Why The Left Loves Socialism

[bt404]

There's too much I disagree with here. You say capitalism is the most humane, empathetic and least selfish system? Says who? What proof do you have of this and on what grounds can you make that value judgement?

On the basis that a free market capitalist system is completely voluntary and mutual. No one is forced to participate, every transaction is voluntary, price is determined by laws of supply and demand as well as free market competition. A typical free market transaction goes like this: I have something you want more than the money in your pocket. I want the money in your pocket more than what I have. We mutually agree to an exchange and free market capitalism happens. We both got what we wanted, so how is that unfair? How is that selfish? If I am there with something you want and you're there with something I want, how is that not empathetic?

I"m going to disregard your tedious value judgement of my "low confidence to compete"...

It's obvious you're going to disregard it. People generally don't like to hear what's wrong with them. I will tell you, I have no intention of debating War and Peace every time you post. You've made your point, you disagree with the OP.

I fail to see how my examples were "hand picked", as it's clear that you've demonstrated way more "hand picking" than I did and do, considering how most of your argument rests on the fantasy that most rich people got where they are because they worked their way up from "nothing."

No, that is actually a fact. Only 33% of wealth is inherited. Two-thirds is created from people who come from moderate or low income childhoods.

"Before free market capitalism, wealth was mostly the result of confiscation by kings and rulers." That sounds exactly like what happened in the financial crisis.

Except that is not what happened. The financial and housing crisis was the result of corporatism. Big government collusion with crony corporatists to leverage advantages over the competition. This is NOT free market capitalism.

Overall, you say you believe in capitalism as opposed to corporatism which makes your entire argument a little clearer. But I have to disagree with you on the relative distinctions between the two. A "pure" capitalist system would inevitably lead to corporatism.

We've already discussed how "purity" is a non sequitur. I've already illustrated the difference and distinction between corporatism and free market capitalism. I see no point in continuing to repeat myself in this conversation. It doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of the thread anyway. We're discussing why some people are attracted to Socialism while others aren't.

It's obvious to me that you are going to continue to deny the underlying reasons I pointed out in the OP and lobby for why it's "okay" for you to support your views.

Well, a government that provides healthcare and quality education doesn't seem to me to be overreaching its bounds and is, in fact, perfectly capable of going those lengths without "infringing" anyone's freedom. In fact, I argue that it would create more freedom because there would be a greater population who didn't have to worry about finding education and healthcare and instead focus on working, "competing", or doing whatever else they think fulfills them.

No, any time you grant government more power and authority it comes at the expense of your freedom.

...a greater population who didn't have to worry about...

Again, dovetailing nicely with the point in the OP. You lack confidence in your ability to compete, therefore, you embrace Socialism as a means to make your path easier... so you don't have to "worry" about things. If you had confidence, you wouldn't be worried.

On the basis that a free market capitalist system is completely voluntary and mutual. No one is forced to participate, every transaction is voluntary, price is determined by laws of supply and demand as well as free market competition. A typical free market transaction goes like this: I have something you want more than the money in your pocket. I want the money in your pocket more than what I have. We mutually agree to an exchange and free market capitalism happens. We both got what we wanted, so how is that unfair? How is that selfish? If I am there with something you want and you're there with something I want, how is that not empathetic?

Once again, you fail to provide any real life or historic examples as to how capitalism is the most humane empathetic system. You simply paint a nice picture of a Capitalist utopia. In Chile during the Pinochet regime for example, "free market" was implemented, with the direct endorsement of the United States business community, to open up the natural resource industry to direct foreign investment. Pinochet and the other Chilean oligarchs, many of whom were trained by Milton Friedman and others in Chicago, decided to open up their national industries to "foreign trade", meaning that 3rd world farming industries in Rural Chile would have to compete with farming corporations in the United States which led to disastrous humanitiarian results. Namely, the complete allocation of national wealth to a small sector of the business community.

Furthermore, complete free market capitalism is ahistorical. As I've repeated above, and which you've completely failed to address, the United States gained its wealth, and its economic power, through government intervention programs, not free market capitalism in your sense. If you can't face this simple historic fact, then you either are deliberately neglecting these facts or you fail to understand it.'

No, that is actually a fact. Only 33% of wealth is inherited. Two-thirds is created from people who come from moderate or low income childhoods.

Wrong. According to a study conducted by the United for Fair Economy group, 22 percent of those on the Forbes list of billionaires came from comfortable (but not rich background) and might have received start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.

Eleven percent came from families which they inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.

Seven percent were born inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. T

21 percent were born inheriting enough money to make the billionaire list.

The financial and housing crisis was the result of corporatism. Big government collusion with crony corporatists to leverage advantages over the competition. This is NOT free market capitalism.

What's your definition of corporatism? In other posts, I see you going on rants about the merits of CEOs, yet CEOs play a vital role in corporatism.

We've already discussed how "purity" is a non sequitur. I've already illustrated the difference and distinction between corporatism and free market capitalism. I see no point in continuing to repeat myself in this conversation. It doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of the thread anyway. We're discussing why some people are attracted to Socialism while others aren't.

No you haven't illustrated anything. You've just been evasive. You neglected the fact that a system of wealth hoarding inevitably allocates power to a select few individuals thus disenfranchising the majority of the population from deciding policy. You neglected the fact that wealth inequality is increasing,as well as childhood poverty, and is continuing to increase, brushing it off as if it wasn't "your problem" and that those who point it out are simply revealing their own inadequacies or lack of self confidence.

If you truly believe in a complete capitalist system devoid of socialist policies to complement it, then you are not for freedom and democracy. I've already discussed the reasons why this i so and you've evaded it choosing to revert, like a lot of your fellow conservatives on this board, to name calling and ad hominem.

We both discussed that there is no pure system. So I again ask you why you then champion for a strict capitalist system if you know just as well as I do that there can be no such thing.

It's obvious to me that you are going to continue to deny the underlying reasons I pointed out in the OP and lobby for why it's "okay" for you to support your views.

Since this is a free country, it's completely "okay" that I hold my views. Especially since you haven't, in any way, disproven them or proved them to be detrimental to civilization.

Any time you grant government more power and authority it comes at the expense of your freedom.

This again supports my suspicion that you are not really for democracy since most of the population thinks there should be a form of universal healthcare (Healthcare System)
You, and others like you, say you are for freedom and democracy yet you refuse to listen to the a very large portion of the population who believe the system is inherently broken. Perhaps if you weren't so blinded by abstract capital accumulation and the meaningless acquisition of power, you would take the suffering of those who are not as fortunate as you/have less than you at face value.

So once again, as I stated a few posts above, as history has shown, those in power continue to exploit those less fortunate than them (this extends way outside America also as U.S "trade" policies have enslaved a good deal of the third world population, which we can discuss in further detail if you care about "third worlders"), and then continue to pat themselves on the back for "working hard."

"This disposition to admire and almost worship the powerful and to despise, or at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions, is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments'-- Adam Smith.

 

[Boss]

Once again, you fail to provide any real life or historic examples as to how capitalism is the most humane empathetic system.

Other than me demonstrating it for you with a very simple to follow example?

meaning that 3rd world farming industries in Rural Chile would have to compete with farming corporations in the United States

You're confusing "free trade" with "free market" ...your example is NOT free market because there are two markets that are unequal. You can never have free market capitalism with two unequal markets... it doesn't work.

Wrong. According to a study conducted by the United for Fair Economy group...

And herein lies the problem with statistics and studies. I don't know who United for Fair Economy is but they sound like a special interest group designed to promote a Socialist narrative. In other words, you're using propaganda. My figure comes from Pew Research.

What's your definition of corporatism? In other posts, I see you going on rants about the merits of CEOs, yet CEOs play a vital role in corporatism.

CEOs have nothing to do with corporatism, it's two different things. Corporatism is when large corporations collude with all-powerful government to leverage an advantage over their competitors. Yes, corporations who are corporatists do have CEOs but all CEOs are not corporatist and all corporations are not corporatists.

You neglected the fact that wealth inequality is increasing...

No, I addressed that. Wealth inequality is the natural byproduct of free enterprise happening. Some people are more inclined, motivated and driven to make money and in a free society, they do. Because of this, and because some people are equally less inclined, motivated and driven, you have natural growing inequality of wealth. So this is a natural thing that happens in a free society where wealth is unlimited and people can freely attain as much as they desire. The only places you don't have a problem with growing wealth inequality is somewhere like North Korea where everyone is equally poor.

There isn't a "solution" because it's not a problem, it's a result. In order to somewhat mitigate the rate of widening, you should seek to motivate and encourage or empower those at the bottom, train them up to be better competitors. Hobbling those at the top is a futile gesture that only leads to poverty.

If you truly believe in a complete capitalist system devoid of socialist policies to complement it, then you are not for freedom and democracy.

I disagree.

So I again ask you why you then champion for a strict capitalist system if you know just as well as I do that there can be no such thing.

I haven't lobbied for a "strict capitalist system." I lobby for a free market capitalist system. A "system" includes parts. In a "free market" system, you have; 1) free market capitalism, 2) freedom of enterprise, 3) private property ownership and 4) a constitutional government. I never said it was a perfect or pure system but it is the best system man has ever devised and it should be our objective.

Perhaps if you weren't so blinded by abstract capital accumulation and the meaningless acquisition of power, you would take the suffering of those who are not as fortunate as you/have less than you at face value.

Again, thank you SO much for illustrating to us all once more what motivates the left to love Socialism so much. As the OP has pointed out and as you continue to demonstrate, it is the inherent lack of confidence in your ability to compete with others. Seeking a giant collective society where your inadequacies can be hidden and you can be assured of being cared for by those who compete better than you.

You're going to make every excuse in the book to stifle individual freedom and lobby for collectivism and statism... while proclaiming to be fighting for freedom and democracy.

 

[Boss]

You neglected the fact that a system of wealth hoarding inevitably allocates power to a select few individuals thus disenfranchising the majority of the population from deciding policy.

I don't comprehend this term "wealth hoarding" because wealth is not finite. That describes YOUR view, not mine. Wealth is created through invention, innovation, technology, art, talent, skill, labor, entrepreneurship, investment, etc. It's constantly being created every hour of every day, it never stops being created. It is infinite.

What purpose does wealth serve if it is "hoarded?" If I have billions of dollars and I never spend any of it, what am I gaining by that? Better yet, what are you losing by that? You've come up with an emotive term that doesn't really have a meaning. It makes you feel validated in supporting your Socialism... that's the only purpose for it.

Because you have this inherent lack of confidence in your ability to compete with others, you want to justify a "system" where we can steal the wealth from those who have competed better than you in life and then distribute this to those who are like you.

 

[bt404]

You neglected the fact that a system of wealth hoarding inevitably allocates power to a select few individuals thus disenfranchising the majority of the population from deciding policy.

I don't comprehend this term "wealth hoarding" because wealth is not finite. That describes YOUR view, not mine. Wealth is created through invention, innovation, technology, art, talent, skill, labor, entrepreneurship, investment, etc. It's constantly being created every hour of every day, it never stops being created. It is infinite.

What purpose does wealth serve if it is "hoarded?" If I have billions of dollars and I never spend any of it, what am I gaining by that? Better yet, what are you losing by that? You've come up with an emotive term that doesn't really have a meaning. It makes you feel validated in supporting your Socialism... that's the only purpose for it.

Because you have this inherent lack of confidence in your ability to compete with others, you want to justify a "system" where we can steal the wealth from those who have competed better than you in life and then distribute this to those who are like you.

You did not provide a single HISTORIC example of why you think capitalism is the most "human" system. You just explained the THEORY of capitalism, not how its been actually practiced (if it ever even did...)

Wealth inequality is dangerous because it limits democracy, for reasons I've stated again and again and again....the more wealth goes to a certain sector of the population, the more power goes to that sector of the population, thus disenfranchising the rest. That's why nobody wants to vote nowadays because they know that it's almost useless.

And for the hundredth time, I'm NOT for collective ownership of all ways of life.

The main thing here is that democracy WILL be hindered. You say you disagree. How? History seems to show otherwise.

I don't comprehend this term "wealth hoarding" because wealth is not finite. That describes YOUR view, not mine.

No shit it's my view. Hence why I said it lol

Wealth hoarding is accumulating capital for no other reason than to accumulate more capital. It does not create. Look at the biggest industry to come out of the United States right now. It isn't manufacturing or creating new products and ideas, it's banking....

In Dubai for instance, wealth is essentially hoarded. Oil magnates invest billions in useless skyscrapers that don't serve any material purpose other than to store financial capital. That's what wealth hoarding is. There's a reason why the United States is so infrastructurally backwards compared to all other OECD countries. We don't invest in INVENTIONS or IDEAS. We invest in more capital...Take a look at the period between the 1900s to the 1960s or so, we went from riding horses to flying airplanes and going to the moon. Now look at the period since the 1960s. The only invention we came up with was the internet and Iphone, mechanisms used for paperwork and information storing. Hardly inventive or creative....that's because RIGHT-WING neoliberal economic policies took shape which made it an imperative that, instead of using capital to create ideas, we amass capital to create MORE capital. Not that hard to understand.

Wealth is created through invention, innovation, technology, art, talent, skill, labor, entrepreneurship, investment, etc. It's constantly being created every hour of every day, it never stops being created. It is infinite.

Agreed. That's not what's happening right now.

What purpose does wealth serve if it is "hoarded?" If I have billions of dollars and I never spend any of it, what am I gaining by that?

And THIS is exactly what I've been trying to tell you over the past five pages....see, you get it!

Better yet, what are you losing by that? You've come up with an emotive term that doesn't really have a meaning. It makes you feel validated in supporting your Socialism... that's the only purpose for it.

I have no idea what you mean by this statement. Expand. There's nothing "emotive" about anything i've said. Frankly, that's more of an indication of what emotes you than me....

Because you have this inherent lack of confidence in your ability to compete with others, you want to justify a "system" where we can steal the wealth from those who have competed better than you in life and then distribute this to those who are like you

This is just getting funny now. This statement right here just proves that you have nothing else to back your arguments on, and probably shows that you yourself are lacking confidence in something (though I'm not sure exactly what since I don't know you personally) considering how repetitively, robotically, and desperately you seem to cling on this. Perhaps to make you feel validated in supporting your own selfishness?
Overall, you have no argument and, like most conservatives, resort to name calling when you get cornered. Also, if you don't believe in democracy, just say it and we'll be done with this debate.

 

[Boss]

You did not provide a single HISTORIC example of why you think capitalism is the most "human" system. You just explained the THEORY of capitalism, not how its been actually practiced (if it ever even did...)

No, I explained exactly how a typical free market transaction happens step-by-step. I don't comprehend this demand for a "historic example" because EVERY example is like the one I presented. It's like asking someone for a historical example of charity to prove it's benevolent. But you're trying to say that every free market transaction that has ever happened is a theory. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand that if I have something you want or need and I provide that to you for something you are willing to pay and I am willing to accept, is anything that isn't humane, fair, empathetic, etc. Mutual voluntary transaction is about as fair, humane and empathetic as it gets. It's 10 billion times MORE fair and humane than me coming to you with a gun and saying, "Give me your Money!" (which is basically what taxes are!)

Wealth inequality is dangerous because it limits democracy, for reasons I've stated again and again and again....the more wealth goes to a certain sector of the population, the more power goes to that sector of the population, thus disenfranchising the rest.

IF wealth were finite, this would be true... BUT.... WEALTH... IS... NOT... FINITE! What limits freedom is trying to turn "wealth inequality" into a "problem" as opposed to a natural result of free enterprise. I don't know where "democracy" slips in here... We're not a democracy, our founders feared democracy. If there is anything that is unfair and inhumane it is pure democracy because that's mob rule... You've got more bananas than anyone so we voted to beat the hell out of you and take your bananas! That's democracy in action.

Wealth hoarding is accumulating capital for no other reason than to accumulate more capital.

And I explained to you why this doesn't even comport with rationality. What fucking purpose does the wealth serve here? Wealth has no value unless it is used. I can make all the money in the world and just put it under my mattress... aside from making my bed more firm, what advantage am I gaining? What benefit am I getting from that? NONE! So what you are claiming doesn't even make rational sense.

Oil magnates invest billions in useless skyscrapers that don't serve any material purpose other than to store financial capital. That's what wealth hoarding is.

This is just ludicrous because it doesn't happen. People don't build skyscrapers to just sit there idle and do nothing. You mean, no one rents them or occupies them? And what is the beneficial purpose of this "storing capital" thing? Again... if I don't spend wealth it has no value. If you are the wealthiest person on the planet and you take every penny of your wealth and I dump you on a deserted island by yourself with it... what purpose does that wealth serve for you, other than to perhaps help you build a fire? You're making arguments which just don't make any sense. Nonsensical arguments designed to prop up your belief system!

Now look at the period since the 1960s. The only invention we came up with was the internet and Iphone....

This is just silly as well. Thousands upon thousands of things have been invented! I mean, really dude... if this is the kind of silliness we're now going to engage in, then I'm wasting my time here. You're obviously not capable of having a mature and reasonable conversation.

What purpose does wealth serve if it is "hoarded?" If I have billions of dollars and I never spend any of it, what am I gaining by that?

And THIS is exactly what I've been trying to tell you over the past five pages....see, you get it!

No, I certainly DON'T get it because it doesn't make rational sense. It's like claiming we have a problem with people holding their breath and not using the air. You're not explaining WHY someone would do this and WHAT BENEFIT they are gaining! It amounts to nothing more than an emotional plea to help you justify a false worldview. It's like me complaining my next door neighbor bought a new Dodge Charger and it just sits in his driveway.... he never drives it... he just goes out there and washes it every week. How is that hurting me or helping him? How does that prevent ME from buying a Charger and driving the hell out of it?

 

[there4eyeM]

'Socialist' countries, such as France or Israel for example, are 'socialist' because the people are concerned for people, and don't want a few to sufferer while the rest have everything. It has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with solidarity.

 

[Boss]

'Socialist' countries, such as France or Israel for example, are 'socialist' because the people are concerned for people, and don't want a few to sufferer while the rest have everything. It has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with solidarity.

Well first of all, Israel is not a Socialist country. Secondly, I have not argued anything about "fear" being the justification for your fascination with Socialism. You're right, it is about "solidarity" ...go read the OP again, if you even bothered to read it the first time.

Leftists cling to Socialism because they lack confidence in their ability to compete with others. By having the "solidarity" of a collective, it ensures your perceived inability to compete is compensated for. You unwittingly telegraph this in statements like "...a few to suffer while the rest have everything." In your mind, you can't compete and you assume others are like you and can't compete, because life has dealt you an unfair hand, others have more than you and it's not fair. You have convinced yourself (because of a lack of confidence) that the only thing which can make life fair is some kind of government intervention to take from those who have competed better than you. Enter Socialism.

This might be okay if Socialism actually worked. But what happens, time and time again, is Socialism stifles individual liberty and the sense of self-achievement. It kills the human spirit and makes individual effort meaningless. Why do I need to work harder and be more productive if there is no reward in that for me? If my hard work and efforts are only going to be confiscated, there is no point in trying. What you end up with is a society of victims who are unproductive and the collective fails to be able to support itself.

 

[there4eyeM]

"This is just getting funny now. This statement right here just proves that you have nothing else to back your arguments on, and probably shows that you yourself are lacking confidence in something (though I'm not sure exactly what since I don't know you personally) considering how repetitively, robotically, and desperately you seem to cling on this. Perhaps to make you feel validated in supporting your own selfishness?
Overall, you have no argument and, like most conservatives, resort to name calling when you get cornered. Also, if you don't believe in democracy, just say it and we'll be done with this debate."
Accurate summation.

 

[Boss]

"This is just getting funny now. This statement right here just proves that you have nothing else to back your arguments on, and probably shows that you yourself are lacking confidence in something (though I'm not sure exactly what since I don't know you personally) considering how repetitively, robotically, and desperately you seem to cling on this. Perhaps to make you feel validated in supporting your own selfishness?
Overall, you have no argument and, like most conservatives, resort to name calling when you get cornered. Also, if you don't believe in democracy, just say it and we'll be done with this debate."
Accurate summation.

So we now have TWO Socialists who can't really refute my observations and they've decided to team up and be codependents. This is how Socialist movements emerge. There is nothing accurate in the 'summation' as it amounts to "I know you are but what am I?" ...the Pee Wee Herman rebuttal.

 

[Boss]

and there4eyeM... It is noted that you couldn't respond to my rebuttal to your post and didn't even bother to try. That's okay, no need to bother now, you had the opportunity and you chose to throw some roses at a fellow Socialist instead.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So, in a sense, you're correct in saying that virtually all government have some socialist policies in some form or another. Hence, why I don't think "socialism" should be demonized in the way it is by those who still wallow in Red Scare paranoia.

Again, we have to remain consistent in context. You are calling things "socialist" that might have common attributes with socialism but that's not what we're discussing in a governing societal policy context. Enumerated in our Constitution are certain powers granted to government on behalf of the people... that's not Socialism in the context we are discussing. You can argue these are "socialistic" in nature, I have no argument against that but these things are agreed upon by civilized society and by the very nature of government itself.

This thread is not to demonize Socialism, it is to examine why some people tend to embrace socialist policy. I'll let Socialists debate the merits of their system in one of the thousand other threads here. Everyone knows how I feel about Socialism, everyone knows how you feel about it. To me, that's a pointless discussion.

Actually, I think self fulfillment works hand in hand with "societal progress." It all depends on what you mean by "self-fulfillment."

This is interesting. You think self-fulfillment works hand in hand but yet, you feel compelled to dictate what is and isn't acceptable fulfillment. See... I reject this. Self-fulfillment, by it's very definition is defined by self... not by you. We don't go by your arbitrary criteria. We're each individuals who are satisfied by different things. You don't get to determine what fulfills me and I don't get to decide what fulfills you.

But regardless of definition, most Americans are not working for "self fulfillment" right now. Most people are struggling just to pay rent/mortgage.

I would argue that your rent/mortgage is part of your own self-fulfillment. I may be content living in a van by the river.... you may not want to live in a van by the river. And guess what... people always struggle somewhere. This is the go-to argument for all Socialists and it fails because no amount of Socialism will ever end people struggling.

So healthcare is whimsical? Housing is whimsical? You presume that everyone starts off at the same starting line and that it's all a matter of who runs faster from there.

No, I think the idea of "basic needs" is whimsical. You can't define universal basic needs in terms of something that fits every individual because we all have different wants, needs and desires. And yes, in a free constitutional republic, everyone starts off at the same starting line. Some get an immediate advantage because of the work and effort of their parents. People are dealt all kinds of advantages as well as disadvantages throughout life and there is no way to make everything fair for everyone always.... just not something realistic in this universe. This is why it's often called Utopian.

If anything, ignoring child poverty would lead to another generation of impoverished adults who would most likely make those same mistakes. It's a cycle, you see? We can either swallow up our pride and try to end it or we can keep it going....

Well nothing you can ever do will end child poverty, mainly because children are (for the most part) incapable of earning wealth. So what you really mean is that we should somehow subsidize their parents, which is morally wrong because it enables their parents to continue making the same poor decisions which led them to impoverished lifestyles to begin with. And again, I will ask you, what did 17th century pioneers do about this? Surely, there were many children raised in poverty who grew up to be successful somehow. You see, the human spirit is strong. When people have the motivation to succeed and the freedom to do so, they often will succeed. Sometimes being raised in poverty is the single biggest motivator there is.

Also, you presume that I love socialism because I'm trying to excuse my "inability to compete", even though you know nothing about me. Resorting to the personal will get us nowhere.

I'm not trying to be personal, I just think that's the gist of why most people embrace socialism. When we cut to the chase, that's what it amounts to. You lack confidence in your ability to compete with others. And it's NOT your inability, it's your PERCEIVED inability. Every person is capable of achievement if they apply themselves. Some people don't believe they can, it's too hard, the deck is stacked against them, it's all society's fault so society needs to rectify this by providing your "basic needs".

The comparison between 17th century pioneers having "nothing but shirts on their backs" and 21st century society doesn't work at all...

Sure it does! Why doesn't it? The principles remain the same. You want something, you have to work for it. Nothing is provided to you for free and you're not entitled to anything. When you work for something and earn it you gain a sense of self-accomplishment and pride, you're happier and more fulfilled as a human being. Happier people make a happier society.

Sure, I think everyone already knows that. It would be kind of patronizing to assume, once again, that poor people are just sitting there waiting for other people to give them their basic needs.

Yet, that's exactly what you lobbied for earlier. You even used the poor children to tug at my heartstrings. You somehow believe it's society's responsibility to provide these mystical "basic needs" which can't really be defined, so that people have a "chance in life". That's nonsense.

They key responsibility for any civilized society in the modern world is to ensure that people CAN FULFILL their responsibility to meet their basic needs.

And we do this better than any society on the planet with a free enterprise system, free market capitalism and a constitutional republic.

You say this thread is not about demonizing socialism, yet the only case you make for why people like me agree with Socialist elements are because we are just too insecure with ourselves to compete with others. That's a huge deductive leap you make there as well as a pretty premature value judgement. Left or right, I think most of us believe that we are part of a greater good or in some ways contributing to some greater good (though that greater good will vary from person to person). But I'm going to assume that, for example, you believe that you are doing your part in society by partaking in a job or industry that helps propel the economy forward, hence keeping the "machine" that keeps things civilized moving forward, whilst utilizing your "natural" comparative advantage. What I'm trying to get at is that whether one is socialist, capitalist, or mixture of both, people want to believe that they are helping, in some way, to move society "forward" (again, what "forward" is will vary). If you want to limit this discussion as to WHY people tend to lean towards socialism, at its very CORE, it's the same reason why certain people tend to lean towards capitalism, for the reasons I stated above.

Overall, the basis of your argument is twofold.

One: that one should work to get ahead in life. Nobody's disputing this. So I can disregard any "counter points" you make to me about that since I never once implied that people should just sit around all day doing nothing.

Two: that whenever one is pointing out ever-increasing wealth inequality, childhood poverty (which i repeat is the LARGEST in the first world), one is essentially blaming society. Would you say that abolitionists in the 19th century are blaming society when they point out the intrinsic inhumanity of slave labor? You're right that it would be overly idealistic to claim that we could just snap our fingers and fix poverty and so forth. But is one not at least entitled to attempt to limit poverty? We do NOT need to have a fifth of our adolescent population in poverty.

The social ills we have right now are not unfixable. There IS a way to create a system that would allow everyone to participate and utilize their comparative advantages. By claiming that things are all good right now is utopian, and only retards the process of trying to understand and perhaps discover ways in which people like you and me can work together to improve society.

You even used the poor children to tug at my heartstrings. You somehow believe it's society's responsibility to provide these mystical "basic needs" which can't really be defined, so that people have a "chance in life". That's nonsense.

I'm not trying to pull any "heart strings." I'm pointing out a FACT: twenty percent of the adolescent population in the United States live below the poverty line. How you feel about that is up to you. I believe it is society's responsibility to ensure that everyone has equal opportunity (which isn't the same as 'everyone being equal' or some strawman like that). If helping others achieve equal opportunity has no effect on YOUR life, then I fail to see why you are so adamant in making sure people don't achieve that equal opportunity....And before you go on to say that it DOES affect your life in that it'll be at someone's expense (presumably yours), I don't think it has to be that way. If you want to go on further with that discussion, we can and hope we do.

Before delving deeper, I think you and I would agree that it would be best if we define our terms before going forward. Otherwise, again we'd be talking in cross-purposes.

What's your definition of "progress"--is it a society that ensures the greatest quality of life for the most amount of people? I'm genuinely curious as to what conservatives (assuming you are one) think "progress" is? Furthermore, what is your definition of "work"--is it just a thing we do 8 hours a day to gain abstract purchasing power to buy coffee machines?

childhood poverty (which i repeat is the LARGEST in the first world),


By who's criteria?
And if that was the case your blaming capitalism instead of liberalism?

Wow, just wow


.

 

[Moonglow]

There are several types of socialism, too bad you can't tell the difference to enhance your"story"...

Yes, and I believe, in all forms of socialism, it is attractive to people who fear they can't compete as individuals. Having a lack of confidence in their abilities, they seek the safety of the collective.

So no socialist nation has ever been able to compete with a nation that is not socialist?

 

[Boss]

There are several types of socialism, too bad you can't tell the difference to enhance your"story"...

Yes, and I believe, in all forms of socialism, it is attractive to people who fear they can't compete as individuals. Having a lack of confidence in their abilities, they seek the safety of the collective.

So no socialist nation has ever been able to compete with a nation that is not socialist?

Question has nothing to do with anything I said or the topic. Not answering you... stop trolling my thread.

 

[Moonglow]

There are several types of socialism, too bad you can't tell the difference to enhance your"story"...

Yes, and I believe, in all forms of socialism, it is attractive to people who fear they can't compete as individuals. Having a lack of confidence in their abilities, they seek the safety of the collective.

So no socialist nation has ever been able to compete with a nation that is not socialist?

Question has nothing to do with anything I said or the topic. Not answering you... stop trolling my thread.

Asking a legit question is trolling, GFY loon..

 

[Boss]

Asking a legit question is trolling, GFY loon.

Nope... you've tried several times now to derail the thread and talk about something other than the OP and I've patiently asked you to stay on topic. You continue to pop in now and then and see if you can cajole me into derailing the thread. Ask questions that pertain to the topic and I will be happy to answer.

 

[JoeNormal]

I'm perfectly confident in my ability to create value in my company. A portfolio of patented and patentable material is evidence of that.

Here's the thing, not everyone is motivated by money alone. Most engineers like me prefer the creative and intellectual challenges of what we do and if being able to skip endless boring meetings and soul sucking tedium results in a few less dollars then so be it. I'll even admit to the necessity of having management to keep our ducks in a row, look for new opportunities, allocate resources, etc. (How's that?) However, since management controls the purse strings and considers themselves vastly more important than those of us who create the technologies and products upon which the company is based, I see a problem. Who do you think this group will tend to reward? Being nickeled and dimed at every turn so that a few people can get an extra juicy bonus is a good way to turn a previous conservative into a progressive. This attitude is particularly acute at the moment seeing how catastrophic the 'management is all that matters' mindset turned out to be.

You are confident in your perception that your contribution creates value. The OP doesn't conclude otherwise. I never argued you don't contribute value or that you lack confidence in your ability to do so. I said people who embrace Socialism lack confidence in their ability to compete with others. You admit that you're not motivated by money and don't want to be a manager and have to go to meetings and be bored... but then... you chastise those who are motivated to do so, who do seek monetary reward.

So it's kind of like the unpopular kid at school saying... meh, I didn't want to be popular anyway because they're all a bunch of jerks! Because you lack confidence in your ability to compete with others, you have to tear them down as a means to feel validated. You've made this acceptable in your mind as a coping mechanism.

A reasoned observer could realize an attitude of "management is all that matters" would result in a company full of managers which would be a pointless endeavor. Obviously, this is an untrue statement.

There has been created a culture in this country where if you want to make more money, you need to get into management. This has created a plethora of companies that are top heavy because people who would have been useful continuing in their previous positions traded that in on a management gig. Ours has gone that direction.

You seem to want to believe that we live in a meritocracy where people are paid in proportion to the value they bring to an organization. The reality is that we live in a plutocracy where those with enough money (or sometimes influence) are able to acquire bargains from innovative people who can't afford to turn down their offers.

And the "management is all that matters" statement is slightly hyperbolic so I don't know why you'd actually try use that to make a point.

Well I hate to break this to you but it has always been the case where management makes more money than those they manage. I've never been able to hire a manager for less money than the employees he or she manages.

Now.... This doesn't have a damn thing to do with "beliefs" ...and that's your main problem here. The only reality I know is that in a free market system, there is no room for plutocracy or favoritism toward the wealthy, etc. Capitalists have one objective... to maximize profits. That's really all they are interested in.

Bargains from innovative people who can't afford to turn down offers sounds a bit like sour grapes and butthurt to me. No one is forcing anyone to do anything in a free market transaction, that's the beauty of it. It's not my problem that someone is a poor negotiator. Again, some people embrace Socialism because they lack confidence in their ability to compete with others. This notion is a perfect illustration of how that manifests itself. You want to make me feel guilty for buying something from you for less value than it's actually worth because you need money that I have right now. But that's what capitalism is all about. I'm getting a bargain and you're having a need fulfilled. No one is forcing you to do this, it's totally voluntary in a free market system.

As for the "management is all that matters" statement, I didn't make that statement, I addressed that statement. Hyperbolic or not, it's an untrue statement.

What you're describing is what we in science and engineering refer to as a positive feedback system. Wealth attracts more wealth regardless of any 'value' associated with it. It's the reason for increasing income and wealth disparity. I can only assume that you fail to see it because you wish not to see it.

Next, I suspect you'll try to convince me that the term 'opportunist' conveys something positive.

 

[Boss]

What you're describing is what we in science and engineering refer to as a positive feedback system. Wealth attracts more wealth regardless of any 'value' associated with it. It's the reason for increasing income and wealth disparity. I can only assume that you fail to see it because you wish not to see it.

Next, I suspect you'll try to convince me that the term 'opportunist' conveys something positive.

Wealth is inanimate so I don't know how wealth attracts wealth. I've already given you the reason for growing wealth disparity. You live in a free society with a free enterprise and free market system. Because of that, you have natural growing inequality of wealth. Some humans are better competitors for wealth than others. Some humans are more motivated, more driven to earn wealth. Some humans are less inclined, less motivated, less driven. As time goes by, those with successful wealth-obtaining attributes are going to expand wealth faster than those who lack those attributes... this is natural.

So you're trying to take something that is a natural result of free enterprise, and really, a GOOD thing because it means wealth is being created... and you're trying to turn it into a "problem" which requires a "solution" and your solutions are to hobble those at the top, to steal their wealth and redistribute it. This thread is about why you believe that is a good plan, what motivates you to support Socialist policies. I believe it stems from a lack of confidence in your own ability to compete with others.

There is nothing wrong with being an opportunist as long as you're not unfairly profiting by exploiting people who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own. Price gouging during a natural disaster would be an example. But really, most successful capitalism is opportunistic. This is why we have to be diligent in protecting free market capitalism from corporatists and other opportunists who have no moral principles.

 

[Boss]

Along these same lines, I want to share a personal story here. I opened a bistro a little over a year ago. I did this without borrowing any money and basically on a shoestring budget. I happened to run across a very good deal on a building and I wanted to do something with it. Now, it took a lot of resources to get the place ready... more than I had anticipated. My money well was running dry and I still had a long way to go. It became painfully obvious I needed to raise some capital. Many would have bailed and cut their losses but I am a little stubborn once I get an idea in my head. So here is what I had to do....

One of my hobbies over the years, and really the way I made most of my wealth in the beginning, is buying and collecting old cars. I probably have over 150 in all kinds of shapes in several locations. I started putting up my cars on Craigslist at bargain prices. I sold cars that I had paid $5k for at $1,500... it broke my heart but I needed the cash. Now, someone saw a bargain and they took advantage of an opportunity to purchase my cars. But the transaction was voluntary, I needed money fast and they wanted a good collectible car. That's how free market capitalism works. If someone had told me when I bought the car that I was going to lose $3,500 on it, I wouldn't have bought it... my idea was, I can fix this sucker up and sell it for $20k.

So now that I am over that hump and my bistro is up and running, I am not bitter and upset.... calling for someone to go steal my cars back and redistribute them back to me because I really deserve them more than the person who owns them now. I am happy that someone got a good deal and I got the money I needed at the time. Yes, I took a loss, but that's how it goes sometimes. It's the nature of the beast.

 

[JoeNormal]

What you're describing is what we in science and engineering refer to as a positive feedback system. Wealth attracts more wealth regardless of any 'value' associated with it. It's the reason for increasing income and wealth disparity. I can only assume that you fail to see it because you wish not to see it.

Next, I suspect you'll try to convince me that the term 'opportunist' conveys something positive.

Wealth is inanimate so I don't know how wealth attracts wealth. I've already given you the reason for growing wealth disparity. You live in a free society with a free enterprise and free market system. Because of that, you have natural growing inequality of wealth. Some humans are better competitors for wealth than others. Some humans are more motivated, more driven to earn wealth. Some humans are less inclined, less motivated, less driven. As time goes by, those with successful wealth-obtaining attributes are going to expand wealth faster than those who lack those attributes... this is natural.

So you're trying to take something that is a natural result of free enterprise, and really, a GOOD thing because it means wealth is being created... and you're trying to turn it into a "problem" which requires a "solution" and your solutions are to hobble those at the top, to steal their wealth and redistribute it. This thread is about why you believe that is a good plan, what motivates you to support Socialist policies. I believe it stems from a lack of confidence in your own ability to compete with others.

There is nothing wrong with being an opportunist as long as you're not unfairly profiting by exploiting people who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own. Price gouging during a natural disaster would be an example. But really, most successful capitalism is opportunistic. This is why we have to be diligent in protecting free market capitalism from corporatists and other opportunists who have no moral principles.

You've already shown how wealth attracts more wealth so your response is completely disingenuous.

Some people's idea of getting things done is to put intense pressure on the people who know how to do things. Others take pride in knowing how to do things. Your assertion is that the people who know how to do things prefer socialism because they lack the confidence to compete. I would counter that by saying that you prefer capitalism because you lack the confidence that you could produce something of value on your own.

 

[Boss]

You've already shown how wealth attracts more wealth so your response is completely disingenuous.

Some people's idea of getting things done is to put intense pressure on the people who know how to do things. Others take pride in knowing how to do things. Your assertion is that the people who know how to do things prefer socialism because they lack the confidence to compete. I would counter that by saying that you prefer capitalism because you lack the confidence that you could produce something of value on your own.

Huh?

Again, you're not making a lick of sense here.

First of all, no... I haven't shown how wealth attracts more wealth. You made that statement and you've not backed it up. I said it was a nonsensical statement because wealth is inanimate. Can a person who has wealth, use that wealth to create even more wealth? Sure. Is that what you meant? That's not the wealth attracting more wealth, that's someone utilizing their noodle... something you apparently have trouble with.

Second... what the hell is this "how to do things" argument? I think most people, unless they are imbeciles, know how to "do things," don't they? I've never met someone who didn't know how to do anything unless they were severely retarded or something.

MY assertion is: People who prefer Socialism lack the confidence in their ability to compete with others. Why do I have to keep repeating this and correcting your misinterpretations?

I don't prefer Socialism because I don't lack confidence in my ability to compete with others. I know that as long as I have a free market capitalist system and free enterprise, I can attain as much wealth as I desire, the sky is the limit. There has never been a point in my life where I was broke and felt like there was no hope. There have been plenty of times when I had little or no money on hand but I have always had confidence I could make money. There have been times when I had to do without things, times I couldn't catch a break, times when things looked bad... I always had confidence in my ability to compete with others.

This thread has obviously struck a nerve with lefties who adore Socialism. It is hitting a little too close to home for you and you don't know how to confront it. Some of you try to derail the topic, some of you want to use the thread to lobby for your failed ideas, some of you want to twist and distort my comments into something else, some want to make nonsensical arguments and some of you are simply in denial and refuse to accept my point. I'm not under any delusion that I can help you if you refuse to be helped. I'm simply pointing out what I have observed and letting others know why some people are so committed to their Socialist ideology.