that gawker “essay” about donald glover is pretty awful.
that gawker “essay” about donald glover is pretty awful.
lmao The Black Panthers have done more to fight White Supremacists than SHARP in America will ever have.
Hahahah you fucking commie piece of shit! Youre so fucking dumb. How about you learn who sharps are first you cocksucker.
We are not for one minute going to compare SHARP lifestyle skinhead bullshit to Black Panthers. SHARP is about boneheads defending a different kind of pride that actually struggles to maintain a kind of regressive white masculinity in capitalist culture. You cocksucker and its rather obvious old-style tough guy homophobia is so relevant here.
From my long experience with anti-racist skinheads, they’re just as likely to love far right capitalist political rhetoric that clearly embraces patriarchy and what we often think of as fascism as it does it does fight racism. Also don’t appreciate class fetishism. Class struggle isn’t a fashion. It isn’t a club. It isn’t a scene.
just curious. other than american libertarian guys writing for and against rants, is there anything recent (this year) that discusses bitcoins in detail and explains why it’s not what libertarians think it is, whether or not it works. i’d like to be able to discuss this with some intelligence, without the propaganda, and especially in light of China banning banks from using it as a currency and in transfers, etc.
—not that I have to be pushed to read Bataille, but after Helikon’s ask, I think I’ll re-read Story of the Eye again over my break. I’m always re-reading Bataille and posting quotes, most recently from Theory of Religion. I think with SoE I’ll dig back into Visions of Excess and Erotism and his other writing on literature, and likely Blue of Noon, since I find that book much better and more precise.
helikon asked: oh, i didn't ask that correctly, i guess-- don't know if you can respond that way. so: why do you like Story of the Eye?
Is Story of the Eye up there? I wish it were Blue of Noon. That’s the Bataille novel that really makes me happy. If I were to teach Bataille, I’d choose that one. Story of the Eye is problematic in a complex way: it’s an exercise in eruptive erotics that also tries to be a bit of a politics. It’s like his ideas about general economy mashed up with his erotics. I haven’t read Story of the Eye more than twice, I don’t think, and not since the mid90s. I’d have to read it again to give a better reason for “liking” it.
The library script is from Goodreads and lists books on my “read” shelf. It’s not a favorites shelf. It’d be a lot different if it were.
I don’t expect an answer to that last post but since that guy responded to Pritch, it’s been eating away at my peace. Share it if you want.
It’s the end of the semester, and we’re swamped at school. Teacher-Life. I have a week to collect and grade final essays and revisions and then a dead week to get my grading together, sign a new contract, prepare for next semester. Then a nice break. Though I’ve got a lot of writing to do.
Who would complain about someone wanting a higher minimum wage?? We all want our minimums to go up.
If you study a few hours into economics you would understand the impact of the minimum wage law. As a small business owner (coffee stand), I WANT to pay my employees more. Nothing would thrill me more than giving them more.
However, consider these few facts and maybe you will get the reality of the situation.
1. The business makes at BEST a 10% profit. Raising minimum wage will reduce that by nearly 2%. Now I make 8%.
2. Raising minimum wage means all my suppliers have to raise delivery and product fees, because they too have to adjust for higher costs. That will run reduce my profit by 3-5%. Now I’m at 5% profit.
3. My payroll taxes is going up because the higher minimum wage creates a tax bracket bubble. With that said, I will make no money.
What can I do about this? The same thing everyone else does. I raise my prices. So does the gas pump and the grocery store and restaurant. Now suddenly everyone’s cost of living jumped 3-10%.
Are you grasping the reality yet? Yes paying people a good living wage is a business owners responsibility. The forced increase is a small piece of the pie that puts us small business out of business
EDIT: Since it has already been stated, IE (Who cares about your profits)
This example isn’t about profits you idiot. Its the two-pronged screw you factor.
1) Raising minimum wage means EVERY SINGLE PERSONS cost of living goes UP, even the person receiving a higher wage. yes they make more, but they pay out more than they gain in food costs, rents, gas, etc. Get a frickin clue.
2) If it puts businesses OUT OF BUSINESS - those employes no longer get ANY wages. get a frickin clue.
Even using old-school capitalist ethics (i.e., Adam Smith), you’d have to ask what good are the liberating aspects of a social order that is determined to benefit only a few? The idealism in capitalism goes like this every individual can succeed through hard work and cooperation. However, the reality is that only a very small minority succeed; upward mobility has turned out to be a myth.
I’ve taught philosophy of the market and business ethics for many years. You’ll likely scoff at this—oh, here’s a teacher who wants to teach me a lesson. I mention it because your claims above are entirely nonsense. In other words, your comments are basically a rant on behalf of some order other than economics and markets. For example, you cannot talk about “profits” without talking about cheap labor. In your appeal, profits are primary. In other words, without profits there can be no employment. That’s exactly backwards. Labor is primary. Employees selling labor for less than their labor is worth in return for other valuable benefits from employers and the state is the way owners can turn surplus value into profits. There’s no magic business equation for success without labor. Even the old Austrian School theory of liberty and the capitalist markets insists that, when left unregulated, good business will get this right. Only, such justice and order in the free market has never materialized. There might be a reason for that.
Never mind your uncritical representations of the free market, profits, labor, wages, et al., your sense of ethics is skewed towards a determinism no sane individual will want. You have to ask: why stick with a system that insures only a very small minority are permitted to benefit and each benefit can only come from exploiting poor people with extreme prejudice? Why are you so invested in a market that determines a majority must suffer for the liberties of a few who we should respect because they provide for us? Why are you concerned about those few? Really. How did you develop such a concern for the unearned ambition of the rich and such contempt for the poor? (Here’s Adam Smith’s argument against your reasoning from a short section of his Theory of Moral Sentiments titled “Of the origin of Ambition, and of the distinction of Ranks”.)
If you want to have a discussion about the actual discourse about minimum wage using your ideality opposed to reality, you’ll have to argue without facts. Even in shallow mainstream discourse about real conditions of existence without philosophy, we have evidence that what has become called a living wage—that is a wage that will permit workers to annually earn just over what we call the poverty line—will help the economy and strengthen good businesses.
Talk about facts and philosophy with some critical thinking and an attempt to engage real conditions of existence, or shut the fuck up. Nobody appreciates patronizing rhetoric. We can agree about that, right?
Below are some mainstream articles citing studies. In other words, the argument that we’d be better off as a society with healthier and happier working people and more productive and profitable overall is not actually provocative. Raising wages doesn’t hurt, though it does take cooperation. I’m an anti-capitalist communist, an anarchist. So, you and I aren’t going to see eye-to-eye on most issues. I’m OK with that. But you have to willing to rise above polemic and consider real conditions of existence as much as they’re representable in discourse. You can’t use as your appeal almost two hundred year old rhetoric about earnings and deserving. Nobody is going to take that aristocratic nonsense about owners and upward mobility, about nobility, seriously anymore. The majority of us know it’s nonsense in support of a supremacist patriarchal order we no longer care to defend.
The arguments against raising the minimum wage most recently come from studies almost soley from The Heritage Foundation in which the foundation cites its own studies. Most of their evidence is strictly anecdotal. Feel free to visit their web site and read their recent work on wages. It’s very poor. Basically, it’s very weak survey work used to warrant repressive wage restrictions for the benefit of employers and is supported with all sort of myths about upward mobility and unskilled wage earners. I won’t use that research because it’s just poorly conducted and strictly in service of ideology. At least the liberal vision of a more equal society can embrace the notion that a market in which all citizens cooperate—higher wages, taxation distributed more justly (poor pay less and rich pay more)—is a better market. These studies also support the assumption that capitalist market individuals are responsible for themselves and others. When talking about capitalism, we need to address both agency and interdependence. Wealthy people can afford to make slightly less profits, prices of economic goods can be slightly higher, the wealthy should pay more taxes, and the working classes should earn enough not to have to work more than one job.
"Next, REASON gets into slightly more sophisticated marketing strategies to help explain libertarianism’s appeal to a generation raised on consumerism. The strategy is called “left drawer/right drawer” and its appeal is that it impresses the consumer and gives him the sense that merely “wearing” his libertarian ideology makes him appear special and unique— not for the political substance of the ideas so much as the impression it creates on other consumerist imbeciles, thanks to its mix-‘n’-match fashion"
Literally every single teenage libertarian shitlord on the internet. Every single one.(via ghost-of-algren)