.
while boycotting elections and voting third parties is the right way to go we should refrain from outright advocating making things worse in the vain hopes that they will get better. that's just lazy thinking imho. it also comes off as sadistic.
well i still have to live here so technically is masochistic
HenryKrinkle posted:Agnus_Dei posted:Consider as well that Trump wants to soothe relations with Russia, Iran, Syria, etc. He strongly opposed the Iraq War and openly mocks those who supported it. Bernie on the other hand hates Russia and is pro-Israel all the way.
Trump doesn't want to soothe relations with anyone but America's allies, only opposes the Iraq War because we didn't overtly grab their oil and is just as pro-Israel as Bernie.
Agnus_Dei posted:
this is why he's not a serious candidate, he's just smart and aware enough to realize our foreign policy destabilizes the region, that the people we're supporting are worse than the regime, but not smart and aware enough to realize that's the entire point of the policy. if i were a donor lookin' at this lack of obfuscation i'd jump ship real quick.
aerdil posted:but it is pretty funny that the only candidate with the appropriate non-interventionist policy in this shit country is the racist populist billionaire
Subtract "billionaire" and you've got ReLOVEution.txt
Say he wins. Either things get better, or worse (or the same). Things get better, bam, guy who said he's socialist made things better, socialism looks better, people get more leftist, overton window goes further left. Things get worse, people who were committed to him because they thought he was a leftist feel betrayed, maybe they think that electoral politics is bullshit, since even a socialist can't make things better in the system, then it's time to bern(
) it all down!
I mean, I get it. Electoral politics is a bourgeois tool, real change is going to require more grassroots action. Ignoring that's exactly the position that Bernie is taking, at least a guy who says he's a democratic socialist would probably allow a bit more agitating then a republican.
TL;DR: Bernie's not perfect, but who else has a plan to take the reins of power within in the next year that's a better choice? Cause somebody's going to have it. If a socialist revolution starts before the election in the U.S, yeah, I'm going to support them over Bernie. Till then?