Exh instuyr fa

Institutions  

I critique the tendencies of unions and organizations to mimic political parties, acting as racketeers/mediators, with cadre-based hierarchies of theoretician and militant or intellectual and grunt, defaulting toward institutionalization and ritualizing a meeting-voting-recruiting-marching pattern... because I know we all have solutions for remedying these organisational processes whereby we can still achieve our goals.

I am against Corporate Hierarchies and I want all Corporate Hierarchies to be abolished

We have to break up Big Corp, the banks , lobby groups and the Capitalism that thrives these groups to bring their powers back to the people so we no longer have them ruling over us.  

I strongly prefer to develop alternative institutions and methods of working around the state as can be seen  throughout this blog. I don’t have a lot of confidence in strategies that work through the government

There should be community empowerment via new rights that are created for charitable trusts, voluntary bodies and others in order to apply to councils to carry out the services provided by the council

Such assets like shops, bars and recreational fields, which were privately owned but were of value to the community. If such an asset like that was later sold, the new rights above would make it easier for the community to bid for and take over the asset.

I am against the Parliamentary system

I support antitrust codes and laws against the abuse of market power

I believe the view that beneficent government has used its power to counter corporate predation, is fundamentally flawed. In my opinion, the government intervention in the economy has largely benefited established players at the expense of marginalized groups, 

Sometimes over regulation that is literally like a well oiled machine might have some benefits or at worst some salvageable fringe ideas

I generally believe in the democratization of the economy to an extent

There are more whites in the financial system than non whites which causes Capitalism (which is a white invented economic system that by extension through that and numbers benefits whites the most at least in theory and on paper) instead of BIPOC friendly economic systems (like non Capitalism) to be the dominant economic system in the West.

So when we abolish Capitalism it will liberate BIPOC and reign in econonic egalitarianism and real income equality

There has been socioeconomic usurption by American politicians who usurped their constitutional authority. These politicians substitute their economic and political sovereignty for the people's economic and constitutional authority and that is wrong.

This socioeconomic usurption by these corrupt and selfish politicians is accomplished when they create a huge public service sector that operates in their own self interest and the interests of big business and social advocacy groups to the detirment of the middle class, workers and the apolitical rich people. This puts our nation's security in jeopardy while this happens. 

This socioeconomic usurption has caused our (America's) economic decline and dwindling international power.  We need to prevent this sociofiscal usurption by putting politicians in office who represent us and not themselves or their self interests. We need to counter this sociofiscal corruption in our government.  . 

We need to fight against the lobbying industry. Lobbyists have TOO much power and influence over society and that needs to end now. The US should get rid of or severely limit lobbyists

The government should limit excessive spending in particular domestic spending when it would be unpopular among the citizens to not do so

I conditionally support tax cuts where and when viable. The US should reform the existing tax system.  We have to fight against the harmful economic inequality in the US. We have to stop the elites since they are on the opposite side of American workers. We have to stop this theft in our current tax system

I support a tax in foreign gasoline for Americans to force us to be transition to electrical vehicles and to become green energy independent

I like that Rick Scott's 11 point plan taxed a lot but his plan does not tax the right people. Scott’s plan should have heavily taxed the rich and bourgeois , lightly taxed the working class and not taxed the lower class

I am not an advocate of a command economy or a planned economy. I do support at least some (Paternalistic) regulation of the economy etc as can be seen throughout this blog

I more than believe that its better for corporations to voluntarily reform themselves than for them to be forced to do so.

I support former President FDR’s New Deal (I am on SSI for years, thanks New Deal) since it was mixed-syncretic but I really support the Fair Deal which was an upgrade over the New Deal

I support raising the raising of the budget ceiling and debt limit in our current capitalistic economy

I support some semblance of free trade in theory, but I really support fair trade more than I would ever support free trade

I am against the World Trade Organization and I want it to be shut down

“Take trade and industrial policy and fatherlessness, We should understand deindustrialization as, in part, something that decimates working-class families, and, of course, when you destroy working-class families, then a whole lot of social pathologies move in.”  JD Vance

I am against snow ball fiscal systems which swindle and cause investors to lose money

I am against the government bailing out Silicon valley. They are billionaires and they can more than afford to bail themselves out. I agree with this article on that by Jacobin and this article by PSL

From Twitter: "Capitalism is about profit and loss. If you invest poorly you lose. But if every time wealthy people lose, the tax payers are forced to bail them out, what we have is cronyism not capitalism."

Reply on Twitter I agree with: Capitalism leads to accumulation & concentration of wealth. Accumulation and concentration of wealth leads to cronyism and corruption. You can't have capitalism without cronyism and corruption

I sort of echo this Tweet to by Vivek Ramaswamy:

"There’s something very ugly happening right now: VCs & startup execs who stand to lose their deposits at SVB are going *out of their way* to push a narrative that there’ll be a bank run on Monday if SVB depositors aren’t bailed out by the government. They’re yelling fire in the proverbial theater, hoping that everyone runs and knocks down a candle on their way out - actually starting a fire that may not otherwise have existed. 

They’re skipping the fact that SVB’s situation is unique: a staggering *89%* of its deposits were uninsured (way higher than normal banks). And they didn’t hedge interest rate risk which is a cardinal sin given the portfolio they held. Their real “hedge” was to spend $$ to become popular in the right influential circles of their own depositors, pledging $5 billion in 2022 to “sustainable finance and carbon neutral operations to support a healthier planet.” Maybe that hedge will pay off for their depositors if the government bails them out, but that should rightly trigger an “Occupy Silicon Valley” of historic proportions."  I agree there should be an Occupy Silicon Valley movement.  

The government should not have bailed billionaire Jeff Bezos out, see here for more

If Amazon paid more than literally $0 in corporate taxes, people wouldn’t have to pay $300 a month for health insurance if we spent that revenue wisely.

The structure of ownership involves what person owns actual things and what person doesn't own that. 

Huge and popular corporations now are sophisticated so much that they have a fiduciary obligation to their investors to pursue a return -- they could be sued if not. "Everyone needs to get paid" and the bank is going to desire their money returned with the interest paid if someone takes a loan out (which is where, if a person is a capitalist, they receive their investment money for production in the first place). 

This is how capitalism and commercial banking emerged and grew in together. Capitalism must pursue profits because if it doesn’t do so, Capitalism collapses.  Capitalism expands in all places, colonizes in all places, and reconfigures society in all places: it is an amoral machine that has -- more or less -- enslaved humanity like the Matrix with the pods. We are one of the batteries.

But since the rate of overall profit has declined and continues to do so since World War II, which "reset" capitalism by demolishing an excess increase in capital, capitalism in the present day is more and more reliant on financialization and speculating in asset prices (like house flipping, etc.). 

This long-term decrease in profitability has been surprisingly been observed by the IMF: not really a bastion of Marxist theory. The world capitalists have way more money than they could ever need but not enough places to invest it, which is why they're stuffing it up into a massive ball and throwing it at anything that they believe will turn a profit regardless of how boneheaded it is,  like Elon Musk's exploding automobiles. This too is what causes these destabilizing asset bubbles.

Incidentally, 45 has decided to reach a sort of bargain where he monkeys around with trade policies to stimulate some type of minor inflation, which gives his (very indebted) base a couple of hundred extra dollars to waste on football games by lowering the cost of providing for their debt. 

That gladdens his supporters, and in return he gives a large tax cut for corporations. The corporations are as I speak using that tax cut in no small part to buy back their own shares which leads to their stock prices going up -- keeping their shareholders appeased. Though this is hugely "fictitious" capital that isn’t supported by (truly productive) the brand new investment in plant or machinery, and the general rate of profitability in the world capitalist economy continues to decrease relative to the existential capital stock. 

Or to put it another way, Trump expanded a bubble which will burst in the end, but he has sustained the party for a bit longer and top capital owners are making a boat load of money. It might not have made any difference who was junta leader , though.

I am somewhat against Producerism 

I support more strict tariffs against various countries in an effort to promote keeping jobs in the US . To achieve this, I want compassionate intervention by government to give boosts to various workers within the US to through a bottom up approach get their employers to keep jobs in the US

I support free enterprise (ie commerce)

I support enterprise zones under our current economical landscape

Whites promote White run businesses . Whites small businesses always claim not to care about profit and just want to do what small businesses say they want to do. . But whites betray their capitalistic greed by purposely sell unhealthy products to make their products more mainstream

A small business owner being pretty darn reactionary is no shock if we realize that they are for lack of a better definition, under siege by all people because to their position.

Like the (non petite) bourgeoisie, they are pressured from beneath them and this pressure comes from the workers. They are faced with pressure from the real large bourgeoisie above them, who they compete with and tend to be indebted to, and on top of that, they have zero class solidarity with other SBO's for the reason that they are in non stop cut throat competition with them. Also, they are further vulnerable to changes in taxes, government policy, transnational markets, multinational markets etc.

Workers and the bourgeoisie at least have class solidarity amongst each other. The life a petite-bourgeoisie is rather wretched and in isolation. It's not shocking that they are ruggedly reactionary. They can never be worker allies, they can never be anyone’s allies.

I am against the Stop Online Piracy Act

I am against the World Trade Organization

We have to end the grip that big business has on politics

I am skeptical of big business

I am against corporate privilege. To end corporate privilege we must eliminate bailouts, subsides, cartelizing regulations along with similar state driven legal, political and fiscal features that enable corporate power 

We need economic and spiritual nationalism. It use to be what was good for GM was good for the US. The winners of the new economy, are bad for the US: Like Liberal 2.0 tech companies that cover up for hiring cheap foreign labor with “woke” posturing about gender and race.

I believe that it is just as bad if the majority of the employee’s salary ends up in a banker's pockets or if the state steals the money from the employee to give to undeserving people .This creates a high tax burden

I am against big bank, we need to break the banks. I reject central banking. See this for more

I support the Occupy Movement and Occupy Wall Street. But idpol ruined any chance it had to bring true economic freedom to this country. See here for more

Grocery and gas bills have been skyrocketing, but Janet Yellen escapes the blame for inflation because she is the first female Treasury secretary (not to take anything away from that)  “So long as we’re trailblazing on diversity, equity and inclusion,” 

For too long Big Bank have exploited us non bourgeois to make themselves richer, including during the recession .They enable corrupt investors to make this bad situation even worse. 

We must reform or reimagine our banking and investing systems to fix that,Occupy Wall Street was a step in the right direction. I stand with Elizabeth Warren on bank reform. I support nationalizing all banks especially banks that receive state loans 

I am pretty against bank bailouts in most situations

More often than not, bank bailouts showed the banks rule over the government while the government rules over us. 

Banks used the bailouts to enrich themselves and their corrupt shareholders. The banks should be seized and turned over to worker committees and community reps that serve the public, which as mentioned above will happen under future socialistic type economies

But we need to get rid of Capitalism or at minimum, get rid the crony, bankocratic forms of it (ie corrupt financing). That’s why I have no sympathy for banks when they get robbed.

 

I am ok with independent banking companies being created and helping each other to help others since it is less bad than government intervention in the banking industry

I support nationalizing the Federal Reserve but at minimum we should audit the Federal Reserve (until we removal of the Federal Reserve or removal of it from power and either bring back the gold standard or reinstate the U.S. Treasury as the controller of fiscal policy in America)

I am against Wall Street corruption, we should fix Wall Street's corruption (before we reign in a left wing society to abolish Wall Street). We also need to defund Wall Street 

I am against banks being penaltized for showing patterns of redlining (due to my Libertarian leanings)

The government should not increase the tax of people who profit from the sale of stocks ,bonds or real estate.

I am against President Biden's IRS bank snooping plan and his plan to unprivatize banks which is against our Constitution and our private rights

I am against Joe Biden hiring 85,000 IRS agents. That is way way too many. IRS agents should not be allowed to carry guns ever on the job. There is no reason for IRS agents to carry a gun on the job

I am against usury and I want laws to prevent usury

I am against the World Bank

I am ok with people having off shore bank accounts

I support Bitcoin workshops and I have no real issues with Bitcoin

I support and encourage people to use bonds and to save their money in savings accounts. If war bonds come back, I would also support people using war bonds

I support Krysten Sinema opposing Joe Biden’s 3.5 trillion dollar reconciliation bill.

I am against writing off of public debt

I support a repeal of any laws which impede the ability of any people to find employment while I oppose government fostered-forced retirement and heavy interference in the bargaining process

I support the Joe Manchin Chuck Schumer spending and tax increase bill

There are predictable winners and losers in society and that being sorted into the those two categories isn’t really a matter of luck or skill. But this is not due to market exchange but a reflection of state committed, threatened and tolerated aggression. 

As long as the state apparatus exists, it is there for the taking by the wealthy allowing them to further enrich and empower themselves and the politically powerful to acquire more wealth and power. So opposing these ruling classes is to oppose the state and thus takes on a double meaning  . See here for more

In our current non socialistic economy, I want the Nationalization of several industries, including the gas, mining, and oil industries.

We need an ACTUAL Build Back Better (Build Back Ourselves by Jordan Jardine). But on a more tactical to practical note, Build Back Better would be better if the politicians amended it to either reducing the number of years or used a hypothetical Conservative Party UK amended Build Back Better  

I support my own Build Back Better that reflects my combined socioeconomic views in this blog but I can live with a infrastructure development that also have indirect incentives including tax reductions with more direct funding in road, rail and other transportation projects. Like a more centrally planned version to fix deteriorating highways and create new Interstate Highways based on some European highway systems

 . 

I support raising minimum wage to 20 dollars an hour or to 25 dollars an hour  (even though raising the minimum wage has the negative effect of putting full time workers into part time jobs and hurting their access to health care benefits. Heavy care should be used in raising minimum wage but the rewards outweigh the risks).   I am against raising the minimum wage over 25 dollars an hour (at least until we get out of our capitalistic economy into a left wing one)

Secure a Living Wage "Over the past several decades, the cost of living has increased significantly while workers’ wages have remained relatively stagnant. While CEO’s compensation soars, most workers’ wages aren’t even keeping up with inflation and affordable housing remains out of reach. We must secure a minimum wage of at least $15 that’s tied to inflation."  Justice Democrats

Karl Marx's argument is not that wage labor is "immoral." Marx said that the mechanisms of capital reproduction requires the capitalist to pay someone less than what that person actually produces as to make a profit - which is the theory of surplus value. Karl Marx was trying to present how the liberal free trade principles really undermine themselves due to the disconnect between use-value (the real embodied commodity) and exchange-value (basically the commodities price). 

The argument here is that labor power is a special commodity for no other reason than the fact that it produces more of a value than it costs (a worker "costs" what it takes to keep him or her alive and working, so a worker might need only five labor hours worth of bread in order to do 10 hours of labor himself or herself). That difference is the surplus value;  the capitalist keeps for himself or herself, even though the worker obtained the "value" of their labor - which is only enough to get by.

To a more foundational extent, capitalism is dependent upon the existence of a considerable portion of the population who have totally no means to feed themselves except for them to sell their labor at market. 

Simultaneously, capital breaks feudalism and raises the peasant out of poverty, it shackles him or her to itself and causes him or her to remain dependent, a virtual serf with invisible chains. 

In reality, the US founders argue relying on similar reasoning to defend the property requirement for voting - in which ways could some people who are not independent financially, who can’t grow his or her own food but must depend on other people, vote freely? Karl Marx also made the same observation, though his logic is to ensure that every man and woman has land - i.e access to the means of production, which is the the means of production that capital monopolizes.

The contradiction between capital and labor is likely the fundamental contradiction that Karl Marx emphasizes, but there are a great deal of other contradiction: its proneness to hard-to-explain booms and busts, the pathological need for it to grow, and the relationship that it has with imperialism. 

It is not about morality, just so you know, Marx criticizes socialists and anarchists who engage with ahistorical and eternal conceptions of justice, morality, or rights. Capitalism is bad due to the fact that it is not self sustainable, and it must collapse eventually. Karl Marx believed that Capitalism would collapse and then give way to a socialist revolution: I now see that it's more clear that Capitalism will collapse in monumental political failure and our climate catastrophe since we have no way (other than maybe Degrowth) to regulate consumption.

Here are some other views that I kick around on minimum wage

Price represents value, however price itself is not value, similar to how the word "apple" represents an apple but is itself not the apple. Price is a commodity's exchange value conveyed in the form of money (or, instead, what the seller wants is the exchange value). In equilibrium it represents value fine, but when supply outstrips demand, price drops below this level. When demand outruns supply, it's an about face. 

Demand and supply are crucial to Marxist analysis, since their price impact is the way the market signals to assign and reassign labour. It is rare for price to match value, other than in equilibrium, which rarely occurs in practice. If, in fact, price matched value every time, then the market signaling apparatus would be unworkable, and the market would be unusable for the assignment of labour.

Karl Marx viewed the capitalist mode of production as fully dependent upon employees working to be compensated in a system where they were paid necessarily less than the product of their labor, (Wage Labor and Capital is a base essay/book on that subject). 

In the eyes of Karl Marx, and in line with Adam Smith, capital-owners have to produce a surplus of value by mixing labor with the capital that they own (manufacturing plants, resources, tools, machines, etc), but it follows that on the condition of the capitalist wishing to be competitive he or she has to sustain a surplus to replenish and accumulate his or her capital. And so, the workers in his or her employment use their labor-power to completely produce the surplus value, yet they only receive an arbitrarily set monetary wage. 

Hence, in capitalism a worker never can truly receive remuneration for his or her labor unless he or she has control of the productive forces himself or herself, since capitalists cannot and will not forfeit the surplus value labor builds

One particular issue with capitalism is the strain between abstract value and use-value. A home’s use-value is that one can live in it, marry and have children, put their possessions in it, etc., but it could further be changed into an abstract financial vehicle. 

We have the industrial capacity and ability to make sure that everyone in the US is living in a house or apartment, but we do not because there is no profit in that in abstract money terms. This strain might be most foolish when there is an economic crisis. 

Factories remain idle, people are unemployed, produce is burned, milk dumped down the drain -- all of this to serve abstract value. It's not the same as an enemy nation coming in and blowing up bridges and oilfields.

I support transferable unemployment compensation where a worker accumulates funds throughout their career which they access upon job loss or retirement

I can sign off on our country to have self sufficient production of certain types of foods. This includes reducing the balance of trade deficits, lowering the necessity of some foreign food imports. I support increased agricultural production and manufacturing

Since whites make up the majority of the workforce, one of the sad but natural consequences for BIPOC citizens of that hard truth are whites seemingly devaluing blue collar jobs which are the heart of economy while whites promote their most overrepresented types of professions such as white collar jobs

The early hunter gatherers were affluent and were not savages as is often falsely claimed. That is the type of ‘affluence’ I want and that will exist in our future socialistic egalitarian inclusive utopias

Kinship-oriented societies are good because they value social harmony more than wealth or status. These cultures are much more ideal than economically oriented cultures (including states) where status and material wealth are prized, and stratification, competition, and conflict are commonplace. 

Kinship-oriented cultures actively try to prevent social hierarchies from developing because they see such stratification as leading to conflict and instability. Reciprocal altruism is one process by which they use to accomplish this.

Kinship-oriented cultures provide a model for a future socialistic egalitarian inclusive society 

The serf possesses and utilizes a tool of production, a portion of land, in exchange for which he or she gives away as a portion of his or her product or portion of the services of his or her labor. 

The proletarian works with the tools of production of another, for the account of said other, in exchange for a portion of the product. The serf gives away, the proletarian obtains. The serf’s existence is assured, the proletarian’s existence is not not assured

The serf is competition from the outside, the proletarian is completion inside of it. The serf liberates himself or herself in one of following three ways: either he or she flees to the city and in the city becomes a handicraftsman; or, as opposed to products and services, he or she gives money to his or her lord and so is now a free tenant; or he or she overthrows his or her feudal lord and himself or herself is now a property owner. To sum it up, through one route or another route, he or she comes into the owning class and is entered into competition. The proletarian liberates himself or herself by abolishing the competition, private property, and every class difference.

I am against the subordination of civil society and non-state institutions to the state to enforce “social justice” principles

The problem with Liberal 2.0ers/progressives and rare leftist supporting taxing is that by supporting taxes they support relying on taxation and regulation to reign in the excesses of the bourgeois class and the exploitation of the proletariat. 

Even though the politician is a member of the bourgeois class and so does not represent the proletariat in his class struggle. Elements of this can be seen throughout my blogs

I was ok with the Tea Party years back . But now I turned on them. I believe we should launch a full-scale investigation into the bat-sh*t-crazy antics of the Republican Tea Party so they don't rise up again (see Degree 180 for more on this which I agree with). 

But to be fair, the tea party laid the groundwork for and the blueprint on how we can have our revolutionary socialistic and worker revolution (our goals are opposite but we can use their methods)

I am glad that one progressive (but sadly not left wing) organization, Indivisible did just that. Indivisible modeled their movement after the Tea Party movement, which focused on local activism and obstructing the opposite party's agenda following the election. This includes using similar action taken to be effective against the President

I critique the misapplication of both; permanent, formal, mass, mediated, rigid, growth-focused modes of organization, as well as temporary, informal, direct, spontaneous, intimate forms of relation.