[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives

| Catalog | Home


Their response to the ever expanding death grip of neoliberal policies in the 1970s and 80s was to run ads featuring old people talking to you and singing grandmas

Another example
48 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Seconding this. I wouldn't say put that on national television for your fundie granny to cry about (or maybe you could, to bait news stations into amplifying it). But many communities online have seen that and loved it. It's pretty normal for internet humour, if such a thing could be generalized.

It doesn't need to be official. That video certainly wasn't. Most memes aren't released by the people who they're about! An org or its members can make such agitprop to promote themselves and not put their name on it.


Communists need to adopt propaganda techniques from capitalist marketing firms. There is absolutely nothing wrong in learning from your enemy.


The unions despite being gutted were still an influential demographic from the 50s to the 70s


have you met americans?
not saying ur wrong and ofc we should agitprop with different approaches and attitudes but if you think the american working class doesn't enjoy vulgar humor from time to time I have some weapons of mass destruction to sell you in iraq


>Are there any examples of international striking?
Not really but there could be.
Supply chains for lots of companies and for whole industries are international. If you have people working in those different countries in the same union or in unions that coordinate with each other, you can coordinate strikes together. It's not that complicated tbh.

File: 1684610203002.mp4 (24.53 MB, 488x480, microplastics.mp4)


What the fuck are socialists in the future supposed to do about the damage capitalists have done to the Earth during our time? They are fucking the Earth as hard as they can, even now when its like an Onahole ripped at the top they still can't hold themselves back for a second, they're only going harder.
Global warming, for example, is unavoidable at this point due to feedback loops and even despite that capitalists are still contributing towards it more and more.
Socialism or barbarism? Well, capitalists have fucked us so badly that its barbarism either way.
72 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Pretty cool actually and I'm sure it's profitable for them


I mean in point of fact, the entire surface of the earth was glassed by a meteorite however many millions of years ago. It has frozen over , been completely covered in ash, lava and soot from extreme vulcanism. Every time after the estimated 5 to 20 extinction events that have affected the biosphere , life still finds a way.

Of course, what who we really should care about is ourselves. The biosphere will be fine no matter what we do in the long term. We should be worried about making the earth inhospitable for ourselves. We don't have millions of years to wait around.

And that is the real crux of the matter. I don't have a concrete action plan for how to resolve that, other than simply noting that under a socialist economy that prioritizes social need over private greed, the inordinate waste of resources that goes to the capitalist class and becomes inert and unproductive could be reallocated to scientific and engineering programs to develop methods of environmental restoration and preservation so that we can all enjoy and live comfortably on this beautiful, precious planet.


Well Socialists are supposed to nothing because they won't be in power ever. lol


>Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation.
read ultra read


There's no difference between a multipolarista and a Prussian socialism enjoyer it seems

 No.1458763[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Yeah yeah 'under no pretext', how important is the right for civilian firearm ownership or possession? Should the right to bear arms be a demand of the workers movement in countries where it doesn't exist? What about under socialism/communism, would there still be firearm ownership? How do we differentiate between US-style reactionary paranoid 'gun culture' and fetishization of individualism versus a collective right to bear arms?
113 posts and 24 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


You sound one step away from unironically saying "the founding fathers were talking about muskets"


typical anarkiddies, always having their priorities straight


>this a thing that happens when people substitute belief in the masses or organizing within the masses for their small group, and they compensate for the lack of effectiveness by ramping up the radical aesthetics and "militant" posture
this is everyone in leftypol who cant shut up about muh guns


Its better than nothing
I suppose some would prefer if we were all castrated liberals engaging in the public discourse, but we dont have a place there, because we are threats


>every burger in leftypol

File: 1684746756209.jfif (451.84 KB, 1483x1226, R.jfif)


I understand the value of pure theory since that's the only tool we have for shaping ideas which where not put into practice or not properly investigated. However, when the body of scientific literature is ever expanding and more and more data is being available, where is the political theory that is backed with evidence?
This is just my preliminary thoughts but Im just wondering if this is already being explored in leftists circles. As someone who read theory before but stopped, looking back on it too much was just pure speculation, "source: trust me bro" and "its common sense" type of stuff. If we really want to claim that we are scientific, shouldnt we apply empirical rigor to our body of work, shouldnt we abide by the hierarchy of evidence (be praised) as much as possible instead of being content with Freud-level of theory?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


Will do, thanks!


No probs.
You can also check Michael Hudson. Unfortunately I mostly know about the academic debates on Marxist economics via tik tok, of all places, so I can't really give you concrete authors or anything.


Cybernetic socialism involves real time economic responses to feedback which can crudely be considered similar to that idea, at least it could gather data this way as well and draw conclusions, also maybe experiment.


I always tought this was the best way to go about building communism. We only have speculations to guide us so why not experiment to find the best way to actually build a fair society? And its not like we have to experiment on everything, many case studies and reviews of multiple case studies have been done on urbanism and other things. All we gotta find out is how to run and organize the worker coops or whatever body we want to take care of the means of production.
On that note, anyone know any papers or books that try to investigate this kind of questions from looking at historical data of socialist countries?


Cool idea. Eventually we could experiment with models based on class dynamics, political and economic disparity within different societies. There are some people constructing models to experiment with planning their countries (e.g. Sweden) national industry cybernetically and that take into consideration for example carbon emissions and energy use and inputs and outputs iirc. The Swedish Marxist organization Tomäs Hardin is a part of that I cannot remember the name of off the top of my head has released a model on the internet that people can use to plug in their countries industry's inputs and outputs to construct a model for planning or something along those minds, forgive my ignorance, need to revisit, but anyways here is an example. I will embed a video of the lecture on paul cockshott's channel and here is Tomäs Hardin's channel, very underappreciated imo but like all good marxist nerds it is completely unpolished and full of old videos on random stuff: https://yewtu.be/channel/UC5fDgA_eHleDiTLC5qb5g8w


Okay so uhhh let me start by saying that as someone who grew up in the 2000s and 2010s I grew up during the peak of 80s nostalgia and pop cultural dominance, I mean hell I grew up on that shit and still like the music and films of the decade, but my thing is…weren’t the 80s like a time of horrific violence, brutal class warfare, and horrible defeat for the working class all over the world, in the Third World, in the Soviet bloc, and even in the Imperial Core, the 80s were a horrible time to not be rich, I mean sure now is worse but, holy shit, the US Empire was brutal as fuck in the 80s

Right now the 80s is worshipped by conservatives and dumb young adults like me that were raised on the culture and really just miss our teenage years and childhood since having a job fucking sucks, but do you think as the 1980s gets further and further away it will slowly become an obsession of the fascists of the future?
17 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1684715360708.png (60.62 KB, 782x409, 4589609458654.png)

Limp Bizkit was fairly anti-war too back when the GWOT kicked off which might've contributed to their decline in the U.S., and while they made fun of Putin in that video, they also knocked Biden and Zelensky and they're banned from performing in Ukraine


The problem is that the positive aspects of the 80s are never the main focus, as are any serious retrospective look into the terror that was the 80s. Real revolutionary activity was done in the 80s that history forgot; Marsha Johnson’s ACT-UP brought serious radicalization and a socialist push in the Gay liberation movement, we had a revival of sorts of activities like the SNCC’s Free Democratic Party continue on that brought the space for a predominantly black vanguard to continue to lead the charge in providing quality municipal services and combatting environmental racism and classism of that era as an early way of cleaning up the streets, we had the collapse of conservatism in general in regards to heterosexual couples and popular music in certain regards.

However outside of the monstrosity that is Stranger Things providing sterile kitsch that resembles the 2000s more than the 80s, very little of that positive legacy in a stream of bleakness is remembered. There’s the Punk scene which was a light in showcasing such resistance by working youth but not much else. We are bombarded by looks into several capitalist titans of that era, as well as the faces of reactionary nerd shit like Michael Jackson and toxic tech culture taking hold and maturing in the face of women and minorities entering those work environments.


>faces of reactionary nerd shit like Michael Jackson
I'm genuinely curious about your take on the reactionary character of Michael Jackson (makes sense though)


I don't think the 80s nostalgia has much to do with a love for the violence or neoliberalism. Rather I think it gets focused on for three reasons.

First, it was the last decade without the internet and a number of electronic devices that have been blamed for modern alienation and loneliness.

Second, I think it's used as the poster child for the cultural dynamism of the late 20th century. The 20th century, and especially the latter half of the 20th century was very culturally dynamic, compared to the relative cultural stagnation of today. Since the culture of the 21st century is largely a child of the 90s, that makes the 80s the last 20th century decade to have a strong, marked difference from the culture of today. I think a part of the nostalgia is a desire for that much more dynamic popular culture environment.

I tried to make a thread on this before, but it immediately derailed and turned into bickering over whether or not 20th century culture was actually qualitatively better than than the culture of the 21st century. I made the mistake of trying to demonstrate how much the culture changed over the decades with rock music videos to show the differences between a single genre of music between the decades (vids related), and apparently a bunch of people have rock snobs that live in their heads rent free.

Lastly, the 80s was arguably the last "futurist" decade. There was still some futurism in the 90s, but the 80s really embodied the ethos. People who grew up in the 21st century might not even know just how much people in the 20th century believed in the future. It was almost quasi-religious. The idea that society would continue to evolve and build up at an ever increasing rate, and your children would live a significantly better life than you would was basically social canon. And a lot of the styles and artistic movements were centered around embracing this coming new age. It's something that really doesn't exist anymore. And so, for people who can't see a future in their present, they often have to look back to the past, when people did believe in a future and looked towards the coming of the new age.


MJ was a giant lib who took the real struggles in the street and commercialized it by being, as Ice Cube says it, a pop uygha. That and the man was a rapist with a long rap sheet and huge virtue signaler with his charities to make up for his gay shit to his core. He embodies the worst aspects of Christian “giving” and kitschy aesthetics. Like seriously, the man abandoned based Corey Feldman in NYC on 9/11 out of fear of being ratted and hanged out with the Nation of Islam once mainstream America soured on him. He was bitchy, vain, manipulative, and a culture thief and it shows throughout the years of his career and time in the public eye.


I am from India so I will be talking about the Indian Job Market only.
We have a public sector which is shrinking continuously because of retrenchment and privatisation. Then 60% of the seats in those public sector jobs is reserved which goes to the rich sections of Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Castes. Case in point is the recent troubles that started in Manipur when one tribe demanded to be included as schedule tribe but their demand was opposed by other more dominant tribal communities. But even after that salaries on grade C or below is 3 hundred thousand per annum, if you do manage to get that job.
The private sector on the other hand is totally run on nepotism and gangsterism. Majority of jobs which are in the private sector came to India from MNCs post 1990 liberalisation of the Indian economy. So your boss is sort of a gangster in any of these private companies and all the recruitment happens through "references", there is no open job market where one can apply. Dominant castes also monopolises the good jobs among themselves but it is not about good jobs only the situation is as such that in order to get any kind of job which pays you six hundred thousand rupees per annum (minimum amount required to stay alive) you need a "reference". Also the epidemic of engineering in India is a wonder of world in itself, for any job where you sit and add and substract things and get paid 4 hundred thousand rupees per annum even for that post you need "engineering" degree and on top of that you need a "reference".
So in these situations how can anyone even be a "worker" in India? This is talking about the service sector job. Job where people do manual labor like carpenter, plumber, construction worker etc is like slave labor literally. Once again people who can go to gulf to work as construction worker would be the greatest that they can have.
I mean if you will look at it, you will find that the position in which peasants were in the pre capitalist era was not so bad after all.
24 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Reactionary Caste politics is not just done by Brahmins, No on is behind in this race to the bottom. You have Sikh "jutts" and haryanvi "jaats", you have baniyas, you have yadavs, you have gujjars, you have rajputs.
But I don't know how exactly they are doing it in diaspora communities.


But wasn't it only a couple decades ago that India was majority rural? Not to individualize this problem but can't you literally like go and be a peasant or what's the situation there? (i literally am just ignorant.. idk how it works in such a large country with lots of forest… whether or not land ownership is a big problem or if there is lots of uninhabited land)

i've been thinking about this problem too though as a USian, since we are in a situation in the advanced economies of overproduction of capital and many people are facing underemployment, unemployment, self-employment and informal work, illegal work and so on. For me here the answer is that a large part of the revolutionary force will come from this strata of progressive forces which are not industrial workers, and not necessarily workers even, but which will find it necessary to oust monopoly, finance, land-rent, state oppression and gangsterism. And in doing so it will basically be necessary also to take the means of production. All communist revolutions so far have included peasantry, and they provide a large material base of support because they are small producers. In these revolutions, the peasantry's existence necessitated some capitalist reforms and… well we see the results. Development, progress, no communism yet. Another type of peasant revolution are those which happened in feudalism. I can't think of a single one which actually took and held onto power, though, or radically changed the system. The simply were not the active agent of that society, even though time and time again they would rise up across great distances, unseat kings, and prop up Ceasars. In the end their conditions (whether the high labor needs of farming, or the lack of physical centralization, or the relatively low sum wealth of society…) kept them from revolutionizing their condition. I think this time, we will see something like the ancient peasant revolutions that seize power (without the benefit of stopping manufacture like the industrial proletariat can), but this time the material conditions are ripe for this class to use the vast wealth of society for its advantage. But still, that said, workers do exist obviously, and the industrial proletariat exists as well for now, so… this is only part of the puzzle, the other part is filled with normal marxism :p


File: 1684650726429.jpg (20.86 KB, 188x338, Sickle_and_Hammer.jpg)

>this strata of progressive forces which are not industrial workers, and not necessarily workers even, but which will find it necessary to oust monopoly, finance, land-rent, state oppression and gangsterism.
The term you are looking for is semiprolateriat

Good effort post [pic related] 4u

May I recommend you study Mao?


>But wasn't it only a couple decades ago that India was majority rural? Not to individualize this problem but can't you literally like go and be a peasant or what's the situation there?

Good Question

India is still majority rural but the problem is that peasant agragarian economy of villages is subject to the chokehold of the capitalist economy in the center. The situation is as such that capitalists in the center are making it horribly impossible for the peasants of rural agragarian economy even to survive.
So, they have got too options:
1. Become a slave labour in the cities where you will be literally paid starvation wage and if you are lucky you might get to live in a slum. But a significant portion of them (about 5%) end up becoming beggar and stuff ( the kind of stuff it is hard to even imagine).
If you are extremely lucky you might get a chance to become a labour in the construction sites in gulf.
2. Literally starve to death in the village, like straight up die due to lack of food. And if you somehow survive that you might die from lack of healthcare.

This is where also the migration from Panjab and Haryana to Canada also comes into the picture. All those who are migrating are among the "richest" sections of the agragarian rural economy with decent land ownership. I also fall in the lower most rung of that section.

So No the option of going and being a peasant is just not there and you can not even become a "worker". Unless you call the slum dwelling part time begging part time stealing hired on hourly basis for 500 rupees a day wage slaves a "worker".


u may recommend it, ill def read some more mao

thanks for the response and info about the situation. Good luck with your job search. My wholly useless advice: get swole and use your sexual wiles to curry favor with a manager


Women are not biologically disadvantaged compared to men and men are not disadvantaged compared to women. Although most of the issues women face from their reproductive system are true men also have to bear the burdens of dealing with only one source of an x and y chromosome which can lead to many genetic abnormalities, illnesses and other problems, some that prey directly on that Y chromosome. Coincidentally men are actually more emotional due to centuries of neglect since the Holocene was initiated and have far more issues with impulsivity that can lead to self destructive decision making. The author was wrong to believe male privilege extends to a biological level
39 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


> I am not against psychoanalysis and delving into the unconscious on principle
I think the point i was making is that adopting psychoanalysis is only aesthetically viable to people who are already repressed and seek to justify it by mourning their "lack". Deleuze as a frenchmen, a spiritual liberal, rejects psychoanalysis and likewise embraces nietzsche, something impossible to zizek or fisher in their depressive rationalism.
Nietzsche himself as an anti-deutsche traitor revokes the gloomy romanticism of wagners german nationalism, later forged by hitler, who himself saw life as a struggle, yet also sought death in transcendence. "If i die, Germany dies" was recorded from hitler - it was clearly a suicide pact.
>But dialectically the proletariat represents a negation of the bourgeoisie and an end of capitalism. Some scholars say that it would be the beginning of true history. There's a cyclical element of the struggle, but also a linear progression.
Yes i agree - i dont think the end of capital-ism is the end of history however. I think something of a new frontier represented in the soviet union for example shows the internal struggle of the communist state, externally and internally, fighting for survival against the forces of both revolution and counter-revolution.
>Death and finality if ontologized are fetishized by Fascists absolutely.
I feel like this isnt emphasised enough. Fascism is not just racism and chauvinism, it is pure spiritual desperation, swallowing young men into pacts with the devil, as a necessary confrontation with modernity.
A marxist humanism is not enough for some who lust after excess, in realms that the market cannot supply for them, because this would likewise be too contradictory for the market to sustain. Same reason almost every liberal country still bans weed.


Another interjection on this, Mao is relaying DiaMat in 'On Contradiction', while I'm being more modest and only considering HisMat as the "grand narrative" that is being deconstructed.


HisMat has a disturbing linearity to it
Whereas a circular notion of both time and history fit a more "eternal" model, rather than a totally negative one, but the circular model is pagan and based on rebirth, whereas the christian conception is based in progress unto singularity.
Death is the agony where we also have communion with God and dwell in him forever, a final subtraction. Marx was well acquainted with the christian religion as too was engels.
Engels in "socialism: utopian and scientific" describes the communist man as in a state of apotheosis, "a god on earth", like the christian revelation.
Engels also calls himself a "deist", as a deferment to science as the way in which we understand the world.
Science itself is a contingent discourse, like today's discussion of the "sexual marketplace", or darwin's fashionable malthusianism being extrapolated as "the survival of the fittest", a maxim appropriated by the mystical herbet spencer. Darwin also believed thaf negroes were the step from apes to man, a fixture of his whig rationalism.



Was this posted by a GPT bot?

File: 1684228587389.png (130.51 KB, 479x359, leftistmedia.png)


If class conflict is a reality, why aren't politics divided along class lines already, even if immature in consciousness, what Lenin called "trade union consciousness". Instead politics is divided between different coalitions involving different sectors and industries of capitalists and workers, divided by education, race, religious, ethnicity, geography, and seemingly everything BUT actual class.

And I know people blame muh liberal idpol but this is lazy IMO. This is really a schizo tier conspiracy, the alex-jones-ism of the left. Liberals aren't capable of socially engineering class conflict out of capitalism's existence through mass media or anything else. Its the path of least resistance to just make coalitions out of existing groups of people. Liberal idpol is a consequence and coping political strategy over the lack of class politics, not the cause of it.

Doesn't the fact that the proletariat hasn't emerged as a united political constituency disprove the basic thesis of Marxism? There's no clear evidence that the proletariat is the revolutionary subject, or that a revolutionary subject even exists under capitalism?
87 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Why isn't politics divided along class lines?
it is. You are just a weird schizo, a booj, or an american for not seeing it.
Sage and fuck all of you for giving 80+ replies when all you had to do was say the premise is wrong.


The start of it is questioning the nature of freedom, if you think that the capitalist state can guarantee your freedom, you're bourgeois. It's really that simple, I agree race and identity detracts from this basic point. Freedom of mass society is the beginning of dialectics.


You have to concede though, that these narratives have overtaken the discussions of class. The bourgeois media has made false consciousness vogue by offering a false narrative. Marxists can only intervene through their small civil societal institutions , this is a huge problem we must face straight on.


File: 1684670304029.jpeg (17.62 KB, 300x300, FewFM-jWAAAfHIA.jpeg)

>For most of the twentieth century, us political parties represented different coalitions of capitalists, who appealed to working-class voters on the basis that they would promote economic development, expand job opportunities and generate revenues to invest in public goods. This was the ‘material basis of consent’ that determined party success at the polls: a local version of the politics that shaped most capitalist democracies during the long post-war boom.

>The us political scene has long displayed a profoundly paradoxical aspect: while ubiquitously structured by class, it is marked by an almost complete absence of ‘class politics’. The parties, at their apexes, minister to different fractions of capital, but at their bases are oriented to different fractions of workers. Thus, neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party is, or has ever been, a ‘working-class party’; it is correct to interpret these parties as parties of capital. Yet despite this fundamental orientation, they must both seek to appeal to the material interests of those who ‘own only their own labour power’, since this sector makes up the vast majority of the American population. Any party that competes in electoral politics must to some extent respond to working-class interests. Despite the talk of identity politics and ‘post-material values’, us politics has a clear material mass base. But it is not a class politics, because naturally neither Democrats nor Republicans seek to mobilize the many workers who vote for them against capital; nor do they attempt to exert effective political control over capital, especially in the era of ‘political capitalism’. Thus we have, in our formulation, material-interest politics without working-class politics.


Simple answer. The dominant ideology is the ideology of the ruling class. And they would prefer that people be divided about race and gender and sexuality and other issues of secondary or tertiary importance so that workers are coming for each other's heads rather than their's.

File: 1677988794996.png (18.34 KB, 1200x800, ClipboardImage.png)


Since the beginning of my political activity, I have made it
a rule not to curry favour with the bourgeoisie. The political
attitude of that class is marked by the sign of cowardice. It
concerns itself exclusively with order and tranquillity, and we
know in what sense to understand that. I aimed, instead, to
awaken the enthusiasm of the working-class world for my ideas.
The first years of my struggle were therefore concentrated on
the object : win over the worker to the National Socialist Party.

Here's how I set about it:
1. I followed the example of the Marxist parties by putting
up posters in the most striking red.

2. I used propaganda trucks that were literally carpeted
with posters of a flaming red, equipped with equally red flags
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
37 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



File: 1683162448954.png (129.7 KB, 1160x770, ClipboardImage.png)


That was the "bleeding edge" (as they say in the business) of propaganda at the time. It's all clearly outdated now.
>failed artist
>becomes marketer
Oh yeah it's all coming together.



>To convince women by reasoned argument is always impossible
hysterical women, amirite fellas?

File: 1681961976201.jpg (120.07 KB, 1024x749, blair mg nest.jpg)


Let's take Apple as an example.

Apple CEO Tim Cook drew a ~$100m salary in 2021. This is approximately .00025% of Apple's annual profit for $400b. Average S&P500 stockholders receive up to 86% of all profits the company makes each year(gotta love Shareholder Profit Maximization). This means realistically that Apple pays out $344b each year to investors and stockholders in some form or another, and functionally operates on $56b each year. But you rarely ever hear about these investment companies, banks, board members, or criticism leveled at this system in of itself. It's always the CEO as a face, as if they own the company and are paying themselves all of the earned money as a grift. The people truly responsible for the grift are behind the scenes and have no names or faces because these are few sole proprietorship companies anymore. Consider the idea that the vast majority of major companies in the US operate under this model of maximizing shareholder profits, and that the US GDP last year was $26.85t. Let's take an estimate that conservatively about half of that went to shareholders instead of 86%, so as to account for small businesses and other ventures. That's $13.4 trillion dollars, or enough to pay every single American adult $53,600 each year without impeding existing margins that companies already run on.

Dig into how much money quietly goes into the financial world and you realize CEO salaries are pennies, or even a distraction from where your surplus value really goes.
11 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>I make more than the median CEO.
What the fuck man.


Are you from burgerstan?

Mean, median and mode are all different way to find "average" value. Mean is when you add everything together and divide by number of items. Median means that 50% of items are bigger than than it and 50% of items are smaller than it, or as close to that as you can. A number in the middle if you will.

They are more or les useful in a different calculations. Arithmetic mean for example is prone to being influenced by big extremities, for example if you have 9 people with the salary of 1000 and one person with the salary of 10000, the mean in this case would be 1900, so the "average" salary would be bigger than that of 90% of the people.

In the essense the guy said that he earns more than half of the CEOs (most of them beign probably small timers), but due to small amount of CEOs that earn an incredible amount of money the arithmetic mean salary is overly inflated and he earns less than that.


Nope, forgetting those CEO’s shareholdings within their company getting rentier investments through dividends.


CEO and executives in general are closer to the idea of how PMCs controls the economy than the actual PMCs themselves.


Lots of CEOs in charge of backwater little companies, I imagine.

Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 33 / 34 / 35 / 36 ]
| Catalog | Home