The last one is gone but let's start again the debate a leftist thread

The last one is gone but let's start again the debate a leftist thread

Other urls found in this thread:

nybooks.com/articles/2014/06/05/stretch-genes/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Fuck you if youre a democrat or otherwise left-wing in any way.

...

are you pro immigration even for the immigrants that refuse to integrate?
how important is democracy for you?

I'm not pro immigration for cultures that refuse to integrate in case that the state is fully secular, I am in favor of it in case that the state is still heavily influence by religious opinions.

So in France I'm in favor of anti-islamic propositions as I would be consider anti-abortionist christians people that are failing to assimilate.

It is fairly important right now. I'm not a big plans guy. I'm more of a pragmatic day to day sort of problems.

Daily reminder that the socialist regime of the USSR even had the guts to drag God to court and pronounce the death penalty against him.

Daily reminder that socialist France 2 centuries ago destroyed the high tower because their size wasn't equal towards the other buildings.

Daily reminder that socialist-raised Shafarevich declared that after years of supporting the socialist ideology that socialism is nothing but a God-hating deathwish.

>Liberals
>Coherent

This image has too much wrong with it.

Liberalism is a fairly coherent system of thought, the problem is that they don't have the courage of their convictions so they become push-overs trying to please everyone.

You "leftists" and Marxists disgust me with your ignorance. Both Marx and Engels were openly racist vs Slavs and some other races and this information is slowly but steadily becoming common knowledge. There is nothing about the human waste in that picture or his rotten philosophies that is redeeming in any way.

You should kill yourself. There's my addition to your leftist debate. Really, I wish you and your likes would just get round up in some old building and smoked alive like the pest that you are. Absolutely disgusting.

Well you know traditionalism has the big problem that God doesn't exist. I mean modernity and all that, it's not something like you can just ignore.

Adam Smith was racist too, I still think he is an amazing thinker.

I'm a slav (part croatian) but it's a bit laughable how defensive you get just because a thinker from a couple century ago generalized in a non-pc way.

Also yeah please throw away any materialistic reading of history, do go back to great man and whig history.

>traditionalism

I don't even know what it is. All I know is that the market better be completely free, and my mindset is to be fully free. So that I, as an individual, have the right and the duty to choose my own future.

The government cannot decide for me what i aught to believe or do. Socialism as a state decides for me. So in a socialist/facist state my mindset is determined by the right of rule/power. Whether the ruler is good/evil, this determines the mindset of its people.

A libertarian society prevents the direct control over these things.

Don't think that the government is made of a finer clay than the rest of the common man.

>part Croatian
>Marxist

Ubij se, aloooo. Jel ti čuješ? UBIIIIJJJ SEEEEE ALOOOOO.

Do you enjoy spitting on yourself, you little cvck? So you're telling me that this "thinker" of yours, who - as you yourself admit - openly generalized and spewed hatred, was in any way capable of coming up with a viable social design without it affecting his (((thought)))process at all?

Let me remind you that Marxism and it's derivative social structures have failed every time so far and that you still insisting on them is a sign that you should re-evaluate your life choices, your education, your political stance and

I will gladly remind you

killing yourself. Honestly, go kill yourself. Ubij se. Stvarno, ubij se, govno.
t. Yugo

I can smell that lazy bum from here.

No government can decide what you are going to think. That's actually the stoic truth that in spirit you are always absolutely free.

But besides that my problem with libertarianism is that the market and the state go together. You still need a minimal state to support the market and money is political power and the market is made no finer people than the government.

As Fukuyama I think correctly points out: libertarianism doesn't bring the abolition of political power but moves the political power to those who have capital = local government, local factory owner etc.

And still fukuyama against hayek points out that centralized government is not always tyrannical but often depends the small man against the power of the local powerful man.

The problem with the left is that the consequences of it weight on its success while on the right the only goal is the keeping of power despite the consequences.

Since when is a state needed to enforce something like voluntary transactions of items of value between people.

Libertariansm moves political power to the customers (i.e. the people) because in a market where the government doesn't interfere, a business has to provide a desirable product that customers wand at a reasonable price or they will go out of business.

Ok: without a state what is stopping the guy with the a lot of guys and weapons to just come and enslave you and take your stuff for free?

I didn't my questions answered last thread so I will ask them again:
>How do you deal the reality there in no objective value of labor?
>How do you deal with the fact that the oxymoron 'equal individuals' is inherent to the ideology?

The entire control is in the customer's hands because the customers make the first move in the market. If the customers decide they don't want to buy products from a business, then that business never gets their money.

And before you bring up bullshit Marxist economics that has been debunked: Monopolies do not exist without government interference (if you don't believe me, go look up the pre-1920s definition of monopolies that predates the Marxist/progressive propaganda and policies).

...

debate is for the weak, I conquer my enemies not speak to them.

The community, family, and/or private defense firms.

Also this is a false point to argue because if people were prone to running around with weapons and stealing/enslave, we would never had created stable governments to begin with. We would still be doing that.

It benefits us to work together and we are smart enough to know this. This is one of the main reasons we have been so successful as a species.

Actually it may be pre-1900s. The progressive era was already going on in the 1920s and I'm not 100% sure when the definition was changed by the progressives to fit their narrative.

I was in a hurry and I missed it.

I agree that there is no objective value of labor, even though I think for economists re-evaluating it wouldn't be that difficult (Sraffa was trying to do that). It's not uncommon in economics to take an ideal situation of exchange or to add information into prices.

But still I think that it's not so important to a left-leaning analysis. The value of labor serves mostly to explain how the accumulation of capital works. But sociological explanations of how capital is accumulated (through war and exploitation of resources and first mover advantage) and other econometrics data (like how the profits from increased productivity gets distributed see img -- Piketty does this) can be just as useful to describe and explain exploitation.

2) I don't think equal individuals is an oxymoron. I believe that with the exception of few outliers most individuals are pretty much interchangeable. I know many people who work in finance and do hundreds of time what one of their employees does and they are some of the most stupid people that there are. The unfortunate reality is that most of these inequalities are not awarded because of real difference in quality but mostly out of luck -- who your parents were, what is your social circle, were you at the right moment and the right place etc...Micheal Lewis's Liars Poker pretty much shows how a big chunk of the 1980s wall street guys were simply ivy league grads with no experience with the right pedigree and very little moral qualms.

Your graph is wrong. Once you add in benefits like health and dental insurance, net wage gain is keeping pace with production. Now I will read your post.

Well that's states are born.
You have clans, the clan with the stronger army conquers the neighbors. They have now a lot of money, they hire mercenaries, the army grows, they invent money to pay the army and now they are a state.

Without a state ensuring property laws you go back to feudal lords and clans, until a state is born again.

Check Graeber's Debt: the first 5000 years.

>I don't think equal individuals is an oxymoron
Then you are intellectually diffienct.
If you are an individual, unique from your point of view to your DNA, then you can't be equal to anything. You are one-of-a-kind. In a constant state of inequality as a consequence of your individuality. The inequality is implied as an extension of individuality.
Equality imples equality from our point of view to our DNA.
You can use semantics to deny this fact, but you are only proving your stupidity.
Individuality and equality are mutually exclusive state of being. To be both at the same time is philosophically impossible.

Well your error is thinking that this differences lead to differences in value.

A notebook can have a red cover or a yellow cover and yet be just as equally valuable even if they are different and no one denies their difference.

Naturally my leftism is not in trying to eliminate differences. Naturally the funniest guys will be invited to more parties, and the most charming ones will get better opportunities than those not as charming. But I believe that differences between us don't justify that some are dying without health care while others have more money than a small nation.

And I believe that more equality leads to better politics, because money, I think, it's political power, and more power is distributed the more is intelligente (in the way that the distribution of power through the market leads to better distribution of information).

>A notebook can have a red cover or a yellow cover
You are not talking about equality here. You are talking about similarity. They are totally different words with completely different meanings you fucking mong.

Now you are the one that is using semantics.

I think the point is very simple: if you take two people no matter how different they are I stay believe that they deserve a good life.

>Now you are the one that is using semantics.
There is nothing semantics about it. I'm simply pointing out that you don't have firm understanding of the language you are using. You are conflating the meaning of 2 words in order to justify your lie. That error is on you.

Also, why do you think you know what constitutes a good life for me?

Are you for or against affirmative action? What about diversity quotas?

I don't know what constitutes the good life for you, but I'm pretty sure that it's possible to create institutions that will help you achieve it.

I may not know what you want to read, but I know that if I build libraries it will probably help you in finding the books that you want to read.

start by implementing state capitalism then evolve into communism and ultimately anarchism, otherwise it won't work.

I'm not against affirmative action in public universities, or better yet, I think that public universities need to reserve quotas for underprivileged minorities. The reason for this is that there is both a history of injustice (whatever you may think of black people you should admit that slavery it's pretty fucked up) and because this led to a disparity in starting opportunities (even if you believe in the bell curve, you would still have to admit that there are outliers and it's just to try to pull them out).

I think quotas are reactionary bullshit, where you think that corrupt institutions may be healed not by hiring excellent workers but by hiring diverse corrupt people. What hides behind requests of diversity is the belief that the system is already good.

But how do you go from state capitalism to communism? When the left of the nazi party started to push for it the night of the long knives happened.

You are living a dream augmented reality.
You are trying to force your dreams on the world at large.
You fail to realise there will be consequences of trying to this, because you haven't thought through it completely. The dream is blinding you to reality.

Dunno man, look at that picture and tell me that's not what it's happening today.

Also in a society where politics of resentment dominate. mine don't seem so bad. Wanting to give education, healthcare, rights, freedom to people doesn't seem that bad to me.

by having a marxist govt slowly pushing towards it, unlike nazi germany.

is most relevant author today

Leftist like a commie/anarchist or like a dem? Both?

If you're the former then you're already too deep down the whole, I can see some justifications for being the latter though.

Good/bad, right/wrong is subjective. Your belief are not necessarily universal.

not really accurate at all desu

If you want to give those things and provide those things free markets allow you to do so more effectively than what the government systems you're promoting would. If the government system doesn't offer something as good as what you could then everybody loses because you can't do what you wish and the people can't get as good of a product. You're also not advocating giving that to people. You're advocating forcing everybody to participate in programs that you think they need. Maybe people do want those things but they don't want them the way that you want them. Maybe I want healthcare only for emergencies and you want healthcare for emergencies and normal visits. That's the problem with marxism.

But when we factor in Asians (who also have a history of injustice in america) who consistently do better than both groups, while we simultaneously make it more difficult for white kids to get into the exact same college what sort of message does that send? That white kids need to be punished essentially just for existing as a white person? Or that black kids are only capable of competing if everyone else is handicapped?

The thing is that similar forms of affirmative action are often being used in the workplace to phase out non-diversity. Say pilots for example, only 0.03% or so are black females. How far do we take it? Do we lower the standards for pilots to be more inclusive of black females? Would that be beneficial (and safe) for the public? Or do we raise the standards for whites?

Making laws for different people based on race, sex, or religion is a slippery slope and I would argue that all forms of it lean more towards racism than ethical. And when we see these pictures of students selling cookies at different prices based on age or sex thats exactly whats being taught at our colleges.

You're a cop and you see a very erratic driver so you pull them over. The driver is wearing a burqa and refuses to remove it for identification or a breathalyzer test and will literally fight you before she removes it, citing sharia law. Wat do? Do we hold her to the same laws as everyone else? Or do we allow exceptions based on religion or race?

And I'd like to add that the end result of pic related being taught in college is basically segregation. America was segregated once. So I wonder which side are the real racists?

The free market is not always more efficient: healthcare and public transportation are a clear example.

The market is far from being a perfect system of allocation but has numerous inefficiencies that need to be corrected and kept in check by the government.

And the government is also necessary to keep the people free of making their choices and deciding what they want. People need to have economic security, a safety net, economic independence, if they want to be free to live as they like.

For example it is undeniable that rising cost of college education deform enrollment towards disciplines that are considered more remunerative rather than towards what people would really like to study.

You may say that that is a desirable effect (nobody needs a lot of useless philosophy majors), but now you would be the person who decides what is good against what people would want to study.

Communism is an inevitable problem of scientific development

>he thinks there's a debate

Really anyone who calls themselves a leftist is generally a pseudointellectual with a massive ego that assumes that debunked economic theory is a great thing to try to lord over people with.

Anyone who talks about economic theories as debunked probably has never read any economics above undergrad level or they would know the really bad state that economic theory is in now.

There is a good book for you if you want to see how bad economic is fairing: zombie economics by Quiggin

Socialist policies have been very effective in nearly 100% white countries. In the US, lots of government benefits are thrown at largely black cities, which remain shitholes. Surely you recognize that your ultimate socialist vision would work much better in a white ethnostate?

Incoherence should have its own bubble tied to liberals.

I agree that that is a problem and a misguided battle on behalf of the left.

But the way I propose it that problem really doesn't happen.

Basically you allocate funds to create extra places for disadvantaged minorities in the same way privates create scholarships for single mothers or orthodox christians.

See

>But the way I propose it that problem really doesn't happen
That's great in theory but these things are effecting students and peoples careers in real life, now in the present day.

Just because economics has some issues (like all science does btw), doesn't mean we should ditch the entire field and start from scratch with some commie's crackpot theories.

What do you mean by leftist?

No need for debating with leftists.

Economics is not a mature science like physics or biology because it doesn't have an accepted network.

We don't have a newton and a darwin of economics. We have a set of methods and a series of descriptions and models of economic behavior that we don't even test by their predictive ability but by their internal consistency.

Economics at this point is more similar to sociology than to a hard science.

I'm not a race realist, I believe they are social construct.

Nope. GDR, Romania, and all the other former Soviet Countries didn't fair well at all. The Democratic Socialism of Scandinavia for one has very little regulation relative to the rest of Europe and the private sector is holding up an ever burgeoning public sector which cannot continue forever.

>they would know the really bad state that economic theory is in now
How bad can it possibly be?

All of the soft sciences are fucked beyond belief.

And it won't. Socialists despise SuccDems, Your claim about how Soviet Countries fared better be grounded in something more than muh GDMeme and propaganda photos, most of which turned up after the wall came down.

I've watched you get BTFO 3 times now, so you put your head in the sand, abandon the thread and start another. You are a joke.

How about the alcoholism, stunted GDPs, and incredibly low standard of living that didn't nearly increase at the same pace as Western countries? Both forms fail in their own special way, I would just prefer a ballot box so I could feel like I was making a difference.

Again, just because it can't be as rigorous as physics can be doesn't mean you can just come up with whatever retarded theory you want and pretend is as legitimate as the established theories.

>I'm not a race realist, I believe they are social construct.

You just outed yourself as a science-denier. Nothing you say past this point matters because you're the equivalent of a flat-earther. It's been fun but you've rejected objective reality.

Thanks for playing but no one can actually take you seriously.

We are the level "let's assume horses are spherical" when trying to bet on horse races.

Alcoholism is pretty much a staple of russian culture by now, GDP growth was steady, standard of living was somewhat below that of the West.

Where are you getting the "incredibly low standard of living" from?

Actually according to most biologists race-realism is untenable.

When Nicholas Wade tried to state otherwise he was torn to pieces by people like H. Allen Orr (who is a professor of evolutionary biology at Rochester)

nybooks.com/articles/2014/06/05/stretch-genes/

But now you will say that I'm arguing from authority right? You right wingers like science only when it agrees with you.

I'm guessing you're quoting something that an economist once said. If so, could you actually put that quote into context so that it actually has meaning?

Scientific "race realism" isn't the same as saying race is not a social construct.

What I'm saying is that you've moved away from the realm of reality and are now proselytizing your religion at us. You're denying all the evidence and telling us to believe "just because."

You don't realize that you're a religious fanatic.

>add in benefits like health and dental insurance
What benefits?
Inflation and cost of living increases (e.g. housing, healthcare etc.) wipes out any possible "benefits". In fact, the graph is too generous; real wages have been steadily decreasing for the past 50 years.
No matter how you slice or dice it, 99% of all profits/productively gains have been going to the capitalist/owner class. Labour does not and cannot be properly rewarded in the capitalist society, otherwise the whole thing just collapses (which is precisely what we're seeing today).

It's not a question of being as rigorous.

It's a question of paradigm. Physics and biology have a paradigm in which you work. They have a frame work. Frame works can shift with revolutions (from newton to einstein). But if you don't have it you are working in a non-mature field.

Some fields had a paradigm in which to work and then they lost it. Psychology had freudism, freudism failed, and now people are working in constructing evolutionary psychology (and struggling about it).

So since in economics there is not such a paradigm or there is is a consensus. A mainstream direction (neo-classical economics with the numerous problems it has) and fringe schools (austrian, chicago, marxism etc).

Alcoholism rose sharply in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. Also if that pic is going to use real compensation instead of real wages for the USSR, it better use net compensation for the US and the rest as well. Also housing shortages which resulted in commie blocks were the result of those "extremely low rents". GDP growth was not steady at all, the 70's and 80s it fell to shit and never recovered. Solidarity movement is where I get low standard of living from, also breadlines, also commie blocks, etc., etc.

Do you know what real compensation is?

USSR got the brunt of WW2, and it didn't get a Marshall plan, it had to rebuild itself. So there was a real housing crisis, not a pussy capitalist one. They needed a lot of housing, fast and cheap. Now, limestone is everywhere and Brutalism is popular, hence commie blocs.

You anti-white poofs will get the noose some day

kys

"incredibly low standard of living" is meme/propaganda created by the us and co. during the cold war in order to brainwash the populous into believing that communism is really bad and that capitalist is the only good system.

All I'm saying is that you don't know the science and just want to be right. And when you are proven wrong you are gonna stomp your feet like a kid and repeat the last thing you said.

Races are either real (they exist in the world) or they are not.

If they are real we have to find a way to identify them. Genetic similarity, Nicholas Wade thought, is a way to identify and track races. H. Allen Orr in that essay explains in depth why the system is flawed.

Other people think that y-chromosome hablotypes are a way, but the problem is that they don't map on our folk understanding of races.

My idea is that they don't exist in reality, they are fictitious groupings that we made according to a set of traits and history of our managing populations. I believe that we made races not so differently than how we made nationalities. Yes some people are Italian, and one of the qualities to be italian is to be children of italians, so italians have common genetic traits. But there is no italianness in nature, since Italy is our social creation.

All of Europe got fucked during WWII, and the USSR's production did not decrease during the war, it actually increased at the end of the war. It had to rebuild some of itself, and what pussy capitalist housing crisis you think happened does not compare to the absolute failures of the centrally planned USSR economy. The US also built most of its housing fast and cheap post WWII now that I recall too. It didn't use commie blocks though

What are you taking about? Of course there is a paradigm. Established economics (neo-classical, keyenesianism, etc) all stems from the marginalist revolution. Fringe theories like Marxist economics are still stuck in the 1880s, like creationism.

Yes please tell the Polish Solidarity movement that, I am sure they would agree wholeheartedly.

My point still stands.

You can't debate with a leftist, they lack brains.

Europe had Marshall plans.

What failures, though?

No it doesn't. Real Compensation adjusts for inflation hence the term REAL COMPENSATION INSTEAD OF NOMINAL COMPENSATION. Real Compensation is the value of everything you receive from your job, not just your wage. Real Compensation has been steadily rising over the years.

die

Then by all means prove me wrong.

So you admit that the austrians are stuck in the xix century too?

Europe did have the Marshall Plan, when did I say it didn't. I brought up that it would be incorrect to assume that the USSR was some burning pile of rubble, when in fact so much of its industry was left untouched that it was producing way more weapons in 1944 and 45 than it had in 1942 and 43. Failures like the need to put multiple families inside of individual efficiency apartments, shortages of consumer goods, and constant energy crisis.

>All of Europe got fucked
80% of WW2 European theatre was on the Eastern front
>It had to rebuild some of itself
60%-80% of European part of USSR was destroyed.
> absolute failures of the centrally planned USSR economy.
This centrally planned USSR economy won the biggest war in human history, and created a world superpower that the US is still afraid of to this day.

Is lower working hours justified from modernization and efficiency of production? How healthy exactly would we be in a society if labor work is automated yet the low skill worker can't find a job? Is he justified to live on wellfare and pardoned for "un-employment"?

I can also bring up how wonderfully capitalist has worked in Liberia.

>Statistics for how much of the USSR was destroyed
IF 60-80% OF ITS INDUSTRY WAS WIPED OUT THEN HOW THE FUCK WAS IT PRODUCING MORE WEAPONS BY THE END OF THE WAR? COMMIE MAGIC? The Centrally Planned Economy failed to provide consumer goods to its citizens, and its incompetent leadership lead to Germany being able to take way more land than it ever should have. Also the US gov't is a bunch of pussies, I think we can both agree on that.
I would assume-now hear me out- that a civil war-hold on now- will generally destroy an economy. Also keep in mind that Liberia, like most of Africa, has multiple different warlord factions, many of which are communist, vying for power. For example Chuck Taylor pretty much has used a centrally planned system to secure his strength.

>This centrally planned USSR economy won the biggest war in human history, and created a world superpower that the US is still afraid of to this day.

You really need to study your history. The USSR wouldn't have won without capitalist support.

>Real Compensation adjusts for inflation
The graph says real earnings, not real compensation. Real earnings = inflation adjusted earnings.

>Real Compensation has been steadily rising over the years.
Again, that's not what the graph says.

In any case, real compensation has not been steadily rising; it's been steadily decreasing or plateauing at best.

My point still stands.