They are posting flyers near me. Really focused on class struggle and corporate A-holes.
Is this genuine leftism?
Other urls found in this thread:
Mr. Porky himself.
Kind of. It's a SALT thing, which means it's being run by reformists who have no idea what they are doing. They tried to do that head tax to pay for homeless housing, but it, quite predictably, got utterly BTFO by an Amazon propaganda blitz and backroom deals with politicians. It was not a particularly economically sound bill anyway as it taxed capital instead of revenue, but it was nice that it was predicated upon a general hatred of the corporate oligarchy. Who knows? Maybe this frustration and disenchantment will eventually lead to actual organized resistence. Seattle Soviet when?
I think there's probably only one way to save cities like Seattle
A Reminder that Socialism is the Abolishment of Capitalism. Useless shit like Fag or Trans rights have brought us not a step closer to its realization.
By "outskirts" do you mean Federal Way, Kent, Burien, and SeaTac? I know you're not talking about Georgetown, Fremont, Capitol Hill, and West Seattle. First Hill can be kind of shitty depending on which street your on, and Aurora is still skeezy, although Amazon devouring South Lake Union is going to change that.
I'snt amazon where that crazy berkley professor ordered bike locks to bash red pilled protestors over the head?
They're building a massive, unified demand tracking and goods distribution network, and these people - self-proclaimed leftists - want to shut them down? Amazon is literally (and unwittingly) laying the material basis for communism, exactly as Marx had predicted, and these fucking philistines want to stop it from doing so?
The absolute fucking state of the modern left.
100 years ago dumbasses like you were arguing that trust-busting was reactionary and that Rockefeller's Standard Oil would bring us to communism for "laying the material basis for communism." How'd that work out again?
Ah, Aurora, where the rent is expensive and the hookers are cheap.
Amazon is an absolute disgrace. It's an internet-based Wal-Mart.
no, it's where the scrawny meth addict with a shitload of priors hit somebody with a sick
So what do I do if I need something that only amazon (or one of the other dozens of companies) provides? Honest question, I was needing a computer upgrade (still running just 4gig of ram) and it's not like buying from newegg is any better.
Given that all microelectronics today are fabricated in 3rd world shitholes for one of two evil monopoly platforms, there isn't even any slightly ethical option. Buy it wherever it's cheapest to deny porky profit and accelerate falling rate of profit. Used RAM like eBay is cheaper than new.
Well we busted the trusts, and 100 years later we don't have communism.
Honestly, which of these scenarios seems more likely to you: A) Teddy Roosevelt broke up Standard Oil so that he could stick it to that fat cat Rockefeller and pave the way to communism, or B) Roosevelt broke up Standard Oil because his administration wanted to keep the capitalist system alive in spite of its suicidal tendency toward concentration of wealth and monopoly.
Seems like dumbasses like me from 100 years ago might have had a point. Maybe attempting to keep capitalism's inherent contradictions from destroying itself actually gets us further away from communism?
You mean Wal-Mart the company that is building massive storehouses of material abundance and the logistical backbone necessary to keep them stocked with the correct amount of goods? They've unwittingly done more of the practical tasks necessary to establish communism than any of the pseuds in the organised left. Look past your brainlet moral outrage and think about this rationally, as Marx did.
Yes, Wal-Mart, which allows capitalist imperialism to flush the centers of global capital with the necessities of life at a cheap enough rate to prevent open rebellion. Idiot.
Your criticism of Wal-Mart is "it supplies so much material abundance that people are unwilling to revolt". That's fucking retarded. You're fucking retarded.
That's an interesting argument, but it can certainly be taken too far. For instance, late in the Age of Colonialism, sovereign nations were beginning to crumple in the face of private firms such as the East India Companies (British & Dutch), Hudson's Bay Company, etc., that had the power to levy soldiers, fight wars, annex territories, collect and spend taxes, negotiate treaties, etc.
While all of them I can remember did owe allegiance to some particular sovereign, if things had kept going, they easily could've acquired the transnational nature of corporations in the modern era.
That, in no small part, is what legal reforms like antitrust were meant to combat. And looking at companies like Wallmart or Amazon (or, on the other end, corporate "oversight" of bankrupt governments from the city of Detroit to the territory of Puerto Rico), that has reemerged as a very real danger today.
When floor the accelerator, remember to steer carefully!
Finally they have done SOMETHING pertaining to class struggle and worthy of respect.
Literally who? Never heard that name.
So what you're saying is that we could have hastened capitalism's demise by 200-odd years if we had let the capitalism accumulate itself into extinction in the cradle.
You're positing a scenario in which the accumulation of the colonial proto-corporations went unchecked by national governments. What you haven't done is shown how that scenario would have been any worse than the history we actually got. The nations of the global south stayed under colonial rule for centuries after the colonial companies dissolved. From where I'm standing, it looks like slowing down capitalism's drive toward ever-greater accumulation has only served to keep it going that much longer.
Honestly, what 'danger'? Rampant poverty, incompetent administration, rule by the rich - how the fuck is any of that different from what we've already got? Breaking up these corporate giants has only one purpose - keeping the system viable for longer. Going in and manually resetting the fucked up wealth distribution doesn't actually attack the root problem.
Their system is unsustainable on its own merits. We know it, they know it. The state exists to mediate between the different sections of the capitalist class in order to keep the system as a whole ticking over. Trustbusting isn't about 'the people' vs. 'the trusts', it's about the trust vs capitalism as a whole.
A lengthy rebuttal to this kind of argument:
First of all, by saying that the contradictions of capitalism will deliver us to communism, you're denying the role of the working class as the revolutionary subject. Saying that a centralized economic structure can be 'flipped' to socialist ends means that revolutionary class struggle is irrelevant or not needed, which is a very convenient idea for socdems and radical liberals who prefer Keynesian managerialism and look down upon the proletariat.
My own criticism is that places like Amazon, Wal Mart, etc. are all extremely exploitative structures by design - their Taylorism-on-steroids is what makes them superior to smaller, less centralized firms. If the workers were to take control, they would want to undo the very practices that make places like Amazon efficient or desirable (low wages, extreme time micromanagement, poor working conditions, etc). You can't abolish hierarchies of power and the state in this system, because it's needed to prevent the workers from sabotaging the system with their desires for agency and against shitty, alienated labor. You know, like communists?
Nationalize places like Wal Mart and all you'll get is a recreation of Soviet Taylorism and the NEP, just with more plastics and smartphones.
french revolution was jew
This post is almost random in just how wrong it is.
>First of all, by saying that the contradictions of capitalism will deliver us to communism, you're denying the role of the working class as the revolutionary subject.
What was actually said: laying the material basis for communism.
It doesn't mean that, somebody has to do the flipping.
You are just stringing together some touchy-feely BS. Bigger organisations have a general scale advantage. In small groups, tasks aren't split up to the same degree, meaning it takes longer to train people and people lose a lot of time switching between tasks. You haven't even read Taylor, it's just a triggering buzzword for you. Taylor didn't recommend extreme working to raise profit, the more workers die, the profiter it is.
What marvelous agency do I have in a small company? It's only in big groups where you do trivial stuff that hundreds of others there can do just as well where you could have a lot of freedom in how long to work and when, you don't have that currently because it isn't in porky's interest, but the potential is there because of the huge size. Splitting up a group into micro grouplets destroys this potential.
404 not found
no its not
no its not fag