Wage Slavery? The poor are poor because....

[Greater-London]

It's actually in human nature to have a small band of less than 150 people. It's how our minds are actually set up. On average, we can have about 150 meaningful connections. Any more people in a group or community, and it's gradually less and less cohesive as the group grows. But that is simply because we are still tribe animals, not having yet evolved those parts of our psyche out of the question.

I think what I'm trying to say here is that nothing we do now is really human nature at all. It's all the product of our society.

Where does this number 150 comes from? it seems to be used quite arbitrarily and pulled out of thin air. The fact that we can't live in cohesive large groups is also completely bogus the nation state for instance actually works quite well and the way that its widely accepted by most people as the way the world should be organized and is proof of this.

The second point I have to challange too, you make the point that is human nature to live in a certain sized group and then dismiss all our beleifs in human nature as products of society - only one can be right. On this note I think that people who say Capitalism or Communism are more reflective of human nature are making a mistake, whether or not your altruistic/selfish does depend on who you are; theres not a neutral set of values that were born with.

[Bythibus]

Stop assuming I'm a communist, you're only making a fool of yourself.

You certainly do a good job of regurgitating the commie talking points for a non-communist.

No, I'm just critical of every economic system. None of them are perfect, and no system is perfectly in place. Thus, it's senseless to argue "capitalism does not"s, because the real argument isn't if capitalism is harmful, it's how it is and how can the system be adjusted to avoid those negatives.

And quite frankly, it's possible to fix our entire system within the bound of "being capitalist".

[Frazers]

They're poor because the barriers to their success exceed their ability and / or willingness to overcome them. Unfortunately money begets money and its easy for the lazy wealthy to maintain their position and I say this as someone who many would class as wealthy. I would like to think I'm not lazy but I suppose in the grand scheme of things I am relative to most poor people.

[Holzahlen]

Nothing to do against it, that happens when you dismiss Karl Marx's ideas.

NOW, SUFFER.

[Pilotto]

You certainly do a good job of regurgitating the commie talking points for a non-communist.

No, I'm just critical of every economic system. None of them are perfect, and no system is perfectly in place. Thus, it's senseless to argue "capitalism does not"s, because the real argument isn't if capitalism is harmful, it's how it is and how can the system be adjusted to avoid those negatives.

And quite frankly, it's possible to fix our entire system within the bound of "being capitalist".

Thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out that humans are flawed.

[Pleasenerf]

THE ILLUMINATIIIIII!!!!!!

[Ostroeuropa]

The problem in the united kingdom currently is the property market and the idiots (or evil fucks, take your pick.) in charge of it.
I want a capitalist to explain to me how they envision this problem changing without government regulation or intervention.

There are not enough houses. Or rather, there are enough houses, it's just that plenty of them are owned by landlords who use that product to distort the economy by taking money from the working class like some kind of baron or aristocrat, then use that money to mostly just expand by buying housing off eachother and such to increase their property portfolio. The price of rent is set at whatever they can get away with, since if they lower the rent beyond the absolute highest they can get away with, it's bad business. As housing is essential, and there is a shortage, this results in basically all of the working classes income being funnelled upward to this nonsense fantasy land economics.
This has the effect of making the house prices increase, (As they sell the properties back and forth to eachother.) forcing more people into being tennants for the new aristocracy, as well as increasing the """"value"""" of the housing, which makes the economy """"Grow"""" despite the fact that nothing has changed. No new shit has been created or anything. It's just the imaginary numbers have gotten larger.
When they say "The economy grew by x% this year." you should take a look at how much housing prices went up that year. It's going to be the vast majority of that "Growth".

If you build houses to put those tennants in, you now have a surplus of housing and the market completely fucking crashes as this model of "Growth" no longer actually works.
You'll see the news go into a full blown panic about how the economy just crashed and everyone will freak out and blame the government for doing something wrong. This is because the news is also participating in the neoliberal fantasty land farmville economic model (Brought about by the "MUH CAPITALISM!!!" meme in our culture currently.)

The only available option to escape this trap of stupidity, where the economy is being driven by purchase and re-purchase of the same commodities, ever escalating in price, is to set rent controls or to build government housing and just let the """"""" economy """""""" crash and then lose the next election, or try explaining to people that this neoliberal model has completely failed to generate actual growth for a long time now.


Why are the poor poor?
Because the landlords and "MUH CAPITALISM" electorate are completely detathced from the actual problem, completely fucking stupid, or completely fucking evil. Take your pick.

[Bythibus]

It's actually in human nature to have a small band of less than 150 people. It's how our minds are actually set up. On average, we can have about 150 meaningful connections. Any more people in a group or community, and it's gradually less and less cohesive as the group grows. But that is simply because we are still tribe animals, not having yet evolved those parts of our psyche out of the question.

I think what I'm trying to say here is that nothing we do now is really human nature at all. It's all the product of our society.

Where does this number 150 comes from? it seems to be used quite arbitrarily and pulled out of thin air. The fact that we can't live in cohesive large groups is also completely bogus the nation state for instance actually works quite well and the way that its widely accepted by most people as the way the world should be organized and is proof of this.

The second point I have to challange too, you make the point that is human nature to live in a certain sized group and then dismiss all our beleifs in human nature as products of society - only one can be right. On this note I think that people who say Capitalism or Communism are more reflective of human nature are making a mistake, whether or not your altruistic/selfish does depend on who you are; theres not a neutral set of values that were born with.

You might want to read the book "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference", written by Malcolm Gladwell. It's a book written to investigate and explain the strange sociological quirks of human society. In at least the latest edition, He goes into detail explaining the nature of small communities, and how the average size of a cohesive, close nit community is dead center between 100 and 200.

I don't dismiss our beliefs in human nature, I don't think that any of our current systems are "compatible" with human nature, yet.

[Bythibus]

No, I'm just critical of every economic system. None of them are perfect, and no system is perfectly in place. Thus, it's senseless to argue "capitalism does not"s, because the real argument isn't if capitalism is harmful, it's how it is and how can the system be adjusted to avoid those negatives.

And quite frankly, it's possible to fix our entire system within the bound of "being capitalist".

Thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out that humans are flawed.

You seem quite adamant in defending a human idea, and determined to declare it without need for improvement.

[Greater-London]

That may be true in some places, but not all places (for ex. many places in africa). Also the dramatic rise is probably due to the development in infastructure, and technology.

But you can't separate the rise in development, infrastructure and technology from the Capitalist system as its the system that allowed and produced these things.

It's also true, Globally. Living standards have raised by a lot for some and a little for others but living standards have still increased. You also need to remember that the your living standards raise much faster the lower down the scale you are: If you go from $10 a day to $100 a day the difference will be much higher than if you go from $50,000 to $500,000.

[Universal Socialism]

They're poor because the barriers to their success exceed their ability and / or willingness to overcome them. Unfortunately money begets money and its easy for the lazy wealthy to maintain their position and I say this as someone who many would class as wealthy. I would like to think I'm not lazy but I suppose in the grand scheme of things I am relative to most poor people.

This is sadly true, it takes money to make money.

[Ostroeuropa]

That may be true in some places, but not all places (for ex. many places in africa). Also the dramatic rise is probably due to the development in infastructure, and technology.

But you can't separate the rise in development, infrastructure and technology from the Capitalist system as its the system that allowed and produced these things.

It's also true, Globally. Living standards have raised by a lot for some and a little for others but living standards have still increased. You also need to remember that the your living standards raise much faster the lower down the scale you are: If you go from $10 a day to $100 a day the difference will be much higher than if you go from $50,000 to $500,000.

Yes. the capitalist system did produce these things.
The neoliberal system of re-regulation, cutting welfare, etc. Did not.
It's only produced a clusterfuck of economic crashes and societal decay.

The capitalist model worked best when we were employing millions of people to build shit for war to defend us from the soviets.
Any capitalist with any understanding of reality would be advocating a similar government investment in some other project now that that threat is over. Personally i'd go for green energy.
You can keep the rest of the economy neoliberal so long as the government is driving the growth in one sector and offering basically anyone a job if they need it, with decent wages.

[Duvniask]

It's actually in human nature to have a small band of less than 150 people. It's how our minds are actually set up. On average, we can have about 150 meaningful connections. Any more people in a group or community, and it's gradually less and less cohesive as the group grows. But that is simply because we are still tribe animals, not having yet evolved those parts of our psyche out of the question.

I think what I'm trying to say here is that nothing we do now is really human nature at all. It's all the product of our society.

Where does this number 150 comes from? it seems to be used quite arbitrarily and pulled out of thin air. The fact that we can't live in cohesive large groups is also completely bogus the nation state for instance actually works quite well and the way that its widely accepted by most people as the way the world should be organized and is proof of this.

The second point I have to challange too, you make the point that is human nature to live in a certain sized group and then dismiss all our beleifs in human nature as products of society - only one can be right. On this note I think that people who say Capitalism or Communism are more reflective of human nature are making a mistake, whether or not your altruistic/selfish does depend on who you are; theres not a neutral set of values that were born with.

I suggest you read this.

[Frazers]

Because the landlords and "MUH CAPITALISM" electorate are completely detathced from the actual problem, completely fucking stupid, or completely fucking evil. Take your pick.

None of the above for me thanks

[Ostroeuropa]

Because the landlords and "MUH CAPITALISM" electorate are completely detathced from the actual problem, completely fucking stupid, or completely fucking evil. Take your pick.

None of the above for me thanks

Do you decide your own rent prices? How much money do your tennants get left with after they pay you your money? (Your answer makes me suspect you are completely detatched from the problem and blithely assuming you aren't ruining the economy with your practices.)

[Greater-London]

You might want to read the book "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference", written by Malcolm Gladwell. It's a book written to investigate and explain the strange sociological quirks of human society. In at least the latest edition, He goes into detail explaining the nature of small communities, and how the average size of a cohesive, close nit community is dead center between 100 and 200.

Okay well I don't have a library to hand so I can't refute that point in detail.

However I think my point still stands, nominally due to the fact that I live in a cohesive society at the moment and its a city of 2.5 million people. Even if I'm closer to those in my immediate vicinity I still feel affiliation with those around me and its a completely functioning society.

There are cities far larger than the one I live in and the situation is similar. Whether we may or may not have an 'ideal size' for perfect cohesion it doesn't matter as we are able to live productively and happily in much larger groups.

[Brickistan]

Indeed, I'm not a communist, I'm a market syndicalist.


Yes, if you feel the need to make such a reductionist view of my beliefs, sure, deal with it on the terms of your intellectual maturity, which isn't very high I might add. I don't single handedly blame "the rich" for societies problems, their are plenty among the proletariat who knowingly perpetuate the corruption as well.

There are always going to be rich people. There are always going to be those who are more well off than others. There's nothing inherently wrong with this.

Capitalism is far better than communism. At least capitalism actually works.

Actually, true communism/socialism - i.e. workers owning the means of production - works quite well. Unlike, it must be said, the planned economy that we have seen in the so-called "communistic states". Which weren't, by the way, particularely communistic at all...

Whether or not it can work on a country-wide scale is an open question. But considering how capitalism - or rather, the crony corporatism seen in America - has failed I'm willing to give it a chance.

Do I really need to spell this shit out for you like it's been done a million times already?

Well, yes, considering that I don't really see how being rich and successful is an inherently bad thing.

It's not. Indeed, you might say that a it's a good thing, in moderation, as it gives people something to aspire to and work hard to achieve.

The problems arise when the wealth gap becomes too large. Right now, America is in a situation much akin to a powder keg. The middle calls is slowly being eradicated, leaving only a tiny group of people - the (in)famous "one percent" - with money while leaving the rest of the country in an increasingly desperate situation. And once the poor get desperate enough, that's when you see revolutions happening.

[Ostroeuropa]

There are always going to be rich people. There are always going to be those who are more well off than others. There's nothing inherently wrong with this.

Capitalism is far better than communism. At least capitalism actually works.

Actually, true communism/socialism - i.e. workers owning the means of production - works quite well. Unlike, it must be said, the planned economy that we have seen in the so-called "communistic states". Which weren't, by the way, particularely communistic at all...

Whether or not it can work on a country-wide scale is an open question. But considering how capitalism - or rather, the crony corporatism seen in America - has failed I'm willing to give it a chance.

Well, yes, considering that I don't really see how being rich and successful is an inherently bad thing.

It's not. Indeed, you might say that a it's a good thing, in moderation, as it gives people something to aspire to and work hard to achieve.

The problems arise when the wealth gap becomes too large. Right now, America is in a situation much akin to a powder keg. The middle calls is slowly being eradicated, leaving only a tiny group of people - the (in)famous "one percent" - with money while leaving the rest of the country in an increasingly desperate situation. And once the poor get desperate enough, that's when you see revolutions happening.

The reason the middle class is shrinking is because of the rent problem. Without the working class to buy consumable goods (They can't afford it, they were busy paying their landlord) shit just goes downhill.

That we as a society made the same mistake as we did in the feudal ages is just fucking baffling to me. We should, ideally, ban housing rental. It's toxic to economic growth.

[Sanguinea]

In comparison with much of the world you and I would be considered rich, I have no need to envy the degenerate extravagance of the upper echelons of the bourgeoisie.


That...wasn't...the point. You use a childish argument, I can through it back at you to prove its utter stupidity.

Your entire ideology is utter stupidity.
Nothing personal.

I'm not a communist, for the last fucking time, a socialist yes, but not a commie or a marxist. I am a syndicalist.

Liberalism/Capitalism is the single most idiotic and demonic philosophy in history, its adherents actively work towards the destruction of humanity, and give not two shits as long as they die with the most cash.

[Bythibus]

You might want to read the book "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference", written by Malcolm Gladwell. It's a book written to investigate and explain the strange sociological quirks of human society. In at least the latest edition, He goes into detail explaining the nature of small communities, and how the average size of a cohesive, close nit community is dead center between 100 and 200.

Okay well I don't have a library to hand so I can't refute that point in detail.

However I think my point still stands, nominally due to the fact that I live in a cohesive society at the moment and its a city of 2.5 million people. Even if I'm closer to those in my immediate vicinity I still feel affiliation with those around me and its a completely functioning society.

There are cities far larger than the one I live in and the situation is similar. Whether we may or may not have an 'ideal size' for perfect cohesion it doesn't matter as we are able to live productively and happily in much larger groups.

You feel an affiliation with those around you, yes. That idea of ~150 connections doesn't end when the group gets too big. What actually turns our is fractures form in the society, which we have rather nicely solved with districts, neighborhoods and councils.

And I would not say it's a bad thing. Having connections is good for the local community, but having a lot of people in one place is even better for production.

[Greater-London]

Your entire ideology is utter stupidity.
Nothing personal.

I'm not a communist, for the last fucking time, a socialist yes, but not a commie or a marxist. I am a syndicalist.

Liberalism/Capitalism is the single most idiotic and demonic philosophy in history, its adherents actively work towards the destruction of humanity, and give not two shits as long as they die with the most cash.

You forgot to add that they eat babies. That's such a silly point to make, as someone who is both a Liberal and believer in Capitalism I promise you I don't want to see a destruction of humanity nor does anybody else.

Do you think that maybe people believe in those things because they actually think and see people benefiting from the systems in place?

The truth is that capitalism has raised living standards for almost everyone (some more than others, but this is something we can fix in a capitalist framework). It has also been the driving force behind technology and innervation over the last two centuries, it created modernity and pretty much everything around you. Does it have problems yes of course it does, but there is yet to be an alternative that is conceivable in the world we live in and would maintain the standard of life that we have.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not a communist, for the last fucking time, a socialist yes, but not a commie or a marxist. I am a syndicalist.

Liberalism/Capitalism is the single most idiotic and demonic philosophy in history, its adherents actively work towards the destruction of humanity, and give not two shits as long as they die with the most cash.

You forgot to add that they eat babies. That's such a silly point to make, as someone who is both a Liberal and believer in Capitalism I promise you I don't want to see a destruction of humanity nor does anybody else.

Do you think that maybe people believe in those things because they actually think and see people benefiting from the systems in place?

The truth is that capitalism has raised living standards for almost everyone (some more than others, but this is something we can fix in a capitalist framework). It has also been the driving force behind technology and innervation over the last two centuries, it created modernity and pretty much everything around you. Does it have problems yes of course it does, but there is yet to be an alternative that is conceivable in the world we live in and would maintain the standard of life that we have.

Only extremists are proposing we scrap capitalism. You do understand there is a difference between Neoliberal Capitalism and traditional capitalism, right?

Or are you one of those people who goes "MUH CAPITALISM!!!" whenever we propose a regulation. Or welfare.

[Estormo]

There are always going to be rich people. There are always going to be those who are more well off than others. There's nothing inherently wrong with this.

Capitalism is far better than communism. At least capitalism actually works.

Actually, true communism/socialism - i.e. workers owning the means of production - works quite well. Unlike, it must be said, the planned economy that we have seen in the so-called "communistic states". Which weren't, by the way, particularely communistic at all...

Whether or not it can work on a country-wide scale is an open question. But considering how capitalism - or rather, the crony corporatism seen in America - has failed I'm willing to give it a chance.

Well, yes, considering that I don't really see how being rich and successful is an inherently bad thing.

It's not. Indeed, you might say that a it's a good thing, in moderation, as it gives people something to aspire to and work hard to achieve.

The problems arise when the wealth gap becomes too large. Right now, America is in a situation much akin to a powder keg. The middle calls is slowly being eradicated, leaving only a tiny group of people - the (in)famous "one percent" - with money while leaving the rest of the country in an increasingly desperate situation. And once the poor get desperate enough, that's when you see revolutions happening.

Which is why you ground Riot Police to smash the cute little "revolution". It takes patience, you know ? Things aren't going to get better with violence.

[Greater-London]

Only extremists are proposing we scrap capitalism. You do understand there is a difference between Neoliberal Capitalism and traditional capitalism, right?

Or are you one of those people who goes "MUH CAPITALISM!!!" whenever we propose a regulation. Or welfare.

Yes but the person I was responding to was a syndicalist, So I assumed they wish to scrap capitalism.

And yes I understand the difference between Neo-Liberal capitalism and those that preceded it.

I'm not anti welfare or regulation and I think both are necessary; we could probably do with a bit more welfare in general and a bit more regulation in certain sectors.

I will however defend capitalism as an economic system because not only does it works well. I am yet to see an alternative that could work in the world we live in; it normally involves leaving the cities and living in small groups and inevitably having our quality of life decrease.

[Ostroeuropa]

Actually, true communism/socialism - i.e. workers owning the means of production - works quite well. Unlike, it must be said, the planned economy that we have seen in the so-called "communistic states". Which weren't, by the way, particularely communistic at all...

Whether or not it can work on a country-wide scale is an open question. But considering how capitalism - or rather, the crony corporatism seen in America - has failed I'm willing to give it a chance.



It's not. Indeed, you might say that a it's a good thing, in moderation, as it gives people something to aspire to and work hard to achieve.

The problems arise when the wealth gap becomes too large. Right now, America is in a situation much akin to a powder keg. The middle calls is slowly being eradicated, leaving only a tiny group of people - the (in)famous "one percent" - with money while leaving the rest of the country in an increasingly desperate situation. And once the poor get desperate enough, that's when you see revolutions happening.

Which is why you ground Riot Police to smash the cute little "revolution". It takes patience, you know ? Things aren't going to get better with violence.

They might get better. It depends on the situation. if we maintain the current trajectory for another few decades, violence will be the only option left.