Hands Off 2025

[putnam6]

Naw, I have better phrasing than AI.

But since you INSIST and trying this oh so very simple-minded provocation crap... here you go..

The exploitation of the lowest-paid manufacturing workers in the USA South by the bourgeoisie is a poignant example of class struggle, a central theme in Marxist theory. The bourgeoisie, who own and control the means of production, seek to maximize profits by minimizing labor costs. This drive for profit leads to the systematic exploitation of workers, who are often subjected to low wages, demanding work conditions, and little job security.

One of the key Marxist concepts relevant to this situation is **surplus value**. The bourgeoisie extracts surplus value from workers, which is the difference between what workers are paid and the actual value of the goods they produce. By keeping wages low and pushing for higher productivity, employers in the manufacturing sector can reap exorbitant profits at the expense of their workers. This dynamic reinforces the class divide, as the wealth generated is concentrated among a small elite, while workers struggle to make ends meet.

Moreover, the use of low-paid labor in the USA South is a strategic choice linked to the capitalist system's need for a **reserve army of labor**. This surplus workforce serves to keep wages low and conditions poor, providing employers with a constant pool of labor willing to accept substandard conditions. Workers are often placed in a precarious position, facing the threat of automation or outsourcing, which keeps them subservient and less likely to organize for better conditions.

When considering the comparison between using American labor versus third-world labor, Marxist analysis posits that it is fundamentally more expensive for the proletariat to rely on domestic exploitation rather than outsourcing. While exploiting third-world labor appears cheaper from a capitalist viewpoint due to lower wages, it often involves a different set of economic implications for workers at home. The reliance on low-wage labor in the domestic market creates a race to the bottom, where decent-paying jobs are sacrificed in favor of attracting investments based on low labor costs.

Additionally, the societal costs associated with the exploitation of domestic labor tend to be significant. When workers are paid poorly, they often lack access to healthcare, education, and other essential services, resulting in increased strain on public resources. This dynamic leads to a broader economic instability that affects all societal layers, ultimately making it more costly for the proletariat. Years of wage stagnation and underemployment can create a cycle of poverty that is difficult to escape, resulting in lasting economic repercussions.

In conclusion, the exploitation of the lowest-paid manufacturing workers in the USA South illustrates the inherent injustices of capitalism. Through the lens of Marxist theory, it becomes clear that the pursuit of profit by the bourgeoisie, facilitated by low-wage domestic labor, not only undermines the well-being of the proletariat but also imposes long-term economic burdens on society as a whole. A systemic change prioritizing fair wages and workers' rights would promote a healthier economy, benefiting everyone rather than a select few.

Okay, NOW I AM a Marxist bot!

Do Marxist bots get Trump neurosis?  

Sounds like another reboot of Total Recall... or The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie

[SomeStupidName]

[Oldcarpy2]

"Marxist bots"?

Sigh. Have we come to this?

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Do Marxist bots get Trump neurosis?  

Sounds like another reboot of Total Recall... or The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie

Only if they've been programmed by social justice considerations?

There's a difference between social views and economic views. It's not to be unexpected though. People lack the ability to caregorize political views correctly anyway.

What happens when you take my views and put them through the world compass?



Libertarian Right, I guess. I'm always by Friedman.



It's like they see all the woke shit and assume it's something on the X axis. Social justice is on the Y axis, economic theory is on the X. Sigh or facepalm.

[quintessentone]

"Marxist bots"?

Sigh. Have we come to this?

Not we, they! I highly doubt they even know the true meaning of the word 'Marxist'.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Not we, they! I highly doubt they even know the true meaning of the word 'Marxist'.

Only a little... I'll take an SJW, or Woke pin if it helps?

Just don't pay attention TO ANY OTHER avenues for criticism to arise.

After President Donald Trump imposed broad tariffs, some of his left-wing critics began quoting economists like Milton Friedman, who adamantly believed in unilateral free trade. Friedman preferred that our trading partners refrain from imposing barriers on goods imported from the United States.

Now, Trump could shut me up yet by using the threat of tariffs to accomplish that through negotiation. Let's see how all 75 talks go?



MOD NOTE
Quote is an AI product from
https://news.rationalreview.com/archives/216319

[quintessentone]

Only just a little. I'll take an SJW and Woke pin if it helps?

Just don't pay attention TO ANY OTHER avenues for criticism to arise.


Now, Trump could shut me up yet by using the threat of tariffs to accomplish that through negotiation. Let's see how all 75 talks go?

Quoting economists? Isn't that blasphemy for this current administration?

[putnam6]

Only if they've been programmed by social justice considerations?

There's a difference between social views and economic views. It's not to be unexpected though. People lack the ability to caregorize political views correctly anyway.

What happens when you take my views and put them through the world compass?

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...ternet.jpg]

Libertarian Right, I guess. I'm always by Friedman.

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...Google.jpg]

It's like they see all the woke shit and assume it's something on the X axis. Social justice is on the Y axis, economic theory in the the X. Sigh or facepalm.

 I must have split political personalities this suggests Im between Bernie and (is that) Jill Stein ....FFS 

Probably shouldn't have taken the the test after I had partaken from my stash of Van Helsing 

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

I think it's just where views line up and where people think they line up...

Like the question on corporations duty is to serve the shareholders. I click "agree." I got that far right with darwinian capitalism that, while free, allows for multinational to outsource for their profit margin.

So it puts me "technically" further right then most that would criticism me. I just feel survival of the economic fittest, even without strict anti-trust laws still arrive at the most natural and productive framework. Even if it shift labor overseas and cuts jobs for automation.

That same "HANDS OFF ECONOMIC APPROACH" (on topic again) can be applied to civil liberties, and even immigration. The minimally regulated is the minimally regulated, be it life or greedy global capitalism. My globalism and antiprotectionism puts me where I am.

And the only thing that brings me the least bit left is
my position to use higher taxes to fund social programs, and even museums, but not really shedding tears for public radio. Higher taxes and less regulation is my trade off for lower taxes and protectionism.

It's not really a conundrum after you extricate yourself from the sphere of American politics.

[xuenchen]

The questions on that thing are rigged 
 

 I must have split political personalities this suggests Im between Bernie and (is that) Jill Stein ....FFS 

Probably shouldn't have taken the the test after I had partaken from my stash of Van Helsing 


[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...44-717.jpg]