BLM leader: Looting is "reparations".

[Politesse]

Ah.did it now? And where did the Merchants get their wealth from, eh?

From providing services and goods that both nobles and commoners wanted. By inventing insurance and financial markets. What they didn't do was "requisition" money from anyone at all.

Ah, and what did those financial markets primarily fund?

 

[Politesse]

Same way as everywhere else, ruthless exploitation of the poor and the friendship of a superpower that saw them as a useful proxy.

Do you genuinely think that the only way anyone gets any wealth is by exploitation?

No. But if you think "any wealth" is a synonym for "capitalism", you're very uninformed on economic history; there was plenty of wealth, even unequal wealth, before capitalism ever developed or was defined.

But if the question is whether extreme wealth disparities are indicative of exploitation, that strikes me as tranparently obvious. You shouldn't need Marx to explain something so basic as the fact that if Reggie and Reginald both work thirty hours a week, but Reggie "works for" Reginald, and Reginald makes 2000 times what Reggie does, that Reginald is probably on the take somehow - whether by scheming or heredity, they are in a relationship where Reggie does not get compensated for his work in the same way as Reginald.

If you think that's super cool and entirely justifiable, then congratulations -- you're a capitalist! Maybe you think Reginald must be two thousand times smarter and more valuable than Reggie, that The Market would step in to magically correct it if it weren't, and it's sheer coincidence that one thousand years previous Reggie's ancestors were uncompensated serfs while Reginald's were wealthy churchmen who transitioned to banking when the gods of our society changed. Great, if you like. Nothing to stop you from drinking the Kool-aid(tm) if Kool-aid(tm) is your beverage of choice. But thinking that it is good for the wealthy to extract labor from the poor doesn't make it any less exploitative That's just grammar and logic at play.

 

[Emily Lake]

Ah.did it now? And where did the Merchants get their wealth from, eh?

From providing services and goods that both nobles and commoners wanted. By inventing insurance and financial markets. What they didn't do was "requisition" money from anyone at all.

Ah, and what did those financial markets primarily fund?

Business ventures, many of which were undertaken by commoners.

 

[Emily Lake]

Same way as everywhere else, ruthless exploitation of the poor and the friendship of a superpower that saw them as a useful proxy.

Do you genuinely think that the only way anyone gets any wealth is by exploitation?

No. But if you think "any wealth" is a synonym for "capitalism", you're very uninformed on economic history; there was plenty of wealth, even unequal wealth, before capitalism ever developed or was defined.

But if the question is whether extreme wealth disparities are indicative of exploitation, that strikes me as tranparently obvious. You shouldn't need Marx to explain something so basic as the fact that if Reggie and Reginald both work thirty hours a week, but Reggie "works for" Reginald, and Reginald makes 2000 times what Reggie does, that Reginald is probably on the take somehow - whether by scheming or heredity, they are in a relationship where Reggie does not get compensated for his work in the same way as Reginald.

If you think that's super cool and entirely justifiable, then congratulations -- you're a capitalist! Maybe you think Reginald must be two thousand times smarter and more valuable than Reggie, that The Market would step in to magically correct it if it weren't, and it's sheer coincidence that one thousand years previous Reggie's ancestors were uncompensated serfs while Reginald's were wealthy churchmen who transitioned to banking when the gods of our society changed. Great, if you like. Nothing to stop you from drinking the Kool-aid(tm) if Kool-aid(tm) is your beverage of choice. But thinking that it is good for the wealthy to extract labor from the poor doesn't make it any less exploitative That's just grammar and logic at play.

Okey dokey. McDonald's employees should make exactly the same income as neurosurgeons. Got it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Same way as everywhere else, ruthless exploitation of the poor and the friendship of a superpower that saw them as a useful proxy.

Do you genuinely think that the only way anyone gets any wealth is by exploitation?

That's what the Marxists think.

 

[Trausti]

Ah.did it now? And where did the Merchants get their wealth from, eh?

Yes, where did South Koreans get their wealth from?

Same way as everywhere else, ruthless exploitation of the poor and the friendship of a superpower that saw them as a useful proxy.

Now do Oprah.

 

[DrZoidberg]

A prominent #BLM leader in Chicago is justifying the widespread looting the city has suffered recently.

I tried to find any info about Ariel Atkins. The only references to her comes from right wing media and tabloids. And this one news piece. She doesn't seem to have done anything else. She doesn't come up as an organiser of anything at all. Let alone anything to do with BLM. Is she even affiliated in any way? I don't think this person is prominent in any way in the BLM movement.

I have very little love for the BLM movement right now. They've spent their goodwill already IMHO. But random people saying random stuff. Meh. Who gives a shit? What does that prove?

 

[Bomb#20]

Ah.did it now? And where did the Merchants get their wealth from, eh?

From providing services and goods that both nobles and commoners wanted. By inventing insurance and financial markets. What they didn't do was "requisition" money from anyone at all.

Sort of the way nothing says "murder" like the victim still being around after the crime was committed, nothing says "theft" like the stolen goods not having been around before the crime was committed.

 

[Bomb#20]

Capitalism only works with protection for private property. Theft must be prosecuted and not excused.

And don't get me the spiel that they need to "eat". This is not Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread! There is food stamps and food banks. Nobody needs to loot to "eat".

That a fact? [Citation needed]

The central tenant of capitalism is the right to private property. If citizens can't freely accumulate capital due to theft or whatever capitalism collapses. What would the purpose of a capitalistic system if people couldn't own anything? What kind of a citation do you need here?

I think he was asking for a citation for the claim that nobody needs to loot to eat.

 

[Bomb#20]

No, nobody needs to loot. But they might want to, if raised in an inherently acquisitive and victor-worshipping communal culture. Valjean didn't need to steal, either. He was young, he was healthy, he could have got a job. So why is he the hero of the show?

Um, because he was the central figure in one of fiction's three basic story-lines, "The Man who Learned He was Wrong"? The central point of Les Miserables was Valjean turning his life around from a resentment-filled downward spiral into upright citizenship as a result of receiving an unexpected act of kindness from a man who owed him nothing.

 

[Politesse]

an unexpected act of kindness from a man who owed him nothing.

Socialistic trash.

 

[Emily Lake]

an unexpected act of kindness from a man who owed him nothing.

Socialistic trash.

I don't understand this response. I don't know if it's serious or sarcastic or humor or if I'm missing a reference.

 

[Politesse]

Same way as everywhere else, ruthless exploitation of the poor and the friendship of a superpower that saw them as a useful proxy.

Now do Oprah.

Same way as everyone else, selling her soul and working for a monopolistic production network that rewards her with a larger pittance than most, in return for acting as a figure-head for her viewer's fantasies of future success and redemption from the crushing alienation of their day-to-day lives.

 

[Politesse]

Same way as everywhere else, ruthless exploitation of the poor and the friendship of a superpower that saw them as a useful proxy.

Do you genuinely think that the only way anyone gets any wealth is by exploitation?

That's what the Marxists think.

I'm not a Marxist, I just have an education.

 

[Politesse]

No. But if you think "any wealth" is a synonym for "capitalism", you're very uninformed on economic history; there was plenty of wealth, even unequal wealth, before capitalism ever developed or was defined.

But if the question is whether extreme wealth disparities are indicative of exploitation, that strikes me as tranparently obvious. You shouldn't need Marx to explain something so basic as the fact that if Reggie and Reginald both work thirty hours a week, but Reggie "works for" Reginald, and Reginald makes 2000 times what Reggie does, that Reginald is probably on the take somehow - whether by scheming or heredity, they are in a relationship where Reggie does not get compensated for his work in the same way as Reginald.

If you think that's super cool and entirely justifiable, then congratulations -- you're a capitalist! Maybe you think Reginald must be two thousand times smarter and more valuable than Reggie, that The Market would step in to magically correct it if it weren't, and it's sheer coincidence that one thousand years previous Reggie's ancestors were uncompensated serfs while Reginald's were wealthy churchmen who transitioned to banking when the gods of our society changed. Great, if you like. Nothing to stop you from drinking the Kool-aid(tm) if Kool-aid(tm) is your beverage of choice. But thinking that it is good for the wealthy to extract labor from the poor doesn't make it any less exploitative That's just grammar and logic at play.

Okey dokey. McDonald's employees should make exactly the same income as neurosurgeons. Got it.

Apples and oranges, as these individuals occupy different industries and power structures. Indeed, certain specific McDonald's employees do make as much or more than any neurosurgeon.

A more relevant question would have to split this into two examples, like so:

1. When it comes to producing a burger for you, of an afternoon, does Christopher John Kempczinski truly do 1,939% more of the work as the person who actually makes the sandwich?

And

2. No one denies that neurosurgeons are unusual talents and services are valuable, but is a hospital nurses' work truly so inconsequential to the hospital that he should struggle to feed, clothe, and educate his family, while the neurosurgeon lives a comfortable upper middle class life? And, does it make sense that the neurosurgeon is only middle class, while the CEO of the insurance company that funds most of the care out-earns her to a greater degree than she outearns the nurse, despite not actually producing a product of any sort?​

 

[Bomb#20]

an unexpected act of kindness from a man who owed him nothing.

Socialistic trash.

Don't be ridiculous. Socialistic trash would have it that Bishop Myriel owed Valjean his silverware.

Socialistic trash.

I don't understand this response. I don't know if it's serious or sarcastic or humor or if I'm missing a reference.

It's sarcastic. He was attempting to mock the views of those who disapprove of socialism and botching it since he can't be bothered to try to understand his outgroup.

 

[ZiprHead]

April 26th, 1992
There was a riot on the streets
Tell me where were you?
You were sittin' home watchin' your TV
While I was participating in some anarchy

First spot we hit it was my liquor store
I finally got all that alcohol I can't afford
With red lights flashin' time to retire
And then we turned that liquor store into a structure fire.

Next stop we hit it was the music shop
It only took one brick to make that window drop
Finally we got our own p.a.
Where do you think I got this guitar that you're hearing today? ey!

When we returned to the pad to unload everything
It dawned on me that I need new home furnishings
So once again we filled the van until it was full
Since that day my livin' room's been more comfortable
Cause everybody in the hood has had it up to here
It's getting harder and harder and harder each and every year
Some kids went in a store with their mother
I saw her when she came out she was gettin some pampers
They said it was for the black man,
They said it was for the mexican
And not for the white man
But if you look at the streets
It wasn't about Rodney King
It's bout this fucked up situation and these fucked up police
It's about coming up
And staying on top
And screamin' 187 on a mother fuckin' cop
It's not written on the paper it's on the wall
National guard!
Smoke from all around!

Let it burn
Wanna let it burn
Wanna let it burn
Wanna wanna let it burn

Riots on the streets of Miami
W'oh, Riots on the streets of Chicago
On the streets of Long Beach
And San Francisco (Boise Idaho)
Riots on the streets of Kansas City (Salt Lake, Hunnington Beach, CA)
Tuscalusa, Alabama ( Compton Michigan)
Cleveland, Ohio (Pensacola)
Fountain Valley (Texas, Barstow, let's do this every year),
Paramount, Victorville (Twice a Year), Eugene OR
Eureka, CA (Let it burn, let it burn)
Hesperia (Oh, ya let it burn, wont'cha wont'cha let it burn)
Santa Barbara, Nevada, Phoenix Arizona, San Diego, Lakewood Florida
Fuckin 29 Palms.

April 29, 1992 Sublime

 

[ruby sparks]

No. But if you think "any wealth" is a synonym for "capitalism", you're very uninformed on economic history; there was plenty of wealth, even unequal wealth, before capitalism ever developed or was defined.

But if the question is whether extreme wealth disparities are indicative of exploitation, that strikes me as tranparently obvious. You shouldn't need Marx to explain something so basic as the fact that if Reggie and Reginald both work thirty hours a week, but Reggie "works for" Reginald, and Reginald makes 2000 times what Reggie does, that Reginald is probably on the take somehow - whether by scheming or heredity, they are in a relationship where Reggie does not get compensated for his work in the same way as Reginald.

If you think that's super cool and entirely justifiable, then congratulations -- you're a capitalist! Maybe you think Reginald must be two thousand times smarter and more valuable than Reggie, that The Market would step in to magically correct it if it weren't, and it's sheer coincidence that one thousand years previous Reggie's ancestors were uncompensated serfs while Reginald's were wealthy churchmen who transitioned to banking when the gods of our society changed. Great, if you like. Nothing to stop you from drinking the Kool-aid(tm) if Kool-aid(tm) is your beverage of choice. But thinking that it is good for the wealthy to extract labor from the poor doesn't make it any less exploitative That's just grammar and logic at play.

Okey dokey. McDonald's employees should make exactly the same income as neurosurgeons. Got it.

Apples and oranges, as these individuals occupy different industries and power structures. Indeed, certain specific McDonald's employees do make as much or more than any neurosurgeon.

A more relevant question would have to split this into two examples, like so:

1. When it comes to producing a burger for you, of an afternoon, does Christopher John Kempczinski truly do 1,939% more of the work as the person who actually makes the sandwich?

And

2. No one denies that neurosurgeons are unusual talents and services are valuable, but is a hospital nurses' work truly so inconsequential to the hospital that he should struggle to feed, clothe, and educate his family, while the neurosurgeon lives a comfortable upper middle class life? And, does it make sense that the neurosurgeon is only middle class, while the CEO of the insurance company that funds most of the care out-earns her to a greater degree than she outearns the nurse, despite not actually producing a product of any sort?​

Number 1 is too extreme imo. In many cases, the person serving the burger would not have a job if the guy employing him had not had the initiative to take the entrepreneurial risk of opening the restaurant.

And imo the second guy deserves more in return for that, because he (or she) has taken the necessary initiative involving a very large risk. Not 2000 times more return. But capitalism does not have to involve such high ratios. And it often doesn’t, especially in small or medium sized, non-corporate businesses, of which there are a lot, even in the USA. And they provide a lot of people with a way to earn a living as employees.

And if it makes me a capitalist to say the above then I don’t have a problem with that and I don’t see any reason to.

 

[ruby sparks]

That's what the Marxists think.

I'm not a Marxist, I just have an education.

Well, you want Reggie to be compensated for his work as much as Reginald.

Why would Reginald have bothered to make the effort, and take the risk, of starting up the business where Reggie can apply for a job?

I think your view of capitalism as being a system in which workers are exploited if they don't earn as much as an employer or owner is a bit of a caricature. Imo the problem is not so much capitalism as it is unrestricted, unregulated, extreme or toxic capitalism. There are forms of capitalism, especially outside the USA, which are not that. As every educated person surely knows.

 

[J842P]

Apples and oranges, as these individuals occupy different industries and power structures. Indeed, certain specific McDonald's employees do make as much or more than any neurosurgeon.

A more relevant question would have to split this into two examples, like so:

1. When it comes to producing a burger for you, of an afternoon, does Christopher John Kempczinski truly do 1,939% more of the work as the person who actually makes the sandwich?

And

2. No one denies that neurosurgeons are unusual talents and services are valuable, but is a hospital nurses' work truly so inconsequential to the hospital that he should struggle to feed, clothe, and educate his family, while the neurosurgeon lives a comfortable upper middle class life? And, does it make sense that the neurosurgeon is only middle class, while the CEO of the insurance company that funds most of the care out-earns her to a greater degree than she outearns the nurse, despite not actually producing a product of any sort?​

Number 1 is too extreme imo. In many cases, the person serving the burger would not have a job if the guy employing him had not had the initiative to take the entrepreneurial risk of opening the restaurant.

And imo the second guy deserves more in return for that, because he (or she) has taken the necessary initiative involving a very large risk. Not 2000 times more return. But capitalism does not have to involve such high ratios. And it often doesn’t, especially in small or medium sized, non-corporate businesses, of which there are a lot, even in the USA. And they provide a lot of people with a way to earn a living as employees.

And if it makes me a capitalist to say the above then I don’t have a problem with that and I don’t see any reason to.

Executives aren't entrepreneurs. They are taking hardly any risk at all.