/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"I ain’t driving twenty minutes to riot"

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. Join our matrix! https://matrix.to/#/+leftychat:matrix.org

(321.49 KB Meme.webm)
Were 50s and 60s last time when capitalism actually worked? Anonymous 07/29/2020 (Wed) 15:26:35 No. 729758
When I mean worked, I mean, it wasn't state of crisis as it is today, and gained actual ""benefit"" to capitalists, which actually didn't do anything crazy or outstanding as they are doing today (marketing and production wise). Capitalists in 50s and 60s did just whatever they were doing in 20s and it was working for them. Also employment was actually high (real employment,not jackshit that exist today), that means they had a lot of money to throw away. Am I wrong? What happened after 60s? Why capitalism entered it's dead end after 1968?
(30.03 KB 720x463 1586519759976-b.jpg)
Real wages went up, for the caucasian proles and middle class in America it was definitely a good time, and it was definitely the result of the way capitalism "works". There were still plenty disenfranchised, and even the suburbanites were still being exploited. But the same conditions that set that time up also paved the way for our current conditions. And I don't know if you've looked outside recently, but things aren't good for most of the human beings alive right now.
>>729793 >last paragraph I literally talked about it on my OP
It "worked"for some american proletariat, that's it
>gained actual ""benefit"" to capitalists I think Marx wrote about this falling profit as capitalism goes on >Why capitalism entered it's dead end after 1968? Racist neoliberal counter-revolution against the increasingly unified labor movements, probably
>>729758 It only "worked" back then for Americans cause Europe was totally destroyed and they were busy profiting off rebuilding it. That's the reason living standards in 30s and 50s show such stark difference. Keynes was right when he said "War is good for capitalism".
>>729758 It's working very fine in china right now
>>729865 It's good for making low wage nation into middle income nation. They have many challenges from now on, which are gonna require extensive planning and state involvement(which one might argue has already begun)
>>729758 Neoliberalism was biding its time then struck when stagflation happened.
>>729758 >Were 50s and 60s last time when capitalism actually worked? No. Production for exchange irreparably broke in 1929. Capitalism has limped along since by using the state to absorb excess production. We are currently seeing the breakdown of this holding action.
>>729758 If you mean 1850’s and 60’s then yeah
(72.48 KB 747x477 gilded-age.png)
(97.11 KB 4000x2611 rate of profit.png)
(443.09 KB 1200x752 chinainequality.png)
>Am I wrong? No >What happened after 60s? The destruction of the unions through offshoring, mass economic immigration, austerity, privatization, and deregulation. Unions were too weak to fight any of it in the '70s. This was the consequences of the '60s. The "New Left" of youth outside the labor market had shifted their attention away from the "Old Left"'s infrastructure of labor unions and economic issues, toward social issues (war, pollution, race, sex, religion, censorship, etc.) with no durable infrastructure beyond a loose subculture. After legal concessions were obtained for all these issues by the late '60s, the "New Left" had grown old enough they had to enter the labor market. Having grown up totally alienated from unions, and with all the "leftism" they had known evaporating from its own success, they pivoted to nowhere politically, and were unorganized lambs for the slaughter by porky in the workplace. >Why capitalism entered it's dead end after 1968? Because while porkies still got fabulously rich from sheer economic growth, that wasn't enough for them. Their share of the economy was shrinking, and worse, their overall profitability was declining. Something had to be done. >>729829 >>729862 >It only "worked" back then for Americans cause Europe was totally destroyed Nope, Europe was already running at full blast by the mid-50s, and succdem reforms had propelled it (especially the prewar famine-wracked Nordic shitholes) lightyears beyond anything that existed in Gilded Age Europe. Europeans were already doing significantly better than Americans by the mid-60s. Neoliberalism hit everywhere all at once in the early '70s. >>729902 >stagflation happened Golly, I wonder what caused that? Was it inherent to Keynesianism like the neolibs love to claim, or was it a combination of deliberate sabotage of Keynesian ideas like Bancor combined with outright economic warfare with the conveniently timed oil "crisis"? >>729865 China's inequality, and the amount of power held by porkies, is actually getting WORSE, not better. Gains to worker QoL are entirely from sheer growth. Once they hit diminishing returns, that spells disaster for the people of China unless porky's trotters can be extricated from the levers of power.
>>729758 What do you mean "worked"? I'm doing just fine, have you seen the stock market?
(10.27 KB 299x299 download (2).jpg)
>>729758 >Am I wrong? What happened after 60s? Why capitalism entered it's dead end after 1968? Do you have an hour? https://youtu.be/tJoe_daP0DE
>>735516 Reminder that youtube has a speed control feature and you can watch informational videos in as little as half the time.
(154.16 KB 650x596 Ronald-Reagan.jpg)
>>735497 >Having grown up totally alienated from unions, and with all the "leftism" they had known evaporating from its own success, they pivoted to nowhere politically, and were unorganized lambs for the slaughter by porky in the workplace. I think you might be overemphasizing the actions of various nefarious characters. While some Americans lost their ass when Reagan came into power, he also came with a sweet offer to blue-collar America by giving everybody credit cards and deregulating the financial industry so it was easy to get a loan on a house, a loan for a small business, and basically try to upgrade that formerly blue-collar labor force into a nation of Hank Hills who make money through debt. Mortgage debt can be "good debt." Plus there's now cheap stuff to buy at Walmart. The amount of stuff you can buy with your dollar is now more than what it was before, which means your wages HAVE gone up -- if you count what you can buy with your money as part of your wages, which is what you should do. Of course, the cost is your union. >>735497 >Was it inherent to Keynesianism like the neolibs love to claim Yes
(340.53 KB 498x497 gen cancer.png)
(84.16 KB 498x279 nightcore is.png)
>>735525 >dumb zoomers post stuff that should've just been written blogs as talking head "videos" with just barely enough visual content you can't simply shut off the video track >zoomers cope by listening to everything in chipmunk mode
>>735559 The better speed up algorithms do not change the pitch of the sound.
>>735552 >wages HAVE gone up -- if you count what you can buy with your money as part of your wages Nope, median income has STAGNATED or dropped, if indexed against CPI. "Cheap" foreign commodities are actually more expensive due to income plummeting even faster. >Yes No
(54.77 KB 359x819 487234897239847893.png)
(41.45 KB 443x299 472398472398479283749.png)
>>735563 If we're using Marxist terms then we need to include the basket of goods when we talk about real wages. The "real wages" of the worker -- that is, the basket of goods that the worker can purchase with their wages -- can also improve over time even when their relative wages fall in relation to their share of total income. Labor's share of national income has plunged in developed countries, but this also manifested in cheaper imports, resulting in a net gain in total workers' compensation in real terms. This became an economic priority with the neoliberal shift, and bought decades of class peace and political stability at home. Also, repressing real wages at home would reduce demand, unleashing recessionary forces that threaten the whole capitalist economy. So, the wage repression has been happening abroad -- hence the widening relative gap between skilled and unskilled workers within developed countries but also a widening relative gap between developed countries and third-world countries. Also a 0.2 percent annual average increase in advanced economies total six percent if compounded over 25 years.
(79.08 KB 459x312 472398749237498723948.png)
>>735631 >>735641 Even if for sake of argument these IMF estimates are taken at face value, they still fail to explain away the fact that median 1st-world workers' finances have stagnated or dropped in not only relative but absolute terms during the free trade era. Simply put, there is no material incentive for the masses to support globalization.
(94.64 KB 640x360 Leftorium.jpg)
>>735724 There's a reason the 1990s in America was considered something of a high point, a Golden Age of consumer plenty, where things were looking up. I don't think it was the subjective experience for many Americans that things consistently got worse for them during the neoliberal / free trade era... and that for many they believed that things were getting better in many ways. https://youtu.be/FZUfiW3W1KY
And my argument is that things DID get better, in a material sense for them, during that era. The statistics showing slow-and-low wage income growth belies that their dollars were suddenly worth a lot more, they could buy more with what they earned, and if they owned houses then asset inflation meant they were a lot wealthier too. Of course that's going away which is why the U.S. system is destabilizing, as diminishing economic returns will eventually spell the end of the line for "politics as usual." Base determines superstructure, after all.
(1.68 MB 480x368 headroom.gif)
>>736147 Because the dystopian hypercapitalist cyberpunk neofascism of Reaganism (and the nonstop escalating burden of the Cold War) was washed back by the center-left advent of the "Radical Centrism" of Clinton. It wasn't better, it was just less worse.
>>736157 >asset inflation meant they were a lot wealthier Except because of their dwindling and precarious income, they were constantly siphoning equity from those houses they were (unlike their parents) too poor to ever buy, causing debt to rise faster than assets for every fraction of the population outside the wealthiest porkies.
(152.35 KB 470x300 oksoda.jpg)
>>736147 Also >a Golden Age of consumer plenty Holy fuck, the '90s marked the first time "utter blackpilled suicidal disinterest in your future" became a HOT MARKET DEMO.
(137.11 KB 460x511 mmpCZ.jpg)
>>736161 My subjective experience is that it was more like hypercapitalist Michael Jackson neofascism: https://youtu.be/h_D3VFfhvs4 >>736171 Yeah which is why it was unsustainable and was all going to blow up. No argument with you there. And it did blow up, kinda started to get its footing again like Wile E. Coyote struggling to his feet before getting knocked off the cliff once again. But my point stands: during much of the neoliberal era, Americans were bought off.
>>736187 It also produced Fight Club. You know "I have a bunch of stuff and I'm successful according to the prevailing values of my society but life has no meaning anymore so I'm going to turn to a proto-fascist male body cult." https://youtu.be/exL51n3py6g
(98.09 KB 891x933 can you not.jpg)
>>736201 >proto-fascist male body cult I know this was a common interpretation by dumber members of the audience, but.... Anon.
(476.76 KB 853x480 cover7.png)
>>736210 Whaa whaa I'm a professional-class, white-collar recall / insurance specialist for the auto industry who is depressed because all of my stuff comes from the same IKEA catalog. Woe is me. "We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our great war is a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives." I'm going to go around and start fights with strangers! Not one of the finer culture statements of the 1990s if you ask me https://youtu.be/Dl73juUdRxA
>>736210 Also American Psycho sucked too
(6.33 KB 211x120 report post.jpeg)
>>736236 >a professional-class, white-collar recall / insurance specialist for the auto industry Can it GET MORE BLATANT!? It was a flat slam against the ΡМCѕ of the era, whose psyches were disintegrating from the spiritual cost of feeding their fellow human beings into the furnace of neoliberalism as the country collapsed around their ears. The ΡМCѕ weren't the intended audience, they were THE TARGET. SERIOUSLY anon, this like saying glorification of Wall Street's parasitic existence was the moral of American P... >>736243 >sucked too
>>736236 Did you watch the movie? It renounces Durden's fascism as an answer to the hollowness of consumer society in the end. Obviously a lot of retarded online Meatheads like Durden and ignore the plot but still.
(56.09 KB 962x287 4623847623874687234.png)
>>736322 >tfw all the Amazon reviews are still there How many database migrations have they been trough? 3? 4?
(1.34 MB 2257x2681 wired_july97.jpg)
Well, do you?
>>737814 >tfw burgers still unironically believe that pic
>>737818 Doesn't have that issue. But it gotta have a starting date. Maybe they are right but didn't account for 9/11, since that couldn't really be predicted.
>>735497 >Nope, Europe was already running at full blast by the mid-50s not the UK. the uk was still stagnating in the 1950s from ww2, they even still had rationing
>>737814 The vast majority of burgers didn't, not even at the apex of the Silicon Valley bubble which produced that magazine. From at least the 1980s into the 2010s burgerstani have always thought the future will be worse than the past: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0520-mcmanus-cruz-pessimism-20150520-column.html >Cruz is right that Americans are in a pessimistic mood. An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll last year found that only 21% said they were confident that life would be better for their children’s generation; 76% said the opposite. >But Cruz is wrong on another important point: There’s nothing new about this brand of pessimism. Pollsters have been hearing those sour sentiments from Americans for more than 30 years — ever since they started asking the question. Advertisement >In 1986, for example, 63% said in a CBS-New York Times poll that they believed the next generation was unlikely to have a bright future — and that was during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, when it was morning in America. >“From 1984 until now, a plurality on almost every survey, and sometimes a majority, has said the next generation would have it worse than this generation,” Samuel L. Popkin, a political scientist at UC San Diego, told me a few years ago. >It turns out that as Americans, we don’t just share the American dream; we share a tradition of worrying that the dream is slipping away. Voters aren’t pessimistic because Barack Obama has been president for six years; they were already pessimistic before Obama entered law school. >And Cruz isn’t the first politician to discover this continent — far from it. Walter F. Mondale sounded some of the same themes when he ran against Reagan in 1984. So did Michael S. Dukakis when he ran against George H.W. Bush in 1988. Bill Clinton did too, in 1992. And so did Mitt Romney, when he ran against Obama in 2012. >All of them aimed their campaign against an incumbent in the White House when the economy was sputtering. All of them encouraged voters to think that the party in power was presiding over the loss of the American dream. >The most striking thing about these polls over the last 30 years is how consistent the pessimism has been. Between 1989 and 2014, no poll ever found a majority that believed the next generation would be better off. >The closest we got to euphoria was in early 2000, the last boom year of the Clinton administration, when a plurality of 44% saw better times ahead. >Last year, in that same CBS-New York Times poll, 23% said they believed the next generation would be better off, 50% said it would be worse off, and 23% said it would fare about the same as the current generation — dispiriting numbers but roughly average for the last quarter-century.
>>737814 End of History stuff hurts my soul.

Delete
Report

no cookies?