Aren’t all anti-communist activities money laundering schemes?
Aren’t all anti-communist activities money laundering schemes?
This is a good summary. To simplify/describe it slightly differently, the definitions of capitalism and communism and socialism decribe the relationships between workers and the value of the work that they do.
Under capitalism, owners own the business and employ workers who are paid wages. The value of the products or services that the workers make is more than they are paid - and this extra value produced (profit) goes back to the owner. Thus, you end up with two classes of people, the workers/wage laborers (proletariat in communist jargon), and the owners (bourgeoisie in communist jargon).
In socialism, the workers own the businesses, and so the profit goes back to them instead of to the non-working owners. Thus in socialism, there is only the one class, the workers, and the bourgeoisie class has been removed.
I hope this helps too.
I am in a similar situation in that I often feel like I’m doing things wrong and could be reprimanded at any time. This is not how work is supposed to be structured, even by ghouls. Good managers give clear expectations, and regular, informal feedback. This actually makes their jobs better, because when people are comfortable they don’t hide problems - which is an action that can lead to huge failures later on.
So, I think what you’re experiencing is common, and is a byproduct of poor management. I have had good managers and the difference in work culture is astounding. One can be confident at work with good management.
Otherwise, you just have to assume you’re doing a good job, or you can actually just ask for clearer definition of goals and tasks, which might help.
A rule that you have to have a certain word in a title or comment? That’s the silliest idea I’ve ever heard. Main.
I think its safe to assume that companies (in Florida, using exploitative labor already) will spend as little as possible on the safety of their employees
No it looks like it’s a ban on regulatory authorities from mandating heat protections on companies that go above state mandates. It reads to me like companies could still provide them, but are under no obligation to provide anything above the state mandates minimum. The headline is poorly written.
When they say agencies they mean local government bodies.
I don’t get it. Shouldn’t it be at least optional?
Edit: now that I read it, the ban is on municipalities mandating these protections.
I doubt it
I got into designing crosswords for a while. It was pretty fun to manually lay out a sheet of answers and think up clues for them. Also, reading theory.
“To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal”
This is exactly why I don’t store my passwords as giant metal 3D cutouts of letter shapes
Are they getting rid of old.reddit???
That’s the only thing that makes the site readable. Damn.
Good article - however, it’s a bit sloppy around conflating renewable energy generation and “green economy”. At the top he states that increased renewables is leading to increase in CO2 emissions, but every example given is related to carbon offsetsl, carbon credit, and carbon accounting schemes in capitalism used to greenwash actual fossil fuel growth. Which, in my view, is not dependent on renewables production.
Anyway, the problem is capitalism and O&G taking advantage of carbon schemes to increase profits, rather than real work towards degrowth and renewables replacing O&G use.