4 ms·

You're using mental gymnastics to attack the alternative framework so that you could avoid thinking about hard problems. No sane person believes that having op

by hbrn 3y ago

You're using mental gymnastics to attack the alternative framework so that you could avoid thinking about hard problems. No sane person believes that having option to sell your labor without taking risks is slavery. If anything, slavery is being forced to be paid in the proceeds of a futile endeavor instead of just being paid how much you think you're worth. People have different life circumstances and preferences, so naturally they want different risk options. Having better control over your risks is an indisputable benefit of capitalism. Apparently, socialism ignores this benefit by assuming that people are robots that don't actually have different circumstances and preferences.

yourmatenate 3y ago
No sane person thinks that the current system is exploitative? No sane person thinks that it takes advantage about a power differential due to who has the capital (land, factory etc.)? I guess I know a lot of insane people. How many people really get paid how much they think they are worth under the current system? Not many I know. How much does the person with the capital risk compared to the employee who might lose their home with the loss of their livelihood? Do most employees really believe that they have a rational and fair choice of the risks they enter into? (including the risk of surviving on a low income) I guess I'm not meeting these swathes of workers completely satisfied with their wages, risks, and the system they live in. I know plenty of Socialists who believe in different benefits for different levels of effort or danger, especially as in Capitalism most of those people are the most poorly paid at present.
- hbrn 3y ago
  > No sane person thinks that the current system is exploitative? You're misrepresenting what I said in order to produce a cliché leftie rant. I never said current system is not exploitative (though I have no idea what this loaded term means: what is the measure and threshold for exploitation in the system that makes it exploitative? Was Gulag exploitative?). What I said is having an option to get paid for your job without taking on risks is obviously not slavery. > I guess I'm not meeting these swathes of workers completely satisfied with their wages, risks, and the system they live in. Another boring strawman. I never said there are "swathes of workers completely satisfied with their wages". Nobody should be completely satisfied with anything, otherwise there will be no progress. But we can judge the satisfaction with different systems based on immigration flow. Throughout human history, we have witnessed plenty of people wanting to immigrate from socialistic states to capitalistic ones. In the opposite direction - not so much.
  - yourmatenate 3y ago
    "obviously not slavery" It is admittedly not traditional chattel slavery but I happen to agree with Frederick Douglas that, "there may be a wages of slavery only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other." Which was a sentiment echoed by Abraham Lincoln. I'm pretty lucky with my profession, but many many people feel coerced into a narrow range of job options, alienated from their work, and robbed of a significant part of the value they produce. Note: In most first world countries in the world outside of America losing a job or ill health does not lead to potentially losing a home, or no longer having access to medicine or care. America is quite unique in that regard, and more similar to third world countries. As for the "Gulag" America has a larger proportion in prison than Russia (or China) ever has (and I am far from a fan of those authoritarian countries). "immigrate from socialistic states to capitalistic ones" Most mass immigration is coming from people fleeing dictatorships and / or poor third world and often war-torn countries which are far from Socialist. In fact they are often capitalist dictatorships supported by America (sometimes with previous left-leaning democratic governments overthrown by America). It is true that many of them migrate to the relative peace of places like America, but great numbers also migrate to neighbouring more left-wing countries in places like Africa and South America. Although I don't consider China or Soviet Russia any more Socialist than most European countries which have Socialist inspired social programmes, there have been major mass migrations into Soviet Russia in the past (even from Americans during the Great Depression) and into China in more recent times (economic migrants from Africa especially). As for European countries with Socialist policies: they have millions of migrants per year, some as refugees, but many drawn by their "Social Democratic" ideals.
    - hbrn 3y ago
      > many many people feel coerced into a narrow range of job options And many many people will feel that way under socialism because, for example, any form of freelancing is typically forbidden. Would you consider "he who does not work, neither shall he eat" a form of coercion? > robbed of a significant part of the value they produce So I joined a startup, but it failed in a few years. Apparently I created negative value and still got paid for it, therefore I robbed someone. Then I joined another startup, and it succeeded. This time someone robbed me. How exactly does socialism solve this weird robbery cycle? Ah yes, there are no startups in socialism. You can't be robbed if you have no wealth. Maybe it's time for lefties to stop viewing every business interaction as "robbing", every salary as "slavery", every cheesy comment as "rape" and every disagreement as "genocide"? > As for the "Gulag" America has a larger proportion in prison than Russia Whataboutism isn't productive, America is not the only capitalistic country in the world. Also comparing US prisons to Gulag is laughable. > Most mass immigration is coming from people fleeing dictatorships and / or poor third world and often war-torn countries which are far from Socialist Here comes No True Scotsman. Isn't it a funny coincidence, that socialism and dictatorship usually go hand in hand? And what are the examples of countries that are close to Socialist? > European countries with Socialist policies What an obscure way to say "capitalistic". You do realize that none of them are even considering abolishing private ownership? And didn't you just say that Russia and China are far from Socialist? Well, those European countries are even further.

by hbrn 3y ago

yourmatenate 3y ago

No sane person thinks that the current system is exploitative? No sane person thinks that it takes advantage about a power differential due to who has the capital (land, factory etc.)? I guess I know a lot of insane people. How many people really get paid how much they think they are worth under the current system? Not many I know. How much does the person with the capital risk compared to the employee who might lose their home with the loss of their livelihood? Do most employees really believe that they have a rational and fair choice of the risks they enter into? (including the risk of surviving on a low income) I guess I'm not meeting these swathes of workers completely satisfied with their wages, risks, and the system they live in. I know plenty of Socialists who believe in different benefits for different levels of effort or danger, especially as in Capitalism most of those people are the most poorly paid at present.

hbrn 3y ago
> No sane person thinks that the current system is exploitative? You're misrepresenting what I said in order to produce a cliché leftie rant. I never said current system is not exploitative (though I have no idea what this loaded term means: what is the measure and threshold for exploitation in the system that makes it exploitative? Was Gulag exploitative?). What I said is having an option to get paid for your job without taking on risks is obviously not slavery. > I guess I'm not meeting these swathes of workers completely satisfied with their wages, risks, and the system they live in. Another boring strawman. I never said there are "swathes of workers completely satisfied with their wages". Nobody should be completely satisfied with anything, otherwise there will be no progress. But we can judge the satisfaction with different systems based on immigration flow. Throughout human history, we have witnessed plenty of people wanting to immigrate from socialistic states to capitalistic ones. In the opposite direction - not so much.
- yourmatenate 3y ago
  "obviously not slavery" It is admittedly not traditional chattel slavery but I happen to agree with Frederick Douglas that, "there may be a wages of slavery only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other." Which was a sentiment echoed by Abraham Lincoln. I'm pretty lucky with my profession, but many many people feel coerced into a narrow range of job options, alienated from their work, and robbed of a significant part of the value they produce. Note: In most first world countries in the world outside of America losing a job or ill health does not lead to potentially losing a home, or no longer having access to medicine or care. America is quite unique in that regard, and more similar to third world countries. As for the "Gulag" America has a larger proportion in prison than Russia (or China) ever has (and I am far from a fan of those authoritarian countries). "immigrate from socialistic states to capitalistic ones" Most mass immigration is coming from people fleeing dictatorships and / or poor third world and often war-torn countries which are far from Socialist. In fact they are often capitalist dictatorships supported by America (sometimes with previous left-leaning democratic governments overthrown by America). It is true that many of them migrate to the relative peace of places like America, but great numbers also migrate to neighbouring more left-wing countries in places like Africa and South America. Although I don't consider China or Soviet Russia any more Socialist than most European countries which have Socialist inspired social programmes, there have been major mass migrations into Soviet Russia in the past (even from Americans during the Great Depression) and into China in more recent times (economic migrants from Africa especially). As for European countries with Socialist policies: they have millions of migrants per year, some as refugees, but many drawn by their "Social Democratic" ideals.
  - hbrn 3y ago
    > many many people feel coerced into a narrow range of job options And many many people will feel that way under socialism because, for example, any form of freelancing is typically forbidden. Would you consider "he who does not work, neither shall he eat" a form of coercion? > robbed of a significant part of the value they produce So I joined a startup, but it failed in a few years. Apparently I created negative value and still got paid for it, therefore I robbed someone. Then I joined another startup, and it succeeded. This time someone robbed me. How exactly does socialism solve this weird robbery cycle? Ah yes, there are no startups in socialism. You can't be robbed if you have no wealth. Maybe it's time for lefties to stop viewing every business interaction as "robbing", every salary as "slavery", every cheesy comment as "rape" and every disagreement as "genocide"? > As for the "Gulag" America has a larger proportion in prison than Russia Whataboutism isn't productive, America is not the only capitalistic country in the world. Also comparing US prisons to Gulag is laughable. > Most mass immigration is coming from people fleeing dictatorships and / or poor third world and often war-torn countries which are far from Socialist Here comes No True Scotsman. Isn't it a funny coincidence, that socialism and dictatorship usually go hand in hand? And what are the examples of countries that are close to Socialist? > European countries with Socialist policies What an obscure way to say "capitalistic". You do realize that none of them are even considering abolishing private ownership? And didn't you just say that Russia and China are far from Socialist? Well, those European countries are even further.