Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Oh, and if you want to talk about the history of Ukrainian socialism - I HATE Vynnychenko and co, their inability to create industry, find allies, create an army and stop Reds ( we had one YEAR to prepare. one damned Year. )  led to the lost war and millions of deaths. Should sane politics (democrats, nationalist, monarchists, fascists, whatever) come to power that would never happen. Utopists should be kept far away from real politics

[Eagle_eye]

Can you see any difference between person that can't work and person that doesn't want to work?
Oh, and if you ask, I am against age based pensions, only health based, If you want to retire earlier that's what banks are for.

No, none whatsoever. If we're talking about what's good for society, either we support those we don't need to, or we don't.

Hey, Altruist, can I walk to your house and take your stuff away? No? Why? You heartless Egoist! Don't you want to invite several dozens of homeless persons inside your house? No! Heartless!

I never claimed to not be a horrible person. I absolutely am, but at least I'm aware of it, and I despise myself for it.

It's not like all hazardous\risky\disgusting jobs are easy, suited only for guys that can't work elsewhere...

You're missing the point. There are plenty of talented people that there simply aren't jobs for. It's not like all the unemployed people are uneducated or stupid. There just simply isn't the need for their labor.

So I can't live off unemployment benefit? No luxury? Noted. Good to know that at least unemployed will not get same benefits as working

Of course you should be able to live off of unemployment benefits, but no, luxuries should be minimal until we can sustain society with solely voluntary labor, which is going to be a while.

So you said that by being unemployed you  get less luxury? So why should engineer quit and lose benefits when he can just work here and do his job not in  ideal way ( and why you design something as important as safety related you need to work good)

So some people will be lazy. How is capitalism any better?

Yep, few of them...

Lots of them, actually. There's no other compelling reason to be a scientist. It's hard work, so lazy people are out. It doesn't pay nearly as well as jobs of equivalent difficulty: the greedy people go into investment banking.

You want to base society by using guys that will work  anyway allowing others to parasite on them? Like 1% of population supporting 99%?

99% of humanity is not self centered and lazy. The vast majority of people actually enjoy being useful, even if you yourself don't.

Besides inventing tech is the only one step, using it in practice is absolutely another

Going from a complete design to adoption is the easy part. You don't need specialized training to tell you that fusion would be vastly superior to current power sources: you do need a ton of expertise to figure out how to actually do it.

Something large and independent that built competitive economy, (and thus army), please

You're missing the point. The economy doesn't need to be competitive. The point of society is to improve the happiness of its members. Life is not a competition.

Socialism will be so inefficient that famines will be quite common, quite fast. Population will grow much faster than any ability to produce food.

We already have famines induced by capitalism, and you have absolutely no support for your statement. People have been crying about the malthusian trap for centuries and it still hasn't happened. In fact, population growth is going to stop this century according to most projections.

Nope, they will be a vast majority. Ruling majority (unless you abolish democracy and establish proletarian dictatorship of some kind)

Yeah, no, that's nonsense. People are not self centered assholes, for the most part. Even toddlers, who are not exactly known for their pro-social behavior, are generally inclined towards altruism. All this bullshit about human nature being inherently selfish is entirely cultural, and it's been disseminated so widely because it serves the interests of a select group with disproportionate control over media.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I never claimed to not be a horrible person. I absolutely am, but at least I'm aware of it, and I despise myself for it.

So you despise yourself for not giving up all your possessions to feed some starving child in Africa? Ouch

You're missing the point. The economy doesn't need to be competitive. The point of society is to improve the happiness of its members. Life is not a competition.

Heard about the evolution? No competition  = no evolution = no improvement
And life is a competition just turn on Animal Planet and  watch few  hours.

There just simply isn't the need for their labor.

That stuff happens... But there are another situation, when no workers enough for some specific job. And that will be a norm in socialism something you prefer to ignore.
You see  USSR, (yep, yep, no socialism. I remember)  never had enough skilled medics, because you are either rare altruist (Yes, some people did go in med school for that) or loser that couldn't find better place to enlist ( as medics had typical salaries, much harder time to steal, higher stress at work and required long, long education few students equally applied for med schools, ) that lead to the situation where everyone got accepted and few were expelled, even guys that are stupid\lazy. And USSR got nurses that can't say a difference between liver and kidney that were accepted because no better candidates existed... Good medics were rare. Only those rare workaholics\huge altruists
It becomes even more sever in post USSrR countries due to idiotic idea to combine market economy and free healthcare
Same stuff with other academic jobs, few fanatics and dumbasses

We already have famines induced by capitalism, and you have absolutely no support for your statement. 

1) Real word experience - everyone who tried to build socialism on state-scale failed. Badly. That ended either in either :
a)civil warm poverty and rapid occupations (what else can happen with utopists that say that life is not a competition? Reminds me how Ukrainan socialsts claimed "peasants and workers are peaceful, we need no army!" Than sent untrained teenagers (volunteers, only volunteers. Conscription is an evil crime!) to stop Russian advance when SUDDENLY they attacked 
b) Or civil war, poverty and a totalitarian country.


2) Nature has no socialism inside, even hive-insects like ants while caring for hive as a whole has priorities and will not feed useless. Pack\Herds have uneven distribution of resources. Please not bring nature has no techs, because that doesn't changes what is good way of self organization and what is not

99% of humanity is not self centered and lazy. The vast majority of people actually enjoy being useful, even if you yourself don't.

I'll respect your religion and stop arguing with your beliefs. 
Just stop trying to violate my (and other's) right for property as there are will be reaction.

[Bdthemag]

1) Real word experience - everyone who tried to build socialism on state-scale failed. Badly. That ended either in either :
a)civil warm poverty and rapid occupations (what else can happen with utopists that say that life is not a competition? Reminds me how Ukrainan socialsts claimed "peasants and workers are peaceful, we need no army!" Than sent untrained teenagers (volunteers, only volunteers. Conscription is an evil crime!) to stop Russian advance when SUDDENLY they attacked 
b) Or civil war, poverty and a totalitarian country.

Socialism and Communism was prevalent in once of the most unstable periods of the modern era, it frankly would of been impossible for socialism to thrive in such a hostile environment. It'd even be difficult immediately afterwards, due to the hostility towards any kind of socialism and communism after the second world war.

2) Nature has no socialism inside, even hive-insects like ants while caring for hive as a whole has priorities and will not feed useless. Pack\Herds have uneven distribution of resources. Please not bring nature has no techs, because that doesn't changes what is good way of self organization and what is not

So? Just because something isn't common or existent in nature doesn't mean that it's immediately bad. Using the whole Natural vs. Unnatural argument is ridiculous, judging something's merit (Especially a political ideology) based on whether or not it happens in nature is silly.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

i am less inclined to believe in the inherent altruism of humankind, otherwise capitalism, and any system really, would work a lot better. that's why i am an apologist of a socialism where the principle of altruism is enforced, and preached as a kind of state religion

happiness is relative, survival is an absolute. people will always be unhappy, an ideal system should use luxuries and entertainment to reward desirable behaviours, while ensuring survival is easy enough to attain for everybody equally. people should not be penalised when they are not at fault, but for undesirable choices they make. capitalism fails at that, it doesn't give equal opportunities to everyone and it rewards and perpetuates selfish and destructive behaviours, it may work better that some forms of authoritarian pseudo-socialism that have been attempted, but that doesn't mean that the ethical principles of socialism should be discarded, especially when socialistic systems are being used with great success to counter some of the most glaring failures of capitalism.
both principles can coexist, in fact, they always do. there isn't and there has never been a country on earth that doesn't apply some sort of socialism, and the answer isn't to find a balance between the two systems but to improve upon the systems already in place so that we can move away from the savage nature of the feudal system that is capitalism and finally reach a point where we can describe our civilization as actually civilized.

[Eagle_eye]

So you despise yourself for not giving up all your possessions to feed some starving child in Africa? Ouch

Yeah, I'm an awful person. Slightly less awful than average, but still horrible.

Heard about the evolution? No competition  = no evolution = no improvement
And life is a competition just turn on Animal Planet and  watch few  hours.

Nature is not good. In fact, nature is evil. Natural life is nasty, brutish, and short. It's not something we should aspire to. The entire point of technology is that we're transcending the bounds placed on us by the biological world.

That stuff happens... But there are another situation, when no workers enough for some specific job. And that will be a norm in socialism something you prefer to ignore.
You see  USSR, (yep, yep, no socialism. I remember)  never had enough skilled medics, because you are either rare altruist (Yes, some people did go in med school for that) or loser that couldn't find better place to enlist ( as medics had typical salaries, much harder time to steal, higher stress at work and required long, long education few students equally applied for med schools, ) that lead to the situation where everyone got accepted and few were expelled, even guys that are stupid\lazy. And USSR got nurses that can't say a difference between liver and kidney that were accepted because no better candidates existed... Good medics were rare. Only those rare workaholics\huge altruists
It becomes even more sever in post USSrR countries due to idiotic idea to combine market economy and free healthcare
Same stuff with other academic jobs, few fanatics and dumbasses
 

And why do you think people become doctors in capitalist countries? The money? The money is shit compared to what you could be making working for goldman sachs or some hedge fund, and the stress is just as bad, if not worse. And I can cite examples too: Cuba has more doctors per capita than almost any country on earth. Skilled labor seems to be perfectly available there.

1) Real word experience - everyone who tried to build socialism on state-scale failed. Badly. That ended either in either :
a)civil warm poverty and rapid occupations (what else can happen with utopists that say that life is not a competition? Reminds me how Ukrainan socialsts claimed "peasants and workers are peaceful, we need no army!" Than sent untrained teenagers (volunteers, only volunteers. Conscription is an evil crime!) to stop Russian advance when SUDDENLY they attacked
b) Or civil war, poverty and a totalitarian country.

Yeah, socialist societies are really bad at fighting wars. This is why we need a worldwide revolution. Socialism in one country obviously doesn't work.

2) Nature has no socialism inside, even hive-insects like ants while caring for hive as a whole has priorities and will not feed useless. Pack\Herds have uneven distribution of resources. Please not bring nature has no techs, because that doesn't changes what is good way of self organization and what is not

Nature has no capitalism or state either. Nature is not something we ever want to emulate, as I've said many, many times.

I'll respect your religion and stop arguing with your beliefs. 

I suppose you think you're being subtle with that insult.

Just stop trying to violate my (and other's) right for property as there are will be reaction.

Then stop trying to violate others' right to life. That trumps your petty little "non aggression principle".

Not to mention that your rights exist only so long as they're enforced.

[Gervassen]

Love the part where the socialists come out and reveal their hand, saying no one should be forced to work. Unmanly little things, these socialists! They love depending on others, the scroungers.

You're missing the point. The economy doesn't need to be competitive. The point of society is to improve the happiness of its members. Life is not a competition.

If you can't compete, chicks ain't gonna dig you much. Unless you're pretty like me.

Yeah, no, that's nonsense. People are not self centered assholes, for the most part. Even toddlers, who are not exactly known for their pro-social behavior, are generally inclined towards altruism. All this bullshit about human nature being inherently selfish is entirely cultural, and it's been disseminated so widely because it serves the interests of a select group with disproportionate control over media.

Right now, you're telling us that 99% of all people think this, and all children act like that. Baselessly. And then there's the claim that this is all merely cultural. There isn't much altruism in Hong Kong, either... people don't do fuck all for a stranger unless there's some guanxi that connects them, and nepotism is a way of life in the business culture here, but tell me a lie about how this selfishness is all a Western thing.

You remind me a good deal of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that original gangster of the Left. He talked a good game about how altruistic everyone was when uncorrupted by the forces of bourgeois society, and even authored a book Emile about how to raise a child to bring out his purest natural instincts... meanwhile his children by an secret mistress lived in poverty, unvisited by dear old dad making the party circuits in the fashionable parts of Paris. The teaching never seems to jibe with the way even proponents choose to live their lives.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

stop with the insults.

Unmanly little things, these socialists! They love depending on others, the scroungers.

do you know what capitalism is? by definition, it's making a profit on the work of others. so who's all about depending on others? it's an economic system based around violating the rights of many for the benefit of the few, and don't bring up some bulshit about merit, there's little merit involved. nobody gets rich by working a lot or working well, people are born rich, or get rich by being assholes or getting lucky. i'm not saying every capitalist is an asshole, just the really successful ones.

arguing against the inherent goodness of human nature only makes a point for those of us who want to regulate it. capitalism depends too much on the good will of the rich, it wouldn't work at all if it was kept unregulated and it works better where it is heavily regulated.
more rules isn't always better, but sometimes it is, and we desperately need better.

[Eagle_eye]

and all children act like that. Baselessly.

I didn't say all, I said they generally tend towards altruism, or at least not deliberately harming others, which is a hell of a lot better than modern behavior: http://www.pitt.edu/~toddlers/ESDL/Svetlova,etal_ToddlersProsocialBehavior.CDInPress09.pdf

[Askot Bokbondeler]

@Eagle_eye
it's kind of hard to argue for altruism when you yourself admit to being a terrible person. people often are aware of what is fair and what isn't, they can vote for a just policy and make good decisions, but these have to be enforced, because any average person with sufficient power will act on their own interests.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Then stop trying to violate others' right to life. That trumps your petty little "non aggression principle".

Not to mention that your rights exist only so long as they're enforced.

Totalitarianism on the march... You want to substitute  rights with duties. Here you want to substitute right to property with duty to support other's life. You'll need a lot of violence to  enforce that

And yep, my rights exist as long as totalitarian religious sects like socialists are kept at bay.

You know, I honestly wanted to get answers on how to solve problems with socialist like ownership because that idea has some positives, but you keep pretending that problems don't even exist... 
As for religion stuff... It's unfun to discuss anything with person that has only beliefs and no reasons.

Love the part where the socialists come out and reveal their hand, saying no one should be forced to work. Unmanly little things, these socialists! They love depending on others, the scroungers.

I love the envy more. Huge oblivious envy related to more successful persons than socialist in question.
Envy to the guy who studied hard in a college to become a pro when they chose booze and chicks:  Legend: He has unfair benefits at work. Unskilled worker is as important as a skilled one"
Envy to the guy that is great investor, and chooses the best routes for capital, because they waste money on various crap and have no brains to use money rationally. Legend: He  gets money from "nothing"!
Envy to pop stars that get fame and luxury. Legend: My garage music is better! I just have no money for the PR. 
And so on, so on... They even envy immoral persons like gangsters because they are not like them not because they find it's acceptable, but because they lack skills to be a crime lord or corrupted politican

The whole - "I don't work for social parasites that don't deserve luxury " is a blatant lie, because socialists find it's perfectly fine to support social parasites if they aren't richer than themselves.
Goal of socialists is to make the world without rich people, I prefer the world where everyone is rich... opposite goals

You remind me a good deal of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that original gangster of the Left. He talked a good game about how altruistic everyone was when uncorrupted by the forces of bourgeois society, and even authored a book Emile about how to raise a child to bring out his purest natural instincts... meanwhile his children by an secret mistress lived in poverty, unvisited by dear old dad making the party circuits in the fashionable parts of Paris.

Now they'll say that it's not a proper socialist, good old dogma.

[Sheb]

Well, are you defending the rich guy that just put his money in an hedge fund? Sure, the guy managing the fund is working investing it, but the "investors" that put his money in the fund is gaining money without lifting his little finger...

[Askot Bokbondeler]

fuckin slaves envyin on the masters

i don't hate on doctors for having studied a lot and getting a decent pay. i don't hate on popstars for... they don't hold any real power to fuck up for the rest of us. i do hate on bigtime investors for being disproportionately rewarded for what effectively amounts to gambling, and often cheating

[Eagle_eye]

it's kind of hard to argue for altruism when you yourself admit to being a terrible person. people often are aware of what is fair and what isn't, they can vote for a just policy and make good decisions, but these have to be enforced, because any average person with sufficient power will act on their own interests.

Compared to the sort of person the capitalists here are envisioning, I'm very much an altruist. I just have much, much higher standards.

Totalitarianism on the march... You want to substitute  rights with duties. Here you want to substitute right to property with duty to support other's life. You'll need a lot of violence to  enforce that

And that's different from property rights how? Property can't be claimed without the threat of violence against those who violate your "right".

I love the envy more. Huge oblivious envy related to more successful persons than socialist in question.

Envy? Hah. Socialism would probably decrease my quality of life. I'm not envious of the rich, I'm pissed off at them.

Envy to the guy who studied hard in a college to become a pro when they chose booze and chicks:  Legend: He has unfair benefits at work. Unskilled worker is as important as a skilled one"

So what? Free will doesn't exist, so assigning people different moral values according to their decisions is nonsense. All people have, in isolation, equal moral weight.

Envy to the guy that is great investor, and chooses the best routes for capital, because they waste money on various crap and have no brains to use money rationally. Legend: He  gets money from "nothing"!

You know how investors make money? They make money when other people lose it. That's how competition works: you win out because your competitor fails. If you buy a stock and it goes up, you've taken a lot of money from the person you bought from. So, no, they don't get money from nothing. They get money from theft, just like the rest of the capitalist class.

Envy to pop stars that get fame and luxury. Legend: My garage music is better! I just have no money for the PR. 

Oh, yes, excuse me for objecting to the proposal that the work of Britney Spears is somehow tens of thousands of times more valuable than a coal miner or a construction worker who makes genuine improvements to society.

The whole - "I don't work for social parasites that don't deserve luxury " is a blatant lie, because socialists find it's perfectly fine to support social parasites if they aren't richer than themselves.

Support them to the point that they don't die. I'm not going to work to give someone a better life than I have, which is what capitalism is.

Goal of socialists is to make the world without rich people, I prefer the world where everyone is rich... opposite goals

A world where everyone is rich is impossible at the present time, and by the time it is, economics will no longer be a thing, we'll just have robots make everything. For the present, I'd much rather have a world without poverty than a world with rich people.

Now they'll say that it's not a proper socialist, good old dogma.

Well, Rousseau wasn't a socialist. You seem to be unable to comprehend the fact that saying someone is a socialist does not change the definition of the world. Socialism is control of the economy by workers. Rousseau was in favor of private property, he wanted government controlled by the people, but not the economy. You know what the word for that is? A liberal.

But you're insisting that I justify socialism. I've done plenty of that. No, it's not perfect, but what you're implying is that it's acceptable to have millions of people starve to death as long as you avoid inefficient economics. How can you possibly hold that moral view? Do you have any sort of ethical framework, or is it egoism all the way down?

[Phillip the Strawman]

The whole - "I don't work for social parasites that don't deserve luxury " is a blatant lie, because socialists find it's perfectly fine to support social parasites if they aren't richer than themselves.
Goal of socialists is to make the world without rich people, I prefer the world where everyone is rich... opposite goals

Hello, I am Phil, the strawman. I have a straw wife in a straw house with wonderful straw children. I work in a debate factory, where I am abused constantly by my hirers. Please, find it in your hearts to stop strawman abuse.