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

[Greoric]

I voted 90/10. Most proponents of socialism want a better society for all. I'm sure there are outliers who are lazy and want handouts, but 10% is probably a generous percentage there. More like 96/4 in reality.

If this isn't just a projection of envy then why are you supporting the means of production that's demonstrably worse for the growth of people's living standards?

 

[VivaRevolution]

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

Capitalism is based on profiting from someone else's labor.

Also, I don't even know what socialism is anymore. I have heard people call SS socialism, I have heard people call Scandinavia socialist, and I have heard Venezuela called socialist.

If we are using the same word to describe these 3 things, we can't have a real conversation about socialism, because it apparently means anything from a social program within a market economy to full blown government ownership of industries.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I kind of disagree, in the sense that I think the selfish/altruist divide is meaningful to some extent. A selfish person who has no particular measure of wealth and no prospects of getting ahead would sensibly favor socialist policies, whereas a selfish, rich person would sensibly favor some kind of system where they get to keep or expand their advantage. On the other hand, both the altruist poor and altruist rich would sensibly favor socialism on the grounds that neither think they are inherently better than one another and that they should share the wealth equitably. Point being that the altruist motivation is pretty much objectively superior in the sense that it allows people from any part of the hierarchy to meet in the middle, whereas with the selfish motivation they would pull in opposite directions.

My take is that altruism/egotism isn't a meaningful categorization if we're talking about motivation (as opposed to action). Plus, the whole thing is, IMO, hopelessly complicated. A poor person can believe he's about to become rich, and a rich person can worry about losing it all, and people can have more concerns about people in their immediate circle, etc. Humans, man.

Addtitionally, I think that once one accepts the notion that a society is more than the sum of its parts, a considerable amount of mental gymnastics has to take place in order to avoid reaching some brand of socialism as a natural conclusion of that.

Agreed.

Just what it says. Pretty much by definition being productive means having/creating resources. There's no logical inference that having resources means one is productive.

Being productive by definition has nothing at all to do with having resources. How are you measuring productivity here? I'm not seeing how, even in theory, the law could target the productive to be "stripped of resources" (that are granted by the law in the first place) unless you're making the mistake I noticed.

 

[HomerThompson]

If this isn't just a projection of envy then why are you supporting the means of production that's demonstrably worse for the growth of people's living standards?

Welcome back. Libertarianism is teh gay.

 

[Greoric]

Capitalism is based on profiting from someone else's labor.

Also, I don't even know what socialism is anymore. I have heard people call SS socialism, I have heard people call Scandinavia socialist, and I have heard Venezuela called socialist.

If we are using the same word to describe these 3 things, we can't have a real conversation about socialism, because it apparently means anything from a social program within a market economy to full blown government ownership of industries.

Someone is profiting off someone's labor, but the laborer is also profiting off of that someone's capital.

Also @VivaRevolution , is that benefit asymmetric? Well yes, it could be. But why would you take all of someone's options however plentiful or few they maybe and prevent them from taking the one they actually chose?

 

[Greoric]

Welcome back. Libertarianism is teh gay.

I agree. Libertarianism is a very happy way of thinking about things.

 

[HomerThompson]

I agree. Libertarianism is a very happy way of thinking about things.

Why you bundle of sticks.

 

[nac386]

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

If that's true, it's actually really funny.

 

[ripskater]

If that's true, it's actually really funny.

Google it. It's true.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/15/gore.taxes/

 

[Greoric]

Being productive by definition has nothing at all to do with having resources. How are you measuring productivity here? I'm not seeing how, even in theory, the law could target the productive to be "stripped of resources" (that are granted by the law in the first place) unless you're making the mistake I noticed.

WTF? Of course it does. Capital is exactly what makes people more productive. Tools and resources are the reason we're still not scratching a living off rocks.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

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.

This is true, but then you can say the same thing about capitalism where the workers are the ones doing everything, but are compensated much less than the big CEO's, who are paid extraordinary amounts to lay off people and tell the remaining staff to "do more with less".

I'm not talking about family run business. Just those huge corporations that takes advantage of workers. I think there needs to be a balance.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Being productive by definition has nothing at all to do with having resources. How are you measuring productivity here? I'm not seeing how, even in theory, the law could target the productive to be "stripped of resources" (that are granted by the law in the first place) unless you're making the mistake I noticed.

Moving the goal posts rather than admit your mistake? Sounds about right. These look related to me. Either way though, nothing changes the fact that your inference was illogical.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/productive

adjective
1.
having the power of producing; generative; creative:
a productive effort.
2.
producing readily or abundantly; fertile:
a productive vineyard.
3.
causing; bringing about (usually followed by of):
conditions productive of crime and sin.
4.
Economics. producing or tending to produce goods and services having exchange value.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/resources

noun
1.
a source of supply, support, or aid, especially one that can be readilydrawn upon when needed.
2.
resources, the collective wealth of a country or its means of producing wealth.
3.
Usually, resources. money, or any property that can be converted into money; assets.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

WTF? Of course it does. Capital is exactly what makes people more productive. Tools and resources are the reason we're still not scratching a living off rocks.

Dude thinks that logic dictates that if productive people have resources that means those who have resources must be productive and now he's trying to hold me to that poor line of thinking.

 

[Greoric]

Dude thinks that logic dictates that if productive people have resources that means those who have resources must be productive and now he's trying to hold me to that poor line of thinking.

What's new?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Moving the goal posts rather than admit your mistake? Sounds about right. These look related to me. Either way though, nothing changes the fact that your inference was illogical.

What mistake is that?

I'm not "moving goalposts" (your fanatical argumentativeness is leading you astray here); I'm just trying to understand your position.

I think you're ducking the questions I asked that would clarify your position because it wasn't clear in your own head.

Dude thinks that logic dictates that if productive people have resources that means those who have resources must be productive and now he's trying to hold me to that poor line of thinking.

Wait, what? I think that you were clearly implying "possesses resources"="productive," which is not an accurate definition.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What mistake is that?


Wait, what? I think that you were clearly implying "possesses resources"="productive," which is not an accurate definition.

The mistake you've just repeated again right here. I neither said that nor does logic imply it. You can at least be man enough to admit I'm right about he logic aspect, yes?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What's new?

If I said water was wet he'd find some way to contradict me. <shrug>

 

[Jack V Savage]

The mistake you've just repeated again right here. I neither said that nor does logic imply it. You can at least be man enough to admit I'm right about he logic aspect, yes?

It seems very clearly to me that it does, and when I asked you to show how it doesn't, you accused me of moving the goalposts (?). Plus, you even said, "Pretty much by definition being productive means having/creating resources," which is more than an implication that you think that having resources is the same as being productive.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It seems very clearly to me that it does, and when I asked you to show how it doesn't, you accused me of moving the goalposts (?). Plus, you even said, "Pretty much by definition being productive means having/creating resources," which is more than an implication that you think that having resources is the same as being productive.

Focus up bro. Do you even logic 101? Get back to me when you can demonstrate an understanding of the following link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_(logic)

 

[Greoric]

If I said water was wet he'd find some way to contradict me. <shrug>

Getting a concession out of Jack is like chasing and catching a unicorn.... which at the same time makes it kind of fun.