Left-Wing Discussion Thread II: Behind 700,000 Bunkers

[Mattopilos]

Seems the best we will get from you is denial. At least try and give a crap. Go troll another thread, because clearly all you want to do is act smug.

Another off-topic answer. If you read the question, you will see all I want is a yes or no. But you guys are apparently afraid to do that and instead create fallacies out of nowhere and treat me as a troll.

When am I getting my "yes" or "no" from an enlightened socialist here?

We are not answering it the way you want us to, :. false. Gotcha. The fact remains the premise is flawed, and not commonplace. You are trying to present a hypothetical that is, as one of the posters has said, a straw-man. I answered the question, but it seems like you are going to be a pigeon playing chess and just knock the pieces over and claim victory, even if we are playing by the rules. Kindly take what we are saying as something to criticize your views, try and interact with what they gave you as an answer, or we will simply see no point in trying to talk to you.

[Nature-Spirits]

I didn't answer your question for a number of reasons. One being that I'm not a socialist, the second being that your question is a poorly constructed straw man. Besides anecdotal evidence being a fallacy, numerous people work just as hard and it never amounts to anything. Coal miners are not lazy, yet they are poor and suffer appalling conditions. It also doesn't change the inherently oppressive nature of capitalism. There were serfs and others who managed to rise to the ranks of nobility, yet I don't think anyone wants to go back to the 1400's, except for those with an overtly romantic image of it.

I don't see the straw man question, being proven there is no myth nor warped fact on it - plus, if it's poorly constructed, someone should've dismantled it already. Is it a really hard thing to ask for socialists? 1. Plus anecdotes aren't fallacies, only notes to clear up or prove a fact. 2. Show them up as fallacies and bicker over it instead of answer the question shows the weakness of socialist arguments.

Answering your second half, 3. nobody is forced to be a coal miner. Instead you can work for a less risky thing, such as maid services. 4. Capitalism isn't oppressive, it actually gives you a lot of work options, 5. from the no-skill to the full-skill ones.

Nobody answered the question yet :^)

1. Wrong.
2. No, the fact that your entire argument relies upon anecdotal evidence demonstrates the weakness of your argument.
3. They are if the only work available to them through which they can make a living wage is coal-mining.
4. Sure, if you're in a privileged enough position to manoeuvre yourself into one of the "better" occupations. Many people are forced to perform menial labour simply to survive.
5. Please don't tell me you think that work in coal-mining, the service industry, construction, manufacturing, etc., is "unskilled".

[Pandeeria]

(Image)

You actually don't know what anecdote is?

Great job putting a meme followed by an obvious question as if it was a good argument. Firstly, yes I know what an anecdote is, and focus on answering it rather than hit the central concern shows an afraidness to answer my question.

***

Nobody answered it yet :^)

If you knew what an anecdote was, then we'd not be having this conversation. Any point you proposed fails because it was anecdotal.

[Nature-Spirits]

And since we're being petty over people not answering questions:

But you still have a work under an oppressive capitalist system :^)

Your point being?

[Bakery Hill]

Seems the best we will get from you is denial. At least try and give a crap. Go troll another thread, because clearly all you want to do is act smug.

Another off-topic answer. If you read the question, you will see all I want is a yes or no. But you guys are apparently afraid to do that and instead create fallacies out of nowhere and treat me as a troll.

When am I getting my "yes" or "no" from an enlightened socialist here?

"No" - Enlightened Socialist.

[Great Minarchistan]

Another off-topic answer. If you read the question, you will see all I want is a yes or no. But you guys are apparently afraid to do that and instead create fallacies out of nowhere and treat me as a troll.

When am I getting my "yes" or "no" from an enlightened socialist here?

We are not answering it the way you want us to, :. false. Gotcha. The fact remains the premise is flawed, and not commonplace. You are trying to present a hypothetical that is, as one of the posters has said, a straw-man. I answered the question, but it seems like you are going to be a pigeon playing chess and just knock the pieces over and claim victory, even if we are playing by the rules. Kindly take what we are saying as something to criticize your views, try and interact with what they gave you as an answer, or we will simply see no point in trying to talk to you.

The question I presented was an example, yet this one being based on facts. I suppose the marxist-leninist theory has more than enough ideological base to answer my question, otherwise it's sad to see you guys struggling over a simple fact. And I don't think bickering over anecdotes is a good thing to learn... Actually, you should criticize yourself and answer my question. Didn't knew you guys had to create such a party only to answer yes or no.

Good luck trying not to talk to me, shows me that most socialists tend to ignore difficult things rather than think a bit and answer them.

***

I don't see the straw man question, being proven there is no myth nor warped fact on it - plus, if it's poorly constructed, someone should've dismantled it already. Is it a really hard thing to ask for socialists? 1. Plus anecdotes aren't fallacies, only notes to clear up or prove a fact. 2. Show them up as fallacies and bicker over it instead of answer the question shows the weakness of socialist arguments.

Answering your second half, 3. nobody is forced to be a coal miner. Instead you can work for a less risky thing, such as maid services. 4. Capitalism isn't oppressive, it actually gives you a lot of work options, 5. from the no-skill to the full-skill ones.

Nobody answered the question yet :^)

1. Wrong.
2. No, the fact that your entire argument relies upon anecdotal evidence demonstrates the weakness of your argument.
3. They are if the only work available to them through which they can make a living wage is coal-mining.
4. Sure, if you're in a privileged enough position to manoeuvre yourself into one of the "better" occupations. Many people are forced to perform menial labour simply to survive.
5. Please don't tell me you think that work in coal-mining, the service industry, construction, manufacturing, etc., is "unskilled".

1. Yeah indeed, it wasn't an anecdote then. It was an example of a solid fact. If I removed "my dad's" part, the fact would still be there and you guys wouldn't generate such a hassle over it. Sheesh!

2. Again, if I removed "my dad's" part, the fact would still be there and you guys wouldn't generate such a hassle over it.

3. So you want to risk your lungs and your life to earn more money? Greedy workers smh. Also as if other services weren't demanded...

4. If people studied and worked hard, they would be successful as a whole and wouldn't be poor. Sure, some would perform better and other worse, but that's part of the life. Study and hardwork are an investment, and represent the path of success, too bad many are lazy and give up in the middle of it.

5. Coal mining and other manual jobs are indeed in the bottom of skill pyramid. Actually, I thought you socialists incorporated those workers into the proletariat layer?

***

My question is still waiting for an answer

[Great Minarchistan]

Another off-topic answer. If you read the question, you will see all I want is a yes or no. But you guys are apparently afraid to do that and instead create fallacies out of nowhere and treat me as a troll.

When am I getting my "yes" or "no" from an enlightened socialist here?

"No" - Enlightened Socialist.

Nevermind, finally an enlightened socialist out there! And why wouldn't you despise this individual, despite him being a wealthy individual that hires workers?

[Mattopilos]

We are not answering it the way you want us to, :. false. Gotcha. The fact remains the premise is flawed, and not commonplace. You are trying to present a hypothetical that is, as one of the posters has said, a straw-man. I answered the question, but it seems like you are going to be a pigeon playing chess and just knock the pieces over and claim victory, even if we are playing by the rules. Kindly take what we are saying as something to criticize your views, try and interact with what they gave you as an answer, or we will simply see no point in trying to talk to you.

The question I presented was an example, yet this one being based on facts. I suppose the marxist-leninist theory has more than enough ideological base to answer my question, otherwise it's sad to see you guys struggling over a simple fact. And I don't think bickering over anecdotes is a good thing to learn... Actually, you should criticize yourself and answer my question. Didn't knew you guys had to create such a party only to answer yes or no.

Good luck trying not to talk to me, shows me that most socialists tend to ignore difficult things rather than think a bit and answer them.

1. """"""""facts""""""""". You keep using that word. It doesn't mean what you think it does.
2. I am not an M-L, so this is quite the moving of the goalposts. And again, """"Fact""""
3. You are the one trying to present an anecdote as fact. I think the blame lays on you, not us, on the issue surrounding it.
4. I answered. You ignored. Use your brain.
5. The baiting you are trying to do is a joke. It seems more like minarchists seem to have a problem taking criticism of the fallacies and argumentative techniques they are trying to use.

[Mattopilos]

"No" - Enlightened Socialist.

Nevermind, finally an enlightened socialist out there! And why wouldn't you despise this individual, despite him being a wealthy individual that hires workers?

I answered as well, oh-dumb one.

We don't despise the individual. This is quite ironic, given you are making use of the other people's labour for your own singular success, but WE are the ones that are not caring of the individual. Ha.

[Seangoli]

"No" - Enlightened Socialist.

Nevermind, finally an enlightened socialist out there! And why wouldn't you despise this individual, despite him being a wealthy individual that hires workers?

Leftists don't inherently hate or despise wealthy people, in particular people who aren't the ones causing significant problems with the economy and enacting policies which remove opportunities from individuals. What they despise is being told that they just aren't working hard enough when they are working 50, 60, or 70 hours a week just to get by; that they just need to "sieze" opportunities when doing so would put their entire well-being at significant risk even if they have the ability to (Which is not getting into whether or not most people have the capital to even sieze on opportunity when it arises, which most don't); or that they just aren't clever enough (Nobody likes being called stupid, particularly when the person doing so blinds themselves so aggregiously that they can't accept that they had a somewhat better playing field than others).

Equally, chances are your father isn't who leftists are referring to when they refer to the "wealthy". If you would call yourself Middle Class, you are nowhere near wealthy enough to be involved in that discussion.

[Great Minarchistan]

Nevermind, finally an enlightened socialist out there! And why wouldn't you despise this individual, despite him being a wealthy individual that hires workers?

I answered as well, oh-dumb one.

We don't despise the individual. This is quite ironic, given you are making use of the other people's labour for your own singular success, but WE are the ones that are not caring of the individual. Ha.

You quite didn't understand the central concern here. I am asking if you socialists/communists would despise this rich man since he uses other people's labor for his interest, while on the other hand he was born poor and built all his wealth by himself.

[Mattopilos]

I answered as well, oh-dumb one.

We don't despise the individual. This is quite ironic, given you are making use of the other people's labour for your own singular success, but WE are the ones that are not caring of the individual. Ha.

You quite didn't understand the central concern here. I am asking if you socialists/communists would despise this rich man since he uses other people's labor for his interest, while on the other hand he was born poor and built all his wealth by himself.

Yes, because you are using other people's labor for your narrow interests.
"while on the other hand he was born poor and built all his wealth by himself"
And? There are many people who are in that situation and never get the "wealth" part. You seem to have your money boner out and flinging it around and thinking we are going to praise it? Nice try, but we don't support the capitalist system for a reason. Maybe you look at the gap in wealth in America and capitalist countries and tell me how realistic your story is, and that somehow we are going to respect this person for going well in a system we despise.

[Seangoli]

I answered as well, oh-dumb one.

We don't despise the individual. This is quite ironic, given you are making use of the other people's labour for your own singular success, but WE are the ones that are not caring of the individual. Ha.

You quite didn't understand the central concern here. I am asking if you socialists/communists would despise this rich man since he uses other people's labor for his interest, while on the other hand he was born poor and built all his wealth by himself.

Nobody actually builds all their wealth by themselves. They receive loans, which are partially insured by the Federal Government; they use infrastructure built by the Federal Government; hell, much of the consumer wealth that their customers use to buy goods and services in no small part comes from infusing wealth into lower income individuals. The fact of the matter is that the idea that anybody gets rich all by themselves is nonsense, and complete rubbish of a concept. I'm certain your father worked quite hard, but the only reason he was able to get anywhere is because of a massive foundation built upon by our society and government.

[Great Minarchistan]

Nevermind, finally an enlightened socialist out there! And why wouldn't you despise this individual, despite him being a wealthy individual that hires workers?

Leftists don't inherently hate or despise wealthy people, in particular people who aren't the ones causing significant problems with the economy and enacting policies which remove opportunities from individuals. What they despise is being told that they just aren't working hard enough when they are working 50, 60, or 70 hours a week just to get by; that they just need to "sieze" opportunities when doing so would put their entire well-being at significant risk even if they have the ability to (Which is not getting into whether or not most people have the capital to even sieze on opportunity when it arises, which most don't); or that they just aren't clever enough (Nobody likes being called stupid, particularly when the person doing so blinds themselves so aggregiously that they can't accept that they had a somewhat better playing field than others).

Well, if that is the main concern of socialism/communism, I'd say it's pretty outdated and offers a bad solution. During 250 years of free market, poverty fell from 95% to 10%, average hourly work halved and the living quality of workers improved a lot. When government started to intervene under the excuse of "improving poor's conditions", it worked well for the first 30 years, later it started to worsen until now where we are left with a big government, corporate cronyism and worsening labor conditions, all of this falling directly into the poor layer. Free market is the solution, and restrict it by socialist policies only worked in short term, punishing the proletariat in the long run.

[Great Minarchistan]

You quite didn't understand the central concern here. I am asking if you socialists/communists would despise this rich man since he uses other people's labor for his interest, while on the other hand he was born poor and built all his wealth by himself.

Yes, because you are using other people's labor for your narrow interests.
"while on the other hand he was born poor and built all his wealth by himself"
And? There are many people who are in that situation and never get the "wealth" part. You seem to have your money boner out and flinging it around and thinking we are going to praise it? Nice try, but we don't support the capitalist system for a reason. Maybe you look at the gap in wealth in America and capitalist countries and tell me how realistic your story is, and that somehow we are going to respect this person for going well in a system we despise.

Do you really focus on the wealth gap instead of the improvement of poor people's life quality? This sounds quite jealous to me, specially because its better be unequally ok rather than being equally poor... At least that's what people think.

[Great Minarchistan]

You quite didn't understand the central concern here. I am asking if you socialists/communists would despise this rich man since he uses other people's labor for his interest, while on the other hand he was born poor and built all his wealth by himself.

Nobody actually builds all their wealth by themselves. They receive loans, which are partially insured by the Federal Government; they use infrastructure built by the Federal Government; hell, much of the consumer wealth that their customers use to buy goods and services in no small part comes from infusing wealth into lower income individuals. The fact of the matter is that the idea that anybody gets rich all by themselves is nonsense, and complete rubbish of a concept. I'm certain your father worked quite hard, but the only reason he was able to get anywhere is because of a massive foundation built upon by our society and government.

And that's why big government ends up creating cronyism and worsening life quality. 10/10 analysis, no joke.

Edit: In fact, nobody gets rich by themselves, so people hire other people to realize mutual interests. Object to that is a really bad idea, as both sides lose.

[Mattopilos]

Well, if that is the main concern of socialism/communism, I'd say it's pretty outdated and offers a bad solution.

What are we speaking of?

During 250 years of free market, poverty fell from 95% to 10%, average hourly work halved and the living quality of workers improved a lot.

[citation needed]
Also, what of the wage gaps? And the fact remains that it was SOCIALISTS that fought for the 8 hour day, not the free market.

When government started to intervene under the excuse of "improving poor's conditions", it worked well for the first 30 years, later it started to worsen until now where we are left with a big government, corporate cronyism and worsening labor conditions, all of this falling directly into the poor layer.

Most capitalism still has the government to intervene anyways, so you will never get a free market under a state. I doubt that would occur without one, either.

Free market is the solution, and restrict it by socialist policies only worked in short term, punishing the proletariat in the long run.

I am thinking you mean to specify "State socialism" here.

Do you really focus on the wealth gap instead of the improvement of poor people's life quality? This sounds quite jealous to me, specially because its better be unequally ok rather than being equally poor... At least that's what people think.

Yeah, no. You are trying to make this far more personal than it needs to be. For someone arguing about being off topic, you aren't doing much to help stay on topic. And I don't think you understand what communism aims for if the best line you have is " better be unequally ok rather than being equally poor".
Communism fights for what is know as "Equity" more than the colloquial usage of the term "Equality". Maybe lets not try and use pathos here as an argument, hmm?

[Seangoli]

Nobody actually builds all their wealth by themselves. They receive loans, which are partially insured by the Federal Government; they use infrastructure built by the Federal Government; hell, much of the consumer wealth that their customers use to buy goods and services in no small part comes from infusing wealth into lower income individuals. The fact of the matter is that the idea that anybody gets rich all by themselves is nonsense, and complete rubbish of a concept. I'm certain your father worked quite hard, but the only reason he was able to get anywhere is because of a massive foundation built upon by our society and government.

And that's why big government ends up creating cronyism and worsening life quality. 10/10 analysis, no joke.

Brilliant analysis of absolutely nothing. Seriously, bravo.

Fact of the matter is that your father did not gain his wealth in a truly free market. He benefited significantly from services paid for and provided by the government. He never would have even gotten off the ground without them. Equally, as bad as "big government" may be, free market is far, far worse. We have seen the effects of less controlled markets, and it is disastrous for everybody except to a very small few.

These concerns are also ones that are most certainly not rooted in the past. One thinks that perhaps your perception is colored by the fact you have never seen what it is like outside your bubble, nor experienced the true hardships that massive swaths of the population go through every day.

[Great Minarchistan]

Well, if that is the main concern of socialism/communism, I'd say it's pretty outdated and offers a bad solution.

What are we speaking of?

During 250 years of free market, poverty fell from 95% to 10%, average hourly work halved and the living quality of workers improved a lot.

[citation needed]
Also, what of the wage gaps? And the fact remains that it was SOCIALISTS that fought for the 8 hour day, not the free market.

When government started to intervene under the excuse of "improving poor's conditions", it worked well for the first 30 years, later it started to worsen until now where we are left with a big government, corporate cronyism and worsening labor conditions, all of this falling directly into the poor layer.

Most capitalism still has the government to intervene anyways, so you will never get a free market under a state. I doubt that would occur without one, either.

Free market is the solution, and restrict it by socialist policies only worked in short term, punishing the proletariat in the long run.

I am thinking you mean to specify "State socialism" here.

Do you really focus on the wealth gap instead of the improvement of poor people's life quality? This sounds quite jealous to me, specially because its better be unequally ok rather than being equally poor... At least that's what people think.

Yeah, no. You are trying to make this far more personal than it needs to be. For someone arguing about being off topic, you aren't doing much to help stay on topic. And I don't think you understand what communism aims for if the best line you have is " better be unequally ok rather than being equally poor".
Communism fights for what is know as "Equity" more than the colloquial usage of the term "Equality". Maybe lets not try and use pathos here as an argument, hmm?

1. I am on a phone right now and its kinda hard to pass sources. I promise I will give them in a while though.

EDIT: Sources

https://postimg.org/image/l0yh2vibh/
https://postimg.org/image/s6v2mig2l/

2. Socialism is inherently statist. There is no such thing as state socialism since it is a redundancy [correction]

3. Define equity.

[Nature-Spirits]

1. Wrong.
2. No, the fact that your entire argument relies upon anecdotal evidence demonstrates the weakness of your argument.
3. They are if the only work available to them through which they can make a living wage is coal-mining.
4. Sure, if you're in a privileged enough position to manoeuvre yourself into one of the "better" occupations. Many people are forced to perform menial labour simply to survive.
5. Please don't tell me you think that work in coal-mining, the service industry, construction, manufacturing, etc., is "unskilled".

1. Yeah indeed, it wasn't an anecdote then. It was an example of a solid fact. If I removed "my dad's" part, the fact would still be there and you guys wouldn't generate such a hassle over it. Sheesh!

2. Again, if I removed "my dad's" part, the fact would still be there and you guys wouldn't generate such a hassle over it.

3. So you want to risk your lungs and your life to earn more money? Greedy workers smh. Also as if other services weren't demanded...

4. If people studied and worked hard, they would be successful as a whole and wouldn't be poor. Sure, some would perform better and other worse, but that's part of the life. Study and hardwork are an investment, and represent the path of success, too bad many are lazy and give up in the middle of it.

5. Coal mining and other manual jobs are indeed in the bottom of skill pyramid. Actually, I thought you socialists incorporated those workers into the proletariat layer?

1. & 2. No, that's not how anecdotes work.

3. It has nothing to do with being "greedy", and everything to do with having to labour to earn enough money to survive. And no, some communities are very much dominated by one or two industries, meaning that the variety of possible occupations is incredibly limited.

4. Studying costs money, which can be difficult for people to save when they're barely making enough to survive. And the idea that proletarians don't work hard is incredibly ignorant.

5. Proletariat =/= unskilled. Such types of work demand, in fact, a great degree of skill and knowledge. This article does a good job of explaining that. Also, although I don't have a quotation on hand, I believe Marx, too, recognised the skill of the proletarian.

[Nature-Spirits]

And since we're being petty over people not answering questions:

Your point being?

"My question is still waiting for an answer" :^)))

[Mattopilos]

1. I am on a phone right now and its kinda hard to pass sources. I promise I will give them in a while though.

2. Socialism is inherently statist. There is no such thing as state socialism since it is an oxymoron.

3. Define equity.

1. Sure.
2. Kek. I see you are not well read on political theory. I think you need to read more. I mean, look at libertarian socialism, which is where the original use of libertarian came from.
3. "the quality of being fair and impartial.". Think of it as less giving people the same amount, and more giving as one needs it. Not everyone has the same need for something, so it would be unfair in itself to give exactly the same amount to everyone. Kinda get the point I am making?

[Nature-Spirits]

2. Socialism is inherently statist. There is no such thing as state socialism since it is an oxymoron.

3. Define equity.

2.
>socialism is statist (AKA socialism requires a state)
>state socialism is an oxymoron (AKA the state and socialism are incompatible)
>choose one

3. Ensuring that everyone is put on equal footing, rather than giving the same advantages to everyone regardless of their starting point.

[Great Minarchistan]

And that's why big government ends up creating cronyism and worsening life quality. 10/10 analysis, no joke.

Brilliant analysis of absolutely nothing. Seriously, bravo.

Fact of the matter is that your father did not gain his wealth in a truly free market. He benefited significantly from services paid for and provided by the government. He never would have even gotten off the ground without them. Equally, as bad as "big government" may be, free market is far, far worse. We have seen the effects of less controlled markets, and it is disastrous for everybody except to a very small few.

These concerns are also ones that are most certainly not rooted in the past. One thinks that perhaps your perception is colored by the fact you have never seen what it is like outside your bubble, nor experienced the true hardships that massive swaths of the population go through every day.

Indeed, and thats why I defend a small government, since it proves to give fairer solutions for all. Show me an example of an extremely free market that failed btw.

And actually I know how it is to live within poverty [ANECDOTE TRIGGERING INTENSIFIES], I am from a 3rd world country myself and its not that hard to stumble with poor people struggling to live.

[Arumdaum]

Just curious, but did anyone here go to any of the Women's Marches?

I wanted to, but I had to work.

Yeah, it would have been nice to go. I think I would have gone if I'd made plans with somebody to go. Unfortunate that you couldn't go.