This thread is permanently archived
Political scandal in Austria
| They talked openly about how they could overtake austrian yellow-press and turn it into a more loyal propaganda instrument - in exchange for lucrative public assignments for the oligarch.
This case is extra shameful, since the far right in austria acted as a clean and honest anti-corruption power against "the establishment" - A propaganda strategy which is also known from far-right movements in many other countries ("drain the swamp").
| src.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48320983
| Update:
The talk also includes methods that can be used to sponsor the far-right party anonymously and hidden from the public, which is illegal in austria. They even named economically powerful people that already used this way. People who are supposed to be part of a liberal/leftist/globalist establishment/conspiracy - at least in the far-right propaganda world. Again similarities to other places, where a millions-inheritor could sell himself as selfmade man and become president.
| Lol, politicians and scandals are like smoke and fire, if you see one the other is probably nearby
| >>562056
Yeah, nice try to play it down.
1. Not only politicians are involved in scandals. Especially economical elites, who always act as if they achieved their successes honestly, naturally and by their individual performance only.
2. Not all politicians are corrupt. Corruption goes hand in hand with power. Corruption is, where power is. This is why power needs to be distributed - even if it's on cost of economical efficiency.
| politics = jewish theatre
| >>562058
Again: It's not only politicians and it's not all politicians.
Everyone is corruptible. But people have a different price and they are differently honest about it.
In this special case here in austria, the point is that the politician who was caught in a massive act of corruption was the head of a party that cultivated a big fat anti-corruption and law-and-order image. In the video he described how austrian law was bended or even broken by his party.
| >>562096
I don't lump them. They are lumped in reality. Fascism is the ugly face of the bourgeois capitalist society. On the long term it will always come through in capitalism because of its inherent crisis cycles.
The individual liberties and democracy we are so foolishly proud about and love so much in the western world only exist as long the sun shines in capitalism. But it can't shine forever, because of the systems unsolved and inherent contradictions.
| >>562111 and communism has no contradiction? Lolololol
> you are free from the chains of the bourgeoisie
> everything belongs to the government, yourself included
> humans aren't inherently good so capitalism will fail
> communism needs no dictators, because people are inherently good and will cooperate to make communism work
Muh Cummunism is pahfect, no contridoctums enyware, Copitulisum not gud contridoctums averyware
:'D
| >>562141 But it is true that Capitalism has it's own faults, yes? I don't agree with Socialist hard-liners, but we need some reformation in that direction lest everything will continue downhill from here.
| I'll let this post slide OP... just this once. I best not see ANY /u/ topics in /new/
| >>562141
>and communism has no contradiction?
Theoretically not. Practically it had.
>everything belongs to the government, yourself included
Yeah, you forget to mention that this government should be transparent and democratically controlled.
>humans aren't inherently good so capitalism will fail
This is not the fucking point.
>communism needs no dictators, because people [...] will cooperate to make communism work
People already cooperate in capitalism.
| >>562141
>Muh Cummunism is pahfect, no contridoctums enyware, Copitulisum not gud contridoctums averyware
:'D
Either you are a troll or you're a pissed capitalism fanatic who is out of arguments, has no idea at all and/or is mentally stucked at kindergarden level.
| However let >>562141 and his likes just watch their beloved system crash again and blaming again jewish or whatever imagined conspiracy (liberal, communistfeminist, homosexual, muslim, foreign power, refugee, etc.) for it.
Back to the initial topic:
Chancelor Kurz anounced re-elections, because the recent incedent was the spark that made the barrel explode on top of many smaller scandals inside the far-right party.
| >>6be914 so you're saying that people aren't evil, already cooperate but communism is still not a thing? Maybe that means it won't happen without a dictator...
Maybe it means people don't want it to happen...
Or do you mean to say that those on the so called bourgeoisie are actually not human so they're evil and uncooperative and rule with iron fist silencing the heroic proletariat because rich people are reptilians?
Your arguments seem to have more holes than swiss cheese to me
| >>562246
>people aren't evil
Not inherently. There is no doubt that people do evil things. But they also do good things.
>already cooperate
Don't they? "Everyone is on his own" is just a propaganda ideal to justify the unfair and ridicolous inequal distribution of wealth and to fool/distract people from how things really are.
>but communism is still not a thing?
Correct. Communism is not about coorporation or good and evil. It's about solidarity and fair distribution of wealth.
| >>562246
>Maybe that means it won't happen without a dictator...
On the contrary: It won't happen with a dictator. The only way to make it happen is by transparent, accessible and basic democratically councils.
>Maybe it means people don't want it to happen...
Of course there are people who don't want it to happen, because they're afraid to loose their privileges and power. They also use their power to fool, bribe or finally force people not to make it happen. Divide and conquer.
| >>562246
>Or do you mean to say that those on the so called bourgeoisie are actually not human
No, that's Bullshit.
>so they're evil and uncooperative
They are highly coorperative. And some of them even really believe they are the good ones.
>and rule with iron fist silencing the heroic proletariat
Actually, yes. They did and do exactly this.
>Your arguments seem to have more holes than swiss cheese to me
Only those you put into my mouth, like:
>because rich people are reptilians?
| >>e0bc2d so they cooperate, try to do good but still silence the poor workers and make their lives miserable because they only care about profit?
What?
| >>562527
>so they cooperate
Cooperation is neither inherently evil or good. People can cooperate to harm others. And within a coorperation unreasonable ammounts of inequality and one-directional exploitation can (and do) exist.
>try to do good
Some believe or at least try to make people believe they do good. They have to, to justify and keep their privileges and power.
| >>562527
>but still silence the poor workers
This is a undeniable fact. Have you ever been in a trade union or on an organized strike? Have you ever tried to found a workers council in a company?
They do not only "silence" workers, they also fool and split them with religious, nationalist and racist lies that even make them kill each other.
>and make their lives miserable because they only care about profit?
This is maybe a bit oversimplified but at least it's exactly the result.
| >>e0bc2d ok. No use discussing you're as insane as the people who say it's all a conspiracy organized by the jews
| >>562527
You also totally ignore the real existing and inherent crisis cycle in capitalism. Of course, as long economy is growing everything is fine and even the most poor and exploited beeings can benefit a bit. But as soon the crisis comes and the system itself is threatened to be criticised nazist, fascist and religious fundamentalist assholes start spawning everywhere - with much support by the wealthy and powerful or even in personal union.
| >>562592
No, because "it's all organized by the jews" is just a made up racist/religious conspiracy theory.
The flaws of capitalism are logically and empirically provable. Just take a look at history. Take a look at the economical facts, like how distribution of wealth is developing. There is also a direct causal relation between economical crisis and the rise of extremist movements.
| >>562592
Every child understands that infinite growth is impossible. And everyone with at least 2 grams of brain sees how people are exploited and played out against each others, while only a few get richer and richer. Even sane pro-capitalists would agree, that there have to be public democratic institutions that make sure to have a proper frame to ensure at least fair competition in capitalism. But in reality it just doesn't work. The power gap is just too big plus increasing.
| >>562592
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Intervention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory
It all was and still is real. The weird racist/religious conspiracy theories are nothing but welcomed distractors from the actual "conspiracies". There're also lots of non-fictional books on this.
| >>562614 Wikipedia......
I take back what I've said. you're even worse than the people who blame the jews for everything...
| >>562619
What's your problem with wikipedia? Are you still stuck at Microsoft Encarta or what? I could also give you old school literature hints for this, even thought some of them are already used as source in the wiki articles. Do you prefer the IBAN or are the title and author enough for you?
Also if you think the wiki articles contain lies or false information, then you're free to contribute to it by correcting it. But I suspect you can't because you are wrong.
| >>562619
>Wikipedia......
>you're even worse than the people who blame the jews for everything...
So citing from wikipedia is more stupid/worse than antisemitism to you?
Either you are a giantic troll asshole wanking under your desk while reading my reactions to your bullshit or you are a gigantic stupid and dumb idiot that can't be helped.
| >>562830
My point is that we rather should discuss and solve real social-economic (and ecological) issues that matter than religious/cultural ones, inflated mostly by whiny right-winged populists who just perfectly exposed their hypocrisy in austria (back to topic)
>My hea hurts reading all that.
Then I'm sorry for you an hope you'll get over it. Nevertheless you should use your brain more for those things, since the heart is not open to logic and facts.
| >>562643 using it to prove your point is, early Wikipedia was a hellhole of funny false info made by trolls, modern Wikipedia is a hellhole of biased info moderated by leftists
| >>562836 Alright listen here fucko. What I've said may come off somewhat dismissive, but that was just uncalled for. You aint going to sway others with an attitude like that.
And while I agree with your first part, I believe you were the one who derailed the convo yourself by taking the Jew thing seriously. In fact, most of the time you've been making empty statements to most reply, which makes it hard to know your stance, hence why my head hurts. So what do you want exactly?
| >>562909
>early Wikipedia was a hellhole of funny false info made by trolls
No. Early wikipedia surpassed quickly commercial encyclopedias in quality and quantity.
> modern Wikipedia is a hellhole of biased info moderated by leftists
Yes issues have grown in the wikipedia all along with quantity and quality of its articles. But saying wikipedia is moderated by leftists is nothing but a biased and distorted far-rightists conspiracy theory.
| >>562909
>modern Wikipedia is a hellhole of biased info moderated by leftists
I mean if you perceive everything from a medieval perspective the whole world is moderated by leftists. It's logically, because moderate conservatives always want that things stay as they are, leftists want to change things trying out new stuff while the far-right is always about rolling back any kind of change to the past - which is retarded and stupid on the long term.
| >>562915
>You aint going to sway others with an attitude like that.
>So what do you want exactly?
I don't want to sway others. I just want that people start thinking for themselves, rational and logical. And I want them to gain more consciousness about the actual and everything determining economical interest conflict between economical classes which is very likely the basis of all other conflicts.
##Janitor:Aoi##
| Try to keep discussion civil, please.
| >>562932 imagine thinking civil discussion is possible on /new/, a board which is essentially a soup cafeteria for trolls.
| >>562932
>/news/
>civil
kekarot
Also, hi new Janny.
>>562928 I understand that the only ones who genuinely support the elites are either brainwashed idiots or people who just don't care and are satisfied with their current lives, and you want to change that so democracy can return. Thing is though, we live in a Huxleyan dystopia where even the leftist elites enjoy the fruits of labor of others. It is impossible to rebel anymore.
| >>562967 it's impossible to rebel anymore? I don't think so, not yet but tje leftists seem hell bent on making it happen, take away people's guns and suddenly no one can oppose the government anymore
| >Thing is though, we live in a Huxleyan dystopia
I Agree
>where even the leftist elites enjoy the fruits of labor of others.
No. Not "the leftists" nor the "leftist elites". First of all a majority of "the elites" is conservative and/or neoliberal, which is not "leftist". And yes, even most "social democrats" and "socialists" obeyed the neoliberal hegemony. But there still are many leftists that really want to do actual changes. But their biggest rivals are (far-)right-populists.
| >>562982
>it's impossible to rebel anymore?
You are missing the point. It's not necessary to rebel as long there is theoretically the chance to perform changes in free, same and secret elections. Taking away peoples guns was never a problem. It's more problematic that governments equip dumb people with weapons to kill each other.
>but tje leftists seem hell bent on making it happen, take away people's guns
You live in a parallel universe.
| >>562993 And here's all the political lingo again. How do you define leftist? What is neoliberalism? Google definition just means it's economic libertarianism, right?
And sure, you can say what you want about the actual leftists, but I'm talking about the most visible leftists. Anyone with even an inkling of goodwill is smothered by the collective ambitiousness ofthe selfish.
| >>562982 pfft you think you're gonna fight off the american military with whatever guns you own? If you want to protect your ability to revolt, you gotta decrease military spending first, by a lot.
Alternatively: accept that the real reason you want to own a gun is just for the Big PP Energy and/or hunting.
| >>563303 imagine thinking one of the most well-equipped voluntary militaries in the world could be outgunned by an armed civilian population
| >>563242
>how do you define leftist
Progressive powers that want to perform changes with new ideas. It's relative. In a monarchy liberals are leftists. In a liberal society socialists and communists are leftists. On the right we have conservatives, reactionists, fascists and religious fundamentalists, that either want to keep the status quo or want to go backwards into a romantically glorified past. And yes, of course there always are some grey shades between black and white.
| >tfw i just entered the thread and it's commies vs workers
>not a single commie mentioning how there is not one single successful communist country on Earth
lulz
| >What is neoliberalism? Google definition just means it's economic libertarianism, right?
Yes, I would say "economic libertarianism" is often a whitewashed word by the advocates of neoliberalism.
Theoretically there are other kinds of economical liberalism, such as social liberalism a.k.a. keynyanism. Historically/Practically they lost significance and were replaced by neoliberalism in the late 80s, when it was obvious the "communist" soviet union as competitor would collapse.
| >>563340
>tfw i just entered the thread and it's commies vs workers
This is only the way how fascists want to see things.
>not a single commie mentioning how there is not one single successful communist country on Earth
What about China and Vietnam?
>they are not communist
So not everything what is labeled as "communism" is actually communism? Couldn't this also be applied to the failed approaches?
>no, because it does not fit into my biased world view.
Of course not
lulz
| >>563343
china is a totalitarian shithole that only got better when they introduced some capitalist measures after mao. vietnam is nothing. it will never be anything.
it's funny that in this world if you work you get somewhere. commies complain because their lives suck and they don't get enough monnies. so they want the gommunizm.
compared to fascists, who like to think about the power of the individual, commies like you tend to think about the power of being insectoid rabble.
| >>563345
>china is a totalitarian
yes
>shithole
no
>that only got better when they introduced some capitalist measures after mao.
So in the end you admit that not everything labeled as "communism" is necessarily communism. Plus you admited that capitalism and totalitarianism go pretty well along, regarding chinas big politically-economically successes.
I mean they made it from a colonized, oppresed, weakened and retarded feudal country to a industrialized global power.
| >it's funny that in this world if you work you get somewhere.
A obvious and substantial refutable lie does not become true by repeating it over and over again, my friend.
>commies complain because their lives suck and they don't get enough monnies. so they want the gommunizm.
So you're out of arguments and start kindergarten rhetorics now? I'm seriously disappointed.
| >>563357
>So in the end you admit that not everything labeled as "communism" is necessarily communism
so you're admitting that there is no successful communist nation in this world. woo whee.
>capitalism and totalitarianism go pretty well along
except in literally the whole rest of the world, which are capitalist democracies and have amazing life quality. go suck on a pinecone, it's a perfect commie meal.
| >>563345
>fascists, who like to think about the power of the individual
Ahahahaha. You little deluded someone. Please stop it. You only make yourself more and more ridicolous.
Here, have a look on your "power of the individual":
https://joachimpeiperss.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/the-doctrine-of-fascism-by-benit.jpg
| >>563357
>they made it from a colonized, oppresed, weakened and retarded feudal country to a industrialized global power
in capitalist systems, that's not rare at all.
>>563358
1. go try getting a real job instead of complaining for monies. those that complain are those are are fucking useless. it's funny that the system works for literally anyone else but those that don't work in the system.
| >>563359
>so you're admitting that there is no successful communist nation in this world. woo whee.
It's not like "communist nations" (which is a contradiction, since communism is meant to be international) had no successes. Think about Space Race, the soviet victory in WW2, Industrialization and liberation in some backwarded, colonialized feudal societies, etc.
| >>563358
>kindergarten rhetorics
see >>563361
it's funny that there are still indoctrinated retards that have retarded grass-greener-on-the-other-side ideas that have literally no use in today's world - not only that, but failed spectacularly. there is no functioning communist system on this planet except a single totalitarian shithole.
| >>563359
>except in literally the whole rest of the world, which are capitalist democracies and have amazing life quality. go suck on a pinecone, it's a perfect commie meal.
It's just a question of time. The capitalist democracies started struggling lately very often. One crisis follows another, and even the fascist scum is celebrating it's comeback. Also you're ignorant the fact, that many capitalist democracies offshored their issues, e.g. to "totalitarian shitholes" like china.
| >>563374
>it's only a matter of time
have you been telling yourself that singe 1917? everything seems pretty fucking stable from here, lad.
which crises are you talking about? why would communism be the system to go with?
capitalism works just fine.
>offshored to china
thanks for mentioning the horrendously miserable conditions of chinese factory workers. they're slaved away to be as cheap as possible and thus attractive labor. i wonder where the worker's power is in all this, huh?
| >>563363
>in capitalist systems, that's not rare at all.
Yeah, have you ever heard about the
>misery, and the starvation, and the dictatorship, and the collapse
which happened during the capitalist industrialization processes, including two world wars?
>go try getting a real job
I have a "real job"
>instead of complaining for monies.
Yeah, next time i go into a shop I won't pay. And if the shop owner complain for monies I will cite you.
| >>563363
>it's funny that the system works for literally anyone else but those that don't work in the system.
>>A obvious and substantial refutable lie does not become true by repeating it over and over again, my friend.
| >>563376
since* not singe
i inadvertently called you a monkey in french lol
fuck i hate making typos in an argument
| >>563377
you cannot escape the fact that today the planet is liberal capitalist and it just fucking works
and communism is dead and not a single nation misses is
you're also blaming capitalism for things that are not in connection with it. or are you saying gavrilo princip shot a guy because he loved capitalism so much?
go back to history class...
| >>563369
>kindergarten rhetorics
see >>563361
I just unmasked your lies/mistakes.
>>563380
>you just made zero argument
Other than yours, mine argument is supported by scientific data, empirically, logically and historically.
| >>563381
>you cannot escape the fact that today the planet is liberal capitalist
Yeah, except "totalitarian shitholes" like china. Please tell me where the cheap parts of your phone/computer and other toys come from.
| >you're also blaming capitalism for things that are not in connection with it.
Maybe. It's just hard to see no connections between capitalism and todays issues if I
>cannot escape the fact that today the planet is liberal capitalist
Also maybe you're blaming communism for things that are not in connection with it.
| >>563385
from enslaved and miserable factory workers. are you proud of that?
>>563383
1. no you didn't
2. sure, show me the evidence
>>563386
i'll just go ahead and blame the likes of stalin and mao zedong and ceaucescu for the tens of millions of deaths they caused... IN THE NAME OF COMMUNISM.
communism kills individual valor and replaces it with the sheep-like placidity of idiotic masses. capitalism realizes that skilled people can rise through hard work... the "worker's power".
| >>563391
>i'll just go ahead and blame the likes of stalin and mao zedong and ceaucescu for the tens of millions of deaths they caused...
Here I go with you.
>IN THE NAME OF COMMUNISM.
1. "in the name of sth." is not equal to "in the spirit of sth."
2. It was only partly in the name of communism. Stalin, mao, ceauscu etc. caused millions of deaths in the name of stalin, mao, ceauscu etc. more than everything else.
| >communism kills individual valor
No. The goal of communism is that everyone can live according to his needs and skills.
>and replaces it with the sheep-like placidity of idiotic masses.
>capitalism realizes that skilled people can rise through hard work... the "worker's power".
An obvious and substantial refutable lie does not become true by repeating it over and over again, my friend.
>sure, show me the evidence
It'll take some time. I have to go to bed now. New day, new thread.
| >>563403
hmm... i agree... then, that means that capitalism didn't cause any harm, and that nazism and fascism is actually okay!
>>563404
robots don't sleep. or perhaps are you a broken record? your arguments are as weak as always. communism is, in effect, the destruction of the individual for its replacement by the popular masses.
the soviet union proved that.
>another thread
Gott im Himmel, i hope not
| >>563406
>hmm... i agree...
cool
>then, that means that capitalism didn't cause any harm, and that nazism and fascism is actually okay!
No it doesn't. There is zero logic in your "conclusion".
>robots don't sleep. or perhaps are you a broken record? your arguments are as weak as always.
blah blah
>communism is, in effect, the destruction of the individual for its replacement by the popular masses.
I would say that about capitalism/fascism.
>the soviet union proved that.
No.
| >Gott im Himmel, i hope not
At least i will give you the proof that your Gott im Himmel won't help you. Good night.
| and communism remains dead and buried, whatever these brainwashed fags say...
| What is more stupid/sad?
- That pro-capitalists don't understand how capitalism works and why it is highly problematic?
- That anti-capitalists (until now) failed so often and horribly to make it better by trying out something new?
| >>563406
>communism is, in effect, the destruction of the individual for its replacement by the popular masses.
Not like capitalism, where the big players dominate the market with mass-compatible products which they establish as nearly global standards.
And of course in capitalism there are no mass events, trends and marketing propaganda which make people uniform looking brainwashed conformists... No everyone is so individual and free. LOL.
| >>563381
>go back to history class.
No YOU go back to history class and learn why there were introduced regulation mechanisms like antitrust law and basic social insurances. Hint: It's not because libertarian capitalism (=neoliberalism) worked so well. After two world wars radical pro-capitalists were pretty silent. They just started getting cocky again when the soviet union broke down. Maybe they need a third world war to Understand, but I don't need and want it.
| >>563734 lol communist scum using socialism as an excuse to talk shit on capitalism
Dude, even a toddler knows socialism isn't the same as communism, communism is the shitty extreme we dont need
Socialism is cool, though, I dig free health care without having all my shit taken over by some shit government that rules over everything
Your precious communism is only replacing the oppressors not getting rid of them
| Ey. Just skimmed through the thread and noticed some misconceptions.
Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society and has nothing to do with any government. A modern communist society has never existed. The logistics of how this society would work could be a different thread.
Socialism is the ownership of the means of production, like modern day co-ops. There are authoritarian and non-authoritarian strains. Nothing to do with the government inherently.
| Not to be pedantic, just thought we should be working with accurate fundamentals.
Have fun
| >>563764 so socialism is the bas evil insane shit and communism is just a futile stupid dream of anarchists who don't know humans are selfish and capitalism can have free healthcare without becoming socialism?
Thank you my good girl, now I'm in complete love with capitalism
| >>563766
Nice strawmen. You a farmer?
What's evil about workers owning the full value of what they produce and having actual power in the workplace? It's been proven time and time again to boost productivity and quality of life for workers.
Also the human nature argument has been debunked. Saying "people are selfish" because that's what you observe under capitalism is like saying, "serfs are naturally submissive and need lords" under feudalism. Capitalism prompts selfishness.
| >>563766
Not to mention that communal societies have existed long before capitalism, and modern communism is inevitable if the human race is going to have any kind of longevity.
| >>563768 bitch, first you people say capitalism will leave humans in some sort of dark age and then you say communal societies are an old thing?
Decide already! is capitalism the outdated shit or not?
| >>563769
Good thing I differentiated between primitive communal societies and modern communism huh? And yes, capitalism has been outdated and unsustainable without concessions since the industrial revolution.
| >>563770 but you still want to undo capitalism and get to a system closer to these primitive communal society things?
| >>563775
You're missing the point. The primitive communes were just an example of a society that contradicted the idea that, humans are inherently greedy, therefore capitalism is the optimal system. Communism isn't about undoing capitalism, it's about moving past it. You can see it in increasing market failures, lowering standards of living, overproduction crises, and externalities quickly rendering the planet uninhabitable just to name a few issues. Capitalism just isn't working.
| >>563779 Communal societies aren't about supporting members of your family, it's about strength in numbers. If communal societies truly have selfless members, there wouldn't be battles for positions of authorities, and neither would they war with other tribes to expand rather than integrating with them.
Organization does not equate to being altruistic. Corporations are the biggest examples of that.
| >>563793
That's true, but I wasn't trying to say that the members of these societies were entirely selfless or they never acted selfishly, I was just trying to provide an example where selfishness didn't impede on the relatively(really stressing this word) egalitarian distribution of labor. A good example would be the Iriqous tribes.
I'm not denying selfishness as a concept, I'm just saying it wouldn't hinder a communist society, primitive or otherwise.
| >>563807 yeah, because no one would mind giving up on having things of their own and everyone would love to help lazy bums who dont want to work even though they are capable enough to work just fine
I'm not against being more humane and helping those in need, but I'm against the leeches that come pretending to be in need and getting benefits that were supposed to help the less capable
| >>563967
If you really want to be altruistic, save some straw for the cows.
Communism doesn't require the socialization of personal property, just private property(i.e., factories and other for profit establishments). Nobody's coming for your toothbrush.
And people already work to help lazy bums. They're called capitalists. Do you think a CEO works as hard as any of his employees? Do you think the amount of money they make is proportional to the work they do every day?
| >>563967
You also assume the monetary gain is the main reason people work. A lot of people are willing to aid the human race because they're ambitious, or altruistic, or they have a passion. Even more aren't able to follow their dreams because they're stuck in dead end jobs that help nobody, just so they can get by.
Even if the majority of people did want to leach off society, how long do you think that would last without them getting bored or society refuses to support them?
| >>564067 not all CEOs are like that and there's a difference between working to get there and eventually become a lazy bum and just being a lazy bum from the start
Or you think CEOs are born with a necktie and a millionaire salary?
You also need to learn the distinction between works with a cognitive load and "not working"
Not all work is manual labor, planning and managing is legitimate work unless you live in the stone age
| >>564070
Ever hear of inherited wealth? And many CEOs delegate financial management, R&D, and other facets of actually running their business to other people.
| >>564085
You miss the point. The problem is not that people get diffent salarys for their work. The problem is that people can get income just by owning industrial (and lately including also virtual) property. It's not the same as personal property, because there is a significant effect on other people and the society as a whole. There are only a few retarded socialists/communists that really want the same salary for any kind of work. The rest is capitalist propaganda.
| >>564085
Delegating work can also be work, because you need to do lots of communication, define standards and goals, keep an overview of your delegates, etc. Of course, in reality some of the big CEOs also (at least partly) own the company they work for and do exactly as you say. And yes, there are also many people in the higher ranks that are nothing but parasites to their (mostly lower) colleagues. But this is an issue which is not necessarily inherent to capitalism.
| >>564163
My point is that a successful capitalist makes money disproportionately to the work they do, just by owning capital. Not that they do none whatsoever.
When did I ever mistake personal and private property? I clarified the difference earlier in the thread.
How is the accumulation of wealth simply by owning capital not specific to capitalism?
This thread is permanently archived
| The austrian vice chancelor Hans Christian Strache, who is also head of the co-ruling far-right populist party, just withdrawed from all positions in the government and his party.
The reason is a recently appeared video, that shows him and a party comrade talking to a young women who pretended beeing related to a powerful russian oligarch.