Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Stephen Miller Asserts U.S. Has Right to Take Greenland: “We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power,” he said. “These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”
LOL HE THINKS HE LIVES IN REALITY
Dude couldn't work a normal job with actual consequences, because jobs with actual consequences fire raging, incompetent alcoholics.
The mask is off, anyone still supporting this fascist grift is either too evil or too foolish to be trusted on any level whatsoever.
I wouldn't trust these ghouls to BREW COFFEE correctly, let alone run a country, holy crappuccino Crapman
Well, we know they don't know how to order donuts, soooooooooooooooooooo
LOL HE THINKS HE LIVES IN REALITY
Dude couldn't work a normal job with actual consequences, because jobs with actual consequences fire raging, incompetent alcoholics.
The mask is off, anyone still supporting this fascist grift is either too evil or too foolish to be trusted on any level whatsoever.
I wouldn't trust these ghouls to BREW COFFEE correctly, let alone run a country, holy crappuccino Crapman
Well, we know they don't know how to order donuts, soooooooooooooooooooo
Taking down a tyrant is one thing, putting stephen miller in charge of running a foreign nation and explicitly doing it to give the corporations that own the government billions of petrodollars is another lol
they don't need to do the second half, i dont need to glaze the second half because they took out maduro. If they took out maduro and didn't want to put Miller in charge and Trump didn't confirm that he was solely acting as the private army of the oil companies, that would be a different story.
Why do you want everyone to ignore that because they took out maduro? pussy shit.
Why do you want to pretend that the current USA is full of people who want to preside over a Germany like reconstruction of Venezuela? Everyone who wanted to invade and take the oil hates everyone there lmfao, they think they’re subhuman
Be prepared for every time news of dissenters being arrested in Venezuela comes out to be followed by a video of Stephen miller screaming that everyone mean to him is siding with murder rapists
they don't need to do the second half, i dont need to glaze the second half because they took out maduro. If they took out maduro and didn't want to put Miller in charge and Trump didn't confirm that he was solely acting as the private army of the oil companies, that would be a different story.
Why do you want everyone to ignore that because they took out maduro? pussy shit.
Why do you want to pretend that the current USA is full of people who want to preside over a Germany like reconstruction of Venezuela? Everyone who wanted to invade and take the oil hates everyone there lmfao, they think they’re subhuman
Be prepared for every time news of dissenters being arrested in Venezuela comes out to be followed by a video of Stephen miller screaming that everyone mean to him is siding with murder rapists
Last edited:
Are you sure of that? What do you call "private property"?
Of course I can. In a healthy society both job are necessary, no matter how hard you need to prepare for them. The value that you get from it might be different yeah, but the ethical necessity not to hierarchize these job is fundamental.
If you create a hierarchy in term of payment, you then consider that two people working the same amount should be payed differently. This is capitalism and the start of inequalities and exploitation. This is also how people justify inequalities that the fact that some people, while poor, stay poor while other, can be rich.
You see, what you are not taking into account is that in our society, no everyone can be a doctor. You need what we call "capitals" (social, economic, cultural etc.) to access such education. So by paying more these jobs when there is already an inequality of access, you create a double process of inequality and you create the promise that if you are poor, you will stay poor (unless of a miracle)
Reality under capitalism does not reward efforts, it does not reward skill, it rewards capitals. Meritocracy is a myth
This is why we need to pay the same amount for the two types of work, even if they require different skills and one, a better preparation. It's necessary to keep an equality of income.
For the rest, under socialism, the value you will get from these work will not necessarily related to money. That's why I'm telling you that your current reading grid is capitalist biased. You need to shift it if you want to understand why people will go for said or said type of work, even if they are difficult or not..
Spoiler: Under socialism, a neurosurgeon could also be a garbage cleaner and find purpose in both work.
Again, your vision is capitalistic and meritocratic. If you want to understand what I'm talking about here, you need to project yourself into a non capitalist society were the need for competition is gone.
A little precision (from Marx):
Marx is actually talking about the "bourgeois property", in other words, the private ownership of the means and chain of production. Like I said before, under communism/socialism (call it whatever), you will be able to own private object and stuff. You simply won't have the power to exploit others.
Yup
Of course I can. In a healthy society both job are necessary, no matter how hard you need to prepare for them. The value that you get from it might be different yeah, but the ethical necessity not to hierarchize these job is fundamental.
If you create a hierarchy in term of payment, you then consider that two people working the same amount should be payed differently. This is capitalism and the start of inequalities and exploitation. This is also how people justify inequalities that the fact that some people, while poor, stay poor while other, can be rich.
You see, what you are not taking into account is that in our society, no everyone can be a doctor. You need what we call "capitals" (social, economic, cultural etc.) to access such education. So by paying more these jobs when there is already an inequality of access, you create a double process of inequality and you create the promise that if you are poor, you will stay poor (unless of a miracle)
Reality under capitalism does not reward efforts, it does not reward skill, it rewards capitals. Meritocracy is a myth
This is why we need to pay the same amount for the two types of work, even if they require different skills and one, a better preparation. It's necessary to keep an equality of income.
For the rest, under socialism, the value you will get from these work will not necessarily related to money. That's why I'm telling you that your current reading grid is capitalist biased. You need to shift it if you want to understand why people will go for said or said type of work, even if they are difficult or not..
Spoiler: Under socialism, a neurosurgeon could also be a garbage cleaner and find purpose in both work.
Again, your vision is capitalistic and meritocratic. If you want to understand what I'm talking about here, you need to project yourself into a non capitalist society were the need for competition is gone.
A little precision (from Marx):
Marx is actually talking about the "bourgeois property", in other words, the private ownership of the means and chain of production. Like I said before, under communism/socialism (call it whatever), you will be able to own private object and stuff. You simply won't have the power to exploit others.
Yup
Darius would be looking down on you
Nope, he sees all private property as negative
Idk what communist doctrine but Marx was pretty straight forward in his distaste for private property. Back to using the watch example you wouldn’t be able to own one in a Marxist commune.
Post automatically merged:
Are you sure of that? What do you call "private property"?
Of course I can. In a healthy society both job are necessary, no matter how hard you need to prepare for them. The value that you get from it might be different yeah, but the ethical necessity not to hierarchize these job is fundamental.
If you create a hierarchy in term of payment, you then consider that two people working the same amount should be payed differently. This is capitalism and the start of inequalities and exploitation. This is also how people justify inequalities that the fact that some people, while poor, stay poor while other, can be rich.
You see, what you are not taking into account is that in our society, no everyone can be a doctor. You need what we call "capitals" (social, economic, cultural etc.) to access such education. So by paying more these jobs when there is already an inequality of access, you create a double process of inequality and you create the promise that if you are poor, you will stay poor (unless of a miracle)
Reality under capitalism does not reward efforts, it does not reward skill, it rewards capitals. Meritocracy is a myth
This is why we need to pay the same amount for the two types of work, even if they require different skills and one, a better preparation. It's necessary to keep an equality of income.
For the rest, under socialism, the value you will get from these work will not necessarily related to money. That's why I'm telling you that your current reading grid is capitalist biased. You need to shift it if you want to understand why people will go for said or said type of work, even if they are difficult or not..
Spoiler: Under socialism, a neurosurgeon could also be a garbage cleaner and find purpose in both work.
Again, your vision is capitalistic and meritocratic. If you want to understand what I'm talking about here, you need to project yourself into a non capitalist society were the need for competition is gone.
A little precision (from Marx):
Marx is actually talking about the "bourgeois property", in other words, the private ownership of the means and chain of production. Like I said before, under communism/socialism (call it whatever), you will be able to own private object and stuff. You simply won't have the power to exploit others.
Yup
Of course I can. In a healthy society both job are necessary, no matter how hard you need to prepare for them. The value that you get from it might be different yeah, but the ethical necessity not to hierarchize these job is fundamental.
If you create a hierarchy in term of payment, you then consider that two people working the same amount should be payed differently. This is capitalism and the start of inequalities and exploitation. This is also how people justify inequalities that the fact that some people, while poor, stay poor while other, can be rich.
You see, what you are not taking into account is that in our society, no everyone can be a doctor. You need what we call "capitals" (social, economic, cultural etc.) to access such education. So by paying more these jobs when there is already an inequality of access, you create a double process of inequality and you create the promise that if you are poor, you will stay poor (unless of a miracle)
Reality under capitalism does not reward efforts, it does not reward skill, it rewards capitals. Meritocracy is a myth
This is why we need to pay the same amount for the two types of work, even if they require different skills and one, a better preparation. It's necessary to keep an equality of income.
For the rest, under socialism, the value you will get from these work will not necessarily related to money. That's why I'm telling you that your current reading grid is capitalist biased. You need to shift it if you want to understand why people will go for said or said type of work, even if they are difficult or not..
Spoiler: Under socialism, a neurosurgeon could also be a garbage cleaner and find purpose in both work.
Again, your vision is capitalistic and meritocratic. If you want to understand what I'm talking about here, you need to project yourself into a non capitalist society were the need for competition is gone.
A little precision (from Marx):
Marx is actually talking about the "bourgeois property", in other words, the private ownership of the means and chain of production. Like I said before, under communism/socialism (call it whatever), you will be able to own private object and stuff. You simply won't have the power to exploit others.
Yup
Idk what communist doctrine but Marx was pretty straight forward in his distaste for private property. Back to using the watch example you wouldn’t be able to own one in a Marxist commune.
Last edited: