Socialism: What do we do now?

[Gim]

Wow, you liberals must be so naive if you actually believe that trump was paid for by Soros, rather understanding the truth of the matter which is that George Soros and cultural Marxism is destroying the west

Gerge Soros paid for HILLARY, not Trump

Then he's not as powerful as you think. So what are you raving about??

All the raving Trumpist loons were fine with saying the election was rigged against him this time last year, on zero evidence, now we can't play the same card?

BTW, Bakery Hill was being sarcastic (I'm pretty sure).

What the heck?!?!?!

Wow. Those people are truly....

[Imperializt Russia]

No it is not.

It is an inevitable result of the competitive drive of capitalism.
Proto-humans and "ancient" tribes in the present day survive through co-operation amongst members.

Citing backward tribes as good examples are we?

Wanting to have more than you already do is not a bad thing, it is the right thing. A neurosurgeon wanting to be payed thrice as much as a plumber is not greedy, but mostly correct. To think that they both should be given equally, not that is utter nonsense.

If plumbers were paid a third what neurosurgeons were, that sounds like an awesome society.

Where do I sign?

[Isentria]

Citing backward tribes as good examples are we?

Wanting to have more than you already do is not a bad thing, it is the right thing. A neurosurgeon wanting to be payed thrice as much as a plumber is not greedy, but mostly correct. To think that they both should be given equally, not that is utter nonsense.

If plumbers were paid a third what neurosurgeons were, that sounds like an awesome society.

Where do I sign?

Oh I was rather speaking figuratively, sure, it is more like a 6-7 times difference, never the less, there is nothing wrong in that.

[Gim]

Citing backward tribes as good examples are we?

Wanting to have more than you already do is not a bad thing, it is the right thing. A neurosurgeon wanting to be payed thrice as much as a plumber is not greedy, but mostly correct. To think that they both should be given equally, not that is utter nonsense.

If plumbers were paid a third what neurosurgeons were, that sounds like an awesome society.

Where do I sign?

Here.

*takes out a paper*

[Imperializt Russia]

If plumbers were paid a third what neurosurgeons were, that sounds like an awesome society.

Where do I sign?

Oh I was rather speaking figuratively, sure, it is more like a 6-7 times difference, never the less, there is nothing wrong in that.

That a rich/poor divide exists isn't the inherent problem, I hope you understand. It is two things - the scale of the rich/poor divide, and what level the poor are in.

Are the poor starving, even when in supposedly gainful employment? Then the rich/poor divide is fucked. Are the bosses in a firm earning obscenely more than people in the same firm? Then the rich/poor divide is fucked.
If the poor were earning enough money to be well-fed, enjoy home life and participate in joyful activities, and almost all of them able to do so, then the rich/poor divide doesn't really matter (in the immediate term), so long as we are currently living in a money-based capitalist society.

The existence and extent of the divide is still a problem in the longer term and ethically, however.

[Gim]

That a rich/poor divide exists isn't the inherent problem, I hope you understand. It is two things - the scale of the rich/poor divide, and what level the poor are in.

Are the poor starving, even when in supposedly gainful employment? Then the rich/poor divide is fucked. Are the bosses in a firm earning obscenely more than people in the same firm? Then the rich/poor divide is fucked.
If the poor were earning enough money to be well-fed, enjoy home life and participate in joyful activities, and almost all of them able to do so, then the rich/poor divide doesn't really matter (in the immediate term), so long as we are currently living in a money-based capitalist society.

The existence and extent of the divide is still a problem in the longer term and ethically, however.

Yes, a surgeon or a doctor earns well over $100,000 a year, whereas, plumbers? ONly $20-30000 per year.

[Isentria]

Oh I was rather speaking figuratively, sure, it is more like a 6-7 times difference, never the less, there is nothing wrong in that.

That a rich/poor divide exists isn't the inherent problem, I hope you understand. It is two things - the scale of the rich/poor divide, and what level the poor are in.

Are the poor starving, even when in supposedly gainful employment? Then the rich/poor divide is fucked. Are the bosses in a firm earning obscenely more than people in the same firm? Then the rich/poor divide is fucked.
If the poor were earning enough money to be well-fed, enjoy home life and participate in joyful activities, and almost all of them able to do so, then the rich/poor divide doesn't really matter (in the immediate term), so long as we are currently living in a money-based capitalist society.

The existence and extent of the divide is still a problem in the longer term and ethically, however.

I would have nothing against striving to give a better living for those worse off, at least, if not for their sake, at least for the sake of their children, so that everyone has an equal chance of success. The sins of our fathers are not our own after all, and it is in my, and everyone else's best interest, that all talents are put to use.
Still, it should not come at the cost of losing the capitalist system.

[Victoriala II]

>distributism is much more meme tier than socialism

Anything is better than a system that steals from the majority and still claims the moral high ground. Socialism and capitalism have both failed to deliver and have left rivers of blood in their wake.

Whole bullshit about wealth distribution and property relations aside, still.

>distributism

[Free Tristania]

Anything is better than a system that steals from the majority and still claims the moral high ground. Socialism and capitalism have both failed to deliver and have left rivers of blood in their wake.

Whole bullshit about wealth distribution and property relations aside, still.

>distributism

Wealth distribution is just that: stealing.

[Gim]

Anything is better than a system that steals from the majority and still claims the moral high ground. Socialism and capitalism have both failed to deliver and have left rivers of blood in their wake.

Whole bullshit about wealth distribution and property relations aside, still.

>distributism

Disributism? Is that even a word?

[Victoriala II]

Whole bullshit about wealth distribution and property relations aside, still.

>distributism

Wealth distribution is just that: stealing.

I didn't ask for your definitions Mister Magoo

[Gim]

Wealth distribution is just that: stealing.

I didn't ask for your definitions Mister Magoo

Magoo?

[Olivaero]

Whole bullshit about wealth distribution and property relations aside, still.

>distributism

Wealth distribution is just that: stealing.

Hey didnt realise you were a socialist welcome aboard comrade.

[Gim]

Wealth distribution is just that: stealing.

Hey didnt realise you were a socialist welcome aboard comrade.

Oooh, new friendship here.

[Tokora]

It is two things - the scale of the rich/poor divide, and what level the poor are in.

Are the poor starving, even when in supposedly gainful employment? Then the rich/poor divide is fucked. Are the bosses in a firm earning obscenely more than people in the same firm? Then the rich/poor divide is fucked.
If the poor were earning enough money to be well-fed, enjoy home life and participate in joyful activities, and almost all of them able to do so, then the rich/poor divide doesn't really matter (in the immediate term), so long as we are currently living in a money-based capitalist society.

The existence and extent of the divide is still a problem in the longer term and ethically, however.

I can mostly support that. However, until the day poverty and hunger are eradicated, the middle class is the lowest class, and the wealthy are willing to make this happen, I'm going to keep voting socialist in the foreseeable future.

Wealth distribution is just that: stealing.

(Image)

And how exactly is the rich robbing and murdering the poor an improvement?

[Isentria]

It is two things - the scale of the rich/poor divide, and what level the poor are in.

Are the poor starving, even when in supposedly gainful employment? Then the rich/poor divide is fucked. Are the bosses in a firm earning obscenely more than people in the same firm? Then the rich/poor divide is fucked.
If the poor were earning enough money to be well-fed, enjoy home life and participate in joyful activities, and almost all of them able to do so, then the rich/poor divide doesn't really matter (in the immediate term), so long as we are currently living in a money-based capitalist society.

The existence and extent of the divide is still a problem in the longer term and ethically, however.

I can mostly support that. However, until the day poverty and hunger are eradicated, the middle class is the lowest class, and the wealthy are willing to make this happen, I'm going to keep voting socialist in the foreseeable future.

Wealth distribution is just that: stealing.

(Image)

And how exactly is the rich robbing and murdering the poor an improvement?

1. It is called middle class for a reason, because it is between upper and lower, so, no, it is not the lowest class.
2. The picture is half true, the capitalists are not forcing the worker into anything, labor association in he capitalist society is done by choice, no one forces you to work for anyone if you don't want to. In comparison, the communist "revolutionaries" will always try to rob or murder the owners of private property.

[Catochristoferson]

You still keep it yourself for your own wealth.

No, if you are an owner of capital, even partially, the rusted school of Communism will consider you evil. If you have worked hard and smart to build a company, it will be taken away from you, no matter how just or fair you were. If you had stock anywhere, they are gone. If you had savings anywhere they to are gone for Communism strives for a moneyless society, no matter how hard you worked for them.
Not to forget the "joyride" you have if you are a farmer, because in that case, everything which was yours is tomorrow a thing of the collective. Adding to that how if the collective farmership fails, famine is inevitable.

Please, stop continuing the meme that "rich people work hard" because they really don't.

[Liberalter]

Whole bullshit about wealth distribution and property relations aside, still.

>distributism

Wealth distribution is just that: stealing.

Is the guy with the gun the government? If so, then it is justified.

If not, then it isn't.

[Isentria]

No, if you are an owner of capital, even partially, the rusted school of Communism will consider you evil. If you have worked hard and smart to build a company, it will be taken away from you, no matter how just or fair you were. If you had stock anywhere, they are gone. If you had savings anywhere they to are gone for Communism strives for a moneyless society, no matter how hard you worked for them.
Not to forget the "joyride" you have if you are a farmer, because in that case, everything which was yours is tomorrow a thing of the collective. Adding to that how if the collective farmership fails, famine is inevitable.

Please, stop continuing the meme that "rich people work hard" because they really don't.

Speaking from experience or what?

[Wysten]

Wealth distribution is just that: stealing.

Is the guy with the gun the government? If so, then it is justified.

If not, then it isn't.

So stealing is justified when the government is doing it?

[Wysten]

No, if you are an owner of capital, even partially, the rusted school of Communism will consider you evil. If you have worked hard and smart to build a company, it will be taken away from you, no matter how just or fair you were. If you had stock anywhere, they are gone. If you had savings anywhere they to are gone for Communism strives for a moneyless society, no matter how hard you worked for them.
Not to forget the "joyride" you have if you are a farmer, because in that case, everything which was yours is tomorrow a thing of the collective. Adding to that how if the collective farmership fails, famine is inevitable.

Please, stop continuing the meme that "rich people work hard" because they really don't.

Yeah they do how do you think places like Microsoft or Google function without a CEO without a head to guide the company or even small buisness people who work even if they are also your Sig is a bit of an oxymoron being both communist and anarchist.

[Imperializt Russia]

Please, stop continuing the meme that "rich people work hard" because they really don't.

Yeah they do how do you think places like Microsoft or Google function without a CEO without a head to guide the company or even small buisness people who work even if they are also your Sig is a bit of an oxymoron being both communist and anarchist.

You could spend sixty seconds on wikipedia to try and understand why anarchism and communism are not contradictory.

Normally I'd make a glib response about this, but please go and actually do that.

[Wysten]

Yeah they do how do you think places like Microsoft or Google function without a CEO without a head to guide the company or even small buisness people who work even if they are also your Sig is a bit of an oxymoron being both communist and anarchist.

You could spend sixty seconds on wikipedia to try and understand why anarchism and communism are not contradictory.

Normally I'd make a glib response about this, but please go and actually do that.

I did but communism can not work without the government coming in taking all of your stuff because you don't believe in that.

[Imperializt Russia]

You could spend sixty seconds on wikipedia to try and understand why anarchism and communism are not contradictory.

Normally I'd make a glib response about this, but please go and actually do that.

I did but communism can not work without the government coming in taking all of your stuff because you don't believe in that.

You clearly have not done so.

[Herrebrugh]

Whole bullshit about wealth distribution and property relations aside, still.

>distributism

Wealth distribution is just that: stealing.

I've never understood this depiction of socialism.

And I still don't.

Though, the depiction of capitalism seems accurate.