|
|
Post by stoic on Dec 2, 2021 21:01:18 GMT
Actually, that is what is called a "Scandinavian socialism". A common sense to me. If you have a poor neighbor you can oppress and rob him, or you can help him. A second choice is the safest way in the long run. There is always the option to leave your neighbor alone, to live and let live. Then you can't ever be sure about his intentions to remedy his poverty  I wouldn't exclude that he will blame your system, your values, your skin colour after some contemplation. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Dec 2, 2021 21:08:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Dec 2, 2021 21:13:59 GMT
I'm guessing in two generations. They're already making long strides with Belgium. I doubt they will ever get over Leopold II, I doubt anyone would, but I never underestimate the ability of man to forget and be ignorant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 2, 2021 21:14:10 GMT
Of course the poor benefit more from taxes. That's what taxes are for, to serve the poor. I really think free education is a must for any sort of equality. First of all getting rich isn't about working hard. It's about the conditions, the society etc. The ones who work the hardest are the east Asian workers working 14 hours a day in a hot factory. They're definitely not rich. Even if you believe that richness is available by only "working hard", it's not you whose working, it's your parents. How is it fair that your quality of education is dependent on what kind of family you're born to. Working yourself is also a bit impossible, atleast compared to having rich parents. To the examples, I can give you one too. Compare the American private education system to the Nordic free education system. The Nordic one wins on all measures, quality and equality. 1. Agreed. 2a. How so? 2b. Fair enough, but even so, the rich are rich because they provide something that people want and they can't easily be replaced by someone else. E.G. if nobody else was willing to be a slave in east Asia, wages would rise for those workers because they are irreplaceable. This is a horrific human rights violation that the UN should be doing far more about. 3. On that note, those Americans in the middle class often get a far larger percentage of their money from their parents than upper class folks. 4. That's incredibly reasonable. The reason I compared Americans to Americans was because Americans are idiots. It would be like comparing Messe's output versus Guderian's. While I believe that privatized university is better, I think that European public university is way better than American. However, I still think that Lomonsov is a better university that Helsinki. 2. a) Your success in life is very much dependent on it. 2. b) There are reasons why those workers won't demand better wages. First of all they are poorly educated. They aren't irreplaceable either. They can just be replaced by someone else from the huge population, while they starve and regret their decision. Capitalism rewards those who provide, atleast in some way. But it is about the opportunity to and being able to provide. 3. Fair enough, but you can't get any money if your parents don't have it. And many don't have. 4. It wasn't even about universities it was about primary education too, but I actually have to check the rankings of those universities. The point was to disprove the common "free education is automatically lower quality than private". I don't say you used it. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Dec 2, 2021 21:14:24 GMT
Why do you ask?
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Dec 2, 2021 21:17:32 GMT
I'm guessing in two generations. They're already making long strides with Belgium. I doubt they will ever get over Leopold II, I doubt anyone would, but I never underestimate the ability of man to forget and be ignorant. Oh, I wouldn't be so sure... If you oppressed and robbed your neighbor everything can happen one day... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2021 21:19:16 GMT
Well.. I find money actually devilish, making people only greedy. Best example USA. So finding a substitution for money could bring equality and elimination of social differences
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 2, 2021 21:19:42 GMT
Poverty? On just the list of OECD countries, the US does have the highest poverty rate, but the poverty line for it is higher than the median income of 11 OECD countries! As for stoic , sorry, I messed up my statistics, the rich, those in the top income tax bracket, account for over 90% of US income tax revenue. Please, let me hear education. Well.. The capitalistic system of the USA won't work in the near future either, like the communistic systems deesgablished in eastern Europe and Russia. So next goal would be then socialism? I think sooo... I think it's the opposite. The USSR and eastern Europe were by Marxist theory more socialist than communist. Socialism is an economical system where the means of production are owned by the workers (owned by the bureaucrats in USSR but anyways), but where money is used and workers are rewarded depending on what kind of work they do and how much they work. This is really very similar to the USSR and eastern Europe. Communism is the Marxist ideal. The means of production are owned by the workers. Workers are not rewarded for their amount of work or the kind or quality of work, but rather "everyone according to his ability, to everyone according to their need". |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Dec 2, 2021 21:24:37 GMT
1. Agreed. 2a. How so? 2b. Fair enough, but even so, the rich are rich because they provide something that people want and they can't easily be replaced by someone else. E.G. if nobody else was willing to be a slave in east Asia, wages would rise for those workers because they are irreplaceable. This is a horrific human rights violation that the UN should be doing far more about. 3. On that note, those Americans in the middle class often get a far larger percentage of their money from their parents than upper class folks. 4. That's incredibly reasonable. The reason I compared Americans to Americans was because Americans are idiots. It would be like comparing Messe's output versus Guderian's. While I believe that privatized university is better, I think that European public university is way better than American. However, I still think that Lomonsov is a better university that Helsinki. 2. a) Your success in life is very much dependent on it. 2. b) There are reasons why those workers won't demand better wages. First of all they are poorly educated. They aren't irreplaceable either. They can just be replaced by someone else from the huge population, while they starve and regret their decision. Capitalism rewards those who provide, atleast in some way. But it is about the opportunity to and being able to provide. 3. Fair enough, but you can't get any money if your parents don't have it. And many don't have. 4. It wasn't even about universities it was about primary education too, but I actually have to check the rankings of those universities. The point was to disprove the common "free education is automatically lower quality than private". I don't say you used it. 2a. My point is that in most developed western countries, many people have access to university anyway, despite their socioeconomic status. 2b. Exactly what I am talking about. IF they were irreplaceable, they wouldn't be paid slave wages. 3. Actually, most people, even in the upper class, are self made, with barely any starting inheritance. 4. Okay. If you haven't noticed, I am very much a Friedmanite. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Dec 2, 2021 21:30:08 GMT
I'm guessing in two generations. They're already making long strides with Belgium. I doubt they will ever get over Leopold II, I doubt anyone would, but I never underestimate the ability of man to forget and be ignorant. Oh, I wouldn't be so sure... If you oppressed and robbed your neighbor everything can happen one day... Okay, I am stolidly anti-imperialistic, so I'll agree. Oppression is terrible, and I hope more is done about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2021 21:34:54 GMT
Well.. The capitalistic system of the USA won't work in the near future either, like the communistic systems deesgablished in eastern Europe and Russia. So next goal would be then socialism? I think sooo... I think it's the opposite. The USSR and eastern Europe were by Marxist theory more socialist than communist. Socialism is an economical system where the means of production are owned by the workers (owned by the bureaucrats in USSR but anyways), but where money is used and workers are rewarded depending on what kind of work they do and how much they work. This is really very similar to the USSR and eastern Europe. Communism is the Marxist ideal. The means of production are owned by the workers. Workers are not rewarded for their amount of work or the kind or quality of work, but rather "everyone according to his ability, to everyone according to their need". well communism wasnt real socialism then.... i would guess |
|
|
|
Post by Thortilla on Dec 2, 2021 22:29:09 GMT
I believe that at these points in society women already have the same rights as men. I even dare to say that at certain points women have a certain advantage. (at least in Hispanic countries) as in law where a divorced woman has some advantages over child custody for example.but i think i'm getting off topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 3, 2021 5:44:07 GMT
2. a) Your success in life is very much dependent on it. 2. b) There are reasons why those workers won't demand better wages. First of all they are poorly educated. They aren't irreplaceable either. They can just be replaced by someone else from the huge population, while they starve and regret their decision. Capitalism rewards those who provide, atleast in some way. But it is about the opportunity to and being able to provide. 3. Fair enough, but you can't get any money if your parents don't have it. And many don't have. 4. It wasn't even about universities it was about primary education too, but I actually have to check the rankings of those universities. The point was to disprove the common "free education is automatically lower quality than private". I don't say you used it. 2a. My point is that in most developed western countries, many people have access to university anyway, despite their socioeconomic status. 2b. Exactly what I am talking about. IF they were irreplaceable, they wouldn't be paid slave wages. 3. Actually, most people, even in the upper class, are self made, with barely any starting inheritance. 4. Okay. If you haven't noticed, I am very much a Friedmanite. 2. If I start actually arguing about this it will surely go too much into politics. 3. I wouldn't say self made. It's about the right capabilities and conditions. |
|
|
|
Post by 𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘬𝘺 on Dec 3, 2021 12:34:34 GMT
I don't think that in the past 200 years, most women were slaves (men were more sought after due to their more physical qualities), so emancipation may not be the word you are looking for. , 200 Years ago - about which planet was your dream ? Fact: 125 years ago, the right to vote was exclusive for males - worldwide. As one of the first counties, Britain introduced the right to vote for women in 1918. (Switzerland complete in 1976) And voting is the first right - most basic rights for women were introduced in the late 1960'ies and 70'ies. IE: West Germany, without asking/getting permission from parents or husband, women got their independent rights in (year): - the right to open a bank account, 1968 - right to choose a job, 1977 - right to refuse sex with husband, 1997
I personally leave Rights for [ insert what you want (Women, Children, Men, Color, Prisoners, Perverts ...)] discussions. Rights for this implicates that these rights are not universal ! The whole discussion is about seggregation and not liberalation. These are false flag activists with hidden interrests ! |
|
|
|
Post by 𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘬𝘺 on Dec 3, 2021 14:16:37 GMT
All in all, I would say that the role of women in the last 200 years has neither taken a huge leap forward, nor a step back. I would say that their lives have often become worse, but in exchange for that, they get more choices on what to do. The sheeps can choose their butcher. I see big changes in: Rights Equality Worldwide, in the last 200, specially the last 50 years. A ongoing process, step by step: - first you need to introduce the right for equal education: with different education levels, each single right values out different. In nature the two works -hunting and -breastfeeding are shared gender-specific. Life leads to specialisation. But with "civilisation" we eliminate very effective our natural habitat and other lifeforms around us. The elimination of nature requires drastical changes in human life organisation; and it is used to create new dependencies. I can't understand the terrestians: How they can tolerate "civilisation", where a mother of a young child has a need to think! about working for money. Insects are better organized. |
|
I wouldn't exclude that he will blame your system, your values, your skin colour after some contemplation. 
