Kinkisthebest

joined 1 year ago
[–] Kinkisthebest@lemmy.org 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Do US presidents get free healthcare from the state?

[–] Kinkisthebest@lemmy.org 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

But aren't healthier people also paying for insurance currently? I mean you don't get insured once you get sick but before you get sick am I wrong. So, wouldn't healthier people also be happy about paying less for insurance? Don't younger people also have insurance?

[–] Kinkisthebest@lemmy.org 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

By that logic, Germany is more communistic than North Korea. Haven't Americans heard of something called "positive liberty"?

 

I am Turkish and have been wondering about this for a while as a political science and international relations masters degree student. Obama served for 8 years and still many Americans are complaining about how bad their healthcare system is and insurance prices are so high etc etc. Then why doesn't any of them fix it. Here in Turkey, our leading party the AKP fixed the healthcare system so nicely that a lot of people from other countries are coming here for plastic surgeries and other healthcare services and the AKP party, as much as I hate to say it, fixed the healthcare system and now they are serving for their 4th term in a row.

 

Mine is East Germany. I think the German culture and heritage fits socialism really well. They always had a militaristic and hard working culture so that Soviet militarism would fit them pretty well (militarism does not mean attacking other countries or having a strong military but more like a dicipline structure overall). They would not mind having a police state where the military and the state controls everything. They were also the most loyal communist state to the Soviets.

[–] Kinkisthebest@lemmy.org 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I should have written things that make you happy but are also easy to achieve. Thats why I gave examples of food and drugs etc. Happiness which is hard to achieve or require you to push yourself to achieve them like the happiness doing sports, reading hard books which are things you have to spend quite a lot of time and have dicipline in order for you to enjoy them and reach happiness were not the things i was talking about.

[–] Kinkisthebest@lemmy.org 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Just look at the kind of language they are using.

[–] Kinkisthebest@lemmy.org -2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I was actually talking about things that bring happiness fastly like drugs but i think i should have explicitly stated that.

[–] Kinkisthebest@lemmy.org -2 points 6 months ago (5 children)

Yeah lol but I didnt expect them to get offended this much.

[–] Kinkisthebest@lemmy.org 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It is cruel if you keep it while other people dont have anywhere to live.

[–] Kinkisthebest@lemmy.org -1 points 7 months ago (3 children)

The bread was just an example. This can be anything. I mean communism doesnt mean that people can enter your house without your consent. If they need land to live, the society will give them one even if it means giving up some of your own land so no one will be left without somewhere to live but as i said, it will still become their property. So, there is nothing wrong about property ownership as long as you divide them equally.

 

I've completed Hobbes's Leviathan today and this came to my mind because people always refer to Hobbes as the founder of liberalism or at least an important philosopher in the development of liberalism. Many people also say that his ideas are centered on humans being self-preserving entities but he says humans are like that only in the state of nature. And he only mentions property rights and nothing like the existence of inheritence laws or anything. He also mentions that people should have an area in which they are free from other people but not from the sovereign. However, this does not imply liberalism in any way shape or form. I mean are people not allowed to enter eachothers' houses only in liberal societies?

For example, lets say you are living in some kind of a communist village of 50 families. You are the king and your village has produced 500 breads last week and you are going to distribute them equally among all families and you do this every month after you collect the entire production as tax to redistribute it late. So you gave 10 breads to each family for this week. If there were no property rights, then there is nothing preventing one of those families from stealing a bread from the other. One of those families may be sick which would make them more vulnerable to theft. In conclusion, you can distribute products produced equally but it should still become their property by law am I wrong?

I would write individualism vs collectivism too but it would be too long but in short, I think Hobbes defends collectivism in an indirect way despite popular belief. Hobbes does not say humans are inherently greedy and self-interested self-preserving individuals but they are like that in order to be able to protect themselves in the state of nature.

[–] Kinkisthebest@lemmy.org 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Kinkisthebest@lemmy.org 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Almost all of them I mean why do you think they supported Ronald Reagan so much and now Trump too. Here is your proof. Just look up who they voted for lol that will be your proof.

 

I mean can't we just enslave them if they think working a lot without asking much in return is ethical? If they think that the poor deserves to be poor and they will go to hell anyways so if we keep them poor and enslave them and tell them that they deserve it and should be working for us and simply accuse them of being sinful if they do not comply? If they want to be crushed under capitalism so much then why not just give them what they want and we can live comfortable and enjoyable lives while they are working for us.

Edit: Calvin says “It is enough to be successful at your job in for the lord to love you” and “The only job of business owners and traders should be increasing their wealth because even the god gave the duty of ruling over others to them”. Zubritski, Kerov, Mitropelski, The Primitive Community, the Slave Society, the Feudal Society, p.257 I read the book in a different laguage so made the translation by myself but of course you can find it in english too. So dear friend, it is perfectly ethical for calvinists to work their asses off without asking for much in return since business owners have to be as greedy as possible meaning that they should give as little as possible to their workers and in return, the only thing god wants from workers is to be good at their job and it is enough. Furthermore, Calvinists also believe that god chose an elected few and gave them the wealth and they will also go to heaven while all others will go to hell no matter what and thats why they are poor. By that logic, it is perfectly ethical for protestants if we ensave them and make them work for us for almost nothing in return and abuse them as much as we want too. We can eat an entire table of food while watching them suffer and beg us to give them some food even a single piece of bread and not even give that one since they also respect property rights at its fullest and they will still find this ethical. I hope this explains.

 

Hello, Im kind of new here and trying to get used to Lemmy and I was wondering about if this is true since I am considering donating on this site to support alternative projects but wanted to hear other users before doing so. That being said, what have been your experiences?

 

 

He literally proposed a wealth cap for which a single person can hold, minimum wage before it was a thing (the minimum wage was first introduced in 1938 for those who did not know). So, he went against capitalism in a way which doesn’t even exist in China today. Even in China, there is no wealth cap or something close to it. For example, Bernie Sanders wants to increase taxes in order to provide more public services which means he is not going against capitalism but only increasing taxes. Why isn't anyone doing this now and go against the establishment? Why doesn't anyone try going out of the boundries of capitalism?

 
  1. "Leftists are irreligious". People who say this do not live their religion properly as well. Money is a lot stronger than religion so everything under capitalism is done for money and nothing else. This means people will easily go against their religion and its teachings if it means they will earn more. Under communism however where money doesn not matter or at least matters less, religious people will become more genuine about their religion. As Marx and Engels say, everything is reduced to its exchange value. In addition to religion, nothing else such as culture, language, patriotism or anything else do not matter under capitalism since in reality, everything is about money and all of those above can be sacrifised if it will make one earn more money. In other words, capitalism makes money so valuable that everything else loses their meanings and only become meaningful after money.

  2. "You are against competition or you are too lazy". Socialism isnt a system in which you do not work or work less. It is a system in which you get the full value in return of your work. So leftists do want to work but not in a system where their labor is exploited by their bosses. For example, lets say you are working in a factory. You are putting your labor in to produce something but you dont get the value generated by that product. You boss sells that product and then gives you a very small portion of his profit while you deserve your part of the full value. In this case, you are the one producing the product but its your boss taking the reward. This is what leftists are against. In conclusion, its not about working less but its about getting the reward that you truly deserve in exchange for your labor.

  3. "Leftists will take away everything we have". This statement is actually true for bosses and business owners (at least those who have people working under them). But this is not true for those who are not exploiting other people's labor. Leftists are not against that kind of property ownership. So, if you produce a product only with your own labor and with no one else's, then you can keep the money you made by selling that product since you havent exploited anyone else during the process. What Marxists are against is workers putting all the effort while their bosses get everything in return. Wouldn't you want to take the full return of your labor and give nothing to your boss?

  4. "Leftists want to destroy the state and patriotism": In reality, one does not have a state at all if they are living under capitalism. Every working class people around the world is the same since you need "money" in order to be different and have the unique aspects of your country. Your state is only working in favor of the rich. This means it is meaningless to be patriotic about a country in which only the rich gets the benefit of anything good that happens to the country. Lets say a new technology is invented in your country. There is no point at being happy about it since it will only benefit the company which developed it and not you. So, you think you own a country but it only benefits the rich in reality. Ordinary people will die in a war and after that, it will be the rich which is going to invest in those newly occupied lands. So, even if you win the war, it does nothing in your favor as a working class person. As a result, there is nothing good about ebing patriotic under capitalism.

 

As a leftist, I think identity politics and anything else is there to distract us from our real purpose.

First of all, there are things that differentiate humans like gender, religion, race, economic status, social status, diseases and etc. These are the things that cause power dynamics to appear and create the strong and the weak groups. Secondly, these groups can interwine. For example, a person can be black which is considered inferior by most and can be rich which is considered being high status at the same time. A person can also be white but poor af. However, money is single-handedly more superior than any of those traits ive mentioned. In the presence of money, everything else becomes negligible. You can be black, jewish, female, lgbt member at the same time but if you are rich, then you will become far more superior than a white straight man who is poor. So, money in my opinion, should be the only focus of leftists. We need wealth equality more than anything else and everything else should either be ignored or delayed until we establish a sustainable system with wealth equality.

That being said, lets talk about the strength of these groups. As we all know, the enitre point of leftism is to unite those being oppressed and exploited under one flag to revolt against their exploiters to take back what once belonged to them. Then, build a new system where that exploitation will no longer be possible.

In order to achieve this goal, revolters should become stronger than their exploiters and overthrow them and this can only be done with having the advantage in numbers. If the exploited class does not have the number advantage, then they will not be able to win even if they all unite. As I said before, the battle here is always between the opressed and oppressor. So, it is important to pick the sides correctly in order to achieve a successful revolution.

Now, my idea is that the only conflict in which the oppressed side can be stronger than the oppressing class is the conflict between the rich and the poor. So, this is the side that should be picked when arranging the revolting group.

The reason why any other conflict you are going to pick will result in the stronger class being stronger is first, the superior class will always win in numbers. Secondly, as ive mentioned above, these classes will interwine with other categories of classification. For example, as i said, a black man can be richer than a white man. If you think Wiz Khalifa is being oppressed by some white American minimum wage worker, then your brain is rotten. Furthermore, lets say we defend women against men saying that women are being oppressed by men. This means you have to give women more rights in order to balance out this inequality. But this will result in you losing the support of half the population. Same goes with every other category of difference except the economic status of different people.

This is why the American left lost its last elections. They did not focus on economic aspects of leftism but literally anything else. They focused on lgbt education, gender studies, body positivity, wage gap, pink tax, Latinx and etc etc but not the wealth inequality in any conversation. Money became the least mentioned topic all of a sudden.

As a result, the democratic party could not change anything. Normally, for a capitalist country to thrive, there has to be competition among the rich. The US could not sustain that competition since corporations became too strong. For example, people like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos going on to stages and giving speeches about supporting a political party is something that you can only see happening in the US. Ronald Reagan reduced tax rates a lot hoping to increase competition and the government is the one that has to maintain the competition. For example, The Standard Oil Company was divided to prevent it from becoming a monopoly. This is no longer possible because of lobbying and low taxes. So, what happened was that Reagan gave more money to the rich which meant rich people had more money to use for lobbying. Now, if a person is already rich, then, they will act against competition in order to consolidate their power so that no new person will be able to get rich and they will remain as the sole monopoly. As a result, these companies got stronger and stronger over time until they were able to control the state. Today, as you can see we only have certain social media apps and nothing more. According to Reagan’s economic ideas, there had to be a lot more so that there would be competition among them and we would get better service and products from these sm companies for a lot cheaper prices but that did not happen and now, we have instagram, facebook, X, youtube, google, tiktok, reddit and nothing else. And most of these brands are owned by the same people so there isnt really any competition among these platforms ive mentioned either.

Before continuing, I would like to discuss what competition achieves. Competition means more job opportunities. More job opportunities means and increase in labor demand which means an increase in salaries and good working conditions. Competition also means higher quality and cheaper products. So, competition means you have more money with better working conditions and you can buy whatever good or service you want at the highest quality for the cheapest price. This was what Reagan thought that was going to happen but it didnt. Which resulted in a few monopolies in every sector that can offer whatever quality at whatever price they want to and prevent any government intervention through lobbying and if the government goes too far, they can also use the “liberty” card to prevent citizens from being protected by the government and easily exploited.

Today, as you can see, these companies will provide support for every cause such as body positivity by selling fast food and xxxlarge clothes and make ads showing off fat people. They will mention pink tax in their ads and even make tshirts about them. They will produce movies featuring black actors, trans characters, fat characters, they will show powerful female figures but none of them will mention anything about income inequality. Furthermore, they will even show white working class men as mean and oppressor people. This is how your attention is diverted. Another example is getting a female president. Margaret Tatcher was the british equivalent of Ronald Reagan but she was still a woman. Getting a female president will not solve anything. As I said all of these things are there to divide yo and distract you because all of your opinions are being controlled. You have lgbt education in your schools right? Do you also have a class about “wealth inequality”? which is a far more important subject and i think everyone can agree with me on this one. NO. They will never teach you abouut that. You will learn absolutely nothing about the hardships about life until you start working and until then, your brain will be filled with these garbage things so much that you will not even realize the real problem once you start working. Furthermore, you will support movements that divides the left such as people saying that white men created capitalism, white men are the reason why we dont have nice things etc.

As a result, the left wing will always be lower in terms of numbers and power compared to the class they want to revolt against unless if they only produce policies by taking only money into account. Everything else will ruin the left and make it weaker and weaker and in the end, even those who are poor will no longer support you. The right wing does not support them economically either but they support them in other issues such as cultural issues like defending white people from the accusations of the left. Money is still the most important thing and those are secondary issues but since the left does not care about wealth inequality anymore, they will think that the right wing at least helps them at something while the left does nothing. You guys dont even have free healthcare and you talk about “white people not being able to pronounce black people names right”. So, please dont be surprised when Europeans call you “stupid” the next time.

In conclusion, the left in the US and in some European countries are being manipulated very harshly and they dont even realize it. Those rich people made every single thing they could do to distract you from economic issues and you fell for all of them. Instead of offering help to the people who cannot get married and have a children, which is the most natural thing a human would want since the emergence of mankind or even before that, and instead, you accused them for being too conservative to build a family, you said men want to get married to oppress women, which resulted in you losing almost all support from men and some women. So, please only care about economic issues and nothing else if you ever want to bring america back to the days when worker compensation was equal to productivity. See ya.

 

Please guys if you are going to search a topic on youtube for example, first try other video websites or if you are going to ask something on reddit for example, ask it here or somewhere else. Everyone is complaining about the immense censorship and usage of bots and AI but still use those websites. If we do not create competition, they can so whatever they want and whatever earns them money. Quality will always decrease without competition in capitalism. This is true for any other business field. So, please use other websites as much as you can and let those Ive mentioned above be the last resort in case you cannot find what you want in any other website.

view more: next ›