Inkbunny

I do have to agree with you there. Also, with the theme of this picture. Socialism is toxic.

Harleking

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Don't ya mix up Kommunismus with Socialism?

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Harleking

No, communism is the real world application of socialist philosophy.

Harleking

7 years, 6 months ago

link

ok that sounds fair as clarification.
btw I don't disagree with ya I just was confused ;)

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Harleking

Yeah tis kewl, its a clarification that needs to be made anyway XP.

ixtappa

7 years, 5 months ago

link

> No, communism is the real world application of socialist philosophy.

While I agree that Communism is _a_ socialist philosophy. Not all socialism is Communism. That is, socialism is a broad family of ideas, many of those ideas do not agree with strict Communism.To equate the two is to be ignorant.

Risu

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Socialism isn't about "redistribution of wealth". It's about revenge. It focuses on amassing feelings of resentment against the ultra-rich, "those undeserving gits" and their "ill-gotten gains", and tries to make them suffer just as much as everyone else. And as a result, everyone does suffer, yet still nobody is satisfied!
So I s'pose the system we've got now, Capitalism, wherein all the wealth is in the hands of a few, is not as bad as the alternative, where there is no wealth to be had by anyone.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

It is primarily emotionally motivated by disdain for the rich in many cases, or a disillusioned compassion towards the poor that's ignorant of the actual consequences, yeah XP.

Risu

7 years, 6 months ago

link

I also think that if, by & large, people begin to get over themselves and focus on actually solving issues, rather than wanting only to claim "let me tell you why that's BS" and "I told you so", there would be a significant decrease in jerks/idiots and therefore an overall boost in morale. But that would require education, which not only takes time but is also discouraged by those in power, for obvious reasons.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Two issues with that: 1) That requires people lose their egos and become something other than human. If people didn't think they were right about an opinion then they wouldn't have it in the first place. Of course, its good to promote open mindedness as a general principle though. 2) The assumption that problems have solutions is faulty. No social problems have outright solutions, only compromises. Life is a trade-off simply because every action has an effect in multiple directions, so to give, say, one person more of something requires taking from someone else. So social policies and systems have to be adjustable and stable in their mechanisms, like how the constitution of the USA is a code that sets boundaries in stone so everybody knows which way is up, then there's a system in place for amendments just in case of or in the event of unforseen problems. But when judges take it upon themselves to interpret the law on their own, for their own ideological biases, then injustice rises. People have to understand right from the outset that everything is a compromise so we focus not just on what we want to solve but what ramifications our proposed action will have.

Risu

7 years, 6 months ago

link

I see now. Thank you for clearing that up.
I'm being too naiive and idealistic (not that I mean to overreact.)

Harleking

7 years, 6 months ago

link

And if ya interessten in my opinion, I thing that both systems kapitalism and communism/sozialism are rotten to the core. Non of them are functional by themself nor furthering for the peaceful coexist of a huge amound of people.

Risu

7 years, 6 months ago

link

My solution is to establish a "wealth ceiling" of some sort, as disastrous as that may sound, so that public resentment, especially amongst the poor, is tolerable. Becos' I really do think the root of the problem lies within greed & jealousy.

I dunno, this is just one idea. I'm not tryin'a make/attract enemies here.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Yeah, problem there tho is it does the same thing as redistribution of wealth, in real world application. People who earn more do so because they make more transactions in the market, as they offer goods and services people want to buy. So naturally a few people will end up on top as in every area of human interaction. So your solution would involve taking the earned money off people beyond a certain threshold that is calculated arbitrarily according to the whim of whomever makes the rules, which is theft of labour and wealth redistribution.

Risu

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Figured that might be the case. I knew it was a deeply flawed idea but I didn't know exactly how.

Bitcoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Not to say it's a great idea to institute "theft" into law, but so much of what's happening with the law and big business is right along that same track, only stealing from the poor to siphon it up to the rich. Moral shittitude is the status quo, so I really don't see how hitting the people who see the least of it is such a bad thing we can't even consider it.

I think the realistic issue is, if you earn enough money to come up against such a 'wealth ceiling', you'd quickly start to look outward for ways to earn more. That's the problem as I see it. Those who would be hit hardest might also be best equipped to pack up their junk and go elsewhere, to start earning their money in a different country where it's not taxed nearly as hard. I mean, that already kind of happens with big corporations paying all their revenue as generic 'expenditures' to their parent branch in Better Tax Country, just to avoid higher tax rates on sales here. There's always some way around this stuff.

Basically, if we put an economic incentive in place not to make a lot of money in the USA, the only thing we can be sure of is that it'll push those we'd benefit from the most to change what they're doing.

Either that, or the fact that the people making decisions on laws are the wealthy ones who'd inevitably run up against these laws, they would never be convinced to put them into place purely due to selfishness. Either way I don't think a wealth ceiling is a good idea, but not because it's "theft".

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Bitcoon

How does big business steal from the poor?

Bitcoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Well, I suppose a couple recent examples would be the whole kerfuffle around net neutrality, hundreds of millions of dollars poured into lobbying to remove that protection so that ISPs can effectively deliver a worse service and earn more money doing it. And semi-recently in the news, the guy with the rights to life-saving cancer (I think?) medication raising the price on it 800% or something insane and making it totally unaffordable, while the same drug is available in other countries for something like 0.05% the price it is here. I know Epipens were in the news with that kinda BS going on lately.

Big pharmaceutical companies seem they'd rather we die or go bankrupt, whatever makes their bottom line look better. There's no consideration for how many internet startups and competing ISPs would be totally strong-armed off the market, no worries about the kind of censorship that could occur without NN, as long as Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner etc can make more money without it.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Bitcoon

I'm not going to deny the existence of corruption and immoral practices, but your examples of corrupt bastardism do not represent the true picture. Big business also employs everybody and standards of living today are incredible compared to any point in the past. Today, in the UK, poor welfare recipients have better standards of living than working families had 50 years ago, it's quite an incredible achievement. I think to summarise business as some disgusting monster is grossly unfair, considering every one of us has benefited enormously from it, even if we are ungrateful motherfuckers.

KevinSnowpaw

7 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Bitcoon

what your talking about is corperatism and yes large corperations DUE steal from everybody XD  this is why letting the priovite secot handle things like prisons is a bad idea. If they CAN do it they WILL do it corperations wership the allmighty doller not morality or common sence.

at its basic core capitalism  is about being able to better oneself by provideing a service or product others desire it's a situation in wich everybody wins and the free market helps regulate it all.

corperations corrupt this when they get large enough becouse they have the power to create ologopolys this is why glasses or are expensive or medical care is so expensive.

an IV bag  costs like 15 dollers you or your insurance company can be charged upwords of 100 for it though.

Wolfknight777

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Maybe try Anarco-Communism instead.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Wolfknight777

Haha, fuck that XP. Life isn't a Monty Python joke XP.

Wolfknight777

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Whelp, I was hoping for a respectful response. I guess not then.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Wolfknight777

I thought you were joking.

Wolfknight777

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Nope, I'm just suggesting that you might find that there are socialistic alternatives to Authoritarian communism. Voluntary socialism isn't really covered by your points above, so I thought I'd suggest looking into it if you have any interest.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Wolfknight777

Indeed, I'm very much aware of the variants and anarchism as a whole. They're also utterly devoid of practicality and I'll be saying something about them at a later date. For now though I want to do a few things about socialism itself.

CuriousFerret

7 years, 6 months ago

link

*gets on computer checks messages and watch list*

*notes political statment*

*asumes public invite and intergects with counter argument*

*receives rebuttal and snarky antidote*

*asks clarifying questions, subtle implying character flaws of opponents examples unrelated to context of argument*

*enter into tangent without satisfactory resulotion of main topic*

*make pithy remark*

*assume supriorty when other side departs from frustration*

*enjoy celebratory cookie*

CuriousFerret

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 6 months ago by Owner

Can we start with workers are not offered enough to fill open jobs that are having difficulty attracting willing and able employees?

Has anyone in current political party's actually promoted property is theft?

I know Marx and company of authors you're reading make that statment, but until you brought it up I didn't know it was a thing.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

I'm not sure what you mean, as in I don't understand the question.

CuriousFerret

7 years, 6 months ago

link

I edited.

Forgot to add property is theft. Until you brought it up I never heard of it.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

I was referring to the first question XP. But yes, people have promoted that property is theft, they just haven't worded it that way. When Barack Obama said (paraphrasing) "there is such a thing as having too much" and statements of that sort from all over the place, there is something important being implied. If there is indeed such a thing as having too much, it implies that a) whatever it is they have hasn't been earned and b) 'too much' can only have meaning if someone states what too much actually is, which means the decision will be arbitrary, considering 'too much' is an opinion.

It cannot be said that people do not earn what they have in our societies. There are some who steal, there are some who are corrupt, no doubt about it, but by and large people work for what they get and the more valuable their services, products and qualifications, the more money they make. It's supply and demand. A cleaner in a hospital will not get the same as a doctor, because a doctor has very special skills that take years to acquire and they are constantly training and learning throughout their careers. A cleaner can learn everything they need to know in a single seminar. Both cleaners and doctors save lives, but paying them the same wage would mean destroying the incentive for anybody to work hard enough to be a doctor, when they could just pick up a fucking mop and bucket.

The implication that people have 'too much' implies that their property is stolen, they have more than they are supposed to have. This means others are entitled to take from those with too much up to what they consider they ought to possess. This means nobody is secure in the things they earn, so property is not secure. Ergo, property is treated as if it is wrongfully possessed and the 'public' are entitled to a share of it. So property is theft and actual theft is justice.

CuriousFerret

7 years, 6 months ago

link

I put greater repsect on a wealthy individual that aquired his or her money by building up a company or product that makes a constructive and sustainable impact on the community. If it's made from swindling others out of their money it is theft and they should be held acountable and the stolen property returned to the actual owner.

My first question is turning your original stament about people wanting to be paid more as capitalism argument not socialism argument. Are thoses that hold out for better pay not relying on the labor market to force an adjustment for thier compensation? Is there a diffrence if they ask the goverment to force the issue verse using the labor markets to dictate what workers get paid per hour?

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

I didn't say anything about people wanting to be paid more, just that when you have something to offer that is worth more, people will pay you more for it. Like a really popular, highly skilled artist in the fandom will get a lot more for a drawing than someone lower down. If one does not expect to benefit in some way from the extra years of effort, there's no reason to bother. What you're talking about seems to be labour unions, from what I can tell. I think labour unions have their place, to be a check against corporate abuse, but if you give the government the power to tell people what to pay employees, that's when things get messy. Government is always several steps removed from the situation, so on the one hand they are potentially more impartial, but on the other they lack the knowledge and perspective of the situation on which they are to make a decision. Labour unions putting pressure on companies is a better thing, imo, because the people actually working at the specific companies and the companies themselves are the parties involved in the discussion. Nobody should have the power to dictate the choices of other people, though.

CuriousFerret

7 years, 6 months ago

link

It could be seen as a large scale union, just without dues or real singular leadership. Just the general sentiment that pay below poverty level won't be taken any more.

I was reading about one of the larger financial firms bitching how no one is willing to work for the pay he thinks should be enough. And with the labor shortage and crack down on immigration he has no choice but to increase or face labor shortage.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Indeed, which is great XP. They'll have to increase the wages they offer or they'll not get the employees, haha. That's the free way to do it, without forcing people with political power, they have to adapt to what market forces expect of them. It works both ways, of course, so anybody wilfully refusing to work at all is gonna be broke as fuck.

CuriousFerret

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Just intresting as unions are always depicted as socialists, even if they employ capitalist free market tactics.

Only problem was letting the mob associate with them.

ixtappa

7 years, 5 months ago

link

> But yes, people have promoted that property is theft, they just haven't worded it that way. When Barack Obama said (paraphrasing) "there is such a thing as having too much" and statements of that sort

I would consider that more to be aimed at the upper class ie the 10Million wealth/property and above people. Granted i don't have context, so may be incorrect.

In general each magnitude of wealth you have means ~.5% additional income from said wealth/property(more money to spend on finical advisors, etc). Which means the rich get richer. Usually more money is more political power. So you have positive feedback loop on income+wealth on the high end. Thats not good for any democracy.

I would advocate taking progressively more wealth/property from those that have 1Mill above to remove/reduce the positive feedback loops.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

@ ixtappa

Why have the millionaires not earned their millions in the same way we all earn our money? It doesn't matter how much you or I decide they need, or don't need. They earned it. Of course, I believe we need to have rules in place that fight corruption when it occurs, but everything is a trade-off, if our proposed ameliorative measures to combat corruption end up making things even worse, as is often the case with wide-reaching policies of any description, then it shouldn't be done. Our feelings on the matter are irrelevant, what matters are the consequences.

ixtappa

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Earned their 10s of millions? depends on how you view inheritance, depends how you view rent-seeking. But thats beside my point. A person with 10Mil wealth can gain income of say X% just from the wealth - never mind the day job. A person with 10Bil wealth can earn X + 1.5%( more resources to throw at finical advisors/ increased investment opportunities). There is a clear positive feedback loop driving wealth up on the high end. Positive feedback loops are a strong sign of system instability. I want to remove /reduce the positive feedback loops. I want the economy to be more stable.

zangooseOO

7 years, 6 months ago

link

dont kinkshame, some people out there actually like being cucked :^)

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

@ zangooseOO

Haha, I have never, until this comment, typed the word "cuck".

pentrep

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 6 months ago by Owner

I guess I should have left a more constructive comment. Socialism in context has worked in the past but not for 1000s of years since civilization took over tribal and nomadic living styles. Communism, as it has existed, throughout history has failed. Yes, it still exists in several places but I don't think any one of those places is overly successful when practicing Communism as a whole. Now China in itself is a more hybrid mix of Comi-Capitalism and I believe their more recent encouragement of a relaxed approach to market has led to growth for the country However places like North Korea and Cuba really show why Communism shouldn't exist in the world. Both of those examples are horrible places in terms of both human rights and economic stability. Humanity can often be self interested and motivated by intrinsic values and interests. There is no incentive to work in either Socialism or Capitalism. With no possibility of upward mobility, the educated elite often go elsewhere to make use of their services. In the end both fail for the same reasons.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

@ pentrep

There is an incentive to work in a free market. If you don't you won't have anything.

pentrep

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 6 months ago by Owner

Yeah, free market is one of the corner stones of Capitalism. One that many take advantage of and exploit but it's also one of the economic pillars of strength of some of the strongest countries in the world.

moyomongoose

7 years, 6 months ago

link

When the cops in some parts of this country allow the thieves to burgularize you out of everything you own, you won't have anything anyway....Regardless HOW hard you worked in a free market place.

moyomongoose

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 6 months ago by Owner

You try to get a small business up and started in a place like central Florida.

Eventually, thieves and drug adicts steal your tools and equipment you need to run a business with...
But the thieves are not the real problem...The problem is the police don't really give a shit about trying to catch the thieves, and they tell you in the same breath, "But YOU better not do anything to stop them or we'll put YOU in jail".

The legal system doesn't care if an upcoming nobody goes out of business as soon as they get started...But they will go to the ends of the Earth to protect a business owned by a big corporation when so much as a nickle piece of bubble gum gets stolen...And don't anyone go there with telling me that lame gig, "Nawwww, it don't work that way"....At age 63, I did not fall off the turnip wagon yesterday.

You consult an attorney about the matter only to hear him tell you, "Well, there's nothing you can really do. Just let the poor dumb bastards take what they want. Those cops were right. You'll only get into trouble trying to stop them".

Afterwards, you have so much money going out to constantly replace stuff you need to run a business with, you eventually go out of business as soon as you got it started, then have to file bankrupcy.

The the clowns come out of the woodwork suggesting shit like, "Just don't own anything, and they can't steal anything".
You can't run a business living like a Spartan.

Another good one from the peanut gallery is, "That's what insurance is for. Have that stuff insured".
That one is among the most 1st class shit ass stupidist things I've ever heard...How many times does a lizard brain who suggests some retarded shit like that think you can keep on filing claim after claim after claim on you insurance before the Insurance company drops you like a hot potato?...Then no other insurance company wants to insure you after that.
Always remember this..***Insurance companies don't stay in business by being stupid***.

If THIS is what capitalism is really all about, it does not say much for capitalism...And the above story has been my one and only experience at trying to be a capitalist....The end result was no different than if I had been born and raised in a socialist country....Either way, I have not a ghost of an oportunity at running my own business.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

@ moyomongoose

Best way to fight crime is via the police, so if there is a genuine problem with police deliberately not enforcing the law for small businesses, I'd like to see the evidence. The higher the crime, the only businesses that can survive are the ones rich enough to offset all the theft and property damage. And in poorer communities there's also the culture of "don't be a snitch", so even if police did everything they could for every reported crime, without witnesses coming forward they're fucked. Shoplifters sell their stolen goods to members of the public, those buyers don't report anything, they collude with crime that makes their areas far less safe, which means local businesses are fucked. I believe the creation of businesses is the greatest thing for poor areas, its what starts an area on the road to prosperity and employment. Crime will always fuck that up. So I'm pro police and law enforcement and also in favour of addressing police malpractice when and where it occurs.

Incidentally, what the fuck has any of this got to do with my cartoon?

KichigaiKitsune

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Plenty of fun things to discuss in the comments, and although I'm concerned that you might be implying that, for example, a government mandated minimum wage would lead us down a slippery slope to an unaccountable authoritarian state, I absolutely agree that socialism is one of most "evil" ideologies out there. Irrespective of its lofy ideals, it at least leads us to a unpleasant and oppressive conclusion that no extant or past state has managed to push beyond.
But there's certainly no slippery-slope from reasonable regulations guaranteeing a basic quality of life to outright socialism. Not sure if that's what you're suggesting.

You have some discussion above about corporations stealing from citizens. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis and the resultant recession and bailouts yet; absolutely, yes, corporations under a capitalist system often do rob or even outright harm the citizenry, and they get away with it thanks to political lobbying and outright bribery. Collusion and monopoly are the poisons of capitalism, and they are best combatted by regulation -- and transparent government able to be freely criticized and scrutinized.

Capitalism is the way to go, I think it's the only economic model that works. In most areas, at least, there are some cases where a profit motive is just perverse and damaging. But, for the same reason that we ask governments to regulate our social behavior to stop other individuals robbing us, I think it's reasonable we ask for fair and negotiable regulations and protections for economic or environmental matters as well. With social programs and a responsible government that guarantees fair opportunity and a baseline quality of living for us all.

Otherwise, well, it's a Monty Python joke, innit?
(Also, don't posts like these attract a billion nutjobs to you every time you make them? Yer a masochist, Roarey. :3)

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

I'd never argue that minimum wage leads to dictatorship haha, but it does have nasty unintended effects. With an enforced minimum wage, companies are incentivised to get the most they can from employees, meaning qualifications and experience, so the least skilled are priced out and unemployment increases. As unemployment increases, so does the spending power of society, which means companies have to increase prices to continue making a profit, all the various stages of producing a product to getting it into a shop become more expensive, including rent of space. As prices go up, so does the cost of living, requiring a further increase in minimum wage. Minimum wage has to increase to "offset inflation" but because it actually increases inflation, it has to eternally continue to rise in an endless circle. That's why its going up all the time and is still never enough to afford what is called "a basic standard of living". I wish it worked, but on net balance it makes economic conditions worse. That's why big business exploits undocumented immigrants, because there's no minimum wage for them. The immigrants make a living at the expense of the indigenous public and the businesses benefit from it. Pro-immigration combined with minimum wage is highly desirable for big business, which is why all of the buggers sided with Hillary during the last election.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Sorry, I meant spending power DECREASES as unemployment increases.

Taoaliah

7 years, 6 months ago

link

It is because Hillary decided to side with corporations that she deserved to get fucked over so badly.  She had this insane idea in her head that she could do whatever corrupt bullshit she wanted and get away with it, could screw the flyover states out of an economic recovery and get away with it...

You saw how well that went XD...SHE LOST!! and now she is being investigated for the crimes she committed by the congress as well as corruption charges on top!!

What a time to be alive, she spent all that money, she wasted all of that time, wasted all of that political capital.  Hell, because she screwed over the fly-over states so much that they must of gathered together and said "screw that bitch for financially fucking us over" and voted the way that they did.

Thank god that horrible woman lost!  THANK YOU GOD!! THANK YOU!

KichigaiKitsune

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 6 months ago by Owner

@ Taoaliah

You know, without getting into any of the bigger issues? I wish more people would read what you wrote here. This is important. There is a reason Hillary lost, why she didn't have the support she should have against Trump. And "deplorables" aren't the reason; disillusionment and frustration are far more apt concerns.

There's also a reason why Trump won over other GOP candidates, several. And these are huge issues too. Whether he will live up to expectations (he won't, I promise you) or not is irrelevant, it speaks volumes as to the state of the Democratic and Republican parties. What a fucking mess, with political parties obviously not representing the desires or concerns of the people.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 6 months ago by Owner

Politicians can never embody the desires of 'the people' because there is no 'the people'. We are a society of individuals with our own lives, personalities, desires, needs and biases. Politics can never be a game based on rules that don't reflect reality in such a way. Politics is supposed to be compromise, debate, trade-offs. Too often people want solutions to specific problems without ever considering the consequences of those solutions. Inevitably, some benefit and some are hindered. I think expecting politicians to possess the wisdom to make everything go well is both an unrealistic projection of godhood on their abilities and a wish for them to be powerful enough to enact this misguided idealism. Believing anybody can deliver us into happiness and prosperity is the feature of a cult.

KichigaiKitsune

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Oh absolutely, you can't please everybody after all. The debate hinges on what a society values and what concessions it is willing to make in the name of pragmatism. Politicians don't have to be gods or perfect beings - but going directly against the will of the vast majority should require some solid justification at a bare minimum. It should not occur at all, ideally, in an educated and politically informed society.

You're talking about a "governmental mandate" here, and this, in and of itself, is a slippery slope towards authoritarianism. Yes, the government cannot please everyone, yes it needs to work towards an optimal policy that provides the maximum benefit to most constituents, but it has to do so while factoring in the will and values of the majority -- to do otherwise is authoritarianism or elitism. A central authority shouldn't reasonably be convinced that its value judgments are perfect, that it knows all the relevant facts and nobody from another class has a valid perspective. So the best it can do is work with the will of the majority while seeking to educate the majority as fairly as it can. It's why people need to be thoroughly educated on the facts in a democracy for it to actually work.

Once the government determines that it knows best and can operate regardless of the will of the majority, that's when it oversteps some very severe boundaries. Amusingly, we're discussing the "menshevik/bolshevik" divide here.
If you mean that, well, yes, we're not going to please everyone, I agree with you. But I cannot agree that a government that goes against the informed will of its people - and does not take measures to ensure its people is informed - could ever be morally just or practically efficacious.

Also, I really need to stop getting involved in these discussions while utterly pished. But that is half the fun, so... fuckin' cheers.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

What is the will of the vast majority?

KichigaiKitsune

7 years, 6 months ago

link

In what particular realm? It's not like polls haven't been conducted for a lot of the political quanderies dominating discourse.
Gay marriage, for instance, is supported overwhelmingly by American voters, and by 74% of Millennial respondants in 2017. But it's still debated by elements of the US government, even at the federal level.

In the USA, less than 10% respondants supported the undermining of net neutrality, and an equally low number support further involvement in wars in the Middle East. Over 50% of Americans want a push towards single-payer healthcare, something both you and I (as British and Australian denizens) benefit from.

You might want to ask how many people would support the West's support of Saudi Arabia if they fully understand what it was doing in Yemen. Or of Israel, for that matter.

In response to your question, I have to ask: what point are you driving towards? Because several Westerns governments act against the overwhelming, clearly obvious desire of their constituents. This is without even discussing the concept of "manufactured consent."

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

You can't tell what the voting public thinks without a vote and even then that's affected by turnouts. The percentages you've quoted are from polling, not referendums like the UK Brexit decision. Even that was like a 51%/49% split, so the will of the people is not a will of the people at all. What I'm getting at is that democracy is not about the will of the people but about the relative popularity of specific policies, which completely overturns socialist thinking.

KichigaiKitsune

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 5 months ago by Owner

Right, now that I'm not seeing pink elephants, I get what you were driving at. I thought you were attacking the concept of democracy itself.

As to Brexit, I see your point. For one thing, that issue probably should have been decided by a super-majority, and now half the voters are getting the shaft. Following the will of the majority led to policy decisions orthogonal to the wishes of a substantial minority.

But it's very different when the numbers are massively skewed in one direction, with poll after poll indicating a strong unified public sentiment on an issue, and the government acts in a manner that completely disregards these facts. Polls, especially a vast preponderance of them, can indicate trends.

In the bigger picture, a study by Princeton University of policies actually put into place versus what the American people want in general show that the donor class gets what it lobbies for, not the people, to the point that Jimmy Carter affirmed the US is an oligarchy on the Thom Hartmann Program, and for a specific example US President Trump approved the anti net-neutrality bill. That had a single-digit approval rating. He didn't put that one up for a vote.

Thus, the problem isn't whether polls are reliable or not, it's that despite a vast preponderance of them indicating a need to put a given issue to the vote, the issues frequently are not voted on and the US government (notably) enacts contrary policies. Also, Australian here: voting should be compulsory. Turnout schmurnout. Get in there and participate in your democracy! >:C

But I do understand your overall point. You're technically wrong, however: remember I mentioned the Bolsheviks? They specifically believed that democracy & capitalism needed go, people were stupid, the elite Bolshevik Communists knew what was right and best for everyone and had a mandate to do whatever was necessary. Of course, that led to Lenin's starvation-genocide of rural Russians and the brutal suppression of alternative interpretations of communism.

In other words, the most authoritarian interpretation won, and specifically said "fuck off with your democracy." If a socialist is telling you that "the will of the people" matters at all to communism/socialism, or that socialism is inherently democratic, you can gently remind him that he's disagreeing with Lenin.

(I still would like to know if you believe in the slippery-slope implied in your submission, however. I suspect you don't and are just illustrating a dangerous, simplified line of thinking. Surely you know that the US minimum wage is not a living wage, and that addressing that will not necessarily lead to authoritarianism?)

RoareyRaccoon wrote:

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 5 months ago by Owner

The unreliability of polls DOES matter, if polls are consistent in result that can just as easily mean they are consistent in demographic, consistent in their flaws and biases. Then the results repeating themselves is not a categorical piece of evidence that society wants x thing. Anyway, no I don't think minimum wage leads to dictatorship and I said that in my first response to you, I just said it has unintended consequences, which it does. I know the Bolshevik and Menshevik split too, doesn't mean shit, the actual philosophy of socialism does not believe in a government and in practice, because you have to have a damn government, it comes out as a dictatorship. The only way socialism does not lead to totalitarianism is if socialist policy is embedded in a framework of anti-socialist laws, markets and governments, where socialism does damage but not enough to make for a dictatorship.

KichigaiKitsune

7 years, 5 months ago

link

I think there's been some sort of misunderstanding here. I'm actually on your side about socialism and communism. I'm just here because I want to contribute to the discussion without being a massive arsehole the way many are. Apologies for starting while pished. I actually wanted to offer my support in the face of all the people giving you shit for daring to have an opinion.

"	Anyway, no I don't think minimum wage leads to dictatorship and I said that in my first response to you

Ah, that's right, yes, I forgot about that. Sorry. Fair enough.
I attempted to find evidence that a living-wage/minimum-wage results in the consequences you speak of, but there doesn't appear to be any real consensus, as various think-tanks disagree with one another about, for example, if it raises unemployment. Investopedia points out that Nordic countries actually negotiate their minimum wage through trade unions, and not government decree. That was interesting. I suppose I need to look into this more.

"	I know the Bolshevik and Menshevik split too, doesn't mean shit, the actual philosophy of socialism does not believe in a government and in practice, because you have to have a damn government, it comes out as a dictatorship.

Right. The toxic, authoritarian nature of socialism makes it self-defeating; power corrupts, and with all power centered in the government, it doesn't see any rush to dissolve itself into communes. If that's even possible.
Socialism does require a government, it is supposed to dissolve itself once it's no longer necessary; and no nation has ever shown it's possible to make that next step to true Communism.

Here's where I'm confused, though. Regarding the polls.

"	democracy is not about the will of the people but about the relative popularity of specific policies, which completely overturns socialist thinking.

Right, but I wasn't talking about socialism or advocating for it. That's why I mentioned the Bolsheviks: democracy has fuck all to do with socialism, it's authoritarian by its nature, to the point that Lenin didn't even think it had a place in the revolution. Polls and votes don't matter. Wasn't saying "gee, if only the Mensheviks had their chance, I'm sure it woulda been swell & democratic!"

When I mentioned the will of the majority, I was responding to the commenter above who mentioned how Hillary Clinton sided with corporations, and was pointing out that neither political party in the USA represents the people's interests and enacts policies in line with the majority's wishes. I never claimed there was some unified "will of the people" and I'm aware that democracy is about relative approval of policies.

My point was that there's a problem when a supposedly democratic society routinely snubs the majority to enact policies in favor of an elite minority. I said that polls serve as indicators especially if they reflect a clear emergent pattern, and if that is of overwhelming and consistent support for an issue it should warrant consideration or a vote on that issue. Nothing more. I disagree that you can ignore overwhelming polling trends just because they can be inaccurate, and factors like demographics and biases can be controlled or accounted for.

There is a "there" there when overwhelming polling data shows the US populace support a position, and they aren't getting it, consistently. You can't just dismiss those polls; how else are you meant to determine what the majority wants short of calling a referendum? And their government isn't doing that either for most of these issues, even when they should. I'm not calling for a socialist revolution, I'm pointing out a break-down of democracy.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

I agree with the fact that so much of our legislative process is removed from public decision, so I like referendums on big issues. At the same time, the whole point of electing representatives is so the public don't have to get involved in most decisions, they can focus on doing their own thing and when the public are disgusted with a certain policy it gets media attention and politicians fall over themselves to do something about it. I agree there is much that goes under the radar and much that is simply not rectified when there is clear public outrage, though. I haven't seen you as an enemy or anything, don't worry about that, but you're right in that I'm often treated in a very hostile manner, so thank you for not doing any of that shit, haha. It's also grand that you recognise the pitfalls of our democratic process without thinking socialism has anything to offer that would be an improvement. That's the biggest mistake people make isn't it, they see the obvious shortcomings and like the god of the gaps religious argument, assume the faulty conditions of one position makes ones own therefore valid.

AquariusOtt

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Oh boy, this is gonna be a series? Better grab some popcorn!

Sorry, it's just fun distinguishing the difference between those that can withhold a proper conversation and argument and those who prefer to shut down the other side and resent it for having a different viewpoint that they consider wrong.

It's ironic that Politics, a practice involving the act of debating between different solutions toward the same issue, has turned from debating in favor of the popular schoolhouse "he said, she said, I'm right, you're wrong" philosophy.

DrReverb

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Good art and politically minded. I strongly agree, socialism by definition is autoritarianism.

Daxy

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Very nice. I'd love to see you do a similar flow chart starting with the Anarcho-Capitalist position that "taxation is theft". It's another way to screw everything. :)

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Daxy

That'll happen eventually, I plan to do more of these things XP.

Navos

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Socialism is one of those concepts that only sounds good in fantasy. Where everyone and everything lines up perfectly and concepts flows like it should. If a perfect fantasy can become a reality, then socialism can work, but that is like hoping for a Yatzi using twenty sided dice, a wild throw and expect the perfect result.

______________________________________________

There are a lot of things that only sound good in fantasy that the common person never considers. One thing I learn from martial arts is beating up a person, does not make them change, respect or fear you.
In reality, if you beat up a man harassing a lady, you only made things worse. The guy you beat up, despises you, his friends and family will feel the same about you. Not to mention, the loser will do everything to get the law on you, claiming your aggressiveness is dangerous and you were a victim. If the loser wants a rematch, he is not going to raise fists, he is going to raise a gun.
You can fantasize about beating up a bad person and make the world a better place, but that is not real life. You cannot punch change into people.
It's so cringy for me hearing the phrase "You cannot reason with these people." As an excuse of failing to communicate or persuade. Like it is their fault for not understanding, not once questioning the strength or abilities of your own methods of communication or persuasions.

______________________________________________

I wish people would stop pointing fingers at the problem and start figuring out a solution. It just reminds me of the first Austin Powers movie, the part that the villain henchman screams stop at the steam roller. Instead of finding a solution, he'd rather scream at the problem. A perfect analogy of mindsets these days :(

PlatinumPen

7 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Navos

Yup one fo my favorite lines is Socialism/Communism can work if it was not for people.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Navos

That smells distinctly of pacifism to me. While it is true that violence begets violence and force doesn't inspire social cohesion, injustice still must be confronted. Evil actions must have negative consequences and laws must be enforced without prejudice. Without a code we can all know and rely on to be upheld, corruption rises exponentially. There are no solutions to social problems which are universally beneficial, there are only trade-offs, so we can never have a situation where we can all come together with no ego or individual motivation and agree on a policy. The best we can do is have a system like we already have, a constant conflict of ideas and interests that enable us to to constantly reevaluate policy and argue our cases. That's the biggest error of socialism, it sees the possibility of there being a 'people' whose needs are all aligned in the same direction. That is nothing more than a ridiculous dream. Beating up a person can indeed make them fear you but you're right in saying it can't make them respect you. Respect is one of the few things one can never force others to have. So heavy-handedness, totalitarianism, is inherently incompatible with human nature if one wishes to avoid tyranny. There must always be inequality but forcing it with government power is loathsome. Rather than hoping everyone could magically change and do what you or I think would be most productive, it is more constructive and actually achievable to try and embody our principles in ourselves and be an example of our beliefs for others to witness and judge.

greenmont

7 years, 6 months ago

link

How can you ignore history like this? When there was no protection for workers other than "free market will handle it", working conditions were worse and wages were lower. Unions and protections for workers on conditions and wages have improved society drastically. Feudalism is dead for a reason.

greenmont

7 years, 6 months ago

link

This seems like a really historically inaccurate slippery slope to me, connecting ANY PROTECTION FOR WORKERS to dystopian authoritarianism. If that's not what you intended, I'm sorry.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 6 months ago by Owner

I've not argued for no protections or any regulations. In one of my comments in the thread I advocate the existence of trade unions. You can easily reduce my argument to ONLY FREE MARKET RARR, but that's disingenuous. Try contradicting the shit I've actually said instead of taking refuge behind sniping at capitalism, ignoring the inherent, clear, simple, obvious batshit philosophy of socialism in practice. You're the one who sidesteps the colossal fucking genocidal communist regimes of the 20th century and present day as if they're nothing to do with true socialism so don't talk to me about ignoring fucking history.

greenmont

7 years, 6 months ago

link

"Workers don't get paid their true worth" is something I consider true, because workers when unorganized are unable to negotiate better wages and conditions. That statement is here presented at the top of a flowchart leading to authoritarianism. I don't feel I've misrepresented that at all.

I can't "contradict the shit you've said" because this is a flowchart with hand-waved details. You don't get to present deliberately vague and incomplete arguments and then come at others for not refuting them in painstaking detail.

I can contradict the implication that "workers don't get paid their true worth" is a farcical or inherently dangerous belief by pointing to the gains made by labor-oriented parties across the developed world, and the conditions similar workers labor under in nations which offer no such controls or protections. So I did that.

greenmont

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Like, I know you're a smart person, but this isn't an argument that can be picked apart and refuted. It's a loose causal chain with no supporting evidence. What do you expect someone who disagrees with you to be able to do? What would satisfy you as a VALID form of dissent to this, and not just being "disingenuous"

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Its a basic causal chain yes, the details of which can be discussed, which isn't happening is it? Instead of confronting how one thing leads to another you bring up capitalism, you don't engage with socialism at all. That'd be a good start wouldn't it, instead of saying my apparently meaningless cartoon implies I lack historical knowledge. Well if you can derive that much from the apparent vagueness of the chain then I'm sure you can logically piece together how one statement leads to the next IN REAL LIFE, demonstrably, instead of acting like its intentional simplicity for the sake of both clarity and to provoke thought renders it utterly meaningless. The fact that you can't make an argument in favour of socialism that doesn't involve these steps is a point against you, not me.

greenmont

7 years, 6 months ago

link

You don't LACK historical knowledge. You're IGNORING it to make this chain of events seem like an inevitable consequence, when it demonstrably isn't. Government control of wages and working conditions (which you here list as a precursor to authoritarianism) exists in nearly every developed country, and doesn't in most undeveloped countries.

Also I didn't mention the word "capitalism" in any of my posts? I've specifically been talking about wage and working conditions. I only mentioned "free market" because it is the most common counterargument to "workers aren't paid what they're worth".... "They are paid what they're worth, they're paid what the market will bear."

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 6 months ago by Owner

Capitalism only means "free market", nothing else lol. I'm not ignoring history, I'm illustrating it. If you read the description of the image it makes it clear that it's a deliberately simple chain of statements reflecting how socialism has developed in real life. It's how you get from one of the core Marxist philosophical principles to real life application. It's how the Soviet Union and Maoist China developed. That isn't to say there is nothing at all useful in anything from the left, nor to say that free market absolutism is the alternative. It's not ignoring history either, communism actually happened and more than 100,000,000 people were killed by it, saying nothing about the miserable lives of people who didn't starve or get outright killed, or the societies today still devastated by it. How do I ignore history with this?

greenmont

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Well, first, it's not true that "free market" precisely equals capitalism. Capitalism is precisely the system of private ownership of the means of production and decisions made to increase capital, which usually takes place in a free market (though not always, oligarchies and crony capitalism exist). Even if people owned only their own labor, their exchanges could still take place in a free market with voluntary exchange and not a planned economy.

The history that you're ignoring is that socialist (or at least welfare-state) principles also underlie most of the economic systems of the most prosperous nations in the world. Marxism/Leninism failed devastatingly under Mao and Stalin, but they are not the be-all-and-end-all of socialist thought. Most prosperous nations have decided (rightly) that there are elements of society that CANNOT be left up to the profit motive to decide, the life-and-death of individuals being one of them. The core thought is that the free market may decide some individual is not worth keeping fed, but hopefully, that the nation will not.

Anyway, I think it's too large of a point, but if we can talk about the people starved or killed under evil dictators' authoritarian regimes, we can also talk about the huge numbers of people worldwide also starve daily because no market has decided it is worthwhile to pay them. Why are these deaths more just? It's not "nature" deciding that should starve, it's still other people.

(I read the description of the image, and I understand that it's deliberately simple. That makes it hard to honestly talk about, don't you think? If I criticize what it says, that's not valuable, because it's deliberately simple.)

greenmont

7 years, 6 months ago

link

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I always forget that I'm arguing this from an American point of view where we have not yet decided that for-profit healthcare is a terrible idea, and letting people starve is a terrible idea. I also think people working for immensely profitable companies should share in the profits, as without their labor the company would not be successful and the profits would not be possible. It's more than possible that these don't fall under the "socialism" you're critiquing here so I think I'll just shut up and stop bugging you.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 6 months ago by Owner

The reason western economies have thrived the way they have is down to many things, namely the principles of liberty and individualism. The bedrock of our economies are hierarchies of competence, meritocracy. It is certainly true that these things have also required a set of safeguards to limit exploitation and abuse, but I would not credit these things with socialism. Perhaps they emerged as a result of the emphasis on that of the working classes that socialism focused on, but socialist philosophy by that of Marx, Engels and Lenin was not about simply making sure the wealthier classes didn't go too far but to wipe them out entirely. All of them recognised that before the socialist utopia could come to pass (a matter, according to their "dialectic" philosophical claptrap, of inevitability) there would first need to be established the "dictatorship of the proletariat". So before the tyranny of the bourgeoisie could be truly broken, the proletariat were to seize power over all of society. Naturally, since the labourers lack the administrative and technical expertise to take on the tasks of running a country, it would be sufficiently loyal academics from the bourgeois class who would be needed to run it. Then nature would take its course and from the dictatorship of the proletariat, the true socialist society would emerge. Which it doesn't.

I agree that protections and regulations are necessary to prevent widespread abuse and corruption to the extent one can manage, but at the same time it must be taken into account the unintended effects of any such policies implemented. The basic fact is that absolutely nobody possesses the wisdom or knowledge to solve the inequalities of free market economies, nor the wisdom to think up policies that will even do what they are intended to do, whatever those intentions are. Making even small localised plans among friends and family is constantly liable to go tits-up, so managing an economy of hundreds of millions, even billions of people is a frank bloody impossibility, no matter how hard a pill to swallow that is.

From what I've seen you say over the years I feel very confident in pointing out the emotional motivations of your political views are a general feeling of spite towards the rich and a sense that the world has gone to shit. From that perspective it is quite natural to turn to philosophies that promise good tidings, the only trouble is none of the bloody things can deliver. You'll find that the starving people in the world, the slaves that still exist, are not in western free market democracies and republics. Of course, you think the only reason these other countries are in a bad state is because our cultures are nothing but thieves, rather than the fact that other cultures are actually backward and have terrible governments. Interestingly, on the south african continent the only countries with skyscrapers are former british colonies. Weird that, innit. You hate your own culture so much that it's just sad. Well I submit that they are, in fact, the dogs' bollocks. Inequality is a good thing and we all want it.

greenmont

7 years, 6 months ago

link

I guess. Sorry to have bugged you. I'm annoyed that you have the impression that I'm so spiteful towards the "rich" and that this motivates my opinion more than my reasoning does. It's true that I think being that wealthy is evil, but even if I didn't, it'd still be the case that having all the resources held by an ever dwindling number of demigods is an economic and political nightmare for everyone except those demigods. The state of american politics is proof- voters factually have no power in many areas of the nation. It's simply a spending war between banks and conglomerates.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Your reasoning is bad and your emotions contribute to it. As is the case with pretty much everybody on planet earth. I have the exact same problem when it comes to a lot of things. But when it comes to political philosophy and the economy I've had a huge culture shock and realised just how spiteful I was being towards people I didn't know just because they had more than I did and more than most people in general. Of course there are lying, conniving fuckers out there but the vast majority of people in our countries earn what they earn according to the value other people place on what they produce. Rich people don't earn that money as a thank you for what they contribute, which would make economics some sort of value hierarchy of social good, but they get that money as a result of people wanting what they have made enough to buy it. Our system and market ensures that whomever produces things people love and need and desire will benefit from that. The better producers they are, the more they earn, even in the billions. One could of course easily say that nobody needs billions, of course they don't, but the economy isn't about need, life isn't about need. Life is what happens after basic needs are met and nobody would bother to do anything if they didn't think there was some point to making an effort. If we're supposed to come out equally regardless of effort or providing goods/services that people want to buy, then one takes an axe swing at the very thing which makes life worth living in the first place, the betterment of ourselves and the providing for those we love. Everybody wants to be more than they are in the future, to have a better life is why we strive hard, to build something for our children and families.

All huge companies begin with one or two people who started from nothing, who worked doing shitty jobs and slowly built up over time, making sensible decisions. With immigrants it tends to be parents who work shitty jobs to put their kids through school, and they make damn sure their children get good qualifications. Then those kids grow up and earn far more than their parents ever did, then they have children of their own and instil the same values. The result after a few generations is a wealthy upper-middle class family with their own homes and excellent jobs or businesses. The family has always been the bedrock of civilisation and this horrendous socialist, intersectional dissection of society into the oppressor and oppressed does nothing for society except promote misery, destitution, lack of responsibility and despair. I won't abide that shit happening and not call it out, the way I see it we have a damn responsibility to stand up for the amazing things we have and the positive aspects of our civilisations which have transformed the world. Socialism died in the 20th century and digging up its stinking evil corpse is just dead wrong.

greenmont

7 years, 5 months ago

link

"Life is what happens after basic needs are met and nobody would bother to do anything if they didn't think there was some point to making an effort. "

Ok, but
1: Basic needs AREN'T met, though.
2: Yes they would. Lots of people do what they do for reasons other than profit. The real innovators don't do what they do in order that they may have billions. They do it because they're interested and curious and want to make something useful. If billions happen, it usually goes to their boss or whoever buys the rights off them for a pittance.

Also, we are not earning more than our parents. For two generations now in America, we've been earning LESS, as competition becomes impossible and wealth consolidates upwards due to Reagan-era economics. In America, upward "class mobility" has stalled out and it's increasingly LESS AND LESS likely that the american dream entrepreneur scenario will ever come to pass, ever again. . By most measurements (wages re: inflation, property ownership, etc) this generation will be largely less well off than our parents. We don't own homes because we're in debt from an education that doesn't get us a job. We can't afford kids or marriage so we rent and live with roomates. We work more than 40 hours a week at even 'good' jobs for the same amount of pay and dwindling benefits. We don't have leisure time to start businesses, and what business could we even start when enormous companies have crushed out all their competition? Retail stores are dead, even huge chain ones, because Amazon exists. The service industry is gradually turning into the "gig economy" where half your money goes to some jackass who wrote an app.

A few major corporations have even made it illegal to compete with them. Time Warner got legislation passed in NC to make it illegal when a small rural community wanted to start up a DSL network, saying it was unfair to Time Warner. Today, Time Warner has STILL not expanded their network to that community.

It's an absolute farce to say that any individual today can start from nothing and join the ranks of the Kochs, the Waltons, etc, even in generations to come, because the accumulated force of their wealth means going against them is a non-starter.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Basic needs ARE met in the USA. You guys have better living standards than anywhere outside the western world, there's an obesity epidemic in your country for fuck sake. Never has there been a nation in human history without poor people, never, but the fact that they exist is, to you, some huge indictment of society. How bad do you think it is without democratic republics? Look up 'holodomor' on wikipedia if you want see what not having basic needs looks like.

I agree that the economy is not what it was and that people today are having more trouble buying a house and building a family compared to a few decades ago, but a few decades ago is when left wing welfare and social intervention policies started. Laying all that at the door of Reagan is ridiculous. I take it its his fault that ever since the abolition of Jim Crow laws (a democrat invention BTW) the single parenthood rates in the black community have more than tripled? Conservatives don't want to destroy the family, they're the biggest traditionalists out there and its the family that makes for stability and prosperity.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

You know, the irony here is Marx himself stated that thinking can only happen when basic needs are met, when people aren't starving. When one is hungry food and survival overrides our other considerations. Yet here we are, on the internet, in the richest civilisation the world has ever seen, talking about how oppressive our societies are. Perspective is crucial.

DirtyGoat

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 5 months ago by Owner

"	Basic needs ARE met in the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Hunger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

DirtyGoat

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Does the reality of people's basic needs not being met in another place, at another time, entail that everyone's basic needs are being met in the USA now?

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Does the reality of individuals in the USA being up shit creek mean the society itself is rotten? You find people suffering everywhere and always will, the existence of catastrophically bad societies doesn't mean nobody in the western world can suffer, of course not, but it does mean something when you talk about a society itself. Hungry, poor, oppressed etc mean very different things qualitatively depending on which society they're applied to, to ignore that basic fact is to deliberately distort reality. What do you expect from a good society? No suffering?

DirtyGoat

7 years, 5 months ago

link

I certainly don't think that "no suffering" is a reasonable goal, but minimizing how much of it goes on needlessly seems to be a reasonable goal - and the extent to which people are able to acquire basic things like food, affordable health care services, clean water, etc. also seems like a reasonable way to measure the health and success of a nation.

I'm not making any arguments about any societies being "rotten," and I'm not advocating any economic arrangement over another. But certainly, we wouldn't want to fool ourselves into thinking that "basic needs are met in the USA," full stop, because it ignores a huge spate of issues Americans have receiving basic care that still to be systematically addressed. Rather than allowing axiomatic ideological principles guide us towards ideological solutions, we should use the best evidence available to do whatever seems like it will raise the quality of life for the average person. Like the USA currently and the rest of the developed world, this will involve a mixed economic system of some sort. The only question then becomes, "mixed in what particular ways?"

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Of course, I think there are more than enough problems in western societies that need to be addressed, I'm simply trying to put it in perspective. Spreading doom and gloom in the west is common as muck, denigration of our culture is mainstream. Worst of all, whenever people find flaws, which is easy, they try to insert socialism as the solution to these issues. Far from denying the existence of suffering and problems in our society, what I want to make abundantly clear is that socialism is worse. We can and do address problems over time but it can only be done with honest looks at the available data and open, free debate. What I'm doing here more specifically is to expose socialism for what it is and to make a case for what we have. When it comes to dealing with problems in our societies, they require their own specific discussions, which I'm not doing here, so it's quite irrelevant.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Additionally, I'd like to make clear that having a noble goal does not lead to a desired outcome the majority of the time. Reality has a way of illuminating hubris and often times we only cause harm where we wanted to help. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So as much as I am of course in favour of improving peoples lives, broad policy should be embarked upon with the utmost caution, as it seldom actually is.

TheAtomicDog

7 years, 6 months ago

link

Ladies & Gentlemen, the entirety of the human political experiment in a single frame.

silver2075

7 years, 6 months ago

link

I find it interesting where I find conservatives views. Sometimes they are in the most unexpected places.

Sangie

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 5 months ago by Owner

Finally blocked your submissions due to your constant fucking grand standing of your garbage basic 12 yo bitch beliefs

Keep that shit on 4chan not here

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

@ Sangie

If my beliefs are the garbage of a 12 year-old, why is it you can't argue against them and why do they upset you so much? This cartoon is completely non confrontational but your reaction to it is as if personally insulted. Maybe you shouldn't be in a cult, that way you won't be so insecure.

Galko

7 years, 5 months ago

link

"B-b-b-but real communism hasn't been tried yet!"

Socialism is cancer.

otterguy

7 years, 5 months ago

link

"Organization requires power."

I just organized a trip to the movies with two buddies of mine and none of us had more power than the other. Teammates in a pickup basketball game don't require power. But in this context, sure we need some power to avoid one person taking the ball and running home.

"Power is manifest in authority."

Fair enough.

"Authority regulates property + economics 'on behalf' of the public."

Again, fair enough. Don't understand the scare quotes, though. In a democracy, the public give officials the power to regulate property (directly or through others). If the public doesn't think an official is working on their behalf, they can vote them out or threaten to vote out the official's boss if he doesn't set his underling straight. Is this a perfect system, no but as Churchill said, it's better than all the others.

"Authority regulating everything with no external regulation."

Huh? Again, elections and constitutions seem to be a pretty common and (relatively) effective external regulation. We can and do pass and enforce laws against wage theft, dangerous work conditions, and union-busting without giving the enforcers of those laws 100% authority.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Organization in society requires power, the power to enforce the organizing. Just as in a game of sports, if you can't enforce the rules of the game and everybody can do whatever they fancy, it's no longer a game is it. You're missing the point here dude, the toon is about what happens under socialism, we have checks against government, we have regulation of government, communists do not. Socialist philosophy, if you go to the source of it with Marx, Engels, Lenin etc, they don't even believe in having a fucking government haha. Our societies do indeed kick ass but its not socialism that's done it.

otterguy

7 years, 5 months ago

link

"You're missing the point here dude, the toon is about what happens under socialism"

But I don't think you really get from point A to point B. Is every economy with regulations socialist? Is every socialist country authoritarian or about to become such?

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Every society that is not a dictatorship, that also has some socialist features, is stable because, for the large part, the policies and government of those countries is NOT socialist. If a whole society adopts socialism fully, it WILL become a totalitarian shithole. Always has and still does today. In countries with a democratic republic, a free market economy etc, socialist programs that are in place more often than not do far more damage than they relieve and seldom ever do what they were intended to do. Nobody foresaw, for example, that a welfare component to help single mothers so their children didn't have to be poor would lead to the rates of single motherhood skyrocketing. Considering over 70% of all people in prison are from single parent households and all the other correlative circumstances like teenage pregnancy, delinquency and relative poverty, single parenthood is definitely not desirable. But because anything one incentivises increases, the approach to child welfare has, on balance, devastated the poor for a few generations. You've got to be extremely careful when fucking with society, it's extremely hard just to deal with our own lives and families, dealing with our own issues, never mind coming up with a policy that can be applied to a huge population. But people care more about looking virtuous and feeling especially wise than to bother with that whole consequences stuff, booooring.

otterguy

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Can you clarify your definition of socialism? I’m not sure if we have the same one and I know the definition differs from person to person, often by a lot.

Also, is single-motherhood inherently a bad thing? Is living with an abusive or absent father or in a turbulent marriage substantially better than single-parenthood?

“Considering over 70% of all people in prison are from single parent households”

Do you have a source on that? I totally believe you of course, I’d just like to read it.

Also, as you know, correlation does not equal causation. For a variety of reasons (lack of child support, rising wealth inequality affecting all parents, the gender pay gap, stigma against single-mothers, racism, etc), kids in one parent households are more likely to be in poverty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/10/...

Concentrated poverty, not family structure, is the best predictor of crime rates. AFAIK, if you take out poverty as a factor, kids of single moms do as good if not better than their peers.

As far as the tendency of women on welfare to have more kids, IIRC, they have a slightly lower birthrate than average. This makes sense because the math of having a baby to get more money doesn’t work. Babies cost WAY more to take care of than anyone gets in benefits, and that’s not including the opportunity cost (time is money, after all, and single-parents have very little time).

Arguing that welfare policy incentives single parenthood is like arguing that fire insurance incentives fire. Technically true, perhaps, but it doesn’t mean you should skip the condom or play with fireworks inside.

“all the other correlative circumstances like teenage pregnancy”

Teen pregnancy is way down compared to a few decades ago. It was also MUCH more common in the centuries before the modern welfare state. States and nations with less generous welfare policies have a HIGHER teen pregnancy rate. So governments you might call socialist seem to do better in this area.

“You've got to be extremely careful when fucking with society,”

Doesn’t this sentiment apply just as much (moreso, in fact) to corporate and private “fucking with society”? I mean, the Industrial Revolution fucked with society a LOT. After all, society will be fucked with anyway, so why not have at least some democratic control of the fucking?

Have I stretched this metaphor too far?

“But people care more about looking virtuous and feeling especially wise than to bother with that whole consequences stuff, booooring.”

Wouldn’t this apply to everyone who supports some sort of social change, including opposition to government regulations? I mean, libertarians I know also seem to care a lot about the virtues of ending drone strikes and they also feel wise when opposing the war on drugs.

CuriousFerret

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Well stated sir.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 5 months ago by Owner

Certainly, I'll clarify the definition of socialism for you. It is a political and economic philosophy generated by Marx and Engels, deriving initially from Hegelian dialectic thinking. It was later adapted by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and various French philosophers. The practicalities of socialism are clarified in The Communist Manifesto and Kapital, then in further works, which were essentially tactical and interpretive, by leaders of various communist groups and intellectuals like Vladimir Lenin.
Socialism may neatly be summarised by a nice-sounding central ethos "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It rests upon the assumption that world history, human history, is essentially economic history, with all major events having an economic basis. Whilst this did have the benefit of drawing attention to the economic factors when judging history, it is incorrect in its total emphasis on it to explain everything societies do. Socialism states that capitalism, or the free market, along with democratic governments in the west at the time, were bourgeois creations.
Socialism also rests on the idea that the labouring class, the proletariat, is a class in perpetual bondage by the monied elites, never earning the value of their labour. In effect, working people work not for their own benefit but for somebody elses (instead of the truth, which is workers work for their own benefit AND someone elses, technically everybody elses). According to the dialectic foundation of socialist theory, progress and human affairs consist of an article, its opposite and a unifier that joins them together. Like the christian holy trinity or the chemistry triangles we did in school. According to this dialectic,
Marx et al considered it a matter of natural inevitability that the socialist utopia would happen, but it was predicated upon certain conditions. What would need to happen first is the destruction of the bourgeois class, overthrown by the proletariat, resulting in a dictatorship of the proletariat, which would in turn lead to a socialist utopia.
Of course, when it came to practically doing this nonsense in the real world, intellectuals like Lenin recognised that one cannot have the administration required to keep a society moving without expertise, so the bourgeois intellectuals would have to be utilised in the dictatorship of the proletariat, so what results is the same state of bureaucracy, only now with top-down totalitarian control. For the rest, one need merely read history books. That good enough for you? Incidentally, what is YOUR definition of socialism?

Continued below, since what I wrote exceeds the fucking character limit, lmao.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 5 months ago by Owner

Yes, single motherhood is inherently a bad thing, when we look at how it plays out across society. That is obviously not the same thing as saying single mothers are bad people or being raised by only one parent always leads to disaster (I'm the child of a single parent, judge that how you will, haha). My data source, of course, is official government statistics. Respectfully, I do not need to be reminded that correlation is not causation, but causation is always correlative, so one need only mention the separation when people are actually drawing FALSE conclusions. You are right in poverty being a sound predictor of social ills, but if you look at how income/wealth statistics are generated, they are based PER HOUSEHOLD. Guess what a significant contributor to household income is? The number of people generating income. Ergo, single parent households are, generally (we have to be general in statistics, which is why they can and do mislead) poorer than two parent households, because there's only one adult making money. Look at the FBI statistics, government statistics, over 70% of all people in prison are from single-parent households. I can't say that's definitive, unquestionable proof of a direct causal relationship, but considering its correlative relationship with a whole host of other factors, along with the basic common sense that it is easier for two people to do any job or function than one, I'd say single parenthood is clearly very significant indeed. Your comment that poorer people have fewer children also makes no sense. If 72% (an actual figure) of black children are born to single parents, those children come from households that are also poorer than households with two parents. Therefore, poorer people ARE having more kids. Of course it's stupid to behave this way, but when the fuck has that ever stopped anyone? Look at the birth rate in 3rd world countries too, they're far higher than in developed countries. Weird that, innit?

You're, of course, completely correct in that business and industry fucks with society, but there's a very important difference here. With industrial revolutions, it is market, demand, supply, ambition, individual forces that contribute to the expansion of industry. Social policy meddling is a top-down enforcement of "enlightened" government principles, which derive from intellectuals in universities. The complete change of a society can happen naturally as conditions change economically and culturally in a free market system (like we have had for generations in the west) or it can be forced, as is the case with dictatorships and other totalitarian regimes. Like communism.

The important thing is to keep debate open, free and constant. When attitudes become widespread and accepted in the public, society shifts accordingly. Socialism is a devastating spanner in the mechanics of lasting social change, which is why it always leads to legions of people starving to death and gutted economies.

otterguy

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Sorry to be pedantic, but I’m not asking for THE definition of socialism because I've seen way too many. I asked for your definition because I want to be on the same page.

And socialism (or at least people claiming to be so) predates Marx. It at least goes back to the 1700s. The Chartists were there before Marx IIRC.

Your socialism seems more the definition of Marxism. It's a good explanation, but (as the saying goes) all communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. Most non-Marxist/communist socialists don’t support a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Sorry for harping on this, but when you say “X always leads to Y" I want to know what X is. I want you to show me.

And now I have “I Want to Know What Love Is” stuck in my head. You must suffer too.

https://youtu.be/raNGeq3_DtM

“Yes, single motherhood is inherently a bad thing, when we look at how it plays out across society.”

If X is inherently bad, it's bad no matter how it plays out.

“My data source, of course, is official government statistics.”

Could you be specific? If you don’t remember it, that’s fine.

“You are right in poverty being a sound predictor of social ills, but if you look at how income/wealth statistics are generated, they are based PER HOUSEHOLD.”

That household income would be higher if not for the reasons I talked about (lack of child support, rising wealth inequality affecting all parents, the gender pay gap, stigma against single-mothers, racism, etc). If these factors were addressed, the poverty rate of single moms would decline.

Obviously halving your income ain’t good. But if one partner is absent, abusive, or in an unstable situation, that income will either be lowered or the income would be almost irrelevant compared to the harm to the child. To the extent that welfare increases the amount of single parent households, it is a function of harmful marriages being broken up because the competent parent doesn’t need the other parent anymore.

The kid's welfare is more important than familial status, and we know that kids with social economic support have better lives.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20103

“If 72% (an actual figure) of black children are born to single parents, those children come from households that are also poorer than households with two parents. Therefore, poorer people ARE having more kids.”

I don’t know how you get from point A to B. We were talking about moms on welfare, not black moms.

"Average family size was the same (3.7 persons), whether or not a family received assistance."

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/spending-patterns...

Do you have newer figures?

“Look at the birth rate in 3rd world countries too”

Again, those are nations that (mostly) lack the kind of welfare state we’re discussing.

“With industrial revolutions, it is market, demand, supply, ambition, individual forces that contribute to the expansion of industry”

But do these market forces always lead to good results?

"a free market system (like we have had for generations in the west)"

When did this free market exist? I’m not entirely sure an advanced market free of government intervention exists.

"Social policy meddling is a top-down enforcement of 'enlightened' government principles, which derive from intellectuals in universities."

AFAIK, there’s no system where professors aren’t the only ones allowed to vote. But I’d kind of prefer it to a system run by hedge fund managers.

“The important thing is to keep debate open, free and constant.”

Would a 100% free market guarantee that? For example, a landlord can tell his tenant not to put up signs for a political candidate on his property. Is that an open, free debate? What if a few get so rich that they can buy all the inhabitable space in a location and become everyone's landlord?

Why not compromise between feudalism and gulags? Why not settle for democratic control of at least some economic decisions?

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Sorry for the late response, I've been pretty damn sick lately. Better late than never though, eh?

"	Sorry to be pedantic, but I’m not asking for THE definition of socialism because I've seen way too many. I asked for your definition because I want to be on the same page.

This pedanticism is a running theme, isn't it? Anyway, my definition of socialism is the one I provided. Marx and Engels codified the socialist philosophy, the fact that some previous cultures had socialist features is a comparative observation, they weren't philosophically socialist because the framework that is socialism and its entailing tenets is Marxism. Any adjustments and developments from Marxism are minor, generally tactical things. At its very core it is simply nonsense.

"	Sorry for harping on this, but when you say “X always leads to Y" I want to know what X is. I want you to show me.

I didn't say X or Y, the cartoon is more specific than that. Have a look at it again.

"	If X is inherently bad, it's bad no matter how it plays out.

It does matter how it plays out because that's what I'm referring to. If you want to, again, be definitionally pedantic then yes it is not inherently bad as a concept but it is inherently bad in the wider social context, in that it statistically leads to awful results. Tit for tat.

"	Could you be specific? If you don’t remember it, that’s fine.

Haha, official government statistics. Google them, there arent multiple US governments are there? I can't be arsed doing your searching for you, they're the same damn stats everybody who's serious uses. They're free to access and easy to find, all in nice little pdf's. Don't tell me there's something confusing about "official government statistics" because you're not retarded.

"	That household income would be higher if not for the reasons I talked about (lack of child support, rising wealth inequality affecting all parents, the gender pay gap, stigma against single-mothers, racism, etc). If these factors were addressed, the poverty rate of single moms would decline.

Wrong, household income is mainly impacted by occupation and number of adults contributing to said income, along with number of children. Lack of child support is no answer, in my country child support is much better than in the US, in terms of more money that is easier to access. UK still has the 4th highest single parenthood rate in Europe. Wealth inequality is a weird thing to include as an explanation, since it describes the relative income inequalities across households, it doesn't disprove a connection between single parenthood and low incomes, it illustrates them. The gender pay gap is entirely discredited and has been since the 1970's. The 'gap' results from an aggregate of all incomes across each gender, without accounting for what job is done, part-time or full-time, time away from work to raise a family, etc etc. Data that ignores every variable that exists is complete shite and anyone who believes in it is very silly. Check the work of Christina Hoff Sommers, she puts it to bed with eloquence. Or any decent economist. Stigma against single mothers keeps incomes lower? Er, yeah, better show how that works, mate. Not that they have kids they have to support on their own but that they're frowned upon? Talk about ignorance of personal responsibility. Racism is gone in the USA, in terms of the law. Individuals are racist, the country isn't. I'm sick of this systemic racism shit, nobody ever shows any specific laws to back it up, it's just somewhere out there in the ether like a paedophile poltergeist.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 5 months ago by Owner

I'm not going to deny the fact that some marriages and partnerships are abusive and fucked up, of course they are. Some kids are better off without one of the parents because of how bad they are, but we're talking about society as a whole. Society as a whole benefits from the nuclear family, kids benefit from the nuclear family. Of course everyone isn't going to, there's no situation in which everybody does fine and never will be, so it's irrelevant to bring up the existence of asshole mothers and fathers when the prisons are filled with the offspring of single-parent households. None of the factors you brought up earlier explain anything and especially cannot account for why income differences are so wide between households with two adults and those with one, in a way that common sense can't. Two people do a better job than one, on average, so if you're on your own, with kids to raise on top of it, you're not going to be on the same money as two-parent households or people with no kids, unless you have some incredible job. It's basic logic.

"	I don’t know how you get from point A to B. We were talking about moms on welfare, not black moms.

I know, I brought up black moms because black moms are the group in the USA with the highest rate of births while single. They're also represented in the lowest income bracket. If being poor leads to fewer children, as you claimed, this would not be the case, would it? It's a very simple, easy to follow example, pedanticism is not required.

"	Again, those are nations that (mostly) lack the kind of welfare state we’re discussing.

Third world countries have higher birth rates than the west because of lack of welfare? I thought you said earlier that lack of child welfare explains why single parents have lower household incomes? Try to be consistent please, it's quite bizarre. Anyway, here's how it works in a very simple, common sense way. People with fuck all in desperate situations tend to have more children because they have other things on their minds other than safe sex. They're more likely to escape life with drugs and booze, more likely to turn to crime to make ends meet and more likely to live recklessly. I've been broke and lived in ghetto areas for years, you see a lot of unattended kids and drug addicts who don't give a fuck. It's horrible, but that's life innit, people who don't live responsible lives do stupid things, so you'll see a very explicable correlation between irresponsibility and having fuck all. When in 3rd world countries, the poverty and terrible conditions are even worse and more widespread. Yet birth rates skyrocket. You claimed poorer families have fewer children, I'm simply showing that isn't true.

"	AFAIK, there’s no system where professors aren’t the only ones allowed to vote. But I’d kind of prefer it to a system run by hedge fund managers.

Err, yes, but under socialism one party rules, so voting becomes obsolete. Remember, Marx, Engels, Lenin etc considered governments to be bourgeoise inventions, to be done away with. You can't fucking vote AT ALL. But the theory and philosophy for this bullshit comes from academics who think they're wise enough to make prescriptions for society the way a doctor prescribes painkillers. The result is hell on earth. Hello Venezuela.

I've never argued for 100% free market. All I've said is socialism is bullshit, and it is.

The western world is represented by free market capitalism, it doesn't guarantee success and it's not 100% free, but that isn't anything I've claimed. It is a fact that our countries are the wealthiest in human history and we have qualitatively better lives than at any other point in history too. Compare that to the utter failure of every communist/socialist country ever and it's a very clear indictment that only an intellectual could be stupid enough to miss.

otterguy

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Feel better?

"Anyway, my definition of socialism is the one I provided. Marx and Engels codified the socialist philosophy"
Your definition is wrong. If that were true, socialism would just be called Marxism. One can agree with Marx's axiology but not, say, historical determinism.

"[single parenthood] is not inherently bad as a concept but it is inherently bad in the wider social context"
That’s not what “inherently” means.

"government statistics. Google them, there arent multiple US governments are there?"
There are. We got states, counties, territories, and multiple agencies on the fed level.

"I can't be arsed doing your searching for you"
As an overrated but witty socialist said: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

"household income is mainly impacted by occupation and number of adults contributing to said income, along with number of children"
Mainly yes, but not totally. Almost all income is included, not just wages. There are exceptions like SNAP, but even then some agencies count that income. And most of the factors I listed negatively affect wages.

The number of kids isn't part of the household income calculation.

"Wealth inequality is a weird thing to include as an explanation, since it describes the relative income inequalities across households"
The more unequal a society is, the less wealth most households have.

"Check the work of Christina Hoff Sommers [...]. Or any decent economist."
Sommers is not an economist. She works for the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing group funded by rich employers. Most women economists agree that there is a wage gap created by gender bias. goo.gl/zwUsd3

"Stigma against single mothers keeps incomes lower? Er, yeah, better show how that works, mate."
To clarify, do you want me to show you that it exists or why it exists?

"Individuals are racist, the country isn't."
And individuals are part of a country. Thus, when enough individuals have biases, those biases are systemic. Way too many examples, but here's one about a job many single moms have: goo.gl/zwUsd3

"I'm sick of this systemic racism shit, nobody ever shows any specific laws to back it up,"
That’s not what systemic means.

"Some kids are better off without one of the parents because of how bad they are, but we're talking about society as a whole."
And society as a whole is better off with less shitty care-givers. After all, the violent crime rate has been falling for a while now.

"None of the factors you brought up earlier explain anything and especially cannot account for why income differences are so wide between households with two adults and those with one"
Again, child support is income. That takes care of a big chunk of the difference.

"I brought up black moms because black moms are the group in the USA with the highest rate of births while single."
Maybe redheads also have a high rate of single parenthood, but you should still look at non-redheads.

"If being poor leads to fewer children, as you claimed"
I didn't.

"Third world countries have higher birth rates than the west because of lack of welfare?"
If you can't get birth control...

"I thought you said earlier that lack of child welfare explains why single parents have lower household incomes?"
I didn't.

"Welfare state" means more than benefit payments.

otterguy

7 years, 5 months ago

link

"Anyway, here's how it works in a very simple, common sense way."
I'm always get a twitch in my eye when I hear the words "common sense". Physics doesn't follow common sense, so why should society? Hell, we're on a site where people jerk off to underage cartoon animals. Does that make common sense?

"People with fuck all in desperate situations tend to have more children..."
So let’s fix those desperate situations.

"I've been broke and lived in ghetto areas for years"
As we all know, personal experience is a bad way to determine truth.

"you see a lot of unattended kids"
In my day, we called that "playing".

Personal responsibility is important, but do kids really have a choice in that? Are you going to not give kids food and medical care because of their parents?

"It's horrible, but that's life innit"
There are places where poverty is WAY lower.

"you'll see a very explicable correlation between irresponsibility and having fuck all"
By looking out from your window?

"Hello Venezuela."
Goodbye Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Czechia, Germany (arguably), Trinidad, and Uruguay, I guess. They all have socialist parties in power and are in above average shape.
goo.gl/xAhEtv
goo.gl/PwerUj

"I've never argued for 100% free market."
Your cartoon mentions "Authority regulates property + economics" as a stepping stone

"our countries are the wealthiest in human history and we have qualitatively better lives"
There's room for improvement, especially for those in poverty, who have not gained as much because of wealth inequality. Hell, some groups have a LOWER life expectancy.

"only an intellectual could be stupid enough to miss"
Economists aren't intellectuals?

Spacenini

7 years, 5 months ago

link

It's not often that i can think about the system on inkbunny. It's not really a turn on but I think it is a good thing, continue =)

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

@ Spacenini

Haha yeah, it's not sexy XP. I draw a lot of porn too, though!

CapraKID

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Socialism has issues. All economic systems do! However, I could make my own little flowchart (with or without a "cute little furry dude" which like, I get it, this is a furry art site etc, but I found the overall application of it really, painfully condescending, and I'd almost qualify it as an attempt to goad the opposing side into biting back) with simplified little bullet points about Capitalism. Both of these systems have been adopted, as well as distorted. The issue in these systems is often not the systems themselves--not entirely, at least--and more or less corruption. Power trips/abuse of power. That sort of thing. Human nature.

All it takes is one sociopath or generally shitty person to break an egalitarian system. They step on someone else's back to get higher than everyone else, and any like-minded person in the crowd who just saw this person do that decides "Well, shit! It worked for them!!"

But it's obscenely difficult to debate morality, isn't it? It's much easier in situations like this to just say "socialism is an evil virus of satan!" Why? Is it the change? A comfortable spot in capitalism as it stands, in its current iteration? (This puts you in the minority) Is it because you've seen the alternatives to capitalism done poorly? Americans are watching capitalism itself done poorly, so I don't think that holds water.

Maybe it would be more constructive to think about how one could fix socialism as you've described it? What would you do differently, if you were in charge of a socialist system? Do you think capitalism needs fixing? You're quick to staunchly defend it, so am I right to assume you don't? Do you live in the US, or the UK? That makes a pretty god damn big difference.

I sit somewhere in the middle of a lot of these arguments. I think the distribution of wealth in our economy is royally fucked, but do I think a sound alternative is "Everyone makes the same amount?" No! However, I do think the current system, ESPECIALLY in my home country, needs a fair bit of tweaking and balancing. The root of the problem is not Capitalism itself, but rather, how it was misused to become the mess it is today in the US. Similarly, you could say the same of Socialism. The problem isn't the system itself, but the ways it can be exploited, and the people who have infamously exploited it to become what we most commonly know as communism.

Treat the illness, not the symptoms. Corporatism and communism are merely symptoms of greed and corruption in a government.

I apologize if this seems to go in too many different directions - I walked away like, ten times while writing this. To be clear, I'm referring to socialism and capitalism in regards to being used as economic models, rather than entire societal/governmental models. Socialism in it's purest form is another animal entirely, and--like many societal systems that lack a government--could not function properly in the modern world as we know it.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 5 months ago by Owner

The problem with putting capitalism alongside socialism is that capitalism is not an 'ism' at all. Socialism is a utopian political philosophy, it has a manifesto, a rationale and a goal, all deeply elaborated by its creators. Capitalism is a word coined by someone who hated it, it simply stands for a free market and doesn't come with all the baggage that socialism does. Of course all systems are flawed, as they must be, being generated by human beings. Corruption is always a factor but socialism is revolting in its central premises and assumptions. The free market is a system that results as a consequence of people making transactions, it isn't a philosophical system to be imposed from without, which is its greatest advantage and also the source of its abuses. We can do something in terms of a few checks and balances against abuse of the market but even doing that is extremely risky. Socialism, instead, intends upon the complete upheaval of society to be utterly reformed along ideological lines. Western culture has evolved over literally thousands of years, the most stable and lasting parts of human culture have been carried over, one generation to another, for those thousands of years alongside the interpretation and improvement added by each successive generation. Socialism is a complete denial of all of our structure in the name of complete cultural and economic revolution, brewed in the minds of a few intellectuals, themselves part of the very same bourgeois class they aimed to destroy. You cannot, cannot, cannot possess the wisdom to overturn societies that have evolved over centuries of human endeavour and experience. That disgusting degree of arrogance gets people killed, as we have seen over and over again. Socialism may well have some positive philosophical consequences and in the academic study of history, such as taking account of the economic factors that play a part in driving society, also as a warning of mans hubris. We also take notice of suffering and poverty in a way far more focused as a result of social sciences, deriving from Marxism. As an economic and political theory, however, socialism needs to die.

It is vitally important that socialists actually study the original work and how it played out in real life when applied. Hundreds of millions have died and the fact that people are so fucking arrogant as to know that the only reason it did so much damage is because it wasn't done properly is reprehensible. In other words "were I in charge it would go properly". No, it's done, over, not respectable. We don't fucking respect national socialism and fascism anymore, do we? We shouldn't be respecting socialism either, it did the exact same thing, only worse. Thank god people recognised how dangerous fascism was in time to fight and destroy it but the tragedy is they didn't in time to stop socialism. It is so, so important to understand that when you remark that "these systems would be great if it wasn't for corruption" what you're saying in real terms is that if only human beings were not human, this shit would work. Well despite what social constructionist simpletons would have people believe, human nature is not a malleable commodity that is entirely constructed, we are not born blank slates and we cannot be engineered into a so-called perfect system. It is the height of evil and tyranny to even attempt it. Being broke and out of work is nothing in comparison to the consequences of socialism. Look up "holodomor". The majority of people in the west are working, healthy people who are doing fine, far better than anywhere else on earth. To risk that based on ones philosophical whims is disgraceful, and I mean genuinely evil, I'm not being facetious or exaggerating.

CapraKID

7 years, 5 months ago

link

I can freely admit the depth of my knowledge on Socialism is merely the system that led to communism throughout history, as well as smaller hybrid systems, like Sweden's Social Democratic party. I do see, in a brief amount of independent research, the somewhat more morally reprehensible variants and concepts of socialism at large. However, like many things, it's the tree of many smaller branches, rather than a summary of the contents of every single branch.

I feel an apt comparison that relates to me is how my religion, Satanism, is often misrepresented because there are some less than socially acceptable variants and branches of Satanism. Ergo, LaVeyan satanism cites manipulative behavior as "magic" therefore ALL satanists, laveyan or otherwise, are manipulative people. Alternatively, Satanism deeper in history being devil-worship and occult - therefore, all modern satanists perform sacrificial rituals, etc.

Nevertheless, I don't want to defend Socialism in all its forms to my grave. Really, the rise of Socialist ideals in the west has only surfaced because of how our own systems are failing us in more ways lately. People will leap from a sinking ship into dark, murky waters, where they can't see what's beneath them anymore. Were they to stay on the sinking ship?

"We can do something in terms of a few checks and balances against abuse of the market but even doing that is extremely risky."
- I have to respond to this in particular because its the only point you directly addressed my issues with capitalism. All I have to say is that you left this very open, vague, and without suggestion or resolution, before closing it yourself with the notion of it being vaguely risky. What's risky? How? What's being risked? Why?

I can completely understand your feelings on socialism in many of its forms, but I'd like you to understand why so many people are ready to leap from the dumpster fire that is US's capitalist economy and find themselves looking toward something that seems so diametrically opposite on the surface.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

It's risky because every policy has unintended effects. I stick to logical, easy to understand arguments whenever I can so let me put it like this. Everything that changes has an effect on other things, so if we raise the price of bread, for example, that raises the price of all products associated with bread, including its ingredients, which seems elementary. However, because the economy is so complex a thing, something seemingly so innocuous as altering the price of bread has a huge scope of unknown potential effects. Nobody knew when implementing child welfare checks that it would lead to 3 times higher rates of single parenthood, because at the time people were just trying to help single mothers with their children. The higher rate of single parenthood means more kids come from households with only one income, so from the start you've got an inflated number of people with dogshit incomes. The vast majority (at least 70%) of prison inmates are from single parent households. There are hugely increased risks of delinquency, death, drug use, teenage pregnancy, failing school just by having only one parent. So a scheme designed to help people has actually destroyed literally millions of American lives. THAT is how it's fucking risky. If you piss about with something like the economy, upon which we all depend for our survival, the potential risks are limitless and the probability of entirely unanticipated and unintended effects is a practical certainty. I won't deny that our current cultures have serious problems, that there is corruption and harm that could be prevented, anyone can make that case and I'll happily accept it. However, just because there are problems does not mean socialism is to be turned to for answers. Every time socialism has been applied to society it has led to disaster and I don't just mean unemployment and relative poverty. I naturally understand why people are turned off by capitalism and the free market, but I also understand that when someone sees it as a dumpster fire, they are not being realistic or fair.

When societies don't work, tens of millions of people die just of starvation. Point to that happening in Europe or USA, or anything even approaching that. It is extremely important that we pay attention to things that are going wrong, but it is just as important to take a step back now and then and be bloody appreciative of what we have.

CapraKID

7 years, 5 months ago

link

"but I also understand that when someone sees it as a dumpster fire, they are not being realistic or fair... ...When societies don't work, tens of millions of people die just of starvation. Point to that happening in Europe or USA, or anything even approaching that."
I'm sorry but this, to me, is just a slippery slope or a red herring. You can strive to be simply "good enough" when you're parking a car, making your bed, or folding your clothes, but I don't think it's productive to accept that a society is working fine simply because it isn't dying out rapidly. Even considering anything outside of starvation, there are many signs of a damaged or failing society. Crime, civil unrest, imbalance of wealth, unintended people in places of power, poverty, unemployment, decline in average mental health, erasure of a middle class, hate crimes, the list goes on!

HOWEVER. I sense I've lost sight of the original argument (Socialism - which I misinterpreted regardless) and you've already stated you're not exactly in love with the state of our society either, which means I'm preaching to the choir in that regard.

In regards to Socialism: I wouldn't call myself a Socialist by any reasonable stretch. Small scale, sure, a small remote town could sustain on something like socialism, if not only temporarily, but applied to any large population, it just doesn't work. HOWEVER, governments, or smaller groups adopting what some might consider a few socialist ideals (if nothing else, something like "hey lets not have such a massive gap between the rich and the poor") isn't a cut-and-dry guarantee it all rolls down the hill and becomes authoritarian communism. It's less that we need everyone living the same life, making the same wage, and more that our economy in its current state puts the needs of the few (the VERY SELECT few at that) FAR above the needs of many. How do we go about it? Fuck if I know, but I know something has to change, sooner rather than later (preferably before I die maybe?)

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

No its objective. The standard for a broken society is civil war, widespread famine etc. If a broken society is the USA, what the bloody hell do you call Syria? Broken XXXL? Again, perspective is important, which is why we have the western world being constantly denigrated in our own mainstream culture, meanwhile every bloody person from outside it who immigrates wants to come to us. Its a bad joke and I'm sick to death of it.

CapraKID

7 years, 5 months ago

link

You're seeing this in a way that is unproductively black and white, in my eyes. This is tantamount to working 2+ jobs, running a rut as a soulless husk of a person, but have complaints slapped back with "be grateful you have a job!! Some people don't have jobs!!" Or maybe, the food you've been served is fucking disgusting. "There are starving children in Africa!!" That's not the point, Susan. Some people in my ballpark work OBJECTIVELY very little compared to me, and earn at least 4x my wage. There are people who can eat what they want, how they want, when they want. Just because someone else has it worse doesn't mean your OWN issues are invalid. You keep bringing up perspective, when you're ignoring the perspective of the people that are unhappy with the state of things. I don't even think I implied in any way that the US, the UK, the EU, etc, was COMPLETELY BROKEN!! WORSE THAN SYRIA!! ARMAGEDDON!! I specifically used terms like "damaged" and "failing." To clarify--If you call the USA a damaged or failing society, then you'd call something like Syria a society that has already failed, and has broken completely. However, I don't see why we should have to wait until we get to that point to assert a desire for change.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 5 months ago by Owner

I'm not trying to get at that, I'm not saying people in the USA don't suffer lol. Its not a failing society either, the vast majority are doing fine, far better than anywhere outside the west. As I said, I'm sick of the constant prevailing attitude that the west is an imperialist, thieving sack of shit. That doesn't suddenly mean its perfect either, does it. Additionally I want to make it completely clear that whatever the west is marred by, socialism isn't the answer. I'm not saying anything about you personally lol. But I am determined enough to ram this point home that I'll gladly have several simultaneous debates in this comments section XP. Forgive me if I don't make myself clear, it's been rather a lot to keep track of. Wanting to keep just a little bit of socialism around in small areas is like wanting to keep a little bit of rape around, but just rapey villages or something.

CapraKID

7 years, 5 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 5 months ago by Owner

Aye, I have ADHD. So, medicated or not, I have trouble being clear and concise at times. End of the day, I think what goaded me on was like... in my experience, (edited for emphasis, as in, some people like to misinterpret the use of blanket statements) people who are extremely anti-socialism (Marxism being the most extreme left possible, which even a left-leaning middle like myself can't get behind) tend to be very pro-corporate, and honestly believe the whole "self-made-man" spiel rich CEO-types like to toss about. I'd identify more as Egalitarian than Socialist, in that I'm more about equal rights and opportunity, rather than economic parity and removal of social classes. In all things I'm a very strong believer in balance, or push-pull sorta things. How would one know a great day if they never had a bad one, etc. I find our country is--if not broken or failing--DEFINITELY unbalanced. There's far more push than pull, if you catch my drift. I myself don't think socialism is balanced either, for obvious reasons. That's a much more arbitrary faux balance. I would be less pissy about how this country is running if I didn't know for a fact that in the past, getting a job and education, to get a career, to get your own place to live, wasn't such a pipe dream reserved for the social elite like it seems to be today. I do believe in a free market where people are paid their worth. Problem is, a lot of people around here are paid either a LOT more or a LOT less than they're worth, or conversely, it feels like their worth is decided by the wrong factors. It just feels unnecessary. It isn't something we can change as a country overnight, nor something socialism would fix, but it IS something we need to change.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 5 months ago

link