D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
...PragerU? Did you just post whatever showed up first on youtube or do you actually think that's anywhere near a valid source of information?
Why don't we have a communist society yet? I mean we could.
- Thread starter Crni Vuk
- Start date
Yeah, I wouldn't touch anything PragerU says even with a 10m pole stick. Regardless if their creators would be now 'leftist' or 'conservatives'. They are propaganda pieces and not trustworthy.
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
They do have some interesting discussion points. I don't consider them a reliable news source (not that there seem to be many) but even propaganda as you put it seems to have a place. And hell they have a lot more people who know a hell of a lot more than the people on here talking about things. PragerU has even had our last PM Steven Harper making videos. You know what hell I trust them more then most "reliable" news sources coming from the US. How did that emergency management director from the US put it when discussing news agencies in disasters:
"I don't trust any of them, not CNN, not Fox, not CBS. These are entertainment companies and you may think they are reliable until you catch the reporter trying to sneak into the extremely dangerous disasters or kneeling in some puddles, or finding the only burning bush in 10km to give them a good background."
So believe what you want (of course those saying communism or socialism is a good thing call it propaganda....), but I like the messaging in some of there videos and its better then 3/4 of the shit you guys post on this subject hahaha.
"I don't trust any of them, not CNN, not Fox, not CBS. These are entertainment companies and you may think they are reliable until you catch the reporter trying to sneak into the extremely dangerous disasters or kneeling in some puddles, or finding the only burning bush in 10km to give them a good background."
So believe what you want (of course those saying communism or socialism is a good thing call it propaganda....), but I like the messaging in some of there videos and its better then 3/4 of the shit you guys post on this subject hahaha.
The point is not what they get right, but what they often leave out and what they don't get right.
For example, when you look at their videos about capitalism - and how awesome it is in their view. They explain that money in politics isn't much of an issue and in another video, they see 'crony capitalism' as a result of ... money thrown at politics.
They are simply not consistend and if you consume their videos, you're often not aware about that or how quite crucial informations are often left out and the kind of rhetorical manipulation they use to get their points across, like suggestive questions. For example, they confuse definitions, make up their own ones, while ignoring others and so on and so forth.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
Ah, so you believe it. What you'd, charitably, call BuzzFeed for conservatives and neoliberals. The only thing I've seen them do that isn't blatantly interested is often standing against bailing out financial institutions with state money, which is only an agreeable bit when they're on about subventions and welfare. It only seems useful as an exemplar of bullshit billionaires would rather have dumb people believe in and feel smarter about in the process.
But you treat a random philosophy professor who freely admits that math was too hard for him in school as gospel on UBI.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
The random philosophy professor a least doesn't have the Wilks Brothers paying his bills for making videos called "So this is why fossil fuels are awesome".
Alone the begining of that video and their 'ideas's of capitalism and socialism, are laughable really. Like Socialism is about greed and capitalism about need. What horsecrap. Socialism is about the means of production and who owns them, where capitalism is about private ownership. That's it. No moral, no need/greed thrown in to it, that's the core of those two. What ever if you prefer one over the other system, is a whole different question and I would say, rather an ideological one.
A quick google search alone, can find you an economist talking about it:
A new working paper released by Growthpolicy, which disseminates research by Harvard scholars on the topics of economic growth, employment, and inequality, argues that a universal basic income is superior to current low wage subsidies in several ways. The author, Associate Professor of Economics at Harvard, Dr. Maximilian Kasy contends that these subsidies, specifically the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in the United States, comparatively carries several economic, moral, and political disadvantages.
(...)
Dr. Kasey also asserts that a basic income would reduce the coercive power that employers, abusive partners, and a paternalistic welfare system hold over economically marginalized populations. Low wage workers, survivors of domestic violence, and mothers at the mercy of intrusive welfare policy would have an increased ability to walk away from exploitative situations. Furthermore, a basic income would fairly compensate child and elder care work, which is largely done by women and goes unrewarded in our current wage-based system.
Finally, as many have argued, Dr. Kasey finds that a universal basic income carries potentially greater political stability than means-tested benefits. For example, while the passage of Social Security in the 1930s and Medicare in the 1960s was met with cries of “Socialism!,”, these were soon widely popular across the political spectrum and are rarely considered as potential areas for federal budget cuts.
https://basicincome.org/news/2018/1...-replacement-of-the-eitc-with-a-basic-income/
https://basicincome.org/news/2018/1...-replacement-of-the-eitc-with-a-basic-income/
*Edit
You're also kinda defending PragerU now? O_o
He's talking mostly about the PHILSOPHICAL implications of the UBI on society, so yeah he's kinda talking about it from his expertise, a philosopher knowing pilosophy, go figure. He often said, he's not proficient in the economic questions that come with it - but that others are and that there are many models about how to finance it. But there also apparantly buisness men like Elon Musk that support it. So I am not sure what you're point here is, particularly since we're talking about PragerU and their credibility right now.
A quick google search alone, can find you an economist talking about it:
A new working paper released by Growthpolicy, which disseminates research by Harvard scholars on the topics of economic growth, employment, and inequality, argues that a universal basic income is superior to current low wage subsidies in several ways. The author, Associate Professor of Economics at Harvard, Dr. Maximilian Kasy contends that these subsidies, specifically the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in the United States, comparatively carries several economic, moral, and political disadvantages.
(...)
Dr. Kasey also asserts that a basic income would reduce the coercive power that employers, abusive partners, and a paternalistic welfare system hold over economically marginalized populations. Low wage workers, survivors of domestic violence, and mothers at the mercy of intrusive welfare policy would have an increased ability to walk away from exploitative situations. Furthermore, a basic income would fairly compensate child and elder care work, which is largely done by women and goes unrewarded in our current wage-based system.
Finally, as many have argued, Dr. Kasey finds that a universal basic income carries potentially greater political stability than means-tested benefits. For example, while the passage of Social Security in the 1930s and Medicare in the 1960s was met with cries of “Socialism!,”, these were soon widely popular across the political spectrum and are rarely considered as potential areas for federal budget cuts.
https://basicincome.org/news/2018/1...-replacement-of-the-eitc-with-a-basic-income/
https://basicincome.org/news/2018/1...-replacement-of-the-eitc-with-a-basic-income/
*Edit
You're also kinda defending PragerU now? O_o
Last edited:
valcik
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Finally proper video thread!
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
The point is not what they get right, but what they often leave out and what they don't get right.
For example, when you look at their videos about capitalism - and how awesome it is in their view. They explain that money in politics isn't much of an issue and in another video, they see 'crony capitalism' as a result of ... money thrown at politics.
They are simply not consistend and if you consume their videos, you're often not aware about that or how quite crucial informations are often left out and the kind of rhetorical manipulation they use to get their points across, like suggestive questions. For example, they confuse definitions, make up their own ones, while ignoring others and so on and so forth.
Oh trust me I do see that, the thing is it almost always seems to be from different view points. One guy says one thing another says something different based upon there perspective of the situation. I don't consider them news or reliable information, but more as looking at things through different viewpoints something that most people seem to be ignoring. Are you one of those who think only your perspective of the situation has to be right? And because somebody preserved something differently makes them wrong? I don't, I like to look at multiple view points. They are opinion and unfortunately that is all that a lot of news sources are nowadays.
As for this:
My mind is not blown. Maybe start to break your bubbles and look at different peoples opinions and you may just be
Remember when you shat on me for using a simple idea to explain a complex idea. That's just what you did in this. Socialism as a simple idea is about that, Socialism in the real complex world ended up being about greed and had horrible morals and ethics. Its about having a hyper wealthy elite that kill those who do not agree with them starting with Marx and continuing in this day in Venezuela. No matter how bad people say capitalism is I would rather be a homeless person in a western capitalist country then live in Venezuela in any way or form.
Last edited:
They represent their 'opinions' as you call it as facts. And some of those experts, even contradict themselfs. Like a peace about feminism, the wage gap and boys in education. The wage gab, is due to the choices women make, so why do something here? It's biology! But boys underperforming in school, that's a problem that should concern us all! But you could argue, that's also biology. - it goes witout a saying that we have to look in both cases and how improvements can be made.
So you see the issue, you do not (really) trust them, the video you post starts already with a totally boggus definition of both capitalism and socialism, yet it's ... usefull?
That's like as if I would use The Young Turks or something, which are so full of shit, it's laughable - they are just on the other (political) side of it and I am saying this as a leftist by the way. I usually try to stay away from populist propaganda, be it left or right ones.
And what was the ethics in the iran contra affair? Or the last war in Iraq? Afghanistan? And the countless other conflicts and interventions by the US, France, Britain, you name it.
See, this is what also happens at PragerU. Socialism. Governments. Baaaad! Capitalism! Free Marekts! Goood!
The moment you bring up moral and ethics in to this, you really stop having a clear discussion and it becomes ideological. Neither in capitalism nor in socialism, is moral or ethics playing any role. It's about the humans that make the calls and decisions, of which some can be guided by morals and ethics - what they see as it anyway, or not. Democracies make it simply much more difficult to missuse power, albeit not impossible, just ask the Chileans what they think about Kissinger, compared to dictatorships where the power and decision making is concetrated ina few individuals. Absolutist France? Monrachy. Nazi Germany? Fascism. Even Democracies, bring up pretty fucked up individuals, like Nixon. So I am sorry, the moment someone starts with the argument of Socialism is immoral then I have to say, which system is? Again, Socialism is a form of dictatorship, so of course it is terrible. But if you really want to go with a definition that gets to the core, then greed is a stupid argument, as greed also exists in capitalism and democracies. Either we talk about human nature, or the systems in use.
The biggest trick of the neoliberals was it to make people believe, that democracy = capitalism. However, if we look trough out history, we will find many systems that had no 'moral' to speak so. But PragerU doesn't stop here, thtey often combine many other virtues like liberty, freedom, prosperty and so on with capitalism. Where does it say capitalism has to give you that? Capitalism, is ONLY(!) defined by private ownership. That's it. It's not even necessarily tied to free markets. Capitalism can certainly exist in an economy that's ruled by a few monopolies where you don't have a free market anymore - and at that point government intervention would be required. I am not saying capitalism is inherently bad, private ownership is important! But if propaganda pieces like PragerU are so desperately trying to tie it with something that's not a part of the definition, then there is a reason for it.
Last edited:
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
So much to refute in here, once again a perspective as to how you see it. How many communist countries had very liberal societies? How many capitalist countries have liberal societies? Looking form this perspective it does seem capitalism has some effect on making up of a liberal society as all liberal societies run a version of capitalism. How many people continue to prosper in communistic societies? To ask in your opening argument why we do not a working communist society yet the very answer is human nature and yet you keep pointing to that the system should work. Yes democracy can exist within communistic societies, in fact I have heard arguments to the fact that communism is the purest form of democracy before, because communism is not at its very core just a way of regulating a countries economy and neither is capitalism. Both end up tied to human nature and how we run our societies. And in a society where the government owns and runs everything you have no liberty, you have no freedom, you have no private ownership (perhaps the biggest contributor to a liberal society). You have the state and are subject to the whims of those part of the party. So yes morals and ethics will always come into play on this topic as you will never find a moral and ethical communistic society.
So no you cannot have your communistic utopian liberal society and you never will, and just because something you consider propaganda tells you something does not mean it is not true from that persons perspective on that situation.
And this is, why definitions matter in such a discussion. There never was a communist society - why you guys always keep confusing communism with socialism? And what we have today, in most developed nations, are social democracies, not 'capitalist' societies.
Capitalism, just like Communism are ideals, principles. We've been living for such a long time in those wellfare states that it's easy to forget all that struggle workers had to go trough, before owners of capital goods would grant their workers all the benefits and social achievements, health care, wage continuation, pensions and so on.
We have those achievements despite capitalism, not because of capitalism, we have them because the early socialists, social democrats fought for it together with workers and unions. Hell even Adam Smith, a very intelligent economist of it's time, didn't trust unlimited markets and economic models without any kind of state intervention for example. So even Adam Smith, a very promiment supporter of free markets isn't blindly following it, he argued for free trade, but he didn't trust the traders to act in favour of the society, as he knew their motivation was to make profit, that's what business owners do, that's their role. But if everyone only cares for their profit, you run in to issues.
I do agree with you on human nature, it always plays a role.
Yeah, so much liberalism and freedom I guess. Imagine if you had to ask the CEO of apple if he allowed you to marry someone.
Capitalism, just like Communism are ideals, principles. We've been living for such a long time in those wellfare states that it's easy to forget all that struggle workers had to go trough, before owners of capital goods would grant their workers all the benefits and social achievements, health care, wage continuation, pensions and so on.
We have those achievements despite capitalism, not because of capitalism, we have them because the early socialists, social democrats fought for it together with workers and unions. Hell even Adam Smith, a very intelligent economist of it's time, didn't trust unlimited markets and economic models without any kind of state intervention for example. So even Adam Smith, a very promiment supporter of free markets isn't blindly following it, he argued for free trade, but he didn't trust the traders to act in favour of the society, as he knew their motivation was to make profit, that's what business owners do, that's their role. But if everyone only cares for their profit, you run in to issues.
What I actually said, or tried to say, is that we could achieve certain ideas and concept of the communist philosphy/utopia, not that we will ever have a pure communist society, what ever that would look like.
Not from me, you havn't. I have no clue if communism could work with a democracy or not. That's pure speculation, since no one ever defined what 'governance' in a communist society would actually mean, or look like. There simply is no definition here. If we look at the source material, all they say is that a true communist society, would feature no authority - completely idiotic in my opinion, since you will always have some form of authority. So as you can see, I am not someone who blindly follows communist ideals. There is a lot that can be criticised about Communism in that part.
Who made that claim anyway? Again, the difference, ideologically in capitalism and communism is about who owns the means of production and who benefits of them. These include raw materials, facilities, machinery and tools used in the production of goods and services. Nowhere does it say, that either capitalism or communism exercise regulations here, it's a grave missunderstanding that they would be an inherent part of those concepts.
I do agree with you on human nature, it always plays a role.
Hence why I am strongly against socialism. No argument from me here. A government should never own or regulate everything. Private ownership is important, free trade is important, and allowing people to own something and making a profit as well.
And companies can not exercise this? Did you ever read about corporatism? Did you know that in Germany factory workers had to ask their employeer first, before they where allowed to marry someone? Did you know, that Ford controlled very rigorously, the lives of his employees?
When Henry Ford's Benevolent Secret Police Ruled His Workers
Henry Ford wanted his workers to be model Americans, and to ensure that, he created a division within the Ford Motor Company to keep everyone in line. It was known as the Ford Sociological Department (or the Sociology Department, or the Society Department, really, depending on who you ask. But you get the idea.).
What started out as a team of 50 “Investigators” eventually morphed into a team of 200 people who probed every aspect of their employees lives. And I mean every aspect.
Henry Ford wanted his workers to be model Americans, and to ensure that, he created a division within the Ford Motor Company to keep everyone in line. It was known as the Ford Sociological Department (or the Sociology Department, or the Society Department, really, depending on who you ask. But you get the idea.).
What started out as a team of 50 “Investigators” eventually morphed into a team of 200 people who probed every aspect of their employees lives. And I mean every aspect.
Yeah, so much liberalism and freedom I guess. Imagine if you had to ask the CEO of apple if he allowed you to marry someone.
Can you name a purely capitalist society that's ethical and moral?
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
Rapture
TheGM
The voice of reason
HE DID IT, THE MAD MAN ACTUALLY DID IT!
What, the whole "Communism has never been tried, it was all socialism and yeah, that one totally sucks, but trust me, communism is going to be totally different with only 30% the mass graves" thing has been a source of amusement several times in this thread.
/edit: But don't worry. As tovarish Arnust will say when he's pouring lime over the next mass grave: "Well, under capitalism they would have died, too
".
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
The magic of capitalism is that the mandatory mass graves are in other countries instead.
Still, pretty big meme that people attribute merits to it when most of not all of those are in spite of capitalism. Unless you have a nostalgic feeling for working over 12 hours a day and in closed areas where you’re not paid real money, anyway.
Still, pretty big meme that people attribute merits to it when most of not all of those are in spite of capitalism. Unless you have a nostalgic feeling for working over 12 hours a day and in closed areas where you’re not paid real money, anyway.
TheGM
The voice of reason
yeah, communists ones.
Explain this
Fucking capitalists, always outsourcing. At least in a good revolution, the revolution eats its own children and doesn't give the job to someone else.