Socialist mentality vs Capitalist mentality.

[Josu]

A Socialist is disgusted by an expensive house and thinks, "no one should live like that."

A Capitalist sees that same house and thinks, "everyone should be able to live like this."

A Socialist is disgusted by a homeless and thinks, "no one should live like that."

Fixed!!

No ofense, but this 2 sentences are in the first post are crap

 

[BvBPL]

This isn't really that relevant, but I'll leave it here just to kick the hornet's nest.

If you really want to get under Mouthwash's skin then take him seriously.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Not going to mock my thought texts?

Is there thought going in your mock texts?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

This isn't really that relevant, but I'll leave it here just to kick the hornet's nest.

Unfortunately you'll need to remove or censor the pic because fo forum rules.
Btw, it actually says red sun in Chinese. I have no idea how they screwed that up.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Unfortunately you'll need to remove or censor the pic because fo forum rules.
Btw, it actually says red sun in Chinese. I have no idea how they screwed that up.

After my last time in the Gin Empire, I can understand confusing the two.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Actually, I do have a vague idea how this could have happened, but it's unlikely to result from a botched machine translation or mindless literal dictionary usage, as it requires one to assume a slang term/euphemism and ranslate it as...well...not an euphemism.
The termn 'red sun' is in China sometimes used as a slur against the Japanese alluding to their flag which supposedly looks like an anus bloody from excessive buggery.

 

[ArneHD]

Why has nobody grasped that this thread wasn't serious yet despite me openly admitting it? I just wanted a sarcastic reply to some other guy's quotation, and this forum happens to be good at those.

Isn't this basically trolling? I thought that was against the forum rules.

 

[useless]

Clearly this isn't a serious thread, unlike the time Mouthwash advocated literal apartheid.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

The "study" that you cite is well founded by science. Numerous experiments in game theory bear it out.

However, it doesn't explain capitalism versus socialism. Instead, it examines how people behave when they perceive others have a free ride. Folks who think others are getting a free ride tend to work less and put in less effort.

Is socialism a free ride? Capitalists will say it is, that people are getting something for nothing.

However, the exact same complaint can be placed upon the door of capitalism. Nations without taxation strategies that favor the redistribution of wealth (broadly: capitalist nations) tend to have wealth accumulate, to some degree, in families. Decedents of those who did work hard to earn their wealth are born with silver spoons in their mouth. To other members of society, it is those children of the wealthy who got the free ride.

In short, while the anecdote is scientifically accurate, it does not describe the difference between capitalism and socialism as much as it describes a much more basic form of interaction between people.

Or, to put it another way, there are free rides that diminish individual interest in excellency in both capitalism and socialism.

Beautifully put. Thread over.

 

[Angst]

A Socialist is disgusted by an expensive house and thinks, "no one should live like that."

A Capitalist sees that same house and thinks, "everyone should be able to live like this."

An interesting study was conducted that essentially proved this.

Comments?

Both "mentalities" claim what you assume only the capitalist claim.

EDIT: To clarify: Both "mentalities" claim what you assume only the socialist claim.

Regardless of this, you lack contextual issues and considerations with each caricature's presuppositions about luxury.

 

[Cutlass]

"2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else."

These hold very much truth. Unfortunately when the elections come everyone forgets these simple truths. Democracy is dangerous and harmful.

That's what the 1% are counting on.

 

[Leoreth]

Regardless of this, you lack contextual issues and considerations with each caricature's presuppositions about luxury.

You can also easily invert those caricatures.

Socialist: "Everyone should be able to live like this, but I know we can't."

Capitalist: "Everyone should be able to live like this, but FYGM."

 

[peter grimes]

An interesting anecdotal study fable was conducted blogged that essentially proved confirmed this my bias.

Garbage link, mate.

Post something serious if you want to have a serious discussion.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't really understand the "classroom" metaphor. In each case, all desirable products, i.e. grades/wealth, are distributed by an unchallenged central authority, i.e. the teacher/state. All the blog appears to argue for is a meritocratic rather than egalitarian distribution, not against the fact of centralised and authoritarian distribution itself. It's an argument for Kruschev over Stalin, not for capitalism over socialism.

 

[useless]

Socialists aim for the lowest common denominator and think nobody should be better than that. They want everyone pulled down the the base. It's sad, really.

As opposed to capitalists who'd rather let others live in abject poverty as long as they survive in a comfortable manner?

See, i can do it too!

 

[Angst]

You can also easily invert those caricatures.

Socialist: "Everyone should be able to live like this, but I know we can't."

Capitalist: "Everyone should be able to live like this, but FYGM."

Indeed!

what is fygm

edit: oh just found it on urban dictionary. very suitable

my point was this exactly, but still moreso that "capitalism" and "socialism" are broad, complex sizes with people inside everywhere that disagree with each other.

for regardless of what eg republicans want to prove, what the american left is promoting isn't really socialism. it's just a different shade of the capitalist system

the rhetorical tendency is so dense that several people on this forum identify themselves as "socialists" or "leftists" or somesuch when they really shouldn't. it really just allows ******ed people (insert stereotypical midwestener here) to dismiss "socialist" ideologies based on claims of "socialist" extremism or naivitee. (or whatsitcalled.) it's a ******ed rhetorical climate, a strange morphology since mccarthy that has placed "socialism" in an environment of legitimization while still allowing traditional capitalism to dismiss it very easily.

 

[Traitorfish]

"[Fudge] you, I got mine".

 

[useless]

Basically the epitomy of capitalism and libertarianism.

 

[Traitorfish]

Libertarianism, maybe, but capitalism tends to resist that sort of flattening. Bismarckian paternalism is no less capitalist than Rothbardian individualism.

 

[Leoreth]

the rhetorical tendency is so dense that several people on this forum identify themselves as "socialists" or "leftists" or somesuch when they really shouldn't. it really just allows ******ed people (insert stereotypical midwestener here) to dismiss "socialist" ideologies based on claims of "socialist" extremism or naivitee. (or whatsitcalled.) it's a ******ed rhetorical climate, a strange morphology since mccarthy that has placed "socialism" in an environment of legitimization while still allowing traditional capitalism to dismiss it very easily.

Certainly. If you boil down complex social/economic ideologies/systems to witty one-liners and think that you have made A Very Good Point, your approach is not very useful except for subjective mudslinging.