Tachanka [comrade/them]

the head photoshopped onto Kim Jong Un is taken from a literal nazi propaganda artwork depicting CW SA

that I once had spammed at me by a nazi

here you go <- you can right click and save this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKn8TM47BTc <- link to the same video on a more reputable website

On the DVD commentary of Stanley Kubrick’s “Spartacus” (1960), the screenwriter laments during one scene that Americans sometimes don’t understand the difference between an actor and the character they play, and then further laments that America elected a “second rate actor” as president (referring to Reagan).

I’ll see if I can find the video.

Reminds me of this

not only that but, before Russia invaded Ukraine, Biden said that if Russian tanks entered Ukraine, there would no longer be a Nordstream 2. And a journalist asked him (paraphrasing) how that could be the case since the pipeline is a German asset, and not just a Russian asset, and Germany is a US ally. And Biden just doubled down on his guarantee. And Victoria Nuland also made similar remarks.

Sir, a second shopping cart has just struck Castle Bam

I feel bad for any non-azov Ukrainian soldiers who were forced into this war by US meddling.

It’s a lot btw. The forced conscription videos coming out of Ukraine are insane. Straight up press ganging and kidnapping in broad daylight of men who are sometimes in their 40s or 50s, getting beaten and thrown in a van.

The purposeful destruction of commodities for economic reasons is in itself nothing new in capitalism, but an integral part of its daily working from the beginning. It was in 1799 that Fourier first became convinced of the necessity of a new form of social Organisation when be found himself entrusted with the task at Marseilles to superintend the destruction of a quantity of rice held for higher prices during a scarcity of food till it had become unfit for use. Nevertheless, this rice had at any rate been held back in the hope of sale, and was only destroyed because it had become unfit for use. This was not yet the modern principle of the wholesale destruction of good rice, good wheat, good cotton, good coffee and good meat.

In the same way the endeavour by combination to limit stocks, restrict production, and maintain or raise prices is inherent, not merely in capitalism, but in commodity economy from the beginning. As Adam Smith wrote in his Wealth of Nations:

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices.” (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 10, Part ii.)

But such a policy appeared to Adam Smith, the original voice of classic capitalism, as an offence against the principles of capitalist production, as “a conspiracy against the public.” It has remained for our day that all the capitalist governments of the world should meet together in the World Economic Conference to proclaim, with the combined voice of all the most enlightened, progressive statesmen and all the economists, the supreme aim to restrict production and to raise prices.

- Rajani Palme Dutt, Fascism and Social Revolution, Chapter 3, section titled The Destruction of the Productive Forces

As we can see, even early on, Capitalists would do anything, including destroy commodity capital (the fruit of labor), in order to raise profits and increase prices. Some early capitalists moralized about this and saw this as somehow an affront to capitalism as a mode of production. But over 200 years of experience has shown us that this is not an anomaly, but something built into the system itself. It is similar to how the petty bourgeois detest monopoly and fetishize competition, even though monopoly is the direct result of competition resulting in “winners” and “losers.” Ben Shapiro is doing the same thing here, trying to distinguish between some kind of idealized noble “capitalism” of gentlemen in fair economic competition, and the actually existing ruthless system of exploitation we live under. But such a distinction is fundamentally illusory, and is a form of priestly apologetics for a decaying and unsustainable mode of production.

I’ve been trying everything and I don’t understand why it’s extremely difficult to land a no-skill minimum-wage job.

unemployment is built into capitalism. if all able-bodied adults were employed, it would be hard to fire people and instantly replace them. Capitalists need there to be a permanent body of unemployed people who are so desperate that they will accept below-subsistence wages. That way, when a work force tries to unionize or strike, the capitalist can simply contrive a reason to fire everyone one by one, and replace them gradually with desperate unemployed people. This is called the “reserve army of labor.” The capitalist class frequently deny that they want there to be unemployment, since that would contradict their claim that they are “job creators” (rather than job gatekeepers) but sometimes they’ll admit it if they think wages are getting too high.

For example, real estate CEO Tim Gurner openly advocated for a reserve army of labour during an onstage appearance at the Australian Financial Review’s Property Summit:

I think the problem that we’ve had is that people have decided they really didn’t want to work so much anymore through COVID, and that has had a massive issue on productivity. . . . They have been paid a lot to do not too much, and we need to see that change. We need to see unemployment rise. Unemployment needs to jump 40-50 percent, in my view. We need to see pain in the economy. We need to remind people that they work for the employer, not the other way around. There’s been a systematic change where employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them, as opposed to the other way around. So it’s a dynamic that has to change. We’ve got to kill that attitude, and that has to come through hurt in the economy.

The Economist published a thinkpiece on November 24th, 2022, titled “Why American unemployment needs to rise,” openly advocating for an increase in the size of the reserve army of labour:

As the tightest corner of the ultra-taut American labour market, Minnesota bears watching. Its unemployment rate has started to tick up, rising from 1.8% in June to 2.1% last month. It might seem perverse to call that good news, but one lesson from the past year is that excessively low unemployment really does hurt: it constrains and corrodes the services offered by hospitals, schools, restaurants and more. In Northfield there is at least one tiny hint that relief might be at hand. After a difficult dry spell, the HideAway, a downtown café, received four job applications over the past two weeks. From those it hired two sorely needed baristas. “We just got lucky,” reckons Joan Spaulding, its owner.

The Wall Street Journal published a thinkpiece on July 31, 2022, titled “Lower Inflation Likely Requires Higher Unemployment; How High Is the Question,” also openly advocating for an increase in the size of the reserve army of labour.

In order to lower inflation] we need two years of 7.5% unemployment, or five years of 6% unemployment, or…one year of 10% unemployment

CNN published a thinkpiece on September 2, 2022, titled “Yes, the unemployment rate rose. Here’s why that’s good news.” In that piece, United States Secretary of labour Marty Walsh was quoted as saying:

increasing the supply of available workers is positive for the economy, even if it does increase the official jobless rate

CBS published an article on September 30, 2022, titled “Buckle up, America: The Fed plans to sharply boost unemployment.” In that piece, it is suggested that wage increases cause inflation, because wage increases cause the bourgeoisie to hike prices. In short, it is suggested that the prices of commodities are determined or regulated by wages.

Here’s the idea behind why boosting the nation’s unemployment could cool inflation. With an additional million or two people out of work, the newly unemployed and their families would sharply cut back on spending, while for most people who are still working, wage growth would flatline. When companies assume their labour costs are unlikely to rise, the theory goes, they will stop hiking prices. That, in turn, slows inflation.

The bourgeoisie justify all this with the idea that wages determine prices. This was firmly argued against by Marx in Chapter 5 of Value, Price and Profit (1865):

The dogma that “wages determine the price of commodities,” expressed in its most abstract terms, comes to this, that “value is determined by value,” and this tautology means that, in fact, we know nothing at all about value. Accepting this premise, all reasoning about the general laws of political economy turns into mere twaddle. It was, therefore, the great merit of Ricardo that in his work on the principles of political economy, published in 1817, he fundamentally destroyed the old popular, and worn-out fallacy that “wages determine prices,” a fallacy which Adam Smith and his French predecessors had spurned in the really scientific parts of their researches, but which they reproduced in their more exoterical and vulgarizing chapters.

Source: https://wiki.leftypol.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour particularly the section titled “bourgeois apologetics”

Absolutely (I’ll edit that previous post)