>right wing ideology is just the politics of selfishnessIs this true? I could see it.
>>544090439Why do you need my money to support your pet niggers? If you cant afford them dont worship them
>>544090439Hey idiot. Charity and communism arent the same thing.
>>544090439>"Compared to Christianity, right-wing movements seem evil!"That's only because you're conditioned by the Bible to see proto-globohomo bullshit as "good"Galatians 3:28>There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Taking things other people own and give it away (while stuffing your own pockets) is not "selfless". It's selfishness on behalf of other peoples work.Selfless is only taking yours and giving it away.Someone that just keeps his own stuff and builds something for himself is less selfish than someone that advocates for stealing from others.
>>544090500Wasn't it the rich who bought and sold black people as slaves, though? You're making it sound like it was my choice to buy and import people like they're livestock.
Your average Reddit atheist is apathetic as fuck and that's one of the biggest sins imaginable; it's the sin that allows all others to flourish.
>>544090726The rich you mean you ? You imported all them willingly in current times
>>544090693See, I have a hard time understanding this. I have a fulltime job and work pretty hard at it. Even though I have relatively little, I've never resented those who have less or tried to characterize it as laziness or moral failure.
>>544090439what has selflessness done for our country recently besides letting in millions of undesirables and adding record debt to our deficit?I'm more conservative in my latter years because I learned how to balance and run a budget. Liberals and democrats remain such because they have no idea how anything works and thinks continuing to print money and fix everyone's booboos is a feasible platform to run on.
>>544090439>Capitalists want to remove Kikes from positions in the government and mediaKys OP
>>544090531You are right in the sense that charity is about helping other people from your own end while communism is about taking what should've belonged to you in the first place.
>>544090958Selflessness has done very little for us because it's not the dominant social current in America. It sounds like you're conflating a logistical failure to secure the border with selflessness. I think that a category error.
>>544090838Don't know if it's like that in the states but in Canada if you're low income you get a full tax return; to all the Wendy's & Walmart people don't pay into the system. The less you make the less they take, and when you hit upper middle class you get tax raped. So if you make little than you're technically not paying, so your opinion on the subject doesn't matter cause you're unaffected.
>>544091152Who would work at and buy from Walmart if not them? Everyone pays into the system. It doesn't exist in the first place without everyone interacting with it. I think your point stands in an extremely narrow tax-dollar sense but fails when you consider what an economy actually is.
>>544091106>doesn't address the obvious financial flaw in the ideologyevery single time.
Don't shit on selfishness, an amount of selfishness is required to maintain a balanced and healthy ego.Ideologies can balance each other out and it's why we have the kinds of systems we use today with separation of powers, finite terms, multilateral parties, but it seems the constant arguments has worn down people's moral and trust who now wish for political peace. They want somebody to win and stay in power so that the yelling and confusion may stop.
>>544091083you know nothing of Christianity. You DON'T LIVE IN A CHRISTIAN NATION AND YOU HAVEN'T BEEN STEEPED IN ITS CULTURE.Organized Christianity is Communism.Anyone that has spent their saturdays in CCD knows this.STFU jeet. you don't know shit
>>544091568What financial flaw? Oh, you meant the part where you talked about how good you are with money? I don't think I consciously ignored it, it just didn't seem like a really salient point. My bad. I think where I stand on that is that the evidence strongly suggests that most people aren't good at finances. There are, in fact, only a small minority of people who are. I'm not sure it makes sense for basic survival and welfare to be gated behind something only a few people are good at, right? Assuming, of course, that we share the broad philosophy that the function of a government is to provide for its citizens' welfare.
https://youtu.be/CsxCKkrWc6M?is=gSRnxj1UGh-RfdSe
>>544090439And it's justified
>>544091782you're spewing a lot of words for someone who can't offer a concise strategy to how we can properly finance everyone's social and physical well-being. When you have produced something tangible that doesn't include phrases like 'tax the rich' or 'increase taxes', then I'll have reason to listen to you.Until then you're just another faux-intellectual trying to win an argument with dolled-up words instead of actual solutions. Just like every other socialist shark out there.
>>544092318
>>544091721Organized Christianity is communism in the sense that China is communist. I.e. it’s only communist in the loose, middle school conception of any social welfare communism
>>544091106>It sounds like you're conflating a logistical failure to secure the border with selflessness.In 2020 every democrat running in the primaries said on stage during debate they believed there should be NO border at all. To claim it was a logistical failure that caused the border crisis is either gaslighting or ignorance. I'm gonna go with gaslighting. All your talk about morality is a cover for your sociopathic tendencies. Or do you mean to tell me you're actually retarded and have no idea what you're talking about?
>>544092397>someone who can't offer a concise strategy to how we can properly finance everyone's social and physical well-beingWe could increase the national budget by taxing the wealthy and corporations by ~$4t yearly -- and they would still be filthy rich. If we raised the federal minimum wage and increased the strength of unions (laws are already on the books, we just don't enforce them) we could do a lot to improve the lives of all Americans.
>>544092594>loves to use jargon>can't comprehend a simple prompt: 'no phrases like tax the rich'you just couldn't help yourself, could you retard? lmao
>>544090439>Is this true?If you invert reality, then yesKing of like when socialism call itself collectivist for demanding guaranteed "rights" without giving anything in return, but they say free market l's cooperation is individualism, when it revolves around having to care about caring about supplying demands, for others.
>>544092570>To claim it was a logistical failure that caused the border crisis is either gaslighting or ignorance.My language was probably a bit too strong, sure. I try to ignore id-pol as much as I possibly can, and calling it a logistical failure was a bit too bloodless. Woke sucked, and I do vaguely remember a lot of people posting on Twitter about open borders. This, though:>In 2020 every democrat running in the primaries said on stage during debate they believed there should be NO border at all.Sounds like a bit of a fib to me.
>>544092758Sorry man, taxing the rich is kind of central to my core thesis. I'm not going to discard the backbone of my entire political worldview. We've been cutting taxes progressively on the rich since the 80s. Reagan's promised trickle-down never came. It's time to admit that. And thanks for letting me dust off picrel. It's rare that I get to use it in such a clear-cut case kek
>>544090439>"If you have two shirts, give one away."The Bible is pretty clear that capitalism is anti-Christian, but Republikikes will ignore this and focus on some old testament story to justify sending money to Israel and killing Palestinian children instead.
>>544091782Indeed. In almost every society there exists some pathway where, if you play your cards exactly right, you can rise from the bottom to the top. A feudal peasant in medieval Europe could technically>be extremely fastidious and diligent with his farming and finances>use the proceeds to apprentice his son off to a skilled laborer>have said son be extremely fastidious and diligent with his work>become a wealthy merchant>use the proceeds to marry his child to a poor noble such that their son inherits the title>have that noble be extremely good with their land management until they rise through the ranks of the aristocracy>become kingYet (almost) nobody would contend that this society was "free" or "fair", because we recognize that the above mentioned pathway was unrealistically difficult, so whether a society is free and fair relies not only on the mere existence of pathways to prosperity but also how difficult they are to achieve - which, in our societies, has gotten progressively more difficult over the preceding decades. The existing power elite of course isn't bothered by this, since they already got theirs, so they're motivated to gaslight and dissimulate about this and simply point to the existence of said pathways while asserting>hey, the tools are right there in front of you, it's not my fault if you can't competeThus raising social tension (and thereby political instability) when the great mass of people recognize that this is increasingly only disingenuously true, and the former refuse to engage in the sort of renegotiation of the social contract necessary to return things to an equilibrium where it's actually true (the standard for which, which we decided the last time the elite got scared and had to deal with the issue in good faith, was that a single income at most jobs would be enough to own a house, support a family, and provide for your basic needs)
>>544092960I'll indulge you for one more post. Validate your rationale.Let's pretend for one second that you successfully manage to extort the wealthiest 1% for some quick cash this year. What do you do next year when they all pack up and decide to move their business headquarters to a state/country where they aren't being shaken down? What solutions would you offer to the communities that just lost several thousand jobs?Because that's not a hypothetical. It is already happening in several blue cities that have employed your exact rhetoric. Chicago and Seattle, example.What are your solutions to plug in the holes that your lame-brained ideas drill into local economies?
>>544093079Which is, of course, the virtue of mass immigration from the perspective of the elite, because it allows you break said contact by importing workers who you can subject to poorer conditions than were previously negotiated with the natives, then point to them and say>what, he can handle it, if you're not willing to accept the same conditions then I guess you're just lazy :^)
>>544090439No because most right wing policies are incredibly self destructive. Not that its believers aren't delusional enough to think they'll benefit.
>>544093079>>hey, the tools are right there in front of you, it's not my fault if you can't compete>Thus raising social tension (and thereby political instability) when the great mass of people recognize that this is increasingly only disingenuously trueGood post. I think this is kind of the crux of it. Competition, in a very narrow sense, is materially productive. I say this as someone who very obviously leans towards the social side of the argument. I have no problem believing that markets are efficient allocators of resources and that competition is an unconditionally pivotal component of this efficiency equation. The problem is that even if it isn't only "disingenuously true" (I agree) the system we have outlined here holds no explicit position on what it means to be one of the people who aren't good at competing. It doesn't take a stance on it. Markets and politics, therefore, are held separate. This system guarantees only efficiency. The problem is that they aren't at all separate, and that when your system takes no position on the "losers" in the game it sets up, this is a tacit approval of whatever happens. Because economics and politics are intertwined (inseparable, IMO) this defaults to giving the rich more and more political power. The rich are people who've focused on concentrating currency and wealth. What do you think they're going to do with political power? Concentrate more currency and wealth. I think the following is the central question of what it means to exist in 21st century late capitalism: >What do we do with the people who don't succeed under capitalism?Do we support them in basic existence? Do we provide them a dignified and comfortable basic existence? Or do we let them bloat and sicken and fight to the death for scraps? This question, I think, is going to grow and grow and grow until we can no longer ignore it. I think outcomes will be better if we address it soon, but I'm just an anonymous shitposter on 4chan.
>>544093361>What do you do next year when they all pack up and decide to move their business headquarters to a state/country where they aren't being shaken down?We have a range of options. Capital flight is a serious consideration, of course, but far from intractable. The foremost thing to realize here is that people who have American wealth are tied to the health of America. If you have a trillion dollars in an American corporation, if that corporation goes to zero, your wealth goes to zero, too. So their own interests will ultimately be in the health of American society. The issue, then, largely becomes tax havens. Sanctions and cooperation with Europe will largely solve that. Tax havens exist largely because we have lacked the attention span to overcome politicians' corruption. Capital is mobile to an extent, but its money flows through systems over which we have positive control. I would prefer not to coerce people, but if cooperation isn't possible, there aren't many more options, ultimately. After all, they're doing the same thing, right? It's just business.
>>544093846>more jargon>fails to explicitly produce solutions for holes in local economies created by senseless policy>chooses instead to bureaucratize a process that continues to empower the wealthy and keep the poor impoverishedThanks. That's all the proof I needed.
>>544094067Right on. Looks like you don't want to engage in substantive discussion but prefer this kind of... I don't know, "tally-based" system where you say something and then like, tick off boxes on a checklist as to which points were addressed? That didn't sound like good politics to me, but we're not exactly in an era characterized by good politics kek
>>544091721It's not.
>>544093642>What do we do with the people who don't succeed under capitalism?You take as given, among other things, that it's a good tool but a bad master. Yes, markets allocate resources efficiently under certain conditions, but a) not in all conditions and contexts, b) you have to do something about how they tend to produce runaway accumulation of wealth at the top to the "victors", and c) it provides ample room for the people pulling the strings at the top to administrate the system in such a way that they're benefiting at other's expense and then present the outcome as merely "darwinian natural law" or whatever. Capital should be allowed to do what it's good at while remaining firmly under the control of a central government that keeps it on a leash, based on its mandate to maximize prosperity for the nation rather than maximizing capital's returns
>>544092872It's not a fib.
>>544094720I'm probably closest to a market socialist, but I frankly don't care. I think there are multiple ways to get where we need to go, and which way is nominally superior to another is ultimately inconsequential to me, so long as we avoid autocracies in the aggregate political-economic system. I think orthodoxy in contemporary (and historical!) leftist thought has done more harm than good, and that it is possibly the greatest internecine danger in people who largely agree that capital is running roughshod over political and economic life in the West. We are at an historical moment where we could plausibly make enormous inroads into securing physical and political power for the broad, immiserated, disenfranchised masses. I hope we don't squander it by focusing on ideological purity. As unambitious as it sounds, I think we are best served by keeping it simple: >tax the rich>get money entirely out of politics>dramatically expand access to social programs>expand collective labor laws and enforce them with strict scrutinyWe have to remain open to the possibility that markets do or don't work. If we have a genuinely democratic process, and if we can keep it, the system will discover the utility of markets organically.
