|
Jedit posted:not a fascist international pariah. I mean, we kind of were.
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
If you pay £50k in tax you must be, er, rather wealthy. I think at that point it sort of borders on "you can't tax me I will leave and take my job creating with me!1" territory. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Compared to the overwhelming majority of people in the UK however you are very rich. Like that works out to about 150k a year salary which puts you in, uh, I think the 99th percentile in terms of income. You might be a bit booj.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
I definitely think at that point you are the coddled first worlder at the very least. Or you're maybe not allowed to complain that other people are.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Also they have hilarious labour practices. Like hilarious in an "I want to kill myself" kind of way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
I feel like there is a meaningful distinction between me and someone with the ability to achieve the end result of fifteen years of my life, in one of theirs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Namtab posted:That's what the capitalist classes want you to think. It's an argument built to ferment class division among workers instead of having people question why a small handful can "earn" more in a year than we'll get in a lifetime without any labour whatsoever I know why the difference exists, that doesn't make it less significant.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
cargohills posted:important question here lads: does average household income mean total for the whole household or income per person? One would assume that it means per the average person-content of a household.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Namtab posted:It's significant and he has more options than most, but trying to claim he isn't working class is harmful I think at the point that you can earn enough in a year for you to comfortably live on for five, you might not functionally be quite as working class as someone who lives paycheck to paycheck. You do have manifestly different class desires at that point, and a number of them align more with capital than with workers. Like if I could work for ten years and earn enough to become a landlord then manifestly my class interests are not the same as someone who will never earn that much.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Namtab posted:I still dont begrudge a worker his wages. All workers should be paid an amount where they can live comfortably. Yes I agree, but that doesn't invalidate the point that earning enough money to catapult you with ease into landlording status does, by any reasonable class analysis, kind of put you not-quite-in the working class any more. You may still individually support socialism but booj people are allowed to do that. What you believe does not impact what you are.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
cargohills posted:im really confused because this wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_British_Class_Survey) gives the average household income of the "technical middle class" (giving examples of "senior professionals in education establishments, and business, research, and administrative positions") as £38,000 which divided by 2 (assuming that the average household size is that) is £19,000 and i'd assume senior lecturers have much better salaries than that If my experience at uni is to be believed then senior lecturers are invariably either divorced or in the process of getting divorced.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
cargohills posted:I assume "average household income" doesnt take into account the number of senior lecturers who are divorced compared to airplane pilots I mean if it's an average household income of lecturers it might trend disproportionately towards not being divisible because they're all lonely old fuckers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:earning enough in a year to live for five still means you die at the end and that means you are working class. That is what the entire working class should demand. Living paycheck to paycheck is obviously the historic evolution of living harvest to harvest, it doesn't mean it will ever be an acceptable condition for the proletariat to live in, it doesn't make it not harmful to your health, and when someone in the same ultimate position with a higher quality of life remains a class ally, we must remember that the perfectly natural resentment we feel about our own conditions is not their fault, but that of the capitalist. I think you can remain committed to improving conditions while still recognizing that proletarian-bourgeoisie is a spectrum rather than a binary.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Breath Ray posted:You could make it better by leaving and taking your entitled attitude with you. Then you could give something back to your poorer home country where your contribution and example could go much further than it would here. Promise me youll sleep on it at least. This on the other hand sounds very close to "gently caress off we're full"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Sorry if this has already been posted, I don't really have time to keep up with the thread all the time at the mo. You are loving missing the best part of the original huffpo article: quote:When asked for a comment on the websites, Lewis told HuffPost UK: “A lesson from LBJ [US President Lyndon B Johnson] in how to smash an opponent.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Use that money to meet your material needs and keep your morale up by traveling the world and seeing and doing interesting poo poo, gain a better understanding of your fellow human beings, educate yourself, whatever. Money is power and should be used, not hoarded or surrendered. We shouldn't all be pious, ascetic monks sworn to poverty, the problem is the system not the individual. That seems like a kind of tenuous justification for "get rich and live like it"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
I think if you're getting filthy rich we aren't taxing you enough.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
I think that if your money could liberate five other people from grinding poverty you should probably do that rather than spend it on rare SNES carts.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Or at least you should not try to justify the reason why you aren't doing that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Owl my boy I think that workers who earn more should be allowed to enjoy some of it. I mean, I agree, but the reason I agree is because I am selfish and want to have some of my life one day maybe that isn't oriented around work and not spending money because I have things I need to keep it for. There's no ethical justification for it, I would just actually go completely mad if I didn't switch off my empathy at least some of the time. I don't hold with trying to construct some silly framework to justify your own greed though, just admit it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
I think if we're going to talk false consciousness then maybe "actually my greed is *~justified~* because of <bollocks>" is probably a pretty nasty example of it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Jesus that is a miserable, puritan way of looking at things. So you get to keep your income (that you work for, dutifully paying the albeit inadequate rate of taxation levied upon you) as long as you excoriate yourself with guilt and self-loathing? Who does that help? You don't have to feel guilty about it, you just shouldn't go making up magical systems that justify your imperfect ability to adhere to moral absolutes. You're human, you're limited, that doesn't change the ideal way to treat others and you shouldn't put your finger in your moral compass because it's pointing towards a cliff. You can remain aware of the correct course of action while acknowledging your inability to follow it at the same time without either engaging in self flagellation or sophistry to try and stop yourself having a nagging awareness that there's room for improvement. The desired goal is that you lend absolutely no support whatsoever to the many lovely ideologies that exist to salve the guilty consciences of the wealthy and prevent them from being driven to engage with their peers. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:In what way is giving up all your money on an individual basis actually going to tangibly help, though? At best it'll maybe feed a few more people for a week. The correct course of action is undertaken collectively and that course is the expropriation of the capitalist class, either through taxation or collectivisation. Anything else is a feelgood band aid. The two are not mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
I mean maybe morale might also be improved if you had five people free of the worst extremes of poverty rather than one person with some lovely pictures of their skiing lodge in the alps. I find it hard to credit a belief that emphasizes the power of collective action but ignores the superiority of the collective welfare over the individual. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
I find it difficult to see communism as anything other than a rejection of the idea that any amount of individual wellbeing can make up for the suffering of the collective. No matter how much you give one person, if two people are deprived of everything, then your situation is worse than if you give all three enough to spare them the excesses of poverty. Like say I'm earning, for example, £100k, to my mind £20k is enough to live a much better life than many people do, you could give away two thirds of your income to three people and still have enough for a good life for yourself and for them to have much better lives than they might otherwise lead. And it would be a drat sight better than spending it all on yourself. And again, you don't need to feel guilty about it, there is an option between feeling guilty and trying to argue that actually your actions are good. You can just... know what you should be doing without turning into some kind of weird flagellant. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
I would say you could probably find space to buy a few big issues here and there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Private charity is literally the free market alternative to state intervention. And the thing about free market alternatives to state intervention is that they're generally still better than neither.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Give an entire country trawlers and they will make cod go extinct.Cerv posted:Farage has finally snapped and is demanding Carswell be expelled from UKIP. On what basis? Like, why does Farage get to say what UKIP does at the moment?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Theresa May likes to dress up in leather, put Gove in his mask, and go to GCHQ's special room where she pretend-doms all the people wanking to facesitting and fisting videos.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Snow Crash is a bad book It's a pretty funny book.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
The Tories.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
I would vote for a union secretary named Cosmic Raymond.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 23:49
|
|