Why do socialists deserve to not be poor?

Boom! This guy gets it :handgestures-thumbupleft:

Will do.

Really?
That’s a conundrum.

The more informed (or misinformed) ones have lots of arguments.
I don’t know how good they are, but they do have them.
For example I’ve heard them say in the 1970s, climatologists believed global temperature was getting cooler.
They go on to say they were wrong then, so why should we believe them now?

Myself I’m skeptical of climate change, but I haven’t looked into it deeply enough to form much of an opinion, however like you I think it’s a good idea to have clean air and water anyway.
In any case we produce way too much crap, mostly so the rich can hoard all the wealth, so if the transition to greener energy slows the economy down, good riddance, but I’m digressing.

Perhaps.
I just find that if you tell most progressives we shouldn’t implement a carbon tax or increase minimum wage, they will disagree with you, but they will tolerate you, however if you tell them we should abolish affirmative action, temporarily ban Muslims, deport illegals/no amnesty, shut down sanctuary cities, or perhaps to a lesser extent the gender pay gap is all women’s fault, they will insult you, throw a fit, and if they outgun or outnumber you, they may even try to lynch you, by the looks of it.

Progressives have become highly racialized, particularly in the last couple of decades, and I suppose that’s in part because there’re more non-whites in the west, and for now at least, most of them vote progressive, so naturally progressives are catering to them.

Class and economics I think are more impersonal, so if someone argues against policy designed specifically to help your race, or sex, they see it as more of an attack upon who they are, rather than on their circumstances.

I also think the media are taking advantage of this, using it to drive a wedge between the races, and sexes, keep them squabbling over scraps, instead of fully emancipating everyone irrespective of race, and sex.

Hmmm, that may be.

Define poverty. Are we not social? For the most part, preferring to live in society?

How could anyone who shares in everyone’s strengths and weaknesses be defined as poor?

High opinion of humanity in general?

What percentage of us actually produces something and how many “vendors” can be supported?

Think we need more suppliers and less vendors. A vendor should never make more then a producer.

You shouldn’t be unaware of these things journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ … ed.0020124

That’s what I asked KT: were smart people wrong then or wrong now?

global-warming-cartoon.jpg

Well there you go, you just illustrated my point that when no argument exists (or no demonstrable solution), people fallback on emotional responses. It’s no longer about cognitive processes, but fight/flight.

Watch this:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe5pv4khM-Y[/youtube]

You are remarkably levelheaded (artifact of age probably), but you’re hungup on a couple dogmas (artifact of socioeconomic status, probably). Not too shabby, but one dogma you hold is the one dogma I hate the most (punishing the poor). The other stuff we disagree on, ah, no biggie; you’ll figure it out. I think we agree on more than we disagree.

You could be onto something.

I’m not sure what the media is anymore. It used to be 3 or 4 tv channels and a few newspapers, but now I don’t know which way to go first for news. There was a news article on google news that I wanted to find on foxnews so I could read the comments, so I scrolled and scrolled and scrolled and I’m like, wtf, 10,000 news sites and I still haven’t gotten to foxnews.

I tried to find twitter statistics on bans, but searching for age results in young people pretending to be older. It’s a difficult topic to research and my motivation to do so is low since I’m 99% confident already.

I’d define poverty as less than $20k for a healthy adult because that about the minimum amount one needs to have shelter, car, phone, food, utilities, etc.

Income less than that figure constitutes 1/3 of workers or about 50 million people in addition to the 180 million who didn’t report to the IRS.

So we have 230 million people, or 70% of US residents, with little or no means of supporting themselves without government or family assistance.

Hey, but the important thing is 3 guys have 50% of the wealth. theguardian.com/business/20 … half-of-us

Two of whom have been crusading to raise their own taxes for years, but poor hillbillies won’t allow it.

People with subaverage intelligence, health, talents, gifts in general tend to believe that more gifted persons are “doing something wrong” by being gifted or more driven to accomplish and succeed. Socialism in a nutshell. Thus, it speaks to reason that Socialists are generally dumb people. But given that Socialists are generally dumb people, it speaks to reason that they aren’t capable of understanding that, let alone why, this is so. Therefore their “discourse” is, as demonstrated to well by the resident specimens of this reified depravity, predicated on a complete refusal to take in context or to heed empirical and logical forms.

This relative dumbness, which given it is relative to smartness is actually absolute dumbness, that goes a long way in predicting socialism, is akin to the dumbness that causes an attraction to crime. Though they are different types, they invariably seek each other out. Socialist regimes are indistinguishable from the networks of organised crime that hold sway in their lands - one might say crime is the socialist form of police. This all because both types aren’t capable of creation.

If I ask again “says who?” are you again going to non-specifically generalise “Socialists?” like last time?

Again, you are telling other people how and why they think the way they do. Why don’t you actually ask them? - again there were no questions in your posts since my last one, which you ignored completely. I am assuming you don’t accept the answers of anyone you actually have asked, and don’t trust their ability to be honest to themselves - never mind honest to you, am I correct? You trust your own judgment, so you come up with your own reasons, but if so, all you’re doing is coming up with the only reasons you could justify to yourself for believing what they do. This is not good enough.

It’s the equivalent of a Socialist trying to imagine why a Capitalist thinks they way they do by concluding that they could only be a Capitalist themselves e.g. if they didn’t care about the inequality inherent in the profit system of paying people less than what they earn you (the definition of making a profit is revenues exceeding expenses) and thus all Capitalists are immoral sociopaths. As a Capitalist yourself, you have a different rationale that means you’re not an immoral sociopath, right? What if a Socialist were to disregard that and just go with their own judgment that they trust much more? You’d be forever locked into talking past one another.

Is this constant mutual misunderstanding between people going to forever render this subject impenetrable?

I can tell you for a fact that Socialists aren’t all dumb people who think gifted people are doing something wrong by being gifted or more driven to accomplish and succeed. Thus the rest of your embellishment falls apart at the first hurdle, but the question is whether or not you have the capacity to understand this and find a way to look into the whole thing more objectively. Otherwise you’re just an ideologue preaching to the converted, achieving nothing.

You are a socialist in the sense that you cant or wont (big difference) escape its narrative. You need me to choose some option which falls entirely in the realm of Marxist thought. You forget everything in the equation except the laborer and the money. Labor, product, users, culture, all that isnt an issue.
Let me put it in a dramatized form.

Capitalist: Lets build this and this and this and connect to that and through that to everything and make a million dollars!
Capitalist 2: Alright lets get started on the blueprints
Capitalist 3: I hear you guys are up to something cool. Need any of my assistance perchance? For a cut of the pie Ill lend you my newly acquired machinery.

Socialist: We takest the m-money Lebowski.

[quote=“Jakob”]
J: One thing I found out along the way is that the leaderships of Causes and Social Parties are invariably corrupt. Oxfam spends 90 percent of its contributions on Overhead, which was revealed to go buying Africans for sex.

K: after some research, I found this to be simple not true… there was a deal where in
one country, Haiti, had an issue and several people were fired but for the most part,
Oxfam has a pretty good reputation… of course it has been attacked by the right wing
because, well the right wing believes in the negative and not the positive…
and I am guessing you are getting your information from a right wing site…
as for your blanket statement about the leadership of causes and social parties
“invariably corrupt”. I would love some facts to show us this is in fact true…
but the right loves their biases and faith and they don’t believe in facts,
so there is that… so please give us some unbiased facts either about
Oxfam or the leadership of causes and social parties being “invariably corrupt”

Kropotkin

Yes, it is a big difference, and what makes you assume I can’t or won’t escape its narrative? Because I don’t disagree with it as much as you do?

I merely offer you the opportunity to think beyond yourself, just as I appreciate Capitalism as much as I begin with a Socialist heart - I do not end where I begin. What about you?

I fully acknowledge the reality of the dramatic representation that you offer. There are certain mindsets that yearn to innovate, create, realise and compensate - they must be encouraged. The problem is that in your play, the implication is that they could only be Capitalists. Your narrative will make this difficult for you to accept, unless you escape it: Socialists want to “build this and this and connect to that and through that to everything” too. You just never connected to the human beneath the label. They study engineering, and systems, they are passionate about realising dreams. Crazy huh? Socialists?!! Yes, Socialists. And Capitalists.

The stake is driven deep in between the two, and yet the differences are so few. What does a Socialist society look like? Do they want to physically provide water, farm food, distribute goods and services any less than a Capitalist? Don’t be ridiculous. Whatever you call a society, and however any extrinsic reward structures operate, the wants and needs of the people are to be provided. The difference is in how it is motivated.

That’s it.

Think on that. Perhaps you already have. Perhaps you assume Socialists are simply an afterthought of a Capitalist society like you suggest - existing only to disrupt from the surface like a parasite. Be just another one of the other indoctrinated swine if you must.

Jakob, can you show me one group of intelligent people who identify as conservative?

Enlisted men are more conservative than officers.
Army and Marines are more conservative than Air Force and Navy.
Astrophysicists are more liberal than geologists.
Democratic senators are twice as likely to be in the top 1% of cognitive ability than republican senators.
The most educated states are the most liberal.
The most educated counties are most liberal.
Academia, silicon valley, hollywood talent, NASA engineers, medical professionals are liberal.
The vast majority of notable economists are liberal.

I’ve looked everywhere and cannot find a relatively intelligent group of conservatives. I assert that they do not exist and that conservatism is conditional upon cognitive handicap.

IOW, if not for dummies, conservatism wouldn’t exist.

A brain scan could predict with 82% accuracy whether you are republican or democrat.

journals.plos.org/plosone/artic … ne.0052970

It never ceases to amaze how sternly Socialists believe that money grows on trees and Capitalists just happen by these trees unfairly to pluck the cash before Socialists happen by. Like how ILPers believe that if Einstein hadnt existed there would have been a thousand other people to formulate his theory.

Socialism is at heart and most succinctly described as anti-meritocracy; a form of idealism that reaches for every possible way to negate the phenomenon of merit.
What any socialist regime does first and foremost is to outlaw talent, and in general any forms of intelligence that cant be easily categorized in terms of designated slave labor, which is all the labor socialism is capable of employing.

As parasites and nothing besides, socialists thus also always come streaming and pouring into Capitalist countries to suck them dry, and using the resources given to them by capitalists to shit on everything theyve been given and especially on the people that made it happen for them.

Man, I am glad I will never know what it feels like to be a Socialist.

Thank you gods.

Money doesn’t grow on trees; that’s too slow. Money comes from thin air.

youtube.com/watch?v=qIxhsF6JLEA
youtube.com/watch?v=p3_Q1SiRN-A

That’s capitalism which values luck and sucking up over talent.

Capitalism is the conscription into servitude and the theft of worker productivity.

Brave Sir Robin has trouble reading. People are flocking to socialist countries: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194766

What does it feel like to be missing an insula? Constant hate and fear? Oh, yeah, that must suck.

My point is that you know exactly how it feels like to be a Socialist when you are a Capitalist trying to figure out how it feels to be Socialist.

And that’s all you’re doing.

As a lover of wisdom, aren’t you interested in the slightest in the possibility of wisdom in the enemy?

Sure, many people are parasites - Socialists and Capitalists alike. Streaming and pouring to suck people dry? How about the justification for profit as revenue > expenses. The purpose of this is to be a legitimatised incentive for the talented to get an unfair advantage - perfect! Now how many other people need to be incentivised and by how many degrees of magnitude do they need to outnumber the talented?
Are you telling me that the talented could provide entire societies with the required goods and services that they helped build… by themselves? What do you do with the countless relatively disincentivised others to enable them to do the legwork to actualise the creations of the talented minority? So far the solution is to dangle poverty in front of them and use fear to force them to sell their labour to the talented, and it works. This is Capitalism. Can it be improved?

You’re a philosopher, right? Tell me it can’t be improved and why.
When considering the whole picture, all elements of the economy simultaneously - why is incentivising the minority the best for everyone.
Is it worse or better that among the disincentivised majority you may have talented prospectives drowning when they could otherwise be improving things for everyone?

Ha.

A capitalist has no illusions, He know life is hard, it is do or die.

A socialist thinks of the production process as ganging up and “getting paid”.

He pays no concern to the three hundred engineers that went to school, probably half of them deep in debt for it, to design such magnificent machinery, or the brilliance of the architects studying at those expensive institutions, the universities, or the tradition of metallurgy and the countless casualties that went in the process, or any of the magnificent merits that went before his power to work in the factory and do his part, and get paid a quantity of actual buying power which he can freely spend, after taxes.

What I mean is what I said. The socialist isnt a complete literate, he isnt a student of history or an appreciator of human nature. Not a knower of magnificence. He doesnt know his place in the great order of human effort, which is sustained by molecular effort carrying the massive binding forces of the shifting quarks, all of which is unfathomable except through the means of concentrated capital.

I wish we could debate on that level, of the stages of the industrialization of capital. Marx thought it is about the worker, but it is not, it is about the power to create. Mankind unlocks the secrets to his own existence through the vessel of what the Socialist sees as greed, but which is simply gratitude. When man recognizes the investment of power that he is, he ceases to demand, and he begins to forge. By the means of the gifts he forges for his fellow man he forges his own destiny.

‘Man made the trains
to carry the heavy load’

That song is really at the core of things. Socialism is “what women want”, all movie references intended. It is not what they need.

The engineers who built the facility were also workers who were exploited. Hello! We’re talking a looooooong chain of exploitation just to get to the point of exploiting the regular factory worker.

Hell, I told the story on ILP before of the software engineer who saved the company $1 million, but was laughed at when he asked if he could have some of the savings. Probably the reason it saved the company so much is it found a novel way to further fuck the workers.

I wish we could debate at all, but you’re a propaganda dispensing robot that doesn’t seem to have appropriate relevant reactions that would cause one to believe you’ve understood anything said.

You’re a spilled can of alphabet soup with the curious eccentricity of always managing to spell-out “socialism is bad, mkay” amidst the otherwise random rubble and pompous poppycock you continually regurgitate.

Have you no shame whatsoever? Have you eaten too much aluminum? Have you began any strange new medications? What the hell is wrong with you? A couple months ago you were talking to me like a regular human, the sopranos n shit, now it’s as if you’re aspiring to be the biggest jerk possible.

Well fine, because I can’t imagine any fair-minded individual reflecting on those such as you and Pedro as representatives of your side to be painting anything other than an ugly picture and being a troll with intent to disrupt rather than discuss. IOW, keep up the good work!

The Defamation of Socialism

Great song.

Serendipper you haven’t addressed any of my or Rengels arguments in the past months. You’re almost as shameless as Iambiguous in this respect. But all that is par for the socialist course.

Maybe there are socialists who are nodding their heads at your posts. None of them will ever accomplish anything noteworthy. And yet they may feel some recognition. I’m trying to see a bright side to your performance.

I don’t have any hope that you will address any of the basic ideas Rengel and I have been explicating. It is clear, you consider creation to be oppression. Okay man. Have a good life with that.