I mean, if she was bent over in front of me I would, and as I climax inside her spicy 🌶 bean pocket, I would put on my MAGA hat and scream HEALTHCARE IS NOT A RIGHT!!
every time I get summoned here, I have a quick look around and find that this place gets worse and worse, it's like a black hole which mangles everything that gets sucked into it. src
If you're talking about the healthcare stuff, it's literally cheaper than our current system:
I keep seeing people bring up the study that found the plan would cost "26 trillion" but every article leaves out the fact the study actually concluded it was cheaper than the current healthcare system over the same time period depending on how cost reduction went.
A lot of Americans seem to just be completely oblivious as to how much money we spend on healthcare. This makes them vulnerable to rightoid propaganda with flashy titles like "40 trillion over the next 15 years" ignoring the current system would be even more flashy.
Yeah, let me know how were going to change the current system, you know with the whole insurance, pharmaceutical, and medical industry fighting it. You literally have to completely overhaul an entirely entrenched system.
Oh it's not being paranoid it's called having a decent job with good benefits
The current US healthcare system is literally not fucking sustainable. Linking healthcare to employment is one of the most retarded god damn things possible, it creates so many problems it isn't even funny.
So your solution is to just let the pharma industry/insurance industry win? Continue robbing the nation blind, keep up the rapidly inflating healthcare costs? That is exactly how we got in this situation in the first place, we let the insurance industry win.
I'm not arguing it is, I realize we spend 17% of our gdp where Europe is at 10% or 11% I'm just being a realist. Something was done, it was obamacare remember. At this point the medical industry spends way more on lobbying than the defense industry and we know how powerful the military industrial complex is.
The ACA was a start, the Swiss have pretty much a system of private insurance like the ACA on steroids. Jonathan Gruber actually has a good speech on what they tried to accomplish if you can watch the full hour long video.
Having diets consisting of triple decker cheeseburgers with a side of extra large chili cheese fries and having to drive everywhere instead of walking doesn't really help that.
Not even that many industries, just health insurance. Basically every other company would be better off because they wouldn't have to worry about paying health care costs of their employees anymore.
Yeah, let me know how were going to change the current system, you know with the whole insurance, pharmaceutical, and medical industry fighting it. You literally have to completely overhaul an entirely entrenched system.
Sure single payer be cheaper, but it ain't going to keep costs down more than stop them from exploding. This is besides it cutting back on things like how many hospitals having MRI's and such. Good luck to you if you need one and its hours away and your in critical condition.
And I love how libtards ignore facts they don't like. Go look at cancer outcomes in terms of recovery. Mention that seeing how many people have cancer today and how more are getting cancer at that. More so look at the gap in the outcomes in other areas, not exactly huge now is it? All you doing is using liberal talking points. Nothing I said was a right wing talking point.
at 78.8 years; the range for other countries was 80.7 to 83.9 years
Wow a gap of a whole 1.9 years to 5.1 years. OMG A MASSIVE GAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for proving my point. By the way I already said they spend less than us but the gains are not huge as your own source shows. More so did they even take in diet? As last time I check the US was the fattest ones around don't you think that may just have an impact on one's life span? Na lets ignore that part shall we? As your good a ignoring facts that don't fit your little box.
This is wild, you're going to unironically defend the worst healthcare system in the western world?
Why exactly do you think linking cancer survival rates is a valid counter-argument to the US healthcare system performing poorly overall?
The quality of US healthcare isn't the problem, the US has top tier medical care as long as you have the cash. But the quality of care for the wealthy isn't the only relevant metric when judging a healthcare system, it isn't even in the top 20.
The fact you're under the impression cancer survival rates being higher in the US means the US healthcare system is performing well leads me to believe you aren't very educated on this subject and do not have a firm grasp on the point of a healthcare system or why it even exists.
Why exactly do you think linking cancer survival rates is a valid counter-argument to the US healthcare system performing poorly overall?
Uh probably because so many people get cancer today? Its like the top or that one of the top health issues today. Tell me what does mortality rates have to prove that the US system is performing poorly?
the US has top tier medical care as long as you have the cash
Even if you don't have cash you are still getting good healthcare. But you apparently think everyone else is getting 3rd world care.
The fact you're under the impression cancer survival rates being higher in the US means the US healthcare system is performing well leads me to believe you aren't very educated on this subject and do not have a firm grasp on the point of a healthcare system.
I actually do have a firm grasp on this issue far more than you do. More so you clearly can't read either, as if you could you would seen I am saying the US system isn't as bad as you are making it out to be. As you are clearly ignoring the gap between the US and other countries and have a total lack of self awareness at that.
Uh probably because so many people get cancer today? Its like the top or that one of the top health issues today. Tell me what does mortality rates have to prove that the US system is performing poorly?
Are you delusional? Did you even read what you were linked? You're asking me what overall preventable deaths rates have to do with how well a healthcare system is functioning?
Also, what?
Among the major causes of death, the U.S. has lower than average mortality rates for cancers and higher than average rates in the other categories relative to comparable countries. These categories accounted for nearly 88 percent of all deaths in the U.S. in 2013.
What does this say?
Even if you don't have cash you are still getting good healthcare. But you apparently think everyone else is getting 3rd world care.
I didn't say the US system was 3rd world due to quality of care, I said it's 3rd world in relation to how well the system functions as a whole, as in how well it serves the public.
I actually do have a firm grasp on this issue far more than you do. More so you clearly can't read either, as if you could you would seen I am saying the US system isn't as bad as you are making it out to be. As you are clearly ignoring the gap between the US and other countries and have a total lack of self awareness at that.
The US healthcare system costs more and performs worse than other healthcare systems, is this true or false?
Ok, so with this I'll conclude we both know the answer to my question is "yes" and you don't want to admit it.
You're very see through, friend. The fact you're so incapable of admitting you're wrong you'll call objective facts "liberal talking points" is evidence of serious cognitive problems.
And I end with you clearly don't or can't or won't read what others say.
The fact you're so incapable of admitting you're wrong you'll call objective facts "liberal talking points" is evidence of serious cognitive problems.
I just love the rightoid talking points that pop up about healthcare
Talk about being an NPC with total lack of self awareness. Also I don't think you should be bringing up cognitive problems when you clearly are lacking there. Tell me this do you not think massive amount of obesity may just lower one's life expectancy? Who am I kidding of course you don't think that clearly the government itself running the show means magically everything gets better. Talk about being delusional.
Of course you are done. You clearly lack comprehension skills and you are acting like an NPC on top of it. This is besides ignoring facts that don't fit your view point. And your right I am against single payer as I think public option would be better. The only zealot here is you.
What fact was ignored? You seem to believe that cancer survival rates being higher in the united states is proof the US healthcare system performs well. This argument makes no rational sense considering by every public health metric we're doing worse than other countries are.
You're literally the only person here ignoring facts, which is why you were completely incapable of admitting the US healthcare system costs more and performs worse than other systems.
I thought you where done NPC? Let me know when you learn to read and research what you are talking about. As you clearly need help in both of those areas.
which is why you were completely incapable of admitting the US healthcare system costs more
You can't even formulate coherent arguments, you're a fucking NPC.
I really don't think you should be talking when you have total lack of reading comprehension skills, straight up using liberal talking points, ignored facts, and use made up imaginary lines only to accuse me of doing so. Face it kid you lost purely due to poor debating skills. More so why you still replying to me? I thought you where done getting your ass kicked?
You actually might be mentally ill. The fact you unironically think you won this after being unable to answer a simple question is hilarious.
I know people like you tend to have low levels of education, but this is a level of delusion I've not seen in a while. You're so uneducated and so retarded you don't even know how dumb you are, and that my friend, is a feat.
I guess I add making shit up and ad hominem attacks to the list of things you did in this "argument". Pro tip when you resort to ad hominem attacks you lost the debate.
This is coming from the idiot who clearly can't read. If only could the idiot could read would they have known I already answered their question. I don't think I ever ran into anyone as stupid as you are.
Of course you are done. You clearly lack comprehension skills and you are acting like an NPC on top of it. This is besides ignoring facts that don't fit your view point. And your right I am against single payer as I think public option would be better. The only zealot here is you.
I be surprise if the idiot be able to read, as I answered your question right there.
Oh look the idiot can read I am really am shocked. Now if only if the idiot could dp critical thinking. As what possible reason would I be for public opinion?
I also love how rightoids are always so concerned with "how we'll pay for this" when healthcare is talked about, but whenever there's a new multi-trillion dollar war, or an airplane, or whatever else, that's never an area of concern.
healthcare costing even more than fucking military spending
Single payer healthcare is literally cheaper than our current system. It'd reduce costs by about 2.6 trillion dollars over the next 10 years depending on how cost reduction went.
The wars were more than that over 10 years. So it isn't that I'm retarded, it's that you are.
Single payer healthcare is literally cheaper than our current system. It'd reduce costs by about 2.6 trillion dollars over the next 10 years depending on how cost reduction went.
There are multiple systems in the US, insurance, paid, and citations needed.
The wars were more than that over 10 years. So it isn't that I'm retarded, it's that you are.
Unless we are fighting a forever war and you are saying your healthcare should only last ten years, it's not surprising how a mentally retarded person's only retort after being perfectly described as one is 'no u'.
There are multiple systems in the US, insurance, paid, and citations needed.
What? Single payer would reduce overall spending on healthcare in the US. This is pretty basic, what exactly do you want "citation" of?
Unless we are fighting a forever war and you are saying your healthcare should only last ten years, it's not surprising how a mentally retarded person's only retort after being perfectly described as one is 'no u'.
Retard, the people trying to argue against it keep implying the "extra cost" is 10 + trillion dollars. When in reality the cost will be lower over the same time period than our current healthcare system.
Single payer is literally saving money, a war is not saving money but costing money. The fact you can't follow this is hilarious, do you even know what day of the week it is?
What? Single payer would reduce overall spending on healthcare in the US. This is pretty basic, what exactly do you want "citation" of?
You think there is only one system and you don't even know what citation I want. Look, you are retarded. I get it but you still don't know why and you are misunderstanding it as me not knowing. Okay, you are telling me that if people need to see a Doctor now, they pay blah blah, but suddenly, out of nowhere, it's gonna cost less when this system is implemented, when we change to the single-payer healthcare system, it fucking goes down. Magic. Federal government spent 1 trillion dollars on healthcare a year and your proposal has the government spending 32.6 trillion dollars in 10 years. It would cost us 10 trillion dollars in 10 years but this would cost 32.6 trillion dollars in ten years and you are telling me we are going to save 3 trillion dollars on healthcare. Damn. Just damn.
Single payer is literally saving money, a war is not saving money but costing money. The fact you can't follow this is hilarious, do you even know what day of the week it is?
You actually still can't comprehend that this costs more than the war and the importance of hard power, 'murica's way of asserting their dominance in this world with their military. You gonna ask me what day of the week it is...? durr i don't know you so smart
Your illiteracy and failure to even understand the subject is why I called you a retard. You very clearly had no idea what was even going on here or what was being said.
Come on now, buddy boy, where is the real argument?
Owing to the rapid growth of the movement, in 1922 we felt compelled to take a definite stand on a question which has not been fully solved even yet.
In our efforts to discover the quickest and easiest way for the movement to reach the heart of the broad masses we were always confronted with the objection that the worker could never completely belong to us while his interests in the purely vocational and economic sphere were cared for by a political organization conducted by men whose principles were quite different from ours.
That was quite a serious objection. The general belief was that a workman engaged in some trade or other could not exist if he did not belong to a trade union. Not only were his professional interests thus protected but a guarantee of permanent employment was simply inconceivable without membership in a trade union. The majority of the workers were in the trades unions. Generally speaking, the unions had successfully conducted the battle for the establishment of a definite scale of wages and had concluded agreements which guaranteed the worker a steady income. Undoubtedly the workers in the various trades benefited by the results of that campaign and, for honest men especially, conflicts of conscience must have arisen if they took the wages which had been assured through the struggle fought by the trades unions and if at the same time the men themselves withdrew from the fight.
It was difficult to discuss this problem with the average bourgeois employer. He had no understanding (or did not wish to have any) for either the material or moral side of the question. Finally he declared that his own economic interests were in principle opposed to every kind of organization which joined together the workmen that were dependent on him. Hence it was for the most part impossible to bring these bourgeois employers to take an impartial view of the situation. Here, therefore, as in so many other cases, it was necessary to appeal to disinterested outsiders who would not be subject to the temptation of fixing their attention on the trees and failing to see the forest. With a little good will on their part, they could much more easily understand a state of affairs which is of the highest importance for our present and future existence.
In the first volume of this book I have already expressed my views on the nature and purpose and necessity of trade unions. There I took up the standpoint that unless measures are undertaken by the State (usually futile in such cases) or a new ideal is introduced in our education, which would change the attitude of the employer towards the worker, no other course would be open to the latter except to defend his own interests himself by appealing to his equal rights as a contracting party within the economic sphere of the nation's existence. I stated further that this would conform to the interests of the national community if thereby social injustices could be redressed which otherwise would cause serious damage to the whole social structure. I stated, moreover, that the worker would always find it necessary to undertake this protective action as long as there were men among the employers who had no sense of their social obligations nor even of the most elementary human rights. And I concluded by saying that if such self-defence be considered necessary its form ought to be that of an association made up of the workers themselves on the basis of trades unions.
This was my general idea and it remained the same in 1922. But a clear and precise formula was still to be discovered. We could not be satisfied with merely understanding the problem. It was necessary to come to some conclusions that could be put into practice. The following questions had to be answered:
(1) Are trade unions necessary?
(2) Should the German National Socialist Labour Party itself operate on a trade unionist basis or have its members take part in trade unionist activities in some form or other?
(3) What form should a National Socialist Trades Union take? What are the tasks confronting us and the ends we must try to attain?
(4) How can we establish trade unions for such tasks and aims?
I think that I have already answered the first question adequately. In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence will be enormously reinforced thereby.
Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing the various professions and occupations.
The second question is also easy to answer. If the trade unionist movement is important, then it is clear that National Socialism ought to take a definite stand on that question, not only theoretically but also in practice. But how? That is more difficult to see clearly.
The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People's State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself. It is a great mistake to believe that by acquiring possession of supreme political power we can bring about a definite reorganization, suddenly starting from nothing, without the help of a certain reserve stock of men who have been trained beforehand, especially in the spirit of the movement. Here also the principle holds good that the spirit is always more important than the external form which it animates; since this form can be created mechanically and quickly. For instance, the leadership principle may be imposed on an organized political community in a dictatorial way. But this principle can become a living reality only by passing through the stages that are necessary for its own evolution. These stages lead from the smallest cell of the State organism upwards. As its bearers and representatives, the leadership principle must have a body of men who have passed through a process of selection lasting over several years, who have been tempered by the hard realities of life and thus rendered capable of carrying the principle into practical effect.
It is out of the question to think that a scheme for the Constitution of a State can be pulled out of a portfolio at a moment's notice and 'introduced' by imperative orders from above. One may try that kind of thing but the result will always be something that has not sufficient vitality to endure. It will be like a stillborn infant. The idea of it calls to mind the origin of the Weimar Constitution and the attempt to impose on the German people a new Constitution and a new flag, neither of which had any inner relation to the vicissitudes of our people's history during the last half century.
The National Socialist State must guard against all such experiments. It must grow out of an organization which has already existed for a long time. This organization must possess National Socialist life in itself, so that finally it may be able to establish a National Socialist State that will be a living reality.
As I have already said, the germ cells of this State must lie in the administrative chambers which will represent the various occupations and professions, therefore first of all in the trades unions. If this subsequent vocational representation and the Central Economic Parliament are to be National Socialist institutions, these important germ cells must be vehicles of the National Socialist concept of life. The institutions of the movement are to be brought over into the State; for the State cannot call into existence all of a sudden and as if by magic those institutions which are necessary to its existence, unless it wishes to have institutions that are bound to remain completely lifeless.
Looking at the matter from the highest standpoint, the National Socialist Movement will have to recognize the necessity of adopting its own trade-unionist policy.
It must do this for a further reason, namely because a real National Socialist education for the employer as well as for the employee, in the spirit of a mutual co-operation within the common framework of the national community, cannot be secured by theoretical instruction, appeals and exhortations, but through the struggles of daily life. In this spirit and through this spirit the movement must educate the several large economic groups and bring them closer to one another under a wider outlook. Without this preparatory work it would be sheer illusion to hope that a real national community can be brought into existence. The great ideal represented by its philosophy of life and for which the movement fights can alone form a general style of thought steadily and slowly. And this style will show that the new state of things rests on foundations that are internally sound and not merely an external façade.
Hence the movement must adopt a positive attitude towards the trade-unionist idea. But it must go further than this. For the enormous number of members and followers of the trade-unionist movement it must provide a practical education which will meet the exigencies of the coming National Socialist State.
Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune(4): here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.
In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.
Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc.
Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.
The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.
No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.
The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.
The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.
At this stage, the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.
But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.
Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.
This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the ten-hours’ bill in England was carried.
Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.
Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.
Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.
Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.
In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.
All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.
Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
When Mr. Bilbo Baggins of Bag End announced that he would shortly be celebrating his eleventy-first birthday with a party of special magnificence, there was much talk and excitement in Hobbiton.
Bilbo was very rich and very peculiar, and had been the wonder of the Shire for sixty years, ever since his remarkable disappearance and unexpected return. The riches he had brought back from his travels had now become a local legend, and it was popularly believed, whatever the old folk might say, that the Hill at Bag End was full of tunnels stuffed with treasure. And if that was not enough for fame, there was also his prolonged vigour to marvel at. Time wore on, but it seemed to have little effect on Mr. Baggins. At ninety he was much the same as at fifty. At ninety-nine they began to call him well-preserved; but unchanged would have been nearer the mark. There were some that shook their heads and thought this was too much of a good thing; it seemed unfair that anyone should possess (apparently) perpetual youth as well as (reputedly) inexhaustible wealth.
"It will have to be paid for," they said. "It isn't natural, and trouble will come of it!"
But so far trouble had not come; and as Mr. Baggins was generous with his money, most people were willing to forgive him his oddities and his good fortune. He remained on visiting terms with his relatives (except, of course, the Sackville-Bagginses), and he had many devoted admirers among the hobbits of poor and unimportant families. But he had no close friends, until some of his younger cousins began to grow up.
The eldest of these, and Bilbo's favourite, was young Frodo Baggins. When Bilbo was ninety-nine he adopted Frodo as his heir, and brought him to live at Bag End; and the hopes of the Sackville- Bagginses were finally dashed. Bilbo and Frodo happened to have the same birthday, September 22nd. "You had better come and live here, Frodo my lad," said Bilbo one day; "and then we can celebrate our birthday-parties comfortably together." At that time Frodo was still in his tweens, as the hobbits called the irresponsible twenties between childhood and coming of age at thirty-three.
Twelve more years passed. Each year the Bagginses had given very lively combined birthday-parties at Bag End; but now it was understood that something quite exceptional was being planned for that autumn. Bilbo was going to be eleventy-one, 111, a rather curious number, and a very respectable age for a hobbit (the Old Took himself had only reached 130); and Frodo was going to be thirty- three, 33, an important number: the date of his "coming of age".
Tongues began to wag in Hobbiton and Bywater; and rumour of the coming event travelled all over the Shire. The history and character of Mr. Bilbo Baggins became once again the chief topic of conversation; and the older folk suddenly found their reminiscences in welcome demand.
No one had a more attentive audience than old Ham Gamgee, commonly known as the Gaffer. He held forth at The Ivy Bush, a small inn on the Bywater road; and he spoke with some authority, for he had tended the garden at Bag End for forty years, and had helped old Holman in the same job before that. Now that he was himself growing old and stiff in the joints, the job was mainly carried on by his youngest son, Sam Gamgee. Both father and son were on very friendly terms with Bilbo and Frodo. They lived on the Hill itself, in Number 3 Bagshot Row just below Bag End.
"A very nice well-spoken gentlehobbit is Mr. Bilbo, as I've always said," the Gaffer declared. With perfect truth: for Bilbo was very polite to him, calling him 'Master Hamfast', and consulting him constantly upon the growing of vegetables - in the matter of 'roots', especially potatoes, the Gaffer was recognized as the leading authority by all in the neighbourhood (including himself).
"But what about this Frodo that lives with him?" asked Old Noakes of Bywater. "Baggins is his name, but he's more than half a Brandybuck, they say. It beats me why any Baggins of Hobbiton should go looking for a wife away there in Buckland, where folks are so queer."
"And no wonder they're queer," put in Daddy Twofoot (the Gaffer's next-door neighbour), "if they live on the wrong side of the Brandywine River, and right agin the Old Forest. That's a dark bad place, if half the tales be true."
"You're right, Dad!" said the Gaffer. "Not that the Brandybucks of Buckland live in the Old Forest; but they're a queer breed, seemingly. They fool about with boats on that big river - and that isn-t natural. Small wonder that trouble came of it, I say. But be that as it may, Mr. Frodo is as nice a young hobbit as you could wish to meet. Very much like Mr. Bilbo, and in more than looks. After all his father was a Baggins. A decent respectable hobbit was Mr. Drogo Baggins; there was never much to tell of him, till he was drownded."
"Drownded?" said several voices. They had heard this and other darker rumours before, of course; but hobbits have a passion for family history, and they were ready to hear it again.
"Well, so they say," said the Gaffer. "You see: Mr. Drogo, he married poor Miss Primula Brandybuck. She was our Mr. Bilbo's first cousin on the mother's side (her mother being the youngest of the Old Took's daughters); and Mr. Drogo was his second cousin. So Mr. Frodo is his first and second cousin, once removed either way, as the saying is, if you follow me. And Mr. Drogo was staying at Brandy Hall with his father-in-law, old Master Gorbadoc, as he often did after his marriage (him being partial to his vittles, and old Gorbadoc keeping a mighty generous table); and he went out boating on the Brandywine River; and he and his wife were drownded, and poor Mr. Frodo only a child and all."
"I've heard they went on the water after dinner in the moonlight," said Old Noakes; "and it was Drogo's weight as sunk the boat."
"And I heard she pushed him in, and he pulled her in after him," said Sandyman, the Hobbiton miller.
"You shouldn't listen to all you hear, Sandyman," said the Gaffer, who did not much like the miller. "There isn't no call to go talking of pushing and pulling. Boats are quite tricky enough for those that sit still without looking further for the cause of trouble. Anyway: there was this Mr. Frodo left an orphan and stranded, as you might say, among those queer Bucklanders, being brought up anyhow in Brandy Hall. A regular warren, by all accounts. Old Master Gorbadoc never had fewer than a couple of hundred relations in the place. Mr. Bilbo never did a kinder deed than when he brought the lad back to live among decent folk.
Ahahahahaha defending Ocasio holy fucking shit mate. Listen, as an hispanic, I've seen first hand the cancer that is Democratic Socialism. I will gladly take a rightist poison pill than a leftists one.
She looks like she has a bit more weight on her; she is pretty skinny as it is now. Maybe that super effective diet for poor people; can't afford to eat plan.
Yeah I’d booty rape her, but I’d booty rape almost anything. Just another nasty beaner who’s miraculously managed to go into her 30’s without getting kids or becoming disgustingly overweight. Whoo hoo😐
she looked pretty cute cooking ( https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsVKmYCXoAAHzqq.jpg ) I guess there's some obscure law that requires of politicians to look creepy on official photos or something idk
151 comments
1 McFluffTheCrimeCat 2018-11-20
Nah.
1 BeanerShnitzel 2018-11-20
I’d still stick it in her spicy 🌶 bean pocket!
1 McFluffTheCrimeCat 2018-11-20
Whore.
1 BeanerShnitzel 2018-11-20
You wouldn’t?!?😬
1 LOLREDDIThahah 2018-11-20
that was fucking disgusting but kinda funny in a way I've become accustomed to. upvote.
1 BeanerShnitzel 2018-11-20
You know you would...
1 LOLREDDIThahah 2018-11-20
alexandria ocasio-cortez deepfake porn when?
1 BeanerShnitzel 2018-11-20
I don’t think I’d go that far.
I mean, if she was bent over in front of me I would, and as I climax inside her spicy 🌶 bean pocket, I would put on my MAGA hat and scream HEALTHCARE IS NOT A RIGHT!!
1 RichEvansSextape 2018-11-20
1 circo_is_bad_drama 2018-11-20
Not spelling her name correctly smh it's Nasim.
1 jewdanksdad 2018-11-20
Tay is white. Get rid of her
1 SnapshillBot 2018-11-20
every time I get summoned here, I have a quick look around and find that this place gets worse and worse, it's like a black hole which mangles everything that gets sucked into it. src
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Matues49 2018-11-20
https://i.imgur.com/ppD9SP5.jpg
1 Ganbazuroi 2018-11-20
She actually looks MORE creepy than her tbh
1 NotDemiFiend 2018-11-20
Mmmm yea give me all that free stuuuuf
1 Mother_Jabubu 2018-11-20
FREEEEEE HAAAAWWWWWW
REEEEE HAWWWWWWW
1 boyoyoyoyong 2018-11-20
Your plans cost 40 trillion dollars how do you pay for it
"You just you know pay it"
1 RacewarJohnny 2018-11-20
Another conservitard rekted
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
If you're talking about the healthcare stuff, it's literally cheaper than our current system:
I keep seeing people bring up the study that found the plan would cost "26 trillion" but every article leaves out the fact the study actually concluded it was cheaper than the current healthcare system over the same time period depending on how cost reduction went.
A lot of Americans seem to just be completely oblivious as to how much money we spend on healthcare. This makes them vulnerable to rightoid propaganda with flashy titles like "40 trillion over the next 15 years" ignoring the current system would be even more flashy.
1 BeanerShnitzel 2018-11-20
You leave those cuckservatives alone!
1 boyoyoyoyong 2018-11-20
Yeah, let me know how were going to change the current system, you know with the whole insurance, pharmaceutical, and medical industry fighting it. You literally have to completely overhaul an entirely entrenched system.
Oh it's not being paranoid it's called having a decent job with good benefits
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
The current US healthcare system is literally not fucking sustainable. Linking healthcare to employment is one of the most retarded god damn things possible, it creates so many problems it isn't even funny.
So your solution is to just let the pharma industry/insurance industry win? Continue robbing the nation blind, keep up the rapidly inflating healthcare costs? That is exactly how we got in this situation in the first place, we let the insurance industry win.
Something has to be done.
1 boyoyoyoyong 2018-11-20
I'm not arguing it is, I realize we spend 17% of our gdp where Europe is at 10% or 11% I'm just being a realist. Something was done, it was obamacare remember. At this point the medical industry spends way more on lobbying than the defense industry and we know how powerful the military industrial complex is.
1 westofthetracks 2018-11-20
"the government literally cant pass legislation if capital opposes it" is pure idealism, not at all "realist"
1 drizzle_dorf 2018-11-20
You’re being a cuck
1 _narrows 2018-11-20
I always hear this from you people, but you keep fucking refusing to die already
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
Imagine if rightoids didn't spend 85% of their time fighting against common sense.
1 _narrows 2018-11-20
Imagine if you had the courage to pull the trigger
1 nicerredditaccount 2018-11-20
Imagine if you didn't spend 85% of your time seriousposting.
1 throwawayact69 2018-11-20
The ACA was a start, the Swiss have pretty much a system of private insurance like the ACA on steroids. Jonathan Gruber actually has a good speech on what they tried to accomplish if you can watch the full hour long video.
1 SpiceAndEvNice 2018-11-20
Again, I live in what you would call the third world and I've seen this first hand. You literally have NO IDEA what you are talking about.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
The US has worse health outcomes than every other western country.
1 CompetitiveLoiterer 2018-11-20
Having diets consisting of triple decker cheeseburgers with a side of extra large chili cheese fries and having to drive everywhere instead of walking doesn't really help that.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
Other western countries are obese as well.
1 Twattertwotter 2018-11-20
1 youcanteatbullets 2018-11-20
Not even that many industries, just health insurance. Basically every other company would be better off because they wouldn't have to worry about paying health care costs of their employees anymore.
1 ColossusOfTheDanube 2018-11-20
Ok and?
1 Marcus_McTavish 2018-11-20
Shits bad
It’ll take work and effort to change it
Better just roll over
Neoliberals are the worst
1 drizzle_dorf 2018-11-20
Lmao you people are fucking useless
1 TruthPains 2018-11-20
That is one of the stupidest reasons I've heard for NOT providing an entire population with much needed healthcare.
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
Sure single payer be cheaper, but it ain't going to keep costs down more than stop them from exploding. This is besides it cutting back on things like how many hospitals having MRI's and such. Good luck to you if you need one and its hours away and your in critical condition.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
Why do single payer countries have better health outcomes than the US?
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
And I love how libtards ignore facts they don't like. Go look at cancer outcomes in terms of recovery. Mention that seeing how many people have cancer today and how more are getting cancer at that. More so look at the gap in the outcomes in other areas, not exactly huge now is it? All you doing is using liberal talking points. Nothing I said was a right wing talking point.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
The US absolutely has worse health outcomes than other western countries, I'm not really sure how that is even controversial.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/u-s-pays-more-for-health-care-with-worse-population-health-outcomes/
The reality is the US healthcare system is inferior to other systems if we judge it on the basis "how well does this system serve the public."
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
Wow a gap of a whole 1.9 years to 5.1 years. OMG A MASSIVE GAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for proving my point. By the way I already said they spend less than us but the gains are not huge as your own source shows. More so did they even take in diet? As last time I check the US was the fattest ones around don't you think that may just have an impact on one's life span? Na lets ignore that part shall we? As your good a ignoring facts that don't fit your little box.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
This is wild, you're going to unironically defend the worst healthcare system in the western world?
Why exactly do you think linking cancer survival rates is a valid counter-argument to the US healthcare system performing poorly overall?
The quality of US healthcare isn't the problem, the US has top tier medical care as long as you have the cash. But the quality of care for the wealthy isn't the only relevant metric when judging a healthcare system, it isn't even in the top 20.
The fact you're under the impression cancer survival rates being higher in the US means the US healthcare system is performing well leads me to believe you aren't very educated on this subject and do not have a firm grasp on the point of a healthcare system or why it even exists.
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
Uh probably because so many people get cancer today? Its like the top or that one of the top health issues today. Tell me what does mortality rates have to prove that the US system is performing poorly?
Even if you don't have cash you are still getting good healthcare. But you apparently think everyone else is getting 3rd world care.
I actually do have a firm grasp on this issue far more than you do. More so you clearly can't read either, as if you could you would seen I am saying the US system isn't as bad as you are making it out to be. As you are clearly ignoring the gap between the US and other countries and have a total lack of self awareness at that.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
Are you delusional? Did you even read what you were linked? You're asking me what overall preventable deaths rates have to do with how well a healthcare system is functioning?
Also, what?
What does this say?
I didn't say the US system was 3rd world due to quality of care, I said it's 3rd world in relation to how well the system functions as a whole, as in how well it serves the public.
The US healthcare system costs more and performs worse than other healthcare systems, is this true or false?
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-20
Wow, you must be a JP fan
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
I see you continue to have reading issues. I never asked you that.
Yes please do tell me what it say, seeing it supports what I been saying.
Are you or are you not using liberal talking points? Yes or no?
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
You won't get another real response from me until you answer the following question:
Does the united states healthcare system cost more and perform worse than the healthcare systems of other countries?
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
You won't get another real response from me until you answer the following question:
Are you or are you not using liberal talking points?
I need to establish a baseline of facts so I can see how delusional you are and how bad your reading skills are before I waste more time.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
Ok, so with this I'll conclude we both know the answer to my question is "yes" and you don't want to admit it.
You're very see through, friend. The fact you're so incapable of admitting you're wrong you'll call objective facts "liberal talking points" is evidence of serious cognitive problems.
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
And I end with you clearly don't or can't or won't read what others say.
Talk about being an NPC with total lack of self awareness. Also I don't think you should be bringing up cognitive problems when you clearly are lacking there. Tell me this do you not think massive amount of obesity may just lower one's life expectancy? Who am I kidding of course you don't think that clearly the government itself running the show means magically everything gets better. Talk about being delusional.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
Does the united states healthcare system cost more and have worse overall health outcomes than the united kingdom?
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
And what imaginary line are we using here? Seeing you like to make such lines up.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
Listen, I'm done with this. You're incapable of even admitting the US has worse health outcomes than other countries while spending more.
You aren't a conservative; you're a zealot that opposes single payer on a tribal basis rather than any respect for the facts.
Here's a conservative website making the case for single payer:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
Of course you are done. You clearly lack comprehension skills and you are acting like an NPC on top of it. This is besides ignoring facts that don't fit your view point. And your right I am against single payer as I think public option would be better. The only zealot here is you.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
What fact was ignored? You seem to believe that cancer survival rates being higher in the united states is proof the US healthcare system performs well. This argument makes no rational sense considering by every public health metric we're doing worse than other countries are.
You're literally the only person here ignoring facts, which is why you were completely incapable of admitting the US healthcare system costs more and performs worse than other systems.
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
I thought you where done NPC? Let me know when you learn to read and research what you are talking about. As you clearly need help in both of those areas.
You are really are special kind of NPC aren't you?
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
Does the US healthcare system cost more and perform worse than other systems?
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
You are really are special kind of NPC aren't you?
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
"You're the NPC, says the rightoid that thinks spamming NPC is a valid counter argument to actual facts."
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
I really don't think you should be talking when you have total lack of reading comprehension skills, straight up using liberal talking points, ignored facts, and use made up imaginary lines only to accuse me of doing so. Face it kid you lost purely due to poor debating skills. More so why you still replying to me? I thought you where done getting your ass kicked?
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
You actually might be mentally ill. The fact you unironically think you won this after being unable to answer a simple question is hilarious.
I know people like you tend to have low levels of education, but this is a level of delusion I've not seen in a while. You're so uneducated and so retarded you don't even know how dumb you are, and that my friend, is a feat.
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
I guess I add making shit up and ad hominem attacks to the list of things you did in this "argument". Pro tip when you resort to ad hominem attacks you lost the debate.
Stay triggered will you.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
"triggered" says the NPC, now watch as he avoids answering the question because he knows the answer makes him wrong:
Do other healthcare systems provide better overall care for cheaper?
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
You can't be seriously this stupid.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
My argument:
The US healthcare system costs more and performs worse than other healthcare systems.
Is this true or false?
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
My argument:
Can you read what others said? Yes or no?
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
So this is now the 5th time you've failed to answer a basic question because you know the answer proves you a moron.
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
This is coming from the idiot who clearly can't read. If only could the idiot could read would they have known I already answered their question. I don't think I ever ran into anyone as stupid as you are.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
You never answered the question, you deflected from it over and over and over again.
It's a yes or no question.
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
Maybe if the idiot could read they would know I already answered it. You should really just go to /r/TopMindsOfReddit and stay there with your stupidity.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
Copy paste to me the comment in which you answered my yes or no question.
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
I already linked you it. Maybe if you could read you find it.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
No you didn't, you linked all of them.
Copy paste to me the exact comment in which you answered my yes or no question with either yes or no.
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
I be surprise if the idiot be able to read, as I answered your question right there.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
That's not you answering my question, it's you saying you like a public option over single payer.
That is not a "yes or no answer" to my question you mongoloid.
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
Oh look the idiot can read I am really am shocked. Now if only if the idiot could dp critical thinking. As what possible reason would I be for public opinion?
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
I asked you a yes or no question, I didn't ask you if you were in support of a public option.
A public option isn't even much better than the current system.
1 FineLow 2018-11-20
There's only so much stupidity I can put up with I am done. Feel free to have the last word I am sure the idiotic NPC needs it to feel smart.
1 Rosaarch 2018-11-20
The military budget for America yearly is half a trillion (2015), you times it by 15 it's still 7.5-10 trillion.
Now do the Math for your healthcare buddy boy
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
Amazing. The illiteracy on this sub gets worse and worse every year.
1 Rosaarch 2018-11-20
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
Single payer healthcare is literally cheaper than our current system. It'd reduce costs by about 2.6 trillion dollars over the next 10 years depending on how cost reduction went.
The wars were more than that over 10 years. So it isn't that I'm retarded, it's that you are.
1 Rosaarch 2018-11-20
There are multiple systems in the US, insurance, paid, and citations needed.
Unless we are fighting a forever war and you are saying your healthcare should only last ten years, it's not surprising how a mentally retarded person's only retort after being perfectly described as one is 'no u'.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-20
What? Single payer would reduce overall spending on healthcare in the US. This is pretty basic, what exactly do you want "citation" of?
Retard, the people trying to argue against it keep implying the "extra cost" is 10 + trillion dollars. When in reality the cost will be lower over the same time period than our current healthcare system.
Single payer is literally saving money, a war is not saving money but costing money. The fact you can't follow this is hilarious, do you even know what day of the week it is?
1 Rosaarch 2018-11-20
You think there is only one system and you don't even know what citation I want. Look, you are retarded. I get it but you still don't know why and you are misunderstanding it as me not knowing. Okay, you are telling me that if people need to see a Doctor now, they pay blah blah, but suddenly, out of nowhere, it's gonna cost less when this system is implemented, when we change to the single-payer healthcare system, it fucking goes down. Magic. Federal government spent 1 trillion dollars on healthcare a year and your proposal has the government spending 32.6 trillion dollars in 10 years. It would cost us 10 trillion dollars in 10 years but this would cost 32.6 trillion dollars in ten years and you are telling me we are going to save 3 trillion dollars on healthcare. Damn. Just damn.
You actually still can't comprehend that this costs more than the war and the importance of hard power, 'murica's way of asserting their dominance in this world with their military. You gonna ask me what day of the week it is...? durr i don't know you so smart
Come on now, buddy boy, where is the real argument?
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-20
Wow, you must be a JP fan
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Rosaarch 2018-11-20
Owing to the rapid growth of the movement, in 1922 we felt compelled to take a definite stand on a question which has not been fully solved even yet. In our efforts to discover the quickest and easiest way for the movement to reach the heart of the broad masses we were always confronted with the objection that the worker could never completely belong to us while his interests in the purely vocational and economic sphere were cared for by a political organization conducted by men whose principles were quite different from ours. That was quite a serious objection. The general belief was that a workman engaged in some trade or other could not exist if he did not belong to a trade union. Not only were his professional interests thus protected but a guarantee of permanent employment was simply inconceivable without membership in a trade union. The majority of the workers were in the trades unions. Generally speaking, the unions had successfully conducted the battle for the establishment of a definite scale of wages and had concluded agreements which guaranteed the worker a steady income. Undoubtedly the workers in the various trades benefited by the results of that campaign and, for honest men especially, conflicts of conscience must have arisen if they took the wages which had been assured through the struggle fought by the trades unions and if at the same time the men themselves withdrew from the fight. It was difficult to discuss this problem with the average bourgeois employer. He had no understanding (or did not wish to have any) for either the material or moral side of the question. Finally he declared that his own economic interests were in principle opposed to every kind of organization which joined together the workmen that were dependent on him. Hence it was for the most part impossible to bring these bourgeois employers to take an impartial view of the situation. Here, therefore, as in so many other cases, it was necessary to appeal to disinterested outsiders who would not be subject to the temptation of fixing their attention on the trees and failing to see the forest. With a little good will on their part, they could much more easily understand a state of affairs which is of the highest importance for our present and future existence. In the first volume of this book I have already expressed my views on the nature and purpose and necessity of trade unions. There I took up the standpoint that unless measures are undertaken by the State (usually futile in such cases) or a new ideal is introduced in our education, which would change the attitude of the employer towards the worker, no other course would be open to the latter except to defend his own interests himself by appealing to his equal rights as a contracting party within the economic sphere of the nation's existence. I stated further that this would conform to the interests of the national community if thereby social injustices could be redressed which otherwise would cause serious damage to the whole social structure. I stated, moreover, that the worker would always find it necessary to undertake this protective action as long as there were men among the employers who had no sense of their social obligations nor even of the most elementary human rights. And I concluded by saying that if such self-defence be considered necessary its form ought to be that of an association made up of the workers themselves on the basis of trades unions. This was my general idea and it remained the same in 1922. But a clear and precise formula was still to be discovered. We could not be satisfied with merely understanding the problem. It was necessary to come to some conclusions that could be put into practice. The following questions had to be answered: (1) Are trade unions necessary? (2) Should the German National Socialist Labour Party itself operate on a trade unionist basis or have its members take part in trade unionist activities in some form or other? (3) What form should a National Socialist Trades Union take? What are the tasks confronting us and the ends we must try to attain? (4) How can we establish trade unions for such tasks and aims? I think that I have already answered the first question adequately. In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence will be enormously reinforced thereby. Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing the various professions and occupations. The second question is also easy to answer. If the trade unionist movement is important, then it is clear that National Socialism ought to take a definite stand on that question, not only theoretically but also in practice. But how? That is more difficult to see clearly. The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People's State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself. It is a great mistake to believe that by acquiring possession of supreme political power we can bring about a definite reorganization, suddenly starting from nothing, without the help of a certain reserve stock of men who have been trained beforehand, especially in the spirit of the movement. Here also the principle holds good that the spirit is always more important than the external form which it animates; since this form can be created mechanically and quickly. For instance, the leadership principle may be imposed on an organized political community in a dictatorial way. But this principle can become a living reality only by passing through the stages that are necessary for its own evolution. These stages lead from the smallest cell of the State organism upwards. As its bearers and representatives, the leadership principle must have a body of men who have passed through a process of selection lasting over several years, who have been tempered by the hard realities of life and thus rendered capable of carrying the principle into practical effect. It is out of the question to think that a scheme for the Constitution of a State can be pulled out of a portfolio at a moment's notice and 'introduced' by imperative orders from above. One may try that kind of thing but the result will always be something that has not sufficient vitality to endure. It will be like a stillborn infant. The idea of it calls to mind the origin of the Weimar Constitution and the attempt to impose on the German people a new Constitution and a new flag, neither of which had any inner relation to the vicissitudes of our people's history during the last half century. The National Socialist State must guard against all such experiments. It must grow out of an organization which has already existed for a long time. This organization must possess National Socialist life in itself, so that finally it may be able to establish a National Socialist State that will be a living reality. As I have already said, the germ cells of this State must lie in the administrative chambers which will represent the various occupations and professions, therefore first of all in the trades unions. If this subsequent vocational representation and the Central Economic Parliament are to be National Socialist institutions, these important germ cells must be vehicles of the National Socialist concept of life. The institutions of the movement are to be brought over into the State; for the State cannot call into existence all of a sudden and as if by magic those institutions which are necessary to its existence, unless it wishes to have institutions that are bound to remain completely lifeless. Looking at the matter from the highest standpoint, the National Socialist Movement will have to recognize the necessity of adopting its own trade-unionist policy. It must do this for a further reason, namely because a real National Socialist education for the employer as well as for the employee, in the spirit of a mutual co-operation within the common framework of the national community, cannot be secured by theoretical instruction, appeals and exhortations, but through the struggles of daily life. In this spirit and through this spirit the movement must educate the several large economic groups and bring them closer to one another under a wider outlook. Without this preparatory work it would be sheer illusion to hope that a real national community can be brought into existence. The great ideal represented by its philosophy of life and for which the movement fights can alone form a general style of thought steadily and slowly. And this style will show that the new state of things rests on foundations that are internally sound and not merely an external façade. Hence the movement must adopt a positive attitude towards the trade-unionist idea. But it must go further than this. For the enormous number of members and followers of the trade-unionist movement it must provide a practical education which will meet the exigencies of the coming National Socialist State.
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-20
You can type 10,000 characters and you decided that these were the one's that you wanted.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Rosaarch 2018-11-20
Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune(4): here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-20
Mommy is soooo proud of you, sweaty. Let's put this sperg out up on the fridge with all your other failures.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Rosaarch 2018-11-20
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.
In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.
Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc.
Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.
The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.
No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.
The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.
The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.
At this stage, the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-20
Good job bobby, here's a star
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Rosaarch 2018-11-20
But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.
Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.
This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the ten-hours’ bill in England was carried.
Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.
Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.
Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.
Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.
In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.
All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.
Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-20
Have you owned the libs yet?
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Rosaarch 2018-11-20
When Mr. Bilbo Baggins of Bag End announced that he would shortly be celebrating his eleventy-first birthday with a party of special magnificence, there was much talk and excitement in Hobbiton.
Bilbo was very rich and very peculiar, and had been the wonder of the Shire for sixty years, ever since his remarkable disappearance and unexpected return. The riches he had brought back from his travels had now become a local legend, and it was popularly believed, whatever the old folk might say, that the Hill at Bag End was full of tunnels stuffed with treasure. And if that was not enough for fame, there was also his prolonged vigour to marvel at. Time wore on, but it seemed to have little effect on Mr. Baggins. At ninety he was much the same as at fifty. At ninety-nine they began to call him well-preserved; but unchanged would have been nearer the mark. There were some that shook their heads and thought this was too much of a good thing; it seemed unfair that anyone should possess (apparently) perpetual youth as well as (reputedly) inexhaustible wealth.
"It will have to be paid for," they said. "It isn't natural, and trouble will come of it!"
But so far trouble had not come; and as Mr. Baggins was generous with his money, most people were willing to forgive him his oddities and his good fortune. He remained on visiting terms with his relatives (except, of course, the Sackville-Bagginses), and he had many devoted admirers among the hobbits of poor and unimportant families. But he had no close friends, until some of his younger cousins began to grow up.
The eldest of these, and Bilbo's favourite, was young Frodo Baggins. When Bilbo was ninety-nine he adopted Frodo as his heir, and brought him to live at Bag End; and the hopes of the Sackville- Bagginses were finally dashed. Bilbo and Frodo happened to have the same birthday, September 22nd. "You had better come and live here, Frodo my lad," said Bilbo one day; "and then we can celebrate our birthday-parties comfortably together." At that time Frodo was still in his tweens, as the hobbits called the irresponsible twenties between childhood and coming of age at thirty-three.
Twelve more years passed. Each year the Bagginses had given very lively combined birthday-parties at Bag End; but now it was understood that something quite exceptional was being planned for that autumn. Bilbo was going to be eleventy-one, 111, a rather curious number, and a very respectable age for a hobbit (the Old Took himself had only reached 130); and Frodo was going to be thirty- three, 33, an important number: the date of his "coming of age".
Tongues began to wag in Hobbiton and Bywater; and rumour of the coming event travelled all over the Shire. The history and character of Mr. Bilbo Baggins became once again the chief topic of conversation; and the older folk suddenly found their reminiscences in welcome demand.
No one had a more attentive audience than old Ham Gamgee, commonly known as the Gaffer. He held forth at The Ivy Bush, a small inn on the Bywater road; and he spoke with some authority, for he had tended the garden at Bag End for forty years, and had helped old Holman in the same job before that. Now that he was himself growing old and stiff in the joints, the job was mainly carried on by his youngest son, Sam Gamgee. Both father and son were on very friendly terms with Bilbo and Frodo. They lived on the Hill itself, in Number 3 Bagshot Row just below Bag End.
"A very nice well-spoken gentlehobbit is Mr. Bilbo, as I've always said," the Gaffer declared. With perfect truth: for Bilbo was very polite to him, calling him 'Master Hamfast', and consulting him constantly upon the growing of vegetables - in the matter of 'roots', especially potatoes, the Gaffer was recognized as the leading authority by all in the neighbourhood (including himself).
"But what about this Frodo that lives with him?" asked Old Noakes of Bywater. "Baggins is his name, but he's more than half a Brandybuck, they say. It beats me why any Baggins of Hobbiton should go looking for a wife away there in Buckland, where folks are so queer."
"And no wonder they're queer," put in Daddy Twofoot (the Gaffer's next-door neighbour), "if they live on the wrong side of the Brandywine River, and right agin the Old Forest. That's a dark bad place, if half the tales be true."
"You're right, Dad!" said the Gaffer. "Not that the Brandybucks of Buckland live in the Old Forest; but they're a queer breed, seemingly. They fool about with boats on that big river - and that isn-t natural. Small wonder that trouble came of it, I say. But be that as it may, Mr. Frodo is as nice a young hobbit as you could wish to meet. Very much like Mr. Bilbo, and in more than looks. After all his father was a Baggins. A decent respectable hobbit was Mr. Drogo Baggins; there was never much to tell of him, till he was drownded."
"Drownded?" said several voices. They had heard this and other darker rumours before, of course; but hobbits have a passion for family history, and they were ready to hear it again.
"Well, so they say," said the Gaffer. "You see: Mr. Drogo, he married poor Miss Primula Brandybuck. She was our Mr. Bilbo's first cousin on the mother's side (her mother being the youngest of the Old Took's daughters); and Mr. Drogo was his second cousin. So Mr. Frodo is his first and second cousin, once removed either way, as the saying is, if you follow me. And Mr. Drogo was staying at Brandy Hall with his father-in-law, old Master Gorbadoc, as he often did after his marriage (him being partial to his vittles, and old Gorbadoc keeping a mighty generous table); and he went out boating on the Brandywine River; and he and his wife were drownded, and poor Mr. Frodo only a child and all."
"I've heard they went on the water after dinner in the moonlight," said Old Noakes; "and it was Drogo's weight as sunk the boat."
"And I heard she pushed him in, and he pulled her in after him," said Sandyman, the Hobbiton miller.
"You shouldn't listen to all you hear, Sandyman," said the Gaffer, who did not much like the miller. "There isn't no call to go talking of pushing and pulling. Boats are quite tricky enough for those that sit still without looking further for the cause of trouble. Anyway: there was this Mr. Frodo left an orphan and stranded, as you might say, among those queer Bucklanders, being brought up anyhow in Brandy Hall. A regular warren, by all accounts. Old Master Gorbadoc never had fewer than a couple of hundred relations in the place. Mr. Bilbo never did a kinder deed than when he brought the lad back to live among decent folk.
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-20
OUT
OUT
OUT
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Rosaarch 2018-11-20
If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist.
1 WeWuzKANG5 2018-11-20
Imagine defending someone who doesn't even understand the structure of government.
1 SpiceAndEvNice 2018-11-20
Ahahahahaha defending Ocasio holy fucking shit mate. Listen, as an hispanic, I've seen first hand the cancer that is Democratic Socialism. I will gladly take a rightist poison pill than a leftists one.
1 tHeSiD 2018-11-20
How would you respond to the raising unemployment?
Work two jobs
1 push_ecx_0x00 2018-11-20
by selling pics of dem tittles
1 Watermark03 2018-11-20
The current plan costs society 40 trillion dollars once the same time period too, I wonder how we will manage?
1 bunkerman11 2018-11-20
It's not like the current system isnt ungodly expensive.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-11-20
https://i.imgur.com/HJhv1oT.gifv
1 stalejokesunlimited 2018-11-20
Are you fucking kidding me? Is this really her? I’m getting angry at how attractive I find her
1 TruthPains 2018-11-20
She looks like she has a bit more weight on her; she is pretty skinny as it is now. Maybe that super effective diet for poor people; can't afford to eat plan.
1 POST_BUSSY 2018-11-20
That means a better hip to milker ratio
1 TruthPains 2018-11-20
She is surprisingly hawt af
1 badukbingepurge 2018-11-20
You are all ignoring the crazy eyes.
Which tbf just adds to the overall effect, but folks ought to know what they may be getting into.
1 TruthPains 2018-11-20
Crazy women fuck like crazy women.
1 badukbingepurge 2018-11-20
Bitch made me sexist
1 ugongitbuttraped 2018-11-20
who wants to tell her people in socialist countries are too woozy and lightheaded from malnutrition to twirl around happily on top of buildings
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-11-20
Your mom.
1 ugongitbuttraped 2018-11-20
we ate my mom when the government food co-op ran out of beans
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-11-20
https://i.imgur.com/dxz4eRm.gifv
1 ugongitbuttraped 2018-11-20
bitch give me that sausage
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-11-20
No! Mine!
1 bsbbtnh 2018-11-20
That's heavy.
1 POST_BUSSY 2018-11-20
She's unironically great as a source of drama though. Socialists and Chapotards are ass blasted about her, and so are the Conservatives and TD.
1 I-hate-trump 2018-11-20
She is fine as fuck
1 Vurtizontal 2018-11-20
Get some standards damn. She's a average af.
1 ShitsureiKamisama 2018-11-20
Yeah I’d booty rape her, but I’d booty rape almost anything. Just another nasty beaner who’s miraculously managed to go into her 30’s without getting kids or becoming disgustingly overweight. Whoo hoo😐
1 push_ecx_0x00 2018-11-20
I need more details. Can you write up some booty rape fanfic? Thanks in advance
1 ShitsureiKamisama 2018-11-20
Itll be done in an hour.
1 Eric_Style 2018-11-20
Awesome
1 push_ecx_0x00 2018-11-20
This is amazing
1 Wimzer 2018-11-20
Wtf I love autism posting now
1 push_ecx_0x00 2018-11-20
we need more dawg
1 MrGoodieMob 2018-11-20
MDE and CAcels REEEEEEEEEEEEing right now
1 Mexagon 2018-11-20
She's a guaranteed win for Conservatives. We'd love for her to run--oh I mean "ree."
1 POST_BUSSY 2018-11-20
Reminder that you post in /r/ShitPoliticsSays
1 circo_is_bad_drama 2018-11-20
She looks like the protagonist from Battlefront 2. What a mummy though!
1 MulanMcNugget 2018-11-20
Literally who?
1 AFellowCanadianGuy 2018-11-20
What’s this aboot.
1 badukbingepurge 2018-11-20
Amercan politico elected on the basis of wealth redistribution, which angers some who are prone to it.
1 EddingtonDidNothingW 2018-11-20
she looked pretty cute cooking ( https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsVKmYCXoAAHzqq.jpg ) I guess there's some obscure law that requires of politicians to look creepy on official photos or something idk
1 nybbas 2018-11-20
Yes, that looks like a not ugly human female.
1 Inceltiers 2018-11-20
Not even a commie but she is a top tier waifu and politicalfu
1 jewdanksdad 2018-11-20
She needs to post noods.
1 darkinard 2018-11-20
1 Tell_them_to_shrug 2018-11-20
I don’t know who this is, but it’s a woman, so obviously she’s stupid.
1 Watermark03 2018-11-20
I don't understand her face. If you look at any individual feature, it's ugly, but somehow it you look at the whole she's hot. Also a nice rack.
1 diggity_md 2018-11-20
HEE-HAW
1 Strictlybutters 2018-11-20
I just don’t see it
1 NormanImmanuel 2018-11-20
Literally actually who?
1 PotentialFortune5 2018-11-20
I'd have babies with her, mixed race ones too
1 Gtyyler 2018-11-20
Who is he?