Prospective Summer Walks Over Moscow Work Forum

[Anonymous User]

Something really freeing about being a pro market capitalist, I don't have to twist myself into mental gymnastics to justify what I do. In fact it's a lot cleaner than non law industries I worked in prior. (caveat that I would not be comfortable with doing work with Russia, and am glad my firm doesn't have much work there. A general response to the progressive law students to corporate lawyer pipeline)

You're not a capitalist. You're a worker who supports capitalism.

go back to reddit

[Saami]

How much money in investments (including real estate) does one need to make the transition from a proletariat to a capitalist who works on the side?

If you still need to work for a wage to survive, you're not a capitalist.

go back to reddit

Reddit is a terrible website. And I guarantee you the average redditor thinks socialism = when the government does stuff.

[Anonymous User]

How much money in investments (including real estate) does one need to make the transition from a proletariat to a capitalist who works on the side?

If you still need to work for a wage to survive, you're not a capitalist.

go back to reddit

Reddit is a terrible website. And I guarantee you the average redditor thinks socialism = when the government does stuff.

I don't get it. Is the standard whether you "need to work for a wage to survive"? Lot's of people have enough savings, plus SS/medicare, that they could quit their jobs today and live out the rest of their lives at a subsistence level. I guess they are all capitalists now? The 70 year old living off of social security with no assets is a capitalist? But the 7th year associate making $600k who just paid off his loans is not? How about the v10 partner v. the small time real estate owner?

The line between "capitalist" and "not capitalist" made sense in a feudal serf-based economy, or in an industrial economy with all the workers being impoverished, it no longer makes sense in the Western economy of today.

[Anonymous User]

Something really freeing about being a pro market capitalist, I don't have to twist myself into mental gymnastics to justify what I do. In fact it's a lot cleaner than non law industries I worked in prior. (caveat that I would not be comfortable with doing work with Russia, and am glad my firm doesn't have much work there. A general response to the progressive law students to corporate lawyer pipeline)

You're not a capitalist. You're a worker who supports capitalism.

Go argue with the dictionary, definition 2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalist

[Saami]

I don't get it. Is the standard whether you "need to work for a wage to survive"? Lot's of people have enough savings, plus SS/medicare, that they could quit their jobs today and live out the rest of their lives at a subsistence level. I guess they are all capitalists now?

If that's what you got out of what I said, you're either being deliberately obtuse or need to engage in some critical thinking. No, a grandpa who is retired and earning social security or a pension is not a capitalist. I said "if you need to work to survive, you're not a capitalist." I didn't say "You're a capitalist if you don't need to work to survive," which is apparently the conclusion you drew. This is an LSAT-tier logical fallacy.

Capitalists are private owners of capital (e.g., means of production) who make money off of the profit created their workers, i.e., labor exploitation. The typical capitalist is a businessowner. Perhaps another example more familiar to you would be a law partner. A wage slave with a 401k isn't a capitalist, despite what many capitalism worshipers try to smugly argue.

Go argue with the dictionary, definition 2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalist

I don't really care what a dictionary says. The only reason that definition is included is because people have been brainwashed over the years into thinking that's what a "capitalist" is, and so the dictionary felt compelled to include the modern-day misinterpretation of the term. That'd be like me calling myself a Norwegian because I like Norway so much. No amount of dictionary validation would render it true.

[Anonymous User]

I don't get it. Is the standard whether you "need to work for a wage to survive"? Lot's of people have enough savings, plus SS/medicare, that they could quit their jobs today and live out the rest of their lives at a subsistence level. I guess they are all capitalists now?

If that's what you got out of what I said, you're either being deliberately obtuse or need to engage in some critical thinking. No, a grandpa who is retired and earning social security or a pension is not a capitalist. I said "if you need to work to survive, you're not a capitalist." I didn't say "You're a capitalist if you don't need to work to survive," which is apparently the conclusion you drew. This is an LSAT-tier logical fallacy.

Capitalists are private owners of capital (e.g., means of production) who make money off of the profit created their workers, i.e., labor exploitation. The typical capitalist is a businessowner. Perhaps another example more familiar to you would be a law partner. A wage slave with a 401k isn't a capitalist, despite what many capitalism worshipers try to smugly argue.

Go argue with the dictionary, definition 2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalist

I don't really care what a dictionary says. The only reason that definition is included is because people have been brainwashed over the years into thinking that's what a "capitalist" is, and so the dictionary felt compelled to include the modern-day misinterpretation of the term. That'd be like me calling myself a Norwegian because I like Norway so much. No amount of dictionary validation would render it true.

So I get it now - an NBA player worth $50 million but with no business is a "wage slave" and a guy eeking out a living renting is a capitalist? A v10 partner is a capitalist but a personal injury attorney solo practitioner making $2 million a year is a "wage slave"? Never heard more stupid dross in my life.

[Saami]

So I get it now - an NBA player worth $50 million but with no business is a "wage slave" and a guy eeking out a living renting is a capitalist? A v10 partner is a capitalist but a personal injury attorney solo practitioner making $2 million a year is a "wage slave"? Never heard more stupid dross in my life.

Unironically yes. Being a capitalist isn't defined by the amount of money you make, but by your relationship with capital. This has always been the case, and just because you don't like the definition doesn't make it not so.

If I earn $500,000 as an employee but am bringing in $5,000,000 in revenue through my labor, the fruits of my labor are still ultimately being taken by the business's owner; I don't earn the total amount of economic value I bring to the firm. I am being exploited. On the other hand, a business owner who nets $100,000 in take-home profit per year but pays his employees a set hourly wage is an exploitative capitalist. The business owner in the latter case is more of an enemy to the working class than the employee in the former scenario, despite making less money. This is why the whole "We Are the 99%" thing was stupid in the Occupy days: It is misguided to focus on income.

By the way, a solo practitioner isn't relying on a wage because, well, the money he earns is derived through his labor. Self-employed individuals are neither laborers or exploitative capitalists.

[Anonymous User]

So I get it now - an NBA player worth $50 million but with no business is a "wage slave" and a guy eeking out a living renting is a capitalist? A v10 partner is a capitalist but a personal injury attorney solo practitioner making $2 million a year is a "wage slave"? Never heard more stupid dross in my life.

Unironically yes. Being a capitalist isn't defined by the amount of money you make, but by your relationship with capital. This has always been the case, and just because you don't like the definition doesn't make it not so.

If I earn $500,000 as an employee but am bringing in $5,000,000 in revenue through my labor, the fruits of my labor are still ultimately being taken by the business's owner; I don't earn the total amount of economic value I bring to the firm. I am being exploited. On the other hand, a business owner who nets $100,000 in take-home profit per year but pays his employees a set hourly wage is an exploitative capitalist. The business owner in the latter case is more of an enemy to the working class than the employee in the former scenario, despite making less money. This is why the whole "We Are the 99%" thing was stupid in the Occupy days: It is misguided to focus on income.

By the way, a solo practitioner isn't relying on a wage because, well, the money he earns is derived through his labor. Self-employed individuals are neither laborers or exploitative capitalists.

Internet commies spouting Russian agitprop were banned from Reddit/FB, so they had to migrate to TLS instead lmfao. How's that "anti-fascist liberation of Ukraine" going, Comrade?

[Anonymous User]

Who let a 14 yr old commie in here lol. In basic common language, capitalism is the opposite of socialism, both not really technically used in wherever Original Intent from Marx, but basically standins for free markets v government controlled markets, give or take. So in the common parlance, I'm a capitalist.

But as someone who spends his professional time facilitating capital investments, I do think I qualify as a middleman capitalist. I'm sure that in a true egalitarian communist society I (and every other corporate attorney) would not be considered a true laborer and would go straight to gulag (like my grandmother did, but that's another conversation). The "labor" we provide is not factory labor. I don't care about the technical jargon, but you're fooling yourself if you call yourself a worker in the socialist sense. It's cope.

[Anonymous User]

I recently read an article about a HSY law student who walked away yesterday from a summer associate position at a nameless "New York Law Firm" over the firm's refusal to cut ties with Russian state-backed companies and oligarchs. From the article, it seems the student expressed their concerns to the firm, and the firm expressed sadness about the crisis. But ultimately the firm refused to offer a stance on whether it would continue to perform this sort of work. The law student's post seemed to imply that the firm, despite deliberately remaining silent about the future of its Moscow office, had directed pro bono efforts to the crisis.

Any idea what firm this was? I would be curious to know if there is a firm that is projecting a pro-Ukraine stance but intends to continue to perform work that benefits Russian state affiliated persons. I know it's a complicated issue, especially if you consider the safety of rank-and-file employees of the firm in the Moscow office and ethical obligations related to current engagements. But I'd be curious to know if this is another issue entirely, of a firm being intentionally misleading about its stance.

Also curious if folks think this was a good reason to walk away from a SA position.

Off the top of my head, possibly Debevoise. Moscow office, New York firm.

He's a classmate, it's skadden

It's definitely not Skadden. I do a lot of recruiting at Skadden and just searched for the student's name and no one by that name from HLS even interviewed at Skadden.

[Saami]

Internet commies spouting Russian agitprop were banned from Reddit/FB, so they had to migrate to TLS instead lmfao. How's that "anti-fascist liberation of Ukraine" going, Comrade?

Our education system has failed you if you think the Russian Federation is a communist state.

Who let a 14 yr old commie in here lol. In basic common language, capitalism is the opposite of socialism, both not really technically used in wherever Original Intent from Marx, but basically standins for free markets v government controlled markets, give or take. So in the common parlance, I'm a capitalist.

But as someone who spends his professional time facilitating capital investments, I do think I qualify as a middleman capitalist. I'm sure that in a true egalitarian communist society I (and every other corporate attorney) would not be considered a true laborer and would go straight to gulag (like my grandmother did, but that's another conversation). The "labor" we provide is not factory labor. I don't care about the technical jargon, but you're fooling yourself if you call yourself a worker in the socialist sense. It's cope.

Way to embody the Richard Wolff meme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq0EYo_ZQVU

Also, being part of the professional-managerial class doesn't make you a capitalist. It just means you facilitate the existence of capitalism. And almost all of us are laborers. Just because Americans like to muddle these terms and treat them instead as buzzwords doesn't make that any less so.

Also, unsure why you all are posting anonymously. Do you have a sense of shame in defending capitalism?

[Anonymous User]

Drawing the line at the firm having work in Russia is some peak shitlibbery. Helping corporations that continually fuck over this country (and the world more broadly) for the working class? Totally acceptable. Some of those corporations are in RUSSIA?!?!?!?! Too far!

Go ahead and tell me "everyone gets to draw their own line." So what? That's a truism. Some lines are completely moronic, though.

I mean this (willfully, I assume) completely ignores that "corporations in RUSSIA??!!?!?!" --at least the kind that hire international biglaw firms-- are mostly de facto partly owned and controlled by Putin. American executives are bad, but few are as bad as Putin. It is not hard to draw a line between "I will help Home Depot lower its tax burden" and "I wont help (de facto state owned) Russian palladium company avoid sanctions." Yes, both are bad in the big scheme of things, but there are gradations to bad.

[Anonymous User]

Drawing the line at the firm having work in Russia is some peak shitlibbery. Helping corporations that continually fuck over this country (and the world more broadly) for the working class? Totally acceptable. Some of those corporations are in RUSSIA?!?!?!?! Too far!

Go ahead and tell me "everyone gets to draw their own line." So what? That's a truism. Some lines are completely moronic, though.

I mean this (willfully, I assume) completely ignores that "corporations in RUSSIA??!!?!?!" --at least the kind that hire international biglaw firms-- are mostly de facto partly owned and controlled by Putin. American executives are bad, but few are as bad as Putin. It is not hard to draw a line between "I will help Home Depot lower its tax burden" and "I wont help (de facto state owned) Russian palladium company avoid sanctions." Yes, both are bad in the big scheme of things, but there are gradations to bad.

So is anyone in a China practice planning on bailing out to lower the chances of being the next geo-politically screwed over lawyer?

[Anonymous User]

Drawing the line at the firm having work in Russia is some peak shitlibbery. Helping corporations that continually fuck over this country (and the world more broadly) for the working class? Totally acceptable. Some of those corporations are in RUSSIA?!?!?!?! Too far!

Go ahead and tell me "everyone gets to draw their own line." So what? That's a truism. Some lines are completely moronic, though.

I mean this (willfully, I assume) completely ignores that "corporations in RUSSIA??!!?!?!" --at least the kind that hire international biglaw firms-- are mostly de facto partly owned and controlled by Putin. American executives are bad, but few are as bad as Putin. It is not hard to draw a line between "I will help Home Depot lower its tax burden" and "I wont help (de facto state owned) Russian palladium company avoid sanctions." Yes, both are bad in the big scheme of things, but there are gradations to bad.

Am I the only one who could basically care less about the Russia stuff and is just in this gig to make as much money as possible and bail? Corporations gonna be corporations whether I am the dude moving around commas or someone else is.

[Anonymous User]

Our education system has failed you if you think the Russian Federation is a communist state.

It's not, but the Russians have been exploiting and increasing American divisiveness for years through social media. Internet communism (among other extremist ideologies) has been a tool to try and split the American people so that Russia can act without concern. See all the useful idiots claiming that NATO is to blame for Russia's invasion (ex. Tulsi Gabbard).

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

Every large law firm has extremely problematic clients (have heard of issuers with several employee deaths on their hands, escaping rape liability, child labor suits, and more) so not sure where we'll start drawing the line.

What a stupid comment. "We" dont have to decide where to draw the line. Everyone gets to decide that on their own, and they dont need to justify it to you. For me, defending labor suits or workplace hazard suits is not even in the same league as intentional bombing of hospitals, bombing civilian corridors, etc. Maybe for you that all goes in the "its all the same amount of bad category, so who cares, wheres my paycheck" -- and thats fine for you, your decision to make. But that doesnt mean someone else cant draw their own line somewhere else, and it certainly doesnt make them "extremely stupid."

Okay but Skadden wasn't defending those things... Yes they have represented Russian oligarchs. A few days ago they dropped those clients, but that's besides the point. (Also, Russian oligarchs are not friendly with Putin, though their views on the Ukraine invasion do not seem relevant to you, so we'll ignore this too). So I believe your standard for prohibitively "bad" is representing clients from a country that has bombed hospitals and civilian corridors.

The United States has dropped 337,000 bombs since 2004. Big bombs, little bombs, Fat man, cluster bombs, we drop 'em all!!! . Predator drones with hellfire missiles, insurgents with stinger AA missiles, 500 lb bombs, 2,000 lb bombs, precision targeted, indiscriminate, military combatant, American civilian, who cares?!!?! either way we're innocent!!!!

You think Russia bad??? Russia don't got sh*t on us commie!!! You think we won't blow up a hospital? We INVENTED blowing up a hospital! Who make Doctors Without Borders hospital go boom boom in Kunduz, Afghanistan (+75 innocents killed in self-defense)!? 8 years of humanitarian shelling in Donbas?? Sure we paid for it nbd (+1000s), but try 8 years of airstrikes in Yemen, with fellow allies and champions of human rights, the Saudi Arabians (+10000s). "Civilian corridor?" Civilian Highway of Death (+1000) 2.0 bby wooo!!! We'll do school buses (+40), we'll do markets (+100), we'll do weddings (+40), we'll do fields of women and children (+60)... you name it, we've got the AUMFs and OLC memos to annihilate it without consequence. Don't think we would...?! We dropped 288 ~million~ bombs on *Laos* (+50000) during the Vietnam war. Laos wasn't even in the war!!! We are literally unhinged!!!!!

So shouldn't you stop representing American clients, given your thoughtful and principled humanitarian line-drawing? We are a democracy after all--i.e., we're more responsible for our government's actions than the Russian people. Or are you part of the "wheres my paycheck" camp, as you describe? Or maybe you're so focused on your mindless virtue signaling that you didn't realize you were being such an enormous hypocrite. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ukraine: "Conflict-related civilian casualties in Ukraine," UN OHCHR (Oct. 8, 2021), available online.
Laos: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37286520
Yemen: https://www.yemendataproject.org/
Kunduz Hospital: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike
Field of women/children: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/us/p ... trike.html
School bus: https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/17/middleea ... index.html
Market: id.; see also https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/middleea ... index.html.

[Anonymous User]

This thread is bananas

Here’s my justification for going into big law, maybe someone can poke holes in it. I support America becoming a Nordic-style welfare state with single payer health care, free public college, etc. However, in that society the private sector would still exist. IE not true state ownership of the means of production (which I think is a bad idea). Thus I am okay with working for a company, but will continue to put my vote toward income redistribution and bigger social spending (and heavy regulation of those companies on environmental/human rights grounds)

Deluded 1L? Coherent worldview?

[dabigchina]

The summer is perfectly within his rights to work for whomever he/she wants. That being said, I would have serious doubts about hiring someone who needs this much validation on social media.

[Saami]

This thread is bananas

Here’s my justification for going into big law, maybe someone can poke holes in it. I support America becoming a Nordic-style welfare state with single payer health care, free public college, etc. However, in that society the private sector would still exist. IE not true state ownership of the means of production (which I think is a bad idea). Thus I am okay with working for a company, but will continue to put my vote toward income redistribution and bigger social spending (and heavy regulation of those companies on environmental/human rights grounds)

Deluded 1L? Coherent worldview?

Well, first, I don't understand how this is a justification. Sure, you're allowed to believe that corporations should remain privately owned, but does that mean that you should feel compelled to spend 60+ hours/week helping them out? Moreover, if you support heavily regulating these corporations, well... who do you think defends them when they get in trouble for violating regulations?

Second, regarding the bolded text, state ownership of the means of production isn't the only alternative to capitalism. In fact, some would argue that it's one in the same: instead of a few private individuals owning the means, a few government officials do. Many socialists, such as myself, support truly worker-owned industry, where all decisions of the company are voted upon by the workers, not simply by a dictatorship of shareholders or by a dictatorship of government leaders. There have been many successful companies with such a structure, a notable example being the Mondragon Corporation.

[Anonymous User]

This thread is bananas

Here’s my justification for going into big law, maybe someone can poke holes in it. I support America becoming a Nordic-style welfare state with single payer health care, free public college, etc. However, in that society the private sector would still exist. IE not true state ownership of the means of production (which I think is a bad idea). Thus I am okay with working for a company, but will continue to put my vote toward income redistribution and bigger social spending (and heavy regulation of those companies on environmental/human rights grounds)

Deluded 1L? Coherent worldview?

Imagine being like Europe 0/10. Incoherent on that reason alone. Otherwise, do as you will. Personally I think there are significantly superior alternatives to BL and dislike corporate work, but that's because I think it's boring and anti-intellectual, not out of any moral stipulations.

Socialist nonsense

Yeah, don't care. Have you met the average worker? They don't have the vision to be managing large-scale enterprises. You need some form of top-down control for that. The USSR didn't do a lot right, but it understood that actually handing control to workers was a TERRIBLE idea. If we're not going to have a proper cowboy capitalist society, we need centralized structure. Libleft continues to make poor calls.

[Saami]

Yeah, don't care. Have you met the average worker? They don't have the vision to be managing large-scale enterprises. You need some form of top-down control for that. The USSR didn't do a lot right, but it understood that actually handing control to workers was a TERRIBLE idea. If we're not going to have a proper cowboy capitalist society, we need centralized structure. Libleft continues to make poor calls.

I don't care if you don't care, but don't deny reality. There are many examples of successful worker-owned companies out there (I won't bombard you with a laundry list. I gave one example of a multibillion dollar one. Use DuckDuckGo to find others.) Just because your elitist brain views the average worker as an incompetent fool, doesn't make it so. If anything, I'll ask you: Have you met the average business owner? They're not exactly any more intelligent than average person. Most of their "success" can be attributed to luck and existing in the right place at the right time. For all its downsides, social media has at least shown us how truly moronic and juvenile many of society's billionaires are.

You may question why more worker co-ops don't exist if they can be successfully ran. The simple answer is we live in a country that has baked capitalism into both its culture and laws. Even achieving unionization, let alone true democratic socialism in the workplace, is a massive uphill battle. The powers that be want to keep it that way. Don't interpret this to mean that worker-owned companies aren't actually possible.

[BrainsyK]

I don't care if you don't care, but don't deny reality. There are many examples of successful worker-owned companies out there (I won't bombard you with a laundry list. I gave one example of a multibillion dollar one. Use DuckDuckGo to find others.) Just because your elitist brain views the average worker as an incompetent fool, doesn't make it so. If anything, I'll ask you: Have you met the average business owner? They're not exactly any more intelligent than average person. Most of their "success" can be attributed to luck and existing in the right place at the right time. For all its downsides, social media has at least shown us how truly moronic and juvenile many of society's billionaires are.

You may question why more worker co-ops don't exist if they can be successfully ran. The simple answer is we live in a country that has baked capitalism into both its culture and laws. Even achieving unionization, let alone true democratic socialism in the workplace, is a massive uphill battle. The powers that be want to keep it that way. Don't interpret this to mean that worker-owned companies aren't actually possible.

Eek barba durkle...

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

This thread is bananas

Here’s my justification for going into big law, maybe someone can poke holes in it. I support America becoming a Nordic-style welfare state with single payer health care, free public college, etc. However, in that society the private sector would still exist. IE not true state ownership of the means of production (which I think is a bad idea). Thus I am okay with working for a company, but will continue to put my vote toward income redistribution and bigger social spending (and heavy regulation of those companies on environmental/human rights grounds)

Deluded 1L? Coherent worldview?

Spending your days helping megacorps avoid the taxes, regulations and liability they were ostensibly intended to face (and which you appear to support) and then turning around and voting for a fairer/more equitable society is a bit like endorsing DUI checkpoints while you drive drunk every night. You're advocating to fix a problem you keep exacerbating.

[RecruiterMan]

This thread is bananas

Here’s my justification for going into big law, maybe someone can poke holes in it. I support America becoming a Nordic-style welfare state with single payer health care, free public college, etc. However, in that society the private sector would still exist. IE not true state ownership of the means of production (which I think is a bad idea). Thus I am okay with working for a company, but will continue to put my vote toward income redistribution and bigger social spending (and heavy regulation of those companies on environmental/human rights grounds)

Deluded 1L? Coherent worldview?

Spending your days helping megacorps avoid the taxes, regulations and liability they were ostensibly intended to face (and which you appear to support) and then turning around and voting for a fairer/more equitable society is a bit like endorsing DUI checkpoints while you drive drunk every night. You're advocating to fix a problem you keep exacerbating.

^^ What MO says. And if you care about your employer not being the type of entity that makes the world worse, you shouldn't be working in big law, period. Getting up on a high horse to complain about a firm's Moscow office but being fine with the rest of the work the firm does is a fucking joke.