That being said, modern Marxists don’t support the policies that led to so many deaths, bc they aren’t needed by socialism— the biggest tragedies were just bad agriculture No specific course of gov’t action is *needed* for socialism beyond the state not suppressing labor anymore
-
-
Replying to @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
3. The issue the wealth and power of the elite remains. How to align their interests with the rest of us? Venice is the only state to do this over an extended period. Read Julius Norwich history of Venice. Brilliant book, especially the section on how Doges were elected!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
In any properly (market) socialist system, the only rich would have received their money through their own labor or art, rather than through their property ownership. The main thing socialism objects to is the ability of owners to continue profiting massively without labor.
6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
4. Need a more contemporary example? Look at the wage increases in Hungary over the last decade. I was in Budapest last year and business managers were lamenting high pay increases and the difficulty of recruitment. Want to help workers, stop immigration.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
The notion you’re suggesting is that you have to hurt some workers to help other workers, while restricting the freedoms of both in the process. But a much more direct solution that does NOT have these effects is known— strengthening unions internationally.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OhNoIts2016 @KEEMSTAR and
1. It is an issue of supply and demand! Increase the supply of labour and you reduce its value. Globalism has had such a terrible impact on the working classes of developed nations. I expect multinationals to support Globalisation, but why does the Left support it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
The left supports “globalization” in the sense of lower border restrictions, less war, etc. The left typically *opposes* free trade agreements, except between countries with similar labor standards. *Neoliberals* (including the ones who tout socially left causes) support it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
How will the flow of labour into your country be controlled with lower border restrictions? You can have mass migration or a welfare state, but not both. Eventually people will either object to those who have not contributed receiving benefits or the money runs out. See Sweden.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
Why would the flow of labor need to be controlled? More labor means more production, with fewer hours per person. Logistically, there’s no reason you can’t have both, but I’d prefer to involve the state as little as possible. Now what do you think’s going on in Sweden?
6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
4. The common reason given for allowing immigration is "They will do the work the natives won't". Pay enough and people will do it . Think traders on Wall Street work for love? The hours suck, the pressure is enormous and you burn out in 10-15 years. They do it for the money.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
“The common reason given for allowing immigration is ‘They will do the work the natives won't.’” Yes, and that reason absolutely infuriates me. It’s the argument of rich, entitled liberals who don’t even think about what they’re saying.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.