Happy Holidays Mother Fuckers - Page 2

The one in finland had a goal of incentivizing people to find jobs, it didn't work. It had a byproduct effect of making people less stressed, and happier. That wasn't the goal, so it failed. But it sounds like Rikd's goals are different to what the Finnish government had in mind.

what democrats are proposing is completely different to what bulgaria had, the democrats are proposing government investment in the economy to a level similar to what the US had from 1945-1971, not a totalitarian state which has it's economy planned by an external power like the Kremlin. Socialism means two completely different things for left-democrats and what the kremlin called socialism.

Finish UBI experiment was a fail, even what you wrote about them being happier as a conclusion has its flaws if you read the papers and analysis by the experts.

What Rikd wants is to be left alone because he is depressed and thinks his job sucks, so he wants someone else to take care of him, so he can play the guitar and go on holidays... now read this again word by word... this logic is just fundamentally flawed.

All socialistic ideas are flawed in general, what we had here was an extreme, i agree but in general all socialistic bs goes in the same direction.

Free markets, capitalism and science got us here - 2020 the best time to be alive in human history.

On December 31 2019 10:14 Stroggoz wrote:

Seems like a natural effect of globalisation and automation
Yep, read the source
Indeed they want to reinvigorate the power of unions
https://www.epi.org/publication/first...-worker-power-and-ensure-job-quality/

These people are so predictable, present the data, and show unionisation dropping and
WOW I GOT IT - MORE UNIONS

What they fail to notice is that with both globalisation and ease of transferring production overseas
And with automation

workers in the US simply don't have leverage anymore
and if you give them the leverage by forcing policies
the jobs will leave the country altogether

+ add to that more relaxed immigration policy of people more than willing to work at low non unionised wages and you solved nothing

I definitely agree with you
that investing into infrastructure creating jobs is way better than feeding money to union leaders and artificially driving up production workers wages though

On December 31 2019 14:04 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Show nested quote + On December 31 2019 10:14 Stroggoz wrote: Seems like a natural effect of globalisation and automation Yep, read the source Indeed they want to reinvigorate the power of unions https://www.epi.org/publication/first...-worker-power-and-ensure-job-quality/ These people are so predictable, present the data, and show unionisation dropping and WOW I GOT IT - MORE UNIONS What they fail to notice is that with both globalisation and ease of transferring production overseas And with automation workers in the US simply don't have leverage anymore and if you give them the leverage by forcing policies the jobs will leave the country altogether + add to that more relaxed immigration policy of people more than willing to work at low non unionised wages and you solved nothing

you make no sense to me, 'workers don't have leverage anymore', and at the same time your against unions, which give workers more leverage. It's pretty obvious that strong unionisation similar to what scandi countries have would end real wage stagnation. Of course, it's not the only factor.

There are plenty of forced policies that would increase bargaining power and employment in the economy, and bring manufacturing back with a reduction in the trade deficit, like the ones i suggested in the previous post.

On December 31 2019 14:10 LemOn[5thF] wrote:

not sure what you're trying to prove with that graph?

private debt has increased in the US economy after every single economic crash, that's essentially the model of the US economy under neoliberalism, banks lending out as much as they can, both to households and corporations, getting them in debt, and then growth is made from speculative bubbles. Private debt was 200% of gdp before the 2008 GFC. Essentially the 'recoveries', are illusary. so yes there was real wage growth in the 1990s, then the dot com crashed ended that growth, there was real wage growth under bush, then it was ended from the $8 trillion housing bubble. The recovery under Trump is an illusion as well, so long as this system is kept in place and banks are allowed to run the economy like this.

socialism in scandi =/= socialism in america. the population in scandi countries are homogeneous. they have common values, culture, etc. the average person in those countries have in general higher human capital value, intelligence, ability to delay instant gratification, etc. (far less retards in sweden,finland,norway). furthermore its really stupid to justify socialism on the basis of identity politics prevalent in today's society. and pls dont give me the bs about how all forms of communism before has been authoritarian forms of communism as opposed to democratic. the leaders of america's democratic party act very much like oligarchs with high paychecks, back end business deals, $$$ from speaking engagements, parlays into lobbying jobs, law firm partnerships, etc. basically use the race card to get votes to get yourself in office then reap the financial rewards for yourself. nothing has changed.

andrew yang's ubi seems kind of too early too. he talks about automation as if it has already happened, citing trucking jobs as his main example when in actuality it is yet to be known if this is going to be a thing or not. yes let's spend trillions of dollars solving a problem that hasnt even happened yet...

On December 30 2019 04:16 RiKD wrote: Show nested quote + On December 29 2019 21:11 froboy12342 wrote:   On December 28 2019 04:37 RiKD wrote: I just feel depressed. My life felt so free on vacation. There was rarely downtime. Now I'm back to this shit. It's mostly mental tbh... You can play videogames and be bored out of your damn mind; you can engage in mundane chores and be on cloud9.. You gotta find a way to feel free IN what you do... your state of spirit is the 1st problem imo I do my best to get into pizza making flow states and it may get me by and the time might fly when I am slammed with orders but it's disingenuous to try to mask the activity as something that can be spiritual in nature. I have to do the same thing over and over again for x hours a week and that is just hard to do.

When I mentioned spirit, I was mainly referring to the etheric aspect of the mental state you're in; there's got to be some kind of overhaul - perhaps attempting to bring this flow-type state into every facet of life outside of work even..

..I mean, if the mental perma-dead condition isn't fundamentally reconfigured, how can the cycle ever be broken? We could wait for changes to the macro level, but thats just not feasible to most people I would think..

On December 30 2019 11:43 Stroggoz wrote: I don't think the UBI makes much sense as a policy for different reasons than those posted, it is less efficient to a targeted welfare system that takes care of people's specific needs. Why should a single person get the same as a single parent with 3 kids? Well, it all depends on how it's implemented, it can overlap a welfare system but it really makes little sense. The UBI has a lot of appeal because of it's simplicity and its reduction in a small amount of beuracracy, but simplistic solutions are not suitable for a society where people have different needs and wants, and there are plenty of very strong other policies that are much better imo. part of The UBI's motivation is the completely unsubstantiated world view that robots are about to automate a huge part of the economy, even though there are many jobs that the american economy needs, like more teachers, investment in public transport is seriously needed, and investment in the green economy is seriously needed. Potential Jobs in the green economy are estimated to be around four times that in the fossil fuel sector. Simply implementing a max 6 hour work day would probably end the long term cyclical unemployment that has resulted in real wage stagation since the 1970's. The minimum wage would roughly be 2-3 times higher than it is right now if neoliberalism hadn't happened. Similarly the trade deficit can largely be eliminated through devualing the dollar by 10-20%, and this would bring back a lot of manufacturing jobs. A lot of claims i just made here, can go into depth on all of them. work is complete druggery if your a cog in the system, paid little and it's uninteresting. One major fix would be to simply implement socialism: democratric control over the workplace. Of course, this idea is ridiculed, always with weak arguments imo.

I agree here that we ought to address the integrity of the working dynamic through prudent policy implementation: people worked too hard, its a problem, work them to little, its a very obvious problem.

I'm no economics expert, but that trade deficit suggestion involving devaluation of the dollar sounds excellent if it is what i'm thinking it is...

On December 31 2019 18:06 hiems wrote: socialism in scandi =/= socialism in america. the population in scandi countries are homogeneous. they have common values, culture, etc. the average person in those countries have in general higher human capital value, intelligence, ability to delay instant gratification, etc. (far less retards in sweden,finland,norway). furthermore its really stupid to justify socialism on the basis of identity politics prevalent in today's society. and pls dont give me the bs about how all forms of communism before has been authoritarian forms of communism as opposed to democratic. the leaders of america's democratic party act very much like oligarchs with high paychecks, back end business deals, $$$ from speaking engagements, parlays into lobbying jobs, law firm partnerships, etc. basically use the race card to get votes to get yourself in office then reap the financial rewards for yourself. nothing has changed. andrew yang's ubi seems kind of too early too. he talks about automation as if it has already happened, citing trucking jobs as his main example when in actuality it is yet to be known if this is going to be a thing or not. yes let's spend trillions of dollars solving a problem that hasnt even happened yet...

With whatever socialistic/UBI/welfare system put forward, I think that a proper implementation of it would involve establishing it, but then gradually divesting it over time..

Its a way of helping people sure, but also a way of enabling people right? Thus imo, it shouldn't be a mainstay, but a tool to help those who help themselves. And on the other end, with a gradual decrease in funds, this approach should gently spur those who want to abuse the system; the people who will need the assistance to stay the same or increase can petition w/ their local social service to have that happen or something...

On January 01 2020 04:51 froboy12342 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 31 2019 18:06 hiems wrote: socialism in scandi =/= socialism in america. the population in scandi countries are homogeneous. they have common values, culture, etc. the average person in those countries have in general higher human capital value, intelligence, ability to delay instant gratification, etc. (far less retards in sweden,finland,norway). furthermore its really stupid to justify socialism on the basis of identity politics prevalent in today's society. and pls dont give me the bs about how all forms of communism before has been authoritarian forms of communism as opposed to democratic. the leaders of america's democratic party act very much like oligarchs with high paychecks, back end business deals, $$$ from speaking engagements, parlays into lobbying jobs, law firm partnerships, etc. basically use the race card to get votes to get yourself in office then reap the financial rewards for yourself. nothing has changed. andrew yang's ubi seems kind of too early too. he talks about automation as if it has already happened, citing trucking jobs as his main example when in actuality it is yet to be known if this is going to be a thing or not. yes let's spend trillions of dollars solving a problem that hasnt even happened yet... With whatever socialistic/UBI/welfare system put forward, I think that a proper implementation of it would involve establishing it, but then gradually divesting it over time.. Its a way of helping people sure, but also a way of enabling people right? Thus imo, it shouldn't be a mainstay, but a tool to help those who help themselves. And on the other end, with a gradual decrease in funds, this approach should gently spur those who want to abuse the system; the people who will need the assistance to stay the same or increase can petition w/ their local social service to have that happen or something...

lol you make socialism in america sound so civil.

socialism right now (in america) is not driven in earnest by actual needs. in reality its largely driven by things like allocating resources based on race/tribalism largely in due to the democratic leadership (astutely) realizing that they can manipulate the black/hispanic minority into buying into a certain narrative of oppression by using propaganda. its not even about enabling people vs people who actually need the help. its just straight up tribal warfare imo. whether its black vs white, hispanic vs white, poor vs rich, right now everything is fueled by false narratives, anger, emotion, etc. actual quality of life of even the poor in america really is not that bad. basic needs are met. food can be obtained easily and housing as well. its just the supposed "injustice" of not having the NICE things like the new iphone, instagram lifestyle, etc that causes ppl to get so fucking worked up // get themselves into debt, student loans, etc.

^^ all of this so that a few idiotic leftists can seize power, get elected to office//boost their linkedin page//play the power game in washington.

On January 01 2020 14:36 hiems wrote: lol you make socialism in america sound so civil. socialism right now (in america) is not driven in earnest by actual needs. in reality its largely driven by things like allocating resources based on race/tribalism largely in due to the democratic leadership (astutely) realizing that they can manipulate the black/hispanic minority into buying into a certain narrative of oppression by using propaganda. its not even about enabling people vs people who actually need the help. its just straight up tribal warfare imo. whether its black vs white, hispanic vs white, poor vs rich, right now everything is fueled by false narratives, anger, emotion, etc. actual quality of life of even the poor in america really is not that bad. basic needs are met. food can be obtained easily and housing as well. its just the supposed "injustice" of not having the NICE things like the new iphone, instagram lifestyle, etc that causes ppl to get so fucking worked up // get themselves into debt, student loans, etc. ^^ all of this so that a few idiotic leftists can seize power, get elected to office//boost their linkedin page//play the power game in washington.

All I'm saying is that the established assistance ought to eventually be followed by its eventual removal at some point; the logistics in making that happen is a whole other issue, and it will necessarily involve a grand scale advancement in the consciousness of the masses i think.

If this paradigm gains traction, even the present and prudently implemented forms of socialism will likely need no continued use(as the people will evolve in their competence toward meeting their individual needs).

yes but the problem is that in general socialists are far too theoretically. i mean youre using phrases like "If this paradigm gains traction" and "advancement in the consciousness of the masses" ... this is far too heady and not based on reality/practicality.

"ought to be this" "ought to be that". This "take it away after awhile thing" again is just too theoretical. get out of your head. its way simpler just to keep it minimal in the first place. your like the piosolver guy trying to play exact percentages on a ridiculous strategy with random number generators. Socialists starting day 1 from Marx is about books and theories. wayyyy too heady/never has worked in practice. even if we can get it to work in theory there is no sample size big enough to finally make it work. therefore, socialism is stupid // and government programs should be kept to a minimal level. capitalism = common sense // works easier.

On January 01 2020 14:36 hiems wrote: Show nested quote + On January 01 2020 04:51 froboy12342 wrote:   On December 31 2019 18:06 hiems wrote: socialism in scandi =/= socialism in america. the population in scandi countries are homogeneous. they have common values, culture, etc. the average person in those countries have in general higher human capital value, intelligence, ability to delay instant gratification, etc. (far less retards in sweden,finland,norway). furthermore its really stupid to justify socialism on the basis of identity politics prevalent in today's society. and pls dont give me the bs about how all forms of communism before has been authoritarian forms of communism as opposed to democratic. the leaders of america's democratic party act very much like oligarchs with high paychecks, back end business deals, $$$ from speaking engagements, parlays into lobbying jobs, law firm partnerships, etc. basically use the race card to get votes to get yourself in office then reap the financial rewards for yourself. nothing has changed. andrew yang's ubi seems kind of too early too. he talks about automation as if it has already happened, citing trucking jobs as his main example when in actuality it is yet to be known if this is going to be a thing or not. yes let's spend trillions of dollars solving a problem that hasnt even happened yet... With whatever socialistic/UBI/welfare system put forward, I think that a proper implementation of it would involve establishing it, but then gradually divesting it over time.. Its a way of helping people sure, but also a way of enabling people right? Thus imo, it shouldn't be a mainstay, but a tool to help those who help themselves. And on the other end, with a gradual decrease in funds, this approach should gently spur those who want to abuse the system; the people who will need the assistance to stay the same or increase can petition w/ their local social service to have that happen or something... lol you make socialism in america sound so civil. socialism right now (in america) is not driven in earnest by actual needs. in reality its largely driven by things like allocating resources based on race/tribalism largely in due to the democratic leadership (astutely) realizing that they can manipulate the black/hispanic minority into buying into a certain narrative of oppression by using propaganda. its not even about enabling people vs people who actually need the help. its just straight up tribal warfare imo. whether its black vs white, hispanic vs white, poor vs rich, right now everything is fueled by false narratives, anger, emotion, etc. actual quality of life of even the poor in america really is not that bad. basic needs are met. food can be obtained easily and housing as well. its just the supposed "injustice" of not having the NICE things like the new iphone, instagram lifestyle, etc that causes ppl to get so fucking worked up // get themselves into debt, student loans, etc. ^^ all of this so that a few idiotic leftists can seize power, get elected to office//boost their linkedin page//play the power game in washington.

If you're going to make a proper critique of socialism, quote what socialists actually say and explain what is wrong with it, myself being a socialist i don't share any of the views you stated here, except that we do indeed live in a society of poor vs rich, that is true since the rich have different values than the poor and influence politics according to their contrasting interests.

The other post you made, marx was not a theorist of socialism, but a simple advocate of it. It's unclear what kind of socialism he even wanted though, however marx expressed sympathy for non-statist forms of socialism like the paris commune in 1870. And socialism has had a long history of practice, not just theory. It began from illiterate sweatshop workers in the early 19th century before marx's time, and the practice of those socialists back then (1789-1848 in particular, the age or revolution), is the reason why people have things like 8 hour working days now, because of their constant antagonism against the forces of capitalism.

Socialism has a very rich history in america, the people that built the railroads for the robber barrons like carnegie had to work 364 days a year, and as a result of their constant antagnoism we all enjoy the labour rights you have today, although they could be a lot better and they are weaker in america than europe.

On January 02 2020 01:34 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On January 01 2020 14:36 hiems wrote:   On January 01 2020 04:51 froboy12342 wrote:   On December 31 2019 18:06 hiems wrote: socialism in scandi =/= socialism in america. the population in scandi countries are homogeneous. they have common values, culture, etc. the average person in those countries have in general higher human capital value, intelligence, ability to delay instant gratification, etc. (far less retards in sweden,finland,norway). furthermore its really stupid to justify socialism on the basis of identity politics prevalent in today's society. and pls dont give me the bs about how all forms of communism before has been authoritarian forms of communism as opposed to democratic. the leaders of america's democratic party act very much like oligarchs with high paychecks, back end business deals, $$$ from speaking engagements, parlays into lobbying jobs, law firm partnerships, etc. basically use the race card to get votes to get yourself in office then reap the financial rewards for yourself. nothing has changed. andrew yang's ubi seems kind of too early too. he talks about automation as if it has already happened, citing trucking jobs as his main example when in actuality it is yet to be known if this is going to be a thing or not. yes let's spend trillions of dollars solving a problem that hasnt even happened yet... With whatever socialistic/UBI/welfare system put forward, I think that a proper implementation of it would involve establishing it, but then gradually divesting it over time.. Its a way of helping people sure, but also a way of enabling people right? Thus imo, it shouldn't be a mainstay, but a tool to help those who help themselves. And on the other end, with a gradual decrease in funds, this approach should gently spur those who want to abuse the system; the people who will need the assistance to stay the same or increase can petition w/ their local social service to have that happen or something... lol you make socialism in america sound so civil. socialism right now (in america) is not driven in earnest by actual needs. in reality its largely driven by things like allocating resources based on race/tribalism largely in due to the democratic leadership (astutely) realizing that they can manipulate the black/hispanic minority into buying into a certain narrative of oppression by using propaganda. its not even about enabling people vs people who actually need the help. its just straight up tribal warfare imo. whether its black vs white, hispanic vs white, poor vs rich, right now everything is fueled by false narratives, anger, emotion, etc. actual quality of life of even the poor in america really is not that bad. basic needs are met. food can be obtained easily and housing as well. its just the supposed "injustice" of not having the NICE things like the new iphone, instagram lifestyle, etc that causes ppl to get so fucking worked up // get themselves into debt, student loans, etc. ^^ all of this so that a few idiotic leftists can seize power, get elected to office//boost their linkedin page//play the power game in washington. If you're going to make a proper critique of socialism, quote what socialists actually say and explain what is wrong with it, myself being a socialist i don't share any of the views you stated here, except that we do indeed live in a society of poor vs rich, that is true since the rich have different values than the poor and influence politics according to their contrasting interests. The other post you made, marx was not a theorist of socialism, but a simple advocate of it. It's unclear what kind of socialism he even wanted though, however marx expressed sympathy for non-statist forms of socialism like the paris commune in 1870. And socialism has had a long history of practice, not just theory. It began from illiterate sweatshop workers in the early 19th century before marx's time, and the practice of those socialists back then (1789-1848 in particular, the age or revolution), is the reason why people have things like 8 hour working days now, because of their constant antagonism against the forces of capitalism. Socialism has a very rich history in america, the people that built the railroads for the robber barrons like carnegie had to work 364 days a year, and as a result of their constant antagnoism we all enjoy the labour rights you have today, although they could be a lot better and they are weaker in america than europe.

i dont have time/interest to research politics all day and have no interest in getting a degree in political science like u. i dont care whether marx was a theorist of socialism or not whether its marxism communism whatever. i think i was originally thinking of das kapital which sounds like a title an overly theoretical nerd would make. and idgaf what engels was a proponent of either. yeah of course there is some balance of socialist elements and capitalist ones. obv i dont think we should go back to how it was in the guilded age or whatever. i mean thats clearly not my point (which goes back to my point of ppl being way too theoretical/wrapped up in books and such). The socialist movement TODAY in america is stupid. .

if you want me to quote actual socialists, ill quote elizabeth warren she said on twitter when she tweeted her policy proposals something along the lines of "black/hispanic ppl are most affected by student loan debt so my proposal is to eliminate all student loan debt using xyz STUPID ASS method". ill say this again the socialist movement in america is NOT driven in earnest by actual needs, but by rather "racial" ones which are in my opinion a manipulation by democratic leadership and their desire to win elections. seriously what kind of stupid policy is something that says "oh ok so we are going to take shit from ppl with this skin color and give to these skin colors." its so ridiculous. its basically just a grab to get votes. a racial motivation for socialism is morally outrageous to me. frankly, black people and hispanic people are not as diligent and make worse decisions than whites/asians here. im sorry but its true. obv it depends on the individual but on average this is what i see as the reality right now. i mean clearly if you dont work as hard and you make bad life decisions, you shouldnt just be entitled to cry racism and take away what isnt yours. like i said the socialism in scandi countries works better because they are homogenous. homogenous societies on a whole fare better in alot of aspects socialist policies being one of them. thats not to say we should segregate the population here or anything like that. its too late, we must coexist. but this race based socialism thing is the stupidest thing ever. also, theres nothing wrong with rich ppl.

On January 02 2020 03:37 hiems wrote: Show nested quote + On January 02 2020 01:34 Stroggoz wrote:   On January 01 2020 14:36 hiems wrote:   On January 01 2020 04:51 froboy12342 wrote:   On December 31 2019 18:06 hiems wrote: socialism in scandi =/= socialism in america. the population in scandi countries are homogeneous. they have common values, culture, etc. the average person in those countries have in general higher human capital value, intelligence, ability to delay instant gratification, etc. (far less retards in sweden,finland,norway). furthermore its really stupid to justify socialism on the basis of identity politics prevalent in today's society. and pls dont give me the bs about how all forms of communism before has been authoritarian forms of communism as opposed to democratic. the leaders of america's democratic party act very much like oligarchs with high paychecks, back end business deals, $$$ from speaking engagements, parlays into lobbying jobs, law firm partnerships, etc. basically use the race card to get votes to get yourself in office then reap the financial rewards for yourself. nothing has changed. andrew yang's ubi seems kind of too early too. he talks about automation as if it has already happened, citing trucking jobs as his main example when in actuality it is yet to be known if this is going to be a thing or not. yes let's spend trillions of dollars solving a problem that hasnt even happened yet... With whatever socialistic/UBI/welfare system put forward, I think that a proper implementation of it would involve establishing it, but then gradually divesting it over time.. Its a way of helping people sure, but also a way of enabling people right? Thus imo, it shouldn't be a mainstay, but a tool to help those who help themselves. And on the other end, with a gradual decrease in funds, this approach should gently spur those who want to abuse the system; the people who will need the assistance to stay the same or increase can petition w/ their local social service to have that happen or something... lol you make socialism in america sound so civil. socialism right now (in america) is not driven in earnest by actual needs. in reality its largely driven by things like allocating resources based on race/tribalism largely in due to the democratic leadership (astutely) realizing that they can manipulate the black/hispanic minority into buying into a certain narrative of oppression by using propaganda. its not even about enabling people vs people who actually need the help. its just straight up tribal warfare imo. whether its black vs white, hispanic vs white, poor vs rich, right now everything is fueled by false narratives, anger, emotion, etc. actual quality of life of even the poor in america really is not that bad. basic needs are met. food can be obtained easily and housing as well. its just the supposed "injustice" of not having the NICE things like the new iphone, instagram lifestyle, etc that causes ppl to get so fucking worked up // get themselves into debt, student loans, etc. ^^ all of this so that a few idiotic leftists can seize power, get elected to office//boost their linkedin page//play the power game in washington. If you're going to make a proper critique of socialism, quote what socialists actually say and explain what is wrong with it, myself being a socialist i don't share any of the views you stated here, except that we do indeed live in a society of poor vs rich, that is true since the rich have different values than the poor and influence politics according to their contrasting interests. The other post you made, marx was not a theorist of socialism, but a simple advocate of it. It's unclear what kind of socialism he even wanted though, however marx expressed sympathy for non-statist forms of socialism like the paris commune in 1870. And socialism has had a long history of practice, not just theory. It began from illiterate sweatshop workers in the early 19th century before marx's time, and the practice of those socialists back then (1789-1848 in particular, the age or revolution), is the reason why people have things like 8 hour working days now, because of their constant antagonism against the forces of capitalism. Socialism has a very rich history in america, the people that built the railroads for the robber barrons like carnegie had to work 364 days a year, and as a result of their constant antagnoism we all enjoy the labour rights you have today, although they could be a lot better and they are weaker in america than europe.

i dont have time/interest to research politics all day and have no interest in getting a degree in political science like u. i dont care whether marx was a theorist of socialism or not whether its marxism communism whatever. i think i was originally thinking of das kapital which sounds like a title an overly theoretical nerd would make. and idgaf what engels was a proponent of either. to me both are overly theoretical nerds.

yeah of course there is some balance of socialist elements and capitalist ones. obv i dont think we should go back to how it was in the guilded age or whatever. i mean thats clearly not my point.The socialist movement TODAY in america is stupid. .

if you want me to quote actual socialists, ill quote elizabeth warren she said on twitter when she tweeted her policy proposals something along the lines of "black/hispanic ppl are most affected by student loan debt so my proposal is to eliminate all student loan debt using xyz STUPID ASS method". ill say this again the socialist movement in america is NOT driven in earnest by actual needs, but by rather "racial" ones which are in my opinion a manipulation by democratic leadership and their desire to win elections. seriously what kind of stupid policy is something that says "oh ok so we are going to take shit from ppl with this skin color and give to these skin colors." its so ridiculous. its basically just a grab to get votes. a racial motivation for socialism is morally outrageous to me. frankly, black people and hispanic people are not as diligent and make worse decisions than whites/asians here. im sorry but its true. obv it depends on the individual but on average this is what i see as the reality right now. i mean clearly if you dont work as hard and you make bad life decisions, you shouldnt just be entitled to cry racism and take away what isnt yours. like i said the socialism in scandi countries works better because they are homogenous. homogenous societies on a whole fare better in alot of aspects socialist policies being one of them. thats not to say we should segregate the population here or anything like that. its too late, we must coexist. but this race based socialism thing is the stupidest thing ever. also, theres nothing wrong with rich ppl.

It's an analysis of capital and it literally translates to "Capital" and that sounds "nerdy" and "overly theoretical"? Lol. It's not the Phenomenology of Spirit for Christ's sake. I didn't know that anti-intellectualism could extend to having a problem with a one word title for a book which clearly states what is the subject of study. If you don't care about the subject then why are you making arguments in favor of capitalism and "limited government"? You can't just revert back to some childish "I don't care" retort when someone calls you out on your bad argumentation and the misinformation you are putting forth.

Elizabeth Warren isn't a socialist and she isn't "radical". She is barely left of center, closer to Yang (who is a centrist) than to Bernie who is democratic socialist. Socialism is further left from that. Socialism isn't when "government does stuff". This is why 99% of economic discussions don't go anywhere, because people don't care to understand the terminology they are using.

Politicians are by definition people who try to manipulate people to vote for them. That doesn't mean the ideas they bring up are necessarily wrong. In the case of reparations, it's clearly what is moral to do, and in the long term it would benefit any multicultural society. It's especially important to consider when you admit that people have to co-exist and you don't advocate for ethnostates. When people have been historically wronged and severely disadvantaged and that history is still being played out in the present, you don't get to tell them that they simply "made bad decisions" and don't have the work ethic of money-loving Asians. That's not going to heal any wounds and it's completely besides the point.

On January 02 2020 18:36 Loco wrote: It's an analysis of capital and it literally translates to "Capital" and that sounds "nerdy" and "overly theoretical"? Lol. It's not the Phenomenology of Spirit for Christ's sake. I didn't know that anti-intellectualism could extend to having a problem with a one word title for a book which clearly states what is the subject of study. If you don't care about the subject then why are you making arguments in favor of capitalism and "limited government"? You can't just revert back to some childish "I don't care" retort when someone calls you out on your bad argumentation and the misinformation you are putting forth. Elizabeth Warren isn't a socialist and she isn't "radical". She is barely left of center, closer to Yang (who is a centrist) than to Bernie who is democratic socialist. Socialism is further left from that. Socialism isn't when "government does stuff". This is why 99% of economic discussions don't go anywhere, because people don't care to understand the terminology they are using. Politicians are by definition people who try to manipulate people to vote for them. That doesn't mean the ideas they bring up are necessarily wrong. In the case of remunerations, it's clearly what is moral to do, and in the long term it would benefit any multicultural society. It's especially important to consider when you admit that people have to co-exist and you don't advocate for ethnostates. When people have been historically wronged and severely disadvantaged and that history is still being played out in the present, you don't get to tell them that they simply "made bad decisions" and don't have the work ethic of money-loving Asians. That's not going to heal any wounds and it's completely besides the point.

Obv I dont literally think the title for the book makes the point valid. I am using whimsical statements because I think clearly my point is correct though. In your case, why harp on the whimsical and not look at the bigger picture which is pretty self-evident imo. None of his stuff works/has worked. They wrote long ass books and attended fancy pants intellectual meetings yet lots of people have suffered cause his theories never work. I dont get it. They are overly theoretical nerds like I said, kind of like you.

Elizabeth warren is a socialist. Again, maybe not by some overly theoretical nerd technicality, but most people in America would identify her as a socialist. We are talking about socialism in America, I have used that phrase many times. Most people would identify her as far left/radical politically. Again, ofc unless we are using some fantasy land definition.

Obv we disagree on this whole "renumeration" issue. So we'll move on from that.

Most people in America believe in angels. Do you also side with the majority on that point? and am I being a sad overly theoretical nerd who doesn't get laid enough because I don't believe along with the majority that angels are real? Why do you think I should be imprecise with my use words and concepts to suit what most people think when they have been taught and manipulated to think the wrong things? Warren has specifically said that she is "a capitalist to her bones" and she is correct in that assessment. She is not a socialist; she wants to use some half-assed measures to save capitalism from itself in the short term, not usher in a post-capitalist world.

The "overly theoretical" statement you rely on so much in your bad argumentation is also wrong. Not just a little bit wrong, but flat out wrong. If it was "overly theoretical" then by definition no one could have dreamed of trying to apply it to the real world. But since countless people have, and the world has evidently been changed by his writings, you are proven wrong. You don't have to "like" Marx to admit to this truth. And it doesn't matter for the sake of this one specific argument that "communism hasn't worked according to Marx" or whatever claim you might want to defend. If it was all utopian or airy-fairy abstract nonsense it wouldn't have had the reach that it had and moved so many people into action.

Parts of his theories were wrong because he was limited in what he could know at the time of writing. This is true of all knowledge including scientific knowledge. One person never gets everything right. And one person never stands on their own but on the whole of accumulated human knowledge. That doesn't mean that you can dismiss the entirety of someone's writings as inconsequential rubbish. It cannot be overstated just how wrong Marx was on some things and how his later followers and those who would pervert his writings went on to create enormous suffering, but that suffering and blood is also on the hands of capitalists and capitalist apologists who support unnecessary violence and exploitation when it is in line with their specific interests.