[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 10 KB, 184x275, homage2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1137476 No.1137476 [Reply] [Original]

what are some good anti-capitalist, anti-statist, leftist books? Fiction or non fiction.

reading this now, hell yea Barcelona

>> No.1137489

loved that book, op. there is a really brutal scene where he gets shot in the neck.

>> No.1137496
File: 55 KB, 360x550, empire.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1137496

http://rapidshare.com/files/242985158/Empire__radicalebooks.blogspot.com_.pdf

>> No.1137497
File: 12 KB, 322x500, ComingInsurrection.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1137497

>> No.1137500

>>1137476
Days of War, Nights of Love

It's free. Google it.

>> No.1137505

>anti-capitalist, anti-statist, leftist books

Anything by Noam Chomsky.

>> No.1137507
File: 17 KB, 300x300, 411S63GMKML._SL500_AA300_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1137507

>> No.1137510

>>1137505

>implying Aspects of the Theory of Syntax is leftist, anti-capitalist, or anti-statist

>> No.1137512

>>1137510
Syntax is language, language is reality, reality is leftist.

>> No.1137533
File: 58 KB, 640x427, 1271624698400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1137533

>>1137512

...

Well played.

>> No.1137540

Atlas Shrugged.

>> No.1137573

>>1137476

Lenin's The State and Revolution. Anything by Hardt and Negri.

>> No.1137578

Kropotkin's conquest of bread, Bakunin's god and the state

>> No.1137589

>>1137512

language is imaginary

>> No.1137590

>>1137589
What did you say?

>> No.1137630

>>1137590
interior semiotics

>> No.1138743

>>1137476
>anti-statist, leftist
protip: leftism embraces statism to get it's shit done; for example taxing the shit out of rich people and redistributing wealth. Without statism leftism can't really achieve anything.
(Capitalist libertarian here btw, we are opposites lol)

>> No.1138753

>>1138743

You know nothing.

>> No.1138764

>>1138743
>implying you are not a cuntservative with an inheritance

>> No.1138777

>>1138764
Implying you are not a middle class suburban teen living in his parents house who has never had a job

>> No.1138787

>>1138743
Why are libertarians so ignorant?

>> No.1138795

>>1138787

The bourgeoisie don't need to actually know anything, they just spend daddy's money and sit on boards of directors collecting paychecks.

>> No.1138796

>>1138787
I dont even understand what's so contravertial about what i said, can someone explain it to me?
The main tenents of leftism include things like redistributing wealth and social schemes. to do these things they need the apparatus of the state

>> No.1138798

>>1138787

Why do non-libertarians make blanket statements about libertarians?

>> No.1138803

>>1138796

1. No they don't. There's more than one way to reacquire wealth and the means of production.

2. That's an incredibly simplified view of the left.

>> No.1138809

>>1138795
I always lol at how distorted you guys see the world.
The proportion of wealthy people who got that way by inheriting large fortunes is very tiny.
Most wealthy people have done something like created a business or educated themselves in a profitable area.
whereas you guys sit on your asses and wait for the government to give you a hand out.
look I can make sweeping generalizations about people based on their political ideology too.

>> No.1138810

>>1138798
the same reason libertarians libertarians make blanket statements about non-libertarians.

it's easy

>> No.1138823

>>1138809

>created a business
>getting lucky, or having daddy bankroll you until you turn a profit

>educated themselves in a profitable area

They ain't doing it at state school.

Face it, the only way to get rich is to be rich.

>> No.1138828

>>1138803
>There's more than one way to reacquire wealth and the means of production.

How can you redistribute (or 'reacquire' as you oddly put it) wealth and the means of production without the power of the state?
who would hand a large proportion of their income over without a government to threaten to throw them in jail if they don't?

>> No.1138838
File: 19 KB, 650x293, ak47.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1138838

>>1138828

>> No.1138841

>>1138823

>They ain't doing it at state school.
>Face it, the only way to get rich is to be rich.

Not with that attitude you won't lol

>> No.1138847

>>1138838

same thing. your wages and property are still being taken by force whether it's by a government or a socialist mob equipped with AK-47s

>> No.1138853

>>1138847

Well of course it has to be taken by force. All you asked was how you get it without the state.

You fucking take it, is how.

>> No.1138860

>>1138853
>You fucking take it, is how.

and does this seem honorable to you?
taking shit that doesn't belong to you by force is called armed robbery

>> No.1138869

>>1138860

Honorable?

Taking from one to feed hundreds? Taking one man's house and making it a house for thirty men? Ending a life of servitude for millions and allowing those not lucky enough to be born rich a chance at a free, fulfilling life?

Yes, it seems damn honorable.

>> No.1138880

Plenty of poor people get wealthy by going to college and making a decent fucking career.
nobody in the western world has any excuse to be poor in this day and age, we don't live in a fucking indian caste society where everyone but the exceptionally rich is chained to the land.
It's true that people from wealthy families get a better springboard than anyone else, but that doesn't mean that poor people don't have a chance.

>> No.1138892

>>1138880

> Plenty of poor people get wealthy by going to college and making a decent fucking career.

No they don't. They get marginally better wage slave positions.

>> No.1138900

>>1138847
>implying government isn't a socialist mob equipped with M16s

>> No.1138906
File: 34 KB, 312x475, The Dispossessed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1138906

>what are some good anti-capitalist, anti-statist, leftist books? Fiction or non fiction.

>> No.1138910

>>1138892
I'd rather be a wage slave earning an honest living that a thief who takes things other people have earned under the guise of helping the poor

>> No.1138913

>>1138869

Utilitarian detected. Your philosophy has been obsolete for over a century now. Please consider updating your views.

>> No.1138930

>>1138869
I hate people like you so much.

You can't force someone to give a shit about anyone else in the world. Sure, it'd be nice if we lived in a more generous place, but a person has a right to use their money as they wish. It's wrong to take something from some else.

Fuck, I hope to very successful in the future for the simple reason that I want to be able to support my family. I want my kids to have an advantage in this world. Is this not honorable? I'd hate to tell my kids that all my hard work has gone into helping people I don't even know---that against my own will I can't help my family first.

>> No.1138936

>>1138795
You're an idiot. You really think there are no hardworking people in this world? Money doesn't usually just fall into one's lap. On occasion it'll happen, but not very often.

>> No.1138942

>>1138930

>You can't force someone to give a shit about anyone else in the world.

Oh, I think you can. Or you can kill them. Either way, shit gets done.

>Sure, it'd be nice if we lived in a more generous place, but a person has a right to use their money as they wish. It's wrong to take something from some else.

Says you.

>>1138910

Why? You think it's somehow more honorable to tow the bourgeois line because they tell you it is?

>> No.1138958

>>1138942

>Says you.
What an eloquent and well-reasoned retort

>> No.1138961

>>1138958

It's nothing more than a difference of opinion.

You say stealing from the rich is wrong, I say it's not. I presented my reasoning a few posts ago.

>> No.1138964

OP would probably like Murray Bookchin's stuff quite a bit.

>> No.1138966

>>1137476
>leftist
>Orwell
huh.

>> No.1138970

>>1138961

If it's not wrong to steal from the rich, why is it wrong to steal from the poor?

>> No.1138971

>>1138961
you presented a spiel of emotional rhetoric
that is not reasoning

>> No.1138979

>>1138966

Orwell was a democratic socialist and fought in the Spanish Civil War against fascists. He was pretty far-left.

>> No.1138983
File: 9 KB, 264x189, ingsoc_logotype.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1138983

>>1138979
orwell was an anti-totalitarian, not a socialist
pic related

>> No.1138988

>>1138970

One guy has ten loaves of fresh bread.

One guy has half a slice of bread.

Now say there are people starving. If I decide to steal from the guy with half a slice, I'm not going to feed many of those starving folks.

But if I steal from the guy with ten loaves, I can take enough to feed quite a few people, and with enough left over to keep him alive to boot.

I don't really care which is 'right' or 'wrong', I can just do more good with more bread.

>> No.1138995
File: 39 KB, 512x288, CHEESE2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1138995

>>1138983
>Socialism is totalitarianism, derp

>> No.1138996

>>1138983

No, he was a socialist. Reading up on him for about fifteen minutes will show you that his political views were strongly influenced by Trotsky, and he was a member of the Independent Labour Party.

>> No.1139000

>>1138988
More good for who? For the people starving? What if that man had a reason to have that much bread? What if we was going to feed people besides himself with it anyway?

>> No.1139001

>>1138988

see

>>1138913

Also, I presume you're posting from a computer you own, wearing relatively good clothes, and eat more than bread. There's a shitload of people in the world who are literally starving. How about you give your own shit away before you start taking other's? There's a very interesting work on this point, Living High and Letting Die: Our Illusion of Innocence by Peter Unger. Highly recommended.

>> No.1139004

>>1138988
who are you to decide who deserves what?
what makes you king of the fucking bread distribution?

>> No.1139007

>>1138988
You're a married man on a business trip. A woman expresses interest in you on this trip. You're attracted to her, and she's attracted to you. If you fuck her, you'll both be happier. You can do this without having your wife ever find out. So, you and this woman will both be better off and your wife will not be harmed.

Should you cheat?

>> No.1139020

>>1139004

Presumably not the guy holding down most of the bread.

>> No.1139022

>>1139001

Because if you keep telling me my views are wrong, that will make it true!

>you're posting from a computer you own

Yes, it's about ten years out of date and missing two keys.

>wearing relatively good clothes

Bought from a thrift store.

>and eat more than bread

Thanks to food stamps, yes. The bread thing was just to illustrate my point, by the way. People obviously need more than bread.

>How about you give your own shit away before you start taking other's?

I don't really have much to give. But I have given food, shelter, and my own time to the poor(the more poor) before, and I will again. But again, see my illustration. I've got half a slice of bread, and I can only do so much with it.

I could give all my stuff away and live like a hobo, or I could steal from a rich guy, and have two people living reasonably well instead of one living ridiculously well.

>> No.1139025

>>1139004

Someone with the decency to say one guy getting fat while others die of starvation is wrong, and that something should be done about it.

>>1139007

Sure. Monogamy is an outdated and unnatural institution anyway.

>> No.1139037

>>1139025
Sure is utilitarian in here.

And is it also okay to enslave and brutalize a few hundred people to a few thousand people if it does a great deal of good for humanity as a whole?

(Hint: Marx was a critic of this utilitarian garbage. inb4 modern socialists haven't even read Marx)

>> No.1139044

>>1139022
Two people living reasonably well instead of one living ridiculously well, huh? That's how it might work if such a system could be perfectly balanced, but it never is in situations that it has been implemented, and it never can be.

>> No.1139049

>>1139037

>And is it also okay to enslave and brutalize a few hundred people to a few thousand people if it does a great deal of good for humanity as a whole?

No, that's the system we've already got, and I'm obviously not okay with it.

>>1139044

Neither of us can prove or disprove that it can never work.

>> No.1139050

>>1139025
>Someone with the decency to say one guy getting fat while others die of starvation is wrong, and that something should be done about it.

that people are starving is not the fat guy's fault (unless he directly caused their starvation). he is not obliged to carry everyone else on his back. he may choose to do so, if he feels generous, but he is not obliged to.

>> No.1139051

>It's wrong to take something from some else.

How do you think capitalism works?
As Marx put it, the source of profit for the capitalist comes from the unpaid (stolen) surplus labor of the working class.

You don't view this as theft? Would you curse a man for stealing bread instead of starving?

Communism/Socialism don't deal with the property you are mostly referring to, which is personal property. These systems concern themselves with private property, or, the means of production.

That is to say, I don't give a shit about your car and it wouldn't be right for me to steal it, but if you are running a taxi service and employing people for a wage I do have a problem with it.

>> No.1139053
File: 236 KB, 631x477, 124754551542.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1139053

>>1139049
So, it's okay to steal from/take advantage of a small number of people (the very wealthy), for the good of all - but it isn't okay to harm a few for the good of many?

Huh.

>> No.1139055

>>1139049
The only way it could work is if an entire generation is brainwashed to believe that sharing everything you ever earn in life is good. Which is funny since lefties are always going on about individual rights.

>> No.1139056

>>1139022

But you're still living in "luxurious and spectacular penury", I don't see how it could possibly be consistent with your views. If you want me to regurgitate some arguments against utilitarianism, here you go:

1. There is no good measure of utility/happiness.
2. Even if there was, happiness is not aggregatable (not in a meaningful way, anyway). Two people who are "5 happy" do not make "10 happiness".
3. Even if it was aggregatable, it would still result in completely absurd positions: let's say that people with 10 happy or less are completely miserable, while people with 10 to 20 happy are somewhat less miserable. Assume that the average happy is 5. The utilitarian argument then is that adding more "somewhat less miserable" people (and thus increasing both total and average utility) is a good idea.
4. Even if we ignore the above issue, there's the problem of correctly predicting the consequences of your actions. The guy with the 10 breads is the only baker. When you take his stuff you piss him off and he leaves. He might have shared some of his bread and fed 5 people, but your short-term attempt to feed 10 people resulted in all of them dying by starvation. You might want to prevent him (and from your pov it would make sense to do so), in which case your utilitarianism is now justifying slavery (the thought experiment can easily be extended to any "human rights" violation).

>> No.1139060

>>1139055
If you really can't see any other way for it to work than I feel bad for you son.

I believe the majority of people care about the others, it is ingrained it us through evolution.

We are socialized, mainly through the educational system, to believe that the way things are is the only way for things to be.
Also the advertising arm of capitalism is "brainwashing" people in to wanting shit they don't need.

>> No.1139068

>>1139060
>I believe the majority of people care about the others

Now you went from "a bit misguided" to "batshit insane religious belief".

>> No.1139070

>>1139060
Why is it, then, that when crimes are witnessed on the street, nobody helps the victim? Don't you know that the majority of people who witness someone being assaulted or robbed in an open area never even attempt to help the victim? The majority of people couldn't give less of a shit about each other.

>> No.1139074

>>1139051
>As Marx put it, the source of profit for the capitalist comes from the unpaid (stolen) surplus labor of the working class.

You seem to be forgetting that Marx was full of shit.
Exchanging labour for wages is a voluntary agreement, (unless the employee is a slave).
The employee values a days wage more than 9 or so hours of work and vice versa for the employer.
If this wasn't the case, the relationship wouldn't exist.
To say that it is theft to pay an employee less than the value of his labour so retarded that it just gave me cancer.
I'd like to see someone try to run a business where the employees did $9 worth of work an hour but were paid $10

>> No.1139078

jesus fucking christ, is /lit/ trolled this easily?

it's simple: people fucking disagree. You're never, ever, ever going to convert someone by arguing with them anonymously on 4chan.

Blanket statements will not will not compel people to donate more of their shit than what the government takes already. They will also not convince other people from demanding that the government take more from you for their benefit.

Personally, honestly, I don't really give a flying fuck if there are starving children in Africa. Sucks to be them and I'm glad I'm not one of them. I'm nice and cozy in my private room on my $2,000 computer displayed on my $220 monitor, and I would not trade that for less because other people live in fucked up worlds. I didn't put them there and it's not my responsibility to fix the world. I'd rather be comfortable and happy and have what I want. Is that selfish? Too damn bad, I earn the right to be selfish.

On the off chance OP isn't a troll:
http://www.nautilus-solar.net/SandyGunfox/books/C/Chomsky,%20Noam/

>> No.1139079

>>1139068
I disagree with you. Most people do have some inherit kindness in them - or at least I'd like to think so. I won't claim it's limitless, but even small children can show sympathy.

孟子 has a lot more to say on the matter than I do, of course. I'd look into that if I were you.

>> No.1139080

>>1139070
Same reason you'll hear "I'll be with you when the revolution starts" instead of "Let's start the revolution"

People always assume someone else will do something about it.
Drilled in to us since a very young age, if people rely on authority instead of taking action themselves the system will never fall.

>> No.1139081

>>1139050
reminds me of what I thought the "social contract" meant in high school - you do things to be a responsible part of something bigger. I think I was wrong on what the term really meant but yeah...

>> No.1139082

.>>1139051
Uh...isn't it mutual? I can't really see it as stealing if someone is willing to hand over their labor.

>> No.1139086

>>1139078

>You're never, ever, ever going to convert someone by arguing with them anonymously on 4chan.

That's not true. I'm the utilitarian guy, and I've been kinda argued into a corner, so I'm reevaluating my beliefs. Maybe not 'converted', but the discussion wasn't fruitless.

>> No.1139087

>>1139078

Well according to
>>1138942
apparently you can force someone to care. He probably thinks you can force people to change their opinions too!

>> No.1139109

>>1139074

>Exchanging labour for wages is a voluntary agreement, (unless the employee is a slave).
If everyone didn't engage in what is known as WAGE SLAVERY they would fucking starve to death.

Work or Die. Doesn't sound very voluntary to me.

>The employee values a days wage more than 9 or so hours of work and vice versa for the employer.
If this wasn't the case, the relationship wouldn't exist.

False, we take what we can get. That's how it is right now, but worker organizing and collective bargaining has the power to change this.

>To say that it is theft to pay an employee less than the value of his labour so retarded that it just gave me cancer.
Doesn't address the claim.

>I'd like to see someone try to run a business where the employees did $9 worth of work an hour but were paid $10
You won't see this happen any under system. I never implied that under a worker/communally owned workplace the labor would be paid more than their labor value.

>> No.1139111

>>1139086
I don't believe there is any one belief that will avoid having people tell you you're wrong and stupid and a faggot. So fuck it if other people say you're wrong.

It's only good to re-evaluate your own position if -you- think you're wrong. If you do, then good, it's a sign of maturity to be able to re-evaluate yourself.

>> No.1139116

>>1139079
>孟子

wtf is this nip scribble

>> No.1139119

>>1139056

Let me add a 5th issue: different people have different capacities for happiness. Lets say the guy with the 10 breads derives 10 happiness from each bread. There are 5 other guys, each of whom derives only 9 happiness from each bread. The utilitarian argument here should be that the 5 should starve. Of course, each persons capacity for utility (as well as their level of utility, either in absolute OR relative terms) is completely unknowable.

>> No.1139121

>>1139070
no it's because they assume that someone else would have already acted, actually

>> No.1139126

>>1139121
What a bullshit excuse.

>> No.1139132

>>1139086
Utilitarianism (in it's basic spirit) is in any way "immoral" or "wrong" as some might put it. Rather, the logical consequences of it are what seems to break the system. Infringements upon what are generally considered fundamental human rights is just one of those issues - the principle of utility can be easily used to justify slavery, rape, torture, and murder.

It's important to keep in mind that Marxism/Socialism is not utilitarianism - though most "liberal" political parties hold very utilitarian beliefs.

>> No.1139133

>>1139126
That's the bystander effect for ya.
Maybe now that you are aware of it when you see it in action you can recognize it and does something about it.

>> No.1139139

>>1139109

Your argument doesn't make much sense. If the capitalist is paying $9 for $10 worth of labour, why wouldn't capitalist #2 pay $9.50? He would attract all the workers, and keep $0.50 per hour and getting richer while capitalist #1 makes nothing at all. Repeat argument ad infinitum until the workers are paid $10.

>> No.1139141

>>1139116
Mencius, son. tl;dr he thinks people are inertly good but are easily corrupted

>> No.1139144

>>1139109
>If everyone didn't engage in what is known as WAGE SLAVERY they would fucking starve to death.

BAWWWW if I don't work for a living I'll starve, government should give me free shit instead
>this_is_what_socialists_actually_believe.jpg

>False, we take what we can get. That's how it is right now, but worker organizing and collective bargaining has the power to change this.

I am not capable of negotiating with another employer so I will use unions and mass action to force my employer to pay me more than I am worth

>You won't see this happen any under system. I never implied that under a worker/communally owned workplace the labor would be paid more than their labor value

my point was that labour is a commodity to be bought and sold like any other. an employer tries to buy this commodity for less than it's actual value so he can make a profit, that is the whole point of a business

>> No.1139145

>>1139109
Oh shut up, you whiny union faggot.

>> No.1139151

>>1139139
It looks like you are assuming there are more jobs available than workers.
See here: http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en
&hl=en&q=us+unemployment+rate

Obviously there are more people than jobs. People need jobs to live so they will take what they can get.
This means that the capitalist will pay as little as possible to increase his profits.

Maybe in a situation where there were two jobs available and one person seeking them out your argument would hold some water but what is happening now is this.

There are 10 jobs available. There are 11 people seeking jobs. The employers offer X dollars/hour because they know people want to work. The worker takes the job for X wage because if they don't accept it the other workers will.

All the workers are acting as individuals, if they organized and demanded higher wages it would be different, but most of them don't, so they get exploited.

This is a gross oversimplification but you get the point.

>> No.1139152

>>1139139

It's unlikely that capitalist #2 would need "all the workers". In fact, he's more likely to make his existing workforce work more for less. Employers don't compete the way you describe, and certainly they'll never pay anything like 100% of labour returns, ever.

>> No.1139155

>>1139139
>Your argument doesn't make much sense. If the capitalist is paying $9 for $10 worth of labour, why wouldn't capitalist #2 pay $9.50? He would attract all the workers, and keep $0.50 per hour and getting richer while capitalist #1 makes nothing at all. Repeat argument ad infinitum until the workers are paid $10.

this guy is right.
the market abhors a profit and things usually proceed in such a way as to minimize it, to the benefit of the employees

>> No.1139163

>>1139141
oh right
I GIS'd it and though i was looking at confucious and was like lolwat he is not an economic theorist

>> No.1139165

>>1139145
needs to check out
>>1139151

and check himself

>> No.1139168

>>1139151

Unemployment is a government created effect my friend. The biggest culprit is the minimum wage, which is essentially a law which prohibits people whose labour is worth less than the minimum wage from working. It's the harshest anti-poor measure there is. Add to that a shitload of taxes and contributions employers need to pay, which automatically increases the cost of labour (and thus demand for it), and there's your unemployment. There's always going to be some unemployment due to people moving between jobs or geographical imbalances due to immobility of labour, but pretty much anything above that is government made. So, if you're against there being more labour than jobs (and by extension the existence of "wage slavery"), you should consider becoming a libertarian.

>>1139152
>It's unlikely that capitalist #2 would need "all the workers"

Why not? If he's making $0.50 per hour per worker, why would he not want an additional worker at all times?

>> No.1139170

>>1139144
>BAWWWW if I don't work for a living I'll starve, government should give me free shit instead
>this_is_what_socialists_actually_believe.jpg
1. I never said anything about the state stepping in to correct these problems.
2. You seem to be forgetting about us anarcho-(communists, socialists, etc)

>I am not capable of negotiating with another employer so I will use unions and mass action to force my employer to pay me more than I am worth
See
>>1139151

>my point was that labour is a commodity to be bought and sold like any other. an employer tries to buy this commodity for less than it's actual value so he can make a profit, that is the whole point of a business
Yes, that is the point of a capitalist business venture. To me that just reinforces my point about how capitalists are inherently exploitative and their system must be abolished. Through force if necessary

>>1139145
Fails to address any of my claims and instead chooses to tell me to shut up. Good one.

>> No.1139171

>>1139152
>Employers don't compete the way you describe, yes they do, it is called 'poaching'
it may not be as widespread for shitty, unskilled detritus but it's quite common for professionals

>> No.1139173

>>1139168
>(and thus demand for it)
and thus LOWERS demand for it*

>> No.1139178

>>1139170
Actually, I addressed all your claims. In one sentence. You are a whiny union faggot who needs to shut up.

>> No.1139180

>>1139170
>Yes, that is the point of a capitalist business venture. To me that just reinforces my point about how capitalists are inherently exploitative and their system must be abolished. Through force if necessary

why do you see buying labour as exploitative?
presumably you don't believe that buying raw materials like lumber in this way is exploititive
at least the labour agreement is voluntary and the workers get a say in the matter
;_; poor downtrodden lumber

>> No.1139183

>>1139178
You are adding nothing to this discussion.
I'm not sure what is with the strong anti-union views. Perhaps you are from the southern US?

Not implying all southerners hate unions, just most.

>> No.1139187

>>1139183
I am from northern California. And everyone here is a whiny union faggot who needs to shut up.

>> No.1139188

>>1139180
>Compares human beings to lumber. Also neglects to imagine labour goes into producing lumber.

/thread.

>> No.1139194

>>1139180
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploiting
This is what they are doing, utilizing the workers for a profit. The workers produce X value and earn Y wage.
X value - Y wage = Capitalist profit.
I view this as exploiting the worker.

And yes, you are correct, I am exploiting materials for my own benefit and where I draw the line is completely arbitrary.
I realize this and choose to live with it.

>> No.1139201

>>1139187
Why do they need to shut up?
Is it simple disagreement with their views or what?

>> No.1139202

>>1139183
The Auto Workers union is reponsible for the shutdown of the New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) plant, which I live near. They selfishly refused to take pay/benefit cuts after Toyota's fuck-ups/economic conditions make running the plant unsustainable. The shutdown of the plant affected other local businesses - for example, restaurants who depended on the auto workers' business had to close.

>> No.1139213

>>1139188
>Compares human beings to lumber. Also neglects to imagine labour goes into producing lumber.

>Doesn't distinguish between a human being and the labour he creates and can sell to the highest bidder

>> No.1139219

>>1139202
Running the plant was probably sustainable, but it probably fell below a profitability threshold that the owners of the company refused to allow.

Look at their financial stats, Toyota isn't about to go down the tubes because they had to give a little higher pay to a few thousand workers

>> No.1139225

>>1139219

Wait a minute. You actually believe that they could be making money, but chose not to because...they wouldn't be making "enough"?

>> No.1139227 [DELETED] 

Actually, I applaud them. They sit around on their asses not working and smoking weed while I can get all the work I want, then smoke MORE weed. Though I'm not too enthralled over the idea of the country being controlled by a bunch of mobsters.

>> No.1139226

>>1139194
OK,
I have made you admit that your beliefs are not rational.
I am satisfied
/thread

>> No.1139231

>>1139201
Actually, I applaud them. They sit around on their asses not working and smoking weed while I can get all the work I want, then smoke MORE weed. Though I'm not too enthralled over the idea of the country being controlled by a bunch of mobsters.

>> No.1139233

>>1139202

Factory shutdowns happen because the company is no longer making a sizable profit, whatever benchmark that might be. The basic role of the union in all this is to simply claw back some of that profit and regulate health and safety for their members (and non-members alike). If you have a problem with this, then you're an idiot.

>> No.1139235

>>1139233
>and non-members alike
PFFHAHAHAAHAHA
HA
HA
HAHAHA

>> No.1139247

>>1139235

There's hardly a jurisdiction in the US, UK or Australia, where gains made by unions can be restricted to their members alone.

>> No.1139252

>>1139233
This is definitely not was the union was doing. By the way, Toyota showed a loss the year of the closing. The business was legitimately unsustainable at that point, and the union hurt the members, and even more so the non-members, and even others running businesses near the plant. Incidents like these are some of the major issues with current unions.

>> No.1139258

>>1139226
Is it irrational to exploit the tree so I might have shelter? No.
Is it is arbitrary where I draw the line on exploitation? Yes, but this is true for everyone I know, so I will live with it.

>>1139225
Yes, absolutely, there is a point when it is cheaper to export the labor and pay the tariff than pay the workers a better wage.

Toyota 2010 Q1 Financial Summary for anyone interested.
http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/srp-download.aspx?fid=84988
Net revenue? 8,377,643 million yen or 97,641,429,165 USD.

>> No.1139260

>>1139258
You're assuming revenue is the same as profit. They aren't the same thing.

>> No.1139264

>>1139258

I don't think you understand the concept of opportunity cost, and it's pretty central here. It's wikipedia time for you.

>> No.1139267

>>1139260
Whoops, you said net revenue (referring to the bottom line iirc). Disregard that.

>> No.1139268

>>1139247
Anybody on the outside doesn't get any of the so-called benefits of being in a union. Even though there really are none besides the illusion of power to intimidate that it gives the members.

>> No.1139274
File: 12 KB, 446x352, 1284081352232.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1139274

>>1139258

>my beliefs are arbitrary
>my beliefs are rational

pick one

>> No.1139294

>>1139264

"We're losing money on non-existent hypotheticals!"

>> No.1139298

>>1139260
You're right.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=tm&annual
They still aren't hurting with 2,242,000,000 USD net profits

>> No.1139308

>>1139274
Not all my beliefs have to fall in to the same category of rational or arbitrary.

Each belief is separate is a separate belief and some are rational and some are arbitrary.

>> No.1139343

>>1139268
>Even though there really are none besides the illusion of power to intimidate that it gives the members.
Illusion of power? If it is merely an illusion than why does collective bargaining work?

>Anybody on the outside doesn't get any of the so-called benefits of being in a union
They can see the union works, and can follow the example they set.

I think this is a good time to point out that I don't believe that most unions are a good idea. Only some challenge the actual wage system (see: Industrial Workers of the World).
As Zinn said while speaking about charity "...that's where the American system is being maintained for all these centuries really, by giving people a little bit and giving enough people, just enough, to prevent them from breaking out in open rebellion."

tl;dr I believe the unions help to perpetuate the system.

>> No.1139357

To the person talking shit on the "union mobsters smoking weed": study some fucking history and realize what role globalization has on our country's industries

>> No.1139391
File: 10 KB, 268x400, Society Debord Zone.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1139391

or all Verso publishing or Autonomedia

>> No.1139404

>125 posts and 10 image replies omitted
11 suggestions total.

Sorry about that OP, I contributed to it.

>> No.1139425

Road to Wigan Pier
1984
Oil!
The Jungle
The Communist Manifesto
Capital

Anything by Emma Goldman, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Chomsky, Malatesta, Proudhon, Rothbard, Zerzan

>> No.1139446
File: 44 KB, 496x384, 1280559820569.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1139446

>>1139425

>OP asks for leftist, anti-capitalist
>Rothbard

>> No.1139492

>>1139446
I felt it would be worth putting in since he also said anti-statist.

>> No.1139523

>>1139492

Fair enough. It's just every one else in that post falls under all three camps, but he falls into one.

>> No.1139568

>>1139523
Valid point, probably should have left him out.

>> No.1139803
File: 46 KB, 550x423, 77156-004-AE44A7D5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1139803

You'd have to be naive or a moron to be "anti-statist". I rely on those guys for my livelihood and health, like almost everyone else who isn't living in a mountain cabin heated by burning faeces.

>> No.1139820
File: 15 KB, 400x400, socialism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1139820

Don't even try and deny this leftists. You know it's true.

>> No.1139824

>>1139820
i won't deny it. that picture illustrates exactly what we aim to do.

>> No.1139838

>>1139820
>implying Capitalism isn't the exact same thing the other way around

>> No.1139840

>>1139824
Why can't you revolutionist understand that the good of for all, this social good, that you speak of isn't acceptable for everyone?

>> No.1139842

>>1139838
I don't have a gun put to my head like you scoialist would have it; instead I'm given incentive, money, to work and stay civil.

>> No.1139846

>>1139842
Enjoy slaving away for your pittance while the CEO makes billions to sit at a desk and smoke a cigar.
Unless you're the one sitting at a desk and taking advantage of the masses. In that case, you're a worthless piece of shit.

>> No.1139851
File: 38 KB, 313x475, LookToWindward.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1139851

>Ctrl+F
>Culture
>not found
I am disappoint, /v/.

Speaking of which, Banks also wrote a nice article on why right-wing authoritarian government probably won't survive past the development of easy interstellar travel.

>> No.1139852

>>1139840

Is this a serious question? "Everyone's" consent?

>> No.1140743

>>1139840
We do understand this.
The people who don't agree are known as counter-revolutionaries.
Sounds like you are one of them.
You will be liquidated.

>> No.1140769

>>1138983
I bet you also think that Martin Luther King Jr. was against affirmative action.

>> No.1140778

The state =! the people

Anarchist utopia looks the same whether you get there from the right or the left, other than the type of people who need to die before it happens. The number -- countless millions -- remains the same.

>> No.1140802

>>1140778
I don't think you can be right to call anarchy achieved from the right anarchy.
Right implies capitalism to me and you can't have capitalist anarchists.
Yes, there are those that call them "anarcho"-capitalists but since hierarchy is inherent in capitalism it isn't true anarchy.

Or do you mean that it doesn't matter which government, "right" or "left", you have in place before anarchy manifests?