/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

cletas are fun compa

>>2809514
Yeah but there us a greater implication to this, the bourgeois want to lower wages, this is a constant under capitalism, cars are becoming more and more expensive here because:
1.- Tariffs at Chinese cars were uncreased because Daddy Trump ordered so and the neo-neolib government said yes to Daddy Trump
2.- Fuel is more expensive because of the war, crackdown on fuel smuggling gangs and Pemex being shit
3.- Cars in general are more expensive because car manufacturers have to meet ever harder emission and crash safety standars

What does this mean? Well, the proletariat needs more money, needs higher wages to afford cars, therefore, if the bourgeois want to lower wages they need the proletariat to have less expenses, cars being one of them, as such, they need a bigger and more efficient public transit system. We understand therefore that the capitalist class is willing to ask for bigger investments on public transit.

>>2809615
I don't disagree with your logic comrade. Personally I only bike (I drink way too much every day to drive a car) and I would be glad to say goodbye to cars in cities forever in exchange for free and good quality 24h public transit.
But then again I don't live in a city nearly as massive as the DF and I'm sure it would be a logistics nightmare to make that happen there. It would probably take forever and cause a lot of suffering for the average prole, not to mention the displacement of poor neighborhoods etc.

Public transit is always good. Complaints are reactionary. Protect the planet.

>>2809615
Cars are more expensive because they make higher profits if they're stupid expensive SUVs

Gas will get expensive either way.

Just get the bike, it costs like 10$ to get one for life

There are many cities and towns in my area that take half an hour to reach by car, but several hours by public transportation, requiring multiple modes of transport, so no thanks

Public transportation is great when it's not too expensive or get colonized by antisocial vagrants. The issue with the last part is that the people pushing for more efficient and plentiful public transportation are also the most lenient when it comes to such behaviors.
I always see fellow leftist making excuses for retards blasting their music full volume or generally being a nuisance on trains and buses because punishing them would be "racist" or "classist", but even if it was indeed racist and classist, who the fuck cares lmfao?

Idiot pop-leftists demand common sense reforms and then are stuck dumb when progressive factions of capital agree with them and coopt their positions in order to increase efficiency and lower costs

>>2809473
not everything the bourgeoisie want is bad. the vast majority of the bourgeoisie would also prefer, all else being equal, that we don't die in a nuclear holocaust - but only the posadists take up the alternative position for the workers as a result.

>>2809615
this is true as it goes, but higher wages + higher costs is no better than lower wages + lower costs. assuming the same numbers in all case, the worker stays in exactly the same place. illustratively: if the "productive" bourgeoisie came out in favor of free housing, it would be madness to oppose it on the grounds that they'll obviously cut your salary to account for the lack of rental costs as the next step, given that your actual situation would be improved (you'd lose a bunch of non-monetary costs to paying rent, like worrying about affording it) even as your nominal wage fell.

>>2810880
the trouble is that we are given to binary thinking, incapable of recognizing that capitalist rule is on the whole historically progressive in practice even if we vaguely accept it in technical terms.

there is a mistaken idea one can leapfrog the development of productive forces. the fantasy of many leftist is that with enough marx the greeks could've skipped 1800 years of history and turned the Aeolipile into a steam train.

>>2810848
That's not the point of my post at all

>>2810883
>but higher wages + higher costs is no better than lower wages + lower costs.
Yes they are, as the bourgeoisie gets to keep more surplus value in the second case

>if the "productive" bourgeoisie came out in favor of free housing, it would be madness to oppose it
Post an example of this, no point in discussing "what ifs"
because the thread is about reality.

>>2810827
t. Radlib

>>2811114
>If we stop using cars and use public transit, the earth will magically fix itself
Radlib chimp

>>2811120
you are consistently the worst poster on the website. public transit saves space, cuts down on traffic, and reduces pedestrian injuries

>>2811082
The bourgeoisie get to keep the same surplus value either way, dummy. "Costs" are payments to the bourgeoisie!

If you make $2000 worth of goods a month, are paid $1000 a month and pay $500 in rent, that's $500 for you and $500 for the bourgeois landlord, $1500 to the bourgeoisie total. If you're paid $500 instead but your rent is free, the landlord gets $0 and your employer gets to keep $1500 of value… $1500 to the bourgeoisie! It's the same thing!

>>2811318
Cool story bro, I am not getting in ze pod just because that's more profitable for porky

I want porky to make less profits, not more
I want proles to be discontent with their trajectory to snd from work

>>2811327
You are retarded

>>2811638
I already gave you an argument here >>2809615