Doesn't Diversity Presume Inequality? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#15007394
B0ycey wrote:You think you're happy? You're a rat in a race.



I used to be a socialist when I was young and I am well aware of your argument. For those that are low in the natural hierarchy the rat race is a true phenomenon and I can see why those trap in the race long for the state to provide everything. Been there done that, but in the end when a person is provided everything the person becomes nihilistic and loses direction. That is why Seattle, San Francisco, and LA are so dystopian. The cities provide everything and hence the homeless population grows like wildfire.

I am certain a socialist country would not put up with that and even though I am basically a libertarian I would welcome the harsh hand of the state to eliminate those shanty towns.
#15007396
Julian658 wrote:I used to be a socialist when I was young and I am well aware of your argument. For those that are low in the natural hierarchy the rat race is a true phenomenon and I can see why those trap in the race long for the state to provide everything. Been there done that, but in the end when a person is provided everything the person becomes nihilistic and loses direction. That is why Seattle, San Francisco, and LA are so dystopian. The cities provide everything and hence the homeless population grows like wildfire.

I am certain a socialist country would not put up with that and even though I am basically a libertarian I would welcome the harsh hand of the state to eliminate those shanty towns.


Why does the richest nation on the planet have any shanty towns? If America can't eliminate poverty then why is Capitalism better than Socialism? Also don't look at dictators and think that has to be socialism. There are more dictators today within Capitalism than Socialism BTW. The only criteria for socialism is who controls private property and the means of production. It isn't a political solution but a political concept and as such could be very liberal BTW.

Nonetheless social animals have proven socialism can work FYI. It is a natural standard of living you can find anyway in the wild. Capitalism is merely a fabrication of human invention. Why should those who do not profit and lose accept the gains of those who profit greatly? If you are part of society it seems to me to make more sense if you share the spoils. But even if you want to reward enterprise and risk, a society at the very least should provide a minimum standard of living, housing, education and healthcare. You shouldn't profit on basic human rights. Something capitalism thrives on and socialism eradicates BTW.
#15007424
B0ycey wrote:Why does the richest nation on the planet have any shanty towns? If America can't eliminate poverty then why is Capitalism better than Socialism? Also don't look at dictators and think that has to be socialism. There are more dictators today within Capitalism than Socialism BTW. The only criteria for socialism is who controls private property and the means of production. It isn't a political solution but a political concept and as such could be very liberal BTW.


Is a dystopic world. The more you provide to a certain element the more nihilistic they become. Is a symptom of excess. In Western countries the poor are obese, they get a cash from the state, and food stamps. And yet the choose to live on the street strung out on drugs. This is what happens when the state provides too much. And we live in freedom. These folks have the freedom to live on the streets. This would not be allowed in a socialist country. The homeless would be rounded up and not allowed to camp everywhere. In this instance the socialist would do it better.

Nonetheless social animals have proven socialism can work FYI. It is a natural standard of living you can find anyway in the wild. Capitalism is merely a fabrication of human invention. Why should those who do not profit and lose accept the gains of those who profit greatly? If you are part of society it seems to me to make more sense if you share the spoils. But even if you want to reward enterprise and risk, a society at the very least should provide a minimum standard of living, housing, education and healthcare. You shouldn't profit on basic human rights. Something capitalism thrives on and socialism eradicates BTW.


In the west we have plenty of social programs financed by the people that go to work everyday and pay taxes. Otherwise, I have not yet seen a successful socialist country elsewhere.
#15007431
Pants-of-dog wrote:The average Cuban has a smart phone, Internet, and air conditioning. If a developing country can do it, so can we.



https://www.apnews.com/65ae62dac77b4dad91b0969108af6bb9

HAVANA (AP) — Cuba announced Tuesday night that its citizens will be offered full internet access for mobile phones beginning this week, becoming one of the last nations to offer such service.

Mayra Arevich, president of the Cuban state telecom monopoly ETECSA, went on national television to say Cubans can begin contracting 3G service for the first time Thursday.

Until now, Cubans have had access only to state-run email accounts on their phones.

The Cuban government has been building a 3G network in cities across the island and some tourists, Cuban government officials and foreign businesspeople have had access to it for several years.


The communist-governed island has one of the world’s lowest rates of internet use but that has been expanding rapidly since Presidents Barack Obama and Raul Castro declared detente in 2014. Expansion has not slowed with President Donald Trump’s partial rollback of relations.

Cuba authorized home internet in 2017 and hundreds of public Wi-Fi connection points have opened in parks and plazas around the country.

The new service will cost about 10 cents per megabyte, with packages ranging from 600 megabytes for about $7 to four gigabytes for about $30.

Those prices are roughly in line with global standards but still out of reach for many Cubans who subsist on state salaries of about $30 a month.

Cuba ran a fiber-optic connection to Venezuela in 2012, allowing the island to shift from slow and costly satellite links. It then began the slow process of allowing citizens to get online.

The government opened state-run internet cafes in 2013, joined by Wi-Fi sites two years later. The number of sites has grown to more than 800.

The Cuban internet is mostly uncensored but the government blocks a small number of sites like the U.S.-funded Radio and Television Marti networks and others that advocate for systematic change on the island.



Cuba has made some gains in Internet, but the service costs almost as much as the average monthly salary of 30.00 dollars a month. This effectively prices out most of the population. As of now the service is only available to tourists and the elite. How is that "equality" working for the average Cuban?
#15007433
Julian658 wrote:Is a dystopic world. The more you provide to a certain element the more nihilistic they become. Is a symptom of excess. In Western countries the poor are obese, they get a cash from the state, and food stamps. And yet the choose to live on the street strung out on drugs. This is what happens when the state provides too much. And we live in freedom. These folks have the freedom to live on the streets. This would not be allowed in a socialist country. The homeless would be rounded up and not allowed to camp everywhere. In this instance the socialist would do it better.


Then provide your poor with jobs. Let them earn their living or let them die as outlaws with nothing. That is the problem with hoarding the wealth to the top 1% in an economic model that rewards profit. The 1% choose who work and who doesn't and the incentive is to limit the number of workers they have as it is profitable to do so.

In the west we have plenty of social programs financed by the people that go to work everyday and pay taxes. Otherwise, I have not yet seen a successful socialist country elsewhere.


Then you haven't seen China. Although let NK trade and they might well succeed rather restrict them out of the free market. And the same is true with every socialist nation who dares defy the Americans. Nonetheless the Petro-dollar is the only thing keeping the value in the dollar today due to over spending and over printing. Once the last rig runs dry, capitalism dies anyway. At least a state run nation under Communism the fictional concept of currency has no meaning so would effect the state as much as the breeze effects the branches in nature when hyperinflation comes to bite the Americans in the ass. Although can you imagine the success of socialism with western mentality and values? Utopian I would say.
#15007438
B0ycey wrote:Then provide your poor with jobs. Let them earn their living or let them die as outlaws with nothing. That is the problem with hoarding the wealth to the top 1% in an economic model that rewards profit. The 1% choose who work and who doesn't and the incentive is to limit the number of workers they have as it is profitable to do so.


I have no issues with the statement that is in bold. Thanks for making my point!

About excessive wealth: It is related to the natural hierarchy of competence among humans. And the left plays a crucial and valid role in speaking for those at the bottom of the hierarchy. The left should promote higher taxes so the poor can benefit from the wealth created by the rich. And this is already done on a regular basis.

The term hoarding is incorrect. Wealth is not finite! Most of the wealth in the planet is created by capitalists. If I invent the i-pad and sell it to billions of people I will become a billionaire and I will not hurt a single poor person in doing so because all the wealth I have was created by me. My success does not diminish the income of the poor because wealth is not a zero sum gain. I suggest you study this concept. I rather live in a country with people Bill like Bill gates and Steve Jobs rather than a country where everybody is the same.

Then you haven't seen China. Although let NK trade and they might well succeed rather restrict them out of the free market. And the same is true with every socialist nation who dares defy the Americans. Nonetheless the Petro-dollar is the only thing keeping the value in the dollar today due to over spending and over printing. Once the last rig runs dry, capitalism dies anyway. At least a state run nation under Communism the fictional concept of currency has no meaning so would effect the state as much as the breeze effects the branches in nature when hyperinflation comes to bite the Americans in the ass. Although can you imagine the success of socialism with western mentality and values? Utopian I would say.


When China was a pure socialist country under Mao 40 million people died of starvation. This is par for the course for pure socialism. Then the Chinese adopted capitalism and the quality of life improved immediately. China is a force that needs attention and they are pragmatic and have no respect for patents. Since the other side of China is also socialist they maintain the typical oppression and authoritarian fascist style of most socialist nations.

You are rooting for America to go down. Are you European? Asian? Canadian?
#15007443
Julian658 wrote:About excessive wealth: It is related to the natural hierarchy of competence among humans. And the left plays a crucial and valid role in speaking for those at the bottom of the hierarchy. The left should promote higher taxes so the poor can benefit from the wealth created by the rich. And this is already done on a regular basis.


There is nothing natural about a fat obese lier making it to the top of the hierarchy pyramid. And there is nothing natural about a human concept such as currency either. Although as currency is nothing more than an IOU, this means to profit off it you must do so under someone elses debt. And if there is debt then someone or something loses out. Capitalism isn't a zero sum game. It is a game of winners and losers.

Nonetheless natural hierarchy might exist in nature but animal societies usually share out the spoils. It doesn't alienate members who are willing to provide for the society like capitalism does.

The term hoarding is incorrect. Wealth is not finite! Most of the wealth in the planet is created by capitalists. If I invent the i-pad and sell it to billions of people I will become a billionaire and I will not hurt a single poor person in doing so because all the wealth I have was created by me. My success does not diminish the income of the poor because wealth is not a zero sum gain. I suggest you study this concept. I rather live in a country with people Bill like Bill gates and Steve Jobs rather than a country where everybody is the same.


Hoarding is correct term actually as the wealth doesn't circulate it stagnates in billionaires accounts. Although Socialism doesn't need to eliminate enterprise. It just realigns who controls private property and the means of production. Why does patients need not to exist and the royalties go to the inventor within socialism? However at the same time, why should the inventor control the monopoly of his invention as he is part of the society that gave him the tools to make his invention with education and provisions?

When China was a pure socialist country under Mao 40 million people died of starvation. This is par for the course for pure socialism. Then the Chinese adopted capitalism and the quality of life improved immediately. China is a force that needs attention and they are pragmatic and have no respect for patents. Since the other side of China is also socialist they maintain the typical oppression and authoritarian fascist style of most socialist nations.


Why is dictatorship classed as "pure socialism" to you? The only objective for socialism is that the state controls the means of production and private property. China has proven that socialism can enter a free market. You don't need to own the land your business is on to run a business. And you don't need to own the production of that business to invent and innovate - and to profit from that innovation via patients. Socialism can be just as liberal as Capitalism if that is the poliltical solution your government chooses for its nation FYI.

You are rooting for America to go down. Are you European? Asian? Canadian?


I root for the end of private property in land. Allow everyone the right to work and live off the land that should not be restricted and America can thrive for all I care.
#15007486
B0ycey wrote:There is nothing natural about a fat obese lier making it to the top of the hierarchy pyramid.


Hmm, if you remove the concept of inheritance of wealth there are many people that created enormous wealth out of nothing due to intellect and creativity. I hope you are not assuming all people that rose to the top had nothing to offer.

I think you have become immersed in the concept of the last stage of socialism which is by definition an utopia and somehow think it is easy to get there. Don't get me wrong the theory is extremely compelling and as a young student while in college I also thought it could work. The analysis of Marx regarding the flaws of capitalism is correct, but sadly the remedies have not worked. Since the analysis is correct we tend to have new socialists in every generation despite the countless failures in the past. And no one teaches these failures: Few students know about the murders by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Some students think Venezuela is doing great and many others praise Cuba even though Internet costs so much that is unavailable to the average Cuban.

I went back and read a couple of your posts and many things stand out. You are very much the way i was a long time ago and I praise you for your sense of justice.

Social animals have proven socialism can work FYI. It is a natural standard of living you can find anyway in the wild.


This is a bit naive. yeah, some animals are social, but many others are incredibly vicious and selfish. The lion does not spare the life of the animals he hunts down and also kills the cubs of other lions if he has to. Chimps our closest relatives are incredibly violent with any chimp that is not part of the group.

Capitalism is merely a fabrication of human invention


I don't think you understand capitalism at all. You tend to see it as an oppressive system while at the same time you enjoy the benefits of capitalism. Please analyze this quote and tell me what it means to you:

Adam Smith Quotes. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest".


Why should those who do not profit and lose accept the gains of those who profit greatly? 


Envy does not count as a reason to implement Marxism. That is not a good one my friend.

If you are part of society it seems to me to make more sense if you share the spoils. 


Yes, there are incredibly stingy rich people, but we also find that society tends to be generous with those that are at the bottom. The welfare state of Scandinavia financed by the wealth generated by capitalism is a good example. I realize that many want more free stuff, that is how human nature works. But, nothing is free, someone has to pay.

But even if you want to reward enterprise and risk, a society at the very least should provide a minimum standard of living, housing, education and healthcare.


Do you realize that we are now seeing the most prosperous time in world history? In western capitalist nations the poor are obese due to excess calories. That is a first in world history. Historically the poor were always thin and cachectic. In addition most nations have payment plans to the poor as well as food stamps and public housing. Sadly, these efforts destroy the human spirit and leads to the dystopia we see in some large cities with generous cash programs for the poor.

And there is nothing natural about a human concept such as currency either.


This is right out of the last stage of communism. Cuba still uses currency!!!! You are reading too much into the Utopia.


Why should the inventor control the monopoly of his invention as he is part of the society that gave him the tools to make his invention with education and provisions?


If the inventor cannot profit from his invention then very few people will invent things. This is just human nature! Humans need motivation to do well.

The Soviet Union contains some of the most fertile agricultural land in the world. Prior to the communist revolution of 1917 Russia was the world’s largest exporter of grain. Collectivization of agriculture during the 1920s and 1930s was quickly followed by dramatic declines in agricultural output.



The only objective for socialism is that the state controls the means of production and private property.


You complain constantly that capitalism is tyrannical. What makes you think the state will not be tyrannical? Do you think socialist people are incorruptible? Have you heard of Daniel Ortega who is know a 100 times more corrupt than Trump.
#15007537
Julian658 wrote:Hmm, if you remove the concept of inheritance of wealth there are many people that created enormous wealth out of nothing due to intellect and creativity. I hope you are not assuming all people that rose to the top had nothing to offer.


If you remove the concept of inheritance of wealth then you also remove inequality in birth. It is true that there are many people who created wealth out of very little, but is also true that the amount of opportunity and privilege you will be given in life is determined by wealth. And don't get me started with nepotism. You think Capitalism is progress and makes the world equal? I say progress through Dialectical Materialism is inevitable and Capitalism simply stagnates the abilities of the poor by removing opportunities for them to innovate.

I think you have become immersed in the concept of the last stage of socialism which is by definition an utopia and somehow think it is easy to get there. Don't get me wrong the theory is extremely compelling and as a young student while in college I also thought it could work. The analysis of Marx regarding the flaws of capitalism is correct, but sadly the remedies have not worked. Since the analysis is correct we tend to have new socialists in every generation despite the countless failures in the past. And no one teaches these failures: Few students know about the murders by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Some students think Venezuela is doing great and many others praise Cuba even though Internet costs so much that is unavailable to the average Cuban.


I think most people know about the murders of faux socialists actually. It is drilled into you whenever you read up on Russian politics or socialism within western literature if you study the subject. Not to mention Animal Farm. Some Marxists are ignorant and think such leaders were looking for the interests of of the proletariat when they were looking out for the interests of the state. But so what? That line of thinking doesn't need to be Socialism. Today Socialism can be achieved democratically as the hurdles the Communist party had when they commissioned Marx to write their manifesto have all been destroyed and the need for revolution for meaningful change is questionable. Once the proletariat understand their class distinction they have the numbers to end bourgeois rule in the ballot box. But it is a waiting game. They will not understand their class distinction whilst they profit from 3rd world surplus Labor and can buy cheap crap from them. If the global financial markets crashes and currency value crashes with it then the proletariat should wake up to their poverty and their explotation when they cannot afford to live the same lifestyle they once had.

This is a bit naive. yeah, some animals are social, but many others are incredibly vicious and selfish. The lion does not spare the life of the animals he hunts down and also kills the cubs of other lions if he has to. Chimps our closest relatives are incredibly violent with any chimp that is not part of the group.


Animals live without the protections of a social contract and as such live within a state of nature. It is brutal but and the same time cooperative. So cooperation is natural as it is found within the animal kingdom - and is something found far more often than self interest in nature BTW, thus proving that Socialism can work within a human society also. Although for a civilised society a social contract is also needed to applied within a Socialists society to prevent savagery.

I don't think you understand capitalism at all. You tend to see it as an oppressive system while at the same time you enjoy the benefits of capitalism. Please analyze this quote and tell me what it means to you:

Adam Smith Quotes. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest".


I enjoy the benefits of Capitalism because I live in a rich capitalist nation. However most people on the planet suffer for my opportunity. You think time and labor should be more valuable in the West when compared to a third world nation? You think Capitalism is a zero sum game? You are naive. When the West profit, they do so by exploiting the third world. So there is no point quoting Smith when discussing exploitation. Self interest motivates the free market and the invisible hand drives it forward and I cant argue with that line of thinking. But capitalism is motivated by the need for profit and not necessarily self interest, which is why it is a cause of a contradiction. When someone profits they do so at someone elses cost. The baker might well bake bread for his self interest but why does that self interest need to be financial or at the expense of someone else? If they can gain self interest by communal action the baker would still bake bread. The same reasoning can be applied to the lioness when she shares her spoils to her cubs.

Envy does not count as a reason to implement Marxism. That is not a good one my friend.


How about justice? Why should the proletariat let the Paris Hiltons of this world thrive whilst they struggle to feed their families? Whilst the Wests poor have a minimum standard of living through welfare reforms they might well accept low wages today. That all changes if they cannot afford to live, regain class consciousness and see their exploitation for what it is if the bourgeois consider removing the little welfare they are giving the proletariat now for more profit by shrinking taxation in the future.

Yes, there are incredibly stingy rich people, but we also find that society tends to be generous with those that are at the bottom. The welfare state of Scandinavia financed by the wealth generated by capitalism is a good example. I realize that many want more free stuff, that is how human nature works. But, nothing is free, someone has to pay.


Sure. But who is asking for free stuff? What I ask for is equal opportunity. That land is universal. That exploition of surplus labor is eliminated. That jobs are a right and a full time pay packet pays for a minimum standard of living. Nonetheless why should anyone else profit from your labor because they inherited wealth from their ancestors? Why should opportunity be limited to the bourgeois? Why should land be private? You claim that the proletariat are work shy. You claim they are envious. Why, because they ask for opportunity? Because there are a few scabs who refuse to work? No. Most proletariat work and do so by being exploited in the rat race of life and at the cost of their standard of living so someone else can buy a sports car.

Do you realize that we are now seeing the most prosperous time in world history? In western capitalist nations the poor are obese due to excess calories. That is a first in world history. Historically the poor were always thin and cachectic. In addition most nations have payment plans to the poor as well as food stamps and public housing. Sadly, these efforts destroy the human spirit and leads to the dystopia we see in some large cities with generous cash programs for the poor.


And as I said the last time you mentioned this, give them jobs and let them earn their living or let them die as outlaws who refuse to work. It isn't the poors fault that capitalism requires a surplus Labor force to drive down wages and as such requires unemployment. Under Capitalism welfare is a requirement because otherwise it is inhumane. Under socialism and most definitely Communism, profit isn't a factor and as such shared possession uses less Labor for a functioning society to flourish and every single person can contribute as their is no reason at all to limit the labor force.

This is right out of the last stage of communism. Cuba still uses currency!! You are reading too much into the Utopia.


Sure Cuba uses currency because Cuba isn't Communist. It is Socialist. So get that out of your head that Socialism doesn't want to enter the free market because it does. It is merely an economic model of possession not a limitation of trade.

If the inventor cannot profit from his invention then very few people will invent things. This is just human nature! Humans need motivation to do well.


Why does socialism need to prevent intellectual profit? Why does the owner of the means of production and land require the elimination of self interest? Capitalism and Socialism are merely economic models where the social solutions to social problems may well have the same reasoning and conclusions.

The Soviet Union contains some of the most fertile agricultural land in the world. Prior to the communist revolution of 1917 Russia was the world’s largest exporter of grain. Collectivization of agriculture during the 1920s and 1930s was quickly followed by dramatic declines in agricultural output.


Sure, because the farmer was sent to the factory to industrialise the SU. For many of the SU faults, you cannot deny that today Russia is an superpower because of the cause of action it took a hundred years ago when the previously hundred years before their revolution it was a 3rd world shit hole - and would most definitely still be one if it wasn't for Lenin and Stalin. That isn't to say I defend their actions. Just stating we can see that communal action and targets have proven results for progress. If Stalin was more humane, history perhaps would be more complimentary of socialism than it is today actually.

You complain constantly that capitalism is tyrannical. What makes you think the state will not be tyrannical? Do you think socialist people are incorruptible? Have you heard of Daniel Ortega who is know a 100 times more corrupt than Trump.


Both Socialism and Capitalism historically are tyrannical actually. That being the case, why is one system better than the other? I look at moral dilemma to decide which is the better model. And to me if community works together then community should share the spoils with each other. We shouldn't have provisions preventing people's rights to use the lands to better themselves. We shouldn't profit on basic human rights. We should provide a minimum standard of living for anyone willing to work. Socialism does all that, and Capitalism only does so if profit is involved for the bourgeois.
#15007594
B0ycey wrote:If you remove the concept of inheritance of wealth then you also remove inequality in birth. It is true that there are many people who created wealth out of very little, but is also true that the amount of opportunity and privilege you will be given in life is determined by wealth. And don't get me started with nepotism. You think Capitalism is progress and makes the world equal? I say progress through Dialectical Materialism is inevitable and Capitalism simply stagnates the abilities of the poor by removing opportunities for them to innovate.


If you want to do away with inheritance of wealth I am OK, but that will not fix the issue of inequality. The biggest predictor of success in a society is two good parents. If your parents are highly educated, smart, and with a great work ethic the children will acquire those traits and have immense success. That is why the children of migrants from China, South Korea, and India outperform the children of American citizens in terms of education and income. Children from a crappy home will not do as well and the only way to fix this discrepancy is good parenting.

And the question that begs an answer: IF you are a great parent---------will you hold your children back and prevent success just so they can be equal with everyone else? I don't think so! We are programmed to provide opportunity to our children because they have our DNA. Any evolution biologist can confirm this.




I think most people know about the murders of faux socialists actually. It is drilled into you whenever you read up on Russian politics or socialism within western literature if you study the subject. Not to mention Animal Farm. Some Marxists are ignorant and think such leaders were looking for the interests of of the proletariat when they were looking out for the interests of the state. But so what? That line of thinking doesn't need to be Socialism. Today Socialism can be achieved democratically as the hurdles the Communist party had when they commissioned Marx to write their manifesto have all been destroyed and the need for revolution for meaningful change is questionable. Once the proletariat understand their class distinction they have the numbers to end bourgeois rule in the ballot box. But it is a waiting game. They will not understand their class distinction whilst they profit from 3rd world surplus Labor and can buy cheap crap from them. If the global financial markets crashes and currency value crashes with it then the proletariat should wake up to their poverty and their explotation when they cannot afford to live the same lifestyle they once had.


You realize that the writings of Marx mostly applied to factories? That is what he meant by "means of production". It turns out today the factories are no longer in capitalist countries, they are mostly in 3rd world countries or China. What we have is a service industry, high tech, banks, software, and a conglomerate of ideas. Giving all of this to the poor class will accomplish nothing as these are not factories where a simple man can do a simple job.



Animals live without the protections of a social contract and as such live within a state of nature. It is brutal but and the same time cooperative. So cooperation is natural as it is found within the animal kingdom - and is something found far more often than self interest in nature BTW, thus proving that Socialism can work within a human society also. Although for a civilised society a social contract is also needed to applied within a Socialists society to prevent savagery.


In the state of nature profit is the measure of right. Thomas Hobbes

You keep harping the natural state of animals to promote socialism. I have a different take, nature is capitalism. In nature only the strong and wise survive; the weak do not get to pass DNA. To help the weak we must create the ZOO.

In the ZOO, the strong and violent animal cannot harm the weak. IN the ZOO all animals are equal and fed by the ZOO keeper. IS this what you really want? You want the state to be the ZOO keeper. What happens to an animal in the ZOO? They are in CAPTIVITY! The tradeoff is the loss of freedom. But, there is more--------------- a wild animal in captivity loses the ability to survive and becomes 100% dependent on the ZOO keeper.



I enjoy the benefits of Capitalism because I live in a rich capitalist nation.


You are a lucky man!!!

When the West profit, they do so by exploiting the third world. So there is no point quoting Smith when discussing exploitation. Self interest motivates the free market and the invisible hand drives it forward and I cant argue with that line of thinking. But capitalism is motivated by the need for profit and not necessarily self interest, which is why it is a cause of a contradiction. When someone profits they do so at someone elses cost. The baker might well bake bread for his self interest but why does that self interest need to be financial or at the expense of someone else? If they can gain self interest by communal action the baker would still bake bread. The same reasoning can be applied to the lioness when she shares her spoils to her cubs.



We must distinguish between crony capitalism and real capitalism. Crony capitalism is evil and all it does is move money from one pocket to another. Crony capitalism does not create wealth. I am 100% against crony capitalism. OTOH, real capitalism creates wealth and the poor benefit from this. That is why you have obesity in the poor, too many calories and no work. And Smith is correct! The only reason you do well in a capitalist country is because because the baker and the butcher are looking to enhance themselves. And to do so they must provide the best service to you to stay in business.



How about justice? Why should the proletariat let the Paris Hiltons of this world thrive whilst they struggle to feed their families?


Humans align themselves in a natural hierarchy of competence. There is no EQUALITY among humans. And the only way to force equality is to force mediocrity on all. You can easily make a fast horse run slow by injuring the legs. You will never make a slow horse run fast, that is not how it works. Hence equality in socialism always leads to mediocrity by not allowing the best to succeed.


Whilst the Wests poor have a minimum standard of living through welfare reforms they might well accept low wages today. That all changes if they cannot afford to live, regain class consciousness and see their exploitation for what it is if the bourgeois consider removing the little welfare they are giving the proletariat now for more profit by shrinking taxation in the future.


Who is the bourgeois? An engineer, a physician, a person that owns a construction business, an architect, a software specialist? A school principal? What will you do with these people? What will you do with the wealth of the billionaires? Do you think the wealth is infinite? What will you do when the wealth is used up?



Why should opportunity be limited to the bourgeois?


In Washington DC high schools are free and the DC government spends more per pupil than the most expensive private schools in the world. And yet DC only graduate 60% of the students. And those that graduate are vastly undereducated. Equal opportunity does not mean equal results. What to do? Bring down those that succeed?


Why should land be private?

Compare public housing to a house that is owned by the resident. Public housing looks like crap because the tenants do not maintain why they do not own. The world would be quite ugly and nasty with people that do not maintain the property.


You claim that the proletariat are work shy. You claim they are envious. Why, because they ask for opportunity? Because there are a few scabs who refuse to work? No. Most proletariat work and do so by being exploited in the rat race of life and at the cost of their standard of living so someone else can buy a sports car.


The envy argument is not valid.


And as I said the last time you mentioned this, give them jobs and let them earn their living or let them die as outlaws who refuse to work.


Love that!


It isn't the poors fault that capitalism requires a surplus Labor force to drive down wages and as such requires unemployment.


Unemployment is now extremely low. And there are MANY high tech high paying jobs looking for qualified people. Machinist jobs that pay very high cannot find applicants. Sadly, the poor are vastly unqualified for these jobs. And hence the jobs will be taken by new migrants.
#15007596
B0ycey wrote:If you remove the concept of inheritance of wealth then you also remove inequality in birth.


How does one "remove a concept"? Some sort of brain surgery? Or just shooting people in the back of the head?

No man, no problem - Stalin

No brains, no concepts - B0ycey

Image

Caption: "Now just hold still while I remove your offensive concepts!"

-------

Image

Caption: "Thank you Comrade Leader for removing our harmful concepts! We are at peace now!"
#15007602
Julian658 wrote:You realize that the writings of Marx mostly applied to factories? That is what he meant by "means of production". It turns out today the factories are no longer in capitalist countries, they are mostly in 3rd world countries or China. What we have is a service industry, high tech, banks, software, and a conglomerate of ideas. Giving all of this to the poor class will accomplish nothing as these are not factories where a simple man can do a simple job.


:lol:

Marx wasn't going to be discussing software engineering in the 19th century was he. Although the means of production is the means to produce goods. And I am sure if Marx was around today, digital software would be classed as goods although perhaps not physical goods.

Nonetheless why is it that the 1st world gave the 3rd world their factories when their working poor remained in the US? Simple. It was profitable to do so because as the cost of living is cheaper in a third world nation, their work force will work for less making the bourgeois a greater profit overall. A problem created by Capitalism that wouldn't even be a factor in Socialism.

In the state of nature profit is the measure of right. Thomas Hobbes

You keep harping the natural state of animals to promote socialism. I have a different take, nature is capitalism. In nature only the strong and wise survive; the weak do not get to pass DNA. To help the weak we must create the ZOO.

In the ZOO, the strong and violent animal cannot harm the weak. IN the ZOO all animals are equal and fed by the ZOO keeper. IS this what you really want? You want the state to be the ZOO keeper. What happens to an animal in the ZOO? They are in CAPTIVITY! The tradeoff is the loss of freedom. But, there is more--------------- a wild animal in captivity loses the ability to survive and becomes 100% dependent on the ZOO keeper.


Fuck Hobbes and fuck his bullshit morals. You will get along with a user called Victoribus Spolia. A user who is taking time off to look after his newborn child but a user who thinks very much like you. A right wing educated nutcase who should know better than spout the bullshit he does in this forum.

Nonetheless capitalism is an economic system that is doomed to fail. What use is money if the proletariat unite and force the bourgeois from their ivory towers? And why should the proletariat accept inequality of wealth at the expense of their surplus labour going to someone that isn't them? True natural order is in might and numbers BTW. And the bourgeois lack both. They are the mediocrity of the natural world and are 9nly protected by controlling the means of the social contract.

We must distinguish between crony capitalism and real capitalism. Crony capitalism is evil and all it does is move money from one pocket to another. Crony capitalism does not create wealth. I am 100% against crony capitalism. OTOH, real capitalism creates wealth and the poor benefit from this. That is why you have obesity in the poor, too many calories and no work. And Smith is correct! The only reason you do well in a capitalist country is because because the baker and the butcher are looking to enhance themselves. And to do so they must provide the best service to you to stay in business.


Smith was correct at understanding the invisible hand. Something that can be replicated in an economic system that isn't capitalism such as socialism as China has proven. Although sure I accept that crony capitalism is the worse and innovation should be rewarded, but even if I accept that you still haven't really explained why we need private property as a concept and inherited wealth to promote innovation in intellectual property.

Humans align themselves in a natural hierarchy of competence. There is no EQUALITY among humans. And the only way to force equality is to force mediocrity on all. You can easily make a fast horse run slow by injuring the legs. You will never make a slow horse run fast, that is not how it works. Hence equality in socialism always leads to mediocrity by not allowing the best to succeed.


Who is calling for equality? Socialism doesn't need equality and couldn't function without hierarchy. It just prevents discrimination by giving everyone access to the means of production and private property and presents new opportunities to the proletariat so they can progress that they could never have within Capitalism mainframe.

Who is the bourgeois? An engineer, a physician, a person that owns a construction business, an architect, a software specialist? A school principal? What will you do with these people? What will you do with the wealth of the billionaires? Do you think the wealth is infinite? What will you do when the wealth is used up?


All of them are proletariat in my opinion. They work for their living. And I don't expect education and high skilled training to not be rewarded either. There is a difference between giving low skilled workers opportunities and a minimum standard of living and punishing high skilled workers for their education because the lower class are uneducated.

As for the bourgeois they are what you call the crony capitalist. Billionaires who profit on the surplus labor of the proletariat and have access to both private property and the means of production that the proletariat are restricted from using to their benefit.

In Washington DC high schools are free and the DC government spends more per pupil than the most expensive private schools in the world. And yet DC only graduate 60% of the students. And those that graduate are vastly undereducated. Equal opportunity does not mean equal results. What to do? Bring down those that succeed?


As long as education is free the percentage of graduates is irrelevant. It is the opportunity of education I am more interested in and education should not be a profit organisation but a social project. If people don't or cannot better themselves with education, then they do not deserve to be rewarded in society.

Compare public housing to a house that is owned by the resident. Public housing looks like crap because the tenants do not maintain why they do not own. The world would be quite ugly and nasty with people that do not maintain the property.


Must be an American thing. Social housing is much sort after in the UK because the state is a reasonable landlord and the rents are far cheaper than private landlords can ever provide. And social tenants do look after their homes here and usually stay in their homes for life as well. The recent increase in private ownership in homes in the UK is more to do with the fact there is a lack of social housing than the desire to own your own home BTW.

Unemployment is now extremely low. And there are MANY high tech high paying jobs looking for qualified people. Machinist jobs that pay very high cannot find applicants. Sadly, the poor are vastly unqualified for these jobs. And hence the jobs will be taken by new migrants.


Unemployment might be low but there is still unemployment due to there being a higher level of low skill workers compared to low skilled jobs that are available. A problem with capitalism that isn't a factor in socialism. And also your minimum pay levels is a joke in the US and doesn't even touch a minimum standard of living that the richest nation on the planet should easily provide to their population.
#15007606
SolarCross wrote:How does one "remove a concept"? Some sort of brain surgery? Or just shooting people in the back of the head?

No man, no problem - Stalin

No brains, no concepts - B0ycey

Image

Caption: "Now just hold still while I remove your offensive concepts!"

-------

Image

Caption: "Thank you Comrade Leader for removing our harmful concepts! We are at peace now!"


Very elegant SolarCross. Didn't you don a Pinochet avatar once? Hardly a promoter of fair justice and someone who didn't kill undiscrimitory.
#15007610
B0ycey wrote::lol:



Nonetheless why is it that the 1st world gave the 3rd world their factories when their working poor remained in the US? Simple. It was profitable to do so because as the cost of living is cheaper in a third world nation, their work force will work for less making the bourgeois a greater profit overall. A problem created by Capitalism that wouldn't even be a factor in Socialism.


Holy cow you sound like Donald Trump. He is desperately trying to bring the jobs that went overseas back to America. And you are correct, is not how capitalism works. If it takes 10 to built a pencil and if you can buy the same pencil overseas by 6 dollars you obviously buy the foreign pencil and sell it locally at 7 dollars. Yes, there is a one dollar profit, but the public at large benefits by saving 3 dollars. Everybody wins! You may say: How about the low wage factory worker in Indonesia? Well, a factory job in Indonesia is better than no job at all. Capitalism is wonderful!




Nonetheless capitalism is an economic system that is doomed to fail.


I agree, capitalism will culminate in communism. But, it will do so naturally when the amount of wealth creation is so vast that wealth itself becomes redundant and hence must be spread to ALL. Therefore, destroying capitalism NOW before it gets there is a step backwards. The cell phone is a great example of what capitalism can do. Once the cell phone was only available to the elite. Today all poor people in America have subsidized cell phones. Even the Cubans are getting cell phones. That is the miracle of capitalism. With competition things get so cheap that anyone can afford the stuff. This never happens in socialism.

What use is money if the proletariat unite and force the bourgeois from their ivory towers? And why should the proletariat accept inequality of wealth at the expense of their surplus labour going to someone that isn't them? True natural order is in might and numbers BTW. And the bourgeois lack both. They are the mediocrity of the natural world and are 9nly protected by controlling the means of the social contract.

Excellent point! That is how Chávez got into power. However, it did not work.





All of them are proletariat in my opinion. They work for their living. And I don't expect education and high skilled training to not be rewarded either. There is a difference between giving low skilled workers opportunities and a minimum standard of living and punishing high skilled workers for their education because the lower class are uneducated.


Good for you!




As long as education is free the percentage of graduates is irrelevant. It is the opportunity of education I am more interested in and education should not be a profit organisation but a social project. If people don't or cannot better themselves with education, then they do not deserve to be rewarded in society.


Exactly! However, this is not how the left sees the issue in America.
#15007611
Julian658 wrote:https://www.apnews.com/65ae62dac77b4dad91b0969108af6bb9

Cuba has made some gains in Internet, but the service costs almost as much as the average monthly salary of 30.00 dollars a month. This effectively prices out most of the population. As of now the service is only available to tourists and the elite. How is that "equality" working for the average Cuban?


I am not surprised by how you ignore the fact that the Cuban government had to put this all together despite the US embargo, making it difficult for Cuba to buy the necessary infrastructure and lay the necessary undersea cables.

You are also confusing having internet in your home with internet access. The state provides wifi spots all over the island, and schools and other community centres have Internet access.

You are also citing the most expensive package as the only one.

Your original point was that we would have to live without internet, air conditioners, and smart phones. This has been shown to be incorrect.
#15007613
Julian658 wrote:Holy cow you sound like Donald Trump. He is desperately trying to bring the jobs that went overseas back to America. And you are correct, is not how capitalism works. If it takes 10 to built a pencil and if you can buy the same pencil overseas by 6 dollars you obviously buy the foreign pencil and sell it locally at 7 dollars. Yes, there is a one dollar profit, but the public at large benefits by saving 3 dollars. Everybody wins! You may say: How about the low wage factory worker in Indonesia? Well, a factory job in Indonesia is better than no job at all. Capitalism is wonderful!


Uggghhh. It is a contradiction of capitalism. If the proletariat do not work they cannot afford the pencil you made abroad. It is only welfare that stops the proletariat from uniting and ejecting the bourgeois from their ivory towers because of the cost of living and lack of fair pay. If you think welfare causes idleness you will surprised to read that really it is the only thing that makes Capitalism function today because without it the proletariat would have understood their class consciousness by now.
#15007618
B0ycey wrote:Uggghhh. It is a contradiction of capitalism. If the proletariat do not work they cannot afford the pencil you made abroad. It is only welfare that stops the proletariat from uniting and ejecting the bourgeois from their ivory towers because of the cost of living and lack of fair pay. If you think welfare causes idleness you will surprised to read that really it is the only thing that makes Capitalism function today because without it the proletariat would have understood their class consciousness by now.


I fully agree! Welfare and free stuff for those that are low in the hierarchy is a tool to prevent the revolution. Paradoxically in America the ones that favor the welfare state are the left wingers.

The elite left sees poor people in the same way many see stray dogs and cats that need rescuing. The left accuses the right of racism and yet they practice racism of condescension and low expectations.
#15007625
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not surprised by how you ignore the fact that the Cuban government had to put this all together despite the US embargo, making it difficult for Cuba to buy the necessary infrastructure and lay the necessary undersea cables.

You are also confusing having internet in your home with internet access. The state provides wifi spots all over the island, and schools and other community centres have Internet access.

You are also citing the most expensive package as the only one.

Your original point was that we would have to live without internet, air conditioners, and smart phones. This has been shown to be incorrect.


OK, you make good points with regards to the Internet.

But, I will say that Cuba is still a 3rd world country. Puerto Rico, another island in the caribbean is a USA territory and much brighter at night when looking at satellite photos. Despite two Cat 5 storms in a row they have a better power grid.
#15007632
Julian658 wrote:OK, you make good points with regards to the Internet.

But, I will say that Cuba is still a 3rd world country. Puerto Rico, another island in the caribbean is a USA territory and much brighter at night when looking at satellite photos. Despite two Cat 5 storms in a row they have a better power grid.


Puerto Rico is part of the US and should minimally enjoy the same standard of living as the rest of the USA. The fact that it does not is a failure of the doctrines of capitalism and manifest destiny.

But even if we ignore the fact that PR is part of the wealthiest nation on Earth, Cubans are still healthier, better educated, and apparently create less light pollution.
#15007633
Pants-of-dog wrote:Puerto Rico is part of the US and should minimally enjoy the same standard of living as the rest of the USA. The fact that it does not is a failure of the doctrines of capitalism and manifest destiny.

But even if we ignore the fact that PR is part of the wealthiest nation on Earth, Cubans are still healthier, better educated, and apparently create less light pollution.


Things that commie countries do better:

Less crime
Better basic education
More order
No homeless on the streets
Less drug addicts
More patriotism
More appreciative of the good things in life

You know why?

A much tougher authoritarian government.
Give people a lot of freedom and they use that freedom to behave in a crappy manner.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Im kinda sick of this virus hysteria here 12 peop[…]

The US knew about the coronavirus Jan. 3rd. Today[…]

Election 2020

@Hindsite Is it? For God's sake, you favorably[…]

So how deadly is it?

Japan is notorious for its ageing population, so[…]