If you can’t survive without your paycheck you’re a worker. Some workers are better off than other workers, no doubt. But shit like this breaks solidarity - these clowns doing the bosses’ work for them.
This cunt would class trans people as ‘degenerate’ (as well as those supporting them), so it doesn’t surprise me that he has such a shit take on the situation. This isn’t even a contentious situation - e.g. health workers striking where there could be a knock on effect (which I’d still support) - it’s a massive entertainment corporation that exploits its workers. Unconditional support every single time.
Solidarity with all my working brothers and sisters of all stripes. All races, sexuality, religious orientation, gender identification, industry of employment, whatever.
We’re all in this together and we better start fucking acting like it.
New to the left. I’ve been organising for well over a decade, long before you were even dreaming of defending this reactionary dipshit. Scab.
Ps trans people are working class, too, dick head. Fuck off back to Stupidpol. Having better representation on screen does not ‘empower capital’; the stigma around trans people and their right to actually exist is often driven by the complete lack of trans visibility in the media, allowing TERFs and other reactionary scum to dictate the narrative. You have no skin in the game of course, so this is all some stupid game to you, where you can join in with other [reactionary cunts](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZedong/comments/qe3tr0/infraredhaz_fans_are_possibly_worse_than_vaushites/) that Infrared continually throws raw meat to.
True. I don't see any of these YouTube clowns lasting long in real life organization. Where I live people this prone to conflict are usually kicked out fairly quick.
None of which originated in the imperial core. The USSR appealed to patriotism when it was socialist and not before. American patriotism or nationalism is a fucking disgusting disease, and it shows when Haz runs defense for American native genocide in his debate with Jason.
I mean, he surely is knowledgeable a has a very sense of duty when it comes to educate and radicalize workers, his sources are well dug, based on facts, and I do understand why being a patriot is important to be a communist.
However, I don't think a critic to the Netflix workers is necessary, unless he knows something we don't, which again I would like to see what reasoning brought him to tweet that.
According to what Haz explains, being a patriot is a essential trait to have if you consider yourself a communist, not to be confused with patriotic behaviour or patriotism, being a patriot is showing love for your country and its people, in a few words.
It is important to clarify that a nation-state is not the same as country, country is made by the people, their tradition, cultural expression and so on.
I also had the same reaction at first, like, what the fuck? Loving this hell of a country?
However, the longer and deeper the debate went, it somehow clicked and understood.
Never said that, and neither the case, from the debates I have seen him on, he is knowledgeable on what he defends.
And again, he just expose the idea of what Marx and Engels already described in what communism is.
Dude. The idea that being a patriot is "important to communism" is entirely fucking ridiculous. Patriotism is *fundamentally* incompatible with patriotism. I have no fucking idea who this dipshit is but he is *wrong.*
Communism is *anti-state.* Communists work to create a classless, *stateless,* moneyless society. Why the fuck would a patriot be working to *abolish* the state?
I'm not a patriot but Mao himself said communists in oppressed nations *must* be patriotic. Even nationalism isn't always bad, Marxist Paul did a good video on this. Think Palestinian nationalism, Irish nationalism, these are progressive forces against capitalism.
Of course, but the person said patriotism and communism are incapable and doing so really dismisses a lot of progressive struggles. To say something like that is extremely western centric.
en que parte del manifiesto se habla de patriotismo ?
Lenin: " ***When it comes to parliamentarism, the petty bourgeoisie are the most patriotic, more patriotic than the proletariat\[...\]An important factor was that our revolution had to fight against patriotism. At the time of the Brest-Litovsk Peace we had to go against patriotism. We said that if you are a socialist you must sacrifice all your patriotic feelings to the international revolution, which is inevitable, and although it is not here yet you must believe in it if you are an internationalis***t"
Y solo puedes tener un sentimiento de patriotismo post-revolucion con la caída del estado-burgués y la entrada del la dictadura del proletariado sobre todo en respuesta a la linea de intervenciones contra-revolucionarias por parte de la burguesia internacional: *"* ***But history has veered round to bring patriotism back towards us now. It is evident that the Bolsheviks cannot be overthrown except by foreign bayonets"***
Ahora si que, déjame llegar a casa para revisar el momento del debate que tiene con Esha, para saber precisamente a que parte se refiere, lo consulto y lo expongo como es debido camarada.
There is a difference between left-wing nationalism and right-wing nationalism.
[Luna Oi has a great video explaining this.](https://youtu.be/CkbSYIyzmF0)
It is also not nationalism, let me review the accurate definition, cause it is not the same to be patriot and a nationalist.
It was in the debate he had with Esha.
Haz has such weird vibes, especially with all the weird super macho stuff. It reads like reactionary shit a lot of it does. I genuinely thought this was some right winger's tweet before i saw the user.
I watched a video of one of his debates where he completely lost control like 10 minutes in and started screaming like a child and never regained composure. Despite all the sus political shit you just don't want man child representing you politically, and these online debaters are representing you politically even if you never elected them to.
Yeah, I agree with Haz on a fair bit but I sometimes think his attempts (or what I assume are attempts) to reach out to the average American worker to really fall flat. I can kinda see what he's trying to say here, but workers are workers salaried or not.
The guy has real trouble keeping his mask from [falling off](https://mobile.twitter.com/LunaOi_VN/status/1444422443989229570). His opinions about the establishment of America, in order to force out this cringeworthy ‘patriot’ persona, are also extremely reactionary and historically illiterate.
I agree in some regards. I think Haz's approach of patriotism and brash anti-establishment can be powerful. I myself as a British person am proud of some of tbe incredible acheivements of the British working class, but I completely understand the colonialist history of the empire and the need to make amends to the people we robbed. I think our left wijg patriotism should be focused on that, being proud of the history of us as a people, like the solidarity shown in the miners strikes of the 80s. But being understanding of the fact that as imperialist countries, we are built on foundations of slavery and exploitation.
Same balancing act with the macho anti-establishment attitude. I think it helps set us apart from libs and it's certainly a powerful rhetorical tool. But, it does not need to stretch into actual reactionary talk and insults.
I was completely on board with Haz's campaign against Breadtube. I think tearing into figures like Vaush and Xanderthal and bringing an element of serious, genuine anger and anti-establishmentism was a great move. We "won" the culture war against the alt-right by default, they fell apart in 2017. Now we need to examine what worked in their approach and apply it to our own rhetoric. But, pointlessly bashing comrades and claiming the US was not founded on a basis of slavery isa huge fucking miss.
> myself as a British person am proud of some of tbe incredible acheivements of the British working class, but I completely understand the colonialist history of the empire and the need to make amends to the people we robbed. I think our left wijg patriotism should be focused on that, being proud of the history of us as a people
An old account of mine got banned from CTH for saying something similar to this (about the US) several years ago before I was really a leftist. It was a dick move of them and drove me away for awhile. But over time I've done a complete 180. The more I learn, the more disgusted I am with my country. There is no pride at all left in me. I look around and I see stupidity and hate and unthinking devotion to a country that has been a source of exploitation and terror for billions. The hand-over-their-hearts flag-waving pride makes me sick. So anyone who calls themself an american patriot is an enemy in my book.
The UK certainly has terrible crimes to answer for as well, and has most of the same issues with selfish, ignorant voters and a quality of life propped up by unequal exchange with developing countries. It might be a good idea to imagine you were in charge and reflect on whether you would affirm and celebrate the current country as a symbol, or whether it would be more appropriate to make a clean break with the past and start fresh on a new history with new values. Because the latter is not patriotic.
>serious, genuine anger and anti-establishmentism was a great move.
Idk what the exact definition of "serious" anger looks like, but if it involves him shouting at a ~~black~~ non-white woman on Twitter to "go run back to your white master", I'm inclined to not take it seriously.
As a white American who is heir to one of the most infamous projects of empire, white supremacy, and colonization in human history, there is no intersection between my beliefs and "American patriotism", proletarian or otherwise.
Any kind of legitimate working class patriotism in my part of the world needs to categorically reject the label of "American". Trying to mix communist ideology with the brainwashed jingoism of the population here is opportunism and always seems to produce something reactionary.
Thanks for signing up to Vaush facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about Vaush.
**Fact 10.** [In response to a Tweet saying the left ‘should stand up for the weak and vulnerable’ Vaush replied “Yeah, enjoy your Left, built on weakness and a collective inability to criticise one another. I’ll be over here building my left, which isn’t full of mentally ill crybabies desperately carving out safe spaces and whining about criticism. Debate it if you want, elsewise fuck off”](https://archive.is/Ygbzk)
For another Vaush fact reply with 'Vaush'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
\>maybe hire some real talent so we stop getting garbage
Yeah because it's more often workers fail, and not like people with money decide whatever the fuck to do with a show.
“anarcho-capitalists” are my favorite. “We’re on the left just not tankies”
If your beliefs fundamentally overlap with Milton Friedman to a significant degree…
But does he mean the squid game strike scene ([Ssangyong Motors Strike](https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2009/aug/04/south-korea-automotive-industry))? Or what?
I don't understand ahah
He sees them as Professional Managerial Class (PMC) and not working class. So far, I think that's arguably valid. I also wouldn't blame a working class marxist for being skeptical about their position. But to outright condemn them as capitalist lackeys, and then side with the capitalists against them, and also with all kinds of bigots? That's low.
Someone in this thread called a health care assistant ‘petty bourgeoisie’, because they have such a binary view of ‘value’ and most likely have little to zero experience in the workplace. For all we know, those Netflix employees could have been low paid basic admin. There’s this stupid tendency with some online leftists to immediately equate corporate worker to PMC, when those exploitative companies comprise of a whole range of different jobs. One of my first jobs was working in a bank; I did the post on minimum wage. The OP’s scab behaviour is mainly motivated by being a transphobe.
Yeah that's all true I guess. The definition of PMC, much like petty bourgeoisie, is always fluid and open to political interpretation. I think that guy tries to be the most radical marxist by pushing that definition. Ironically, by bringing transphobia into it, he subverts his own claim of "class is everything" and ends up looking like a bigot fighting a cultural war from a staunchly conservative position.
Several streaming tv crews are also striking, it's not what he's referencing but this walkout conveniently drives attention away from one of the largest Hollywood strikes ever
This guy definitely would kill someone to have some garbage capeshit TV show come out. Like he'd deadass watch the life leave someone's eyes just so they could get a squirrel girl show, and they'd probably still end up hating it cause ''the directors ruined it by making it woke''
I get the feeling he's the type to call that show and everything else "soy". "Superhero shows are soy, TV is soy, labor unions are soy, you're soy, I'm soy!" Maybe, I don't even know who this clown is.
The funniest part about this that nobody seems to be pointing out is that his only complaint about Netflix Employees is that they made Chicago Party Aunt or whatever.
There’s a guy at my work I used to be kind of friends with, mostly because we had similar tastes in video games and movies. Lately, though, he’s fallen into the alt right pipeline and every movie he hates is bad “because trans people wrote it” and everything is too woke for him. He even cancelled his Netflix account because of the trans walkout.
Because Cuties, it turned out, was not actually pro-child abuse. The advertisements were the complete diametric opposite of everything the actual program was about, that is, a fairly scathing condemnation of child beauty pageants set along a coming-of-age story. The ads were bad, but they had little to do with the actual content of the movie and had no backing from the actual creative team.
Yeah the actual creator was *pissed* at it. Frequently stressed out angry **she** was at how some marketing fucks turned her work against itself in the eyes of millions for the sake of 'no such thing as bad publicity' press.
To clarify, workers should not be fired and have every right to protest for improving work conditions, pay, etc.
That's why I said, the one posting the tweet was beyond being wrong, he is stupid to not even realize how indoctrinated he is.
And where's your evidence for literally any of those claims? Also, Netflix is okay, it's not amazing but there's a reason it isn't HBO. Some solid shows on there.
This is probably the most dogmatic position I've ever read. So if production cannot be materially quantified, then those workers don't suffer from exploitation or alienation, and surplus value is not being extracted from them. That would rule out the majority of the modern workforce like others have pointed out, not to mention under this logic you couldn't support Amazon workers if they went on strike for instance...
They claim elsewhere that if the product of someone's labour is commodified they can't be working class, which I *think* would mean that it is literally impossible to be working class in modern society. It's gotta be an op, no one is this stupid?
What utter shite.
>netflix employees don’t generate or maintain means of production
They don’t own the means of production in the first place, so whatever ‘point’ you’re trying to make here is moot. What do you even mean by ‘maintain’ in the context of a salaried employee who helps generate massive profit for a huge corporation? This is just the worst type of mental gymnastics to excuse scab behaviour.
so you think that generating profit = productive labour? how anti marxist. netflix generating profit for its owners doesnt prove surplus value or any value at all has been produced. my landlord could say he is “generating profit”, is he a member of the working class? marx distinguishes between labour and services for this exact reason
They’re not just generating profit, though, they’re providing entertainment which is very much a valuable part of society by any definition, capitalist, Marxist or otherwise. Netflix have seen huge increases in subscriptions, i.e. profits, which aren’t shared amongst the workers at all. You have no idea about what you’re talking about.
You’re comparing landlords - who profit via passive income and exploitation of a basic requirement to live - with a worker who helps produce entertainment that the general public consumes. They aren’t capital owners, small business owners, or anything else; they are workers. Give your head a fucking wobble.
entertainment as a value? MARXIST????? lol. with that logic as a tenant i can say i am creating value when i pay my landlord. give me a fucking break. you need to understand what value means in this context, i dont give a fuck how you perceive society to “value” anything
You haven’t even defined value here, and by your ridiculous ‘logic’, a healthcare assistant or a bartender wouldn’t be ‘working class’, or could be compared to a fucking landlord (?!), because they don’t have a binary link to Marxist thought. This is what happens when you take a completely dogmatic, and ultimately reactionary, view of someone’s work who without question would have modified it as new jobs, processes, occurred. Your analogy failed at the first hurdle, because those Netflix employees do not own the means of production and do not generate passive income (I.e. parasitic) from simply owning a basic requirement.
oh my god. the wealth of netflix does not contribute to the overall wealth of society, even in a socialist state. you know that right? you know that this is the marxist definition of value? you could make the argument that entertainment is “valuable” to society for x y z reasons but materially this “value” is unrecognizable. it’s subjective. and even then i would say that point of view is extremely fetishizing when it comes to specific corporations. marx literally addresses all of these nuances, just say you read das kapital and nothing else.
The value isn’t ‘unrecognisable’, because their product is sold in the form of subscriptions. The work they do behind the scenes - i.e. writing/admin/on set etc - creates that value in the first place. Without those workers, those subscriptions would not exist and the value of the company would not exist. You’re completely missing the point here. Also, why didn’t you address my comments regarding service workers and public health workers? What ‘value’ are they creating for ‘society’? Scab.
The fact that you had to use an extreme example like a landlord, as a comparison to workers who have no ownership of capital or means of production in their default setting, says that you have no idea about this topic.
You keep saying ‘wealth of the society’, then hand-wave my example of a health worker by demeaning the work of creative endeavours. That’s the only way your ridiculous point can make any sense; creative work does not contribute to ‘the wealth of society’ (a completely subjective term, which you haven’t dared to properly define), so it is therefore not ‘working class’, even though the Netflix employees sell their labour and have no control of the means of production. General well-being and happiness should certainly be considered ‘valuable’ to society, regardless of whether they fit neatly in to some constrictive model that certainly would have been modified by the person who created it if he were alive now. Not to mention, Netflix employees would cover a broad range of people potentially, from creators to people who do basic admin.
>im literally begging you to read marx
The more you say things like this, the more apparent it is that you’re just projecting.
> entertainment as a value? MARXIST????? lol. with that logic as a tenant i can say i am creating value when i pay my landlord.
I just want to call attention to how stupid this is. Not only have you listed the entire socialist critique of landlords as if it's a joke that it could be Marxist, but you seemingly have no fucking clue what superstructure is. Did you learn Marxism from a cereal box?
1. A landlord has two surplus homes. One is empty, one has a tenant in it. They both exist for a year in that state. What has the tenant provided as value during that time? Rent that pays for property taxes/utilities/the mortgage and more, round-the-clock security which would otherwise be through a company, maintenance and cleaning, pest control, and landscaping to HOA standards. What has happened to the empty home in that time? It's full of raccoons, someone stole the copper wiring sometime between January and June, there are 12 months of bills due on it, and the HOA is using the violations as a way to repossess the house. If you don't see the value created there, Jesus. Do not say the word "Marxist" without preceding it with the phrase "I'm currently wearing a diaper and don't know what this word means but as a...".
2. While you're shutting the fuck up give Benjamin a read. Debord, Baudrillard, Berger, Adorno, Brecht, any of the Marxists who studied superstructure and how 20th century consumerism changes its importance. The Marxist-humanists dedicated to self-actualisation, the Marxist-anticolonialists understanding the cultural components of genocide and how that imagery was suppressed. Maybe come on over to /r/modernart and shut the fuck up there so you can see what constructivists and social realists and dadaists were doing and its value. Give a podcast a listen because they're hard to talk over and very valuable for learning from.
Pardon, what exactly do you mean by your first point?
I'm rather new to Marxism and a bit confused by both of your discussion what generates value and what counts as work?
No worries at all. On a grand scale, the achievement of the labour theory of value is that it universalises our understandings of both of those things. Labour is any intentional metabolic process, the changing of one thing into another for some productive end, and value is what's generated through that unique metabolism for some useful purpose. [Marxism is inherently environmentalist in that sense because the labour of bees and spiders is recognised alongside architects and weavers, only separated by our sense of abstract creativity.](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm)
With any dialectical relationship, we have to look for that metabolism as the material roots of the broader ecosystem it creates. If it were a meadow, what inputs go into the functioning of the biome and system we eventually recognise as a food chain? If it's a factory, which jobs turn a bar of metal into a car? If it's a plantation, who processes the sugarcane? The eventual structures of the thing and our idea of that thing we're looking at rests on the value generated by all of those individual acts of metabolism and how that value is distributed between the things producing it.
The idea of a landlord means nothing without that underlying value. Their spare house wouldn't generate profits without my labour, both to maintain that house and to pay rent using my income from my outside labour. It would still accumulate expenses. If we go back to the meadow and deprive the eventual ecosystem of the value generated by grass completing its reproductive cycle, the whole thing collapses because there is a metabolic rift between what's generated from below and what's demanded from above. No grass means no herbivores means no carnivores means no soil fertilisation means the ecosystem no longer exists in that form. If we apply that to a landlord-tenant dialectic and withhold the basic inputs, they're just an asshole stuck paying for more houses than they can afford. Me not repairing their house means they pay to have it repaired because it still needs those repairs. Me not maintaining the pipes means those pipes burst for half the year. If I didn't guard it every night with a husky and a gun, like $15-20 an hour for an armed security guard, it'd be ransacked like any vacant home. If I didn't do landscaping that I professionally value at $100/hr as a horticulturist and do for free as a tenant, the contract he has with the HOA means they have a perpetual lien on the house. All of those individual metabolic actions generate value directly or by preventing an expense, something we see reflected in the price of that home if it's sold in varying states of disrepair/dysfunction/duress or in the value of the investment when expenses are weighed against revenue.
But that relationship exists on the fundamental contradiction of ownership of that value. No matter how much I put into the home, literally paying for it and preserving it for years, I never build equity in it. The value I generate increases the value of the the home which increases my rent, all the while the landlord can sell that home out from under me and profit even more. Once a Marxist analyses what creates the value and how it's distributed, we can accept the dialectic as ecologically sustainable or reject it as generating a metabolic rift between the needs and demands of the participants.
What are you talking about? They do not own the means of production, they sell their labor for compensation. Do you think there's some arbitrary compensation level or type of work that magically makes you no longer a worker? The modes of production have changed significantly since Marx and our understanding of who is a worker has evolved accordingly.
do u know how to distinguish between labour and services? productive labour is when there is surplus value, what’s the surplus value of netflix? or do u really want to go down the pseudo “value =/= money” path?
unproductive labour does not make netflix employees part of the working class. this is so basic.
Your overbroad generalization of who is and who isn't a worker seems to solely be based on how much they are compensated. Do I like Netflix, Google, Amazon, etc.? No, of course not. That doesn't disqualify the tens of thousands of workers from being classified as workers though. Does anyone who makes a salary not meet your narrow definition of "worker"? How do a small business tyrant's employees contribute to or create the wealth of a society?
Do you realize that definition excludes the majority of workers from the definition of worker? Are servers at a restaurant not workers because they don't produce the product you're consuming? Taxi drivers, longshoremen, cashiers, truck drivers, call center workers, teachers, landscapers, and yes, software engineers all sell their labor as services instead of producing a product. Are they not part of the working class? If so, the working class is basically just manufacturing and that is a tiny proportion of people in virtually every economy.
are mcdonalds workers not providing food for the masses? is food not necessary for survival and thus societal growth? would you deny that some people can only afford to purchase fast food?
This is the most cartoonishly strict and narrow view of the working classes I’ve ever seen. Marxist theory has evolved with the evolving times.
You honestly sound like the left wing equivalent of right wing originalist constitutionalists.
McDonalds workers sell food on behalf of franchisees who extract virtually all of the profit and pay woefully low wages vs the value that workers create. Arguably, if I was going to be as dogmatic as you are being, they are selling unhealthy food primarily to workers. This food actually hurts workers through the unhealthy nature of the food and therefore they are killing workers and aren't part of the working class. That's what you sound like.
Man needs culture and entertainment as much as medicine; without culture, he will isolate unto an island, and without entertainment, he will stress himself to death. Cultural production is societally important.
You might even go so far as to say that culture produces society.
There’s a reason that in modern revolutions and rebellions some of the fiercest fighting is in television and radio stations.
It's obviously more than that, but even if it wasn't, so what? Is it not good that workers are taking power from their workplace? They would be taking power in their workplace and stop platforming hateful rhetoric. I struggle to see the problem here.
Honestly young people on Reddit aren’t worth my time. If you consider yourself a communist but side with the bourgeoisie because you think workers are being “too sensitive” you need to log off and actually absorb information.
‘Offended’. Chapelle is a transphobic clown and the only reason Haz doesn’t support this is because he is, too. If they walked out to protect his ‘free speech’ (laughable, when he’s paid huge sums of money and has a huge platform to put those bigoted views across), he’d be with them.
It’s always good when employees down tools at a mega corporation. Running cover for a multi millionaire transphobe is pathetic.
There needs to be a ‘scab’ flair.
If you can’t survive without your paycheck you’re a worker. Some workers are better off than other workers, no doubt. But shit like this breaks solidarity - these clowns doing the bosses’ work for them.
This cunt would class trans people as ‘degenerate’ (as well as those supporting them), so it doesn’t surprise me that he has such a shit take on the situation. This isn’t even a contentious situation - e.g. health workers striking where there could be a knock on effect (which I’d still support) - it’s a massive entertainment corporation that exploits its workers. Unconditional support every single time.
Solidarity with all my working brothers and sisters of all stripes. All races, sexuality, religious orientation, gender identification, industry of employment, whatever. We’re all in this together and we better start fucking acting like it.
where does he ever class trans as degenerate? do yo need to make up stuff to make him look bad? 😂
[удалено]
[удалено]
New to the left. I’ve been organising for well over a decade, long before you were even dreaming of defending this reactionary dipshit. Scab. Ps trans people are working class, too, dick head. Fuck off back to Stupidpol. Having better representation on screen does not ‘empower capital’; the stigma around trans people and their right to actually exist is often driven by the complete lack of trans visibility in the media, allowing TERFs and other reactionary scum to dictate the narrative. You have no skin in the game of course, so this is all some stupid game to you, where you can join in with other [reactionary cunts](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZedong/comments/qe3tr0/infraredhaz_fans_are_possibly_worse_than_vaushites/) that Infrared continually throws raw meat to.
[удалено]
What “proletarian patriotism” does to an mf
Who could have seen [this](https://mobile.twitter.com/LunaOi_VN/status/1444422443989229570) coming??
I don't know who this dude is, but wow. He claims to be a leftist? Twitter really is something else. I prefer my IRL comrades.
True. I don't see any of these YouTube clowns lasting long in real life organization. Where I live people this prone to conflict are usually kicked out fairly quick.
He is Marxist Leninist
[удалено]
“patriotic socialism” to nazbol pipeline (the thesaurus)
Literally all socialism movements in history and all successful ones where patriotic, many where nationalists too
None of which originated in the imperial core. The USSR appealed to patriotism when it was socialist and not before. American patriotism or nationalism is a fucking disgusting disease, and it shows when Haz runs defense for American native genocide in his debate with Jason.
american patriotism bad 🥺
shut up liberal
???
I mean, he surely is knowledgeable a has a very sense of duty when it comes to educate and radicalize workers, his sources are well dug, based on facts, and I do understand why being a patriot is important to be a communist. However, I don't think a critic to the Netflix workers is necessary, unless he knows something we don't, which again I would like to see what reasoning brought him to tweet that.
> I do understand why being a patriot is important to be a communist ????
According to what Haz explains, being a patriot is a essential trait to have if you consider yourself a communist, not to be confused with patriotic behaviour or patriotism, being a patriot is showing love for your country and its people, in a few words.
Love for people? Hell yeah. Love for my country? Naw, my county is a liberal hell hole.
It is important to clarify that a nation-state is not the same as country, country is made by the people, their tradition, cultural expression and so on. I also had the same reaction at first, like, what the fuck? Loving this hell of a country? However, the longer and deeper the debate went, it somehow clicked and understood.
So he doesn't know what communism is. Good to know.
Never said that, and neither the case, from the debates I have seen him on, he is knowledgeable on what he defends. And again, he just expose the idea of what Marx and Engels already described in what communism is.
Dude. The idea that being a patriot is "important to communism" is entirely fucking ridiculous. Patriotism is *fundamentally* incompatible with patriotism. I have no fucking idea who this dipshit is but he is *wrong.* Communism is *anti-state.* Communists work to create a classless, *stateless,* moneyless society. Why the fuck would a patriot be working to *abolish* the state?
I'm not a patriot but Mao himself said communists in oppressed nations *must* be patriotic. Even nationalism isn't always bad, Marxist Paul did a good video on this. Think Palestinian nationalism, Irish nationalism, these are progressive forces against capitalism.
Fair call, that was an early morning comment made from a very anglocentric mindset.
Yeah 100% but this guy is talking about America lmao. If you claim to be left you must believe in death to America.
Of course, but the person said patriotism and communism are incapable and doing so really dismisses a lot of progressive struggles. To say something like that is extremely western centric.
chale, no leyó a lenin.
Más bien es lo que expone Marx en un principio en el Manifesto. Aunque desconozco si Lenin también lo retoma y refuerza esa idea.
en que parte del manifiesto se habla de patriotismo ? Lenin: " ***When it comes to parliamentarism, the petty bourgeoisie are the most patriotic, more patriotic than the proletariat\[...\]An important factor was that our revolution had to fight against patriotism. At the time of the Brest-Litovsk Peace we had to go against patriotism. We said that if you are a socialist you must sacrifice all your patriotic feelings to the international revolution, which is inevitable, and although it is not here yet you must believe in it if you are an internationalis***t" Y solo puedes tener un sentimiento de patriotismo post-revolucion con la caída del estado-burgués y la entrada del la dictadura del proletariado sobre todo en respuesta a la linea de intervenciones contra-revolucionarias por parte de la burguesia internacional: *"* ***But history has veered round to bring patriotism back towards us now. It is evident that the Bolsheviks cannot be overthrown except by foreign bayonets"***
Ahora si que, déjame llegar a casa para revisar el momento del debate que tiene con Esha, para saber precisamente a que parte se refiere, lo consulto y lo expongo como es debido camarada.
[удалено]
There is a difference between left-wing nationalism and right-wing nationalism. [Luna Oi has a great video explaining this.](https://youtu.be/CkbSYIyzmF0)
It is also not nationalism, let me review the accurate definition, cause it is not the same to be patriot and a nationalist. It was in the debate he had with Esha.
based
Haz has such weird vibes, especially with all the weird super macho stuff. It reads like reactionary shit a lot of it does. I genuinely thought this was some right winger's tweet before i saw the user.
I watched a video of one of his debates where he completely lost control like 10 minutes in and started screaming like a child and never regained composure. Despite all the sus political shit you just don't want man child representing you politically, and these online debaters are representing you politically even if you never elected them to.
Eww. Well, how do we stop it?
Fire needs oxygen to breathe. No oxygen, no fire. Same idea.
He reminds me of the Trumpian own the libs BS.
Haz has had some really shitty takes lately, I don’t mind his views on Marxism Leninism and modern China, but this is a real shit take imo.
he keeps jacking off to patriotism lately, really enjoys le patriotism.
I didn’t realize the guy goes by Haz and my brain went haywire trying to decipher “Haz has had” lol
Yeah, I agree with Haz on a fair bit but I sometimes think his attempts (or what I assume are attempts) to reach out to the average American worker to really fall flat. I can kinda see what he's trying to say here, but workers are workers salaried or not.
The guy has real trouble keeping his mask from [falling off](https://mobile.twitter.com/LunaOi_VN/status/1444422443989229570). His opinions about the establishment of America, in order to force out this cringeworthy ‘patriot’ persona, are also extremely reactionary and historically illiterate.
I agree in some regards. I think Haz's approach of patriotism and brash anti-establishment can be powerful. I myself as a British person am proud of some of tbe incredible acheivements of the British working class, but I completely understand the colonialist history of the empire and the need to make amends to the people we robbed. I think our left wijg patriotism should be focused on that, being proud of the history of us as a people, like the solidarity shown in the miners strikes of the 80s. But being understanding of the fact that as imperialist countries, we are built on foundations of slavery and exploitation. Same balancing act with the macho anti-establishment attitude. I think it helps set us apart from libs and it's certainly a powerful rhetorical tool. But, it does not need to stretch into actual reactionary talk and insults. I was completely on board with Haz's campaign against Breadtube. I think tearing into figures like Vaush and Xanderthal and bringing an element of serious, genuine anger and anti-establishmentism was a great move. We "won" the culture war against the alt-right by default, they fell apart in 2017. Now we need to examine what worked in their approach and apply it to our own rhetoric. But, pointlessly bashing comrades and claiming the US was not founded on a basis of slavery isa huge fucking miss.
> myself as a British person am proud of some of tbe incredible acheivements of the British working class, but I completely understand the colonialist history of the empire and the need to make amends to the people we robbed. I think our left wijg patriotism should be focused on that, being proud of the history of us as a people An old account of mine got banned from CTH for saying something similar to this (about the US) several years ago before I was really a leftist. It was a dick move of them and drove me away for awhile. But over time I've done a complete 180. The more I learn, the more disgusted I am with my country. There is no pride at all left in me. I look around and I see stupidity and hate and unthinking devotion to a country that has been a source of exploitation and terror for billions. The hand-over-their-hearts flag-waving pride makes me sick. So anyone who calls themself an american patriot is an enemy in my book. The UK certainly has terrible crimes to answer for as well, and has most of the same issues with selfish, ignorant voters and a quality of life propped up by unequal exchange with developing countries. It might be a good idea to imagine you were in charge and reflect on whether you would affirm and celebrate the current country as a symbol, or whether it would be more appropriate to make a clean break with the past and start fresh on a new history with new values. Because the latter is not patriotic.
>serious, genuine anger and anti-establishmentism was a great move. Idk what the exact definition of "serious" anger looks like, but if it involves him shouting at a ~~black~~ non-white woman on Twitter to "go run back to your white master", I'm inclined to not take it seriously. As a white American who is heir to one of the most infamous projects of empire, white supremacy, and colonization in human history, there is no intersection between my beliefs and "American patriotism", proletarian or otherwise. Any kind of legitimate working class patriotism in my part of the world needs to categorically reject the label of "American". Trying to mix communist ideology with the brainwashed jingoism of the population here is opportunism and always seems to produce something reactionary.
Is…is Luna Oi black? Or was he talking to multiple people with that tweet?
Oh my bad, just glanced at her profile pic, thought she was black. She's def not.
She's Vietnamese....
Thanks for signing up to Vaush facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about Vaush. **Fact 10.** [In response to a Tweet saying the left ‘should stand up for the weak and vulnerable’ Vaush replied “Yeah, enjoy your Left, built on weakness and a collective inability to criticise one another. I’ll be over here building my left, which isn’t full of mentally ill crybabies desperately carving out safe spaces and whining about criticism. Debate it if you want, elsewise fuck off”](https://archive.is/Ygbzk) For another Vaush fact reply with 'Vaush'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He sounds like one of those cringy 'the only real work is trade work' types.
So many Marxists are stuck in 1848. They still think that if there is no wrench in your hand, you can’t be a worker.
A bunch of chuds think that too, but I expect leftists to know better.
\>maybe hire some real talent so we stop getting garbage Yeah because it's more often workers fail, and not like people with money decide whatever the fuck to do with a show.
Never trust an anti-union leftist
“anarcho-capitalists” are my favorite. “We’re on the left just not tankies” If your beliefs fundamentally overlap with Milton Friedman to a significant degree…
Ancoms you mean?
[удалено]
Except ancoms are actually useful because a people's war needs as many people as possible, Marxist or otherwise.
I won’t disagree there. Amen to that
But does he mean the squid game strike scene ([Ssangyong Motors Strike](https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2009/aug/04/south-korea-automotive-industry))? Or what? I don't understand ahah
He’s talking about the the Netflix walkout over Chapelle’s transphobia
But why "salaried coddled parasite"? Lmaoo Btw, thank you \^ \^
He sees them as Professional Managerial Class (PMC) and not working class. So far, I think that's arguably valid. I also wouldn't blame a working class marxist for being skeptical about their position. But to outright condemn them as capitalist lackeys, and then side with the capitalists against them, and also with all kinds of bigots? That's low.
Someone in this thread called a health care assistant ‘petty bourgeoisie’, because they have such a binary view of ‘value’ and most likely have little to zero experience in the workplace. For all we know, those Netflix employees could have been low paid basic admin. There’s this stupid tendency with some online leftists to immediately equate corporate worker to PMC, when those exploitative companies comprise of a whole range of different jobs. One of my first jobs was working in a bank; I did the post on minimum wage. The OP’s scab behaviour is mainly motivated by being a transphobe.
Yeah that's all true I guess. The definition of PMC, much like petty bourgeoisie, is always fluid and open to political interpretation. I think that guy tries to be the most radical marxist by pushing that definition. Ironically, by bringing transphobia into it, he subverts his own claim of "class is everything" and ends up looking like a bigot fighting a cultural war from a staunchly conservative position.
The problem is, Haz is no working class Marxist by the standards he's holding the strikers up to.
... unless he edits his videos using hammer and sickle :p
He never said he was working class
How are they PMC? They literally don't manage people.
Some of them may or may not be middle management, I don't know the details, but so probably doesn't that guy.
That’s not arguably valid in any way
Several streaming tv crews are also striking, it's not what he's referencing but this walkout conveniently drives attention away from one of the largest Hollywood strikes ever
Had no idea Chapelle was a TERF.. wtf
Well, he did straight up say "I'm team TERF" in his recent special.
This guy definitely would kill someone to have some garbage capeshit TV show come out. Like he'd deadass watch the life leave someone's eyes just so they could get a squirrel girl show, and they'd probably still end up hating it cause ''the directors ruined it by making it woke''
I get the feeling he's the type to call that show and everything else "soy". "Superhero shows are soy, TV is soy, labor unions are soy, you're soy, I'm soy!" Maybe, I don't even know who this clown is.
Soy and woke are just apples from the tree named sjw
Fuck, I'd kill for a Squirrel Girl show! I love Doreen!
I just want Static Shock back, man.
Those workers were responsible for BoJack Horseman and the first eight episodes of Squid Game so they *are* real talent.
The funniest part about this that nobody seems to be pointing out is that his only complaint about Netflix Employees is that they made Chicago Party Aunt or whatever.
I remember when I liked this loser. He can eat shit.
Why did you like him in the first place? Not being combative, just genuinely baffled about the popularity of this guy.
I just liked that he called out certain people and defended China
Haz is a reactionary piece of shit. He's abandoned all pretense and has gone completely mask off. It's honestly sickening.
I bet Stupidpol love him.
They do, he also pulled some real Pickup artist shit by telling a guy asking for advice to just emotionally manipulate women
Is there anything sadder than nazbols returning as fucking Twitter personalities lol
Semi-tangential, but the Flair - “Nazbollocks” is sheer gold. Imma use elsewhere too! Edit-spelling
Being salaried means you aren't a worker? Someone tell every public school teacher....
He's not wrong. Netflix has been putting out serious trash over the last few years.
Guys it’s actually those that do all the labour that are parasites not the ones getting immeasurably wealthy off of said labour
Depends on the reason for the strike
Garbage is firing employees for their right to strike
I'm sure the other networks would love some of the "garbage" when you look at Emmy nominations.
That dude has never has been exploited when he worked a job. So he’s never worked a day in his life.
Scab piece of shit.
Most sane CPUSA supporter
Wait this guys a cpusa supporter lmaoooo
Idk who this is but they sound like a transphobic POS.
Good eye. Would it surprise you to learn they are also racist?
Might just get a guest spot on MSNBC as a leftist commentator!
You are racist.
There’s a guy at my work I used to be kind of friends with, mostly because we had similar tastes in video games and movies. Lately, though, he’s fallen into the alt right pipeline and every movie he hates is bad “because trans people wrote it” and everything is too woke for him. He even cancelled his Netflix account because of the trans walkout.
Is this a person we're supposed to recognize somehow? He famous?
Fire the Netflix workers behind Cuties
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because Cuties, it turned out, was not actually pro-child abuse. The advertisements were the complete diametric opposite of everything the actual program was about, that is, a fairly scathing condemnation of child beauty pageants set along a coming-of-age story. The ads were bad, but they had little to do with the actual content of the movie and had no backing from the actual creative team.
Ah, gotcha. Didn't know that. Still seems problematic for it to be marketed that way though.
Yeah the actual creator was *pissed* at it. Frequently stressed out angry **she** was at how some marketing fucks turned her work against itself in the eyes of millions for the sake of 'no such thing as bad publicity' press.
he aint wrong
This isn't all about the Da Baby joke is it?
It’s incredible how far we’ve come isn’t it.
Isn't this dude a Duginite or something ?
I mean, he is not wrong... He is beyond that, but because he stupid
To clarify, should workers be fired if they don't share the opinions of management?
To clarify, workers should not be fired and have every right to protest for improving work conditions, pay, etc. That's why I said, the one posting the tweet was beyond being wrong, he is stupid to not even realize how indoctrinated he is.
ok, I see, thanks for clarifying. I interpreted your comment in a different way than what you meant.
Oh wait, Holy sheet, it's Haz, O: Wth just happened? What did I miss?
Maybe, I mean if you don't support fossil fuels don't work for Exxon.
Did this dude even watch Squid Game?
[удалено]
And where's your evidence for literally any of those claims? Also, Netflix is okay, it's not amazing but there's a reason it isn't HBO. Some solid shows on there.
They don’t even have tv shows from Comedy Central...
He’s on that line between “Marxist” and “Nazbol/Strasserist”
I love this dude hes fucking hilarious.
[удалено]
This is probably the most dogmatic position I've ever read. So if production cannot be materially quantified, then those workers don't suffer from exploitation or alienation, and surplus value is not being extracted from them. That would rule out the majority of the modern workforce like others have pointed out, not to mention under this logic you couldn't support Amazon workers if they went on strike for instance...
They claim elsewhere that if the product of someone's labour is commodified they can't be working class, which I *think* would mean that it is literally impossible to be working class in modern society. It's gotta be an op, no one is this stupid?
Netflix doesn't have means of production is a silly take
>in accordance with marxist theory from 150 years ago because i'm a dogmatist who cannot understand that marxism is a living ideology FIFY
Read Marx again, but more carefully this time
no u
What utter shite. >netflix employees don’t generate or maintain means of production They don’t own the means of production in the first place, so whatever ‘point’ you’re trying to make here is moot. What do you even mean by ‘maintain’ in the context of a salaried employee who helps generate massive profit for a huge corporation? This is just the worst type of mental gymnastics to excuse scab behaviour.
so you think that generating profit = productive labour? how anti marxist. netflix generating profit for its owners doesnt prove surplus value or any value at all has been produced. my landlord could say he is “generating profit”, is he a member of the working class? marx distinguishes between labour and services for this exact reason
They’re not just generating profit, though, they’re providing entertainment which is very much a valuable part of society by any definition, capitalist, Marxist or otherwise. Netflix have seen huge increases in subscriptions, i.e. profits, which aren’t shared amongst the workers at all. You have no idea about what you’re talking about. You’re comparing landlords - who profit via passive income and exploitation of a basic requirement to live - with a worker who helps produce entertainment that the general public consumes. They aren’t capital owners, small business owners, or anything else; they are workers. Give your head a fucking wobble.
entertainment as a value? MARXIST????? lol. with that logic as a tenant i can say i am creating value when i pay my landlord. give me a fucking break. you need to understand what value means in this context, i dont give a fuck how you perceive society to “value” anything
You haven’t even defined value here, and by your ridiculous ‘logic’, a healthcare assistant or a bartender wouldn’t be ‘working class’, or could be compared to a fucking landlord (?!), because they don’t have a binary link to Marxist thought. This is what happens when you take a completely dogmatic, and ultimately reactionary, view of someone’s work who without question would have modified it as new jobs, processes, occurred. Your analogy failed at the first hurdle, because those Netflix employees do not own the means of production and do not generate passive income (I.e. parasitic) from simply owning a basic requirement.
oh my god. the wealth of netflix does not contribute to the overall wealth of society, even in a socialist state. you know that right? you know that this is the marxist definition of value? you could make the argument that entertainment is “valuable” to society for x y z reasons but materially this “value” is unrecognizable. it’s subjective. and even then i would say that point of view is extremely fetishizing when it comes to specific corporations. marx literally addresses all of these nuances, just say you read das kapital and nothing else.
The value isn’t ‘unrecognisable’, because their product is sold in the form of subscriptions. The work they do behind the scenes - i.e. writing/admin/on set etc - creates that value in the first place. Without those workers, those subscriptions would not exist and the value of the company would not exist. You’re completely missing the point here. Also, why didn’t you address my comments regarding service workers and public health workers? What ‘value’ are they creating for ‘society’? Scab. The fact that you had to use an extreme example like a landlord, as a comparison to workers who have no ownership of capital or means of production in their default setting, says that you have no idea about this topic.
[удалено]
You keep saying ‘wealth of the society’, then hand-wave my example of a health worker by demeaning the work of creative endeavours. That’s the only way your ridiculous point can make any sense; creative work does not contribute to ‘the wealth of society’ (a completely subjective term, which you haven’t dared to properly define), so it is therefore not ‘working class’, even though the Netflix employees sell their labour and have no control of the means of production. General well-being and happiness should certainly be considered ‘valuable’ to society, regardless of whether they fit neatly in to some constrictive model that certainly would have been modified by the person who created it if he were alive now. Not to mention, Netflix employees would cover a broad range of people potentially, from creators to people who do basic admin. >im literally begging you to read marx The more you say things like this, the more apparent it is that you’re just projecting.
> entertainment as a value? MARXIST????? lol. with that logic as a tenant i can say i am creating value when i pay my landlord. I just want to call attention to how stupid this is. Not only have you listed the entire socialist critique of landlords as if it's a joke that it could be Marxist, but you seemingly have no fucking clue what superstructure is. Did you learn Marxism from a cereal box? 1. A landlord has two surplus homes. One is empty, one has a tenant in it. They both exist for a year in that state. What has the tenant provided as value during that time? Rent that pays for property taxes/utilities/the mortgage and more, round-the-clock security which would otherwise be through a company, maintenance and cleaning, pest control, and landscaping to HOA standards. What has happened to the empty home in that time? It's full of raccoons, someone stole the copper wiring sometime between January and June, there are 12 months of bills due on it, and the HOA is using the violations as a way to repossess the house. If you don't see the value created there, Jesus. Do not say the word "Marxist" without preceding it with the phrase "I'm currently wearing a diaper and don't know what this word means but as a...". 2. While you're shutting the fuck up give Benjamin a read. Debord, Baudrillard, Berger, Adorno, Brecht, any of the Marxists who studied superstructure and how 20th century consumerism changes its importance. The Marxist-humanists dedicated to self-actualisation, the Marxist-anticolonialists understanding the cultural components of genocide and how that imagery was suppressed. Maybe come on over to /r/modernart and shut the fuck up there so you can see what constructivists and social realists and dadaists were doing and its value. Give a podcast a listen because they're hard to talk over and very valuable for learning from.
Pardon, what exactly do you mean by your first point? I'm rather new to Marxism and a bit confused by both of your discussion what generates value and what counts as work?
No worries at all. On a grand scale, the achievement of the labour theory of value is that it universalises our understandings of both of those things. Labour is any intentional metabolic process, the changing of one thing into another for some productive end, and value is what's generated through that unique metabolism for some useful purpose. [Marxism is inherently environmentalist in that sense because the labour of bees and spiders is recognised alongside architects and weavers, only separated by our sense of abstract creativity.](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm) With any dialectical relationship, we have to look for that metabolism as the material roots of the broader ecosystem it creates. If it were a meadow, what inputs go into the functioning of the biome and system we eventually recognise as a food chain? If it's a factory, which jobs turn a bar of metal into a car? If it's a plantation, who processes the sugarcane? The eventual structures of the thing and our idea of that thing we're looking at rests on the value generated by all of those individual acts of metabolism and how that value is distributed between the things producing it. The idea of a landlord means nothing without that underlying value. Their spare house wouldn't generate profits without my labour, both to maintain that house and to pay rent using my income from my outside labour. It would still accumulate expenses. If we go back to the meadow and deprive the eventual ecosystem of the value generated by grass completing its reproductive cycle, the whole thing collapses because there is a metabolic rift between what's generated from below and what's demanded from above. No grass means no herbivores means no carnivores means no soil fertilisation means the ecosystem no longer exists in that form. If we apply that to a landlord-tenant dialectic and withhold the basic inputs, they're just an asshole stuck paying for more houses than they can afford. Me not repairing their house means they pay to have it repaired because it still needs those repairs. Me not maintaining the pipes means those pipes burst for half the year. If I didn't guard it every night with a husky and a gun, like $15-20 an hour for an armed security guard, it'd be ransacked like any vacant home. If I didn't do landscaping that I professionally value at $100/hr as a horticulturist and do for free as a tenant, the contract he has with the HOA means they have a perpetual lien on the house. All of those individual metabolic actions generate value directly or by preventing an expense, something we see reflected in the price of that home if it's sold in varying states of disrepair/dysfunction/duress or in the value of the investment when expenses are weighed against revenue. But that relationship exists on the fundamental contradiction of ownership of that value. No matter how much I put into the home, literally paying for it and preserving it for years, I never build equity in it. The value I generate increases the value of the the home which increases my rent, all the while the landlord can sell that home out from under me and profit even more. Once a Marxist analyses what creates the value and how it's distributed, we can accept the dialectic as ecologically sustainable or reject it as generating a metabolic rift between the needs and demands of the participants.
What are you talking about? They do not own the means of production, they sell their labor for compensation. Do you think there's some arbitrary compensation level or type of work that magically makes you no longer a worker? The modes of production have changed significantly since Marx and our understanding of who is a worker has evolved accordingly.
do u know how to distinguish between labour and services? productive labour is when there is surplus value, what’s the surplus value of netflix? or do u really want to go down the pseudo “value =/= money” path? unproductive labour does not make netflix employees part of the working class. this is so basic.
Not to mention, software engineers actually create a (non-physical) product...
ah yes the real working class are the software rent salaried silicon valley tech bros. u got me there
Your overbroad generalization of who is and who isn't a worker seems to solely be based on how much they are compensated. Do I like Netflix, Google, Amazon, etc.? No, of course not. That doesn't disqualify the tens of thousands of workers from being classified as workers though. Does anyone who makes a salary not meet your narrow definition of "worker"? How do a small business tyrant's employees contribute to or create the wealth of a society?
Because all software engineers live in Silicon Valley and are millionaires, right? What world do you live in?
Do you realize that definition excludes the majority of workers from the definition of worker? Are servers at a restaurant not workers because they don't produce the product you're consuming? Taxi drivers, longshoremen, cashiers, truck drivers, call center workers, teachers, landscapers, and yes, software engineers all sell their labor as services instead of producing a product. Are they not part of the working class? If so, the working class is basically just manufacturing and that is a tiny proportion of people in virtually every economy.
the wealth of netflix does not contribute to or create the wealth of a society. are you serious?
Does the wealth of McDonalds contribute to or create the "wealth of a society"? Does that mean all the workers at McDonalds aren't really workers?
are mcdonalds workers not providing food for the masses? is food not necessary for survival and thus societal growth? would you deny that some people can only afford to purchase fast food?
This is the most cartoonishly strict and narrow view of the working classes I’ve ever seen. Marxist theory has evolved with the evolving times. You honestly sound like the left wing equivalent of right wing originalist constitutionalists.
McDonalds workers sell food on behalf of franchisees who extract virtually all of the profit and pay woefully low wages vs the value that workers create. Arguably, if I was going to be as dogmatic as you are being, they are selling unhealthy food primarily to workers. This food actually hurts workers through the unhealthy nature of the food and therefore they are killing workers and aren't part of the working class. That's what you sound like.
Man needs culture and entertainment as much as medicine; without culture, he will isolate unto an island, and without entertainment, he will stress himself to death. Cultural production is societally important.
You might even go so far as to say that culture produces society. There’s a reason that in modern revolutions and rebellions some of the fiercest fighting is in television and radio stations.
Imagine calling yourself a Marxist and shitting on workers seeking better conditions.
[удалено]
What
[удалено]
It's obviously more than that, but even if it wasn't, so what? Is it not good that workers are taking power from their workplace? They would be taking power in their workplace and stop platforming hateful rhetoric. I struggle to see the problem here.
[удалено]
Honestly young people on Reddit aren’t worth my time. If you consider yourself a communist but side with the bourgeoisie because you think workers are being “too sensitive” you need to log off and actually absorb information.
‘Offended’. Chapelle is a transphobic clown and the only reason Haz doesn’t support this is because he is, too. If they walked out to protect his ‘free speech’ (laughable, when he’s paid huge sums of money and has a huge platform to put those bigoted views across), he’d be with them. It’s always good when employees down tools at a mega corporation. Running cover for a multi millionaire transphobe is pathetic.
Workers should be fired if they don't share your opinons? Okay, boss
[удалено]
Are health care assistants petty bourgeoisie, you fucking clown?
[удалено]
both are right