David Siegel and Koch Brothers threaten employees with layoffs if Obama is re-elected

[Questionable]

It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone. So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/koch-industries-sends-pro-romney-packet-employees-195709471--election.html

[Prometeo liberado]

This has been all over the news lately. What is really sad about all this is that on some of the news reports the workers being interviewed are saying dumb, kiss-ass shit like "we need our employers to be free to invest"(not exactly but you get the point), or shit like we "thank god I'm employed! Can't do anything to disrupt that".
Fucking people.

[Caj]

They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.

Huh, so when they hire people they're "creating jobs," but when they fire people it's because of "a political hurricane," not them.


While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad

Since when?

[Let's Get Free]

This is what class warfare from above looks like.

[Prometeo liberado]

This is what class warfare from above looks like.

LOL. It's only class warfare when it affects them. Otherwise it's the goddamn free-market system. Fucking people.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back.

Bull-fucking-shit. You do have a choice. Nobody is forcing you to cut anything. You could perfectly well make do with smaller profits (and you would still be richer than the vast majority of people on this planet), but you're just too much of a greedy piece of shit that it's almost literally unthinkable. Fucking sociopathic spunkstain.


This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.

Because grasping borgeouis shitpieces such as yourself would rather cast workers into penury, rather than (horror of horrors!) having to make do with being only slightly less obscenely wealthy. Fuck off and die horribly.


So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job.

Take your thinly-veiled threats and shove them back up the fetid arsehole you pulled them from, ya shitmunching cockweasel.


While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.

"Now look what you made me do!" - are we sure this guy isn't guilty of some kind of physical or mental abuse? Because the kind of mindset being betrayed here shows some disturbing similarities with that of a serial abuser/bully.

[Prof. Oblivion]

I don't think this has much to do with the personal income of the Koch brothers. They are part of a publicly traded company and, as such, must deliver to their shareholders. A decrease in expected revenue would damage their stock values and, as such, is against their entire raison d'être. It's a structural problem, not a personal one. Treating it as a personal problem is treating capitalism as a giant conspiracy, which its not. The processes in place that perpetuate this system control the bourgeoisie as well as workers. This is Marx's theory of alienation in a nutshell.

EDIT: I forgot to address the op haha. The statement is nothing more than an attempt to coerce workers into voting Romney. That being said, if the fiscal cliff isn't addressed it will have adverse economic effects. Raising taxes in an economy like this generally isn't a good idea and there's no reason to do so, really. It could start another recession. Though congress would be who addresses it and not the president.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't think this has much to do with the personal income of the Koch brothers. They are part of a publicly traded company and, as such, must deliver to their shareholders. A decrease in expected revenue would damage their stock values and, as such, is against their entire raison d'être. It's a structural problem, not a personal one. Treating it as a personal problem is treating capitalism as a giant conspiracy, which its not. The processes in place that perpetuate this system control the bourgeoisie as well as workers. This is Marx's theory of alienation in a nutshell.

Shareholders are people too, are they not? Therefore they can realise that in an economy like this their shares aren't going to be worth as much, especially if they do things like fire workers, which reduces consumer spending, which has a negative impact on them, in the medium-to-long term (the workers feel the more immediate impact of being made jobless, of course).

It's all very well going on about structures, but those were built by conscious agents with specific interests, they didn't just spontaneously occur.


EDIT: I forgot to address the op haha. The statement is nothing more than an attempt to coerce workers into voting Romney. That being said, if the fiscal cliff isn't addressed it will have adverse economic effects. Raising taxes in an economy like this generally isn't a good idea and there's no reason to do so, really. It could start another recession. Though congress would be who addresses it and not the president.

Raising taxes is a good idea, unless you've bought into that ridiculous notion of "capital flight".

[Prof. Oblivion]

Even Keynes realized raising taxes in a recession is "economic suicide". There's absolutely no reason to do so, either.

As for the issue of shareholders, the argument you have presented essentially is arguing that the entire stock system should be changed at the whim of the shareholders, which is ahistorical and unrealistic. You might as well present the argument that corporate executives should make less money, which is a nice thought but will never happen.

[Zealot]

I don't think this has much to do with the personal income of the Koch brothers. They are part of a publicly traded company and, as such, must deliver to their shareholders. A decrease in expected revenue would damage their stock values and, as such, is against their entire raison d'être. It's a structural problem, not a personal one. Treating it as a personal problem is treating capitalism as a giant conspiracy, which its not. The processes in place that perpetuate this system control the bourgeoisie as well as workers. This is Marx's theory of alienation in a nutshell.

I am concerned with your bourgeois conception of economic activity in the world, which you continue to preach all over the forum. The Koch family are the largest shareholders of their own corporation so your nonsense about their obligation to "deliver to their shareholders" is, to use a technical term, stupid.

[piet11111]

Even Keynes realized raising taxes in a recession is "economic suicide". There's absolutely no reason to do so, either.

As for the issue of shareholders, the argument you have presented essentially is arguing that the entire stock system should be changed at the whim of the shareholders, which is ahistorical and unrealistic. You might as well present the argument that corporate executives should make less money, which is a nice thought but will never happen.

You will find that there is not much love for Keynes here.

Also i expect you to be restricted soon.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Lol I'm a Marxist, not a Keynesian.

And the Koch brothers being their largest shareholders has little to do with what I said. Sure they want to maximize their own revenue and they're greedy shits but that doesn't change the way the economy works in terms of publicly traded companies. Executives are responsible for delivering to their shareholders, not to their workers or society or anyone else. They deal in the bottom line. Recognizing this simple, obvious fact doesn't make me reactionary. Nor does it mean that I endorse it.

[Prof. Oblivion]

And Red Godfather, if you're so concerned then respond to it. So far as I know I haven't said anything that is "bourgeois". Perhaps you could enlighten me.

[l'Enfermé]

Oh-a-nos! Obama better watch out, seems like he's losing the support of the big capitalists.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

Obama has the support of big capitalists. Anyway, posting the rants of some capitalists who gained their fortune from dealing with Stalin, the same men who created the tea party can only have one effect- to make Obama look like the better choice. Fuck that.

Whoever gets into office will do what they have to do to keep the overall capitalist system running. Back when Bush Sr was running for office his famous lie/line was "read my lips, no new taxes". First thing he did when in office? Raise taxes.

Here we go: http://youtu.be/0MW44jsYi0g


And Obama lied his ass off as well, even more than Bush. None of what they say matters. Hell, if you work for the Koch brothers maybe being laid off is a good thing. I doubt they pay a living wage, give benefits, retirement, vacation or anything but just barley enough money to survive. I would imagine they're pretty despotic fellas. What would be great to see is some of us organize Koch brothers workers to demand better wages/benefits. Who gives a shit if Obama is elected or not.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

You will find that there is not much love for Keynes here.

Also i expect you to be restricted soon.

Why would he/she be restricted? Especially when I see so many posters on this site pushing the Democrat party. I've actually requested to be "banned" in light of such. Hasn't happened yet I guess.

[Questionable]

Obama has the support of big capitalists. Anyway, posting the rants of some capitalists who gained their fortune from dealing with Stalin, the same men who created the tea party can only have one effect- to make Obama look like the better choice. Fuck that.

Whoever gets into office will do what they have to do to keep the overall capitalist system running. Back when Bush Sr was running for office his famous lie/line was "read my lips, no new taxes". First thing he did when in office? Raise taxes.

Here we go: http://youtu.be/0MW44jsYi0g


And Obama lied his ass off as well, even more than Bush. None of what they say matters. Hell, if you work for the Koch brothers maybe being laid off is a good thing. I doubt they pay a living wage, give benefits, retirement, vacation or anything but just barley enough money to survive. I would imagine they're pretty despotic fellas. What would be great to see is some of us organize Koch brothers workers to demand better wages/benefits. Who gives a shit if Obama is elected or not.

Can you please stop trying to turn every single thing into something about Obama?

[Rafiq]

I don't think this has much to do with the personal income of the Koch brothers. They are part of a publicly traded company and, as such, must deliver to their shareholders. A decrease in expected revenue would damage their stock values and, as such, is against their entire raison d'être. It's a structural problem, not a personal one. Treating it as a personal problem is treating capitalism as a giant conspiracy, which its not. The processes in place that perpetuate this system control the bourgeoisie as well as workers. This is Marx's theory of alienation in a nutshell.

:rolleyes: Christ, not another one of your kind (bourgeois economists prancing around as Marxists).

You're right, it really has little to do about greed or personal income. And no, capitalism is not a massive conspiracy, it is a material process of which all existent class unconsciously participate in. However, "raising taxes" would not at all damage their stock revenue, and, analyzing the crises we are in, if they were intelligent as members of the bourgeois class (which conservatives tend not to be) they would realize that sustaining the existence capitalism, the system of which substantiates their position as members of the ruling class, is far more important. Raising taxes isn't just about "helping businesses", in this regards, if it were to be necessiated, it would be in order to prevent a potential rise in proletarian class consciousness, i.e. Improvement of public infrastructure, welfare, etc. Are necessary. This is why on a sociological scale dialectics is important to understand, capitalism is not a harmonious system, it literally breeds it's own gravediggers (The revolutionary proletariat, etc.).

Anyway, the real "titans" (as Ayn Rand would call them), the real members of the bourgeois class do not tend to be loudmouths like Donald Trump or the Koch fuckers, they tend to be quiet, intelligent men whom you probably have never heard of. Actually, compared to them, Donald trump appears almost petty bourgeois.


EDIT: I forgot to address the op haha. The statement is nothing more than an attempt to coerce workers into voting Romney. That being said, if the fiscal cliff isn't addressed it will have adverse economic effects. Raising taxes in an economy like this generally isn't a good idea and there's no reason to do so, really. It could start another recession. Though congress would be who addresses it and not the president.


Wow. You're a fucking moron. And you call yourself a Marxist. I mean, you even speak the langauge of the class enemy (That annoying, American bourgeois-liberal terminology). "In an economy like this" :blink:

Just shut the fuck up and stop embarrassing yourself. Of course there is a reason the bourgeois state would find it necessary to raise taxes.


Even Keynes realized raising taxes in a recession is "economic suicide". There's absolutely no reason to do so, either.

Why, hmm? Yes, capitalism is a harmonious system in which no class contradiction exist, it's all about teh marketz and da buiznesszzes and da jobz and workerz r just idiots who does whatever the buggeeies tell dem to do dey will not getz pizzed off everz.


As for the issue of shareholders, the argument you have presented essentially is arguing that the entire stock system should be changed at the whim of the shareholders, which is ahistorical and unrealistic. You might as well present the argument that corporate executives should make less money, which is a nice thought but will never happen.


Again, you're just declaring things. The only reason, the only possible reason that raising taxes would fuck things up lies within a variant for the tendency for profit to fall, that is, companies competing on an excessive scale where it really isn't about "making more of a profit" but producing more for less, to out sell your rivals.


Lol I'm a Marxist, not a Keynesian.

You're neither, you're a Neoliberal psuedo economist.

[

[Zealot]

Even Keynes realized raising taxes in a recession is "economic suicide". There's absolutely no reason to do so, either.

There's every reason to increase taxes.


Lol I'm a Marxist, not a Keynesian.

And the Koch brothers being their largest shareholders has little to do with what I said. Sure they want to maximize their own revenue and they're greedy shits but that doesn't change the way the economy works in terms of publicly traded companies. Executives are responsible for delivering to their shareholders, not to their workers or society or anyone else. They deal in the bottom line. Recognizing this simple, obvious fact doesn't make me reactionary. Nor does it mean that I endorse it.

All that you've done here is repeat that the board of directors (elected by themselves) have to "deliver to their shareholders"(themselves).


And Red Godfather, if you're so concerned then respond to it. So far as I know I haven't said anything that is "bourgeois". Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Well here's just a few examples of your bourgeois opinions from two different threads:

"The US is not interested in implementing a "Keynesian" solution to the problem because it is controlled by politicians, not economists."

"The government doesn't fund its spending through taxation. Debt and funding are not problems at the federal level. If you understood that then you would understand that austerity is a choice and not a necessity, and would stop asserting monetarist nonsense."

"tax cuts are not synonymous with austerity."

"There's absolutely no reason to do so [raise taxes], either."

"the Koch brothers... are part of a publicly traded company and, as such, must deliver to their shareholders."

It's just a matter of time before you claim that Communism has been achieved because workers can own shares.

[Prof. Oblivion]

You're right, it really has little to do about greed or personal income. And no, capitalism is not a massive conspiracy, it is a material process of which all existent class unconsciously participate in.

Okay, so you agree with my statement that you quoted.


However, "raising taxes" would not at all damage their stock revenue, and, analyzing the crises we are in, if they were intelligent as members of the bourgeois class (which conservatives tend not to be) they would realize that sustaining the existence capitalism, the system of which substantiates their position as members of the ruling class, is far more important. Raising taxes isn't just about "helping businesses", in this regards, if it were to be necessiated, it would be in order to prevent a potential rise in proletarian class consciousness, i.e. Improvement of public infrastructure, welfare, etc. Are necessary. This is why on a sociological scale dialectics is important to understand, capitalism is not a harmonious system, it literally breeds it's own gravediggers (The revolutionary proletariat, etc.).

What effect do you think taxes have on corporations? What effect do you think doubling or tripling taxation would have on corporations?

I'd like you to answer these; they're not just rhetorical. I'm genuinely curious to hear what role you think taxes play and how they affect business.

NoXion, I'd also be interested in hearing your opinion.


Wow. You're a fucking moron. And you call yourself a Marxist. I mean, you even speak the langauge of the class enemy (That annoying, American bourgeois-liberal terminology). "In an economy like this" :blink:

Yes, a recession, a post-recessionary chill, etc. What would you like to call it?


Why, hmm? Yes, capitalism is a harmonious system in which no class contradiction exist, it's all about teh marketz and da buiznesszzes and da jobz and workerz r just idiots who does whatever the buggeeies tell dem to do dey will not getz pizzed off everz.

What does this mean? Is this an argument or are you just trolling?


There's every reason to increase taxes.

What reasons are those? Why didn't you list them if they are so numerous? What will increasing taxes accomplish?


All that you've done here is repeat that the board of directors (elected by themselves) have to "deliver to their shareholders"(themselves).

Yes, because that is the point that I was trying to make. Do you think this is not true? Rafiq agrees with me, at least.


Well here's just a few examples of your bourgeois opinions from two different threads:

"The US is not interested in implementing a "Keynesian" solution to the problem because it is controlled by politicians, not economists."

Is pointing out a massive failure of Keynesian economics "bourgeois" now?



"The government doesn't fund its spending through taxation. Debt and funding are not problems at the federal level. If you understood that then you would understand that austerity is a choice and not a necessity, and would stop asserting monetarist nonsense."

This is simply true, it's not "bourgeois" any more than stating the material interest of the bourgeoisie is to extract surplus value is (or, a similar and more relevant example, the material interest of corporate executives is to deliver to their shareholders).

Why don't you respond to it instead of whining about it being bourgeois? Do you not have a response? If not, then what basis to you have to even make such a claim? If so, then why not present it?



"tax cuts are not synonymous with austerity."

The Bush tax cuts started in 2003. Austerity on the federal level wasn't an issue until the economic crisis. This is just obvious.

My entire argument is laid out in the quote you just quoted: balancing the budget is completely unnecessary, and therefore the attack on workers' rights under claims of austerity and the necessity to balance the budget on their backs is a lie.




"There's absolutely no reason to do so [raise taxes], either."


There isn't from a leftist's perspective. This is because the federal government already can afford to fund universal healthcare, free education, and so on, without raising taxes a single red (lol) cent. They don't because they choose not to do it, not because they can't.

I'd say this is a much more progressive position to take than arguing from essentially a monetarist position claiming that budget deficits are a problem and that the government can't currently fund these programs. Arguing that the government should balance the budget by raising taxes, or raising taxes on rich people, or raising taxes on banks, etc. not only presumes that monetarist ideology is correct, but also that we should push for "raising taxes" which is essentially a completely liberal demand (anyone that has talked to a liberal can attest to this).

Do you think that Friedman put forward a progressive ideology?



"the Koch brothers... are part of a publicly traded company and, as such, must deliver to their shareholders."


Are the Koch brothers not part of a publicly traded company? Must they not deliver to their shareholders? What are you disagreeing with here? :confused:

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

Can you please stop trying to turn every single thing into something about Obama?

I wish socialists didnt turn all our efforts into something about supporting Democrats. When that happens I'll stop. Anyway, the point of such posts as the OP is to place Obama/democrats in favorable light. We all know it although it may not be explicitly stated. I'm also not "turning every simgle thing" into something about Obama. Look through my post history. I'm also attacking identity polotics. Anyway, in my introduction on this site....well, read it:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/starting-online-profiles-t175428/index.html

[Questionable]

I wish socialists didnt turn all our efforts into something about supporting Democrats. When that happens I'll stop. Anyway, the point of such posts as the OP is to place Obama/democrats in favorable light. We all know it although it may not be explicitly stated. I'm also not "turning every simgle thing" into something about Obama. Look through my post history. I'm also attacking identity polotics. Anyway, in my introduction on this site....well, read it:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/starting-online-profiles-t175428/index.html

I honestly think you're attacking something that isn't there. If you see any criticism of right-wingers as cheerleading Obama, you're deluded. I'm just as interested in anti-Obama stories as I am anti-Romney.

What is your solution to this issue? Do we not talk about the crimes of the right-wing for fear of accidentally supporting Obama? Ridiculous. I'm not going to stop posting articles like this because some people like you might take it as support for Obama. I haven't expressed any support for Obama, and whatever hidden messages you see are your own problems.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

I honestly think you're attacking something that isn't there. If you see any criticism of right-wingers as cheerleading Obama, you're deluded. I'm just as interested in anti-Obama stories as I am anti-Romney.

What is your solution to this issue? Do we not talk about the crimes of the right-wing for fear of accidentally supporting Obama? Ridiculous. I'm not going to stop posting articles like this because some people like you might take it as support for Obama. I haven't expressed any support for Obama, and whatever hidden messages you see are your own problems.

The very way in which you framed your post is starting from the presumption that Obama/democrats are somehow "left wing". Anytime we critisize capitalists/capitalism it should not be from the political framework built for us by capitalists - a framework that is meant to give the illusion of choice.

Anyway, telling me not to talk about Obama when his name is in the thread headline is fucking silly. About as silly as thinking Obama is "left wing" and the Koch Brothers are right wing. They're peas in the same pod. Critisize the Koch brothers all you want, as far as capitalists go there are bigger fish but these articles on Yahoo and Huffington Post are all meant to frame the Koch brothers as villians and Obama the friend to the working class. Shall we run through the majority of them?

Calling what Koch industries said about voting for Obama a crime is also absurd. This is all obviously pro Obama bullshit. Yes please. Stop posting it. Look how evil the Koch brothers are! Poor left wing Obama. You know, that Obama guy really stands up for the best interests of workers! Go post this drek on the Huffington Post, oh wait, it's already all over the Huffington post. Go figure.

Just fucking admit it, you're being sucked into the bullshit political election time story line. The Democrats always need a "bad guy" to validate a vote for them. The Koch brothers good cop bad cop routine has been going on for almost a decade now. More than a decade, back to the Clinton years. It all started with people like Grag Palast who would write editorials in election years pounding the Koch brothers obvious capitalist tendencies while pushing a vote for whichever Democrat was running. Books have been written lambasting the Koch Brothers with the intent of gaining support for Democrats. I'd post a list but my links don't work on this site. Palast was the first to write books with such intent and that lame shit has been taken up by the overall democrat party media machine. NEVERMIND THE THING BEHIND THE CURTIAN. The thing called capitalism. Koch brothers are just capitalists.

[Questionable]

The very way in which you framed your post is starting from the presumption that Obama/democrats are somehow "left wing". Anytime we critisize capitalists/capitalism it should not be from the political framework built for us by capitalists - a framework that is meant to give the illusion of choice.

Please read my posts if you think I'm an Obama supporter. Who the fuck are you, man? You've been on this forum for what, two weeks? And you go around accusing people of being Obama supporters based on some twisted readings of their posts. Any idiot that reads my posts will see that I'm not a fucking Obama supporter. If you REALLY need proof, I'll give you previous posts on other websites where I've railed against bourgeois parliaments far better than you have.

Can you please point out where in this post I asked for people to vote for Obama? I posted this because it was a story over the oppression of workers, it just happened to be from Romney supporters. If you can prove that I support Obama without having to resort to your half-assed conspiracy theories about people's posts, I will leave Revleft forever. Oh, you can't do that? Then fuck off.


Anyway, telling me not to talk about Obama when his name is in the thread headline is fucking silly. About as silly as thinking Obama is "left wing" and the Koch Brothers are right wing. They're peas in the same pod. Critisize the Koch brothers all you want, as far as capitalists go there are bigger fish.What did you want me to say? The letter was threatening workers who voted Obama with being fired. How would you have had me phrase this? I don't understand what your fucking problem is. If you can't point out where I expressed support for Obama (Which you won't be able to because I didn't, unless you keep reading too much into my posts), then stop posting.

And yes, you fucking leftist charlatan, Obama is left-wing in bourgeois democracy and the Koch Brothers are right-wing. If it was any other way they would have nothing to disagree on. The bourgeoisie have different ways they want to run the state. Does that mean Obama is going to build us a socialist paradise? No, and it's only in your weak little mind that I ever implied that.


Calling what Koch industries said about voting for Obama a crime is also absurd. This is all obviously pro Obama bullshit. Yes please. Stop posting it.This is so fucking rich. Friend, you've been nothing but a huge **** to everyone since you've signed up to Revleft. You're a prolier-than-thou piss ant who goes around accusing people who know much more of them of being Obama supporters when they've said nothing of the sort. Your whole argument here is based on picking out hidden Freudian messages in my posts. I can't believe the idiot that didn't know where Lenin's vanguard theory originated from is telling me to stop posting.

No, I'm not going to stop posting anything, I've contributed far more to this forum than you have or ever will have, and I'm not going to stop posting here because some angsty little wannabe leftist doesn't like it when people criticize Romney without mentioning Obama. What are you, an undercover Republican or some shit? Go away. You've brought nothing to Revleft except a load of bullshit. Your rep isn't negative because people support Obama, it's negative because you're a rude dumbass.

[Questionable]

Calling what Koch industries said about voting for Obama a crime is also absurd. This is all obviously pro Obama bullshit. Yes please. Stop posting it. Look how evil the Koch brothers are! Poor left wing Obama. You know, that Obama guy really stands up for the best interests of workers! Go post this drek on teh Huffington pOst, oh wait, it's already all over the Huffington post. Go figure.

When did I talk about "poor left wing Obama"? Holy shit, you're so fucking deluded that it makes me laugh. I can just imagine you with tears brimming in your eyes as you hammer away at the keyboard, all red-faced because someone posted an article about the Koch Brothers being assholes to their workers.


Just fucking admit it, you're being sucked into the bullshit political election time story line. The Democrats always need a "bad guy" to validate a vote for them. The Koch brothers routine has been going on for almost a decade now. More than a decade, back to the Clinton years.

Unless you can point out where I said Obama was a good guy and we should vote for him like you're saying I have, stop rolling your face all over your keyboard.

[Zealot]

What reasons are those? Why didn't you list them if they are so numerous? What will increasing taxes accomplish?

To offset austerity, etc. The bourgeoisie are becoming an irrational actor because if they don't raise taxes on themselves they can look forward to waves of anger a la Spain and Greece.


Yes, because that is the point that I was trying to make. Do you think this is not true? Rafiq agrees with me, at least.

You make it sound as if the Koch dynasty has obligations to thousands of shareholders when the fact is the only obligation they have is to themselves since they are the only shareholders that matter.


Is pointing out a massive failure of Keynesian economics "bourgeois" now?

No, but that isn't my point. You claimed that the government is controlled "by politicians, not economists", which is a simplistic and anti-Marxist view.


This is simply true, it's not "bourgeois" any more than stating the material interest of the bourgeoisie is to extract surplus value is (or, a similar and more relevant example, the material interest of corporate executives is to deliver to their shareholders).

Why don't you respond to it instead of whining about it being bourgeois? Do you not have a response? If not, then what basis to you have to even make such a claim? If so, then why not present it?

You claimed austerity was a choice. Pure nonsense.


The Bush tax cuts started in 2003. Austerity on the federal level wasn't an issue until the economic crisis. This is just obvious.

My entire argument is laid out in the quote you just quoted: balancing the budget is completely unnecessary, and therefore the attack on workers' rights under claims of austerity and the necessity to balance the budget on their backs is a lie.

It's not a lie. Less government revenue + an economic crisis + further tax cuts can only mean that the government will have to shift around its funding. So, for example, there have been cuts to defense spending but there will also need to be cuts to social programs and so on when Romney comes in. This hasn't just been an issue until the economic crisis, this has taken place all throughout the neo-liberal era but at a time when an economic crisis has also taken hold it means austerity.


There isn't from a leftist's perspective. This is because the federal government already can afford to fund universal healthcare, free education, and so on, without raising taxes a single red (lol) cent. They don't because they choose not to do it, not because they can't.

I'd say this is a much more progressive position to take than arguing from essentially a monetarist position claiming that budget deficits are a problem and that the government can't currently fund these programs. Arguing that the government should balance the budget by raising taxes, or raising taxes on rich people, or raising taxes on banks, etc. not only presumes that monetarist ideology is correct, but also that we should push for "raising taxes" which is essentially a completely liberal demand (anyone that has talked to a liberal can attest to this).

This isn't rocket science. Raising taxes can help offset the government's deficiencies. When the US was in massive debt after WWII tax rates were at 91% for the highest income earners during the Eisenhower administration and 94% under Roosevelt during WWII. When FDR announced the Social Security program and unemployment benefits amid an economic depression he didn't pull the money for it out of thin air like you seem to believe the government can do.

Furthermore, I'm not arguing for liberal demands. The only solution here is revolution.


Do you think that Friedman put forward a progressive ideology?

Obviously not.


Are the Koch brothers not part of a publicly traded company? Must they not deliver to their shareholders? What are you disagreeing with here? :confused:

Why do I have to keep repeating this. The Koch brothers own the majority of their own shares and therefore the only obligation that really matters is the one to themselves. You keep rambling on about "they must deliver to their shareholders!!!!!" when you can't seem to grasp some simple facts.

I find it amusing that you come here preaching your bourgeois gospel and have the audacity to call me a liberal and yourself a Marxist.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

" neg repped for being an idiot with nothing good to say" Well, thank you. I'll take that as a compliment comming from some assclown who pays attention to the spectacle that is the joke of the Democrat/Republican good cop bad cop routine. Neg rep this post too. Hell, I asked the mods to ban me from this fake ass "communist" site a week ago.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

When did I talk about "poor left wing Obama"? Holy shit, you're so fucking deluded that it makes me laugh. I can just imagine you with tears brimming in your eyes as you hammer away at the keyboard, all red-faced because someone posted an article about the Koch Brothers being assholes to their workers.



Unless you can point out where I said Obama was a good guy and we should vote for him like you're saying I have, stop rolling your face all over your keyboard.
Your opinion of me matters not. It's obvious the media attack on the Koch brothers is political. Political with the end goal of gaining support for Democrats. Obvious is obvious. like I said it all started with Greg Palast in the Clinton years. The "EVIL Koch brothers against the good guy Democrats". Neg rep this post please. It's feeding my disgust for people who have no idea, namley, people like you. People who can only see through the eyes of whats being fed to them on Yahoo news and the Huffington Post. Why does that lame shit need to be posted on a revoloutionary socialist web site? It's not my fault you have the vision of a child or actualy are one who has no experience, no historical reference. Only a few years in the game kid?

[Questionable]

Just fucking admit it, you're being sucked into the bullshit political election time story line. The Democrats always need a "bad guy" to validate a vote for them. The Koch brothers good cop bad cop routine has been going on for almost a decade now. More than a decade, back to the Clinton years. It all started with people like Grag Palast who would write editorials in election years pounding the Koch brothers obvious capitalist tendencies while pushing a vote for whichever Democrat was running. Books have been written lambasting the Koch Brothers with the intent of gaining support for Democrats. I'd post a list but my links don't work on this site. Palast was the first to write books with such intent and that lame shit has been taken up by the overall democrat party media machine. NEVERMIND THE THING BEHIND THE CURTIAN. The thing called capitalism. Koch brothers are just capitalists.

I don't know why you keep editing your posts instead of just posting a new one. If you keep doing that I'm just going to quit responding. I don't have time to sit here and look for changes in your post.

Basically, your viewpoint is that anything that paints conservatives in a bad light is secretly trying to get people to vote for Obama. It's a fucking stupid viewpoint and all it means is that you want people to keep their mouths shut about the oppression of workers because, to someone somewhere out there, it might make Obama better.

I'm not going to stop posting articles about the oppression of workers, whether it's at the hands of Obama or Romney. If you don't like seeing articles condemning oppression, then maybe you'd be more comfortable at Stormfront.

Like I said before, I didn't post this article trying to get people to vote for Obama or whatever little scheme you're attributing to me, and I'm not going to stop posting them because you perceive them as being pro-Democrat. I said absolutely nothing about voting for the Democrats. Nothing. YOU are the one who said that it was pro-Democrat. You started this whole shitstorm yourself.

If anything, I'll just post more anti-Romney articles because it amuses me to see you pissed off at nothing.

[Questionable]

" neg repped for being an idiot with nothing good to say" Well, thank you. I'll take that as a compliment comming from some assclown who pays attention to the spectacle that is the joke of the Democrat/Republican good cop bad cop routine. Neg rep this post too. Hell, I asked the mods to ban me from this fake ass "communist" site a week ago.Well buddy, I hate to ruin it for you but your neg rep actually did nothing to me since you have no rep power yourself. If you hate this site so much then do us all a favor and just fucking leave.


Your opinion of me matters not. It's obvious the media attack on the Koch brothers is political. Political with the end goal of gaining support for Democrats. Obvious is obvious. Neg rep this post please. It's feeding my disgust for people who have no idea, namley, people like you.No one is going to neg rep my posts except you because they're smart enough to realize you're trying a childish tantrum over nothing and I'm just defending myself against your false accusations.

Way to ignore my demands for evidence of supporting Obama and just go for the insult route, though.


People who can only see through the eyes of whats being fed to them on Yahoo news and the Huffington Post. Why does that lame shit need to be posted on a revoloutionary socialist web site? It's not my fault you have the vision of a child or actualy are one who has no experience, no historical reference. Only a few years in the game kid?

"No experience, no historical reference," said the man who denied that Lenin's vanguard theory came from Kautsky.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

[QUOTE=Questionable;2521150] I can't believe the idiot that didn't know where Lenin's vanguard theory originated from is telling me to stop posting.

[QUOTE]

Ah the Kautsky debate. Now this makes sense. I'm aware Lenin was a "Kautskyist" until Lenin started wharping Marx's writtings to fit the conditions in Russia. I said NOTHING about Lenin's fucked up theory of a Vangaurd, Kautsky did- he called Lenin a anti-democratic dictator. Have you even read Kautsky? All I said in that thread outside of fact, my only opinion I put forth was that anyone who explicitly called Kautsky a RENEGADE was regurgitating Lenin's propighanda. My opinion wasn't 'proven' wrong by posting some of luxemburg's pre 1917 critisizms of Kautsky. She didn't even call him a "RENEGADE". That had nothing to do with Lenin's wharping of Kautsky's conception of a vangaurd.


Anyhow, keep paying attention to the liberal/conservative media wars. It's not a waste of time or anything. Maybe you should actually pick up some of Kautsky's writtings? The Leninist who gives neg rep to a person who thinks Kautsky wasnt that bad. Go figure. Shouldnt you be in some backwards nation leading the peasants to war against the USA? LOL Lenin and Mao. Even worse than idiots who support Democrats but to be rolled all into one? Questionable is a perfect screen name for you as Nihilist Scud Missile is quite fitting for me:)

Is this mainly a Leninist site? Oh my.

[Prof. Oblivion]

To offset austerity, etc. The bourgeoisie are becoming an irrational actor because if they don't raise taxes on themselves they can look forward to waves of anger a la Spain and Greece.

Okay so you are arguing that the budget needs to be balanced, and that therefore taxes should be raised to balance it instead of austerity.

My response to that, as I have already said, is that the budget doesn't need to be balanced, and that claiming as such is a lie used to shove austerity down workers' throats.


No, but that isn't my point. You claimed that the government is controlled "by politicians, not economists", which is a simplistic and anti-Marxist view.My argument was that Keynesianism fails because it requires politicians to implement fiscal policy that goes against their own interest. This isn't anti-Marxist at all; it's anti-Keynesian.


You claimed austerity was a choice. Pure nonsense.So austerity is necessary?


It's not a lie. Less government revenue + an economic crisis + further tax cuts can only mean that the government will have to shift around its funding.This is just more general statements. My argument is that government spending is not funded by taxation. Why don't you respond to that instead of repeating your original statement?


Raising taxes can help offset the government's deficiencies. When the US was in massive debt after WWII tax rates were at 91% for the highest income earners during the Eisenhower administration and 94% under Roosevelt during WWII.The federal funding regime was so different after WWII than it is today that you are comparing apples and oranges. Today the federal government finances its spending through the issuance of securities. They issue federal debt securities and sell them to the Fed, banks and other investors and use that money to both pay their debt obligations as well as their budgetary spending.

You can see that by looking at this graph:

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/www.intellectualtakeout.org/files/imagecache/chart_content/chart-graph/Federal%20Tax%20Revenues%20vs.%20Government%20Spen ding.png


he didn't pull the money for it out of thin air like you seem to believe the government can do.Nobody can "pull money out of thin air" it is called taking out a loan, which is what US federal debt securities are.

BTW I looked up Koch Industries and it turns out they're actually private, so I can concede that point.

[Questionable]

Ah the Kautsky debate. Now this makes sense.It would make a lot more sense if you could prove that I'm an Obama supporter, but I guess you're more interested in this now.


I'm aware Lenin was a "Kautskyist" until Lenin started wharping Marx's writtings to fit the conditions in Russia.Again, you say shit without explaining what you mean. A priori knowledge, anyone?


I said NOTHING about Lenin's fucked up theory of a Vangaurd, Kautsky did- he called Lenin a anti-democratic dictator. Have you even read Kautsky?I read Kautsky when he was a Marxist.

MY GOD, the irony of this is delicious. You're trying to accuse me of being a Democrat, yet you sit here defending the granddaddy of all imperialist apologists, Karl Kautsky. I'm just...speechless.


All I said in that thread outside of fact, my only opinion I put forth was that anyone who explicitly called Kautsky a RENEGADE was regurgitating Lenin's propighanda.You can't even fucking spell right, and you're trying to make me look stupid. Look, calling things Leninist "propighanda" does not an argument make. You must prove yourself correct with evidence, not shout louder than the other person.


My opinion wasn't 'proven' wrong by posting some of luxemburg's pre 1917 critisizms of Kautsky. She didn't even call him a "RENEGADE". That had nothing to do with Lenin's wharping of Kautsky's conception of a vangaurd.You were cowardly enough not to post in that thread against after it was brought up, and you're supporting Kautsky's revision of the Communist Manifesto ("Cut each other's throats in war time!"). Wow, I'm still flabbergasted that you're trying to call me a fake leftist when you defend you this shit. You must be a troll.



Anyhow, keep paying attention to the liberal/conservative media wars. It's not a waste of time or anything.You heard it here first folks, paying attention to the oppression of workers is supporting Obama and a waste of time!


Maybe you should actually pick up some of Kautsky's writtings? The Leninist who gives neg rep to a person who thinks Kautsky wasnt that bad. Go figure.I actually support Kautsky in his early years, I just don't try to defend his imperialistic nonsense like you do.

But you've still yet to prove that I'm some Democrat supporter, which should be easy judging from the amount of conviction you put into those accusations. I mean, if someone is willing to throw so much shit at a person, they must have a single shred of evidence to back up their claims, right? Surely you're not talking out of your ass.



Vote for Obama to lead the peasant revolt invation of the imperialist first world! In lieu of Questionable you should try "confused".

See:


Does that mean Obama is going to build us a socialist paradise? No, and it's only in your weak little mind that I ever implied that.

Apparently you can't read either. But that's okay, your petty insults only show that you can't confront the topic rationally, and must instead whine like a child who's losing.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

You heard it here first folks, paying attention to the oppression of workers is supporting Obama and a waste of time!


.

Back on topic. Yes paying attention to information the Democrats are using in a media blitz to gain votes for their nominee is silly. How many workers died this year in production plants? Are Democrats using that information right now to frame themselves in a better light? Nope. They're using the Koch brothers and people like you are eating it up, not only eating it up but spreading it like herpes. Sorry, I have a condom on. It would be better if we all did.

The anti Koch brothers media blitz has NOTHING to do with the oppression of workers and everything to do with gaining votes for Democrats. Why isnt this obvious to you? Whats wrong man? Like I said the democrats have been specificly using the Koch brothers as the "bad guys" since the Clinton elections. The only reason you're even thinking about them is bacuse it's an election year. Sucks not to have control over the why's and how's of your thought process doesnt it?

[Questionable]

Back on topic. Yes paying attention to information the Democrats are using in a media blitz to gain votes for their nominee is silly. How many workers died this year in production plants? Are Democrats using that information right now to frame themselves in a better light? Nope. They're using the Koch brothers and people like you are eating it up, not only eating it up but spreading it like herpes. Sorry, I have a condom on. It would be better if we all did.

The anti Koch brothers media blitz has NOTHING to do with the oppression of workers and everything to do with gaining votes for Democrats. Why isnt this obvious to you? Whats wrong man?

Haha, so we can only pay attention to workers being victimized when it's Obama doing it and whenever it's Republicans it's just a media blitz to distract us? Oh man, you're hilarious.

You're right, you caught me, Obama all the way. I don't care about workers being forced to vote certain ways, I really just want to spread herpes. Long live Comrade Obama!

http://www.moneyandshit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/comrade_obama.jpg

Although I must say, it's sad that some leftists are more concerned with causing people to accidentally vote for Obama than the victimization of workers. Very sad.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

Yes, the Democrats have in fact used the Koch brothers as a propighanda tool going back to the mid 1990's. It's happening now and people on revoloutionary socialist websites are making posts pointing out how "evil" the Koch brothers are. To what end I might ask? Or at least where did you get the idea to post about them? Could it have been from the pro Obama Democrat party media machine? Na, no way.

They're just typical capitalists even less dangerous than the quiet ones who actually shape policy. My question is, what made you think of the Koch brothers when posting about oppression of workers? Out of all the capitalists why them?

[Questionable]

Yes, the Democrats have in fact used the Koch brothers as a propighanda tool going back to the mid 1990's. It's happening now and people on revoloutionary socialist websites are making posts pointing out how "evil" the Koch brothers are. To what end I might ask? Or at least where did you get the idea to post about them? Could it have been from the pro Obama Democrat party media machine? Na, no way.

No Comrade, you don't understand, you're absolutely right! You've exposed my evil plan to trick everyone here into voting for Obama against their will! Now I must run away from Revleft and remain in my castle until the next election comes, when I'll return to post stories of workplace victimization and rally support for Democrats!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZkSSURCm3FI/SdWl350DyoI/AAAAAAAABzM/lCUKZbsw9Vs/s400/obama1yg4.jpg

How do like my propighanda? Or should I say...

http://media-files.gather.com/images/d960/d219/d745/d224/d96/f3/full.jpg

...PROPAGHANDI?

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

Yes, the Democrats have in fact used the Koch brothers as a propighanda tool going back to the mid 1990's. It's happening now and people on revoloutionary socialist websites are making posts pointing out how "evil" the Koch brothers are. To what end I might ask? Or at least where did you get the idea to post about them? Could it have been from the pro Obama Democrat party media machine? Na, no way.

They're just typical capitalists even less dangerous than the quiet ones who actually shape policy. My question is, what made you think of the Koch brothers when posting about oppression of workers? Out of all the capitalists why them?

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

Why them and why now? Answer this one simple question.

[Questionable]

Why them and why now? Answer this one simple question.

Because Obama is KING.

http://wp.patheos.com/community/theanchoress/files/2011/03/king-obama.jpg

[Zealot]

Yes, the Democrats have in fact used the Koch brothers as a propighanda tool going back to the mid 1990's. It's happening now and people on revoloutionary socialist websites are making posts pointing out how "evil" the Koch brothers are. To what end I might ask? Or at least where did you get the idea to post about them? Could it have been from the pro Obama Democrat party media machine? Na, no way.

They're just typical capitalists even less dangerous than the quiet ones who actually shape policy. My question is, what made you think of the Koch brothers when posting about oppression of workers? Out of all the capitalists why them?

And after all of your pomp about Yahoo being a "pro Obama Democrat party media machine" it turns out that the major shareholders of Yahoo are anti-democrats. This really should have been obvious for anyone who has read a few Yahoo news articles before. They are quite fond of the word "Obamacare".

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

"Obamacare" is just Mitt Romneys privitization of public services plan. Any supporter of Romney knows this. In fact, Obama's man Rahm Emmanuel and the DLC gang give credit To Romney in his book that outlined Obama's goals in his first term. The book "The Plan; Big Ideas For America". Anyway, geeze, another Leninist. Go figure. I knew I'd get the wrath of Lenin's dead ghost by posting in that Kautsky thread. You should be in one of the underdeveloped nations leading the peasant colonized workers to invade America. What are you doing worrying yourself with the Koch brothers?

But seriously, the question has yet to be answered. Why post about the Koch brothers oppresing workers? Why now? Do you not agree that the democrat party has been using them since the early 1990's to frame the Democrat party as "left wing". In the past democrats have even called the Koch brothers fascists. Nope. They're just capitalists. No worse, hell, not even half as bad as Obama's main contributors in 2008. The Koch brothers are a giant red herring. they're simply the most visible supporters of Republicans so they're attacked every ellection year. Thats all. Nothing else to see here.

[Zealot]

"Obamacare" is just Mitt Romneys privitization of public services plan. Any supporter of Romney knows this. In fact, Obama's man Rahm Emmanuel and the DLC gang give credit To Romney in his book that outlined Obama's goals in his first term. The book "The Plan; Big Ideas For America". Anyway, geeze, another Leninist. Go figure. I knew I'd get the wrath of Lenin's dead ghost by posting in that Kautsky thread. You should be in one of the underdeveloped nations leading the peasant colonized workers to invade America. What are you doing worrying yourself with the Koch brothers?

But seriously, the question has yet to be answered. Why post about the Koch brothers oppresing workers? Why now? Do you not agree that the democrat party has been using them since the early 1990's to frame the Democrat party as "left wing". In the past democrats have even called the Koch brothers fascists. Nope. They're just capitalists. No worse, hell, not even half as bad as Obama's main contributors in 2008. The Koch brothers are a giant red herring. they're simply the most visible supporters of Republicans so they're attacked every ellection year. Thats all. Nothing else to see here.

You've completely misunderstood the point of this thread. And instead of standing in solidarity with workers who are going to lose their jobs because some fat cats don't like Obama's economic policies you come to Revleft hurling insults around based not so much on the issue at hand but on your hatred of Leninism.

[Zealot]

Okay so you are arguing that the budget needs to be balanced, and that therefore taxes should be raised to balance it instead of austerity.

My response to that, as I have already said, is that the budget doesn't need to be balanced, and that claiming as such is a lie used to shove austerity down workers' throats.

Except, it is true. If more revenue isn't collected the only other way is through squeezing the workers.


My argument was that Keynesianism fails because it requires politicians to implement fiscal policy that goes against their own interest. This isn't anti-Marxist at all; it's anti-Keynesian.

You claimed that politicians control government, not economists, which is untrue. Politicians are tools of the bourgeoisie and have economic advisers at their disposal.


So austerity is necessary?

It is necessary from the bourgeois point of view otherwise the entire system would collapse.


This is just more general statements. My argument is that government spending is not funded by taxation. Why don't you respond to that instead of repeating your original statement?

The federal funding regime was so different after WWII than it is today that you are comparing apples and oranges. Today the federal government finances its spending through the issuance of securities. They issue federal debt securities and sell them to the Fed, banks and other investors and use that money to both pay their debt obligations as well as their budgetary spending.

You can see that by looking at this graph:

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/www.intellectualtakeout.org/files/imagecache/chart_content/chart-graph/Federal%20Tax%20Revenues%20vs.%20Government%20Spen ding.png

Nobody can "pull money out of thin air" it is called taking out a loan, which is what US federal debt securities are.

This is, again, a repeat of bourgeois economics. You've explained how government gets into debt but not really how debt can be paid back. You've demonstrated how debt can be paid back with more debt, cool. The only way to actually reduce debt would be through raising taxes.


BTW I looked up Koch Industries and it turns out they're actually private, so I can concede that point.

Thank you.

[Prof. Oblivion]

This is, again, a repeat of bourgeois economics. You've explained how government gets into debt but not really how debt can be paid back. You've demonstrated how debt can be paid back with more debt, cool. The only way to actually reduce debt would be through raising taxes.

My entire argument is that there is no reason to reduce debt. In order to further fund, they just keep selling federal debt securities.


It is necessary from the bourgeois point of view otherwise the entire system would collapse.

This has absolutely no basis. The US economy will not collapse if austerity measures aren't implemented.


You claimed that politicians control government, not economists, which is untrue. Politicians are tools of the bourgeoisie and have economic advisers at their disposal.

Politicians are also individuals with their own material interests, none of whom would be interested in enacting Keynesian contractionary fiscal policy during an economic boom.

[Zealot]

My entire argument is that there is no reason to reduce debt. In order to further fund, they just keep selling federal debt securities.

Which is completely bogus. The government also has to pay interest on that. They can't keep expanding debt into infinity either because that money comes out of someone's pocket at the expense of someone's labour. They also have to maintain a certain ratio so as not to scare off investors. The elephant in the room that you consistently forget to mention is the global capitalist crisis, which can't be divorced from the debt problem of the US government.


This has absolutely no basis. The US economy will not collapse if austerity measures aren't implemented.

So you think that, since austerity is a "choice", they risk revolutionary upheaval for absolutely no reason? This is completely stupid and beyond belief. Yes, austerity is necessary for the bourgeoisie to maintain profitability etc., etc. This was the whole point of the neoliberal crusade of the last 30 or so years when profitability levels started declining after the 1970s.


Politicians are also individuals with their own material interests, none of whom would be interested in enacting Keynesian contractionary fiscal policy during an economic boom.

lolwut.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Which is completely bogus. The government also has to pay interest on that. They can't keep expanding debt into infinity either because that money comes out of someone's pocket at the expense of someone's labour. They also have to maintain a certain ratio so as not to scare off investors. The elephant in the room that you consistently forget to mention is the global capitalist crisis, which can't be divorced from the debt problem of the US government.Federal debt securities are essentially asset-backed securities whose real basis is economic growth.


So you think that, since austerity is a "choice", they risk revolutionary upheaval for absolutely no reason? This is completely stupid and beyond belief. Yes, austerity is necessary for the bourgeoisie to maintain profitability etc., etc. This was the whole point of the neoliberal crusade of the last 30 or so years when profitability levels started declining after the 1970s.There is no risk of revolutionary upheaval in the United States at any point in the near future.

Also, this is an opportunistic thing; it wasn't borne of necessity.


lolwut.I wasn't mistaken in what I wrote.

[Zealot]

Federal debt securities are essentially asset-backed securities whose real basis is economic growth.

Growth that isn't really happening and, what little that is, it is partly dependent on the US going further into debt. The only reason the fed is buying up so much of the debt now is because no one else wants to. It's a ponzi scheme whose endgame is just around the corner. They're now resorting to "quantitative easing", which didn't work for the Weimar Republic and isn't going to work now. Your bourgeois gospel needs some more verses.


There is no risk of revolutionary upheaval in the United States at any point in the near future.

We'll see about that. At the least, there are going to be riots in the street especially when Romneyite austerity comes around.


Also, this is an opportunistic thing; it wasn't borne of necessity.

Yes it was. You obviously don't understand the falling rate of profit and what was done to counter this.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

You've completely misunderstood the point of this thread. And instead of standing in solidarity with workers who are going to lose their jobs because some fat cats don't like Obama's economic policies you come to Revleft hurling insults around based not so much on the issue at hand but on your hatred of Leninism.

The other chap is the one who brought the Kautsky/Lenin thread into this thread. My dislike of pandering to the democrat party media agenda outwieghs my dislike of Leninism so....this thread is concerning WHY AT THIS POINT IN TIME is the OP focusing on the Koch brothers.

The obvious answer is (what I've been pointing out) every ellection year the Democrats use the Koch brothers as the evil henchmen behind the Republican party and in order to save the workers from such lowley scum one must vote Democrat. I'm sorry you guys are new to the game. How many workers have died at the work place because of some scum capitalists greed this year? The Democrats will gain no votes if they highlight the conditions in the work places of some of their top contributors. I stand in solidarity with the poor people who work for Koch industries year round not just when it comes time to make democrats look like the only hope workers have (every four years). Where was your "solidarity" before the silly ellection hype? Workers everywhere have already been laid off for profits. If taxes are raised Koch industries said they'd lay off workers. Thats what capitalists do. Why are we focusing on the Koch brothers? Answer that please.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Now you're asserting that QE is going to cause hyperinflation. This is straight out of the right wing play book. You are arguing from a thoroughly conservative position now.

As for US debt securities, claiming that they will be viewed as unreliable any time in the near future is just silly. Even in the worst economic crisis in history their demand skyrocketed because people were lookin for security, even if it meant secure negative returns. How much more confident could you get in something than losing money to invest?

And for the rate of profit, it has a tendency to fall, not a trend, unless you can point to some macroeconomic data that show us otherwise.

[Questionable]

Why are we focusing on the Koch brothers? Answer that please.

Because I want to and you can't stop me.

Although the question implies that I'm focusing solely on the Koch Brothers, when in reality I'm concerned about workers' oppression everywhere and have posted articles about other capitalists.

But mostly because I posted the article because I fucking wanted to.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

Because I want to and you can't stop me.

Although the question implies that I'm focusing solely on the Koch Brothers, when in reality I'm concerned about workers' oppression everywhere and have posted articles about other capitalists.

But mostly because I posted the article because I fucking wanted to.

Yes I know you wanted to and you wanted to post an article lambasting Koch Industries because at the moment it's an election year and the Democrat party is shitting on Koch Industries because that's what they do every four years to make themselves look appealing. The choice is "hey look, the Tea Party people or us!" Invest all of your efforts into the Democrat Party or be stuck with quasi fascism (in reality there's NO difference)!

Apple and it's offshoots have contributed to Obama's campaign and look how Foxconn treats it's workers in China. Far worse than anything Koch Industries is talking about. Workers are actually dying over there but the Democrat Party isn't lambasting Foxconn in the media so.....

[Questionable]

Yes I know you wanted to and you wanted to post an article lambasting Koch Industries because at the moment it's an election year and the Democrat party is shitting on Koch Industries because that's what they do every four years to make themselves look appealing. The choice is "hey look, the Tea Party people or us!" Invest all of your efforts into the Democrat Party or be stuck with quasi fascism (in reality there's NO difference)!

Apple and it's offshoots have contributed to Obama's campaign and look how Foxconn treats it's workers in China. Far worse than anything Koch Industries is talking about. Workers are actually dying over there but the Democrat Party isn't lambasting Foxconn in the media so.....

That's right. I'm a Democrat through-and-through, as you can tell my looking at my posting history, and all the times in this thread when I told people to vote for Obama. Praise the Democrats! They will construct socialism in America!

You may as well stop crying. I'll post articles about your sacred Koch Brothers being assholes just as quickly as I'll post about the $3.7 trillion Obama has sunk into conquering the Middle East. Makes no different to me, no matter what closet Republicans say.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

That's right. I'm a Democrat through-and-through, as you can tell my looking at my posting history, and all the times in this thread when I told people to vote for Obama. Praise the Democrats! They will construct socialism in America!

I'm not calling you a democrat I'm just pointing out the subtle ways in which we get sucked into the pre built bourgeois political framework which by in large does end up "poisoning the socialist well" of ideas and efforts within the community. Thats all.

[Questionable]

I'm not calling you a democrat I'm just pointing out the subtle ways in which we get sucked into the pre built bourgeois political framework which by in large does end up "poisoning the socialist well" of ideas and efforts within the community. Thats all.

I don't see how posting about workers being told how to vote is getting sucked into bourgeois politics, and none of your ranting and raving has convinced me of this.

And you still keep talking about how my "socialist well" is poisoned when I've contributed far more here than you have.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

I don't see how posting about workers being told how to vote is getting sucked into bourgeois politics, and none of your ranting and raving has convinced me of this.

And you still keep talking about how my "socialist well" is poisoned when I've contributed far more here than you have.

Not likely, are we talking Revleft reputation points? LOL. What I saw at OWS events in Oakland, the "most radical" arena of the Occupy events was a tad disheartening. i'm admittedly bringing this disappointment with me online which was my stated purpose in the introductions section of this site.

I'm by no means some model of a "perfect revolutionary" as if such a thing exists BUT... from what I've experienced over the last 30 years we socialists have a MAJOR problem with operating within the framework of failed ideas. One being the stench of Russian 'socialism' which makes selling the idea of communism next to impossible and the other is our tendency to become 'pragmatic' in the face of the adversity our descendants left us with.

I somewhat understood peoples tendency to play within the bourgeois political arena a couple decades ago but now with this crisis it's time to completely move out of the bourgeois ideological framework. Staying somewhat connected is at times necessary in order to be able to relate to the millions of non socialist American workers but to perpetuate, in any way, the framework is extremely counterproductive. This means to be pretty much critical of everything the capitalist media does (from a communist perspective). If they're picking on a certain nation we must ask why. If they're picking on a certain capitalist we must ask why (at the end of the day it's all meant to continue the capitalist system). Capitalists are aware some ideologically pure "free market" ca't exist- they know this. This is why the Tea Party idea of capitalism will never manifest. What's necessary for capitalism to exist is what's happening. What's been happening for generations. It doesn't matter who's put into office. Even if Marx himself were president nothing would change. Structurally the system gets what it demands. Paying attention to any of the distractions is, well, a MAJOR distraction we can no longer afford. It's been crippling our efforts within the broader community. We need a pure revolutionary outlook free of the pre framed political debate.


Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just an extremist but the way I see it our every day reality, yes, even to what motivates us to thin about certain things, is almost under the complete control of the broader capitalist system. A break with that reality is necessary before we can expect to fight and win and major gains on the road to socialism. Or maybe I'm wrong.

[Questionable]

Not likely, are we talking Revleft reputation points? LOL. What I saw at OWS events in Oakland, the "most radical" arena of the Occupy events was a tad disheartening. i'm admittedly bringing this disappointment with me online which was my stated purpose in the introductions section of this site.

You attended an Occupy protest? That's good. I'm proud of you, I guess.


I'm by no means some model of a "perfect revolutionary" as if such a thing exists BUT... from what I've experienced over the last 30 years we socialists have a MAJOR problem with operating within the framework of failed ideas. One being the stench of Russian 'socialism' which makes selling the idea of communism next to impossible and the other is our tendency to become 'pragmatic' in the face of the adversity our descendants left us with.I didn't call you a perfect revolutionary, nor did I imply one existed, but if it did you'd be pretty far from it.


I somewhat understood peoples tendency to play within the bourgeois political arena a couple decades ago but now with this crisis it's time to completely move out of the bourgeois ideological framework. Staying somewhat connected is at times necessary in order to be able to relate to the millions of non socialist American workers but to perpetuate, in any way, the framework is extremely counterproductive. This means to be pretty much critical of everything the capitalist media does (from a communist perspective). If they're picking on a certain nation we must ask why. If they're picking on a certain capitalist we must ask why (at the end of the day it's all meant to continue the capitalist system). Capitalists are aware some ideologically pure "free market" ca't exist- they know this. This is why the Tea Party idea of capitalism will never manifest. What's necessary for capitalism to exist is what's happening. What's been happening for generations. It doesn't matter who's put into office. Even if Marx himself were president nothing would change. Structurally the system gets what it demands. Paying attention to any of the distractions is well, a MAJOR distraction we can no longer afford. It's been crippling our efforts within the broader community. We need a pure revolutionary outlook free of the pre framed political debate.I didn't read half of this because I'm tired of talking with you but I just want to point up for the umpteenth million time that I did not advocate Obama anywhere in here. I saw an article about workers' oppression, and I posted it. At no point in my head was I thinking about the election, I was thinking about employers picking on their workers. YOU are the one that came in with all this shit about the Koch Brothers and supporting Democrats, YOU are the one that accused me of buying into bourgeois politics without being able to prove it. You are jumping at shadows.

I know you're just going to go talking about how I support the US election system despite me telling you OVER and OVER again that I do not and have not endorsed anywhere in this topic or on this website, but if there's someone out there reading, at least they'll know.



Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just an extremist but the way I see it our every day reality, yes, even to what motivates us to thin about certain things, is almost under the complete control of the broader capitalist system. A break with that reality is necessary before we can expect to fight and win and major gains on the road to socialism. Or maybe I'm wrong.Look, I agree with you about bourgeois politics sucking. I'm not trying to defending it. I never have. We're on the same side here, see? My issue with you is that you accused me of being in support of bourgeois politics just because I posted an article about the Koch Brothers, when that was not my intention at all, you just started freaking out about Clinton and the Democrats and Koch Brothers being scapegoats and I had no fucking idea what your problem was. To be honest I've never even heard of the Koch Brothers until I read this article, I just saw something related to workers being oppressed and wanted to share it here with like-minded people.

Again, we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot here. We're not enemies. I don't represent bourgeois politics to your anti-bourgeois politics. We're on the same side, you just don't think I am because I posted an article about right-wing bosses telling their workers how to vote.

Anyway, I'm sure people are tired of reading this, so I'm done posting. This conversation is going in circles. If you can post one quote from me advocating Obama or the Democrats or bourgeois politics in general, I will respond to it. Otherwise I consider your accusations baseless and I will start ignoring them now.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

http://youtu.be/LOsBZPnmoQA

Just the first 50 seconds.

[Zealot]

Now you're asserting that QE is going to cause hyperinflation. This is straight out of the right wing play book. You are arguing from a thoroughly conservative position now.

It's not a conservative position, it's a possibility.


As for US debt securities, claiming that they will be viewed as unreliable any time in the near future is just silly. Even in the worst economic crisis in history their demand skyrocketed because people were lookin for security, even if it meant secure negative returns. How much more confident could you get in something than losing money to invest?

Demand has always been high since the US is considered the most stable place to invest and, while it is still viewed as such, things could easily change. China has dumped some of its holdings and taken up new ones as the economy staggers along and if the economy doesn't improve they could just as easily do it again. Your "argument" that debt is a non-issue simply boggles the mind, especially when considering the ongoing European sovereign debt crisis.


And for the rate of profit, it has a tendency to fall, not a trend, unless you can point to some macroeconomic data that show us otherwise.

You may want to read Stephen Resnick and Richard Wolff's essay (http://rdwolff.com/content/economic-crisis-marxian-interpretation) about the crisis. I'm not sure why you're denying this since even bourgeois economists are talking about it now.