What are social justice warriors losing their shit about today?

[Yorkshire pud]

I used to live in one of the most socialist cities in the country with literal socialists as local elected politicians. Yet I still somehow had to step over bodies on the side walk and walk past literally blocks of homeless people outside of missions. In every direction you looked there were homeless, or street people or junkies or all matter of society's castaways. Why isn't anyone helping these people? Because no one gives a fuck. It's just politics. I'm honest with myself about it.

Of course if we lived in a true socialist society, I guess the answer would be to just shoot them.

You realise that's an oxymoron don't you? No?

[SredniVashtar]

Personally I think we should just rid of income tax all together, get rid of special groups and agencies like the IRS, ATF and all that other bullshit and have a national sales tax. I've never understood why that idea makes socialists vomit with rage but having a national sales tax would be the simplistic and most fair way of dealing with a lot of this bullshit.

A poor person buying a carton of milk and a rich corporation buying a jumbo jet are getting hit exactly the same.

You can debate free market v command economies all you want, but it comes down to a matter of opinion most of the time. You just need to be honest about the pros and cons on both sides. Conservatives like to see themselves as grown up or 'mugged by reality', as the expression goes, but Marx and Engels' ideas came out of living in the UK and seeing the terrible inequalities that were being perpetuated by those at the 'top' at the expense of those at the 'bottom' during a period of rapid industrialisation. Human beings were being treated like livestock, and a small group were profiting at their expense. The Communist Manifesto is one of the most elegant and economical analyses of the situation that people were facing, and much of it remains relevant today.

Capitalism might free up brilliant people to pursue innovation and change the environment for the better, but it also produces cartels and manifold instances of graft and corruption that need to be addressed and checked. That can only be done in a system where there is oversight at the administrative level - it cannot be done by 'the market' without creating massive upheaval and social breakdown. There is also a Victorian/Thatcherite notion that people who don't work 20 hours a day and run their own businesses are somehow not useful members of society. A lot of people just want to do a fair days work and get reasonably remunerated for their labour, not raped by an employer who is constantly trying to trim his costs and increase his profit margins by undervaluing human capital. For all its inefficiencies, governments can mandate a reasonable reward for someone's labour, for example; otherwise it is just a race to the bottom where we are all running faster to stay in the same place and neglecting important things like family life.

If you are someone like Ron Paul, none of these concerns about social cost have any significance, because 'the market' will sort it all out for us. Well, perhaps it might in the end - just as a catastrophic fire can help to clear away rotten buildings - but the idea of a planned economy is that we don't need to reach that stage. Right-wing types love to talk about market 'corrections' as though it never really has any impact on society, when we are talking about unemployment and social breakdown that can have generational effects. Advocates of a more or less pure capitalism are totally uninterested in this, and just tell everyone that they should work harder, like Boxer the shire horse, and stop moaning.

The whole idea of a national sales tax being somehow 'fairer' is just plain bloody stupid in my opinion and reveals how out of touch these people tend to be. Taxing some plutocrat's yacht at the same level as a single mother's groceries is NOT THE SAME!! In one case, you are talking about expenditure that is purely discretionary, on the other you are talking about necessities, pure and simple. A progressive tax system recognises that some people have more ability to pay than others. The fact that some people don't see that a flat tax rate is actually unfair for someone on a severely limited income amazes me, but I guess I am being naive and not facing facts.

I think you can tell from the people who post here that the capitalist types have a very pessimistic attitude on the whole. Socialism, for its many faults, does recognise that human beings can be improved, and that there is no need to accept the status quo ante all the time. Using Stalinism as way to discredit the whole idea is intellectually dishonest. Marxists often defend their ideas by saying that they have never actually been tried, but always corrupted by despots. This is actually true. I don't actually identify with one side or the other in this debate, but the way that people dismiss Socialism as some fatuous pipe dream really needs to be addressed sometimes.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

You realise that's an oxymoron don't you? No?

Just going by history.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Socialism, for its many faults, does recognise that human beings can be improved

LOL

[b_dubb]

I used to live in one of the most socialist cities in the country with literal socialists as local elected politicians. Yet I still somehow had to step over bodies on the side walk and walk past literally blocks of homeless people outside of missions. In every direction you looked there were homeless, or street people or junkies or all matter of society's castaways. Why isn't anyone helping these people? Because no one gives a fuck. It's just politics. I'm honest with myself about it.

Of course if we lived in a true socialist society, I guess the answer would be to just shoot them.

Or give them room and board and help them get back on their feet.  Yeah.  Safer to just shoot them.  Don't want them bringing fleas into the house.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Or give them room and board and help them get back on their feet.  Yeah.  Safer to just shoot them.  Don't want them bringing fleas into the house.

I'm just telling you what usually happens in a socialist society. But you're right I'm sure the Nazis and the USSR gave the retarded and those with the inability to function lollipops and two story houses. All the history books are wrong.

[ItsOver]

I used to live in one of the most socialist cities in the country with literal socialists as local elected politicians. Yet I still somehow had to step over bodies on the side walk and walk past literally blocks of homeless people outside of missions. In every direction you looked there were homeless, or street people or junkies or all matter of society's castaways. Why isn't anyone helping these people? Because no one gives a fuck. It's just politics. I'm honest with myself about it.

Of course if we lived in a true socialist society, I guess the answer would be to just shoot them.

The City by the Bay?  I spent some time in San Francisco.  What a beautiful setting for a city.  Wonderful architecture, interesting history, but what an eye-opener.  Besides being very expensive, of course, the homeless were everywhere and I ran into some of the rudest people I've ever met.  As beautiful as the location is, I'd hate to live there.  Whatever they're doing, it isn't working.

[albrecht]

I tend to agree. However, you and Albrecht seem to think (your words) people that can't get their act together, and (Albrecht's words) weirdos with dead end jobs are responsible for the ruination of your sacred lifestyle. Yet, you both also seem to ignore the corruption that stems from those with affluence and influence. How you can rationalize that level of exploitation of the environment and the poor baffles me.

My point is that any job should not be perceived as a "dead end,"  once the worker, or society, considers it such it becomes that. Actually one can improve one's lot with such so-called "dead end" jobs into something better. But if you think "this is all there is, a dead end;" it will be so. But, at least they are working. Lots of people aren't. Even if not paid well, or at all, there is value in activity and work- even if only for self-esteem or being busy.
ps: I am well aware of corruption, hence my desire to limit government- take away the purse, the regulatory power, etc and the corruption dies on the vine. Corporate and bank charters should be issued by the States and come up for periodic review. Directors of same should also be subject to criminal penalties for criminal activity of their organization, not simply slap-on-the-wrist fines when they willfully launder money for terrorists/cartels, bilk investors, cook the books, pollute, etc.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

The real eye opener for me was I used to work in the main drag of the city where most of the city's homeless and mental health cases congregated. There was literally hundreds if not thousands of lost souls and you had to keep your head on a swivel because theft and violence was rampant in this area. So I'm standing outside having a beer when all of a sudden a bunch of fat intellectuals wearing designer clothing showed up and started putting sail boat sails in the trees above these people as an art project. Come to find out the city had paid some fucking socialist artist ten grand to beautify the area and not make it so depressing because of all the homeless. So these worthless motherfucking pigs paid off one of their friends to try to distract how fucked and corrupt they really are. Just crazy.

Fortunately one of the homeless people literally burned the sails out of the trees which was quite liberating.

Talking about socialism with socialists is like talking Christianity with Christians. One is stupid enough to think if you buy a bunch of bullshit you can attain utopia after you die. The other is stupid enough to think if you buy a bunch of bullshit you can attain utopia before you die. I think that's why so many reformed religious fuckups become socialists is because it's essentially the same thing just one has a social stigma and the other doesn't.

[Yorkshire pud]

I'm just telling you what usually happens in a socialist society. But you're right I'm sure the Nazis and the USSR gave the retarded and those with the inability to function lollipops and two story houses. All the history books are wrong.

And neither were socialist societies. Both were totalitarian regimes. This has been brought up time and again. A donkey calling itself a race horse doesn't make a racehorse. It makes the donkey convince the gullible punters believe it can win, and makes the worse race horse think it's good.


Stalin telling the population they lived under the utopia of socialism suited him as they could only compare it with the royalty that preceded it; telling them that the Imperial western pigs were far far worse and lived under terrible conditions. Being cut off from the west they knew no different.

It suited the west that the USSR and western population believed that myth too. Because 'socialism' as far as western populations were concerned equates to over production of tractors and mass starvation.. Keeps them in their place.

It can be reasonably argued that Germany now has a socialist government and has done for years. It's also one of the biggest economies in the west, and the biggest in Europe.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

What did they both start as and what did they both turn into and why? Because socialism doesn't work.

[Yorkshire pud]

What did they both start as and what did they both turn into and why? Because socialism doesn't work.

They didn't start as socialist societies. If they did, they wouldn't have had an elite and brutal totalitarian regime. There's a clue in 'social'.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

They didn't start as socialist societies. If they did, they wouldn't have had an elite and brutal totalitarian regime. There's a clue in 'social'.

Hahahaha... okay.

I wish I could play poker against some of the people on here.

[Yorkshire pud]

Hahahaha... okay.

I wish I could play poker against some of the people on here.

Just because you believe all silly people are socialists doesn't make it so; neither does it mean you're correct. But keep believing what you think if it makes you happy. 

[albrecht]

And neither were socialist societies. Both were totalitarian regimes. This has been brought up time and again. A donkey calling itself a race horse doesn't make a racehorse. It makes the donkey convince the gullible punters believe it can win, and makes the worse race horse think it's good.


Stalin telling the population they lived under the utopia of socialism suited him as they could only compare it with the royalty that preceded it; telling them that the Imperial western pigs were far far worse and lived under terrible conditions. Being cut off from the west they knew no different.

It suited the west that the USSR and western population believed that myth too. Because 'socialism' as far as western populations were concerned equates to over production of tractors and mass starvation.. Keeps them in their place.

It can be reasonably argued that Germany now has a socialist government and has done for years. It's also one of the biggest economies in the west, and the biggest in Europe.

Germany has tried socialism before, with some tragic results if you were Polish or a Jew/Gypsy/Slav/Retard/communist/homo/etc. But even this more benign form, while fairly successful has problems, particularly with open borders and with regard to social promotion. And, like the old one, influence of a few very powerful, large corporations wrought with fraud (VW just this week but Siemens, etc has had their share. DB coming up again soon I hear!) Though, admittedly, in recent times the US also has had problems with this. 12 of one, half-dozen of the other in a way. For example in things like education. There it is fairly rigorous to get into decent schools or university- so, often, one's lot in life is pretty much determined around age 12 (or so.) Which is good for social stability, I guess, because one is funneled into a job and the large companies and manufacturing still exist per government policy. But the middlestand etc is pinched and less opportunity for small/mid-sized businesses because the system desires large conglomerates (for tax base and to provide consistent jobs and so the government regulatory and taxation scheme hurts the "small guys.") Even so there, like here, those small/mid-size business employ the most people- showing that the "top-down" model so desired doesn't work and that individuals, despite everything, want to strive for independence and work hard with their own ideas, businesses, and life. Here we still have this idea that "anyone can become something" or "start your own business" but, at the same time, have made it easy for almost anyone, sans the abject idiot, to attend a university because we have "dumbed down" standards and made exceptions in the form of various quotas, scholarships, athletic admissions, and so on. So a "university degree" doesn't mean much, if anything.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Just because you believe all silly people are socialists doesn't make it so; neither does it mean you're correct. But keep believing what you think if it makes you happy. 

No no not at all. Thank you for being polite. 

Honestly I don't care about any of this. I feel very strongly about socialism because I've watched it in action first hand on the street as well as reading as much as I can about the history of socialism and social justice. Mainly just out of befuddlement that I grew up so leftist yet seeing extreme leftist things be the same as extreme rightist things and seeing how it's just all one big clusterfuck.

But at the same time, politics is just a method through which to get everyone but those at the very top to give up their power and wealth. That's why this country was so impressive as it's a freak in history as is people like George Washington and Teddy Roosevelt.

I think a lot of you are misguided but you're entitled to your opinions. I'm not going to Quick Karl about any of this and politics is just one tiny aspect of life.

And honestly, I don't want to be on the liberal or the conservative team. I want to be the guy selling you weapons when you both decide to do each other in. 

[albrecht]

Hahahaha... okay.

I wish I could play poker against some of the people on here.

The problem is that they would be wanting to play with your money. And when they lost they would blame Thatcher and demand you give them even more money to dissuade their hurt feelings caused by having lost the money you gave them to play with initially.

[gx2music]

Totally agree with SredniVaster above.  The Communist Manifesto is essential reading - no matter what your political stripes are. 

I have it in my iBooks app in my iphone , and I'm broadly Libertarian veering towards Ben Carson on social conservative stuff.

If you haven't read it , you will have zero clue what the Left is about.  ( and all those social justice warriors).

[gx2music]

No no not at all. Thank you for being polite. 

And honestly, I don't want to be on the liberal or the conservative team. I want to be the guy selling you weapons when you both decide to do each other in. 

NAILED IT!!

Notice how the Bilderburgers drop their "left/right" facade when they meet up?  It's all about power and wealth. 

It's a new form of feudalism that they are trying to introduce. 

It's a counter revolution to 1776 - and I hope to God that America wakes up about this - cos otherwise we are all fucked.   ( I'm from the UK).

[gx2music]

You can debate free market v command economies all you want, but it comes down to a matter of opinion most of the time. You just need to be honest about the pros and cons on both sides. Conservatives like to see themselves as grown up or 'mugged by reality', as the expression goes, but Marx and Engels' ideas came out of living in the UK and seeing the terrible inequalities that were being perpetuated by those at the 'top' at the expense of those at the 'bottom' during a period of rapid industrialisation. Human beings were being treated like livestock, and a small group were profiting at their expense. The Communist Manifesto is one of the most elegant and economical analyses of the situation that people were facing, and much of it remains relevant today.

Capitalism might free up brilliant people to pursue innovation and change the environment for the better, but it also produces cartels and manifold instances of graft and corruption that need to be addressed and checked. That can only be done in a system where there is oversight at the administrative level - it cannot be done by 'the market' without creating massive upheaval and social breakdown. There is also a Victorian/Thatcherite notion that people who don't work 20 hours a day and run their own businesses are somehow not useful members of society. A lot of people just want to do a fair days work and get reasonably remunerated for their labour, not raped by an employer who is constantly trying to trim his costs and increase his profit margins by undervaluing human capital. For all its inefficiencies, governments can mandate a reasonable reward for someone's labour, for example; otherwise it is just a race to the bottom where we are all running faster to stay in the same place and neglecting important things like family life.

If you are someone like Ron Paul, none of these concerns about social cost have any significance, because 'the market' will sort it all out for us. Well, perhaps it might in the end - just as a catastrophic fire can help to clear away rotten buildings - but the idea of a planned economy is that we don't need to reach that stage. Right-wing types love to talk about market 'corrections' as though it never really has any impact on society, when we are talking about unemployment and social breakdown that can have generational effects. Advocates of a more or less pure capitalism are totally uninterested in this, and just tell everyone that they should work harder, like Boxer the shire horse, and stop moaning.

The whole idea of a national sales tax being somehow 'fairer' is just plain bloody stupid in my opinion and reveals how out of touch these people tend to be. Taxing some plutocrat's yacht at the same level as a single mother's groceries is NOT THE SAME!! In one case, you are talking about expenditure that is purely discretionary, on the other you are talking about necessities, pure and simple. A progressive tax system recognises that some people have more ability to pay than others. The fact that some people don't see that a flat tax rate is actually unfair for someone on a severely limited income amazes me, but I guess I am being naive and not facing facts.

I think you can tell from the people who post here that the capitalist types have a very pessimistic attitude on the whole. Socialism, for its many faults, does recognise that human beings can be improved, and that there is no need to accept the status quo ante all the time. Using Stalinism as way to discredit the whole idea is intellectually dishonest. Marxists often defend their ideas by saying that they have never actually been tried, but always corrupted by despots. This is actually true. I don't actually identify with one side or the other in this debate, but the way that people dismiss Socialism as some fatuous pipe dream really needs to be addressed sometimes.

Damn fine post.  One of the best supporting the Left that I've read in years. 

And I'm on the Right. 


Posts like that deserve to be on a Bellgabbers Blog or some sort of "best of" newsletter. 


Well argued.  Bravo! 

[albrecht]

NAILED IT!!

Notice how the Bilderburgers drop their "left/right" facade when they meet up?  It's all about power and wealth. 

It's a new form of feudalism that they are trying to introduce. 

It's a counter revolution to 1776 - and I hope to God that America wakes up about this - cos otherwise we are all fucked.   ( I'm from the UK).

Notice that these days a big bank or business who makes bad decisions (or even technically illegal or at least unethical decisions) get "bailed out" with tax-payer money but people are sometimes actually, in some cases, now being jailed for debts (though admittedly not as bad as the old days of the Clink but still.)

I think people are waking up to the corruption and political "game" being played on the national and international stage in many countries- hence the desire by the politicians to open the borders and flood countries with 'refugees,' illegals, legal immigrants often uneducated, etc. Future voters and populations who are coming from even worse, corrupt countries so will be happy with their lot here despite the machinations- and work cheaper, provide potential shock-troops if actual citizens finally have enough, and disrupt/balkanize society so that it cannot collectively rise up to vote, or otherwise, the criminals at the top out.

[GravitySucks]

You can debate free market v command economies all you want, but it comes down to a matter of opinion most of the time. You just need to be honest about the pros and cons on both sides.
...

Capitalism might free up brilliant people to pursue innovation and change the environment for the better, but it also produces cartels and manifold instances of graft and corruption that need to be addressed and checked. That can only be done in a system where there is oversight at the administrative level - it cannot be done by 'the market' without creating massive upheaval and ...

The whole idea of a national sales tax being somehow 'fairer' is just plain bloody stupid in my opinion and reveals how out of touch these people tend to be. Taxing some plutocrat's yacht at the same level as a single mother's groceries is NOT THE SAME!! In one case, you are talking about expenditure that is purely discretionary, on the other you are talking about necessities, pure and simple. A progressive tax system recognises that some people have more ability to pay than others. The fact that some people don't see that a flat tax rate is actually unfair for someone on a severely limited income amazes me, but I guess I am being naive and not facing facts.

1.  I would suggest that the amount of graft and corruption is directly proportional to the amount of "oversight at the administrative level", and it is not limited to capitalism.  There was plenty of graft in corruption in the USSR and there still is in China, Cuba and Venezuela.  It is people trying to use graft and corruption to get what the administrative level has or controls, and it is the administrative level that gets corrupted.

2.  There are ways that a flat sales tax could be implemented to protect the poor.  Some are complex (rebates of taxes for the first "n" $ - but this just adds a layer of administrivia).  One of the simplest would be to exempt basic necessities... No sales tax on groceries and utilities for example and a flat sales tax on everything else.  That would introduce a modicum of progressive taxation.  Anyone that thinks the current US tax code is the answer is delusional.

I can't speak for the world, but in the US, the first step needs to be term limits for politicians. Second, strict enforcement of current laws for graft, corruption, and yes, for immigration. Third, cut the federal government by 10% per year for 5 years with mandated balanced budgets and some type of flat/fair tax/simplified tax code. Fourth, cut the federal government by 3% a year in years 6 through 10 and use that budget to begin paying down the debt.

Any other items on my list are minor compared to the good that could be accomplished by the first 4.

Too many people are addicted to the welfare state.  There are no reasons other than personal pride to work when you can get basic necessities and even some bling just by simply voting for the people willing to continue the handouts.

But, if nominated, I refuse to run, and if elected I refuse to serve. I am busy and I don't like to wear a suit.

[paladin1991]

The City by the Bay?  I spent some time in San Francisco.  What a beautiful setting for a city.  Wonderful architecture, interesting history, but what an eye-opener.  Besides being very expensive, of course, the homeless were everywhere and I ran into some of the rudest people I've ever met.  As beautiful as the location is, I'd hate to live there.  Whatever they're doing, it isn't working.

That's a no shitter. 

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Scored a 145

http://www.checkmyprivilege.com/

[chefist]

Scored a 145

http://www.checkmyprivilege.com/

LOL I scored a 180...guess the French airline workers are coming to my house to skin me alive! 

[chefist]

I think you can tell from the people who post here that the capitalist types have a very pessimistic attitude on the whole. Socialism, for its many faults, does recognise that human beings can be improved, and that there is no need to accept the status quo ante all the time. Using Stalinism as way to discredit the whole idea is intellectually dishonest. Marxists often defend their ideas by saying that they have never actually been tried, but always corrupted by despots. This is actually true. I don't actually identify with one side or the other in this debate, but the way that people dismiss Socialism as some fatuous pipe dream really needs to be addressed sometimes.

I actually found the left here in the US to be a very grumpy lot...always "outraged" about something....even SNL made fun of Bernie Sanders as being a grumpy old uncle...

[chefist]

This new left can go fuck itself. The grossest thing to me is how they've turned on comedians like George Carlin. When I was growing up, he was like the Jesus Christ of liberalism because of how open minded and how anti-authority he was. Now these candy asses hate him because he made fun of hypocrisy regardless what side it came from.

Oh I know! The key in your statement is "anti-authority"...Really all this is just the effects of marketing by each political party...any contradiction of the party platform, even from an ally, is quickly responded with political and personal attacks...

[albrecht]

It is a crazy, mixed-up world when students have more sense that their teachers and administrators. In this case, again, the principle banned "America Day" because he didn't want to offend people. The kids ignored him. And though wearing flags as costumes or clothes arguably is disrespectful I admire the students for not putting up the politically correct non-sense. What immigrant would be offended? If they don't like the country why did they move here?
http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/schools/kids-wear-red-white-and-blue-in-spite-of-no/article_887a4633-8d20-55ba-afbf-8130d199867c.html

[Juan]

I scored a -310.  Whaaaaa, whaaaa, whaaaaa.  I am extremely oppressed.

[ItsOver]

...What immigrant would be offended? If they don't like the country why did they move here?
http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/schools/kids-wear-red-white-and-blue-in-spite-of-no/article_887a4633-8d20-55ba-afbf-8130d199867c.html

Because they want to turn it into the same kind of shit-pile they left. What sane individual wouldn't want to do it.