Funny part is that the term “middle class” originated from feudal times to describe people who were neither aristocrats/landed gentry (aka upper class) nor peasantry/proles (aka lower class). So basically, the bourgeoise and highly educated bureaucracy.
Jan 6th did not succeed … because Mike pence and the secretaries of states of PA and GA stopped it
And how the fuck is this an argument for linking up with Liz cheney exactly? Did Liz Cheney stop Jan 6th?
Settlers applies to POC as much as it does white people.
Eyo? It really does not.
The labour theory of value would predict that higher wages don’t increase prices, but reduce the rate of surplus value.
The labour theory of value says that prices are most strongly correlated with the labor time needed to produce the commodity regardless of the wage rate.
The theory that prices would increase based on wages is called the prices of production theory, in which price = (1+rate of profit)*(material cost + labor cost). It conflicts with the LTV and this conflict was actually something that troubled marx quite a bit.
The US government is putting the boot on your necks too. The empire isn’t run for your benefit, it is run at your expense.
The Chinese never found a way to make profit in spite of radically lower prices
Source? Your dreams?
Real late reply, but Kamala is a direct fascist.
States are not rational actors. They are composed of a massive sum of parts, whatever seeming intelligence (in the biological sense of a creature reacting to its environment) that emerges is not necessarily the result of “rationality” (which is itself a fraught concept).
I don’t think it is wise to assume that the Israeli high command is incompetent. Certainly, if any of us were placed in their situation, we wouldn’t know how to do their jobs at all. Their actions may also be rational from their personal perspective. Deescalation of the war may even cost them their jobs. I don’t know.
But the actions of the Israeli high command are certainly not “rational” from the perspective of the state. They are effectively playing chicken with their whole country. Their military is constantly eating losses and getting spread thin from all of these fronts. America refuses to directly intervene. And the Israeli economy is in taters.
Sooner or later the us regime is going to collapse. It’s fundamental tally unsustainable and just a good few crises away from imploding. And the best part is, you’re looking right at the face of pretty much every kind of crisis imaginable. We’ve got climate crises, disastrous weather events, fascist coups, exploding inequality, de-dollarisation, the defeat of american imperialism in west and east Asia, mass immigration and so on.
So the violent overthrow of the American government is actually more realistic than trying to improve the Democrat party from the inside. Certainly the former will happen way before the latter.
Trump openly
This is the real problem that libs have with trump. He represents and fulfills all of their ideals, but without the pompadour.
DONALDFUCKINGTRUP
The incompetent fascist is more scary to you than the competent one? Why?
Both the ussr and dprk control all/most firms in the economy. If they think that there is too much inequality in the existing wage structure, they can easily change it. As an example, the Chinese government implemented a salary limit on super high income earners in the state owned finance sector.
Why shouldn’t it be? There are other ways to control inequality for a socialist state (since they control wages). All taxes (and rent, interest, profit) in a country are ultimately paid out on nation’s labor. Taxing wages directly is the most sensible way of levying taxes as it doesn’t have the risk of distorting the economy in unexpected/unwanted ways, and you can use progressive income taxes to readjust inequality.
Making a reserve does seem like a more sensible approach than a unified currency, but there is still the question of who issues the currency and with what rates. It seems somewhat unnecessary (given my admittedly amateur knowledge) to create a new currency.
Setting the rates too high on the currency will stifle investment, while setting the rates too low will make using the currency unappealing. The problem is that the “ideal” rate differs depending on the profit rates in each country (which diverge significantly from each other).
trade with one partner does not create an obligation to you since they do not gain a reserve of your own nation’s currency but of a currency acceptable to all members.
I mean, the obligation still exists. The obligation is just to BRICS as a whole instead of one country. I guess that might be a nice benefit.
Which one are you talking about?
Nah, the soviet union was very durable, much more so than brics likely ever will be. Few other countries ever faced as much external pressure and wars as the ussr did, and even then, it only fell apart because of long term issues stemming from krushchev’s secret speech and the sino-soviet split.
The graphic design of the bill is wack (complete lack of symmetry with the landmarks. Some start at the inner circle which looks nice, some start at the outer circle, like the taj mahal, which looks out of place as a result).
But a unified brics currency is just a bad idea and replicates the problem of the euro and the usd. You should only use a united currency for an economy under a common economic plan.
The level of inflation and interest rates on a currency that are good for a currency depends significantly upon the country. Basically, if N countries combine their currency, you go from 2N levers (interest rate and reserve requirements for each country) to just 2 levers (1 rate and 1 reserve ratio for all countries). Capitalist economies already have trouble moderating economic activity, reducing the available controls is not ideal. This is pretty much the problem the EU faces.
A much better idea would be a unified brics payment system, with 0 foreign exchange fees and real time conversion. This would give you the benefits of a unified currency (easy cross border payments) while still allowing countries to diverge on monetary policy.
Kissing my homes good night
My logic (I don’t live in the us but for the sake of argument, let’s pretend I do) is that if a politician can commit a livestreamed genocide, and they win the election, it signals to politicians that there is no line they can cross that will make their campaign unviable.
It would be more ideal if the Democrats could have been punished for their war mongering years ago, but you never punish your representatives for crossing even the most egregious possible line, then you truly don’t have any power over them and have fundamentally given up.
If tommorow, even 10% of the dems indicated in polls that they would not vote for kamala because of gaza, it would force the DNC to take a stronger stance on the issue because the race is too tight. If this had happened many months ago, the Democrats could have been forced in giving concessions. But the Democrat voter base has made sure that the demmocrat party has no need to give concessions. They have used themselves as meat waves to ensure that the genocide can continue smoothly.
Some academics became liberals after having flirted with Marxism. This is relevant why exactly? I mean, I can cite many great minds who remained Marxists and even advanced the theory. Ever heard of Paul Cockshott? Alan Contrell? David Zachariah? Emanuel Farjoun?
These guys (and some others) actually worked on Marxist economic theory and modernized it. They lived through the collapse of the USSR and remained steadfast in their beliefs. And I haven’t talked about countless other minds in anthropology, history, contemporary social studies and philosophy who have used dialectical materialism as a foundation to achieve great results.
And so I want to emphasize something.
every single one of them gave up and became an egalitarian.
Is blatantly and literally false.
Her tactics did work for her. Her base has become immensely cult like and she did have a lot of voters. The actual problem was inflation + Palestine.
You cannot get by with an incoherent narrative on those issues because when people feel things with their wallet or have dead family members, they will pay a lot closer attention.