OPMar 16, 2021·2 replies
rozcoInteresting points in this thread and I really like reading this stuff and talking about it, but at the end of the day I believe we're better off giving the basic means of production to individuals and not letting the government run everything.
I think the government needs to provide some basic services without questions because other wise what's the point of it's existence, but overall I like capitalism with some socialist ideas. So pretty much just where we're heading.
I love America and I think it's been an amazing experiment and will continue to be successful
Once again, socialism is not "when the government runs things"
And we aren't heading towards "capitalism with some socialist ideas" either. No idea what would lead any sane person to thinking this. We can't even get a minimum wage increase lol. Like, you would have to ignore nearly all actual data about America, completely disregard those not in the imperial core, and just live with your head in the sand generally in order to make that last statement.
Mar 16, 2021Shut up nerd
Mar 16, 2021
LouChina is not socialist by any metric
Socialism is a process to communism, not something that you are or aren’t. Sometimes they move forwards in the process and sometimes backwards, but they’re still a socialist country, especially from the perspective of the United States
Mar 16, 2021NiceLikeChristat least my assumption is backed by civilizations going back to the fertile crescent
never seen a civilization where people didn't want more than what they had
and thats not human nature
Mar 16, 2021
JMCwatch this lecture from about 10:17 to around 27:00 minute mark if you’re interested in the view of an actual economist who disagrees with you. economics is far from an empirical science. econ students and teachers who wrap themselves up in only the neoclassical model like to think it’s a science, but that’s delusional
!https://youtu.be/9aK4OztueuEi'm familiar with yanis. dude describes himself as a libertarian socialist so likewise he says silly things a lot. but he knows his stuff about game theory so i gave it a listen. i'm at work currently so i had it in the background while coding. i'll give it a watch in closed captioning later.
if i'm understanding correctly, his main issue is with how experiments are run and lab conditions. difficulty in running experiments in economics do exist because of the difficulty of creating controlled environments. that much is true. it's also true for astrophysics and cosmology. it does not discredit them as a science.
and yes, it's an empirical science. literally >70% of the top papers written are written under an empirical methodology. it also has a replication rate higher than psychology and medical fields like pharma.
- Mar 16, 2021·1 replyrozco
Interesting points in this thread and I really like reading this stuff and talking about it, but at the end of the day I believe we're better off giving the basic means of production to individuals and not letting the government run everything.
I think the government needs to provide some basic services without questions because other wise what's the point of it's existence, but overall I like capitalism with some socialist ideas. So pretty much just where we're heading.
I love America and I think it's been an amazing experiment and will continue to be successful
"I think the government needs to provide some basic services without questions because other wise what's the point of it's existence"
military, judicial/police, and roads has been the main role of government for thousands of years.
Mar 16, 2021·1 reply
Mustafa SinghYou can’t have social mobility without social inequality
yeah i actually don't have a problem with this concept necessarily
obviously has its downfalls but I'd rather mobility than stagnation that isn't proportionate to what someone has to offer to society
- Mar 16, 2021Synopsis
Once again, socialism is not "when the government runs things"
And we aren't heading towards "capitalism with some socialist ideas" either. No idea what would lead any sane person to thinking this. We can't even get a minimum wage increase lol. Like, you would have to ignore nearly all actual data about America, completely disregard those not in the imperial core, and just live with your head in the sand generally in order to make that last statement.
states and cities have had minimum wage increases. It just hasnt passed federally.
- OPMar 16, 2021·3 repliesjg33
yeah i actually don't have a problem with this concept necessarily
obviously has its downfalls but I'd rather mobility than stagnation that isn't proportionate to what someone has to offer to society
Once again just refusing to do any learning or research. there is almost no social mobility in America. Why is that? because inequality and mobility are not actually compatible lol. You don't just wake up poor and say 'hey f*** it ill work to get into the next income bracket!"
no, being poor actually, you know, comes with a lot of factors that will then prevent you from moving up. This is not rocket science.
- Mar 16, 2021
- Mar 16, 2021Synopsis
Once again just refusing to do any learning or research. there is almost no social mobility in America. Why is that? because inequality and mobility are not actually compatible lol. You don't just wake up poor and say 'hey f*** it ill work to get into the next income bracket!"
no, being poor actually, you know, comes with a lot of factors that will then prevent you from moving up. This is not rocket science.
do you gave any recent data to back this?
- Mar 16, 2021·1 replySynopsis
Once again just refusing to do any learning or research. there is almost no social mobility in America. Why is that? because inequality and mobility are not actually compatible lol. You don't just wake up poor and say 'hey f*** it ill work to get into the next income bracket!"
no, being poor actually, you know, comes with a lot of factors that will then prevent you from moving up. This is not rocket science.
also you 100% can be poor and get in higher income bracket.
Do well in high school -> go to college on scholarships because you did well -> find higher paying job
Do okay in highschool -> go to trade school -> work in trade and have higher paying job
- Mar 16, 2021
STOP
- Mar 16, 2021CLB Fractions
also you 100% can be poor and get in higher income bracket.
Do well in high school -> go to college on scholarships because you did well -> find higher paying job
Do okay in highschool -> go to trade school -> work in trade and have higher paying job
There is a better alternative. If by 27 you still poor and dont have a job you are forced to join the military forever.
Mar 16, 2021·3 repliesSynopsisAt this point, I just need to know. Are you a wannabe capitalist? Do you not understand the theory enough, are you fundamentally confused as to what socialism is? Apolitical entirely, blind to the facts, etc.,?
I simply want to know how one can live in this world, with all the failings of capitalism laid bare, and still not search out that better alternative.
Because capitalism is not a discrete economic system. Capitalism is a term socialist authors used to describe the economic situation they were critiquing, which unlike socialism was not a deliberate conception stemming from theory, but instead a market progression from the end of feudalism.
Your phrasing of the question suggests that you find the theory to be highly compelling, but theory does not exist in a vacuum. There are concepts that predate the theory, modifications to the theory, and of course opposition to the theory.
Just because you find the theory compelling does not mean everybody will, nor that it has some undeniable argumentative force to everyone who reads and understands it. That is the nature of discourse. Marx for example developed a materialist philosophy. If i'm not a materialist then i'm going to have a hard time taking what Marx says seriously if his basis for proving it is materialism.
With all that out of the way, i'm not a socialist because i think it relies on shoddy philosophy to justify it's veracity and tends to be painted as the best (or only) alternative to "capitalism" which is a premise i reject. Also i feel like it promotes a Eurocentric worldview.
- Mar 16, 2021·6 replies
No social mobility in the US? You’re projecting your own shortcomings. You’re still just bitter and cynical because you are a failed blogger that thought you’d make it big that way.
Wage stagnation is a huge problem, but our entire education system is basically a simple and easy track for social mobility. You can literally do the bare minimum and achieve financial stability.
- Mar 16, 2021
Just copy Sweden
- Mar 16, 2021
The Infinite MBecause socialism isnt the better alternative.
Its still capitalism, just not Neo capitalism like in the US
Yes Marx created Capitalism without the Neo.
Mar 16, 2021Because I'm not ed
Mar 16, 2021Buckleys AngelNo social mobility in the US? You’re projecting your own shortcomings. You’re still just bitter and cynical because you are a failed blogger that thought you’d make it big that way.
Wage stagnation is a huge problem, but our entire education system is basically a simple and easy track for social mobility. You can literally do the bare minimum and achieve financial stability.
- OPMar 16, 2021KOL Meezy Mestizo
Because capitalism is not a discrete economic system. Capitalism is a term socialist authors used to describe the economic situation they were critiquing, which unlike socialism was not a deliberate conception stemming from theory, but instead a market progression from the end of feudalism.
Your phrasing of the question suggests that you find the theory to be highly compelling, but theory does not exist in a vacuum. There are concepts that predate the theory, modifications to the theory, and of course opposition to the theory.
Just because you find the theory compelling does not mean everybody will, nor that it has some undeniable argumentative force to everyone who reads and understands it. That is the nature of discourse. Marx for example developed a materialist philosophy. If i'm not a materialist then i'm going to have a hard time taking what Marx says seriously if his basis for proving it is materialism.
With all that out of the way, i'm not a socialist because i think it relies on shoddy philosophy to justify it's veracity and tends to be painted as the best (or only) alternative to "capitalism" which is a premise i reject. Also i feel like it promotes a Eurocentric worldview.
Uh yeah Marx himself would say the theory is not a catch all lol
- Mar 16, 2021·2 repliesSynopsis
Once again just refusing to do any learning or research. there is almost no social mobility in America. Why is that? because inequality and mobility are not actually compatible lol. You don't just wake up poor and say 'hey f*** it ill work to get into the next income bracket!"
no, being poor actually, you know, comes with a lot of factors that will then prevent you from moving up. This is not rocket science.
Oh cool right I forgot I have to find "the research"
more than willing to respect your OPINION but don't sit here and say to me that there is any way that your stance is the objective truth
provide me with evidence that there is no social mobility amongst the poor, you've yet to do anything but talk in an extremely patronizing manner
please at least point me in the right direction if you want me to do research, I'm more than willing to look, that's the only reason I'm engaging in conversation with you in the first place.
If you have "the truth" then tell me where to go
- OPMar 16, 2021
Kwame ture already eviscerated that eurocentric s*** too.
- OPMar 16, 2021KOL Meezy Mestizo
Because capitalism is not a discrete economic system. Capitalism is a term socialist authors used to describe the economic situation they were critiquing, which unlike socialism was not a deliberate conception stemming from theory, but instead a market progression from the end of feudalism.
Your phrasing of the question suggests that you find the theory to be highly compelling, but theory does not exist in a vacuum. There are concepts that predate the theory, modifications to the theory, and of course opposition to the theory.
Just because you find the theory compelling does not mean everybody will, nor that it has some undeniable argumentative force to everyone who reads and understands it. That is the nature of discourse. Marx for example developed a materialist philosophy. If i'm not a materialist then i'm going to have a hard time taking what Marx says seriously if his basis for proving it is materialism.
With all that out of the way, i'm not a socialist because i think it relies on shoddy philosophy to justify it's veracity and tends to be painted as the best (or only) alternative to "capitalism" which is a premise i reject. Also i feel like it promotes a Eurocentric worldview.
Anyways cute paragraphs but didnt really state much. Like yeah socialists theorists say the same s*** about the formation of capitalism
And socialism isn't stemmed from theory either, marx literally lays out how just like modes of production all flow from one another, socialism will flow from capitalism. And later on guys like lenin expanded on it. And then you have guys like mao who also expanded, and then a bunch of others who applied the tenants to their material conditions. Which is literally the point lol
- Mar 16, 2021CLB Fractions
"I think the government needs to provide some basic services without questions because other wise what's the point of it's existence"
military, judicial/police, and roads has been the main role of government for thousands of years.
For sure. I think they should also include providing health care and we should have a hire tax on extremely high income earners and companies.