No.1798482
>>1798481I honestly don't think it was ever really that bad, more of an easy cliche.
No.1798484
i played disco elysium too
No.1798491
>>1798482ok maybe it isn't that bad, I'm just curious of any commentary on it to the extent it exists.
No.1798504
Unions aren't leftists nor are they revolutionary
No.1798545
It's kind of a moot point since the organized crime groups that were influential in unions (mainly the Italian mob) have declined dramatically since their heyday in the 50s-60s.
No.1798548
>>1798541whats wrong with tenant unions??
No.1798599
>>1798597we should abolish the mob
No.1798647
>>1798599The mob will eventually wither away
No.1798667
>>1798481Off topic but I just started watching The Sopranos a couple weeks ago have people always been posting it this much or am I just noticing it now?
No.1798681
>>1798667It gets posted a lot yeah but you probably just didn't recognise the characters
No.1798943
>>1798667Lots of zoomers/gen alpha have started watching it because it got added on netflix or something a few month ago. Theres a thousand of soprano clip reposts on tiktok with millions of views.
No.1799410
Labor racketeering and capitalist collaboration with organized crime is not a small affair, and is the source of much reaction.
No.1799461
>>1798548Labour unions are associations of producers of value, tenant and student "unions" are associations of consumers of services. The prior is potentially revolutionary for a strike of producers halts capital itself, the latter necessarily reformist, because at best they get cheaper rent or student bills.
No.1799466
>>1799455Waiting for Bonnot
No.1799467
>>1799461reformism isn't inherently bad though. aggressive reforms to landlordism would bring us closer to socialism
No.1799470
>>1799467lol you know "aggressive reforms to landlordism" also benefits the petit bourgeois right?
No.1799473
>>1799467>reformism isn't inherently bad thoughyes, yes it is, anon
>aggressive reformsno such thing. you either completely subdue the capitalists or you are still sailing on capital
No.1799476
>>1799470How? Most petit bourgs own their own homes already
No.1799479
>>1799476They rent the properties for their mom and pop shops you moron
No.1799480
>>1799479tenant unions don't include commercial properties though, they're already governed under completely different rules
No.1799487
>>1799461>students>consumers of servicesmarketbrained nonsense
No.1799490
>>1799461most of the people in tenants unions are also the kind of people who would benefit from labor unions and most of the arguments with regards to the inherent economism of tenants unions also apply to labor unions, and tenants unions also have the benefit of "bringing together proletarians in struggle" even if they're usually from a range of employment types, which if anything is a good thing. if you were bourgeois enough to not need proletarian organization you'd own your own home.
No.1799519
>>1799470Same with education reforms pushed by student unions. The offsprings of the petit-bourgeoisie welcome your ideas of letting student debts go or restructuring the education system. The race through higher education is for managerial (incl. PMC) jobs anyway. The '68 student movemwnts failed and were reincorporated into capitalism for a reason.
No.1799520
>>1799490>if you were bourgeois enough to not need proletarian organization you'd own your own home.why do you all act like the petit bourgeois do not exist lol
>>1799487yes we live under capitalism wow, you cant do material analysis ignoring that
No.1799521
>>1799480The topic was general rent reform. Besides, I'm pretty sure a shitton of Western p-bourgs rent their apartments as well.
No.1799523
>>1799487Higher education offers a service to students. A studwnt strike is not unsimilar to a brand's boycott.
No.1799527
>>1799490>inherent economism of tenants unionsPlease stop misusing clearly defined Marxist terminology. Economism is a faulty attitude towards and false expectations from labour unions, not consumer "unions".
>tenants unions also have the benefit of "bringing together proletarians in struggle" Except laboir unions ONLY associate producers while tenant "unions" are cross-class.
No.1799531
>>1799490The westoid pomo brain never ceases to entertain. Variety is in itself a boon, we are told!
>a range of employment types, which if anything is a good thing.Yeah, bringing together workers with managers is GOOD IN ITSELF, BECAUSE 2 KINDS IS INHERENTLY BETTER THAN THE BORING PROLETARIAT KIND.
No.1799535
>>1799490>even if they're usually from a range of employment types, which if anything is a good thingLmao, seriously?
No.1799545
>>1799535This is how the midwit thinks:
>The more, the merrier!This is how Marxists think:
>Class composition? Class alliegences? Class consciousness? Bourgeois elements? No.1799548
>>1799545yeah bro we're totally in a position to turn away people when marxists are like 1% of the population
No.1799550
>>1799548As a marxist it's cute you think the revolution will be led by marxists in the first place.
No.1799551
>>1799548Better fewer but better is what lenin said for a reason
No.1799552
>>1799551you can't pull off a revolution with 10000 people in 2024
No.1799553
>>1799487>marketbrained nonsenseThe irony of this post is that it is in fact YOU who are guilty of of what you are accusing others. A Marxist distinguishes producers of goods and consumers of goods, and for a "marketbrained" moron there's no difference between an association of producers and association of consumers.
Do you lack basic self-awareness?
No.1799556
>>1799548Zoomers are more and more left leaning, I've seen shitloads of young folks openly declaring themselves marxist-leninists and shit like that, I would've never dreamed of seeing something like it when I was their age.
No.1799557
>>1799556Their self declarations mean nothing, only when they get serious results can they be taken seriously
No.1799558
>>1799556the growth of left wing sentiment in the young is encouraging but not enough on its own. besides that has to be channelled into real ideology
No.1799559
>>1799548Who's this >we<, you cretin? You think like a burger democrat or a britbong Labourite: "OMG, WE CAN'T AFFORD LOSING THE STUDENT UNION VOTE!!! THAT'S A CRUCIAL DEMOGRAPHIC! VERY POPULAR WITH THE ZOOMERMILLENIALS!!!"
That communists are at 1% in your country is due to such errors you share with your clown "comrades" who tremble at the very idea of focusing on the working class EXCLUSIVELY.
No.1799563
>>1799558>the growth of left wing sentiment in the young iscompletely meaningless.
No.1799564
>>1799520>why do you all act like the petit bourgeois do not exist lolif you're living in a slum paying rent to a slumlord your income is statistically very likely to be at a level where you're a proletarian
>>1799531>Yeah, bringing together workers with managers is GOOD IN ITSELF, BECAUSE 2 KINDS IS INHERENTLY BETTER THAN THE BORING PROLETARIAT KIND.Managers, statistically speaking, make more money and don't need tenants unions. On the other hand, proletarians in precarious gig economy/fast food/retail jobs who have too high of a turnover rate to make their professions easy to unionize usually do live in the kind of rental situations that are responsive to tenant union organizing. Either way tenants unions reduce the cost of rent, and because most of the working class rents, it improves the conditions of the working class and serves as a basis for social organization.
>>1799550>As a marxist it's cute you think the revolution will be led by marxists in the first place.If it's not led by a Marxist vanguard it's not likely to be a very successful Marxist revolution.
No.1799565
>>1799559There is no proletariat in the imperialist countries to work with
No.1799568
>>1799549Solid.
What tendency?
No.1799570
>>1799552You absolutely can if it's a military coup
No.1799573
>>1799570you can't pull that off in the modern day without mass support, the army will just keep getting orders from the original government.
No.1799574
>>1799558>has to be channelled into real ideologyInto a real movement.
No.1799576
>>1799573Mass apathy is much more important than support
No.1799579
>>1799564>Managers, statistically speaking, make more money and don't need tenants unions.Complete nonsense. As a factory worker i make minimum wage, the floor managers make 1.5x - 2x that amount. They literally can't afford to buy a flat with that money either. Your ENTIRE argument rests on the unsubstantiated (where's the data, boy?) claim and wishful scenario wherein only productive proles can',t afford their own homes.
No.1799580
>>1799564>serves as a basis for social organization.Mask off. Not even socialist organizing, let alone communist.
No.1799583
>>1799565There is, usually around 20-40% of the population, but that's not the real problem, but that they are labour aristocracy to begin with. Still, as the West crumbles, as the benefits of the golden billion leeching off of the rest of the world falters, the potential rises.
No.1799585
>>1799565Pray tell, what economic system operates within these imperialist countries? Do they make any internal use of human labor? How, exactly, do they make use of human labor?
>screeching about the viability of revolution in generalThe rise in left wing sentiment in general and the breakdown of conditions and systems in the post-neoliberal era is a sign of an opportunity forming but it will likely only come after hellish reaction and nothing can happen without adequately solving the problem of building resilient organizational systems that can wield power in a crisis. It's difficult but it's happened in the past so it might be possible.
>>1799580>Mask off. Not even socialist organizing, let alone communist.Do you think that you can do communist organizing without people organizing socially? Are you being a deliberately obtuse wrecker or are you just retarded?
No.1799590
>>1799585>Do you think that you can do communist organizing without people organizing socially?Every organization is a social organization. The bourgeois banquettes? Social orgs. Fascist clubs? Social orgs.
Consult picrel
>>1799528 and change the highlighted part to "social" - the meaning remains unchanged.
No.1799593
>>1799565All countries are imperialist under capitalism, dumbshit.
No.1799596
>>1799590A communist party is by definition a social organization. Most of the people who live in apartments are workers. Wouldn't it be beneficial for communists to "socially organize" workers who live in apartments into a communist-affiliated social organization?
No.1799597
>>1799596Do I need to point out the ideological slight of hand you pulled here or are you capable of reading comprehension (of your own text) and shame?
No.1799599
>>1799595All countries are fighting each other for a larger share of the world market. It's like claiming only some firms are competitive.
No.1799600
The MAIN FUCKING THING westoid "leftists" don't seem to understand is that the exclusive producer-focus of communists isn't a result of some kind of "purity contest" for the reason that said people to this day think in bourgeois categories like the ones provided by identity politics.
No.1799602
>>1799599I provided data, you provided platitudes. I'm ashamed FOR you.
No.1799604
>>1799602Imperialism isn't a thing you do. Like I said, companies who fail to make a profit don't stop being capitalist. As a communist it's stupid to draw a line between imperialist countries ("bad") and non-imperialist countries ("good"), if the latter existed.
No.1799606
>>1799600The fast food worker is productive, he makes a burger the same Fordist method used to make cars
No.1799607
>>1799606Nobody contested that tho
No.1799608
>>1799605Keep drawing arbitrary lines and defending bourgeois nation-states as a "communist". 👍
No.1799610
There is a pattern for unions involved in organized crime. Unions in industries that are hard to get into, like longshoremen, have this problem, but unions in industries that anybody can join, like Starbucks workers, have no organized crime.
The former group of industries is hard to get into because organized crime and existing union members don't want more workers in the industry because that will bring down wages. So their attitude is "fuck you, got mine" and they do anything they can to keep it that way.
Other unions, in low wage industries, need to put pressure on them to accept more workers. When they stop acting like an exclusive club, organized crime won't have its place in those unions. If I want to be a longshoreman, I should be allowed in.
No.1799614
Somitimes I try to read such polemic threads through the imagined eyes of burgers/anglos and expect to understand how they come up with such non-sequiturs. My fallback explanation is that you motherfuckers are embourgeoisified and spoiled idiots.
No.1799616
>>1799600>westoid<looks at chinese/japanese "communists"yea they arent doing much better over there bud
No.1799617
>>1799610Basically union aristocracies defending what privileges previous decades brought them. Don't see how the commonly understood criminality would come in. It's perfectly explainable without that elwment.
Besides, equating unions with the mafia has a long recorded history of bourgeois manipulation.
No.1799619
>>1799597>>1799600So, communists should only concern themselves in their activities with the size of the paychecks of factory workers and no other social conditions, not even the size of the rent bill of that same factory worker or the price of bread for that same factory worker? Is communism a program for the transformation of the social relations of all of society for the proletariat or is communist organizing only concerned with giving workers paycheck raises that get swallowed by rent hikes until the rapture i mean revolution changes everything else? Be serious.
No.1799623
>>1799619how did you miss the point this badly
No.1799624
>>1799623Your point is infantile and pointless.
No.1799627
>>1799619>class alliegence is due to the size of paychecks, not due to the position one occupies in the production process>the floor manager in the factory aligns with the factory owner not because his very job os to expand relative exploitation (intensity of work for the bourgeois) but because he earns moreAre you new to this communism thing?
No.1799635
>>1799627You don't think that the size of one's paycheck and your position in the production process correlate?
No.1799643
>>1799635I don't.
I worked in a factory where we had to lift 3000 kgs a workday and recieved triple the minimum wage for obv reasons.
I now work in a factory where no skill or special physical burden weighs on my shoulder and I get the minimum wage. The floor manager in this factory gets 1.5-2x the minimum wage.
According to your model, when I worked in the previous factory with min x 3 wage I was more embourgeoisified than I am now and still double embourgeoisified than my current floor manager.
Stupid, illiterate cunt.
No.1799648
>>1799635>>1799643* The ideological trick played on you is that you think that the wage in itself substitutes the position.
No.1799650
>>1799627The only mention of the "size of paychecks" was in reference to the purpose of labor unions, which if we're being honest are their only function in the real world.
No.1799657
>>1799653Which prove that labor unions, like tenants unions, have no inherent capacity within themselves that rises above a crude reformist impulse. If you want a communist element to any of these social organizations you have to add it yourself.
No.1799659
>>1799657we are back to square one, you tard
>>1799461 No.1799672
>>1799643>>1799648Do you understand the difference between a "statistical correlation that might be useful in finding potentially interested recruits" and a "fundamental essential distinction"?
>>1799659It's a meaningless distinction for the purpose of organizing a communist movement. An association of bullets can be potentially revolutionary in the hands of the communist party or potentially reactionary in the hands of a reactionary. The same can be said for an association of producers of value. Like any reformist measure, they're only potentially revolutionary while part of a communist movement that goes beyond the limited demands that formed their existence as trade unions. It's been proven by experience countless times. Syndicalism is a dead end.
No.1799680
I'm incolved in a (social) organization of anti-meat vegan consumer union and a soup kitchen. At least I'm doing something.
Can you say the same, filthy purist Marxists?
No.1799681
>>1799680Are you involved in a communist party?
No.1799682
>>1799680nnooooooo the productive forcesssssss
No.1799684
>>1799680"consumer union"? what the fuck, that is low, even for vegans
No.1799690
>>1799672Communists used to explicitely target the working classes and shunned any kind of class collaborationist orgs. You soothe your conscience with "statistical correlation" - hey, I'm organizing SOMETHING!!! STATISTICALLY IT HAS TO INCLUDE WORKER ELEMENTS!!!
>finding potentially interested recruitsDo you? Where do you channel them? How do you actively combat opposing class voices inside the org you already have?
The "fundamental essential distinction" would be an org with 90%+ working class composition. What you have with a tenant union is an amalgamation of loosely-associated renters without screening for class background.
But let's grant you the most beneficial reading. Okz so, how are you going TO VET your "tenant union" ensuring that it is the working class that gets the dominant voice and not the p-bourg, the PMC, the soon-to-be-traitors and class back-stabbers?
Oh, you don't do that?
What is your end goal besides paying less rent?
How do you raise consciousness to the fact of exploitation of the working class AT THE MOMENT OF PRODUCTION (and not rent paying) when your org doesn't have that focus?
No.1799693
>>1799684What else can they possibly have tho?
No.1799705
Hey!
I'm a British leftist.
I organize soup kitchens and tenant unions. Vegan bloc is best bloc.
We will smash capitalism and patriarchy and heteronormativity and meat-eating-archy by having social orgs! University studenta for the win!
I'm bringing forth communism by being left and progressive and anti-rent and anti-meat and anti-patriarchy.
Marx and Engels can suck my PMC cock.
No.1799708
>>1799672Proles produce. Bourgs get the profit.
All classes consume. (Due to socialized production capitalism brought.)
Proles buy sloppa product. Bourgs buy sloppa products. Proles pay rent. Bourg pay rent.
The
only differencia specifica happens at production.
Do you understand?
No.1799713
>>1799690>PMCthis isn't a real word in Marxist class analysis. do you mean: "labor aristocracy"?
>Okz so, how are you going TO VET your "tenant union"you could do a survey but for your typical low-income tenants union I guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of them will be people who in some form are working class producers, but that kind of distinction doesn't really matter as long as the members are serving communist ends.
>How do you raise consciousness to the fact of exploitationyou could like, talk to them, you know?
>AT THE MOMENT OF PRODUCTION<Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only from outside the economic struggle, from outside the sphere of relations between workers and employers. The sphere from which alone it is possible to obtain this knowledge is the sphere of relationships of all classes and strata to the state and the government, the sphere of the interrelations between all classes. No.1799720
>all of this shit
I hate burger hours. I despise 24/7 NEET posters and mods.
I've got to produce for porky tomorrow and recieve a meager wage in exhange for it tomorrow. Yes, I do live in a rented flat. Yes, I can barely afford basic necessities due to exploitation at the capitalist factory I work at and due to the fucking rent.
However, I realize that this economic system rests NOT ON RENT but on EXPLOITATION AT WORK. Moreover, I realize that my proletarian existence can only be liberated through an organization of fellow producers.
I despise rent "unions". I despise student "unions". I despise "boycotts".
I'm a prole and a communist and I want it ALL.
I don't need lower rent prices, I need the landlords executed.
I'm a prole, I don't need student unions, I need class conscious people entering the division of labor even of they are above me.
I'm a prole, I don't need Westoid morons dictating to me cultural trends. I have my own proletarian culture, thank you. Your forced shit can fuck off.
I'm a gulag enthusiast.
Westoid rent/soup kitchen/vegan/boycott/reformist/etc. retards deserve to be shot.
All of the above statements prove that my class is strong because we would gladly shoot your """""leftist"""""" = class collaborationist and reformiat groups.
I sleep 3 hours a day before I go produce surplus value for porky. You are an anglo who is most likely a drug-addicted NEET who amplifies his/her voice by having all the free time in the world.
I want global proletarian dictatorship.
You want better wages and less rent and more vegan products.
We are not the same.
LAL SALAM!
No.1799731
>>1799713>that kind of distinction doesn't really matter as long as the members are serving communist ends. And you guarantee this in your tenant "union" HOW?
No.1799732
>>1799713Did you just quote Lenin in order to try to justify your tenant "union"?
How shameless can one get, dog?
No.1799737
social-democrats and reactionaries are far bigger corrupting influences on unions than some lumpens
No.1799741
>>1799737Thanks for that completely off topic post of yours.
No.1799752
>>1799732You mean the woke PMC barrister's assistant who subordinated the trade union struggle to the political struggle in general? Whatever union, tenant or trade, is only useful as far as its usefulness to the political struggle.
No.1799757
>>1799752What r u even tryng 2 say?
No.1799775
>>1799757>"In view of this common characteristic of the members of such an organization, all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals, not to speak of distinctions of trade and profession, in both categories, must be effaced.">"It is immaterial whether a student or a worker is capable of becoming a professional revolutionary."- Woke PMC Barrister's Assistant, from "What is to be done?".
No.1799823
>>1799490>>1799476It depends upon what the 'home' in question is and the scope of its usage as a reserve asset beyond the purpose of mere shelter. Owning a simple small flat is quite different from, say, a suburban house that allows the possibility of equity and rent.
Even in cases of decent-built homes, if the mortgage for example is too high it may disqualify the house from serving as a reserve in an emergency crisis. Plus there are multiple other factors to consider alongside, eg other kinds of potential reserves (stocks etc) alongside it.
Most homeowners in the case of America, for example, don't just own a home - they also have stuff like stocks, mutual funds, pensions and other kinds of savings alongside. All these are cumulative in their consideration as reserves.
There's no reason to believe tenant unions do not also benefit the petit bourgeoisie.
No.1799829
>>1799823They clearly benefit the poor more than they benefit the petit bourgeois, so it's a moot point.
No.1799830
>>1799829The whole point of the argument is that they benefit both. A communist shouldn't waste their time or all of the proletariat's time pushing for interclassist reforms when there's bigger fish to fry.
Unique IPs: 18