Urwrongx1000 wrote:It's Good that people are ruled-over though, because most people cannot Rule themselves.
Less than 1% of the human population has any potential for individuality or independence.
The rest must Serve the ruling-class.
promethean75 wrote:You're making a romantic patriarchical comic book storyline out of it, though, replete with heroes and kings and champions and shit. Leadership stopped being 'specialized' with the dawn of the industrial age. That old aristocratic notion of the alpha male as ruler and the need of people to be sheeple under his guidance is material for sketch comedy, not serious philosophers. Not anymore, anyway. Democracy is fully capable of replacing oligarchy... and if it was, you'd not notice the difference. Technology, communication, dissemination of information... all of this makes it now possible for an efficient and effective democracy to exist on planet earf. Fuck the king. That nigga ain't got no clothes, bruh.
promethean75 wrote:"Im afraid this is true."
Nah ya not. Only someone from the working class would be 'afraid' this is true, while the bourgeois/petty bourgeois are delighted that it's true. Without it being true, they'd not have their station in life. Nice try, though. I give you a six for the feigned sympathy.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:It's Good that people are ruled-over though, because most people cannot Rule themselves.
Less than 1% of the human population has any potential for individuality or independence.
The rest must Serve the ruling-class.
Gloominary wrote:Socialism is about economics
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Here is my first point-of-contention.
To me, Socialism is about Society, and how people interact and relate with each-other. Socialists, idealistically, want Society to form better and stronger bonds with one-another. So, to me, this means that Socialism is about Morality, not Economics. Economics is anti-Social. Usually, one person or group, is making money and profit, and the detriment, or to the detriment, of others. When one group profits off-of others; this is Anti-social behavior.
This is also a big reason why World War II happened. German Nationalists were sick and tired of 'Others' profiting from the German country's hard-work.
Gloominary wrote:about narrowing but not necessarily eliminating the gap between rich and poor, which can be accomplished with (state socialism) or without government intervention (market socialism), whereas progressivism is about identity politics, about racism, religionism, sexism and so on against whites, Christians, men and so forth, as well as globalism, open borders, gun control, compulsory education, healthcare and vaccinations.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:I wouldn't say you're a Socialist then...you're just Anti-Capitalist or Egalitarian. A Socialist society could have disparities between rich and poor, if that disparity were wrought through merit and accumulation of resources (Inheritance
Gloominary wrote:While I'm in favor of free (if it's not free or at least cheap, it's not socialism, it's corporatism) public education and healthcare, I think it should be a state/provincial matter, not a federal one, and it should be voluntary, not obligatory.
While free public education, healthcare and vaccines should be available, you shouldn't have to publicly educate or vaccinate your kids or yourself, you should be able to homeschool them, and private education and healthcare should also be available.
I would also like to see a shift towards more holistic public healthcare
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Yes, very Libertarian....
Gloominary wrote:Socialism and corporatism aren't the same thing either.
Corporatism is about widening the gap between rich and poor.
For me, all taxes on the working and middle classes is corporatism.
All taxes on and unnecessary regulations of small businesses is corporatism.
All megacorporate welfare, bailouts, tax breaks and loopholes is corporatism.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:I disagree.
Taxation is needed (on the middle-class) to fund the Military. Other than that, I might agree with you.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:It's Good that people are ruled-over though, because most people cannot Rule themselves.
Less than 1% of the human population has any potential for individuality or independence.
The rest must Serve the ruling-class.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Socialism and "Progressivism" are slightly different ideals.
Progressivism is Socialism "of the 21st Century".
Progressivism is a huge slice and component of 'Modernism', if not the main core of it.
Progressivists believe that "evil-whitey" is to blame for everything, and the world can only "move forward" with non-white, non-male leadership. However, Progressivists never explain the disparity of "Leadership". When challenged, it's always a backpedal into a bad argument, that "we've always been oppressed", as a means to explain the lack of Leadership from women and minorities. So, this begs-the-question, why are white-males still the De Facto 'leaders' of, arguably, all important matters in life???
Socialism is Morality. How should people interact and relate with each-other? Should a Society be Homogeneous (genetically close) or Heterogeneous (genetically distant)? Many "Socialists" are Liberal-hypocrites. They say one thing, but do another. Or they do one thing, but think another. This fallacious thinking appears as, "Do as I say, not as I do". So Progressivists and Socialists are generally untrustworthy.
To proclaim Social-values, and actually follow them, is usually the realm of Religion. Religion preaches that your actions and words must coincide. So Socialists are similar to Judæo-Christians, except, Socialists don't necessarily follow the 'Rules' they wish they could impose onto anybody-else.
promethean75 wrote:That was a very thoughtful post, sir. I find myself filled with the sudden urge to listen to St. Elmo's Fire, and I want to thank you.
Jakob wrote:Urwrong - Trump is a break with this. Few Trump voters are believers in Authority, everyone of us laughs at how quirky and human he is and how human he makes his opponents look. Whereas Obama was and is basically a God to his fans. He even had me convinced for some years at first, that he was some kind of phenomenon.
You cant be right about everything.
Gloominary wrote:More specifically socialism is the workers/people democratically owning and running the means of productions, whether directly through cooperatives or indirectly through unions and the state.
While theoretically this could still lead to the enormous economic disparaties we see in capitalism, practically it's highly unlikely.
While I think more tenacious, talented and contributive people should be rewarded, I don't think some people should be rewarded as much as capitalism does.
Gloominary wrote:I don't worship the elite like you do.
While some of them are more talented, tenacious and contributive than the average pleb, some of them just got lucky or are corrupt.
A lot of capitalism is just being at the right place at the right time.
If Bill Gates hadn't come along,
Urwrongx1000 wrote:I think you've got it wrong on a central premise, Gloominary.
Socialism is not about Economics. It's about how people ought to act toward one-another in society. In this way, yes, Progressivism is a big aspect of Socialism. To be a Socialist, in the Modern sense, is about imposing moral and ethical "rules" upon others. Calling a male who has self-castrated, by a different pronoun than He/She, etc.
Socialism is about ethical economics.
Gloominary wrote:More specifically socialism is the workers/people democratically owning and running the means of productions, whether directly through cooperatives or indirectly through unions and the state.
While theoretically this could still lead to the enormous economic disparaties we see in capitalism, practically it's highly unlikely.
While I think more tenacious, talented and contributive people should be rewarded, I don't think some people should be rewarded as much as capitalism does.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:This sounds like Communism.
Gloominary wrote:I don't worship the elite like you do.
While some of them are more talented, tenacious and contributive than the average pleb, some of them just got lucky or are corrupt.
A lot of capitalism is just being at the right place at the right time.
If Bill Gates hadn't come along,
Urwrongx1000 wrote:No no, Bill Gates is not an "Elite" to me. From my perspective, Royalist, somebody who is noble in heart and mind, somebody who people look-up to, are inspired by, are Great, Virtuous, Moral, Paternal, are "Elite". I don't mean Rich. You have a different idea of "Elite" than me. Elite =/= Rich. Elite = Virtuouso/Great/Skilled/Noble/Paternal.
This is certainly the state of things now as compared to a while ago. When companies began to focus on shareholders and short term gains and outsourcing and so on, the broke ties with workers. Workers used to be tied to companies for much longer periods of time and were committed to their companies. Shit, I've had jobs where I really did not give a shit in the abstract, but in situ I gave my all and came up with creative solutions for long term company well being. It doesn't take much to make quite strongly overlapping values. But that's been trending away. In small companies you can still find strong overlap.Urwrongx1000 wrote:An employer and employee do not have the same perspective, value, approach of, or interesting in a business.
An employee wants a wage, and has no real commitment to the longevity of the business outside receive that wage.
An employer wants a productive worker who will accept the lowest amount of pay.
So no, there is not a "shared-interest", other than making money and a living perhaps.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:This is certainly the state of things now as compared to a while ago. When companies began to focus on shareholders and short term gains and outsourcing and so on, the broke ties with workers. Workers used to be tied to companies for much longer periods of time and were committed to their companies. Shit, I've had jobs where I really did not give a shit in the abstract, but in situ I gave my all and came up with creative solutions for long term company well being. It doesn't take much to make quite strongly overlapping values. But that's been trending away. In small companies you can still find strong overlap.Urwrongx1000 wrote:An employer and employee do not have the same perspective, value, approach of, or interesting in a business.
An employee wants a wage, and has no real commitment to the longevity of the business outside receive that wage.
An employer wants a productive worker who will accept the lowest amount of pay.
So no, there is not a "shared-interest", other than making money and a living perhaps.
Jakob wrote:Urwrong is espousing pure marxism. Marx always forgot about the most important thing, namely the value of the produced object.
Jakob wrote:People are often passionate about and at the least mildly interested in what they're doing, not in the least because there are other people interested in them doing it. Value goes around like a girl on her birthday.
Marx applies strictly to forced labour type situations, the worst jobs of the 19th century, sweatshops and stuff here and now. Where people really don't give a shit for what they produce. Even mcdonalds is above Marxism, because people who work there will most of the time be people who occasionally eat there and thats because they like the food enough to pay for it there and not elsewhere.
So Marx forgot about the real value of industry, namely what is being produced.
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users