The Biden Administration (No Lago)

[Kaelik]

So first off revolutions, just like any political movement aren't a single person doing a thing.

Yeah it's pretty funny how deaddm is like "I actually oppose democracy if it's imposed by occupation and protest because fair election would inevitably result in Kaelik being dictator, and that's why I keep supporting non democratic systems where we let Gentle Joe Biden do mass murders that are cool and good because he can be trusted to do only the right mass murders."

[PseudoStupidity]

Bourgeoise refers to the members of the bourgeois class. The bourgeois are the class of capital ownership, they are the ones who own the means of production (ex: Jeff Bezos, the guy who owns your local car dealership, every single landlord, etc.). It can be broken down further (the petit-bourgeoise are exactly what that sounds like) but we're talking about people who make their money by owning things instead of selling their labor (labor-sellers are the proletariat, or working class). We are not talking about the ill-defined middle class of developed nations that are frequently a mix of bourgeoise and proletariat.

Sorry for the double-post, but your definition of bourgeoise is incoherent.

If our subject is a lawyer earning $2 million dollars per year but he stuffs his money in his mattress, he's a prole. If after 15 years of earning his $2 million salary he has stuffed all of his mattresses to bursting so he opens a pizza parlor, he's bourgeoise - even if he quits his job and proceeds to lose money every year for the next five years (but manages to expand to 6 locations). Deciding that losing money every year is bad, he sells his business for a huge amount (probably to someone with mob connections looking to use the pizza parlors as part of a money-laundering operation, but that doesn't matter). Now that he decides he's not going to work anymore he's not bourgeois unless he buys a townhouse and rents half of it on Airbnb in which case he is, but if he just sits on a yacht and lives off his savings he's not.

That's why I wasn't sure what definition you're trying to use to refer to modern American society. 70% of Americans contribute to a retirement plan (like a 401k) meaning that they own a piece of the means of production. If your definition of bourgeois includes every teacher making $30k per year but has $1k in a IRA I don't think it's a very good definition.

My definition is coherent, you just don't understand that workers can get rich sometimes and bourgeoise can fail? I seriously have no idea what you don't understand about "a teacher is working, a person who is earning income off rental properties and investments is not working." A teacher does not make their income off investments, they make it off their work, they are proles. A CEO who has the majority of his income come from RSUs and shit? Bourgeoise. Is this complicated? I don't feel like it is.

[phlapjackage]

70% of Americans contribute to a retirement plan (like a 401k) meaning that they own a piece of the means of production.

Just want to add, trying to conflate owning stocks in general with "owning the means of production" is a pretty bad take.

[deaddmwalking]

70% of Americans contribute to a retirement plan (like a 401k) meaning that they own a piece of the means of production.

Just want to add, trying to conflate owning stocks in general with "owning the means of production" is a pretty bad take.

That's why it's incoherent.

Warren Buffett isn't a prole. He owns about 17% of Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire Hathaway owns a whole bunch of companies outright, so Warren Buffett owns 17% of them. Berkshire Hathaway also owns shares in other companies, like a 9% stake in Coca-Cola. As a result, Warren Buffett appears to own about 1.5% of Coca-Cola. That's a lot compared to how much of Coca-Cola I own, but it's not a lot compared to how much of Coca-Cola it is possible to own.

Now he does earn $100k per year as his salary directing Berkshire Hathaway. Apparently that makes him bourgeoise?

In any case, I came by to say Biden Imposes Sanctions on Israeli Settlers Over West Bank Violence

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Oh look a fake distraction announcement of a fake ass weak distraction policy from weeks ago that hasn't manifested in meaningful terms and won't do anything to stop anything if it did.

Stoopid DeadDM.

The fake announcement meant to be pointed at as somehow equal to stopping the killing for THIS week is the one about formally acknowledging Palestine as a state, or rather leaking that behind the scenes they might encourage other countries to but only "after Hamas is defeated" and maybe will try hard not to veto it, no guarantees though they might still need to veto it.

The new one is also meant for idiots to point at to claim the 2 state solution is still alive so its even better value as a fake non action to appease morons!

edit: Oh and its behind a bullshit wall. Oh and is that the SAME New York Times whose actually journalists are right now in rebellion against their higher ups over them (still right now) trying to force them to publish (a third time) and promote what has already been caught out as false Israeli propaganda about October 7th?

[Thaluikhain]

I "like" the idea of travel bans on Israeli settlers. If they are leaving the area, they presumably aren't going to be involved in war crimes in where they go to, so make sure they stay put.

[Kaelik]

In any case, I came by to say Biden Imposes Sanctions on Israeli Settlers Over West Bank Violence

For a guy doesn't want to talk about Israel and Palestine in this thread, it's weird that you can't find it in yourself to talk about the US's many war crimes in support of genocide but can find time to bring up 100% of announcements of plans to maybe do something about a few private actors.

[PseudoStupidity]

70% of Americans contribute to a retirement plan (like a 401k) meaning that they own a piece of the means of production.

Just want to add, trying to conflate owning stocks in general with "owning the means of production" is a pretty bad take.

That's why it's incoherent.

Warren Buffett isn't a prole. He owns about 17% of Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire Hathaway owns a whole bunch of companies outright, so Warren Buffett owns 17% of them. Berkshire Hathaway also owns shares in other companies, like a 9% stake in Coca-Cola. As a result, Warren Buffett appears to own about 1.5% of Coca-Cola. That's a lot compared to how much of Coca-Cola I own, but it's not a lot compared to how much of Coca-Cola it is possible to own.

Now he does earn $100k per year as his salary directing Berkshire Hathaway. Apparently that makes him bourgeoise?

Oh my fucking god can you stop being intentionally idiotic? I'm not Phlapjackage, but it's clear to me that "owning stocks in general" is referring to owning some stock but not having that be your primary source of income. Maybe I'm wrong, but context clues seem pretty clear to me here. Not to you though!

Warren Buffet makes the vast, vast majority of his income from investments, not work. That would mean he makes money by owning things, not by working, so he is bourgeoise. A teacher who has a pension plan that has stocks in its portfolio is decidedly not making their income by investments, so they are a proletarian. An office worker who has a 401k as their retirement plan is also not bourgeoise either, their income comes from working even if they do own some infinitesimal amount of the means of production in the form of stock (and they exercise no control over the means of production due to how little of it they own). A fast food worker who has no retirement plan is a proletarian as well, even if they own a share of Gamestop stock for the meme (is that still a thing? Who cares).

This is one of the simplest fucking concepts I can imagine. If you make your money by doing labor you are a proletarian, if you make your money by owning shit you are bourgeoise. This is not complicated to anyone but you, and it is totally coherent to everyone but you. Perhaps the problem here is you? It sure looks like it. Even some dead, drunk beardo who allegedly sold his pants for a beer during a pub crawl understood this shit, why can't you?

[deaddmwalking]

Yeah, I'm willing to talk about the Biden Administration in this thread. So what the administration does in relation to Israel/Gaza is on-topic, but the larger issue including what actions Israel is taking seems like it belongs somewhere else.

It sounds like the Biden Administration is making preparations to call for a Palestinian state.

Nader Mousavizadeh, founder and C.E.O. of the geopolitical consulting firm Macro Advisory Partners and a senior adviser to then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, describes this emerging Biden Doctrine as “the dual reckoning strategy.”

“You strategically call Iran’s bluff and, at the same time, you embark on an unprecedented initiative to lay the groundwork for a demilitarized Palestinian state, in ways the U.S. has never done before,” said Mousavizadeh. “Each track needs the other to succeed. Each track bolsters and justifies the other. Pushing back on Iran and its proxies in an enhanced and sustained manner strengthens Israel’s security and the security of our Arab allies. Pairing that with an authentic and bold U.S. commitment to a Palestinian state gives us legitimacy to act against Iran and the allies we need to be most effective. It also isolates Iran militarily and politically.”

[deaddmwalking]

This is one of the simplest fucking concepts I can imagine. If you make your money by doing labor you are a proletarian, if you make your money by owning shit you are bourgeoise. This is not complicated to anyone but you, and it is totally coherent to everyone but you. Perhaps the problem here is you? It sure looks like it. Even some dead, drunk beardo who allegedly sold his pants for a beer during a pub crawl understood this shit, why can't you?

Most people make money in more than one way. PRIMARILY from their jobs, but also in greater or lesser degrees from savings, investments even fucking social security.

Someone who is retired and living off Social Security isn't bourgeoise because they don't earn a salary for working. Someone who is working as at a top-flight law firm earning millions of dollars per day isn't a prole because they're a wage-earner.

The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It is like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GNP would go up.

In my opinion, how many 'claims you have on consumption' is a better barometer of what class you are. Having a lot of money, regardless of whether you earned it working a career or you inherited it from your parents.

When Marx wrote he described landowners (who earned income from rent), bourgeoise (who owned the means of production) and the proletariat (who sell their labor). Marxists are aware of this and make a point that what we think of white-collar workers have a different relationship to 'the means of production' than a factory worker, for instance.

[Kaelik]

Yeah, I'm willing to talk about the Biden Administration in this thread. So what the administration does in relation to Israel/Gaza is on-topic, but the larger issue including what actions Israel is taking seems like it belongs somewhere else.

But you aren't though. Your response to "Here's a list of like 8 ways the US is doing war crimes" was "I don't think we should talk about that here" and your response to an announcement Biden made after spending a month trying to get any muslim in Michigan to talk to him and being stonewalled by every single organization and person until he realized he needs to make some announcements that DON'T MATTER because unless he's going to invade Israel stop the genocide in Gaza and overthrow the IDF's occupation of the West Bank "recognizing" the IDF puppet government doesn't mean anything.

Nader Mousavizadeh, founder and C.E.O. of the geopolitical consulting firm Macro Advisory Partners and a senior adviser to then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, describes this emerging Biden Doctrine as “the dual reckoning strategy.”

“You strategically call Iran’s bluff and, at the same time, you embark on an unprecedented initiative to lay the groundwork for a demilitarized Palestinian state, in ways the U.S. has never done before,” said Mousavizadeh. “Each track needs the other to succeed. Each track bolsters and justifies the other. Pushing back on Iran and its proxies in an enhanced and sustained manner strengthens Israel’s security and the security of our Arab allies. Pairing that with an authentic and bold U.S. commitment to a Palestinian state gives us legitimacy to act against Iran and the allies we need to be most effective. It also isolates Iran militarily and politically.”

The US has "paved the way" for a demilitarized palestinian state several times. What happened is that every time Israel said "we aren't going to give up our total and complete control over the Palestinian people, so any agreement needs to recognize Israel as the true power over all the land and people" and then it didn't happen. And since Joe Biden isn't willing to follow US law and stop giving bombs to Israel to do genocide, why would it fucking matter what "groundwork" he's laying in response to political pressure that won't happen because he's going to lose Michigan and the election or win Michigan and the election, and immediately not need any of those votes anymore and it will disappear as fast as the public option Biden promised he would pass.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

It sounds like the Biden Administration is making preparations to call for a Palestinian state.

...

HE FELL FOR IT TOO!

Even, and only, after I pointed at it as also laughably fake.

There is power in the ignore feature.

Just as soon as they defeat Iran hey. Yep. So real. So cool. So convincing. Imma vote Genocide Joe for sure now.

[Kaelik]

Someone who is retired and living off Social Security isn't bourgeoise because they don't earn a salary for working. Someone who is working as at a top-flight law firm earning millions of dollars per day isn't a prole because they're a wage-earner.

Imagine reading this paragraph and then trying to argue with a straight face that deaddm has ever engaged with anyone in good faith in his entire life.

[PseudoStupidity]

This is one of the simplest fucking concepts I can imagine. If you make your money by doing labor you are a proletarian, if you make your money by owning shit you are bourgeoise. This is not complicated to anyone but you, and it is totally coherent to everyone but you. Perhaps the problem here is you? It sure looks like it. Even some dead, drunk beardo who allegedly sold his pants for a beer during a pub crawl understood this shit, why can't you?

Most people make money in more than one way. PRIMARILY from their jobs, but also in greater or lesser degrees from savings, investments even fucking social security.

Someone who is retired and living off Social Security isn't bourgeoise because they don't earn a salary for working. Someone who is working as at a top-flight law firm earning millions of dollars per day isn't a prole because they're a wage-earner.

The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It is like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GNP would go up.

In my opinion, how many 'claims you have on consumption' is a better barometer of what class you are. Having a lot of money, regardless of whether you earned it working a career or you inherited it from your parents.

When Marx wrote he described landowners (who earned income from rent), bourgeoise (who owned the means of production) and the proletariat (who sell their labor). Marxists are aware of this and make a point that what we think of white-collar workers have a different relationship to 'the means of production' than a factory worker, for instance.

What the fuck are you even talking about? Social Security is a government benefit paid by taxes, not an investment. Nobody who lives off social security is bourgeoise!

I'm really interested in your bit about landowners though. Would you mind quoting me the Marxist text that says modern landlords aren't bourgeoise? That guy was living in the 1800s and landlordism has changed pretty significantly since then, unless I'm mistaken your local government is your landlord if you're going by how Marx used the word (the government owns the land and you pay rent in the form of taxes to use it). We don't really have Marx-style landlords anymore, the vast majority of land is rented from the government in modern nations. If you own and rent out a multifamily home and are pulling in profit you're using that home as capital that generates profit, making you bourgeoise, while the government is your Marx-style landlord as they do nothing but extract profit from their ownership of the land in the form of taxes.

Hey, wait a minute, you didn't know what bourgeois meant (remember how that was a page ago?) but now you're saying you know obscure bits of Marxist texts and that he mentioned landlords as a separate class (he did!), but also you know so little about Marxist thought that you only know he used the word and don't understand the context of it? I accuse you of being a fraud and a liar who will continue pulling dumb bullshit out of your ass to try and make it seem like the concept of the classes bourgeois and proletariat are somehow confusing. And I reiterate that the only person who thinks this is you, and your justifications for finding it confusing are bewildering to every single person who's engaged with them.

[Thaluikhain]

I'm going to put my hand up as someone who'd prefer to see Biden (or whomever is running for the Dems) win the next US federal election. Two parties, broken system, lesser evil, etc.

But, c'mon, talking about maybe doing something isn't doing something. At best, at very best, it's a sign that not everyone is as keen on genocide as he is, and he needs some thin veneer of not being totally evil.

[Kaelik]

I'm going to put my hand up as someone who'd prefer to see Biden (or whomever is running for the Dems) win the next US federal election. Two parties, broken system, lesser evil, etc.

But, c'mon, talking about maybe doing something isn't doing something. At best, at very best, it's a sign that not everyone is as keen on genocide as he is, and he needs some thin veneer of not being totally evil.

Yeah this is literally a pr push that came two days after the report that the Biden admin offered a personal meeting to every Muslim org and politician in Michigan and couldn't even get a fucking mayor to agree to meet with him.

Just him catching up to the shit people on this forum were saying a month ago, to whit, biden probably has to win Michigan to win the election and there are more Arab voters in Michigan then his entire 2020 margin.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

In the UK the labour party has just noticed as close to that as they can manage. They did all their Genocide support (and especially clumsily, and what with being in opposition with the polls heavily in their favor completely needlessly).

JUST NOW they have noticed that there are more Muslim voters in the UK than Jewish voters (let alone Zionist voters). And also the Muslims tend to be concentrated. And a lot of that concentration is in swing seats. And also a large part of their grass roots feet on the ground are directly on loan from Muslim community groups. OOPS.

Here in Australia I haven't seen a clear run down of the demographics, but loosely knowing the importance of Western Sydney and its ethnic make up... Australia might be more extreme than the Michigan situation and without the starting lead in the polls that the UK has... well...

And they keep saying people will forget, people will come around, but seriously have they EVER said that about the Zionist community? Would they? If they did would they be right? If the USA did sponsor a genocide against Israeli Settlers this year that killed 40-50 thousand, THEY would come around to vote Genocide Joe next election?

These ostensible center left parties are living in fantasy land. They stepped in an electoral land mine of their own stupid and now they are saying their legs don't mean it and will come back to them soon. And they don't even need legs anyway maybe. And if they do they will make new ones out of suburban republican mom jeans and stuff them full of Hispanics who vote on migrant rights college students who vote on debt relief rural types whose towns were exploded by hazardous chemical trains um only mildly progressive unionists that don't care about genocides, the border, health care, economic inequality, student debt, the culture war, the supreme court, voting rights, or anything other than that one union success story that isn't even Joes fault?

[Kaelik]

To add to the list of countries Israel has bombed thanks to US impunity, Belgium. See, unlike the US, Belgium did not cut all funding to the UN relief agency after a 60 hour torture session produced a confession that the unrwa is hamas.

So Israel just bombed the Belgium agency for cooperation and development.

Because why not, it's not like the US won't spend them some bombs to blow up another building tomorrow.

[phlapjackage]

but it's clear to me that "owning stocks in general" is referring to owning some stock but not having that be your primary source of income.

Yeah that's what I meant. I think there's a deliberate misunderstanding here between the phrases "owning stocks" (meaning the stocks are yours) and "owning the means of production" (meaning you own AND have some control). Nobody who owns a mutual fund in a 401k has any control. It's the rich asshole with 20% shares and a seat on the board who has the control.

[MGuy]

My favorite thing about people like dead is how perfectly people like him mirror MAGA fans. Here we have a president that has now and in the past supported the Israeli crimes in Palestinians. We have numerous statements past and present of his intent to continue supporting it. We have people his administration sends out that never fail to reassure the American people that they will continue to do so. We have many statements out there where he's repeated direct lies that the IDF put out uncritically. Even with this abundance of evidence here we have dead still properly licking boot by posting the 100000099th statement by the Biden administration that behind the scenes 'something' is definitely being done, not to discontinue enabling genocide, but help in some nebulous way in the future. Definitely.

And instead of thinking to himself about how many similar statements have been released and then forgotten about in the past, or the fact that we know that their plan has been to kinda let the IDF do what it wants, or how statements like these have been directly and routinely contradicted by every top official in Israel, he just uncritically posts them as if they mean anything. Why would one do this? Well because there's an article. Why use one's brain to pick up on a pattern when there's a thing here to tell you how to think?

[Kaelik]

The ICJ specifically said that preventing aid from entering Gaza was one of the genocidal acts that Israel needed to stop doing.

Since that ruling, the United States of America has taken over that genocidal act on behalf of Israel so Israel can stop doing it, upgrading the offical US position from aiding and abetting a genocide to co-genocider.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-ea ... 024-02-01/

[deaddmwalking]

I'm really interested in your bit about landowners though. Would you mind quoting me the Marxist text that says modern landlords aren't bourgeoise? That guy was living in the 1800s and landlordism has changed pretty significantly since then, unless I'm mistaken your local government is your landlord if you're going by how Marx used the word (the government owns the land and you pay rent in the form of taxes to use it). We don't really have Marx-style landlords anymore, the vast majority of land is rented from the government in modern nations. If you own and rent out a multifamily home and are pulling in profit you're using that home as capital that generates profit, making you bourgeoise, while the government is your Marx-style landlord as they do nothing but extract profit from their ownership of the land in the form of taxes.

Hey, wait a minute, you didn't know what bourgeois meant (remember how that was a page ago?) but now you're saying you know obscure bits of Marxist texts and that he mentioned landlords as a separate class (he did!), but also you know so little about Marxist thought that you only know he used the word and don't understand the context of it? I accuse you of being a fraud and a liar who will continue pulling dumb bullshit out of your ass to try and make it seem like the concept of the classes bourgeois and proletariat are somehow confusing. And I reiterate that the only person who thinks this is you, and your justifications for finding it confusing are bewildering to every single person who's engaged with them.

My point 2 pages ago is that the way Marx described the economy and the various classes doesn't really make sense in 2024. Marx published the Communist Manifesto in 1848. It was very clear to him that we were in a period of rapid industrialization and marked technological change. What was less clear to him was that we would be living in a Service Economy less than 2 centuries later.

A celebrity figure like Taylor Swift doesn't fit neatly into the categories that Marx introduced. It doesn't really matter HOW she makes money, but it absolutely matters that she DOES make money. This implies that there's a more important distinction about whether you are rich or not regardless of source. Most 'rich people' have multiple income streams. They invest in stocks, bonds, businesses, real estate, and many of them have high-paying jobs, too. More than money we really have a distinction based on 'privilege'. If you are of the privileged class, regardless of whether you actually have money or not, you have access to a whole different world where people are flying on private jets and relaxing on yachts.

So when you say 'bourgeoise', I don't know if you mean it how Marx meant it which doesn't really make sense in 2024, or if you're using a different definition that more closely corresponds to 'elite white collar workers' - more of a MANAGER or EXECUTIVE class, which would have made a lot more sense.

Despite accusations of using diamond studded toilet paper in the past, I depend wholly on the combined income my wife and I earn. I don't have toys like boats or RVs, but I have a pretty decent middle-class standard of living. The median individual U.S. income is ~$31k; but the average (taking all wages paid and dividing by all people) is at least $75k. The median household income is $75k, but that includes usually more than 1 worker. I would like to see the median worker earn much closer to the average worker - that would be an indication of a more 'equitable' division of wages. Probably not coincidentally that would basically have every married couple living together earning about what my wife and I do - a comfortable but not excessively flashy existence.

[Kaelik]

"Most 'rich people' have multiple income streams. They invest in stocks, bonds, businesses, real estate, and many of them have high-paying jobs, too."

It's extremely funny to be like "Look they are bourgouise in so many different ways, and also some of them might have jobs like CEO or possibly actor!" it's part of the patently bad faith technique of not just pretending to not understand the very clear thing other people are saying, but trying to bury the concept in a word salad of almost completely unrelated sentences like "people collecting social security are not bourgoise because they collect social security" in order to fuzz up the conversation so that you hope it looks to bystanders like the entire concept is incoherent.

The problem here is you overreached yourself. Everyone can clearly see and understand the concept with no extra work, so all your attempted obfusication comes AFTER they already understand it and makes you look stupid (generous) or like a bad faith piece of shit (actual).

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I dunno. Is it bad faith if in the same Biden policy thread you refuse to defend your own assertions about Biden's Israel policies because that would be too off topic. But then you drown it in waffle of thousands of your own words redefining Marxist terminology in an attempt to pretend class struggle is all incomprehensible nonsense just to defend your own one off tangential derision of a single instance of the use of one word?

Is it?

[deaddmwalking]

Is it?

Yes.

Edit - Really it's more of a derail, but other people keep piling onto it, so it's become something of a conversation that ought to be split off, but I guess I didn't really think to do that and nobody asked me to.