Why don't we have a communist society yet? I mean we could.

DarkCorp said:
Austerity didn't cripple Greece and Spain, 'free shit' did. People, not just corporations, were doing their damndest to avoid taxes. Leeches who took advantage of the system ruined everyrhing.

Both the UK and France had to raise taxes to keep their ballooning social systems afloat. It was inevitable.

More strings man.

And I have said, REPEATEDLY, we bailed out banks because ir was cheaper than invoking FDIC and having the government/tax payers for everything.
Click to expand...
Like I said. The points you mention never come up when it's about the military spending. Even with all that "austerity" Greece was capable of buying sub marines from the German government for a very hefty price. Seems like that stuff is more important than spending it on the health care system or pensions.

What you call "free shit" is a form of investment. In infrastructure, education, health, your people basically, making sure that they have access to it and that it's affordable, so education and health is not a question of how your status. If you're not ready to use your resources to improve the live of your people as a government, then what's the point?

The EU alone is loosing each year trillions due to tax evasion. Cum-Ex deals have cost the German government alone 50 Billion. Modernizing all our schools would be about 30 billion. There. There is all your "precious" money going. And not "wasted" on "free shit".

Have you ever heard of The paradox of thrift?

The paradox of thrift (or paradox of saving) is a paradox of economics. The paradox states that an increase in autonomous saving leads to a decrease in aggregate demand and thus a decrease in gross output which will in turn lower total saving. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total saving may fall because of individuals' attempts to increase their saving, and, broadly speaking, that increase in saving may be harmful to an economy. Both the narrow and broad claims are paradoxical within the assumption underlying the fallacy of composition, namely that which is true of the parts must be true of the whole. The narrow claim transparently contradicts this assumption, and the broad one does so by implication, because while individual thrift is generally averred to be good for the economy, the paradox of thrift holds that collective thrift may be bad for the economy.

Social Programms have been implemented to boost economies! That's the whole point behind it.

1. Welfare payments can stabilise the economy
In a recession people lose their jobs, businesses stop investing and the economy risks a downward spiral.But social security, benefits and tax credits kick in, propping up incomes and acting as ‘automatic stabilisers’. Government spending increases temporarily to ensure people still have money to spend on basic needs. This means businesses have customers,keeping the economy stable and preventing a terminal spiral of decline.

2. Countries that increased welfare payments 
had the strongest economic recoveries
Families on low incomes are most likely to spend extra money quickly in their local shops and services, boosting demand and helping businesses. The International Institute for Labour Studies found: ‘Social and cash transfers [following the credit crunch] not only assisted those in need, but by putting cash in the hands of those most likely to spend it, helped to shore up household consumption. For this reason, countries that strengthened the policies towards income transfers managed to recover faster than others.’

3. Cutting welfare can damage growth
When deep cuts to welfare dramatically reduce the incomes of families who are already on low incomes, the opposite of fiscal stimulus happens: fiscal hindrance. Billions of pounds are removed from the active economy, so struggling businesses lose customers and lay off more staff. A vicious cycle is created.

4. Welfare cuts are shrinking the UK economy
Economists say that in a recession, increased welfare spending 
has a strong multiplier effect of around 1.6. This means every £1 is worth £1.60 to national income once it has worked its way around the economy through shop tills and pay cheques. When welfare is cut, the multiplier works in reverse. So £20bn of welfare cuts could depress the economy by as much as £32bn – more than 2% of GDP.

https://think-left.org/2012/09/11/austerity-the-paradox-of-thrift-and-a-great-graph/

This is what Portugal did to combat their economic issues and they recovered MUCH faster than Greece and Spain while they are still dealing with a decreasing standard of living. Go figure.


Also :

 
Last edited:
Crni

And what does all that posting have to do with strings. I agree in the need for welfare. Our disagreement was in regards to strings. Welfare for legit people tryinf to get back on their feet is a good thing. Welfare for weedboy, not so good.

Portugal still underwent cuts. Nobody can argue that many social sectors are still under budgeted and under staffed. Unions, especially teachers, were protesting their pay increases being frozen. Public spending remained low for years after the socialists took power. Just because they didn't go full on doesn't mean austerity hadn't taken place. It is more like like robbing peter to pay paul. The role backs were a result of cuts in places like infrastructure and private investment, among other things. Lastly, Portugal had years of economic rebound before the socialists took over.

It really is more like an anti austerity myth.
 
DarkCorp said:
Crni

And what does all that posting have to do with strings. I agree in the need for welfare. Our disagreement was in regards to strings. Welfare for legit people tryinf to get back on their feet is a good thing. Welfare for weedboy, not so good.
Click to expand...

Because those strings are not required. They are an extrinsic motivator to something that should be intrinsic. But you can not really achieve that by "forcing" people in to facing existential threats. That would be like trying to get someone to stop stuttering by telling him he won't get any food if he doesn't stop doing it or hitting children because they don't want to do their homework. - Even if it yields some results it doesn't change that it's an inhumane practise and that we have to look for better ways.

It's a lot more effective to actually look at the underlying reasons and accept that humans are complex beings with different views and motivations. Particularly as we're coming in to a situation where it will become more and more difficult to actually achieve a position where you could generate a decent enough income.

Lazy slobs that do nothing and don't find the motivation to do anything are not born. They are made. And once we recognize that poverty and laziness are not character traits but acquired behaviour we can talk about ways to deal with it. Maybe if you force some people into an existential crisis, like giving them no access to food and shelter, if they don't work, some will turn around and get a job. But what about those that don't? From the hundreds of children I had the pleasure to work with and supervise in my role as educator over the years, I have yet to find one that doesn't want to learn or is outright lazy. And believe me when I say I had to deal with some very troubled children and teenagers! Children which had anger issues and even criminal records. However to way to get any positive outcome was never by threatening them or punishing them with taking away food and basic things you need to just exist. You can not start to reach out to people when you put them in an existential crisis. Their behaviour IS already the crisis. A certain amount of pressure is required yes, but if you really want to get people to change their behaviour you have to actually understand the cause for it. And that's different for every person.

What we have to simply ask our self at this point, as a society, is if we just want to dish out punishments and sanctions, or if we really want to help people to improve and grow on their own terms by helping them find their potential and every human being has potential no matter how lazy or unmotivated they are. But finding out what potential someone has and how they could be motivated is very difficult and requires a very empathetic and understanding mindset. You need social workers, tutors and all sorts of support.

For example you have people which maybe grew up for 20-25 years in a household where the parents haven't manged to teach their child any social skills and the value of work. And now you expect this adult to "learn" something completely on his own that he never had in the first place? That's like throwing an overweight person right in to a marathon with people that trained years for it and expecting him/her to succeed. If you do that with 10.000 people a handful might get trough it. But the rest will simply fail.

This idea that you have to 'force' people by cutting their well fare is poisonous pedagogy that belongs in to the last century. Because at this point we know that it's not useful when you want to get a positive behaviour out of someone.

In sociology and psychology, poisonous pedagogy, also called black pedagogy (from the original German name schwarze Pädagogik), is any traditional child-raising methods which modern pedagogy considers repressive and harmful. It includes behaviours and communication that theorists consider to be manipulative or violent, such as corporal punishment.[1]
 
You just said pressure is needed, which is a complete contradiction to no strings attached.

And why do you have to be so dramatic by saying I want people to starve to death? People ALREADY get welfare in the US, lazy or not. What you ARE pushing for is MORE welfare benefits and NO STRINGS. A very DIFFERENT argument.

Stuttering really? Your going to use that example?

Even with the homework example, PARENTING is required. In your case, just let the kid do whatever they want because I will stifle them if I criticize them.

I do not have a problem with welfare in of itself. It is about run away welfare. It is not about those who can't be useful for no reasons of their own, but those who have clearly NO REASON not to work, but do not work anyways. It isn't about better access to healthcare so much as the reforms that need to happen to make it possible.

And lastly, you ask about those that don't?

The human desire to live ia very great indeed. The only people who would rather die than work must be experiencing some form of crazy, which I have adressed as no fault of their own/mental problems and should be treated as such.

EDIT

Tutoring them/teaching them is a string in of itself. Also, it is no fault of rheir own that they had shitty parents but it IS their responsibility to ADAPT/CHANGE. What I DISAGREE with are folks who CLEARLY KNOW better and choose to stay on the path of lazy.
 
Last edited:
I feared that you would misunderstand me. Particularly the part about pressure. How do I explain this? During my time when I had to deal with very troubled teenagers there hvae been some I could reach and some I couldn't. I realized trough experience that I was only capable of achieving a positive influence by creating a sort of positive relationship with them. In other words, they have to like you so that they listen to you. And THEN you can apply pressure or some sort of sanctions, but those should never go so far that you devalue their existence. That's the point I am trying to make. I also never said you would let people starve to death.

Right now we have a system as society in place where we blame people for their poverty. And that's the main issue I have with it. We see it mainly as a character trait and not as a condition.

The human desire to live ia veru great indeed. The only people who woild rather die than work are either experiencing some form of crazy, which I have adressed as no fault of their own/mental problems and should be treated as such.

Then why have any kind of strings? Those that can work will work. Those that can't won't. No reason to have some strings attached to it in my opinion.
 
I only blame people when they have been taught and know better and still refuse to change.

I am not advocating no patience, like taking in a foster kid and expecting empathy or 100 percent compliance immediately. Trust needa to be built sure.

Often times, if not the majority, I am not speaking of these people. I speak of people who had good parents, access to education, were taught correctly, and still end up being selfish or lazy assholes.

Why strings?

Exactly what I said above. For someone who does not believe in zero sums you seem to believe everybody a victim.

If your poor because you lost your money in BitCoin or the stock market, that is not life giving you an assfucking, it was speculation. You know, the same greedy assholes you talk about right?

If one is poor because they have zero form of self control or shitty financial decisions, they are not a victim. Like I explained with the welfare lady who felt she was ENTITLED, to organic food even though it cost much more than regular. Choosing tire rims over paying bills.
 
Last edited:
We're talking about completely different situations here.

I simply have the opinion that no matter what you do with your life there should be a limit that you can not fall trough. And that limit should make sure that you can live a life in dignity and without existential fear. Regardless if you're an alcoholic, lost your fortune with Gambling or betting on Bitcoin. You should never ever have to face a situation where you have to worry about food and shelter. Never. This has nothing to do with making people in to victims or making sure everyone can have a big house with swimming pool and large car!

And always this talking about who deserves it or not is simply a distraction in my opinion. Humans should have a right to food and shelter. No strings. No sanctions. No conditions. Simply because they are human beings.
 
Something to ponder about :

What does it say about an economic system when some of its wealthiest, most prominent beneficiaries are coming out and declaring that it is a failure?

Among the latest on this growing list of disillusioned capitalists is Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, the largest hedge fund in the world. (Hedge funds are partnerships of investors who pool their money to pursue high-risk, high-reward investments.)

“Because the ‘trickle-down’ process of having money at the top trickle down to workers and others by improving their earnings and creditworthiness is not working, the system of making capitalism work well for most people is broken,” Dalio, whose net worth is estimated at US$18.7 billion, wrote in a LinkedIn post this week.


https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry...qWsXKGR362vz4VB0pN7l5M5YI4O5Sk5_axmq3XvGqFYw1
 
We can't have communism because you'd have to solve greed. You'd have to solve John Doe wanting more than he actually needs, and Jane Dick would have to stop wanting servants and shit. You'd have to 'fix' the human mind. But given that greed and avarice are most people's motivation, you'd end up with people who don't want to do anything because they can't have what they want.

We are at our core a selfish species that's gotten this far because our lust for more and more and more gives us the ambition needed to get better. We could have stayed cavemen, banging rocks together. But we wanted more. We didn't want to follow animals and forage everyday. So we invented agriculture. Then we came up with trade because one of us had something another guy wanted, so we began to trade. All of human history is powered by greed, with rare exceptions.

That's why we can't have something without that upwards mobility.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Ever gone to a strip club? Plenty flexible humans there!
Click to expand...

Never been to a strip club...any recommendations?

Crni you care too much about the world, take a deep breath and just accept what happens is meant to happen. Idealism is what brought us most of the misery of the 20th century. You need to live in India for a few years, see how most of the world lives, and develop an inner peace. I know it's hard, I sometimes struggle with reality as well.

Much love brother...
 
Last edited:
This is how I often feel in such discussions :



Often things are taken out of context or there is some kind of assumption about something I never said nor intended to say. When it comes to this kind of discussion which are very philosophical in nature it's sad to see so many people confusing terms and making up their mind about something where it becomes impossible to discuss the merits of certain ideas without repeating one fallacy after another.

It's like as if someone would bring up a conservative or libertarian thought and I would call them "Nazis". Like literal Nazis. It's not a meaningful discussion.
 
75640735_2790366830983880_8732416464142729216_n.jpg
 
Personally, I never really knew what communism was about at it's core. And as is with so many things I've always refrained from making comments about it since I lacked all knowledge.

But just like ''Machiavelian'', once I started reading the book I also started building a personal point of view.

Now... I haven't finished Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, and so my opinion is also cautiously limited. Those are three very thick books, and as far as I understand it, they are also a shorter, revised version of the original which was meant to be longer.

But... to express how I feel about it right now - I don't think people of today are capable of such responsibility. Namely - redistributing the means of production. I suspect most people would fail miserably at it. Unfortunately technology, for it has given us a lot, has also exacerbated the ills of Capitalism. It's a double edged sword and it's cuts both ways. We may be drowning in tech advancements, but we're also heavily deprived of social life, leisure time, sleep, diet, ect. All things which are important to sustaining healthy society which can be responsible for it's own existence.

If anything, Marx was prophetic what was in store for the years to come.
 
Hulk'O'Saurus said:
Personally, I never really knew what communism was about at it's core. And as is with so many things I've always refrained from making comments about it since I lacked all knowledge.

But just like ''Machiavelian'', once I started reading the book I also started building a personal point of view.

Now... I haven't finished Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, and so my opinion is also cautiously limited. Those are three very thick books, and as far as I understand it, they are also a shorter, revised version of the original which was meant to be longer.

But... to express how I feel about it right now - I don't think people of today are capable of such responsibility. Namely - redistributing the means of production. I suspect most people would fail miserably at it. Unfortunately technology, for it has given us a lot, has also exacerbated the ills of Capitalism. It's a double edged sword and it's cuts both ways. We may be drowning in tech advancements, but we're also heavily deprived of social life, leisure time, sleep, diet, ect. All things which are important to sustaining healthy society which can be responsible for it's own existence.

If anything, Marx was prophetic what was in store for the years to come.
Click to expand...

Marx was a drunk idiot who was only able to live due to his rich capitalist friends. Never forget that while reading his ramblings and you will see the truth of his works. He lived his life off the proceeds and abilities of others who felt bad for him and thought the whole system should be torn down to support people like him. Everyone says capitalism is failing, but it has nowhere failed as bad as Marx's ideas did and anybody who has lived in one of Marx's "worker paradise's" would attest to this. But go ahead and tell me how capitalism is failing and then go look at what all those commies lived in and through. I don't advocate for book burnings often but that is what should happen to everyone of his drunk rambles.

No other economic system in the world has managed to bring so many out of poverty then capitalism, none. Some of the socialist principles are decent ideas but still only work in a system based around capitalism. Even those countries people like to say are socialist say they are capitalist and there economies are capitalist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top