Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Socialists are lazy and jealous. Do you agree? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I would say yes.
    They are lazy as they expect everyone else to put the hard work in, yet then recieve the same rewards that hardworking people recieve.

    They are jealous as no one should care about what anyone else is earning and should focus on making themselves as successful as possible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    I would say yes.
    They are lazy as they expect everyone else to put the hard work in, yet then recieve the same rewards that hardworking people recieve.
    The correlation between pay and effort in capitalism is minimal.

    They are jealous as no one should care about what anyone else is earning and should focus on making themselves as successful as possible.
    Well, what can I say? One man's jealousy is another man's social justice :rolleyes: I don't think there's anything particularly envious in commenting that it's a pretty weird world that contains both Bill Gates and Zimbabwe.
    Offline

    2
    Many socialists are middle class taxpayers who would probably be personally better off voting tory than for socialist parties - so you don't really know what you're talking about.

    I do, however, feel they're midguided. Capitalism just works a hell of a lot better than socialism (in my opinion.)

    I wouldn't say it's being jealous, but I think it IS true that a lot of socialists are unfairly prejudice against the upper/middle classes, against Eton education etc - just in my experience, they seem like they would actually judge people based on those things, which to me seems wrong.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Don't be so judgemental. They could very easily just be lazy or jealous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think I'm especially lazy, no.

    What is lazy is people who live off the inherited wealth of others without actually contributing to society. I don't think objection to that is jealousy, more like an important moral objection considering the fact that many people work hard and receive little renumeration, whilst others in developing countries work even harder and starve.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    The correlation between pay and effort in capitalism is minimal.
    I disagree entirely. To earn a decent salary, whilst perhaps not involving much objective labour (certainly not physical anyway) requires a good deal of effort. Making yourself economically useful for any length of time requires being attentive to the wishes of others.

    Well, what can I say? One man's jealousy is another man's social justice :rolleyes: I don't think there's anything particularly envious in commenting that it's a pretty weird world that contains both Bill Gates and Zimbabwe.
    Bill Gates is, to me, an excellent example of the failings of socialist logic. They criticise amassing wealth with absolutely no consideration of what it is being used for. Despite doing everything that a socialist would condemn as greedy, Bill Gates is giving away unprecedented billions of pounds to good causes.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    They have bad teeth too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Bill Gates is, to me, an excellent example of the failings of socialist logic. They criticise amassing wealth with absolutely no consideration of what it is being used for. Despite doing everything that a socialist would condemn as greedy, Bill Gates is giving away unprecedented billions of pounds to good causes.
    Yeah, and he in no way abused Microsoft's market position to the detriment of others to get where he is? :rolleyes:

    Giving some immorally amassed wealth away doesn't make the initial injustice legimate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    The correlation between pay and effort in capitalism is minimal.
    Can you back this up with any social scientific research? I mean, I've seen evidence which suggests that effort is, in fact, the second largest predictor of outcomes behind IQ which seems to fit the model that capitalism approximates a meritocracy not too badly. For your claim to be interesting, I'd also like to see some comparative studies - capitalism having a low correlation is one thing, but it wouldn't necessarily follow that other systems do any better, and in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the correlation is even less in socialist states. Of course, that part is conjecture, but then again, so is your post here.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    TBH i really cba to go into why what you have said is disgusting, but i will comment on:

    (Original post by usainlightning)
    They are jealous as no one should care about what anyone else is earning and should focus on making themselves as successful as possible.
    Here you are making the classic mistake of simply equating success with the aquisition of wealth, the two are completely seperate concepts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Depends on the person. Just the same with any other person.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    What is lazy is people who live off the inherited wealth of others without actually contributing to society.
    Well, if you believe in people earning their money, then surely the whole premise of redistributing wealth is a complete nonsense, no? For my part, it seems perfectly proper that someone can take care of another through his own earnings, just as I take care of my dog - who is, I must say, bone idle. That's why I believe an element of jealously is often contained in it.

    the fact that many people work hard and receive little renumeration
    Whoever said working hard was good or worthy? I don't. Indeed, I'll admire the man who finds ways to minimise his workload and still earn.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    I would say yes.
    They are lazy as they expect everyone else to put the hard work in, yet then recieve the same rewards that hardworking people recieve.

    They are jealous as no one should care about what anyone else is earning and should focus on making themselves as successful as possible.
    I'm going to make a guess on your life: born into middle / upper middle class family, went to posh public school were you were surrounded only by other posh public school boys and you all held the general consensus that you somehow deserved all the wealth in your life because you "worked for it". Mummy and daddy probably bought you a nice car before you even started learning to drive and I'm sure they'll pay your university fees for you. Hell, I bet one day they'll even let you wipe your own arse and start to ween you away from the breast.

    Just a guess.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I disagree entirely. To earn a decent salary, whilst perhaps not involving much objective labour (certainly not physical anyway) requires a good deal of effort. Making yourself economically useful for any length of time requires being attentive to the wishes of others.
    This isn't always true. Salaries are determined by market conditions in the labour market. That is to say, it depends upon the supply of labour (and thus the distribution of skills and intelligence) and the demand for labour (and thus the existence of businesses).

    The child who earns CCC may work at the same rate as a child who earns AAAA. As a result of these results, one of them may gain a better education and therefore access into better paid jobs. Even more fundamentally, more factors interfere (such as the ability of parents to acquire good teaching resources for their children through their own finances).

    The greatest problem that socialists have is not necessarily solely to do with inequality in terms of property distribution, but rather a person's means by which they can achieve such material gains. A fundamental problem arises when a person's abilities does not justify a wage set at a level to fulfill his basic needs (to pay for food and doctor's fees for a disabled man, for example).

    People from different parts of the world may do exactly the same job, but earn different salaries. That should suffice in at least indicating that salaries are much more vulnerable to market conditions than to anything else. The amount of "work done" by anybody is going to be subjective. Some people are better at manual labour (and, admittedly, market systems do help distribute human capital in such a way that the manually-skilled will be employed in manual labour) thus their work is not perceived to be as arduous.

    Yet it still remains to be the case that naturally gifted footballers will earn more than a hard-working Northern miner. Effort isn't always well correlated against income. Personal ability - including intelligence - is a much better indicator than this measure of "effort". On a more global level, the role of "effort" is probably reduced.

    Bill Gates is, to me, an excellent example of the failings of socialist logic. They criticise amassing wealth with absolutely no consideration of what it is being used for. Despite doing everything that a socialist would condemn as greedy, Bill Gates is giving away unprecedented billions of pounds to good causes.
    Which is fortunate.

    (Original post by usainlightning)
    I would say yes.

    They are lazy as they expect everyone else to put the hard work in, yet then recieve the same rewards that hardworking people recieve.

    They are jealous as no one should care about what anyone else is earning and should focus on making themselves as successful as possible.
    The only thing lazy here is your interpretation of socialism.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Yeah, and he in no way abused Microsoft's market position to the detriment of others to get where he is? :rolleyes:

    Giving some immorally amassed wealth away doesn't make the initial injustice legimate.
    I don't think he's done anything remotely wrong, morally speaking.

    (Original post by Jaager)
    Here you are making the classic mistake of simply equating success with the aquisition of wealth, the two are completely seperate concepts.
    Success is about being able to most effectively mould the world into the image to want it to take. Money is the single most effective way of doing that. Sure, it's not the be-all and end-all, but I rather wonder that Mother Teresa wouldn't have done a lot more had she had a few billion quid in her back pocket.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't say that many Socialists are lazy. Laziness is a personal trait that isn't bound to a political belief. Jealousy, on the other hand, I do feel clouds the minds of a great number of the less-than-intellectual Socialists. This can be evidenced from the way they talk. See here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...2&postcount=13.

    I think Socialism is a "jealous" ideology because I don't find any attraction in the Left concept of Social Justice, but that isn't at all to say that Socialists are jealous people. I mean, I don't think that's a fair judgement.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Nope. Socialism is the way to go.

    Love Che.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think it has more to do with feelings of inferiority and powerlessness rather than lazyness or jealousy. This is why they identify with 'downtrodden' groups and other people they feel are in the same position they feel themselves to be. Often it is subconcious, barely admitted to themselves or a half remembered feeling, this is why they don't identify it and deal with it directly instead of finding other outlets for it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    [Socialist are lazy and jealous. Do you agree?]

    I would say yes.
    They are lazy as they expect everyone else to put the hard work in, yet then recieve the same rewards that hardworking people recieve.

    They are jealous as no one should care about what anyone else is earning and should focus on making themselves as successful as possible.
    Replace the word 'socialists' with 'elephants' and your post would still be equally nonsensical.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Can you back this up with any social scientific research?
    I though Austrians didn't believe in empirical research :p: but actually living in a capitalist society I can tell you I know plenty of people who work very, very hard but are paid not very much at all - surely the free market rewards us for how much our skills are needed, not how 'hard' we work, so someone can be a manual labourer who works incredibly hard but have their labour worth less than a lazy quantum physicist. Also, I find it fundamentally quite difficult to believe that Fred Goodwin worked more than 3500 times harder than an African farmer making a dollar a day.

    I mean, I've seen evidence which suggests that effort is, in fact, the second largest predictor of outcomes behind IQ which seems to fit the model that capitalism approximates a meritocracy not too badly.
    Really? Sure? I'd like to know where you heard this, because by the look of it the correlation between IQ and earnings is minimal, and your looks (which hardly contribute to how well you can do a job, in most cases...) actually correlate more strongly with your pay than your brains do.

    For your claim to be interesting, I'd also like to see some comparative studies - capitalism having a low correlation is one thing, but it wouldn't necessarily follow that other systems do any better, and in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the correlation is even less in socialist states. Of course, that part is conjecture, but then again, so is your post here.
    Why should I compare it with other systems which I'm also opposed to?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.