What percentage of Socialists do you think want socialism for the sake of compassion?

[Pwent]

I always see people saying things like "jesus would be a socialist" or that socialism is more moral vs greedy capitalists. However I think socialism is one of the most selfish mainstream ideologies. it teaches

"you have to give me stuff, just because I exist. I deserve the result of your labor, just because I want it. It is not fair for you to have more than me, even if youve earned it. I get to decide how much of your stuff that I deserve"

They try to take the moral highground, but it already breaks 2 of the 10 commandments
-thou shall not steal
-thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods

However, almost all socialists claim to be part of the group that would be sacrificing more money, and want socialism so that they can give more to the poor. Almost none claim to be in the group that has less and would benefit from taking money from those who have it. They act as if they cant donate their money on their own, but need everyone else to be forced to donate alongside them in order to do it themselves.

I do believe there is some percentage that really do want socialism for the sake of those less than them, and dont think of themselves or their family in that group of beneficiaries, but what percentage do you think they are?

Poll compares the percentage that want it because they believe they or their family would benefit from taking from others vs the percentage that thinks they personally would be worse off from socialism but want to help people with less than they

 

[ripskater]

I have no idea.

 

[Pwent]

this is an example of the shit that inspired this thread

how can you compare bernie to jesus when everyone of his speeches includes "millionaires and billionaires" and how we deserve their money

how does that not conflict with "thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods"

also people refer to things like "free education" or "free" healthcare. I ask them "who will pay for it" and they say they would raise taxes on the top 1%. how is it not considered greed to want to take from someone else youve never met because you feel you deserve their more than they do??

 

[ripskater]

I always see people saying things like "jesus would be a socialist" or that socialism is more moral vs greedy capitalists. However I think socialism is one of the most selfish mainstream ideologies. it teaches

"you have to give me stuff, just because I exist. I deserve the result of your labor, just because I want it. It is not fair for you to have more than me, even if youve earned it. I get to decide how much of your stuff that I deserve"

They try to take the moral highground, but it already breaks 2 of the 10 commandments
-thou shall not steal
-thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods

However, almost all socialists claim to be part of the group that would be sacrificing more money, and want socialism so that they can give more to the poor. Almost none claim to be in the group that has less and would benefit from taking money from those who have it. They act as if they cant donate their money on their own, but need everyone else to be forced to donate alongside them in order to do it themselves.

I do believe there is some percentage that really do want socialism for the sake of those less than them, and dont think of themselves or their family in that group of beneficiaries, but what percentage do you think they are?

Poll compares the percentage that want it because they believe they or their family would benefit from taking from others vs the percentage that thinks they personally would be worse off from socialism but want to help people with less than they

A couple things kill socialism.

When some people take the easy way out and get lazy. Therefore the hard workers resent the people who don't do what they should be trying to do. Especially when the lazy aren't even thankful to the people that busted their butts to work so that they could have.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Psychological egoism says your poll might be a tad simplistic. People want security for sure. How they attain it is fairly complex. And I do believe that complexity contains genuine empathy and sacrifice.

 

[ripskater]

In liberals vs conservatives donating to charity, the conservatives give a bigger percent of their income.

 

[ripskater]

I remember when Al Gore ran for president, he only gave $358 to charity in 1998.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I always see people saying things like "jesus would be a socialist" or that socialism is more moral vs greedy capitalists. However I think socialism is one of the most selfish mainstream ideologies. it teaches

"you have to give me stuff, just because I exist. I deserve the result of your labor, just because I want it. It is not fair for you to have more than me, even if youve earned it. I get to decide how much of your stuff that I deserve"

They try to take the moral highground, but it already breaks 2 of the 10 commandments
-thou shall not steal
-thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods

However, almost all socialists claim to be part of the group that would be sacrificing more money, and want socialism so that they can give more to the poor. Almost none claim to be in the group that has less and would benefit from taking money from those who have it. They act as if they cant donate their money on their own, but need everyone else to be forced to donate alongside them in order to do it themselves.

I do believe there is some percentage that really do want socialism for the sake of those less than them, and dont think of themselves or their family in that group of beneficiaries, but what percentage do you think they are?

Poll compares the percentage that want it because they believe they or their family would benefit from taking from others vs the percentage that thinks they personally would be worse off from socialism but want to help people with less than they

Socialism is based on envy to the precise extent that capitalism is based on greed.

 

[Pwent]

I remember when Al Gore ran for president, he only gave 3% of his money to charity.

I have been trying very hard on google, to find a quote that was published by someone mildly important (i remember it was a woman) right after obamacare came out and she was surprised that her own premiums went up

she said something along the lines of "it sounded good when they said someone else would pay for it. I didnt know someone else meant us"

I think the majority of socialists have a similar mindset, but i do think there are many who have been convinced that it is what is best for the poor (despite the number of impoverished socialist nations)

 

[ripskater]

I've heard socialism can only be effective if people are united in culture or beliefs.

The way it is now in the USA, you've got the workers and the takers. And many of the takers resent the workers that make it possible for them to be lazy.

 

[Pwent]

I've heard socialism can only be effective if people are united in culture or beliefs.

there would have to be a sense of unity in that there would need to be an inherent desire for the entire group to decide, as only a few "leeches" would (and often do) crash the system

the way families can share money but the entire venezuelan country cant

that being said, i think such a group of people would be successful in almost any reasonable economic system

 

[Pwent]

@Undying Poster ive had ENOUGH of your troll poll choices

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Most do. But to crazed capitalists you can't tell them the truth.

I am a democratic- socialist and not a bad person. There are different types of socialism. Democratic socialism or true socialism can be a beautiful thing. However, to the brainwashed they think this is impossible. Truth is the American right-wing is far out of touch with other right wing parties across the world who embrace many elements of socialism. Laisezz faire capitalism is proven to be a horrible economic system and 'trickle' down Reaganeconomics is a disaster.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I've heard socialism can only be effective if people are united in culture or beliefs.

The way it is now in the USA, you've got the workers and the takers. And many of the takers resent the workers that make it possible for them to be lazy.

This is true. And this is what I stress time and time again.

Capitalism at its core is a system which pits people of the same background/tribe against one another. It's soul end game is profit above all else and economic efficiency via privatization. Under ideal circumstances nations would embrace left-wing Nationalism and socialistic principles and ideals for their own people/tribe/religious cohorts etc. Global communism/Trotsky type socialism is not applicable to every nation on the world nor is it desired. And yes under an ideal socialistic system there would be no 'takers' and no lazy bums' if you were a lazy bum you'd be expelled from the society for not helping the tribe and for freeloading. True socialism cannot work with lazy bums and selfish people and greed everywhere.


So for instance for you it would require that everyone has Jesus in their heart and does away with greed and is a productive member of society. Only then could it function. I am sure Jesus could agree with that.

 

[TheGreatA]

I would think many socialists are people who may have empathy, but who feel incapable of being able to help others, therefore feeling the need to have the state's institutions handle their own individual responsibilities, sometimes to the point where none are left for themselves.

Of course, there are also the manipulative sociopaths who possess no empathy whatsoever, who merely wish to "rile up the masses" in order to gain power. Any group whose interests do not co-align with that of the society's, will be used as an unwitting "tool" to execute a social revolution. After the process is over, these groups will be ruthlessly abandoned. Just like the "white working class" was dumped, so will the new toys eventually find their way to the scrap-yard, once they've served their function.

No system was ever more ruthless and repressive against the LGBT groups and such, than the socialist regimes themselves, which fully understood the diametrical standing of these groups against a healthy, productive, reproducing, properly functioning society. You only require destructive elements, for the purpose of bringing one society down, and establishing another. You can't afford to keep them around once this "utopian" society has already been established.

It is a shame to see that the same game is still being played, with the same pawns being used to achieve an "end game" which isn't necessarily in their own best interests.

 

[ripskater]

This is true. And this is what I stress time and time again.

Capitalism at its core is a system which pits people of the same background/tribe against one another. It's soul end game is profit above all else and economic efficiency via privatization. Under ideal circumstances nations would embrace left-wing Nationalism and socialistic principles and ideals for their own people/tribe/religious cohorts etc. Global communism/Trotsky type socialism is not applicable to every nation on the world nor is it desired. And yes under an ideal socialistic system there would be no 'takers' and no lazy bums' if you were a lazy bum you'd be expelled from the society for not helping the tribe and for freeloading. True socialism cannot work with lazy bums and selfish people and greed everywhere.


So for instance for you it would require that everyone has Jesus in their heart and does away with greed and is a productive member of society. Only then could it function. I am sure Jesus could agree with that.

Personally I like capitalism and taking care of your neighbor. That requires generosity on your own and having compassion to others in your community.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

this is an example of the shit that inspired this thread

how can you compare bernie to jesus when everyone of his speeches includes "millionaires and billionaires" and how we deserve their money

how does that not conflict with "thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods"

also people refer to things like "free education" or "free" healthcare. I ask them "who will pay for it" and they say they would raise taxes on the top 1%. how is it not considered greed to want to take from someone else youve never met because you feel you deserve their more than they do??

You realize that Christians globally are entirely different from American right-wing Christians who guzzle the typical GOP 'trickle' down garbage?

The Pope?

What about others who talk about the benefits of 'socialism'?


And yeah there is some truth to that infographic. Or do you all of a sudden love the Bankers and Pharmaceutical industry?

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I would think many socialists are people who may have empathy, but who feel incapable of being able to help others, therefore feeling the need to have the state's institutions handle their own individual responsibilities, sometimes to the point where none are left for themselves.

Of course, there are also the manipulative sociopaths who possess no empathy whatsoever, who merely wish to "rile up the masses" in order to gain power. Any group whose interests do not co-align with that of the society's, will be used as an unwitting "tool" to execute a social revolution. After the process is over, these groups will be ruthlessly abandoned.

No system was ever more ruthless against the LGBT groups and such, than the socialist regimes themselves, which fully understood the diametrical standing of these groups against a healthy, productive, properly functioning society. You only require destructive elements, for the purpose of bringing one society down, and establishing another. You can't afford to keep them around once this "utopian" society has already been established.

Or they realize the efficiency of the state being able to help people. And they realize that without state intervention the government and society will be ruled by the greedy, capitalists, oligarchs and the people will become slaves to 'private' ownership and fed lies about 'self independence' and 'meritocratic' work. When in truth the oligarchs set up a system in which they dangle a carrot every now and then to keep the idiots pleased at some sort of belief of upward mobility when in truth it by and large doesn't exist. Oh and then the capitalists will bring in imported cheap labor and use immigration and the chaos insured by it to get people to keep voting for more and more privatization and oligarch power.


Far too many right-wingers in the War Room (predominately American right-wing folk or Canadians or British) think that communism/socialism somehow= Liberal Democrats or somehow means 'Cultural Marxism' and nothing could be further from the truth.

Socialism comes in many different forms. Being a socialist doesn't all of a sudden mean you hate religion and spew the garbage that the Huffington Post readers spew 24/7. It doesn't all of a sudden mean you worship BLM and preach anti-white hatred while trying to invert gender roles.

The problem in America is that the mainstream Democrats are not real socialists and many of those 'progressives' are too fixated on stupid cultural shit and not the economic grounds. The far left in America needs to realize that Tranny issues and BLM is worthless and a turn-off to most people. We need to stick to the issues.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Honestly, I think that the prime suspects are neither particularly selfish or altruistic. They just like the sense of moral superiority and the fuzzy feeling they get when they think they're being charitable.

 

[Pwent]

You realize that Christians globally are entirely different from American right-wing Christians who guzzle the typical GOP 'trickle' down garbage?

The Pope?

What about others who talk about the benefits of 'socialism'?


And yeah there is some truth to that infographic. Or do you all of a sudden love the Bankers and Pharmaceutical industry?

I dont love the bankers and pharmaceutical industry (though i do appreciate the advancements made by the pharmaceutical companies)

I also dont put much faith in the catholic church as imperfect men have claimed to speak for God and historically the church has not epitomized God's teachings

every socialist who promotes socialism under the idea that the rich should share their money is already breaking one of the 10 commandments. if they enforce socialism on a minority of people who don't want it, then they are breaking another of the 10 commandments

I support regulated capitalism because, though it is not perfect, it is the most efficient system ever created and has created more value than any other system. then I hope (and pray) that people use the benefits of that system to donate out of their own free will. historically, it is economies built on capitalism who have donated or contributed FAR more charity than any other societies in the history of mankind, despite not being compelled to

i dont consider you a bad person by the way, based on your postings, i would place you in the 20% of people i chose that are motivated for the benefits of others