Hello Friend,

If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.

It will be the most efficient use of your time.

And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.

Thank you for visiting and have a great day!

Today at the full assembly of the european parliament, they discussed the biggest concern for the union...

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
3,501
Reaction score
2,928
Age
27
Location
Sweden
U.S. corporate propaganda (media).
This is where I'm trying to gently lead.

America was the homeland of modern propaganda, with Woodrow Wilson's Committee of Public Relations and Edward Bernays the Father of Propaganda. People elsewhere aren't enlightened buddhas, but in my internet experience, America stands out as the place with the most propagandized population who simultaneously zealously and proudly believe that their opinions are their own. It really is awe inspiring as a work of propaganda.

ImTheDoubleGreatest has performed zero research on socialism or its history, but yet he has a doubt-free opinion most of all of what it comprehensively is and also what its effects must be. I would bet he hasn't so much as opened the wikipedia page on "socialism" a single time. It isn't really his fault as he has grown up in that environment, just like some kid growing up in the american south and being fed the Lost Cause mythology by relatives and school boards captured by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. From his other posts I know he can do research if he thinks he needs to, but like that kid, it just never occurs. If someone had performed zero research about chemistry but yet had a doubt-free opinion of how to operate a laboratory and what the effects of some compound is, you would think they are crazy, but that is exactly the state of mind that very well performed propaganda has created. It is marvelous on one hand and tragic on the other.
 
Last edited:

ImTheDoubleGreatest!

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
5,610
Reaction score
2,699
Age
21
Location
Right behind you
Where/how did you get that definition?
School books, very mild reading, communist manifesto, and hearing proponents of socialism talk about socialism. Mostly the last one. Everything else just used double-speak and broad words to make it seem like it’s better than it is, i.e. “the production and distribution of goods and services should be regulated by the people of a community”. Lol. Sounds better than it is. Some socialized programs are great, and honestly well-needed (schools, roads, street lights, etc.) but unfortunately the quality goes down dramatically a lot of times.
 

ImTheDoubleGreatest!

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
5,610
Reaction score
2,699
Age
21
Location
Right behind you
This is where I'm trying to gently lead.

America was the homeland of modern propaganda, with Woodrow Wilson's Committee of Public Relations and Edward Bernays the Father of Propaganda. People elsewhere aren't enlightened buddhas, but in my internet experience, America stands out as the place with the most propagandized population who simultaneously zealously and proudly believe that their opinions are their own. It really is awe inspiring as a work of propaganda.

ImTheDoubleGreatest has performed zero research on socialism or its history, but yet he has a doubt-free opinion most of all of what it comprehensively is and also what its effects must be. I would bet he hasn't so much as opened the wikipedia page on "socialism" a single time. It isn't really his fault as he has grown up in that environment, just like some kid growing up in the american south and being fed the Lost Cause mythology by relatives and school boards captured by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. From his other posts I know he can do research if he thinks he needs to, but like that kid, it just never occurs. If someone had performed zero research about chemistry but yet had a doubt-free opinion of how to operate a laboratory and what the effects of some compound is, you would think they are crazy, but that is exactly the state of mind that very well performed propaganda has created. It is marvelous on one hand and tragic on the other.
I get it, you’re from Sweden and feel insulted by what I’ve said. Boohoo. I still don’t like socialism that much lol
 

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
3,501
Reaction score
2,928
Age
27
Location
Sweden
School books, very mild reading, communist manifesto, and hearing proponents of socialism talk about socialism. Mostly the last one. Everything else just used double-speak and broad words to make it seem like it’s better than it is, i.e. “the production and distribution of goods and services should be regulated by the people of a community”. Lol. Sounds better than it is. Some socialized programs are great, and honestly well-needed (schools, roads, street lights, etc.) but unfortunately the quality goes down dramatically a lot of times.
Would you trust school books in the Soviet Union to tell you about capitalism?
Would you be satisfied with very mildly reading about how to survive in the wilderness before going out to live in the Amazon for 2 years?
Do you think that Joe Biden's election platform is the only definition of "capitalism"?
The last one, "hearing proponents of socialism talk about socialism", is more tricky to make a rebuttal to. It makes sense to think that proponents of something have a comprehensive idea of what they're talking about, otherwise why would they propound it. But from your information about "socialism" that's still obviously not the case and I would wonder which proponents you've been listening to.

Public services in the form of schools, roads and street lights aren't "socialism", they are just public services that are provided under good governance. Socialism includes them but so do capitalist economies, just like they can both include money and both include personal property.

I get it, you’re from Sweden and feel insulted by what I’ve said. Boohoo. I still don’t like socialism that much lol
Sweden isn't socialist. I don't feel insulted, I feel this profound and seemingly incorrigible ignorance is a main reason why I am deeply pessimistic politically. It's just too hopeless.
 
Last edited:

ImTheDoubleGreatest!

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
5,610
Reaction score
2,699
Age
21
Location
Right behind you
Would you trust school books in the Soviet Union to tell you about capitalism?
To an extent, yeah.
Would you be satisfied with very mildly reading about how to survive in the wilderness before going out to live in the Amazon for 2 years?
Probably not, no.
Do you think that Joe Biden's election platform is the only definition of "capitalism"?
That’s an oligarchy/autocracy lol (all you gotta do is look at who his cabinet members would be and you’ll see a HUGE conflict of interest between their jobs in the White House and with their own personal lives).

Would you trust a random person to perform surgery on you merely because others say they are a surgeon and/or they claim to be one?
It would depend on who these ‘others’ are and how reputable THEY are.
Public services in the form of schools, roads and street lights aren't "socialism", they are just public services that are provided under good governance. Socialism includes them but so do capitalist economies, just like they can both include money and both include personal property.
That’s why I said “socialized programs” and not “socialism”.
I don't feel insulted, I feel this profound and seemingly incorrigible ignorance is a main reason why I am deeply pessimistic politically. It's just too hopeless.
Then enlighten me, oh wise one.

If you think I’m wrong about something or missing something, then tell me. I’m not gonna be egghead and say it’s bad no matter what, I’ve conceded in arguments before you know. All I ever see is “you’re just too ignorant that it’s not worth my time/it’s hopeless” but then don’t ever say why said person is wrong, or even meaningfully contribute to the discussion. I just don’t get it. It’s along the same lines as the way you view me saying “XYZ is a fact” to which I don’t give a source and it bothers you (but then even if I were to, you’d likely still hold the same opinion anyway).

What exactly am I getting wrong here about socialism?
 

image

"If you love women, you must read the SoSuave Guide to Women. It's fantastic!"

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
3,501
Reaction score
2,928
Age
27
Location
Sweden
What exactly am I getting wrong here about socialism?
Basically not seeing the forest for the trees - yes, socialists probably support progressive taxation and public services, but those are just policies under the economic system itself. Eisenhower had high marginal tax rates on the rich and implemented public works, but that wasn't "socialist".

The key thing to understand is that socialism is a political umbrella, always has been from the start of its evolving history, and so a synonym for it would simply be "post-capitalism". So it has different variations in what both the goals and the means to achieve them are, just like capitalism. These variations overlap like Venn diagrams depending on which common ideas they contain, and can and have been incompatibly opposed to each other, just like different variations of capitalism. Honestly, summing up what the main variations are is difficult even for me because they all contain sub-types that overlap with other variations, but the main kinds historically are very roughly state socialism, market socialism and libertarian socialism. Then there are more obscure ones and aborted variations throughout history. "Utopian socialism" is one of those abortive kinds.

The two common things that unite all tendencies of socialism though is that they want to replace capitalism, not fix it or bail it out, and that they think the capitalist system is the fundamental problem, not bad people or bad policies (which of course can also be problems). Among other things, this means that social democracy (like what we sort of have here in Sweden) is not regarded as socialism, precisely because it fails to fulfill those two criteria. When Bernie Sanders calls himself a "democratic socialist", it's vague whether he wants to implement socialism (presumably market socialism) or whether he really means to say he is a social democrat ("fix" capitalism with the right policies like changing tax rates).

I'm a libertarian socialist so for me, Revolutionary Catalonia is a pragmatic guiding model for socialism. This means I want to replace both corporations and the state with workers' self-management, social ownership, and council democracy. Production for use instead of for profit in a decentrally planned economy are also goals. Libertarian socialism is incompatible with state socialism, because we reject keeping the state even for a temporary period instead of replacing it with council democracy, and one of the reasons why is that we don't think it will end up being just "temporary". The philosophy is based on positive liberty, which defines freedom as the ability to control decisions and consequences to the extent they affect you. Capitalism is based on negative liberty, which is that freedom is to be free from violence and fraud.

Hope I gave a decent account that wasn't too convoluted haha.
 
Last edited:

ImTheDoubleGreatest!

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
5,610
Reaction score
2,699
Age
21
Location
Right behind you
Eisenhower had high marginal tax rates on the rich and implemented public works, but that wasn't "socialist".
Not just Eisenhower. All those before him too. The extremely wealthy—I’m talking robber baron wealthy—would have nearly 90% of their wealth taxed way long ago. They fought tooth & nail over the decades to lower it, and it gradually was brought down to where they now pay less taxes than the middle class. The biggest changes happened from the 60s-90s, which is also where most of our social change came from (hence the last 2 sentences I made in that other thread).
The two common things that unite all kinds of socialism though is that they want to replace capitalism, not fix it or save it, and that they think the system is the fundamental problem, not bad people or bad policies.
But then that means I’m both a socialist and a capitalist lol.
Among other things, this means that social democracy is not regarded as socialism, precisely because it fails to fulfill those two criteria.

I'm a libertarian socialist so for me, Revolutionary Catalonia is a pragmatic guiding model for socialism. This means I want to replace both corporations and the state with workers' self-management, social ownership, and council democracy. Production for use instead of for profit, in a decentrally planned economy, are also goals. The philosophy is based on positive liberty, which defines freedom as the ability to control decisions and consequences to the extent they affect you. Capitalism is based on negative liberty, which is that freedom is to be free from violence and fraud.

Hope I gave a decent account that wasn't too convoluted haha.
I understand what you’re saying, but the problem is that there’s be too much disagreement and nothing would ever get done. That’s actually precisely why Lenin frowned upon the mainstream socialists. Spiting one person would be like spiting the whole and people would be bickering for way too long, unless it’s a majority rules type thing (democracy) in which case you’d need to have semi-independent city-states so that they don’t outvote those in rural areas (because if they do, the whole country would collapse since rural areas control food supply).

As for your last paragraph though, that goes back into the problem I said before where one person is working a lot harder than another person while they both have the same standard of living. That’s basically anarchism, which isn’t nearly as efficient as bureaucracies for large-scale operations. You could make decisions more swiftly if you compartmentalized the tasks more. It’s why the Persians were able to get so powerful because they were the first ones to develop one if I recall correctly (I remember reading this in my social studies book in like 2nd or 3rd grade so forgive me if I’m wrong). Like I said, I just don’t see it as getting stuff done or really viable for large communities really. In the end, you and I (along with like 95% of others) don’t disagree on what the end goals are, we just disagree with how to get there. The problem is that people suck, not even the system. If certain people weren’t money-hungry and power-hungry all the time, capitalism would work. So would communism. Anarchism too. Every system would work if people just stopped sucking all the time lol and could accurately communicate with one another.
 

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
3,501
Reaction score
2,928
Age
27
Location
Sweden
Not just Eisenhower. All those before him too. The extremely wealthy—I’m talking robber baron wealthy—would have nearly 90% of their wealth taxed way long ago. They fought tooth & nail over the decades to lower it, and it gradually was brought down to where they now pay less taxes than the middle class. The biggest changes happened from the 60s-90s, which is also where most of our social change came from (hence the last 2 sentences I made in that other thread).

But then that means I’m both a socialist and a capitalist lol.

I understand what you’re saying, but the problem is that there’s be too much disagreement and nothing would ever get done. That’s actually precisely why Lenin frowned upon the mainstream socialists. Spiting one person would be like spiting the whole and people would be bickering for way too long, unless it’s a majority rules type thing (democracy) in which case you’d need to have semi-independent city-states so that they don’t outvote those in rural areas (because if they do, the whole country would collapse since rural areas control food supply).

As for your last paragraph though, that goes back into the problem I said before where one person is working a lot harder than another person while they both have the same standard of living. That’s basically anarchism, which isn’t nearly as efficient as bureaucracies for large-scale operations. You could make decisions more swiftly if you compartmentalized the tasks more. It’s why the Persians were able to get so powerful because they were the first ones to develop one if I recall correctly (I remember reading this in my social studies book in like 2nd or 3rd grade so forgive me if I’m wrong). Like I said, I just don’t see it as getting stuff done or really viable for large communities really. In the end, you and I (along with like 95% of others) don’t disagree on what the end goals are, we just disagree with how to get there. The problem is that people suck, not even the system. If certain people weren’t money-hungry and power-hungry all the time, capitalism would work. So would communism. Anarchism too. Every system would work if people just stopped sucking all the time lol and could accurately communicate with one another.
You can call it pedantic but I'm going to be a good economist and insist that they didn't really have their 'wealth' taxed away, they had their 'money' taxed away, because "money isn't wealth". And yes, the biggest changes indeed happened during that period and continued to happen afterward. 1971 IIRC was the breaking point when improved productivity gains in USA detached from increased wage gains, and price inflation for essentials (education, healthcare, housing, maybe other stuff like utilities but I don't remember what else) also started taking off. The control over economic assets to be able to detach wage gains from productivity like that, that's wealth.

You can't be a socialist and a capitalist, that's like simultaneously wanting to bake a blueberry pie and not wanting to bake a blueberry pie. You can be conflicted in which one you think is the better idea, but you can't want both at the same time. Maybe you're more of a socialist than you dared think ;)

Revolutionary Catalonia seemed to work fine for as long as it managed to exist before the fascists wiped it out, I'm not so sure that nothing would ever get done, and yes there would of course be majority rules democracy. It's supposed to be practically viable, not a dreamland where everything is completely flawless perfection, that's just wishful thinking.

There is no set model for what the means to achieve socialism should be or whether some goals are achievable or not. The means you want to try and the goals you want to define are up to you. They will then have to be experimented with and adapted as they contact reality. You are of course right that bad people, like cluster Bs, suck no matter which system they exist in. But positions of power, especially without oversight and accountability, attract and foster predatory people to them like homing beacons - it's far easier to have what's called a Pathocracy when you have less democracy than when you have more. And there is no reason why functions can't be delegated. The difference is that any delegates would always be able to be overruled from below, held accountable in direct meetings with their electorate, and be recallable.

The fact is that anarchism has already "worked" for almost all of homo sapiens's evolutionary history. For most of our history there was democracy rather than authoritarian chains of command as in corporations and states, no privatization of socially necessary economic assets like land, resources or money creation, no production for profit with negative externalities and workers competing against each other for wages in arbitrary jobs to survive in a top-down hierarchy of command, there was even sharing of society's "surplus value" in food and tools, and our ancestors had shorter equivalent working weeks than our full time ones are now. The question is, how do we translate this into a working model for us in our conditions today.
 
Last edited:

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
3,501
Reaction score
2,928
Age
27
Location
Sweden
By the way, something I found very interesting to think about when I first heard it is that operating for profit is inversely related to love: the more of one there is, the less there is of the other.

Love is something you want to give and share, and it can grow in a positive sum game the more you do so. Profit is something you want to take, and it's zero sum by how much money there is for you to have. The idea that a couple or a family would only give and share love with each other for profit would be regarded as contradictory and bizarre, and a profane affront if it would be suggested that we should live that way. Love requires the absence of profit motive, and profit motive requires the absence of love.
 

ImTheDoubleGreatest!

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
5,610
Reaction score
2,699
Age
21
Location
Right behind you
You can't be a socialist and a capitalist, that's like simultaneously wanting to bake a blueberry pie and not wanting to bake a blueberry pie. You can be conflicted in which one you think is the better idea, but you can't want both at the same time. Maybe you're more of a socialist than you dared think ;)
Not exactly. Capitalism is flawed and I want to do away with it. And the way that I personally would fix the economic problems that we have today would be through capitalist concepts lol.
Revolutionary Catalonia seemed to work fine for as long as it managed to exist before the fascists wiped it out, I'm not so sure that nothing would ever get done, and yes there would of course be majority rules democracy. It's supposed to be practically viable, not a dreamland where everything is completely flawless perfection, that's just wishful thinking.
Then you’re gonna need semi-independent city-states or bring back slavery. Otherwise it won’t work.
And there is no reason why functions can't be delegated. The difference is that any delegates would always be able to be overruled from below, held accountable in direct meetings with their electorate, and be recallable.
But nothing will get done that way if the person in question keeps having to answer to all the people below him, that’s what I’m trying to get at.
The fact is that anarchism has already "worked" for almost all of homo sapiens's evolutionary history.
And there was no civilization then. Life was also a lot harder for EVERYONE back then too, and would still have been harder even if they had the technology we have today.
For most of our history there was democracy rather than authoritarian chains of command as in corporations and states, no privatization of socially necessary economic assets like land, resources or money creation, no production for profit with negative externalities and workers competing against each other for wages in arbitrary jobs to survive in a top-down hierarchy of command, there was even sharing of society's "surplus value" in food and tools, and our ancestors had shorter equivalent working weeks than our full time ones are now. The question is, how do we translate this into a working model for us in our conditions today.
Firstly, the concept of “hey, that’s mine!” is found in any and all animals today. That’s privatization. Many animals are territorial, hence why we have land/property. All the problems you state come from bad people, not a bad system. That’s the issue.
 

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
6,373
Reaction score
2,813
Location
Colorado Panhandle

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
4,079
Reaction score
1,770
Age
31
Firstly, the concept of “hey, that’s mine!” is found in any and all animals today. That’s privatization. Many animals are territorial, hence why we have land/property. All the problems you state come from bad people, not a bad system. That’s the issue.
No. You are contracting yourself here. The problem is again you chalk the failures of capitalism up to bad apples, yet correctly admit that selfishness is in our animalistic human nature. Conceptually one has to admit that laws and regulations are mandatory because they have to be. Humans don’t follow good graces and recommendations.
 

ImTheDoubleGreatest!

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
5,610
Reaction score
2,699
Age
21
Location
Right behind you
No. You are contracting yourself here. The problem is again you chalk the failures of capitalism up to bad apples, yet correctly admit that selfishness is in our animalistic human nature. Conceptually one has to admit that laws and regulations are mandatory because they have to be. Humans don’t follow good graces and recommendations.
You’re conflating ownership over something with greed. Knowing something is yours is not the same as being greedy. Just because I don’t want anyone to touch my stuff doesn’t mean I’m greedy, just because I don’t want someone to touch my stuff doesn’t mean I always want more and more and more for no reason.

Most people (and animals) have a live and let live mentality when it comes to resources so long as you don’t take what’s there’s. They’ll acquire a certain amount of resources (be it territory, food in their territory, poontang, etc.). They won’t care if you have your territory, they just don’t want you going into their own. In fact if anything, they’ll know that they don’t belong in your territory and respect it. You just need to stay out of there’s. Besides that, they don’t even think about you.
 

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
4,079
Reaction score
1,770
Age
31
You’re conflating ownership over something with greed. Knowing something is yours is not the same as being greedy. Just because I don’t want anyone to touch my stuff doesn’t mean I’m greedy, just because I don’t want someone to touch my stuff doesn’t mean I always want more and more and more for no reason.

Most people (and animals) have a live and let live mentality when it comes to resources so long as you don’t take what’s there’s. They’ll acquire a certain amount of resources (be it territory, food in their territory, poontang, etc.). They won’t care if you have your territory, they just don’t want you going into their own. In fact if anything, they’ll know that they don’t belong in your territory and respect it. You just need to stay out of there’s. Besides that, they don’t even think about you.
No that’s not true. Humans are apex predators with an insatiable desire to conquer. The strong prey on the weak. Modern societies put protections for the vulnerable into law because of that.
 

image

Put away your credit card.

You can now read our detailed guide to women and dating for free - Right Here!

ImTheDoubleGreatest!

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
5,610
Reaction score
2,699
Age
21
Location
Right behind you
No that’s not true. Humans are apex predators with an insatiable desire to conquer. The strong prey on the weak. Modern societies put protections for the vulnerable into law because of that.
Lol no not everyone. I can give you examples where the exact opposite is the case. Chihuahuas are the most aggressive dogs and they’re tiny. Maybe a pit bull is more aggressive but that’s only bc humans bred them to be that way.

If you look around you, most people are average. They aren’t making a whole lot of money, they aren’t that jacked or strong, they don’t even care about the way they dress. Most people are average. They have no desire to conquer or do great things, they just want to get by and co-exist.

No matter how you try to spin it dude, I can spin it back jsut as easily, if not more so.
 

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
4,079
Reaction score
1,770
Age
31
Lol no not everyone. I can give you examples where the exact opposite is the case. Chihuahuas are the most aggressive dogs and they’re tiny. Maybe a pit bull is more aggressive but that’s only bc humans bred them to be that way.

If you look around you, most people are average. They aren’t making a whole lot of money, they aren’t that jacked or strong, they don’t even care about the way they dress. Most people are average. They have no desire to conquer or do great things, they just want to get by and co-exist.

No matter how you try to spin it dude, I can spin it back jsut as easily, if not more so.
Spin is irrelevant. You are contradicting yourself. Capitalism does not work. It can’t work, because of human nature. We can’t fit a square into a round opening.
 

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
6,373
Reaction score
2,813
Location
Colorado Panhandle
Spin is irrelevant. You are contradicting yourself. Capitalism does not work. It can’t work, because of human nature. We can’t fit a square into a round opening.
Capitalism is human nature. The laws you speak of are there to curtail the damage we visit upon each other in the name of greed.

When I say it is human nature, I don't mean capitalism as an economic dogma. I mean the inclination to accrue and protect resources, and the intelligence and flexibility to exploit labor specialization, which creates trade. I agree with @ImTheDoubleGreatest! that there's more than enough to go around. But you're also correct that people are greedy, which causes suffering, and requires mitigation. (What everyone here calls 'socialism.')

Coincidentally I just watched Da 5 Bloods, and one of its themes seems to be that greed is a universal and transcendent flaw of the human race.
 

Xenom0rph

Master Don Juan
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Los Angeles
Please allow me to repost what I posted earlier:

Socialism by nature is authoritarian:

1) Impose high taxes for ridiculous reasons to keep people perpetually poor

2) Pass excessive and unnecessary regulations to prevent small business start ups that can disrupt and challenge the status quo

The super wealthy love socialism because it's a trojan horse for an economic caste system that protects their comfortable position and wealth....
 

Xenom0rph

Master Don Juan
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Los Angeles
Socialism is also dependent on censorship of free speech, because free speech will expose its inherent flaws and contradictory doctrines.....

Which is why Cancel Culture is a leftwing tactic to silence all criticism..... If socialism wasn't flawed, they would not resort to censorship.
 
Last edited:
Top