Why do socialists deserve to not be poor?

I’ll take you up on that, but in the meantime, consider that climate change and minimum wage aren’t hot button issues for most progressives, at least not anymore, but try telling them abortion is murder, about black and female privilege, that same sex marriage is unconstitutional, there’re only two genders, the holocaust is a hoax, the Jews perpetrated 9/11, and watch them flee to their safe spaces, insult you (misogynist, racist, homophobe, anti-Semite, asshole, dumbass, etcetera), even threaten your life.

And I’m not sure why you have it out for old people, young people are just as likely to fly off the handle, they haven’t learned how to control their anger, and they’re also far more prone to violence than old people.

Jakob, of the approximately 80 questions asked so far on this thread (not counting duplicates) you have asked only 10.

4 were to Karpel, 3 were general rhetorical questions that you only asked to answer yourself, 1 was the initial post’s question.
Just 2 were in a response to things I said, but one was an answer in the form of a question: I questioned who actually said the thread title and you responded “Socialists?”
The other was a question you posed on behalf of promethean, which appears to be a simple inversion of the same thread title, though I think you made a typo in asking it.
I’ve asked you about 17.

You are not asking questions, Jakob. You have no inquiries. You’re simply asserting claims - venting, like I said. Even the initial question was solely to initate this whole rhetoric.

Do I need to answer your questions to Karpel to encourage actual discussion from you? Do I need to answer the questions you only asked to answer yourself?

My attempt has been to get to the core of the initial question, but you are evading. This is why I have happily offered to leave you to it - your purpose is clear. I am sorry you are getting no fun from what you are setting up for yourself - ironically it seems to be you who “prefers to be unhappy for his fellow man over being happy for his fellow man”: you the anti-Socialist. All the evidence supports that this is all just projection, which is fine - I don’t want to interfere with what you need to do to express your frustration. If you are only interested in baiting frustration from others, I’m simply leaving that to any others who want to take it.

@ big jake

socialists and the people the socialists defend and stand for should not be characterized as the same regarding their intent. we tend to identify the lowly and downtrodden as the symbol of socialist theory… so that when we hear them cry ‘i’m a victim’, we associate the theory of socialism with that indignation; we say ‘ah, this theory must be based in ressentiment, for look at all the miserable complainers who envy the wealthy.’ but there is a subtle non sequitur hidden behind such reasoning, one which the socialist theorist (if he knows his shit) does not come under the jurisdiction of. and it goes like this: the working class cannot envy the bourgeois unless there is something about the bourgeois that the working class is not responsible for creating. perhaps a personality trait, or a talent, for example. but the bourgeois did not create his wealth… he merely appropriated it, took it into his possession under the permission of a specific kind of civil contract which put laws in place to protect such appropriation and property. very technically speaking, the socialist can’t envy the bourgeois on that account because the object of envy already belongs to the socialist. what you call ‘envy’ is really an intent to repossess what has always belonged to the workers in the first place.

on the other hand, if what he envies is the capitalist’s ability to own without producing, he wouldn’t be a real socialist, but a farce - which accounts for much of the rabble; the fair weather socialists who would not hesitate to exploit themselves if given the opportunity. such people are not socialists and know nothing of the logic of socialist reasoning. the purpose is not to quench a thirst for revenge, but to modify that specific kind of socio-economic contract that protects the capitalist’s right to appropriate without producing anything. it’s an incredibly simple premise which conservatives endlessly conflate and obfuscate to over-complicate the matter and introduce multifarious elements into socialism’s modus operandi. one such maneuver would be to say socialism is based in envy. of course, there is the anarchist and socialist rabble who declare themselves ‘victims’ with what N called that righteous indignation, but this conclusion is assuming them all to be moralists. there are some not ignoble or impressed enough to be able to experience envy. immoralists and healthy narcissists, free from all those petty, plebian sentiments that are so human all too human. think spock, che guevara and loki rolled into one.

and i am one such anarchist, sometimes known as bodacious in various anarchist and socialist circles. a renegade philosopher anarchist who prefers the dialectic of a 12 gauge to a well crafted argument, any day. as the good chairman once said but didn’t quite say; power doesn’t come out of the barrel of a philosophy book.

but nevermind that. just remember this subtle detail; one can’t be envied when what they have is not theirs or of their own creation in the first place.

no. socialism cannot be reduced to such trivial mincing and squabbling.

promethean75 wrote:

Amazing.

@Jakob

Can’t argue with you there.

Capitalists never seem to run out of meaningless things to do that benefit no one, including themselves.

I hope you’re right, perhaps non-invasive ecotourism will save us.

Well, try telling them abortion is murder and see what happens, but there is no way to settle that argument. With climate change, they appeal to peer-reviewed research which supposedly settles it. When I cite the peer-reviewed research that says peer-reviewed research is wrong, then they get their panties in a knot, but still don’t call me stupid. Conservatives begin each sentence with how stupid I am for not seeing how stupid a min wage is.

One group has an argument (1000s of scientists say so).
The other group has no argument, so insult is their only recourse.

Perhaps when liberals have no argument (abortion is murder), maybe they also insult. Idk, I don’t argue abortion because there is no obvious solution. I like problems that have solutions.

Maybe hotheaded young people don’t get online and maybe levelheaded old people don’t get online, idk, but I can tell someone’s generation by their propensity to insult. Compare yourself to Jakob and see my point.

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.