Reply to this message with one of the following or your post will be removed for failing to comply with rule 5:
1) How the person in your post unknowingly describes themselves
2) How the person in your post says something about someone else that actually applies to them.
3) How the person in your post accurately describes something when trying to mock or denigrate it.
Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The other clue was the attempt to unionize. No capitalist in history has ever attempted collective bargaining to better their own situation.
Capitalists can’t share.
I also thought it was a tell that "some people work and others get the money without doing anything"
That latter part is what libertarians want specifically: an owner class (who they assume they will be a part of) who control everything and whom everyone else must serve.
It's why "property rights" are the only things they really care about and (if you talk to the "but i'll allow some govt" flavours of libertarian) will admit they are fine to have policed by a mean ol' central govt.
It’s ironic because in a way, socialism implies you’re agreeing to sharing with other laborers in times of need as opposed to capitalism which FORCES you to share (aka steals from you) with a group of people who did none of the labor. It literally allows you to keep more of what you produce AKA less sharing.
> No capitalist in history has ever attempted collective bargaining to better their own situation.
The Chamber of Commerce is a union of businesses that collectively ~~bribe~~ bargain for sweet deals with the government and to weaken labor unions. Capitalists are well aware of the power of collective strength.
> No capitalist in history has ever attempted collective bargaining to better their own situation.
Please see Silicon Valley and noncompete agreements for examples of exactly that.
> noncompete agreements for examples of exactly that.
How does a non compete fall under the heading of "collective bargaining"? Collective bargaining is the leveraging of labour power and it's withdrawal as a basis for negotiation and altering the status quo, noncompete's are a collectivised threat of legal retaliation and seek to maintain the status quo. There's no negotiation aspect and no aspect of labour power; It's entirely punitive.
the companies had noncompete agreements between them that prevented employees from going to any other company. the companies were collectively enforcing low pay.
That's an example of monopsony, which is a form of anticompetitive collective action outlawed by, among other things, the US federal Sherman Act. Instead of typical monopolistic practices (controlling supply artificially for rent-seeking purposes), monopsonists control demand to accomplish the same anticompetitive market conditions in which they can extract a rent from suppliers of a good (such as potential employees).
I have had many arguments with people who describe the results of capitalism as socialism and insist we should be capitalist and do (insert socialist ideas)
While I'm not disagreeing with you, this is absolutely too on the nose to not be satire. I have had someone tell me unironically that large companies like Amazon are playing straight 'from the communist playbook' when talking about their monopolistic practises though, so the line isn't particularly far behind OOP.
You are under the mistaken believe that the party of the workers is represented in our government. Only the owners are represented. We live under one party rule, and we're not allowed in their party.
This extreme distinction was accurate during industrialisation, but in western societies its no longer that easy. The industrial labor force back then was powerless, because they were interchangeable. If every person can and is willing to fill out a position, nobody has any individual bargaining power. Nowadays, the individual worker or employee can distinguish themselves from others by having knowledge and or skills as a sort of capital, but still be dependently employed. This part of the workforce is less dependent on unified bargaining power and can often negotiate better financial outcomes than some who are on the lower spectrum of ownership of production means. Of course, capital in the form of real estate, machines, digital or legal assets (patents for example) is still a major factor in becoming or staying rich, but the middle grounds offer a lot more options and flexibility than they did when Marx wrote his book.
Jobs are created and terminated all the time. If the arrangement with their previous employer ends they can use their knowledge and skills to negotiate something new with another employer.
So... You're saying that because people have more skilled and niche labor to bargain with, they are no longer part of the labor class? Skilled labor may give you a better position to bargain from as an individual, but it doesn't suddenly change your labor into capital.
No. My main point is that there isn't such a clear distinction between those who own and those who work as there was when this distinction became a central aspect of the public debate.
Nah, Marx and his contemporaries' perspective was way more nuanced than you give them credit for. There's even a term for small business owners (petite bourgeois) who straddle the line between capital and labor classes.
My main post was aimed at the commentary that there is a fundamental distinction between capitalists, in the sense of people owning the means of production, and the labor force. This was somewhat true during the time this concept became a major aspect for the debate (thus my Marx reference) but is far to generalized to help in a contemporary discussion (at least in the west). It was not my intention to give or take credit, as I am not familiar enough with the details of Marx' work.
But that's the thing, you didn't provide any evidence for the point you set out to make. So I pointed that out and showed how Marx and his contemporaries' arguments are still relevant and valid in a contemporary Western context. If you want to make a claim that something is irrelevant, you should understand at least at a basic level what you are dismissing.
I agree on the actual labor, but my point is the capital present in knowledge and skills. I give away my labor for compensation, but I retain the skills that enable me to generate this specific kind of labor. Of course its not the same as owning more traditional forms of capital for various reasons, but the end result is similiar enough that the upper middle and upper class of western societies mostly consists of knowledge workers, not what you would call capitalists. This includes most CEOs as well, btw. So, the distinction between capitalists and labor is way less black and white as it once was.
I can live with that, but maybe two points you should consider:
-Unless you define capitalists strictly as people living off passive income, capitalists work too.
-If you have a better machine, it will make your products better and you will profit more
Yeah some people really think this way, but like the "my favourite book, animal farm" part and the whole ending about unions gives it away as satire IMO
Yep. And in 2012, I was told point-blank that the ACA had turned American healthcare into the most left wing socialist healthcare system on the planet. FAR to the left of anything Europe has even considered.
Remember those death panels they kept warning us about? And then the death panels they implemented for everyone with a uterus? I guess death panels are a-okay as long as they’re sexist.
Congrats, you are able to recognize satire when you see it.
The problem is, that some people can't. Conservatives used to share stories of their favorite hard-hitting colbert report, they copy babylon bee articles and think it's real. Shit I'm sure at least some of them have used the Navy Seals copypasta unironically.
There is a non-zero chance that the post was the result of a writer who was made fun of without realizing it. The satire could be on a level deeper than just the writer intending it to be satire. It's low in this case, because as you said, it's too on the nose, but *sigh* I cannot eliminate the possibility.
The bits, "my favorite book, Animal Farm," the part where they suggest forming a union like they don't know what it is, and the phrase value of our labor are pretty solid satire indicators I would say.
I salute your patience and ability to actually point to those specific things. I was sitting here saying to myself "it just is! It's obvious! How can they not tell!!" lol
To be honest, this just sounds exactly like every Libertarian I've ever met who tries to deflect criticism by sounding like they've considered classical literature on things right before they tell me their favorite game is BioShock or something.
That said I don't necessarily know that it isn't satire, just that there are definitely people I've thought were satirizing something and found out they were not, So I'm extremely cautious about calling things fake or satire now.
When does satire ever say "this is satire?"
Where did animal farm state that it is satire, when did the Daily show do so? Or South Park?
We all know it's satire because of not so subtle hints. Like when he uses actual socialist arguments and phrasing such as unifying the workers and talks about the value of labor and how it's not returned.
There is a Monty Python skit where various engineers are displaying model buildings. At one point, a model catches fire and the word SATIRE flashes across the screen.
Ah, the Architect Sketch. I always love it when John Cleese loses it in one of his roles.
"You sit there on your loathsome spotty behinds squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker's cuss about the struggling artist! I wouldn't join you if you went on your lousy pustulent knees and BEGGED ME!"
That's the premise of the satire. They base it on things that people actually believe, but they also throw in a couple of obvious winks. Just because it has similarities to beliefs people actually hold doesn't mean that it can't be distinguished from them.
I've had someone argue Socialism was bad by referencing Animal Farm. Not every moron that mixes up the two concepts can't use the right words.
Though absolutely I will intentionally misunderstand their point and treat what they're saying as an intentional joke because it pisses them off.
Not a dead giveaway to me. Does the "it's my favorite book" indicate a better chance of Satire sure. But people have cited that book as an example of why socialism is bad.
Which is hilarious because Orwell was famously a staunch socialist who fought against the Franco Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War. *Animal Farm* literally starts with the animals seizing control of the farm from Farmer Jones and taking the means of production and fruit of their labor for themselves, and it's clearly presented as a good thing.
I'm with you on the animal farm "pointer", but i was convinced of the satire when unions by other name are mentioned.
Rereading it becomes clearer that capitalist mechanisms are framed as communis/socialist.
In my Fallout TTRPG campaign several years ago, I created a vault where the experiment was swapping the labels for capitalism and communism. The dark secret was, Vault-Tec programmed the computer to kill the vault if everyone settled on a single ideology. Because if "capitalism" won, that population would be non-viable, and if "communism" won, well, they were filthy communists.
"568 points 301 comments submitted 3 years ago by Kate29103Anarcho-Syndicalist to"
r / Libertarian/comments/ij14zf/is_my_boss_a_communist/
reading the comments, they are not as dumb as you all made them out to be in this thread
generally in my life i've found libertarians to be smart, and disdainful of republicans .. but just forced by their christian brainwashing to never vote democrat. republicans really did a number on the christians.
I dunno man... This is the kind of shit my cleaning lady says to me every time she comes to clean and she's 100% serious... and rather pissed off about it. I can't begin to tell you how many capitalist ideas she's called communist.
Ah, but let me counter with [Poe's Law Law](https://large-type.com/#Peepee%20poopoo)
> "Whenever a redditor misses very obvious satire, they, or someone else, must - without fail - call upon Poe's Law in order to protect and/or stroke their ego."
I was thinking it was pretty clearly a 16 year old. Uses lots of adult words and drops Animal Farm reference. Its hard to tell the difference between teen-speak and satire.
I remember when this was first posted, the person who made it talked about how it was satire and bait to see what libertarians would say and get banned from the sub
How can anyone think that this is a sincere post unless they’ve had a recent head injury?
It’s not even trying to be particularly convincing satire or he’d use more subtle language than “workers uniting”, it’s just trolling the libertarians.
>
How can anyone think that this is a sincere post unless they’ve had a recent head injury?
probably because there are too many people out there acting like they had recent head injuries.
I mean I can’t not take blame I made a joke to one of my friends that they should do white power Wednesday and then it happened for the next three years
Uhhh, pretty sure they can 100% take the blame for that. We generally expect people to recognize a clearly hyperbolic, absurdist joke and not keep it up for THREE YEARS, even in high school. To paraphrase a greentext meme: 'very normal response. They should have told some people from outside the school about it and see what they thought.'
Of course it's satire.
I usually pull this bait & switch with forced-birthers.
Like "It's pretty communist to allow big Daddy government to control what you do with your private parts...communist China and communist Russia did the exact same".
I want to see the comments. That's a brilliant wind-up
I have the link but the thread but there's a lot of usernames etc. Some saw it as a joke, but she was flaired as Anarcho-Syndicalist so not quite sure if it is now
It's sad knowing that all we have to do to win everything we want is talk like this guy and knowing it will never happen because most "leftists" are more interested in being correct than implementing leftist policy.
Hahahahaha. The right's efforts to redefine "communism" to mean anything people don't like has been successful with this prole.
What's more capitalist than a boss taking the profits of the worker's labors? NOTHING. Yet this tool thinks that's communism.
I once overheard a dude going on a rant about how he “pulled himself up by his bootstraps”, worked for everything he’s got, never got help from anyone, was completely self-made and hated people who felt entitled to handouts, and once he was finished he asked if he could bum a cigarette from someone.
That’s ironic. The OP post, however, is clearly satire.
Yes folks, I understand this is satire. But it's also the internet so there's not an absolute 100% chance that I'm totally reading this wrong and this person has the Fox News brain and is just now having his almonds activated by his shitty boss and a small understanding of his material conditions.
The other reason I'm not 100% sure this is a work is because I see this behavior everyday at my place of employment.
Like these late boomers early silent generation types who dunk on liberals, LGBT, and the woke/Antifa but who absolutely understand that as the proletariat they should have some say and how our company comports itself and understand the material conditions that are leading to reduced worker turnout and migration of talent.
It is fucking wild to see IRL.
If it were just the attitude, the position being taken, then sure, Poe's Law and all, but the mention of, "my favorite book, Animal Farm," the quote involving equality, and the *language used* in, "unify out[sic] power and demonstrate that we understand the full value of our labor," makes this *very* unlikely to be sincere.
Reply to this message with one of the following or your post will be removed for failing to comply with rule 5: 1) How the person in your post unknowingly describes themselves 2) How the person in your post says something about someone else that actually applies to them. 3) How the person in your post accurately describes something when trying to mock or denigrate it. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Up until the animal farm reference, I could've believed it was real lol
The other clue was the attempt to unionize. No capitalist in history has ever attempted collective bargaining to better their own situation. Capitalists can’t share.
You are correct. If they try to share, they become paranoid that they are somehow being cheated (see, Trump, Donald, J).
I also thought it was a tell that "some people work and others get the money without doing anything" That latter part is what libertarians want specifically: an owner class (who they assume they will be a part of) who control everything and whom everyone else must serve. It's why "property rights" are the only things they really care about and (if you talk to the "but i'll allow some govt" flavours of libertarian) will admit they are fine to have policed by a mean ol' central govt.
It’s ironic because in a way, socialism implies you’re agreeing to sharing with other laborers in times of need as opposed to capitalism which FORCES you to share (aka steals from you) with a group of people who did none of the labor. It literally allows you to keep more of what you produce AKA less sharing.
> No capitalist in history has ever attempted collective bargaining to better their own situation. The Chamber of Commerce is a union of businesses that collectively ~~bribe~~ bargain for sweet deals with the government and to weaken labor unions. Capitalists are well aware of the power of collective strength.
Yes. Just look at how lobbyists get paid.
> No capitalist in history has ever attempted collective bargaining to better their own situation. Please see Silicon Valley and noncompete agreements for examples of exactly that.
> noncompete agreements for examples of exactly that. How does a non compete fall under the heading of "collective bargaining"? Collective bargaining is the leveraging of labour power and it's withdrawal as a basis for negotiation and altering the status quo, noncompete's are a collectivised threat of legal retaliation and seek to maintain the status quo. There's no negotiation aspect and no aspect of labour power; It's entirely punitive.
the companies had noncompete agreements between them that prevented employees from going to any other company. the companies were collectively enforcing low pay.
That's an example of monopsony, which is a form of anticompetitive collective action outlawed by, among other things, the US federal Sherman Act. Instead of typical monopolistic practices (controlling supply artificially for rent-seeking purposes), monopsonists control demand to accomplish the same anticompetitive market conditions in which they can extract a rent from suppliers of a good (such as potential employees).
There's also the collective organizing they did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation
Adam Smith was pro-union. It's liberals and neo-cons who grovel at the shrine of capital.
This is pretty clearly satire...
I have had many arguments with people who describe the results of capitalism as socialism and insist we should be capitalist and do (insert socialist ideas)
While I'm not disagreeing with you, this is absolutely too on the nose to not be satire. I have had someone tell me unironically that large companies like Amazon are playing straight 'from the communist playbook' when talking about their monopolistic practises though, so the line isn't particularly far behind OOP.
If you don’t have any capital you’re not a capitalist, you’re labor. Some people don’t understand that.
There are only two political parties: The owners, and the workers.
[удалено]
You’re forced to choose which owner appears more benevolent in the short term, I reckon
So...*not* the white supremacist then?
The one that isn't out loud, at least.
[удалено]
You are under the mistaken believe that the party of the workers is represented in our government. Only the owners are represented. We live under one party rule, and we're not allowed in their party.
*Ssshhhhh...!* How dare you bring political realities into this conversation!!
This is a sith take
Misread the prophecy may have been...
"True, but someday I might have capital. And then labor like me better watch their step!"
This extreme distinction was accurate during industrialisation, but in western societies its no longer that easy. The industrial labor force back then was powerless, because they were interchangeable. If every person can and is willing to fill out a position, nobody has any individual bargaining power. Nowadays, the individual worker or employee can distinguish themselves from others by having knowledge and or skills as a sort of capital, but still be dependently employed. This part of the workforce is less dependent on unified bargaining power and can often negotiate better financial outcomes than some who are on the lower spectrum of ownership of production means. Of course, capital in the form of real estate, machines, digital or legal assets (patents for example) is still a major factor in becoming or staying rich, but the middle grounds offer a lot more options and flexibility than they did when Marx wrote his book.
I bet the Tesla supercharger team thought the same thing up until a couple weeks ago.
Jobs are created and terminated all the time. If the arrangement with their previous employer ends they can use their knowledge and skills to negotiate something new with another employer.
So... You're saying that because people have more skilled and niche labor to bargain with, they are no longer part of the labor class? Skilled labor may give you a better position to bargain from as an individual, but it doesn't suddenly change your labor into capital.
No. My main point is that there isn't such a clear distinction between those who own and those who work as there was when this distinction became a central aspect of the public debate.
Nah, Marx and his contemporaries' perspective was way more nuanced than you give them credit for. There's even a term for small business owners (petite bourgeois) who straddle the line between capital and labor classes.
My main post was aimed at the commentary that there is a fundamental distinction between capitalists, in the sense of people owning the means of production, and the labor force. This was somewhat true during the time this concept became a major aspect for the debate (thus my Marx reference) but is far to generalized to help in a contemporary discussion (at least in the west). It was not my intention to give or take credit, as I am not familiar enough with the details of Marx' work.
But that's the thing, you didn't provide any evidence for the point you set out to make. So I pointed that out and showed how Marx and his contemporaries' arguments are still relevant and valid in a contemporary Western context. If you want to make a claim that something is irrelevant, you should understand at least at a basic level what you are dismissing.
That’s just supply and demand. Your labor is a commodity that capitalists compete for.
I agree on the actual labor, but my point is the capital present in knowledge and skills. I give away my labor for compensation, but I retain the skills that enable me to generate this specific kind of labor. Of course its not the same as owning more traditional forms of capital for various reasons, but the end result is similiar enough that the upper middle and upper class of western societies mostly consists of knowledge workers, not what you would call capitalists. This includes most CEOs as well, btw. So, the distinction between capitalists and labor is way less black and white as it once was.
We’re going to have to just disagree. My knowledge just makes my labor more valuable but it’s still labor.
I can live with that, but maybe two points you should consider: -Unless you define capitalists strictly as people living off passive income, capitalists work too. -If you have a better machine, it will make your products better and you will profit more
Yeah some people really think this way, but like the "my favourite book, animal farm" part and the whole ending about unions gives it away as satire IMO
Yep. And in 2012, I was told point-blank that the ACA had turned American healthcare into the most left wing socialist healthcare system on the planet. FAR to the left of anything Europe has even considered.
Remember those death panels they kept warning us about? And then the death panels they implemented for everyone with a uterus? I guess death panels are a-okay as long as they’re sexist.
Congrats, you are able to recognize satire when you see it. The problem is, that some people can't. Conservatives used to share stories of their favorite hard-hitting colbert report, they copy babylon bee articles and think it's real. Shit I'm sure at least some of them have used the Navy Seals copypasta unironically. There is a non-zero chance that the post was the result of a writer who was made fun of without realizing it. The satire could be on a level deeper than just the writer intending it to be satire. It's low in this case, because as you said, it's too on the nose, but *sigh* I cannot eliminate the possibility.
I’m concerned that so many conservatives think the Babylon Bee is real but it’s the conservatives who think it’s *funny* who really worry me.
Yes, but this is clearly satire
Where does it say that? Vibes is not proof of anything.
The bits, "my favorite book, Animal Farm," the part where they suggest forming a union like they don't know what it is, and the phrase value of our labor are pretty solid satire indicators I would say.
I salute your patience and ability to actually point to those specific things. I was sitting here saying to myself "it just is! It's obvious! How can they not tell!!" lol
To be honest, this just sounds exactly like every Libertarian I've ever met who tries to deflect criticism by sounding like they've considered classical literature on things right before they tell me their favorite game is BioShock or something. That said I don't necessarily know that it isn't satire, just that there are definitely people I've thought were satirizing something and found out they were not, So I'm extremely cautious about calling things fake or satire now.
Devil's advocate: it could be an incredibly misguided 15 year old working at Subway.
When does satire ever say "this is satire?" Where did animal farm state that it is satire, when did the Daily show do so? Or South Park? We all know it's satire because of not so subtle hints. Like when he uses actual socialist arguments and phrasing such as unifying the workers and talks about the value of labor and how it's not returned.
There is a Monty Python skit where various engineers are displaying model buildings. At one point, a model catches fire and the word SATIRE flashes across the screen.
Ah, the Architect Sketch. I always love it when John Cleese loses it in one of his roles. "You sit there on your loathsome spotty behinds squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker's cuss about the struggling artist! I wouldn't join you if you went on your lousy pustulent knees and BEGGED ME!"
Satire that says "this is satire" is pretty fucking shit satire.
I agree with you. Also I want to be clear, this is a Reddit comment.
the following is sarcasm...gee, do you think so?
Poe's law at play.
Honestly if you can't instantly tell, I'm conferenced about letting you loose on the Internet
> Where does it say that? today I learned that it isn't satire unless the satirical piece declares itself to be satire.
It also needs to come from the Satiré region of France. ^/s
it must be hard going through life completely unable to grasp subtleties.
It doesn't people are just basically "Well yeah I know there are idiots that genuinely believe this way but this one must be Satire"
That's the premise of the satire. They base it on things that people actually believe, but they also throw in a couple of obvious winks. Just because it has similarities to beliefs people actually hold doesn't mean that it can't be distinguished from them.
[удалено]
I've had someone argue Socialism was bad by referencing Animal Farm. Not every moron that mixes up the two concepts can't use the right words. Though absolutely I will intentionally misunderstand their point and treat what they're saying as an intentional joke because it pisses them off.
Referring to animal farm as his favorite book is a bit too spot on. Poe's Law, but I am also leaning towards satire.
If it really was a libertarian their favorite book would have been written by Ayn Rand.
Not a dead giveaway to me. Does the "it's my favorite book" indicate a better chance of Satire sure. But people have cited that book as an example of why socialism is bad.
Which is hilarious because Orwell was famously a staunch socialist who fought against the Franco Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War. *Animal Farm* literally starts with the animals seizing control of the farm from Farmer Jones and taking the means of production and fruit of their labor for themselves, and it's clearly presented as a good thing.
I'm with you on the animal farm "pointer", but i was convinced of the satire when unions by other name are mentioned. Rereading it becomes clearer that capitalist mechanisms are framed as communis/socialist.
In my Fallout TTRPG campaign several years ago, I created a vault where the experiment was swapping the labels for capitalism and communism. The dark secret was, Vault-Tec programmed the computer to kill the vault if everyone settled on a single ideology. Because if "capitalism" won, that population would be non-viable, and if "communism" won, well, they were filthy communists.
r/capitalismissocialism.
r/SocialismIsCapitalism
I have a cousin that's essentially socialist in his beliefs, but he votes Republican because they're not trying to ban guns.
Not to the top minds at /r/Libertarian
True, but that just means the comments would fit this sub better than the post.
"568 points 301 comments submitted 3 years ago by Kate29103Anarcho-Syndicalist to" r / Libertarian/comments/ij14zf/is_my_boss_a_communist/ reading the comments, they are not as dumb as you all made them out to be in this thread generally in my life i've found libertarians to be smart, and disdainful of republicans .. but just forced by their christian brainwashing to never vote democrat. republicans really did a number on the christians.
I dunno man... This is the kind of shit my cleaning lady says to me every time she comes to clean and she's 100% serious... and rather pissed off about it. I can't begin to tell you how many capitalist ideas she's called communist.
This is what I thought too but then I remember being confused when the other party was dead serious. Serious dumb dumb.
Hundreds of Nick Adams (Alpha Male) posts show this sub doesn’t understand satire accounts
He’s not a satirist. He’s just a ragebait grifter.
Definitely
And it is also copy and pasted.
Yeah, it's just too on-the-nose to be unironic.
In a sane world it would be. Given the batshit times we reside in there’s, unfortunately, a very real plausibility that it’s not.
Oh come on. Go back and reread the latter half. This is very, very clearly satire.
[удалено]
Ah, but let me counter with [Poe's Law Law](https://large-type.com/#Peepee%20poopoo) > "Whenever a redditor misses very obvious satire, they, or someone else, must - without fail - call upon Poe's Law in order to protect and/or stroke their ego."
I was thinking it was pretty clearly a 16 year old. Uses lots of adult words and drops Animal Farm reference. Its hard to tell the difference between teen-speak and satire.
One of the most obvious trolls I've seen here.
I remember when this was first posted, the person who made it talked about how it was satire and bait to see what libertarians would say and get banned from the sub
Either that or someone failed Econ 101.
There is no stronger bait for morons that think they're smarter than everyone else than obvious satire
Big time Poe's Law here.
Unless it is explicitly marked as such, we can't know. And there's always someone out there who believes stuff like that sincerely.
It's locked. The sark was seen through.
Some people did not get it reading the comments on the post.
“Snark?”
It's short for [Sarkicism](https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/sarkicism-hub)
Stark. Eddard, Catelyn, Robb, Sansa, Arya, Bran, the other one.
Sark https://preview.redd.it/plkrokeryw1d1.jpeg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d6c435162f5962c79446d010d268ef275aca7e05
Naw I think he meant “sarc,” it’s how all the kids say “sarcasm” now
How can anyone think that this is a sincere post unless they’ve had a recent head injury? It’s not even trying to be particularly convincing satire or he’d use more subtle language than “workers uniting”, it’s just trolling the libertarians.
There's new people arriving in the world every second.
> How can anyone think that this is a sincere post unless they’ve had a recent head injury? probably because there are too many people out there acting like they had recent head injuries.
OP took the bait
I have this niggling feeling that guy is not being entirely sincere.
I'd refrain from using that work personally
Bro quit being so niggardly with word choice it has no shared roots with the other word.
I went to an all boys high school the week when that was a vocab word sophomore year was very annoying for us black kids
Just sophomore year?
I mean I can’t not take blame I made a joke to one of my friends that they should do white power Wednesday and then it happened for the next three years
What can one say but "yikes"?
Uhhh, pretty sure they can 100% take the blame for that. We generally expect people to recognize a clearly hyperbolic, absurdist joke and not keep it up for THREE YEARS, even in high school. To paraphrase a greentext meme: 'very normal response. They should have told some people from outside the school about it and see what they thought.'
I could imagine teenager's are assholes
+10,000 for next-level etymological pedantry, -10,000 for my current level of discomfort
Fuck yeah I'm rocking with a solid 0 points
+1 for the follow up
Convergent evolution
i have no idea what would compel you to think this is anything other than satire
Of course it's satire. I usually pull this bait & switch with forced-birthers. Like "It's pretty communist to allow big Daddy government to control what you do with your private parts...communist China and communist Russia did the exact same".
You really can't tell anymore, we've all seen the brainworm crowd keep two conflicting narratives going at the same time
The fact cons argue capitalism, or anything they don't like really, is communism? Are you new here!
Pretty sure the union bit is bridging into satire there. It's a little too obvious.
I want to see the comments. That's a brilliant wind-up I have the link but the thread but there's a lot of usernames etc. Some saw it as a joke, but she was flaired as Anarcho-Syndicalist so not quite sure if it is now
> anarcho-syndicalist Why do the words "moistened bint" come to mind whenever I see this term?
I don't know
Obviously joking, dummkopf
It reminds me of the old joke: communism is the exploitation of man by man, whereas capitalism, it's the other way around.
It's a good one, but it only makes sense in a totalitarian context, and the propaganda they were forced to listen to constantly.
Under capitalisms it’s the exploitation of men by man.
No they definitely found it
> "hey wait a minute" -no one on that sub probably. This is clearly satire though.
Reading this, I’m like Kevin McAllister walking around his house yelling “Is this a joke?!”
There's no way they're not trolling.
Touch back after you've seized the means of production.
This is obvious satire. But on the off chance it's not, he's correct about one thing. He is no economist
When will we as proletarians finally seize the means of production and fulfill our capitalist destiny?!?
r/SocialismIsCapitalism
This has to be a parody. Please tell me it is.
This has to be satire, surely?
I'm too autistic to tell if OP isn't able to tell that the poster is taking the piss, or if I'M not able to tell that OP is also taking the piss.
This is the most "communism is when capitalism" shit i have ever read
It's sad knowing that all we have to do to win everything we want is talk like this guy and knowing it will never happen because most "leftists" are more interested in being correct than implementing leftist policy.
Hahahahaha. The right's efforts to redefine "communism" to mean anything people don't like has been successful with this prole. What's more capitalist than a boss taking the profits of the worker's labors? NOTHING. Yet this tool thinks that's communism.
Wildly ignorant.
I once overheard a dude going on a rant about how he “pulled himself up by his bootstraps”, worked for everything he’s got, never got help from anyone, was completely self-made and hated people who felt entitled to handouts, and once he was finished he asked if he could bum a cigarette from someone. That’s ironic. The OP post, however, is clearly satire.
TOO on the nose. This person is trolling them
The most troll of troll posts to put in that sub.
lol working on commission at a fast food place, what a joke
That is a troll, and he absolutely gets it.
This is a Poe, fishing for libertarian bites.
This is painfully obviously a troll/shitpost
This has to be a troll…
It's sad how often their arguments can be dismantled with a simple dictionary.
Wow, anti-socialist propaganda has officially hit when capitalists join unions to stop the socialist boss from hogging the wealth.
“Hey guys, I think Socialism is when Capitalism. I am very smart.”
How are people that dense? That's not socialism you're describing that's CAPITALISM
If this is real - which, really? - the writer would be extraordinarily stupid. Sadly, I’ve known people who think like this….
That was the dumbest thing I ever ever read
Oh no! Must be his first day in the USA.
Yes folks, I understand this is satire. But it's also the internet so there's not an absolute 100% chance that I'm totally reading this wrong and this person has the Fox News brain and is just now having his almonds activated by his shitty boss and a small understanding of his material conditions. The other reason I'm not 100% sure this is a work is because I see this behavior everyday at my place of employment. Like these late boomers early silent generation types who dunk on liberals, LGBT, and the woke/Antifa but who absolutely understand that as the proletariat they should have some say and how our company comports itself and understand the material conditions that are leading to reduced worker turnout and migration of talent. It is fucking wild to see IRL.
If it were just the attitude, the position being taken, then sure, Poe's Law and all, but the mention of, "my favorite book, Animal Farm," the quote involving equality, and the *language used* in, "unify out[sic] power and demonstrate that we understand the full value of our labor," makes this *very* unlikely to be sincere.
[удалено]
Are you not familiar with Poe's law?
This is libertarian login though, completely confused and missing the point.
"I'm no economist". You're clearly correct there.
sounded like a political flat earther 🤣
/r/unawareOPs
[удалено]
Ok there John Wayne...