The Essence of the Left

[Linkman226]

It's difficult enough for some to think rights and privileges are the same thing.

Privilege implies hierarchy.

 

[JollyRoger]

Privilege implies hierarchy.

Sometimes.

 

[Linkman226]

Sometimes.

No, always. Give me an example where it doesn't.

 

[John Walker]

If a leftist is confronted with a reality in which total equality is impossible to achieve and they have to choose between an inequal but overall better off society or an equal but universally poor society, then they choose the latter option. And this usually ends badly for everyone, not just for the richest 2%. In a rich capitalist society accumulated wealth eventually leads to a situation when even the poorest people live better than most people in a typical socialist society, which doesn't accumulate wealth but only redistributes what it has, wasting large % of it in the process. This is why communism ultimately fails, with empty shelves in shops like in the Eastern Bloc in the 1980s. I prefer inequality over equality in which everybody is EQUALLY POOR. Only truly jealous people would prefer a situation when everybody has 500 Simoleans a month (full equality), to a situation when they have 1000 Simoleans a month but someone else has 2000.

Assuming you can buy the same amount of goods for the same amount of Simoleans in both scenarios, of course.

===================================

Leftist fascination of hunter gatherer communities which were "more equal" than 21st century world, only proves my point.

Who cares to "be equal" when you can have a house, hot water, an internet connection, etc. Unlike "equal" hunters.

In a post-Zombie-apocalypse world, all Zombies are equal to each other. But who would like to be a Zombie!

 

[Linkman226]

If a leftist is confronted with a reality in which total equality is impossible to achieve and they have to choose between an inequal but overall better off society or an equal but universally poor society, then they choose the latter option. And this usually ends badly for everyone, not just for the rich 2%. In a rich capitalist society accumulated wealth eventually leads to a situation when even the poorest people live better than most people in a typical socialist society, which doesn't accumulate wealth but only redistributes what it has, wasting large % of it in the process. This is why communism ultimately fails, with empty shelves in shops like in the Eastern Bloc in the 1980s. I prefer inequality over equality in which everybody is EQUALLY POOR. Only truly jealous people would prefer a situation when everybody has 500 Simoleans a month (full equality), to a situation when they have 1000 Simoleans a month but someone else has 2000.

Assuming you can buy the same amount of goods for the same amount of Simoleans in both scenarios, of course.

Have you actually read any socialist theory?

 

[JollyRoger]

No, always. Give me an example where it doesn't.

Everyone has the privilege to marry.

If a leftist is confronted with a reality in which total equality is impossible to achieve and they have to choose between an inequal but overall better off society or an equal but universally poor society, then they choose the latter option.

What is your basis for this claim? Many leftists realize reality and fight for more equality, but not at the cost of a universally poor society.

 

[John Walker]

Have you actually read any socialist theory?

The main problem with socialist theories is that they sound nice but don't really work in practice.

In my previous post I wrote about socialism in practice, not about socialism in theories.

but not at the cost of a universally poor society.

Usually socialist economies grow very sloooooowly. Without all the effort capitalism achieves the same result faster.

Everyone has the privilege to marry.

Everyone has the right to marry the most beautiful girl in the village. No wait...

 

[Linkman226]

Everyone has the privilege to marry.

They don't. Homosexuals can't marry each other. Marriage is a privilege that asserts a hierarchy of the heterosexuals over homosexuals.

When marriage is extended to all humans, then it will cease to be a privilege. It will become a right. Something that everyone has cannot be described as a privilege.

The main problem with socialist theories is that they sound nice but don't really work in practice.

In my previous post I wrote about socialism in practice, not about socialism in theories.

Usually socialist economies grow very sloooooowly. Without all the effort capitalism achieves the same result faster.

[citation needed]

 

[John Walker]

Homosexuals can't marry each other

In some countries they can but they still can't breed children. Nature discriminates their sexual organs, nature must be a truly right wing bastard!

When marriage is extended to all humans, then it will cease to be a privilege.

But why only to humans. If someone for some reason can't find a human partner, let them marry their animals or their trees. Why not ???

Why should marriage be a privilege only for these humans who have no problems with establishing human-human relationships ???

Something that everyone has cannot be described as a privilege.

So tits are a privilege. Only 50% of the population have them!

 

[JollyRoger]

They don't. Homosexuals can't marry each other. Marriage is a privilege that asserts a hierarchy of the heterosexuals over homosexuals.

When marriage is extended to all humans, then it will cease to be a privilege. It will become a right. Something that everyone has cannot be described as a privilege.

You actually now have the privilege of marrying a person of your own gender. Even if this aspect of the privilege was universal, it would still not make marriage a right. You still have to find a willing partner.

 

[Ajidica]

Usually socialist economies grow very sloooooowly. Without all the effort capitalism achieves the same result faster.

Where are you getting this from? Depending on the circumstances, "socialist" economies can grow in leaps and bounds. Moving beyond the traditional example in the Soviet Union, we can see a similar effect in the United Kingdom following WWII. After WWII the Labour Party and Clement Attlee instituted/maintained a pretty heavy round of nationalization, export/import controls, and rationing. Come the end of the 1950's, rationing was gone, economic growth was exceeding predictions, and Macmillan was declaring that people in the UK 'had never had it so good'.

 

[JollyRoger]

In some countries they can but they still can't breed children.

My homosexual father has sired two children.

 

[John Walker]

Homosexual male couples can have only children born out of wedlock, they can't breed children together. Discrimination!

 

[Linkman226]

In some countries they can but they still can't breed children. Nature discriminates their sexual organs, nature must be a truly right wing bastard!

Someone didn't read the Lenin piece I linked to above.

But why only to humans. If someone for some reason can't find a human partner, let them marry their animals or their trees. Why not ???

Why should marriage be a privilege only for these humans who have no problems with establishing human-human relationships ???

Animals and trees can't consent. Marriage is a meaningless concept to them. Are you really so bigoted that you think homosexuals have as much agency as vegetation?

So tits are a privilege. Only 50% of the population have them!

No. Just because "Something that everyone has cannot be described as a privilege" is true does not make the inverse true. Yes, something that everyone has cannot be described as a privilege. But, not all things that only some people have are privileges.

You actually now have the privilege of marrying a person of your own gender. Even if this aspect of the privilege was universal, it would still not make marriage a right. You still have to find a willing partner.

Therefore the right would be the right to marry a willing person. Still a right, not a privilege.

Homosexual male couples can have only children born out of wedlock, they can't breed children together. Discrimination!

Again, read the Lenin piece linked to.

 

[JollyRoger]

Therefore the right would be the right to marry a willing person. Still a right, not a privilege.

What if the willing person was currently married?

 

[Linkman226]

What if the willing person was currently married?

I have no problem with polygamy, if that's what you're getting at it.

In any case, I'd like to note that Jolly is dragging me into a cesspool of meaningless noise, full of what-ifs and what-abouts, rather than conceding the point.

 

[JollyRoger]

Those what-if and what-abouts is what makes something a privilege rather than a right. And the privilege is not hierarchy driven as it is generally available to everyone who is willing to accept the what-ifs and what-abouts that makes it a privilege,

 

[Linkman226]

Again, something everyone has is not a privilege.

 

[JollyRoger]

Again, something everyone has is not a privilege.

Everyone doesn't have a marriage and some have non-hierarchal obstacles to currently entering the marriage of their choice.

 

[Linkman226]

We're discussing the ability of marriage, not the existence of it. Further, as I noted earlier, you're right: marriage in the status quo is a privilege, because hierarchically places heterosexuals over homosexuals and other non-conforming sexualities and gender identities.