Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Martell Spy

Workable Socialism

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hell, no. Thanks, but... no.

Sigh. I keep forgetting that sarcasm within the context of our current reality is pointless. My bad.

Edited by Mindwalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Br16 said:

The right to pass on wealth is what motivates people to risk what they have now to innovate and build, to reinvest and develop things long term. Without it, anyone with a bit of money now would just squander it on wild living, because the more he/she leaves behind, the more others take away. 

- What motivates some people. It has been demonstrated (by economists as a matter of fact) that financial rewards play a much smaller role in work than some (like you) would have us think. It's really simple: some functions in society do not offer the possibility of hoarding wealth (i.e. are not well-paid) while for some functions the salary does not depend on the quality of the work itself (or very indirectly).
Our societies only function because there is much more than "passing on wealth" that motivates people.

- "Squander on wild living" ? What does this even mean? By your logic anyone who succeeds and doesn't have children lives on hookers and cocaine, is that it? :D Please please explain this one, I think we can all use a good laugh.

Your view of human nature is so ridiculous that I'm not even mad, I don't know how you can actually believe what you write. Or it's more likely you don't even realize what you're saying. I'll go out on a limb and say you need to read more.

In a nutshell, humans are much more than economic agents, and to reduce human motivations to economic considerations is already ridiculous in the extreme. Unfortunately, as a dominant ideology this vision is also extremely dangerous since it seeks both to legitimize the current levels of inequality (which you're desperately trying to do yourself) and destroy social structures not based on profit.

Also, the amount of wealth that would suffice to motivate individuals is actually quite low. Again, there's been stuff written about that.

4 hours ago, Br16 said:

Only partially,  the capital investment and market vision is what led to the success. Without capital,raw materials, networks, equipment and a coherent business plan, simply having workers create nothing.

And how does one get the capital investment and market vision? Is everyone born with the capital or possibility of borrowing it? With the bare amount of knowledge necessary to develop a "market vision" ?

Even with all the financial and cultural capital, only a lucky few succeed ; conversely, entrepreneurship is completely out of reach of the vast majority of humans...

Piketty has demonstrated why and how people don't get wealthy through work, even in the developed world (let's not even begin to talk about developing countries). We're back to 18th century levels of inequality that mean wealth is primarily inherited. The few rich people whose names we know are the counter-examples, the focus on which serves propaganda purposes. The reality is that wealth is so concentrated that there can no longer be any objective link between great wealth and merit.

25 minutes ago, Br16 said:

Who knows, things may turn his way one day. In a labor shortage, he can command a higher wage, or even demand shares.

Yeah, no, it just doesn't work like that. Once the balance of power swings in the direction of the capitalists it doesn't swing back "naturally". The market does not self-correct, it is too heavily influenced by those who possess the capital.

The idea that the market prices everything "accordingly" is laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Zorral said:

Why are you furious with what I posted, when what I posted recognizes and says so, the claims of First Peoples and animals, fish, fowl and trees to the places they inhabit?  How did I insult you? I stated there are claims to locations and places that are valid that don't depend on filing  deed of property in a European legally-derived court, etc.

Oh is that all you did? Than I must have imagined this part.

11 hours ago, Zorral said:

So ... you say that native americans and animals losing their habitats and territories is their own fault, because they didn't file deeds of property?

You missed the point entirely, which is it's not merely deeds that makes for ownership.  Or how essential to sheer existence having even a hole in the ground is.

Were you accuse me of being okay with the cultural, and in some cases actual, genocide of my people.

In any event I missed nothing. You brought up deeds, not me. And you're inability to think of property in anything but European terms is not something I feel like engaging with anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

- "Squander on wild living" ? What does this even mean? By your logic anyone who succeeds and doesn't have children lives on hookers and cocaine, is that it? :D Please please explain this one, I think we can all use a good laugh.

Your view of human nature is so ridiculous that I'm not even mad, I don't know how you can actually believe what you write. Or it's more likely you don't even realize what you're saying. I'll go out on a limb and say you need to read more.

Say you are skilled and have some savings. You can either invest it in something that will outlast you and pass it on to your family and assume the risk of trying to establish a dynasty, or you could live well--fine dining, luxury brands, parties, hotels and womanizing etc. You're more likely to do the former if you know you can keep what you succeed in building. The best of the best will not bother reaching their full potential if you take away their success.

46 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It's really simple: some functions in society do not offer the possibility of hoarding wealth (i.e. are not well-paid) while for some functions the salary does not depend on the quality of the work itself (or very indirectly).

A lot of people work to survive or save up a silver of capital. Nothing wrong with that. The able among them are still motivated by potential future wealth elsewhere, and as long as they know they have the ability to invest freely, and the right to keep what they've made, they'll take risks, and that is progress.

46 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Piketty has demonstrated why and how people don't get wealthy through work, even in the developed world (let's not even begin to talk about developing countries). We're back to 18th century levels of inequality that mean wealth is primarily inherited

Society is unequal, and there is nothing wrong with inherited wealth. For most of history, successful soldiers (and merchants that paid) were ennobled etc., raising them and their heirs to a higher station of life. Thus, people were motivated to conquer, trade and discover. Nowadays, conspicuous inherited wealth is still an important motivator that draws out the next great innovator or design pioneer. It encourages people to take the risk of doing business. They may not all succeed, but the ones who do will innovate and create. 

46 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

In a nutshell, humans are much more than economic agents, and to reduce human motivations to economic considerations is already ridiculous in the extreme. Unfortunately, as a dominant ideology this vision is also extremely dangerous since it seeks both to legitimize the current levels of inequality (which you're desperately trying to do yourself) and destroy social structures not based on profit.

Almost everything is based on a variation of the profit principle. For example, Christians want Heaven. Some of them turn the other cheek because they think it'll pay off in the long run. Sacrifice now and reap later.

Moreover, I'm curious, as you don't like current levels of inequality, how are you going to end it?

Edited by Br16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Most inherited wealth in this country has its roots in some pretty unsavory practices that likely included a lot of violence and coercion.  I assume your okay with me just taking some of that frim say, someone like Tywin, to give to my descendants?  

The majority of people who've made it are great people, capable people. But they are automatically painted with the same brush and derided as guilty of this or that or something. For every unsavory titan, there are probably scores of honest and resourceful ancestors who were discreet, and who we don't hear about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Br16 said:

If you're deadly serious about this:

Then why complain? Just enjoy what you have, it's not rot to you. Your (I presume) quarterly allowance was given to you as a voluntary gift, so its your money, and that's all that matters. You can't revoke someone's property rights just because of bad attitude.

If you are indeed wealthy but feel bad, just give 10% of each allowance to a charity of your choice.

Lol, based on this and a few other comments, I figured you were a young libertarian who loved Ayn Rand. Imagine my joy this morning to see you created a thread dedicated to her idiocy. The only thing left was to figure out if you were a rich kid or a kid who dreamed of being rich, and I think it’s quite clear you’re the latter. I feel bad for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lol, based on this and a few other comments, I figured you were a young libertarian who loved Ayn Rand. Imagine my joy this morning to see you created a thread dedicated to her idiocy. The only thing left was to figure out if you were a rich kid or a kid who dreamed of being rich, and I think it’s quite clear you’re the latter. I feel bad for you. 

You're welcome to drop by my thread. I'm sure we'll have exciting discussions.

Also, a normal person may one day become rich, but the saddest thing in the world is to have money and not appreciate it. You're throwing it all away, and one day, you'll regret it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Br16 said:

Almost everything is based on a variation of the profit principle.

No, it's a perspective that may be used in a number of specific situations but certainly not a universal rule...
Yet, at least. Some people -like you- want to see the world this way and may even work to make it this way.

I see this as the epitomy of evil. It's a cultural thing: greed is a deadly sin, selfishness is an undesirable trait, and self-interest a despicable motivation. Of course, you can always claim I'm virtue-signaling (I probably am, even if mostly to myself) and thus seeking to profit from my own altruistic perspective in some way (well, you could try). But whatever the reason, you'll find it hard to convince large numbers of people who disagree that "greed is good."

1 hour ago, Br16 said:

The best of the best will not bother reaching their full potential if you take away their success.

And why should I care? B)

See, this is why yours is a self-defeating argument. If there's nothing wrong with greed (whether for yourself or your family) and selfishness, then why should I (presumably not one of the best of the best in this scenario) care about them reaching their full potential? 

There's a reason why we base our societies on the principle of equality. Not because all humans are equal, but because in order for people to adhere to the rules of a society, the principles of the society need to be inclusive enough for almost everyone. Everyone needs to have a chance.
If the rules of the game are rigged, not many people will want to play it, instead they'll question its rules. Which is what people are doing here.

1 hour ago, Br16 said:

Society is unequal, and there is nothing wrong with inherited wealth.

Says you. Most people here disagree and see inherited wealth as morally wrong.
What is supposed to make your perspective superior? Do you at least have a utilitarian argument somewhere, or are we just trading blows on the moral level (which is utterly pointless for everyone) ?

1 hour ago, Br16 said:

Nowadays, conspicuous inherited wealth is still an important motivator that draws out the next great innovator or design pioneer. It encourages people to take the risk of doing business. They may not all succeed, but the ones who do will innovate and create.

Says who?

To begin with, can you even prove that innovation mostly come from the private sector? Like, before even getting into what motivates humans (a topic that you vastly oversimplify), do you even data that supports the idea that profit is the main driver of innovation and creation?

1 hour ago, Br16 said:

Moreover, I'm curious, as you don't like current levels of inequality, how are you going to end it?

I'd start by reinstating the policies implemented in the West right after World War II.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Br16 said:

You're welcome to drop by my thread. I'm sure we'll have exciting discussions.

Also, a normal person may one day become rich, but the saddest thing in the world is to have money and not appreciate it. You're throwing it all away, and one day, you'll regret it. 

Why would I ever waste my time talking about Rand. It’s for teenage boys, and those who don’t grow out of it become sad adults.

And who said anything about throwing money away? You can both grow your net worth and reinvest in your community to help others. My grandfather crawled out of a Jewish ghetto and took pride in old age knowing he along with a few others helped turn it into an upper middle class community.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I'd start by reinstating the policies implemented in the West right after World War II.
 

I don't think we can afford that anymore. We're not some victor country emerging unscathed from the ashes of WWII with all the wealth and industrial capacity. Moreover. Marshall plan and the demand for wholesale reconstruction helped fuel post war spending/economic boom in Europe. That's not going to be replicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And who said anything about throwing money away? You can both grow your net worth and reinvest in your community to help others. My grandfather crawled out of a Jewish ghetto and took pride in old age knowing he along with a few others helped turn it into an upper middle class community.

So there you go, your grandfather pulled himself up by the bootstraps, distinguished himself and grew his wealth, and now you have money, just like he intended. There's nothing in my philosophy against voluntary charity, especially when it's mutually beneficial like in your Grandfather's case. Yet you advocate to have it all forcefully redistributed, and agree with people who insult the likes of your grandfather. You may not be throwing away your money, but you are throwing away your rights.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Br16 said:

 

So there you go, your grandfather pulled himself up by the bootstraps, distinguished himself and grew his wealth, and now you have money, just like he intended. There's nothing in my philosophy against voluntary charity, especially when it's mutually beneficial like in your Grandfather's case. Yet you advocate to have it all forcefully redistributed, and agree with people who insult the likes of your grandfather. You may not be throwing away your money, but you are throwing away your rights.

 

So he is a class traitor. What about everyone else's rights? His right to leisure comes before people's rights to basic housing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Br16 said:

The majority of people who've made it are great people, capable people. But they are automatically painted with the same brush and derided as guilty of this or that or something. For every unsavory titan, there are probably scores of honest and resourceful ancestors who were discreet, and who we don't hear about.

This "ancestor" talk reeks of slaveholder mentality. It's creepy and doesn't belong in this thread. We're talking about socialism, not whatever it is you think this is about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if I couldn’t pass on my wealth to my kids ( something increasingly difficult with UK inheritance taxes which are essentially you being taxed twice on the same money) then that’s great because I will just retire early and spunk it all on frivolous nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think if I couldn’t pass on my wealth to my kids ( something increasingly difficult with UK inheritance taxes which are essentially you being taxed twice on the same money) then that’s great because I will just retire early and spunk it all on frivolous nonsense. 

See, if you tax inheritance, everybody wins!. You get to spend money frivolously and we get some redistribution, nice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

See, if you tax inheritance, everybody wins!. You get to spend money frivolously and we get some redistribution, nice. 

Well nothing would get taxed directly as i’d just spend it all and make sure the government doesn’t get a penny. I’d also become completely unproductive as a citizen, as there is zero incentive for me to bother working any harder than necessary 

(Although what really happens with inheritance taxes is that as I have experienced in real life, you find loopholes and ways to pass on money and assets to your children that means you don’t pay tax)

Edited by Heartofice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Br16 said:

I don't think we can afford that anymore.

Son, nations can "afford" whatever the fuck they really want, and the US more than any other.

I notice you stopped addressing the other arguments though. Maybe you finally ran out of time (we all have to be productive after all) but I can't help think that there's simply no way you can answer an opposite moral viewpoint.
By that I mean that our respective moralities are obviously built on elements that are impossible to reconcile.

There's also a logical problem for you though: if we are to build a society based on self-interest then my self-interest is to oppose such a society with all my strength. It's ironic but the radical expression of right-wing thinking that you're providing us with will never convince us, but it could actually convince others that socialism ain't that bad after all... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well nothing would get taxed directly as i’d just spend it all and make sure the government doesn’t get a penny. I’d also become completely unproductive as a citizen, as there is zero incentive for me to bother working any harder than necessary 

(Although what really happens with inheritance taxes is that as I have experienced in real life, you find loopholes and ways to pass on money and assets to your children that means you don’t pay tax)

So i have a question for the anti socialist and rand sympathizers. What is your incentive to work?, why do you guys and girls think that the only incentive on earth is to earn and acumulate money. Why do you think that without that "incentive", no one who would want to do anything, like is money and power the only reason people create and want to better themselfs and the world? I have heard this argument from sooo many neo liberal capitalist, they always go back to the incentives, and it is always money and power, but mostly money. 

Edited by Conflicting Thought
Word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

So i have a question for the anti socialist and rand sympathizers. What is your incentive to work?, why do you guys and girls think that the only incentive on earth is to earn and acumulate money. Why do you think that without that "incentive", no one who would want to do anything, like is money and power the only reason people create and want to better themselfs and the world? I have heard this argument from sooo many neo liberal capitalist, they always go back to the incentives, and it is always money and power, but mostly money. 

I’m not a Rand sympathiser, but I do question many of these socialist ideas. 

I can only speak personally but yes , money, social status and comfort of living are very large drivers in my career. If money was not an incentive I probably would still be a barman or I would sit at home and do nothing, that is my honest opinion. 

I pursued a career in order to make money , and this will sound odd, but yeah I made money because the ladies don’t like no scrubs! Now I have a family I provide for them. 

I get the sense that some people expect people would go out and do the shitty jobs if nobody paid them, risk their lives cleaning shit in sewers or windows on sky scrapers. Most jobs are not about creation and we cant all spend our lives writing blog posts or making nice paintings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

See, if you tax inheritance, everybody wins!. You get to spend money frivolously and we get some redistribution, nice. 

I have to ask a question before I go any further, are you in favor of a 100% across the board inheritance tax for all estates regardless of size?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×