Doesn't Diversity Presume Inequality? - Page 4 - 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.
#14997726
I think it would be more correct to say that a socialist state can only have a long life with advancement for its people if the people genuinely support it and believe in socialism.

This is, of course, not the only factor that determines the longevity of a socialist government.
#14997744
SSDR wrote:@SolarCross, To answer your three questions:

1. There were socialists in pre socialist countries like the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, or in the German Confederate Empire. Every person is different. Everyone has their own views. Socialists have been around for thousands of years, it's just that socialist politics were not commonly/collectively known until the 1800's, and people like Karl Marx coined it very famously. When socialism was collectively known in the 1800's, socialist political parties formed, attracting all of the unknown socialists like Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin, Erich Honecker, Margot Honecker and her socialist parents, Tito, or Walter Ulbricht. The socialist sides won the Russian Revolution, the Second World War, the Chinese Civil War, and the Cuban Revolution. Socialists do exist, like myself or others I just mentioned. But, there are more non socialists or even anti socialists than socialists. It is just that the socialists won the conflicts, allowing them to have coordination over the societies that they live in. Some people did want socialism. Others didn't. More didn't then did, even though the outnumbered ones who did won! The non socialists abused the socialist economies, and THAT IS WHAT DESTROYED SOME SOCIALIST COUNTRIES. Socialists are around today. We were around in the 20th century. We were around in the 19th century. Our side won, but non socialists abused our liberations because they needed oppression to motivate them to work.

2. Socialism can work IF THE PEOPLE in an examined society are socialist. And there are socialists in the world, like myself, or those who are in socialist parties through out the world. But not everyone is a socialist.

3. So that crime and capitalist explotation can be stopped. Socialism is also scientifically the most advanced political system because it allows the most personal freedoms for everyone, and that it is the most stable, thus reducing unreported mental illness.

If you have a capitalist population with the socialist economy, the socialist economy will fail. If you have a socialist population under a capitalist economy, then there will be a revolution.

@Hong Wu Yeah, but those motivators are oppressors. Slavery was used to motivate people to work. Religious rule was used to motivate people to work. Nazism was used to motivate people to work. Ultranationalism was used to motivate people to work. Family rule was used to motivate people to work. The more motivation one needs to work, the more enslaved they are, whether they support it or not.

Yes, life oppresses us. You can't be alive without it on some form, that's part of the package. You should go off and be a nun or something if you don't want to oppress or be oppressed in any way whatsoever ;)
#14997780
SSDR wrote:@Hong Wu, "Life" doesn't oppress us. The system oppresses us. And some people need oppression for motivation because they lack real consciousness.

But if you don't need motivation to work, why does it bother you that others aren't sharing enough?

Socialism is just a distended form of religious logic. It makes no sense in of itself.
#14997846
@Hong Wu, That question doesn't even make ANY SENSE. "Sharing" in socialist terms is when parents raise a child, but the child doesn't have to dedicate their lives to their parents, and that they can be free once they're independent. The parents invested in the child, but they are using that as a cover up so that the child will NEVER be free from their family institution. So if the parents only had their child to ensure the survival of the human species, then the child is only "Sharing" and using their parents while they're growing up.

Families share. But it's not "sharing" because the family faith is being used as a cover up. And that is what helps enslaves people into the family institution. Socialism is not religious logic. Socialism is personal freedom for each individual. Being free from slavery, religious rule, family, money, and class rule (Social Hierarchies).
#15007026
Hong Wu wrote:Just something to maybe add to the list of leftist oxymorons. In order for things to be diverse, they have to be different. If they're different, they're not the same and if they're not the same, they are by definition not completely equal with each other, right?

The best counter-argument I have been able to formulate to this is that diversity would lead to temporary inequality, which is supposed to be alleviated. I think however that this segways into another argument I made some time ago, which is that the metaphysics of progressivism has no feasible end in sight, thereby robbing it of any concept of the peak of all things (God, etc.) and therefore making every extant and possible being an inferior to future beings, creating an eternal chain of subservients.

Although very subtle, I do believe that this metaphysical presumption is vaguely realized through progressive's growing totalitarian tendencies.


Dear @Hong Wu
What you are pointing out is that equal inclusion
DOES NOT MEAN being all the same. You're right, it makes no sense.

When we treat people or groups with EQUAL RESPECT
and EQUAL REPRESENTATION, that means they will Represent THEMSELVES,
their own interests, their own beliefs, USING THEIR OWN LANGUAGE.

So naturally this will be diverse, as unique as each individual is.

I would compare inclusion of diversity with working with the
FULL ORCHESTRA to play all parts of the symphony in harmony.

The Flutes will play completely different music, notes and key
from the Trumpets. And the DRUM part looks nothing like the other instruments.

These are all different. None are the same.

Yet in a musical composition, it is necessary to include and blend
ALL the instruments and their parts to make the whole, which is
GREATER than the sum of the parts.

Equal inclusion and respect for the role of each section,
each musician, and the purpose of each line of melody or harmony
are ALL important. NONE can be left out or the symphony is incomplete.

But that doesn't make the parts the SAME.
#15007079
SSDR wrote:Yeah I fucking hate when people emphasize social hierarchies. In my eyes, no one is above me for shits lol :lol:


Humans align themselves in a natural hierarchy of competence. Many are below you and many above you; there is no equality. Identical twins are the closest thing to equality and yet they do not achieve in the same manner. The most you can have is equal opportunity; however, do not expect equal results.
#15007141
SSDR wrote:@Hong Wu

Families share. But it's not "sharing" because the family faith is being used as a cover up. And that is what helps enslaves people into the family institution. Socialism is not religious logic. Socialism is personal freedom for each individual. Being free from slavery, religious rule, family, money, and class rule (Social Hierarchies).


Socialism only works among those that share the same DNA. That is why people help each other in families. That is why socialism works in tiny tribes in the world, they are all related. Once there is no DNA in common socialism fails. This is evolution, we want to propagate our genes or the the same genes in our relatives. Most people rather help a sibling than a distant cousin because the sibling has more DNA in common.

Outside of the family structure socialism is by definition authoritarian and oppressive. What will the system do with a person that refuses to be a socialist? OPPRESS THAT PERSON INTO SUBMISSION. In the end atheist socialist replace deism with another religion that is more oppressive.
#15007145
Julian658 wrote:Socialism only works among those that share the same DNA. That is why people help each other in families. That is why socialism works in tiny tribes in the world, they are all related. Once there is no DNA in common socialism fails. This is evolution, we want to propagate our genes or the the same genes in our relatives. Most people rather help a sibling than a distant cousin because the sibling has more DNA in common.

Outside of the family structure socialism is by definition authoritarian and oppressive. What will the system do with a person that refuses to be a socialist? OPPRESS THAT PERSON INTO SUBMISSION. In the end atheist socialist replace deism with another religion that is more oppressive.


I doubt any of this is true.
#15007152
Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt any of this is true.


Would you care to expand your point?
I suggest you read the book on evolution biology by Robert Sapolski.
Socialism only works in very small tribes where everybody is related to each other. Look it up.
#15007155
Julian658 wrote:Socialism only works in very small tribes where everybody is related to each other. Look it up.


It only makes sense that you would be more socialistic when you are dealing with people you actually know (family, and close friends). It's a bit of a strong statement to say that socialism ONLY works in small tribes though. It could work on a larger scale if there were a massive change in global culture.
#15007159
Julian658 wrote:Would you care to expand your point?
I suggest you read the book on evolution biology by Robert Sapolski.
Socialism only works in very small tribes where everybody is related to each other. Look it up.


Socialism has worked just fine in Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, and other Latin American countries.
#15007162
Ortega in Nicaragua is a fascist. Why would you call that socialism? He is more corrupt than Trump. Cuba remains a 3rd world country. You left out Venezuela and North Korea. Socialism is a great idea and Marx is very compelling in the analysis of capitalism. However, we need to find success.
#15007166
Julian658 wrote:Ortega in Nicaragua is a fascist. Why would you call that socialism? He is more corrupt than Trump.


I doubt this. Please provide evidence for this claim.

Cuba remains a 3rd world country.


And? Despite that, it has certain indicators that are at the same level or higher than for developed countries, like health care, education, and others.

But if socialism is bad because it has not lifted developing countries out of poverty, please note that almost all developing countries are capitalist and that has not worked either.

You left out Venezuela and North Korea. Socialism is a great idea and Marx is very compelling in the analysis of capitalism. However, we need to find success.


Venezuela is not socialist. It is a capitalist country with high levels of state intervention.

I do not know enough about NK to comment intelligently.
#15007171
@Pants-of-dog,

You sure Chile was successful with its socialism? Allende's tenure had all sorts of economic issues. Lower exports, lower real wages. The economy was worse under him. In fact, I would argue that's what made it so easy for the CIA to over throw him. If he had managed the economy well, I think it would have been harder for the CIA to depose him. CIA's propaganda worked well because of the decline and cracks in the economy.
#15007172
Rancid wrote:@Pants-of-dog,

You sure Chile was successful with its socialism? Allende's tenure had all sorts of economic issues. Lower exports, lower real wages. The economy was worse under him. In fact, I would argue that's what made it so easy for the CIA to over throw him. If he had managed the economy well, I think it would have been harder for the CIA to depose him. CIA's propaganda worked well because of the decline and cracks in the economy.


Nixon spent approximately $6,000,000 to deliberately sabotage the Chilean economy in the years preceding the coup.

Som yes, the CIA was able to use these economic problems to create support for the coup, but they were also the cause of the economic problems.

Edit: it was actually $10,000,000.
#15007176
Don’t get me wrong, socialism is very attractive and the analysis of Marx is correct. In a capitalist society workers are technically slaves. The problem with socialism is that the proposed solutions have not worked and hence socialists always say “that was not real socialism “ or they blame the empire for the failure of socialism. Winston Churchill said democracy is awful but there is nothing better out there. The same can be said about capitalism.
#15007177
Julian658 wrote:Don’t get me wrong, socialism is very attractive and the analysis of Marx is correct. In a capitalist society workers are technically slaves. The problem with socialism is that the proposed solutions have not worked and hence socialists always say “that was not real socialism “ or they blame the empire for the failure of socialism. Winston Churchill said democracy is awful but there is nothing better out there. The same can be said about capitalism.


I just gave examples of where the proposed solutions have worked.
#15007195
Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt this. Please provide evidence for this claim.



Short in stature with big square glasses, Daniel Ortega did not resemble a typical military strongman when he first caught the world's attention in the 1980s.

Yet as the leader of Nicaragua's left-wing Sandinista revolution, he was credited with first bringing down a dictator, and then the US-sponsored rebels, who tried to block his move into legitimate power.

Now in 2018, almost four decades later, he is serving his third consecutive term as president, while fighting new battles. Large-scale protests against his presidency have plunged the country into turmoil and led to hundreds of deaths.

To his supporters, he remains a true patriot; they call him Comandante Daniel, with a mix of reverence and affection. Some have taken to the streets in his name, forming brutal paramilitary gangs to crack down on any signs of dissent.

His critics, who include many former allies, say he has become a corrupt and authoritarian ruler, turning his back on his revolutionary ideals and coming to resemble the dictator he deposed. They have also taken to the streets; some peacefully, some throwing homemade mortars.

This is from the BBC which is on the far left:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-15544315



And? Despite that, it has certain indicators that are at the same level or higher than for developed countries, like health care, education, and others.

But if socialism is bad because it has not lifted developing countries out of poverty, please note that almost all developing countries are capitalist and that has not worked either.


Sure, I agree! For anyone that is dirt poor and in the gutter socialism works incredibly well. Socialism can lift people at the bottom to a better lifestyle. But, how about everyone else? What if you are mid to upper class?

Haiti can say they are capitalists and it will not work because capitalism only works if the people are creative. Capitalism does not mean success, there is always the risk of failure. The issue with capitalism is that it does not fail 100% of the time. 100% failure is the domain of socialism.


Venezuela is not socialist. It is a capitalist country with high levels of state intervention.


Yeah, right every time there is a failure we can always say that was not real socialism.

I do not know enough about NK to comment intelligently.

They are communists and fascist. I am surprised you do not know about them.
#15007196
Rancid wrote:It only makes sense that you would be more socialistic when you are dealing with people you actually know (family, and close friends). It's a bit of a strong statement to say that socialism ONLY works in small tribes though. It could work on a larger scale if there were a massive change in global culture.


The only way to socialism is through the success of capitalism. We already see how the poor in the most successful capitalist countries are obese, get a check form the state every month, and are provided with food stamps, and public housing. And they are not even required to work. Most have smart phones, i-pads, and giant flat screen TVs. Things are not as bad as they look.

Once capitalism reaches a state of redundant wealth it will all be distributed to the poor. We already see this with the most rich people in the world such as Bill gates who will give away 95% of his wealth.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 9

People get banned from Pofo for violating rule 2. […]

Election 2020

Yeah we all know how this is going to go. Trump d[…]

Atheism is Evil

The reality is that women evolved to be sex objec[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

And who do I "blame" at Wells Fargo or […]