Didnt you see me shitting on the political compass before?? Oh wait nevermind, i forget that you don't follow me 😔
that's okayy.
I made a post before about how i reject the political compass: ancaps, ancoms, mutualists, stalinists, nazbols and fascists all seek to preserve the industrial-urban society and are all sects of the church of humanity. But normies simply cannot comprehend that i am neither, left, right or centre.
But hey, I'll get rid of it if it helps you sleep at night.
I feel the pressure even more so as a femboy, people have high expectations of me. im either getting dog-piled by the right and called an SJW jesus, or cancelled by the left and called a fascist femboy. It's all bullshit, it's all a psyop, it's all spooked.
@cee @cyberspook I still get shit on by people of both sides even as an ancap. Both sides still refuse to acknowledge that nationalism vs globalism is a false dichotomy.
Pretty sure that Marxists (at least the Orthodox ones) were in support of neither nationalism (which they saw as enriching national capitalists) nor globalism (which they saw as economic imperialism). Marx absolutely despised free trade and globalism. Yes, Marx did say that free trade is preferable but it was more of a Machiavellian move on his part. "What if… we accelerated global capitalism and then capitalism just broke itself and then the workers will rise?" Well, obviously that didn't happen. No wonder why neo-Stalinists retreated to nationalism. The kool kid on the block now is "multipolarity." "We support Trump and Putin but it's not that we support capitalism. It's that we support anti-imperialism. We need to defeat Atlanticism."
Pure opportunism.
@cee
I mean, my crazy conspiracy theory is that, NATO is IngSoc, the Eastern Bloc is Neo-Bolshevism and East Asia like Japan is Death Worship, all unironically. I've already read some George Orwell, like Homage to Catalonia, and I have a copy of 1984. I see it a lot, socialist and capitalist politicians are bipartisan.
This is what it's like in Australia:
Neoliberals: Get a fucking job you lazy piece of shit 😡
Social Democrats: Get a fucking job you lazy piece of shit 😄
They've delayed the community garden yet again, and now they're pushing me to work at a recycling plant in the next town, 2.5 hour drive over the next 2 months. The problem is, these fuckers are gonna keep pushing me to overwork (more than my limit, 15 hrs a week), like bruh, i'm literally crippled. I'm gonna let loose and start spitting hard facts at my "job provider", i swear.
>"job provider"
Ah, so that's how they call the capitalist class now. We had "enterpreneurs," "employers," "businessmen," "business owners," "company owners," "CEOs." So many fluffy names to describe a single thing, like… LMAO, Porkies do be trying to pretend to be nice.
On a side note: do you consider the precariat to be a part of the proletariat? Certainly freelancers do own the means of production but at the same time you won't really call them "petty bourgeoisie" because they still depend on the capitalists and their infrastructure for survival.
@xianc78
@cyberspook @cee I wouldn't consider enterpreneurs to be part of the capitalist class. According to agorist class theory, enterpreneurs are the ones who actually innovate and are in many times self-employed as opposed to the capitalist class who just merely owns the means of production and probably didn't come up with any of the ideas of the business. Both ancaps and marxoids usually conflate the two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism#Konkin's_class_theory
Also, CEOs aren't business owners. They are elected by stakeholders, so they are just over-glorified managers. The difference between a company and a corporation is that a company is privately owned by an individual while a corporation is owned by stakeholders. This stakeholder model allows them to be considered separate legal entities from the owner. So if the corporation gets into legal trouble then it's the fault of the corporation and not on any individual.
@cyberspook @cee
>I would argue that Konkin stratifies the capitalists on petty, middle and big (something that socialists knew already) but ignores the wage laborers.
Konkin was actually against wage-labor. He thought that the state was the only obstacle in preventing most people from being self-employed (e.g laws preventing one from selling their own produce). He also thought that innovation in the market would make self-employment much easier. It's part of the reason why Konkin considered himself more of a left-libertarian as opposed to an ancap.
Well, that's just mutualism by this point. Self-employment and worker co-ops. No conflicts here. Mutualists are pretty much contractualists, James L. Walker imagined market anarchism to be entirely contract-based. Though I must mention that mutualists also emphasize usufruct property as the generally accepted type of property instead of absentee ownership which modern economists call "private property" (sheesh, I hate that this term denotes both personal and absentee property, it's so confusing).
@cee
Self-employed are a part of the petty capitalist subclass, the transitionary stage between the proletariat and middle capitalists. Marx has never denied that petty capitalists have characteristics of their own. He mentioned that the petty capitalist transitionary class is a self-exploiting class, forced to engage in market competition for survival and thus forcing itself to overwork for extra profit. The petty capitalist class is the class ancaps and mutualists appeal to, along with the proletariat. According to the revolutionary socialists, the only real problem of petty capitalists, aside from their tendency to mimic their richer folk (copyright protectionism, anyone?), is that they're very fucking indecisive, usually composing the voting base for the liberal moderates.
Konkin hasn't actually invented anything new. The class that he described as an innovating class is the petty capitalist class according to the Marxian class analysis. They are technically still capitalists in a sense that they hold the means of production. I would say that modern economists also describe the middle capitalists with the word "enterpreneur" however I think.
I would argue that Konkin stratifies the capitalists on petty, middle and big (something that socialists knew already) but ignores the wage laborers. The wage laborers are not capitalists, i.e. they're not the owners of capital in a Marxist sense. So in a way Konkin's model is incomplete and certainly ignores the class conflict between wage earners and capital owners, prefering to focus on state intervention more despite the profit motive itself being the sole reason of that state intervention. If the big capitalists don't have a state, they'll most likely create one. So it's easier for them to rig the market.
@cee