"Happy Amazon Employee" lmaooo

i'm glad that s*** has 212k likes and also saw it on other platforms too

put a malcolm x quote on the whiteboard in the break room cause they wanted “inspiring quotes for black history month” but no one wrote anything in February

Briefly mentioned Mao and Stalin in an assignment which greatly upset my prof, gave me a lower mark than usual and left salty feedback about their destructive nature this always happens smh

what a dweeb

imagine the prof reading that and just like electrically shorting out in his brain and shaking when he read mao or stalin’s name

reading Private Property and Personal Liberty in the Socialist State (Spargo) rn

14 pages

Suppose that, during the San Francisco earthquake and fire, the " owner " of a supply of food or d****, or any other vital necessity, should have clung to them, asserting his " ownership/' does any sane person believe that he would have been permitted to enforce his sacred " rights " against the need of the community ?
Nothing, not even one's pocket handkerchief, can be said to be exempt from this ultimate power of society. If, therefore, one's
handkerchief is not taken away from him, it is simply because the community does not desire to take it. In the last a***ysis,
private property is an abstraction. It consists of nothing more than a relation between the community and the citizen, and rests
upon nothing more tangible than community good-will.

excerpt ^

what do yall think

Furthermore, in the development of capitalist society the substance of private property tends to disappear, quite irrespective of the enforcement of the ultimate powers of ownership by society.

Prior to the formation of joint-stock companies, in the era-of individual capitals, the investor who invested his money in a ship or a factory could say that the ship or the factory belonged to him. But with the coming of the joint-stock company and the development of the great industrial corporations, that could not be said.

Suppose X to be a shareholder in a corporation which owns a cotton-mill. There are a thousand shareholders owning between them the ten thousand shares of stock of the corporation. X owns ten shares. But he does not own a one-thousandth part of the physical properties of the cotton-mill in any real sense.

He could not, for instance, go into the mill and say: "Here are a thousand looms: one belongs to me. I will take it away." What X really owns is a one-thousandth part of every brick in the building, not a single whole brick; a one-thousandth part of
each cog in every machine, but not a single whole wheel; a one thousandth part of every yard of cotton, but not a single yard of actual cotton.

X could not realize his own property, separate it from that of the other nine-hundred and ninety-nine shareholders and do as he pleased with it. To get at his one-thousandth part of a brick, he must destroy the whole brick. To actually realize his own property as a physical entity, he must destroy it and the property of his fellows.

And then, paradoxically (for the whole capitalist system is a paradox), he does not realize it at all. When he has destroyed the brick and extracted his one thousandth part of it, he does not own a one-thousandth part of a brick, but only some fragments of burned clay.

I thought this part was particularly helpful ^

@Cudderwalks @Synopsis @cut @Come_to_BR

Similarly, in the case of the farmer with a small farm, and of the craftsman with his own tools, or of groups of workers working co-operatively, there is no exploitation; no surplus value is extracted from their labor by any outside parties.
Consequently, being neither exploited nor exploiters, their independent self-employment is quite consistent with Socialism.

This short writing is helpful in explaining private vs. personal property i see many people on this site itself not understanding that concept.

it does talk a lot about railroads and s*** so it is a bit dated, also doesn't account for the US delving further and further into exploitative capitalism at the point in time as opposed to other nations

I think its early 20th century writing

sober truth, it must be said that capitalism has created,
and could not exist without, the very bureaucracy it charges Socialism with attempting to foist upon the nation.

mans said neofeudalism

yeah some reactionaries with the weird idea that under Marxism someone could just walk into your house and use it without asking

I'll peep - thanks

jstor.org/stable/25106378?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

How do you guys itt feel about guns in the United States?

Specifically automatic rifles.

Do you think what Marx had to say about the working class being armed is still relevant?

ofc its still relevant. an unarmed working class is powerless to participate in revolution, but even then we know gun control measures would actually just end up hurting black and brown gun owners and working class gun owners as well

what america needs is to get rid of its gun culture, address mental health, etc.,