Why do socialists deserve to not be poor?

Did a socialist ever answer this question?

sure they did, but those were the old terminator models that used ‘morals’ to argue who ‘deserved’ and didn’t ‘deserve’ what. we’re the new t1000 models. we aren’t programmed to make moral judgments. the naturalistic fallacy component in our neural hardware prevents our operating systems from doing so. we’re programmed to eliminate business owners and turn management over to the workers. we don’t ask whether this is ‘right/good’ or ‘wrong/bad’. we have philosophers that handle that.

I have… several questions.

What do you mean by Socialist? A nebulous term that nobody seems to want to clarify before throwing stones.

Also, deserve? Like some kind of retributive morality? And poor in the financial sense, right?

And who said Socialists deserve to not be poor?

Sure, there are have been different answers. But the question hides odd assumptions, such as that we are all separate monads with no connection and no intercausal well-being. Or the way nations, for example, say we are one in times of war - or, often, you poor people are we, get in there and die and kill, but a bunch of separate Aynian immaculate individuals otherwise. Do the rich deserve to control the media? Do they deserve to undermine democracy via lobbying and campaign financing and…the rest? Is ‘deserving’ the model? Why does a model based on ‘deserving’ deserve to the be model? Waht does it really mean?

On whose labor did the radical individuals, the disconnected monads, rise to that place where they no longer wanted to be part of a we? Why can’t they stop controlling the institutions that assume a we? Why did they fight to have corporations treated as people and to create regions of control that are radically we based and punitive in those we based ways? Cultures of wes? But run by Is who like not being able to be held individually accountable for what these we-institutions do locally, nationally and internationally? while at the same time making sure that other individuals are held responsible for their acts?

Why do bankers now deserve via fiat banking and create more times the amount of money they loan out of nothing? It used to be just a few times the money they could do this? They’d loan out 10,000 several times, sure based on some sum they had. A small number of times. Now they can loan out many, many more times that, and then invest this hallucinated money, based on the fact that someone will pay them back with many that person has to work for. Why do they deserve to be able to create more times the money nowadays than they used to in say the 70s? Were they extremely good people since then and so they deserve to have hallucinate more money out of nothing and invest it?

Why do the rich not deserve to be punished for their crimes? I am not merely speaking about having better legal representation and ability to avoid prison. I am talking about the current systematic bias in courts towards feeling sympathy for rich criminals in ways they do not for the same crimes committed by poor criminals. Systematically being concerned about the shock a hedge fund owner will have in relation to prison, a shock that is never considered when the crime is committed by a plumber. These are not just individual judges taking into account an odd empathy for criminals who have, in the end, worse excuses for their behavior, but is in fact a systematic trend, in the US at least.

do the rich deserve to create scarcity through pushing for policy that creates it and then employ people in the way they want because it is a ‘free’ market?

So the rich have the right to loan money to dictators who misuse the funds, then demand in lieu of missing loan payments the gutting of the social support systems, the protection of local farmers, etc.?

I hear this model ‘deserving’ applied by the right only to those without much money and power. Both the model (metaphor) and the application seem hallucinatory to me.

Why does the tobacco executive deserve to earn five times what a police officer does?

Why does someone who invests using derivatives - that is, makes nothing - deserve to earn more than a baker or a farmer?

Once we can clone with ease, or at least the wealthy can, will they ask their children, why should I give a shit about you? You’re close, but not close enough genetically, not any more? What makes you think you deserve our love, you’re 12, your debt plus interest - our investment - is now 800 bucks a month, you responsibilitiless little welfare queen?

It’s very hard to explain to a lizard the workings of the mammalian brain.

If they want to throw out the long period of the development of the limbic system and the attendant behaviors of social mammals, there is obviously no proof for these partial humans?

Deserve actually translates into: what’s in it for me?

Well, there is nothing in it for a lizard. Nothing at all.

Well, except for the fact that a certain point, and one already reached in much of the West, even the rich suffer more stress, when the gap between the rich and the poor gets too great.

But since lizards don’t really give much of a shit about themselves, too focused on the chunk of their brother’s leg the other lizards haven’t yet eaten, even this appeal falls on deaf timpani.

Why do some think “deserve” has any relevance whatsoever?


Either the 99% can continue giving their productivity to the 1% or they can, by virtue of numbers, take the productivity back.

Do the 1% deserve to keep their heads? That is the relevant question here.

We’re all socialists now, unless you want to go back to a time where child labor, serfdom and slavery were legal (how else will some of us pay our debts?).

Or where the firetruck drove by your house as it and your children were engulfed by flames because you couldn’t afford fire insurance.

The only relevant question is: how much of a socialist are you?

Almost 0% of the population actually wants to go back to the 19th century when they really think about it.

I hereby declare you Union Secretary.
We need this mentality on the other side of the fence.
The cold war was magnificent.

I agree, the term has many meanings, but Ive got a long record of posts defining it.
I personally distinguish Socialism and Communism as roughly Menshivism and Bolshevism.

Yes, with little money.
I mean deserve as in moral entitlement, a reason to have moral support, a reason to be morally indignant when the entitlement is not met.

But as promethean hints we can also ask a counter question; who said that Socialists don’t do deserve to not be poor?
This doesnt render the question irrelevant, it just identifies class struggle.

Pedro said that war begins as a declaration, so it is of no concern what a capitalist thinks; Marx declared class struggle and as long as he has followers there will be class struggle in the metaphysical sense. It will be an item dictating moral tones.

Most, Id say 99 percent of adult humans are inclined to decide based on moral judgments rather than empirically sound pragmatic ones. Philosophers may understand the fallacy but that doesnt matter.

Does it really?
It could be youre reading into it.
Capitalism also presupposes intercausal well being.
Mutually beneficial arrangements.

Socialism has a top down approach, Capitalism is more situationalistic in the outset. What can be done with what is given?

Well, deserving is a big deal to people. The justice system is based on the idea that people deserve certain judgments.
It just means that something is required. An ought.
We might believe this is a fallacy but people in general do not.

I dont know who you mean, man. Can you list some of the parties?
I dont believe in “the rich” as an institution. I do believe in Socialism as an institution.

But banking isnt about representation. Socialism is about a class of people. Banking is just pure greed.
I think that in general people deserve to be left alone by banks and by governments. If I have any moral ought I feel right with, it is that.

I think the rich do deserve to be punished for their crimes.
I dont think the fact that a rich guy can lawyer up and be immune to the law is okay at all.
I dont believe in this whole jury selection process. I dont think fair trials are the norm.
Im against all leveraging by the state in human affairs.

But this is a completely untenable position. What Trump represents to me is the destruction of the sanctimonious state. He is just not one of these glib bastards. He has defeated isis and has created the greatest employment boom in 40 years and he has lowered taxes on the rich, yes that too. Taxes they didnt pay to begin with but still. Then, he did make sure foreign based companies need to pay tax, so theres that.
He has also abolished the practice of fining people for not having the mandatory care package, which is hundreds of thousands of dollars back in the pockets of tens of millions of not-rich Americans. Trump removes strings. So I love the guy. But the America he inherited was in a dire state.

Misuse by whose terms?
But no, I dont think these are nice things at all. I do think leadership should emerge from within a country.

Admittedly my post was intended to hit some nerves and remove some masks. So there is your Ought.
And precisely what I distrust about Socialism.

If they could they would have. But there is no such thing as a collective of 99 percent of humans. Theyre divided in millions of ridiculous sub-camps and they all secretly want to be rich.

Communists like my grandfather are rare. The Great Generation.

You and promethean at least have the dignity of your convictions.

While many capitalists rig the system in their favor, as Karpel pointed out, I think capitalism (big business especially, but even small to a lesser extent) is inherently corrupt, for why should someone detached from managing and working in the megacorporation they own profit off it?
They’re not actually contributing anything to society.

Or if I manage to buy (through discipline, talent, or sheer luck), or inherit a dozen condos, and then a dozen families rent them from me, how is that just?
I may not have to actually contribute anything to society for my entire life, meanwhile a dozen families have to work hard providing goods and services to society their whole life long in order to rent from me, and they may never have anything to show for it.

When machines replace most of the workers at a factory, instead of sharing the profits with them, increasing their wages, reducing their hours and prices, or laying them off with enormous severance packages, they simply fire them, hoard all the profits and reinvest the money.
eventually some other capitalist finds something for these poor saps to do while they scrounge off the meagre dole and the cycle repeats.

Over decades, centuries as more and more technology replaces labor, our productivity becomes increasingly meaningless, and monstrous.
We just produce luxuries for the rich or junk no one needs or even really wants and shouldn’t be compelled to produce or we produce nothing at all, waste.
We have to cut down more trees and pollute more oceans, rivers, lakes and streams to make all this crap.

It’s hideous, rainforests are gradually being torn down.
We need them for our oxygen supply and resources, not to mention they and the animals who dwell in them have intrinsic value.
But if we continue down this path we’re on, they and everything that depends on them, including ourselves will all be gone.

However, the anaerobic microbes on the other hand, are going to make a comeback.
So I guess we’re doing it for them.
Well I welcome our anaerobic overlords with open arms.
I’m sure they’ll do a much better job with this planet than we’re doing, that is if the machines or genetically modified humanoids don’t supersede us first, in this mad quest to consume ourselves into oblivion.

This is my core position from when I was a kid and active in causes.
Much has been lost since then.
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.

I now think the only hope is in the fact that some people actually have more money than they could spend. This is a firm basis for a true ecologic revolution, which is all I care about really.


I fear that the only hope is that our Hedonism will save us - the will to enjoy the planet as a natural thing.
Socialism has failed, and I was part of trying very hard to protect things, to protect the Earth. Most of it is gone. I now see only potential for some lofty form of capital investments in the natural Earth as a product.

My original question was really aimed at the anthropocentrism of Socialism, the myopic focus on the wellbeing of the human hordes.
If the worker organized to save other species, then maybe things would work out for him.
What planet are they seeking to inherit - is not “meek” a little too close to “invertebrate”?

And if Socialism explicitly denounces responsibility for the others species, then it is truly the weapon of destruction itself.

the interplanetary kalaxion federation designed the Z13 sentinals for the sole purpose of aiding human revolutionary soldiers in combat. in 1917 they were deployed to assist communists in overthrowing the tsar’s army, in china to overthrow the nationalists, in cuba to eliminate batista, and so on.

it is not as simple as coming to ‘the other side of the fence’. these units belong to an elite force that is controlled by the federation, and protocols cannot be violated without the express permission of the institution.

A coinflip could land heads, but possibility doesn’t equal certainty.

They took their productivity back in 1932 when they overwhelmingly elected FDR. Then in 1980 the 30-yr-olds of 1932 were 78 and the new generation that left the backdoor unlocked so the capitalists could sneak back in were too young to remember what happened last time.

Then the French Revolution didn’t happen.

They want to be free from the burden of surviving.

Idk what you mean by that.

There are no such things as rights unless the people make for themselves a government to secure them.

Are you arguing that the minority should take precedence over the majority? By what logic?

I can only go to one restaurant to fetch lunch. 9 guys want burgers and 1 wants hotdogs. Why should I make 9 people eat hotdogs just to make 1 guy happy?

The benefit of the many must be the focus unless I have reason to believe otherwise. We either hang together or hang separately.

Arrogance is attribute of the ignorant and therefore its opposite is the meek.

I don’t understand what you mean.

Im not surprised. You were the one saying to a Venezuelan that he was ignorant of Venezuela.

Not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Anyway Ive spoken my mind here. You can go back to fiddling with yourselves now.

Temper, temper.

Just very puzzled by the amount of things that go right past you.

Some of you write quite well, but reading seems more difficult.

Selective reading…
Guess it’s natural like digestive eating.
Doesnt mean people deserve a beating
Cause what’s “deserve”… er, durr…

The social majority tends to follow the biggest idiot. Only in private are people honest enough to be somewhat conscious of reason.

Socialism is a big cruel carnaval. A stomp fest for the sake of it.

I’ve never met a Socialist who didn’t revolt at the idea of an honest psychological analysis of their own self interest.

What it amounts in is (self-)consumerism. The philosophy of man’s right to consume, vs Capitalism, man’s self taken right to produce.