Socialism IS human nature

[Toogoodman]

Relative disadvantage is still disadvantage. It's as inane as saying people shouldn't complain about poverty in the US because Africa.

Most "poverty" in the US comes with an iPhone 7, 55" tv, laptop, section 8 housing, food stamps, and full ride scholarships to college. People who complain about that, really should look at "absolute poverty" in other countries. Now, homeless veterans, that's a real problem in the US.

[zenkai]

Not only do you have literally no way of knowing that, you're now moving the goalposts solely to exclude all the evidence that clearly contradicts your earlier claim.

not moving the goal post, just trying to spell out the point you obviously missed. Fact remains, if most of you had to rely on hard work to survive you would all starve, you sure wouldn't have time to post on here all day and night.

[Elegiac]

Most "poverty" in the US comes with an iPhone 7, 55" tv, laptop, section 8 housing, food stamps, and full ride scholarships to college. People who complain about that, really should look at "absolute poverty" in other countries. Now, homeless veterans, that's a real problem in the US.

Clearly you failed to notice the part where I called such a comparison "inane".

Relative poverty is still poverty.

[Mittens]

You must be joking. You obviously do not know much about Adam Smith, economics or the free market. The entire book has held true. There was monetary economies back when the book was written and there are monetary economies now. They change nothing. Economics has not changed in the last 50,000 years and it can never change. The only people who try to point out differences are fools who don't understand it. If you care to explain how monetary economies are different now go ahead, your going to get owned!

- - - Updated - - -



WRONG! It applies to individuals its outcomes result in species. You are really struggling in this thread.

Stupid. There are plenty of examples that do not follow Adam Smith. Inkas for example, completely trash the individual in favor of kinships.

[Thunderi]

Can't wait till time machines become a thing so these people can go back to their motherland.

[Ishayu]

Oh, no. Go on, tell me how the collective ownership of the means of production directly killed 200 million people.

Don't refer to political totalitarianism and its action; that's a separate issue and even if you wanted to make the claim that such derives from socialist principles (it doesn't), that would be indirect, not direct.

Collective ownership is basically "ownership by the people" - so all you have to do is declare the state to be controlled by the people by slapping "Democratic" in front of the state's name and suddenly you've got an organisation that doesn't have to respect people's right to own the means of production. Now, workers are themselves a means of production, so now the state, effectively, owns every single person alive, and as a result can do with you whatever it wants. You have no rights to your body, your labour, or your property. Everything you produce can be taken from you until you starve to death.

Which is exactly what happens. Every time.

And before you say "but it's democratic, so it's fine" - democracy is just a refined form of mob rule. You need rules that limit what the democracy can do in order to create a succesful democracy. You need a constitution. The most succesful ones are republics or the north European monarchies.

The system itself is set up in such a way that there is no way to hold tyrants accountable, hence tyrants inevitably arise.

Tell me - how many times does it have to happen? How many times is it not going to be real socialism? Dozens? Hundreds? At what point is the human life lost to the attempt to execute this ideology too much for you? Tell me!

[Shibito]

human nature is what is demented.

selfish, wretched behavior. socialism is rightness, it's making sure everyone can live.

Socialism might work on the drawing but it always leads to misery and human death latest is venezuela and dont say hurr durr its not real socialism yes it is real socialism but humans cant work with it.

[Deleted]

Sure if by socialism you mean killing other tribes to get there resouces, then yeah we've been socialist since caveman times.

There was that whole 3-4000 year period where we were ruled by Kings and Queens and seemed to do alright, but yeah socialism.

[Deleted]

Most "poverty" in the US comes with an iPhone 7, 55" tv, laptop, section 8 housing, food stamps, and full ride scholarships to college. People who complain about that, really should look at "absolute poverty" in other countries. Now, homeless veterans, that's a real problem in the US.

so poverty is fine unless it affects former useful idiots ?

[Deleted]

Last time I checked, cavemen didn't speculate on the market value of silex...

"Socialism! The caveman's choice!"




Realistically food supply was a tad better in your average cave than in - let's say - Venezuela, but close enough.

[Authary]

Wait, your proof that antifa France gets stuff done is "mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell"
You gotta be fucking kidding me.

It pains me to defend Kurata but antifa France actually gets stuff done. For example, when I was a student, they sent a couple of my costudents to the hospital for some reason.

That's stuff.

[Noomz]

Oh please. Don't pull this hypothetical b.s on me. There's a million situations you can throw. But it still doesn't justify your garbage point. You're projecting yourself, and whether or not it's sincere.
A starving man sits on a corner, however he's surrounded by booze or suffering a drug addiction with the money given. A man who abuses people's sympathies doesn't deserve my money or my food. Again, I'm more concerned on my direct people, not the world around me. Point your finger, but you're only accusing me of being something evil. when you're the same. Those dirty capitalists, those dirty Ayn rand followers. (When I don't know who the fuck that is.)

If that's how you view someone with an addiction, no hope and no life worth living for, then you indeed have no sympathy. Though I can't help but wonder how many "handouts" and charity you've recieved in your life, how many times someone elses sympathy has aided you.

You have a limited viewpoint. But that's how it is. Some times you gotta focus on your own and you don't have the energy, time or money to be charitable. But you seem to hate those in need. Kurata is not incorrect in saying that personally experiencing misery normally creates a charitable, helpful or understanding personality. Though I suppose there are those that react the opposite and aggressively cling to things instead, desperate not to lose anything. Until they need someone elses help and cry out for it, then suddenly sympathy is important.

[Endus]

Collective ownership is basically "ownership by the people" - so all you have to do is declare the state to be controlled by the people by slapping "Democratic" in front of the state's name and suddenly you've got an organisation that doesn't have to respect people's right to own the means of production. Now, workers are themselves a means of production, so now the state, effectively, owns every single person alive, and as a result can do with you whatever it wants. You have no rights to your body, your labour, or your property. Everything you produce can be taken from you until you starve to death.

Which is exactly what happens. Every time.

Everything past the first clause is complete hokum and nonsense, and does not in any way reflect reality.

Tell me - how many times does it have to happen? How many times is it not going to be real socialism? Dozens? Hundreds? At what point is the human life lost to the attempt to execute this ideology too much for you? Tell me!

All the wild successes of socialist theory mean I don't really care about the few that dabbled in totalitarian politics. Since the one common trend with the horrors under those regimes is the totalitarian politics, and not the socialist principles that are shared by a great many other nations that do not see such horrors, I'm pretty damned comfortable pointing out that it wasn't socialism that was the problem in those cases. It was totalitarianism.

Which does not derive from socialism. As you can see by the many non-totalitarian countries with socialist principles.

[ghotihook]

It pains me to defend Kurata but antifa France actually gets stuff done. For example, when I was a student, they sent a couple of my costudents to the hospital for some reason.

That's stuff.

I am sorry. I will officially retract all my statements. I have been proven wrong.

[Mittens]

Socialists should deffo denounce central planning, it's stupid to think that concentrating the control of the economy in the hands of the few will lead to positive results.

[Endus]

Socialism might work on the drawing but it always leads to misery and human death latest is venezuela and dont say hurr durr its not real socialism yes it is real socialism but humans cant work with it.

Nobody's saying Venezuela isn't "real socialism". We point out that their issues do not derive from socialist principles themselves, and that there are myriad other form of socialism which don't share those problems, so blaming "socialism" for issues in Venezuela is just completely ridiculous.

If you're looking for a country that represents "socialism" as a whole, then you don't have any comprehension as to what socialist theory is, because what you've described is literally impossible.

[Toogoodman]

Clearly you failed to notice the part where I called such a comparison "inane".

Relative poverty is still poverty.

I really do get confused by this part of the argument, where there is a top, there is a bottom, always. There will never be a society, capitalistic, socialist, or communist, where some people have more than others, that's just life. There will always be relative poverty, someone will always have less than another, it just takes on different forms. No matter what you do, someone will live off the bare minimum, and others will try for greatness, in communism, working the fields will be a shittier job than being in a officer building, which will be shittier than being supreme leader. There is always relative poverty, thats why its "relative".

[Ishayu]

Everything past the first clause is complete hokum and nonsense, and does not in any way reflect reality.

Neither does your viewpoint, as you go on to admit right here:

All the wild successes of socialist theory mean I don't really care about the few that dabbled in totalitarian politics. Since the one common trend with the horrors under those regimes is the totalitarian politics, and not the socialist principles that are shared by a great many other nations that do not see such horrors, I'm pretty damned comfortable pointing out that it wasn't socialism that was the problem in those cases. It was totalitarianism.

Which does not derive from socialism. As you can see by the many non-totalitarian countries with socialist principles.

These theories have NEVER, not even ONCE, worked in practice. There is no point in history where reality has aligned with your theory. Reality has aligned with what I posted every time and you know it. You don't care about reality when it suits you, but when it comes to dismissing my point of view, suddenly reality is super important.

I don't even have to debunk you. You're debunking yourself.

But, since we're at it, I'd be really interested to know which part of it is complete nonsense. Go on, specify exactly why it's so wrong instead of just dismissing it. Challenge yourself - you can do it!

[Mittens]

Clearly you failed to notice the part where I called such a comparison "inane".

Relative poverty is still poverty.

"Let them eat iPhones"

[Cæli]

it doesn't mean anything

what matters is if we all agree to preserve the human race and our heritage, which most of us will agree on

then we set up rules to reach that aim, socialism and capitalism have nothing to do with this

human nature is to survive, and we are prone to our old instincts that could feel inhuman but here it is, we set up rules to follow in order for us to achieve our aim of progression (which means surviving)

should respect be part of those rules ? yes, and we're leaning toward that

there is only one way to evolution, and cooperation is part of it, so socialism or capitalism are primary concepts too simple to be worth talking about, what matters is setting up rules in favor of preserving humanity, there's no choice, or multiple solutions, only one

part of socialism is good, part of capitalism is good, some other aspects are bad, tldr those 2 concepts doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things