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

[ReAnimator Reagan]

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

They are doing it because they are losers and are jealous when others have better stuff/life/etc

 

[Smoking Indoors]

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

Yeah, but he invented the internet....




Then lost the election and went bat shit crazy.

 

[Greoric]

Funny you say that. I agree with Jack (for the most part) on that point and it is why I originally tagged him in. But he's such an argumentative fellow that he chose to ignore that and make up some shit to contradict me on.

But to this point, paint me a picture of how mass wealth is accumulated without a legal framework to enable it. Violence and threats can certainly get you ahead, but it allows one (and certainly not all) to protect only so much.

This is a good argument, but it may be attacking a strawman here. Its true that massive wealth can't be accumulated unless a group of people have rules for behavior. That is, there has to be some behaviors (i.e. theft, murder, rape) that are intolerable for a sustainable prosperity to exist.

However, those rules and laws need not be commensurate with a compulsory funded monopoly to provide them.

 

[Greoric]

Don't pay your taxes, their is a consequence.

Don't work for a living, their is a consequence.

This is pretty much the origin of Marx's exploitation of the proletariat. The distinction is that the consequence in one is offered by other moral actors, which we can stop. The other is by virtue of entropy, which we can't. Even if you're all alone on a deserted island, you're still having to work for a living, and frankly you'd be working at a standard far inferior to the one you'd have working for an employer.

 

[Pwent]

Don't pay your taxes, their is a consequence.

Don't work for a living, their is a consequence.

To me you can argue that social programs are centralization, but not that it lacks consent of at least the majority.

The consent obtained in a capitalist system is under duress.

The consent obtained through elected government is not.

So while I will concede that democratic socialism has participants who did not give direct consent, it at least has a majority where that consent was not given under duress.

The only duress in a capitalist system is essential human needs like food or shelter

 

[Greoric]

I just find it amazing that after being on here for almost a decade there are still people that conflate government taxation and redistribution for compassion... That's some audacity you have TS.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

This is a good argument, but it may be attacking a strawman here. Its true that massive wealth can't be accumulated unless a group of people have rules for behavior. That is, there has to be some behaviors (i.e. theft, murder, rape) that are intolerable for a sustainable prosperity to exist.

However, those rules and laws need not be commensurate with a compulsory funded monopoly to provide them.

Not only are laws needed, enforcement as well. Enforcement costs money. Suddenly we have government.

EDIT: I'm leaving on vacation for a week so we'll have to pick this up in another thread brother. Cheers.

 

[VivaRevolution]

This is pretty much the origin of Marx's exploitation of the proletariat. The distinction is that the consequence in one is offered by other moral actors, which we can stop. The other is by virtue of entropy, which we can't. Even if you're all alone on a deserted island, you're still having to work for a living, and frankly you'd be working at a standard far inferior to the one you'd have working for an employer.

But here lies the problem. Corporations are not moral actors, and in almost every meaningful way are subject to the same inherent flaws of centralized power, that government is.

Hell, corporations existence is a act of government.

 

[VivaRevolution]

The only duress in a capitalist system is essential human needs like food or shelter

True. This however is a form of duress.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I just find it amazing that after being on here for almost a decade there are still people that conflate government taxation and redistribution for compassion... That's some audacity you have TS.

I equate it with efficiency, and centralization, which has it's inherent strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Hoof Hearted]

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

How is this information polled?

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

This seems like a helpful and scientific question. Lol.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

This seems like a helpful and scientific question. Lol.

It wouldn't surprise me if we see the poll results on CNN.

 

[PhitePhan]

Or they realize the efficiency of the state being able to help people.

You consider the state to be efficient?

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.

I think I understand where you are coming from, and to an extent agree with the sentiment... The flip side, and what we seem to have in the US currently, is that the state intervenes to PROTECT the oligarchs, while pretending to care about society...

Personally, I'd rather know my enemy (the oligarchs) and have a means to enact revolt (through participation or lack thereof) rather than be told that the state has my interest at heart (they generally don't) while being further coerced by the state to participate in activities that simply enrich the oligarchy.

 

[Pwent]

How is this information polled?

i have seen multiple studies on it, from both straight polling sample sizes and also a larger study that used charitable donations by voting district from a TON of different counties, then weighted the donations by how the voting district voted, so it had a lot more data than the normal sample size method

the voting district method was part of "who really cares" the largest book on donations by ideology, in that he used a shitload of different datasets because he was so surprised by the donation difference that he kept finding more datasets to try to disprove himself

https://www.gordon.edu/ace/pdf/Spr07BRGrinols.pdf

 

[Prutfis]

Yeah, I wonder what means of production was responsible for its current standard of living....

Well duh. We are not commie-socialist. And I don´t give a shit about Sanders. Your point? That article is just nitpicking. Ohh not democratic socialist but social democracy. Do you not think that Scandinavia and large parts of Europe have far more programs in place that would be considered socialist by american standards?
Hell in the US all you have to do is be for UHC and you are basically a commie.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So you really don't grasp converse logic? Damn.

Does anybody but Jack believe my words to necessitate that having resources means you're being productive? And if so, can you please educate me on how the inference thereof isn't contrary to converse logic? Maybe I'm missing something here that Jack is unable to articulate.

This is a pretty sad strategy. Basically, "where are my right-wing trolls at?" If you don't want to stand behind your position, that's fine. Or if you do, you can explain it further.

This is where it stands:

Taxation is neutral to the relative productivity of people or entities being taxed , and benefits are not directed toward "underachievers" (people who are accomplishing less than they are capable of accomplishing). They're intended to be directed toward the needy (our biggest benefit programs benefit the elderly, and children are the biggest non-elderly group of beneficiaries from transfer programs).

Generally, it appears that there's a kind of special vocabulary that you far-right types use that is designed not to facilitate an exchange of ideas but to obscure the implications of your ideas. That's why I try to push back against that kind of thing (and one reason I draw so much rage from a lot of the lesser posters)--my No. 1 goal here is clarity.

If we want to get more specific, in this case, "productive" or "job creators" is used in place of "rich," because polls show that most people--even most Republicans--favor more-progressive taxation than we currently have, but if you deceptively phrase it that way (conflating producing more with getting more), it sounds a little better. But we're not even in a forum where the general public will see so what is the point of that kind of dishonesty here? Note that we have taxes on income, but we have no taxes on productivity. And we don't transfer to people who are underperforming by some unidentified metric relative to their ability.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well duh. We are not commie-socialist. And I don´t give a shit about Sanders. Your point? That article is just nitpicking. Ohh not democratic socialist but social democracy. Do you not think that Scandinavia and large parts of Europe have far more programs in place that would be considered socialist by american standards?
Hell in the US all you have to do is be for UHC and you are basically a commie.

These Molyneuxites have no sense of intellectual honesty. There's a constant equivocation around the meaning of "socialist" that they use to keep the ball in the air.

 

[RockstarChris]

these rich politicians that want socialism are not willing to give all of their money to the people. they just want YOU to give all your money to the people. do you really think Bernie and Hillary would give away their millions of dollars?

 

[lilelvis]

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?

Give a man a fish MOFO!