You're viewing a single thread.
Converting a class traitor to socialism
Try talking to a socialist about something you disagree with then u will understand why people don't want it be socialist. I'll give u a hint its not necessarily the ideas of socialism most of the time its the people promoting them u willing to to even entertain an opposing idea.
As a member of the democratic socialist party I often am out speaking to people and for the most part I receive a sincere and accepting response from the regular public, but sometimes I will speak with a working class right winger and they either dont want to know or regurgitate false information usually of the fear mongering verity so I dont think people are put off due to members, not saying it never happens where a member has put someone off but I can't imagine it to be all that regular.
Well I'm not nessasarilly talking about you just a general thing I've noticed. Some socialists great we disagree its a civil discussion we both learn something about the others perspective. Most unfortunatly ends up with me being called racist or sexist or homophobic or transphobic or a Nazi for controversial beliefs such as equality of opportunity and being opposed to equality of outcome.
Why would you be apposed to equality of outcome? Don't you think the homeless on the streets deserve a liveable life, or the African Americans a way out of repression, and women should be able to walk home at night with out fear of rape. Then internationally the poorer country's having their resources plundered by the capitalist while the residents have no education or clean water, hospitals, this all allowing the rich to live exceedingly extravagant lives.
I doubt your racist or a Nazi but rather poorly information in socioeconomic and the greater reach capitalism has in devastating lives.
Because equality of outcome is guaranteed to breed inequality. We will see the same effects as the soviet union of people taking advantage of the system because why put any effort in if it doesnt make ur life any better. Ur point about no education that most certainly isn't equality of oppertunity educate them abolish private funding of schools etc. Health care I would also argue is equality of oppertunity. Is this not a socialist idea itself?
I don't think I'm poorly informed I simply think that socialist ideals are exactly that ideals. I guess I simply prefer to live in reality.
Equality of opportunity does not work, the richest 1% continue to get richer year over year whilst the poorest get poorer and this isn't a slogan this is a real statistic we can see. Even the middle classes are entitled to less now and the trend will only continue. Then we have inherited wealth, people tend not to work for they're fortune its often inherited.
So if the intention of equality of opportunity is to bring prosperity than its failed the largest percentage of people. Really I think its a way for people to say "well we tried, we gave them the opportunity" and in that way they can sleep at night.
The USSR took place 1922 to 1991 where homelessness fell drastically, literacy bloomed to near 100%, people who'd only heard of electricity suddenly had electricity, 'diets became much better as well as food portions' (this is power phrased from a leaked FBI document which detailed nutrition being better of an american), work was a given thing if someone was of ably body and mind they'd have a consistent job. In truth the USSR worked amazingly at points, especially considering the state it came from, they skipped capitalism and were feudal before the revolution so had no modern infrastructure like farm equipment, industry and others.
The USSR was a messy thing and to understand the full context would take a lot of explaining, inside the politburo there were bad actors for sure but externally the USSR had to deal with Americas mccarthyism and strong arm tactics, setting nukes on the Russian border or training and supplying arms to terror organisation to economically drain the USSR which the damage can be seen current day in the middle east and even in the USA and Russia with the opioid crises.
But the best part is that once the USSR crumbled we'd like to think the victory of capitalism lead to prosperity and liberation of Russia but the standard of living has dropped, social housing is now privately owned and rented at prices most can't afford, the average age has declined in Russia, dietary standards have dropped, domestic abuse risen, education levels fallen.
With your last statement I'm sure the feudalist said the same to early capitalism.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer because we don't have equality of oppertunity. Still if u worked for ur fortune or not do u really want to take that oppertunity away from everyone else?
Again we do not have equality of oppertunity nor is the ideal of it even particularly tied to capitalism. But we didn't give people the oppertunity we didn't give them a fair chance anyone who pretends we did is either stupid or promoting a straw man.
As for everything u said about the USSR stop sucking the dick of a dead empire.
The whole food thing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union
Maybe social standards dropped cos of a dictatorship not capitalism but who knows. From my understanding there are many nations that had and continue to have far better standards than the soviet union and well all of them are capitalist.
Then again I'm not arguing for or against capitalism or socialist/communist just that we should be willing to accept ideas from both and incorporate them to build something better.
I found the reason people call you names. I'm only here for a polite disagreement. Take it easy
Please do elaborate
Try converting to a socialist. Socialism is a system, not a human being. No wonder it is difficult to do that.
No, socialism is a set of ideals, beliefs and values as well as a system (you can't have a system without the idea behind it afterall). It's perfectly reasonable to convert someone into believing in a set of ideals, beliefs and values.
Well, it is both, and neither of them is a person.
True. But hardly relevant. To convert someone to something is a perfectly fine grammatical usage. Another example would be when people say they converted to Christianity.
What do you mean hardly relevant? It is very relevant to my joke.