Turn on thread page Beta

Socialists are lazy and jealous. Do you agree? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    Feminists protest and want 'change' beacuse they feel themselves inferior to men. The motivation is powerlessness and inferiority, this goes for alot of other left wingers. Why would there be such desperation to promote women?
    Feminists don't fight for equal pay because they view/feel themselves as inferior to men. They view themselves as equal in worth to a man. Likewise, they did not fight for the vote under the impression that they were, or should be, inferior to a man, but rather because they thought themselves as equally valuable as human being before the law. Likewise, Martin Luther King didn't fight for the rights of black Americans because he thought they ought to be inferior. They were empowered, and showed themselves to be completely powerful not powerless in their actions. They don't feel themselves to be inferior nor powerless. That's inaccurate. You'd do better to express what you actually mean: that they weren't perceived, by others, to be equal nor powerful. They deserved to be treated equitably, but they weren't.

    Why is there anything wrong with promoting such issues? How is that a generic character flaw?

    You wouldn't have to go far to find a left winger using that excuse, it has been used on here enough times.
    It would be interesting to see if you could produce an example, and we'll take it from there. I'm not sure that what you're describing is endemic amongst socialists; nay, I think you've merely constructed a straw-man.

    Also notice the masochistic and passive aggressive tactics of the left, chaining themselves, intentionally provoking violence and chaos. Which other political group does this?
    Like the various peaceful protests in America trying to free black Americans from state/social-oppression? You'll find distasteful tactics amongst protesters from various areas on the political sphere, but to act as if all socialists would engage in violent protests seems like an unmerited and wholly too broad a judgement.

    Furthermore, what actually is wrong with passive aggressive tactics which only incurr damage upon the individual concerned? Hunger strikes are perfectly legitimate, for example, since you're only harming yourself.

    I don't see much cohesion in your overall argument, though, ignoring the various flaws in your premises.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    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.


    Which is fortunate.


    The only thing lazy here is your interpretation of socialism.
    You're brilliant. :jumphug:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yea i totally agree, but I find it slightly funny. I've worked roughly 30 hour weeks for the past two years (at the same time as doing A levels) and now have a business turning over more than I could ever have wished for, which I'm really proud of.

    My conservative friends say well done, but people I know who are socialists say all I do is sit in front of a computer screen, and got lucky. I just laugh, at the end of the day I'm not the one working a dead end minimum wage job lol
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Feminists don't fight for equal pay because they view themselves as inferior to men. They view themselves as equal in worth to a man. Likewise, they did not fight for the vote under the impression that they were, or should be, inferior to a man, but rather because they thought themselves as equally valuable as human being before the law. Likewise, Martin Luther King didn't fight for the rights of black Americans because he thought they ought to be inferior. They were empowered, and showed themselves to be completely powerful not powerless in their actions. They don't feel themselves to be inferior nor powerless. That's inaccurate. You'd do better to express what you actually mean: that they weren't perceived, by others, to be equal nor powerful. They deserved to be treated equitably, but they weren't.

    Why is there anything wrong with promoting such issues?
    I didn't say feminists thought they ought to be less than a man. I said they were motivated by feelings of inferiority, they feel they are less then a man wether it is conciously rationalised or not. Why would someone be so desperate to demonstrate themselves as 'equal' to annother?

    There would be nothing wrong with promoting such issues if they were promoted beacuse of a remunation on what is right and fair. But this is not the reason these people promote these things, in my opinon.

    It would be interesting to see if you could produce an example, and we'll take it from there. I'm not sure that what you're describing is endemic amongst socialists; nay, I think you've merely constructed a straw-man.
    There are lots of examples of it on here, I'll try and find some.

    Like the various peaceful protests in America trying to free black Americans from state/social-oppression? You'll find distasteful tactics amongst protesters from various areas on the political sphere, but to act as if all socialists would engage in violent protests seems like an unmerited and wholly too broad a judgement.

    Furthermore, what actually is wrong with passive aggressive tactics which only incurr damage upon the individual concerned? Hunger strikes are perfectly legitimate, for example, since you're only harming yourself.

    I don't see much cohesion in your overall argument, though, ignoring the various flaws in your premises.
    I don't think it is unmerited. Which other political faction chooses to use these tactics? Other people have used them only when they are the only possible means.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    Well I'm commenting on what I feel is the mass psychology of left wing movements, I don't think I'd be able to find any concrete evidence unless there was a sociological study into these things. Also it isn't about socialists in particular, but about all the left as a broad movement. Socialists are included but today it would more apply to civil rights campaigners, feminists, egalitarians ect.
    You don't think they are not motivated by the depressive tendencies I said? You think it is a genuine sympathy for humanity and feeling of injustice?
    Why when they argue do they go for the guilt route then? Why is, say, things like immigration justified with hatred (you colonised them so it is ok to do it back) if it was a genuinely beneficial thing (i.e came from a genuine feeling of sympathy) why wouldn't it be done more diplomatically, rather than with a "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude? This attitude is very common in feminism, Andrea Dworkin being a stunning example.

    I don't think Tony Benn was without goals, but I don't think the problem come from nesscessarily having no goals but from having no goals which have importance to yourself. Left wing views are a subsitute for this.
    People tend to focus more of their attention on helping others when their own needs are met :eek: never!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abhead)
    People tend to focus more of their attention on helping others when their own needs are met :eek: never!
    It is not about helping others, it is about feeding a need for something to do, to get a purpose and a place. A real motive to help others would be rationally constructed to do so, but this is not evident in left wingers. Things such as taxation of the rich, immigration ect, they bill as them helping the poor but these things don't, in fact often the hurt the ones they are supposed to be helping. This is beacuse their real motivation is to attack the things they do not like, not out of sympathy.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    I didn't say feminists thought they ought to be less than a man. I said they were motivated by feelings of inferiority, they feel they are less then a man wether it is conciously rationalised or not. Why would someone be so desperate to demonstrate themselves as 'equal' to annother?
    I, too, would be "inferior before the law" if I wasn't allowed to vote in the political system. I wouldn't feel that I was inferior as a human being, therefore you couldn't really make the point that socialism is bred out of pessimism, or low self-esteem, or out of vulnerability, or out of an anxious feeling that people are think/feel that they are inferior.

    You're using inaccurate language to misdirect the argument. People such as Martin Luther King weren't desperate to demonstrate that they were equal. They had little to demonstrate. They weren't trying to prove themselves to be equal, they were just fighting for political change - for truths which were "self-evident", to use his own words. It wasn't out of an unjustified low image of themselves, but rather a pursuit of something which they deemed to be so important.

    Again, I ask, why was this a bad thing?

    I could equally turn this intellectually-lazy argument on its head and suggest that your support for the BNP is bred from an insecurity regarding your own race. There's an element of truth in that highly generalised and vague statement.

    1. There would be nothing wrong with promoting such issues if they were promoted beacuse of a remunation on what is right and fair. But this is not the reason these people promote these things, in my opinon.

    2. There are lots of examples of it on here, I'll try and find some.
    1. Then what is your opinion on why they are doing this?
    2. Good.

    I don't think it is unmerited. Which other political faction chooses to use these tactics? Other people have used them only when they are the only possible means.
    It is the "anti-terror" neo-conservative states that are invading foreign countries, killing innocent civilians (as happens in a war, in their defence) and imposing themselves upon other people. As Ron Paul said, you have to be completely nuts to think that the Middle-East are attacking America purely because it's a liberal, freedom-loving nation. Western interference merely adds fuel to the proverbial flames.

    What other means, other than peaceful protest, could Martin Luther King have employed to promote his (justified) aims?

    edit:

    In fact, let's get back to your original claim:

    "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."
    Hmmm, no. Activists know precisely why they're campaining. They don't necessarily feel inferior or powerless - hence why they launch direct campaigns for change, as the only outlet for change. This has historically been the case (RE: Martin Luther King, the feminist movement), which rather falsifies your highly generalised attack.

    It is not about helping others, it is about feeding a need for something to do, to get a purpose and a place. A real motive to help others would be rationally constructed to do so, but this is not evident in left wingers. Things such as taxation of the rich, immigration ect, they bill as them helping the poor but these things don't, in fact often the hurt the ones they are supposed to be helping. This is beacuse their real motivation is to attack the things they do not like, not out of sympathy.
    I hardly know where to start on this one... Benefits hinder the poor? Gosh. You make blind assertion after blind assertion... there's little point discussing much with you. You have not provided a single shred of evidence to support your pyscho-analysis.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I disagree with your laziness statement completely, however at best i believe that jealousy is a running element throughout socialism, but i do not believe that socialists are lazy and/or jealous, no more so than everyone of the face of the earth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    It is not about helping others, it is about feeding a need for something to do, to get a purpose and a place. A real motive to help others would be rationally constructed to do so, but this is not evident in left wingers. Things such as taxation of the rich, immigration ect, they bill as them helping the poor but these things don't, in fact often the hurt the ones they are supposed to be helping. This is beacuse their real motivation is to attack the things they do not like, not out of sympathy.
    That right there ^ is purely opinion.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abhead)
    That right there ^ is purely opinion.
    The sad thing is that you're actually entirely correct. It's rather odd that he doesn't actually ask a socialist (I'm no true socialist) what their motivation is, but assumes that they just hate the rich. That said, he's a national socialist, so perhaps he doesn't have to..? Either way, one example does not justify a rather insulting and broad generalisation (which, it's worth saying again, he blindly asserts without justification).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    The sad thing is that you're actually entirely correct. It's rather odd that he doesn't actually ask a socialist (I'm no true socialist) what their motivation is, but assumes that they just hate the rich. That said, he's a national socialist, so perhaps he doesn't have to..? Either way, one example does not justify a rather insulting and broad generalisation (which, it's worth saying, he blindly asserts without justification).
    I said I didn't have any concrete evidence, never mind that I would be hard pushed to find such a thing. It is conjecture, what is wrong with that? I think you only don't like it because you find it to be true of yourself.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Insightful. (I wouldn't like it because I find it true of myself? I'm a socialist? You have no evide... Never mind.)
    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.
    Certainly jealousy exists in a capitalist society?. In fact I would go as far to say that the whole capitalist system is built on jealousy.
    Materialism is what drives the capitalist culture, we aim to work longer and "harder" in order to buy bigger houses and cars and fund the lavish lifestyle that we aspire to. Certainly it is jealousy that drives the economy!

    I also strongly disagree with your idea that "no one should care about what anyone else is earning and should focus on making themselves as successful as possible". I would find it difficult to imagine a society in which people did not care how much their peers were earning in comparison to themselves, as making such comparisons is usually the driving force for sucess. If however such a society did exist then we would be one step closer to socialism!
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I would say no. Many are not after benefits and effort does not allways equall wealth under capatalism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 300mg)
    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.
    Not quite right to be honest. I am middle class however i go to a state school, surrounded by a lot of people from working class families. I don't have a car and even i i wanted one i would have to get off my backside and earn the money to purchase it. They are able to contribute to my university fees but i will be setting up a small business in order to help me through.

    Your life- born into a working class family, told from the day you were born that you should hate anyone who supports thatcher and that she was the worst leader the country has ever had. Then you ****** up school because you didn't work hard enough and you may have just got into university to do something **** like media studies. You can see others who have worked hard and achieved far better grades than yourself and your jealous of them for doing so and now want to penalise them when they grow up.
    Just a guess
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    Not quite right to be honest. I am middle class however i go to a state school, surrounded by a lot of people from working class families. I don't have a car and even i i wanted one i would have to get off my backside and earn the money to purchase it. They are able to contribute to my university fees but i will be setting up a small business in order to help me through.

    Your life- born into a working class family, told from the day you were born that you should hate anyone who supports thatcher and that she was the worst leader the country has ever had. Then you ****** up school because you didn't work hard enough and you may have just got into university to do something **** like media studies. You can see others who have worked hard and achieved far better grades than yourself and your jealous of them for doing so and now want to penalise them when they grow up.
    Just a guess
    Born into working class family, went to normal school where I had a good time and got good grades. Just finished A levels were I'm probably gonna' get AAB / ABB. Heading to a good university to do comp science. Only had one chance to vote since turning 18 and I didn't cause I have better things to do. Don't give a **** about thatcher.

    I am actually right wing, I just hate soft, preppy little ******* like yourself that think your something cause you were born with a silver spoon up your arse.

    Good luck with the 'business', I'm sure your dad will place a substantial order and pat you on the back for doing well. Unlucky with the attempt to neg me.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I am actually right wing, I just hate soft, preppy little ******* like yourself that think your something cause you were born with a silver spoon up your arse.

    R O F L
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Insightful. (I wouldn't like it because I find it true of myself? I'm a socialist? You have no evide... Never mind.)
    Let's be honest here Mel, there's plenty of evidence around TSR that you are a "Soft Socialist", perhaps a Social-Democrat of the marginally more free variety, but you're certainly no right winger. From my interpretation of your posts, at least.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I largely agree, although there are other aspects to it.
    Offline

    13
    (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?

    Giving some immorally amassed wealth away doesn't make the initial injustice legimate.
    His wife's influence has obviously pricked his conscience since it was she who initiated and encouraged his philanthropic gestures.

    And she's an ardent supporter of social justice.
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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