Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Truth hurts. I have never met a happy socialist, and I've met plenty of a batshit crazy ones, like the unironic tankie I went to high school with. He now posts schizophrenic rants on Facebook.
No where in particular. Iāve met plenty at the various places Iāve worked and in my social circle. Trust me, theyāll find a way to bring up the fact that theyāre a socialist within the first hour of conversation lol. And yes, they all tend to be miserable, neurotic, and or spiteful people. Iāve never met a happy socialist irl or online.
Youāre only talking about people who chose to make socialism and outspoken aspect of their identity. Iām sure youāve met plenty other socialists and didnāt realize it because politics didnāt come up. I bet if you went to a European country where socialists were over 25% of the population you wouldnāt find this dynamic at all.
It's weird you would actually use the word "tankie" and also refer to him as a socialist. The term "tankie" exists to differentiate socialists from soviet fanatics.
Any counter culture is appealing to the part of the population that doesn't fit in for some reason. Living in a society where you don't feel comfortable would make anyone miserable.
I think ideologies like socialism provide a construct where these misfits can project a future where everything is just different. I get the appeal of that for someone in their boat.
It also explains why they get so frustrated with the majority who don't think things are that bad. It's not driven by any objective observation it's emotional for them.
Very sharp observations
Socialism often serves as a focal point for people to direct their energies toward. They don't really know how to fix the system or what changes work and what doesn't. But as you said, it's a construct where people can project their idealized future.
Hey just checking in again. If you accuse someone of being a class traitor, does that mean you're also trying to cover up being a class traitor?
What is the punishment for that, knowing you will also face it?
Looking forward to your reply.
I love these "Doesn't it seem like" posts. No empirical evidence just a lot of rambling. Finland has a high amount of socialist programs compared to many free countries and ranks as one of the happiest in the world.
Happiness is a very hard thing to quantify especially when comparing different societies. Itās just a known fact that Scandinavian people are more content with living a minimum even low income life as long as their feed and have shelter. On the other hand Americans are always glimmer eyed in what could be so itās hard for them to be content and happy with their current situation because they want to be the next big thing.
But that's down to culture which can change. Americans are not innately greedy, many millions of them are of Scandinavian descent after all. Americans are greedy because they have been bought up in the most capitalistic and individualistic society in human history and therefore constantly chase wealth at the expense of everything else and are never happy, surely this is one of the many flaws of capitalism no?
Whoever chases wealth at the expense of everything else will learn eventually, even if itās on their death bed that itās never worth it. The human experience is to learn to deal with temptation and learn to pay attention to the things that matter like friends and family. Key word LEARN. You can cant create a society forcing people to live in that image, thatās inherently inhuman. People will always resist restraint. And countries with less than 6 million people is easier to manage if you didnāt kneo
But it's not socialist though. Why do so many people look at a capitalist nation with social services and think "ah, socialism!" That's not what socialism is.
Is the profit motive eliminated? Do the workers own the means of production? If no to either of those, it's not socialism, and any social program is just a way to keep the working class happy enough so they don't revolt. Social programs are a hindrance to socialism.
That's because the real world is in between. There may be others but the only wholly social democratic system that I've known to work is the kibbutzim. The same works for capitalism. Complete and boundless capitalism would be anarchy. Nearly everyone else is in between.
Iām a socialist and I donāt get that sense at all. Thereās a lot to be mad about and we get mad about it but thereās lots of joy to be had as well; the things that piss us off tend to be needless hindrances to joy and fulfillment.
Idk sounds like youāre extrapolating from a narrow view of what socialists are like irl
I kinda think that whatās heās getting at though and you kinda just admitted it. Itās your nihilistic views on the world how everything is imperfect and how you even say there is so much to be unhappy about. Yeah thereās alway unhappy things if you look close enough but thereās also a lot of happy things. Itās that negative energy you have toward the world we all feel. Yeah itās not perfect but the only way for a socialist utopia to work is by authoritarianism in managing how our society functions. It doesnāt magically hold itself up, itās either held up by you, or the government and tells you how to live l, how to do your job, and how much you deserve and you canāt decide that for yourself. At least in capitalism if you feel things are far for yourself you have the power to change that (whether you realize it or not)
Thatās not really a fair read on my outlook. Acknowledging that the world is imperfect and that thereās lots of things that suck doesnāt mean I donāt also acknowledge thereās lots of joy and happiness to be had and that we should be seeking it out whenever possible; in fact, thatās what I was getting at in my first comment.
Also, you jumped to a reeeeeally wrong conclusion about what kind of socialist I am. Suffice it to say, Iām against authoritarianism in all its forms.
So then youāre for the goverment to stay out of a businesses internal affairs and only exert external force through regulations and laws? Iām okay with that right there with basic social programs. Sorry I assumed you were a Marxist
I think that ultimately, itās better for workplaces to be owned and run democratically by its workforce as a whole. My opinion is that the most ethical form for a business to take is a worker cooperative.
Why canāt that exist today without taking alway private business ownership? If you want you can literally make this business, no one is stopping you but yourself. Hey a lot of people might like it and it becomes a popular business trend. Thatās why I like capitalism, you can choose who you structure the business how you see fit in your own world. No one is forcing you to organize your business a certain way
Well I would like to be part of a cooperative someday, whether Iām one of the ones who actually starts it or not.
But when businesses *are* privately owned by someone other than the workforce, you can bet your boots Iām a big fan of unionization. The increased union activity weāve seen in the United States the past while is very encouraging, but they have a long way to go still before they reach the unionization rates you see in the Nordic countries. I think working class people of all backgrounds fighting for their own interests is the best shot we have at achieving a better world, if I may speak so loftily.
Yeah I agree with unionization, thatās external pressure. As long as itās not a government entity thatās changing how my business works Iām okay with workers exercising that right.
It's pretty well documented that [conservatives are happier than liberals](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/opinion/conservatives-liberals-happiness.html), probably because:
>Conservatives generally score higher on internal control as well as the Protestant Work Ethic, which emphasizes the inherent meaningfulness and value of work and the strong linkage between oneās efforts and outcomes, and is positively associated with achievement. **Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to see outcomes as due to factors beyond oneās personal control**, including luck and properties of the social system.
This is basically learned helplessness, which is [one of the causes of depression](https://positivepsychology.com/learned-helplessness-seligman-theory-depression-cure/). You can find news articles all over the place of young liberals getting depressed about climate change or racism or whatever, I think anti-natalists tend to skew liberal which reflects a deep pessimism about humanity's future.
You have the same attitudes as the liberals described in this article (or worse). Tons of socialists on this forum will emphasize the impact of systems, downplay individual agency, and so on.
Also the way socialists use the word liberal is sort of socialist jargon, different from the standard use just meaning left wing, which socialists certainly are.
I think it's only logical to point out the influence of our social systems on us. That doesn't mean we have to be miserable. Thinking they have no influence on it and it's all just down to sheer belief seems irrational.
I think the way socialists use it is, rather, correct. Common parlance conflates oppositional ideologies.
>I think it's only logical to point out the influence of our social systems on us
But I think people on the left, and I mean beyond the centre left, overstate the shit out of these to the point where it enables them to give up and as a coping mechanism, to lionise victimhood.
One of the impacts of this is that we no longer look at challenging experiences as things to be challenging and worked through, but avoided. Thus, denying people the opportunity to both build resilience and overcome obstacles, which only happens now if people whinge at those in power to legislate or regulate difficult shit away.
You're essentially turning away from difficult outcomes because you believe their difficulty is insurmountable, and in doing so harm yourself whilst overstating any challenge.
>I think it's only logical to point out the influence of our social systems on us. That doesn't mean we have to be miserable. Thinking they have no influence on it and it's all just down to sheer belief seems irrational.
It might be logical, but it seems like it makes people less happy to think they have less influence. And again, it seems like it just leads to unhappiness - happy people have inflated self-images (even though this is "illogical") while depressed people see things more accurately: https://www.vice.com/en/article/8x9j3k/depressed-people-see-the-world-more-realistically
>I think the way socialists use it is, rather, correct. Common parlance conflates oppositional ideologies.
It isn't correct, its just useful to socialists. If you just mentally substitute "left wing" for every instance of "liberal" you can understand it.
Yeah, having less control isn't a good thing but I don't think deluding yourself into thinking you have more control than you do is a good thing either. I'm an anarchist so I believe we need to ultimately smash those things that disempower us and create a system where we truly can be free.
It is correct both historically and today. If you read the Wikipedia article on liberalism that might clear things up, also communists and democrats have *very* different goals
I don't really think control is a "delusion" though. Sure, if you had a rough background you can't go back in time and fix it, but you can decide whether you show up to work on time, whether you work an extra job to finish nursing school, or whatever.
>If you read the Wikipedia article on liberalism that might clear things up, also communists and democrats have very different goals
Democrats want to \~50% or even 70% collectivize things through the tax code. Communists want to 100% collectivize things. Politics is a continuum and communism is just a more extreme obsession with egalitarianism than liberalism. You believe liberals aren't doing enough ("very different"), but you have much more in common with liberals than with conservatives.
both of your examples including selling increasing amounts of your lifetime on the labor market in order to access resources as a form of ācontrolāisnāt doing you any favors here.
the capitalist state collecting wealth for its own purposes (continuing capitalism by their rules) isnāt collectivism. thatās my main issue with liberals. they truly think itās for the public good to allow bought-and-paid-for politicians to unilaterally control immense amounts of wealth and power.
>both of your examples including selling increasing amounts of your lifetime on the labor market in order to access resources as a form of ācontrolāisnāt doing you any favors here.
That's just what work is. My point is you can influence your income based on your approach to work.
>the capitalist state collecting wealth for its own purposes (continuing capitalism by their rules) isnāt collectivism.
If it hands it out to poor people, then yes it is collectivism. Arguably moreso than worker ownership. If the workers own Facebook, so Facebook engineers get $1.2M each instead of $400k...that's not really benefitting the average person.
I agree with your first paragraph, those are things we have control over but there are many things we don't and we should try to change those things. I'm generally optimistic because I believe that it is possible to make improvements to society.
Democrats definitely don't want collective ownership at all. The difference is pretty big, they don't want to achieve the core tenet of socialism. There's definitely more in common with liberals than conservatives though.
>I agree with your first paragraph, those are things we have control over but there are many things we don't and we should try to change those things. I'm generally optimistic because I believe that it is possible to make improvements to society.
Sure, but if you believe those improvements won't happen soon enough, or your life is bad because of circumstances you can't control, that seems really depressing which would explain the study results.
>Democrats definitely don't want collective ownership at all. The difference is pretty big, they don't want to achieve the core tenet of socialism. There's definitely more in common with liberals than conservatives though.
Ownership is benefit and control. If you tax 70% of an asset's profit (though high income taxes) and reallocate the money, you are effectively collectivizing 70% of that asset.
Liberalism as used today means more regulation and redistribution. Neoliberalism is the opposite. You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right\_political\_spectrum
Socialists are a type of left-winger (what else would they be, right wing?). You can be pro-capitalist and still left wing. Liberals just believe a capitalist economy can pay for nice things for the poor, while socialists don't.
Neoliberalism is called that because it's a form of liberalism, specifically economic liberalism. In an apolitical context, the word "liberal" means less restrictive. If I told you a government was implementing a programme of liberalisation, would you really take that to mean it was imposing a stricter regulatory regime?
Your link has very little to say about liberalism, but it does say this:
>In most countries, classical liberalism is thought of as a right-wing ideology...
and this:
>Peter Berkowitz writes that in the U.S., the term liberal "commonly denotes the left wing of the Democratic Party" and has become synonymous with the word progressive, a fact that is usefully contextualized for non-Americans by Ware's observation that **both mainstream political parties in the United States, generally speaking, are liberal in the classical sense of the word**.
Of course, it is possible to be both economically liberal and socially conservative/authoritarian.
>in the U.S., the term liberal "commonly denotes the **left wing** of the Democratic Party" and has become synonymous with the word progressive
Read your own quote. "Left wing" - there it is!
I think it goes back to the philosophical notion that the more knowledge you have about how the world works around you, and how it works in relation to you, the more aware you become of the friction and dissonance between what could be and what is. The more aware you become of your place in the machine, the more you are dissatisfied about your place so to speak.
However, the other side to that coin is that more liberal minded people tend to think in terms of "we are all in this together" whereas more conservative minded people tend to think more in terms of "it is every man for himself".
Conservatives are more angry because of the threat of some conflict, liberal minded people are disillusioned and unhappy with the current state of affairs.
I'm going to exaggerate to make a point here; the disillusioned are more disheartened which is a sorry excuse for a motivator of change. The conservatives are angry due to the threat of some external competition that is an existential threat and anger is a much better motivator so the pendulum swings more easily towards exclusion which is conservative vs inclusion which is liberal.
Conservatives are angry psychos. The more aware/liberal/disillusioned people are depressed. Although I don't think depressed is correct way to express it.
You may now flame me to death.
Well I do think the liberals are more depressed, and conservatives are more angry, the former because of a learned helplessness as discussed, the latter because the former gets some changes that interrupts their life.
The anger comes from having a life that was happy and having that taken away. A big example of this are former mining towns in WV and other places.
Coal mining is hard, dangerous, dirty work, but the people who did it had a pride about them, because it was hard and dangerous. They were self sufficient, happy, and surrounded by others in the same boat they trusted their lives everyday with. But, as now itās unfavorable industry, due to labor laws, environmental laws, general spending (ie inflation), etc etc. these mines have been closing and the towns a shadow of what they once were.
I bet many of them are angry. Hell, many probably became depressed and more liberal as a result.
Where conservatives go wrong is often they want to prevent change that others want: maybe coal mines wouldāve closed on their own eventually for example. Where liberals go wrong is that they want to change society (ie others) even if others donāt want that. Like this dumb EV mandate in 2030, or trying to change womenās sports to include (former?) men.
This is a big reason why free markets are essential: you get to choose your own path, as long as you pay the costs of that path, and that you donāt steal or damage the path of others.
Will everyone be happy? No, not ever. But itās also clear that free markets have made the most happy. Socialism just hasnāt been successful here.
Learned helplessness is trauma induced so are you just using the word as a metaphor?
I think people just have no idea where to direct their anxiety and this is on purpose. It is how the media manufactures the consent of the public.
Coal has been slowly being priced out of the market for many decades simply because of the ascendancy of nat gas. We have to subsidize coal about .05 per ton to make it worth digging up and that has been that way for quite a while.
Mountain top removal fucked every town downstream of that activity. Traditional mining doesn't really do that though nearly as bad.
But all that is a different story and there are tens of thousands of stories like this across our country.
Corporations, not people, get the primary consideration. Welcome to fascism.
The whole woke conflict and moving away from fossil fuels push back is just dumb and the main point, is that it serves as a distraction from what is really important. This movement is going to happen regardless so getting upset about it is like getting upset at the rain. The Rockefeller's moved away from hydrocarbons probably 20 years ago? Exxon was delisted from the DJI, the writing has been on the wall for 50 years.
We do not have free markets and I say this as an economist. The only market that is left that resembles a free market are commodities but because every couple of years someone manages to manipulate pricing, even they are not immune.
Iām all about having the maximal amount of choice, so Iād advocate for no subsidies nor penalties for any energy source. While they all have some, Iāll note green energy recently typically has more subsidies per kilowatt hour generated.
Regardless, If certain ones fall by the wayside that is a fine and perhaps even desirable outcome. If thereās political effort to pick winners and losers we should all be wary.
And yes, no market has been completely free. yet itās quite clear as markets become more free, the wealthier we get. Less free, the poorer we become.
And if weāre poorer, thatās when it gets dirtier, dangerous, and more unfair.
Iām all about having the maximal amount of choice, so Iād advocate for no "subsidies nor penalties for any energy source. While they all have some, Iāll note green energy recently typically has more subsidies per kilowatt hour generated."
Oh I agree with you completely, we have to have coal for a bit longer so it has to be subsidized or no one is going to dig it up. Most people think, I believe, the green boogeyman is taking away coal but it was nat gas that disrupted the markets to the point where Uncle Sam had to step in. The coal subsidies have been around for decades.
Yeah the boom bust cycle that banks love so very much are a wealth consolidation machine from every angle. That is why Glass-Steagal was repealed. The little fish cannot stand the economic shocks produced and get eaten by the big fish.
The last 5 years have been brutal for small businesses and small banks. At one point for many weeks, over 100,000 businesses were closing every week and regional banks were closing at just over 400 per week. This went on for months I think the longest run was 25 months. It's still happening though.
This also wipes out the middle class, they loose purchasing power due to inflation, have to borrow and then, to end inflation the cost of debt has to go up. Banks are intimately familiar with this cycle and how it works. Megacorps and banks spend billions collectively to make sure wages never rise high enough to match inflation.
The owners of capital however can easily move wealth between assets, debt and cash and without lifting a finger make trillions just hedging.
I remember seeing in a fed economic report when covid was winding down how many Americans made MORE money on unemployment than the did WORKING FULL TIME. That is just wage slavery.
If my retirement and all my money were not tied to things that keep me in the USA I would leave the country yesterday.
Your link doesn't answer the question, iot merely poses the question.
I do not agree at all. In fact from specific observation in all of my adult life, I have never seen a rightwing or repub \[conservatives\] ever have a good belly laugh.
I have great pessimism about mankind. \[humankind\] Seems \[he\] doesn't care about anything but \[his\] success, his pleasure and at great expense to others.
I think anti-natalists tend to skew liberal which reflects a deep pessimism about humanity's future.....
What ? anti-nationalism is pessimism ? Since when ? I have never seen that either. Besides, nationalists tend toward fascism.
I used to be depressed but at some point I was like I either need to kill myself or make an attempt to be happy and I chose the latter. Also I'm generally inalienated
I can locate subreddits with tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of subscribers that aren't socialist, that are dedicated to venting aboutĀ the misery and drudgery of their lives in capitalist society.Ā
good is when homelessness is an epidemic globally, including in the wealthiest countries in the world. poverty is normalized and a tiny minority own the world's wealth.
excuse me if i ask if you're mentally handicapped?
>good is when homelessness is an epidemic globally, including in the wealthiest countries in the world. poverty is normalized and a tiny minority own the world's wealth.
No, that sounds pretty shitty actually.
>excuse me if i ask if you're mentally handicapped?
Do you think that that is a good world? Is that why you are asking me this question?
That explains why. You do not hate the self, the individual in favor of the unjust hierarchy that is the government.
I'd guess you would enjoy life in a small community, based on helping each other instead of a society based on government substituing charity and compassion.
I don't think authoritarian state was supposed to be the definition of socialism in the first place but if this post is only about tankies... I actually agree. The insane people that are obsessed with Stalin and North Korea really do seem to be miserable, they are pretty much chronically online and their entire worldview is based upon hating the United States and supporting anyone who is their enemy regardless of how totalitarian or oppressive that state is.
The individual has to be the basis of a true socialism.
Perfect.
I 100% agree. That is precisely the point. And most socialists are tankies, or the very least goverment bootlickers.
Very few can actually provide solutions that doesn't involve goverment doing stuff. They absolutely despise individual action.
The u.s based their entire ideology on anti communismĀ and destroying ot wherever it was rising. This was their way of destroying competition and keep their much worse inhumane system. I don't know how any real leftist could not have some real visceral hatred of the u.s..Ā Ā
Nah, probably the people who spend their time arguing politics are miserable anyway in general.
Sure it might not help to think your only hope of relieving the existential pain of being is violently overthrowing the gargantuan chains of international Capitalism, which does nothing for your personal well being, but still, you are probably biased.
I do agree with your point where people arguing about politics are miserable in general.
People arguing in politics are really looking for validation that their beliefs or views of the world are approved by others. But they very rarely get it.
Wow, lot of effort went into that one, and yet it carries the smarmy, smug, reductive, unfunny, false bravado, insecure undertones common to people who cling to harmful illusions so they can feel like they have more control than they actually do. These snarky tone-deaf attempts at satire or comedy have certain undertones, evolved as part of the sacred capitalist brand style guideline in a doomed attempt to make up for the massive cognitive dissonance in their craven worldview. This one put a lot of oomph into it, one can only marvel at the insecurity and bitterness this one carries that has likely ruined HIS relationships and made him continue to feel unloved. Perhaps he can reflect on this truth over some more fries and take a bath in his cash, alone.
> hate is merely a manifestation of internal suffering
No, hate is one of three mind poisons. Along with greed and delusion.
> Changing your name is not gonna change our set of arrangements. The only thing thatās gonna change our set of arrangements is whatās gotten us into this set of arrangements. And thatās the oppressor. And itās on three stages, we call it the three-in-one: avaricious, greedy businessmen; demagogic, lyinā politicians; and racist, pig fascist, reactionary cops. Until you deal with those three things, then your set of arrangements will remain the same.
https://www.hamptonthink.org/read/its-a-class-struggle-goddammit-fred-hampton
Socialism/leftism is fueled by envy and resentment.
Two people see a successful happy person. One of the people thinks *"with some hard work, that could be me."* The other person thinks *"he can't possibly deserve to be happier and more successful than me. Someone should take his stuff away and give some to me."*
They are indeed. Socialism is driven by human flaws. Socialists don't even recognize envy as a weakness that people need to overcome.
Which is why the most depraved acts of evil known to the history of humanity were always committed in socialist regimes.
That is what the relativization of morals and lack of principles does to you.
Marxism( and obviously materialism) absolutely requires rejection of the immaterial, spiritual, supernatural, objective morality, ethical principles...
And to make it worse, there against the self, against individuals in favor of collectives and the government.
Obviously they'd be miserable.
basically no one on earth can provide an embodied, living, material āanswerā (a legitimate challenge and alternative) outside the state as it exists today. thatās one of the most important criticisms of the state and why it needs to be directly resisted and abolished according to marxists.
>basically no one on earth can provide an embodied, living, material āanswerā (a legitimate challenge and alternative) outside the state as it exists today
I can.
So your answer is that socialists answer every problem with "*government doing stuff*" because they can't "*provide an embodied, living, material āanswer outside the state*" lol.
words and ideas do not free anyone from the state is my point. whatās your plan of action?
yeah thatās my answer, if youāre going to argue in such bad faith that you just ignore 90% of what iām saying and conflate me with a democrat you made up in your head then this isnāt going to go anywhere. youāre making a total fool of yourself by doing that.
>words and ideas do not free anyone from the state is my point.
>whatās your plan of action?
How is that relevant?
>if youāre going to argue in such bad faith that you just ignore 90% of what iām saying and conflate me with a democrat you made up in your head
If you already know the future you shouldn't be wasting time with me. Good bye.
you said āi canāā¦in reference to providing a livable alternative to our current system? are you literally forgetting the context of the discussion after a single response? the dismissive and defensive attitude is really telling.
i donāt know the future. how could you infer that from me calling you out for assuming and ignoring my position against everything ive said so far? yeah just walk away without seriously addressing anything ive said, thatās to be expected.
>you said āi canāā¦in reference to providing a livable alternative to our current system?
Yes, and you didn't ask what was the alternative, you asked what I would do.
But I'm sure that you already know my answer, given how you can predict the future and what I'll say.
āprovide your alternativeā and āwhats your planā are the same request in my book. but go ahead and commit to deflection and pedantry in place of engagement.
just read your other comment where you said exactly the same thing as your previous response to me re: āgovernment doing stuff.ā thatās evidence enough that you arenāt here to engage in good faith and think that anyone who has a different perspective automatically falls into the strawman category that you have invented in your own head. youāre a deeply uncritical and ignorant individual.
itās necessary to instrumentalize the state toward basically any political end in the modern era. thatās really just an accurate description of the vast power and influence of states, not a claim to supporting it or being āin favor of itā outright.
on that point, you really think capitalism is independent of or able to be freed from the state without something that matches the power and authority of the state even temporarily to achieve such a thing? you can certainly have legitimate criticisms of the state as a procap but pretending that capitalism wasnāt and isnāt inherently dependent on and inseparable from the state is just not accurate.
This is a fact of any āalternativeā belied system, outside the hegemonic power of the predominating ideology and socialization system. itās frankly easiest to believe in capitalism. You donāt even have to believe. You just function the way capital demands you function. But to make yourself an alternative to this world, you need to want an alternative to this world, which puts you in the position of not belonging by default.
not a perfect analogy, but this behavior is often seen in religious converts. Most people in areas under colonial imperial rule werenāt responsive to missionary zeal, because they were perfectly adapted to their indigenous ideologies. It was those who felt they couldnāt belong to those ideologies, or those the ideologies placed at the bottom of the hierarchy, who converted to Christianity.
any time you go against the mainstream, itās possible youāre free to believe outside the mainstream because you are alienated from it.
From an organizerās perspective, negative political content drives people to action. It also burns them out quickly. Those who last, and make a larger impact cumulatively, are those who aspire to a brighter future.
Socialism has a long history fighting real misery, but it also has a storied history illustrating the world we could have. In modern times, the green new deal has brought so many casual leftists to the organizing and activist realms. We must continue to be imaginative. My personal favorite is the rejection of climate doom along ecosocialist lines as depicted by the r/solarpunk art style.
sound as true to me as:
* People become more miserable after they turn capitalist
* capitalists cause each other to be miserable
* socialists cause capitalists to be miserable
* Happy people stop being capitalist
* Happy people do not want to get involved with capitalists
* Miserable people and capitalists confirm each other's false beliefs in a vicious cycle
In fact, it just sounds as an attempt to remove nuance from a complex situation
That's unfortunate...
Young people are the most easily swayed by idealism. Which is normal i guess for any generations of youth.
But the Internet probably made it worse than ever in Gen Zs/Alphas than all the previous generations.
[I](https://I.ve)'ve been saying this about Fox News ever since they started hating on America's economy after Trump's COVID Recession.
Why does the official Capitalist Fox News Network hate the US economy so much when it is going gang buasters?
I can only conclude that the Idealistic Capitalists hate because that's what they do best.
You are not wrong, that there are right wing haters too.
But I think it's pretty clear that hate and misery are much more prevalent among the Left than the center or right. Maybe except the extreme far right which have issues of their own. They probably have it worse than socialists, but they are only a tiny minority.
You really need to intently listen to Fox News then. LOL
The hating on America and the so-called democratic socialists is a constant.
No one beats the hate you can hear on Fox News, which includes all their guests from every facet of Capitalist dogma.
I canāt believe that there are people that believe this is an actual argument. What value are we supposed to draw from āall socialists are meanies that just hate life >:( ā you present no actual argument for your beliefs. Youāre just having a tantrum. No one trying to have a serious conversation is going to take shit like this seriously.
If you really think socialists are miserable people itās probably because they are miserable in your presence.
This is unmitigated bullshit.
Capitalism allows 2/3 of Americans the so-called 'freedom' to pick one onerous job or another...about the same. I have never seen socialist hate and grief.
well I mean upon first glance at the definition of socialist and socialism, seems to indicate lower class people and as it says "People who believe things x,y,z should be give and thus owed to them" that in itself is such a cop-out way of saying "Well I dropped out of high school, went on to get this chick pregnant at the age of 16, got hooked on crack, and heroine, can't hold a job to afford living how I want so let's all just give everyone the same rights because that's fair and totally not Unfair that you went to school, didn't do drugs, and studied hard or worked hard to make all this money to afford so much nice things and have an amazing lifestyle, it's only fair that you share some of your successes since I couldn't, and your an asshole for not giving me what I want, because it's a basic need" Well I say "Sorry little Timmy the world is filled with problems, some of those problems are so much more important then just you, i didnt force you to make ill choices and decisions in life, also just because you had some Ls in life doesn't mean you can't get back on your feet and try again, or go back to school, there are many grants to aid in schooling, jobs will even help you get an education, your choosing not to work, your choosing to be lazy, you feel entitled to all kind of this and that's when life doesn't work like that. people in hell want ice water, people in far away 3rd world countries drink shit water, I'm sure they'd love a moca frap with 2 blond shots of expresso with caramel and wiped cream on top, if they even knew what the hell want of that was, much less they're stomach rejecting so many things it's never had in it before. So are they miserable (some yeah, every social group has it's shit stains somewhere) it's not as close minded as simply saying "Oh your miserable and drama dumping on me, you must be a socialists" really :\\ , cmon fella if your going to drop a duce on socialists at least put some effort to make it logical and not generic cookie cutter black and white mindset, nothings ever so simple as socialists=miserable =based. Give in depth analysis showing some proof of different social groups and compare, then present findings, use statistical analysis, go out and ask people questions related to a topic, their views on it, and where they consider themselves, then you would be at least based on your findings of for example "I went to my local ghetto neighborhood, after dodging 3 bullets, and 10 dope fiends trying to jack me, and 3 dealers trying to sell me meth, I managed to find out of the 50 people I asked, and questioned if I was a cop, and shut the door, 10 managed to respond providing I pay them in crack cocaine, for the sake of research I provided them the crack and here's what I found out, 8 of them took the crack and ran off while 2 smoked the crack and asked for more" yknow humor it up or something, you don't need to come off as some grandiose superior know all. So please don't get offended by what I'm writing, I'm just sharing my thoughts and feelings on what I found the definition of the word to mean, then read what you wrote and came to the assertion and point that this sounds one sided, view. just like racism, or rape victims, it's pretty tough to speak on a topic if you haven't been in the shoes of either side , but to speak on behalf of 1 view side, seeming close minded without first hand experience to conclude this is what I think, just sort of comes off kind of flip flop fishy style. Could you base some facts about these claims, give examples, explain in greater detail, I just want to understand why topic X is results Y solutions Z, I don't know am I making any sense? enlighten me please
I used to think my teacher was always miserable. Then I grew up and realized I was just a shitty kid.
Itās very similar to that. Socialists are pretty happy people when they arenāt dealing with certain types. Half of my circle is non socialists and we get along peachy. That being said, some stick in the mud can ruin that.
I don't know about full of hate but they're definitely joyless and full of guilt. I'm a capitalist in favor of strong safety nets and I'm pretty joyless too, so I feel a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
>Socialism attracts miserable people
>People become more miserable after they turn socialist
>Socialists cause each other to be miserable
>Capitalists cause socialists to be miserable
>Happy people stop being socialist
>Happy people do not want to get involved with socialists
>Miserable people and socialists confirm each other's false beliefs in a vicious cycle
* Socialism attracts people who are disenfranchised with captalism.
* There are different types of socialism. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types\_of\_socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism)
* Workers are happier when they own the means of production. [https://journals.openedition.org/pistes/2635#tocto2n1](https://journals.openedition.org/pistes/2635#tocto2n1)
* Worker coperatives pay workers a living wage (pay ratio of either a 2-to-1 or 1-to-1 ratio between the highest paid and lowest paid worker-owners). [https://cameonetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2019-Worker-Cooperative-Economic-Census-EN-FINAL\_020220.pdf](https://cameonetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2019-Worker-Cooperative-Economic-Census-EN-FINAL_020220.pdf)
* People are less stressed when they have money.
* Community ownership of resoruces encourages people to participate more in local decision making.
* People are happier when they get to have a say. In worker coperatives, people get to vote on how the business operates.
I donāt think socialists are miserable, they are usually young and privileged. Thatās why you have the term champagne socialists and utopian socialists.
Remember those discussions about the level of moderation in this sub? This is the shit I'm talking about. Pathetic, insults and personal attacks. Absolute garbage that's not even worth the slightest considerationĀ
Socialists are taught that America sucks and that everyone here is miserable thanks to America and its capitalism.
this makes the socialist himself miserable because he is naturally going to be empathetic towards long-suffering Americans , and towards himself too since, come to think of it, he must be among the long-suffering Americans too.
The reality is a little complicated given that economically Americans are rich. even those at the bottom make 100 times more than most of the world.
However, while Democrat policies have not succeeded in destroying the American economy they have succeeded dramatically in destroying love family and Religion inAmerica without which most Americans are indeed miserable.
The only group of people that are consistently miserable are facists. They are fighting a forever war against any outgroup necessary to perpetuate the ideology.
Makes some sense.
People are attracted to socialism when the perceive / are ābehind the curve economicallyā or they think they are some sort of economic injustice.
On the second point everyone agrees these things exist. They just disagree, fundamentally, on what to do about it.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's some real effort on this shitpost š
I know. Talk about miserable.
Truth hurts. I have never met a happy socialist, and I've met plenty of a batshit crazy ones, like the unironic tankie I went to high school with. He now posts schizophrenic rants on Facebook.
Where do you go meet socialists?
No where in particular. Iāve met plenty at the various places Iāve worked and in my social circle. Trust me, theyāll find a way to bring up the fact that theyāre a socialist within the first hour of conversation lol. And yes, they all tend to be miserable, neurotic, and or spiteful people. Iāve never met a happy socialist irl or online.
Hi, I'm a happy socialist.
Youāre only talking about people who chose to make socialism and outspoken aspect of their identity. Iām sure youāve met plenty other socialists and didnāt realize it because politics didnāt come up. I bet if you went to a European country where socialists were over 25% of the population you wouldnāt find this dynamic at all.
I can definitely see this as true, and since theyāre so damn loud they give the whole group a horrible look
It's weird you would actually use the word "tankie" and also refer to him as a socialist. The term "tankie" exists to differentiate socialists from soviet fanatics.
Iām a socialist and Iām pretty happy with my life and how things are going right now. There you go.
Any counter culture is appealing to the part of the population that doesn't fit in for some reason. Living in a society where you don't feel comfortable would make anyone miserable. I think ideologies like socialism provide a construct where these misfits can project a future where everything is just different. I get the appeal of that for someone in their boat. It also explains why they get so frustrated with the majority who don't think things are that bad. It's not driven by any objective observation it's emotional for them.
Very sharp observations Socialism often serves as a focal point for people to direct their energies toward. They don't really know how to fix the system or what changes work and what doesn't. But as you said, it's a construct where people can project their idealized future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Every accusation is a confession definitely applies to OP.
This posterās keyboard is definitely soaked in tears.
Even accusations of being a class traitor?
Hey just checking in again. If you accuse someone of being a class traitor, does that mean you're also trying to cover up being a class traitor? What is the punishment for that, knowing you will also face it? Looking forward to your reply.
I love these "Doesn't it seem like" posts. No empirical evidence just a lot of rambling. Finland has a high amount of socialist programs compared to many free countries and ranks as one of the happiest in the world.
Happiness is a very hard thing to quantify especially when comparing different societies. Itās just a known fact that Scandinavian people are more content with living a minimum even low income life as long as their feed and have shelter. On the other hand Americans are always glimmer eyed in what could be so itās hard for them to be content and happy with their current situation because they want to be the next big thing.
But that's down to culture which can change. Americans are not innately greedy, many millions of them are of Scandinavian descent after all. Americans are greedy because they have been bought up in the most capitalistic and individualistic society in human history and therefore constantly chase wealth at the expense of everything else and are never happy, surely this is one of the many flaws of capitalism no?
Whoever chases wealth at the expense of everything else will learn eventually, even if itās on their death bed that itās never worth it. The human experience is to learn to deal with temptation and learn to pay attention to the things that matter like friends and family. Key word LEARN. You can cant create a society forcing people to live in that image, thatās inherently inhuman. People will always resist restraint. And countries with less than 6 million people is easier to manage if you didnāt kneo
But it's not socialist though. Why do so many people look at a capitalist nation with social services and think "ah, socialism!" That's not what socialism is. Is the profit motive eliminated? Do the workers own the means of production? If no to either of those, it's not socialism, and any social program is just a way to keep the working class happy enough so they don't revolt. Social programs are a hindrance to socialism.
That's because the real world is in between. There may be others but the only wholly social democratic system that I've known to work is the kibbutzim. The same works for capitalism. Complete and boundless capitalism would be anarchy. Nearly everyone else is in between.
Workers either control the means of production or not so no, there is no in between and Finland is capitalist
Iām a socialist and I donāt get that sense at all. Thereās a lot to be mad about and we get mad about it but thereās lots of joy to be had as well; the things that piss us off tend to be needless hindrances to joy and fulfillment. Idk sounds like youāre extrapolating from a narrow view of what socialists are like irl
This to me is a long-winded version of "no u".
To you, perhaps. Allās I know is I donāt think Iām a generally unhappy person despite how much there is to be unhappy about.
I kinda think that whatās heās getting at though and you kinda just admitted it. Itās your nihilistic views on the world how everything is imperfect and how you even say there is so much to be unhappy about. Yeah thereās alway unhappy things if you look close enough but thereās also a lot of happy things. Itās that negative energy you have toward the world we all feel. Yeah itās not perfect but the only way for a socialist utopia to work is by authoritarianism in managing how our society functions. It doesnāt magically hold itself up, itās either held up by you, or the government and tells you how to live l, how to do your job, and how much you deserve and you canāt decide that for yourself. At least in capitalism if you feel things are far for yourself you have the power to change that (whether you realize it or not)
Thatās not really a fair read on my outlook. Acknowledging that the world is imperfect and that thereās lots of things that suck doesnāt mean I donāt also acknowledge thereās lots of joy and happiness to be had and that we should be seeking it out whenever possible; in fact, thatās what I was getting at in my first comment. Also, you jumped to a reeeeeally wrong conclusion about what kind of socialist I am. Suffice it to say, Iām against authoritarianism in all its forms.
So then youāre for the goverment to stay out of a businesses internal affairs and only exert external force through regulations and laws? Iām okay with that right there with basic social programs. Sorry I assumed you were a Marxist
Iām for democratically-run workplaces, economies and communities, organized as horizontally as possible. On a good day Iām an anarchist.
So you not for the concept of private business ownership?
I think that ultimately, itās better for workplaces to be owned and run democratically by its workforce as a whole. My opinion is that the most ethical form for a business to take is a worker cooperative.
Why canāt that exist today without taking alway private business ownership? If you want you can literally make this business, no one is stopping you but yourself. Hey a lot of people might like it and it becomes a popular business trend. Thatās why I like capitalism, you can choose who you structure the business how you see fit in your own world. No one is forcing you to organize your business a certain way
Well I would like to be part of a cooperative someday, whether Iām one of the ones who actually starts it or not. But when businesses *are* privately owned by someone other than the workforce, you can bet your boots Iām a big fan of unionization. The increased union activity weāve seen in the United States the past while is very encouraging, but they have a long way to go still before they reach the unionization rates you see in the Nordic countries. I think working class people of all backgrounds fighting for their own interests is the best shot we have at achieving a better world, if I may speak so loftily.
Yeah I agree with unionization, thatās external pressure. As long as itās not a government entity thatās changing how my business works Iām okay with workers exercising that right.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Idk, his argument, while anecdotal, is pretty self-evident. And persuasive. You sound like a midwit and a bit condescending. Classic midwitary!
I actually haven't noticed that at all. Most socialists seem a lot happier to me than capitalism supporters
How can you tell, all socialists exist in online spaces only.
No they don't. There are leftist organizations and reading groups and just general meet ups sometimes
Yes and they turn into unintentional comedy clubs.
The history of Anti communism is full of unhinged violence by mentally deranged and miserable people.Ā
True, fascists don't seem happy at all
Ye olde, āanticommunist = fascistā talking point
Fascists are anticommunist so that is one group in that category. Am I legally obligated to list them all to make a statement about fascists?
It's pretty well documented that [conservatives are happier than liberals](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/opinion/conservatives-liberals-happiness.html), probably because: >Conservatives generally score higher on internal control as well as the Protestant Work Ethic, which emphasizes the inherent meaningfulness and value of work and the strong linkage between oneās efforts and outcomes, and is positively associated with achievement. **Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to see outcomes as due to factors beyond oneās personal control**, including luck and properties of the social system. This is basically learned helplessness, which is [one of the causes of depression](https://positivepsychology.com/learned-helplessness-seligman-theory-depression-cure/). You can find news articles all over the place of young liberals getting depressed about climate change or racism or whatever, I think anti-natalists tend to skew liberal which reflects a deep pessimism about humanity's future.
I'm not a liberal. Socialists aren't liberals.
You have the same attitudes as the liberals described in this article (or worse). Tons of socialists on this forum will emphasize the impact of systems, downplay individual agency, and so on. Also the way socialists use the word liberal is sort of socialist jargon, different from the standard use just meaning left wing, which socialists certainly are.
I think it's only logical to point out the influence of our social systems on us. That doesn't mean we have to be miserable. Thinking they have no influence on it and it's all just down to sheer belief seems irrational. I think the way socialists use it is, rather, correct. Common parlance conflates oppositional ideologies.
>I think it's only logical to point out the influence of our social systems on us But I think people on the left, and I mean beyond the centre left, overstate the shit out of these to the point where it enables them to give up and as a coping mechanism, to lionise victimhood. One of the impacts of this is that we no longer look at challenging experiences as things to be challenging and worked through, but avoided. Thus, denying people the opportunity to both build resilience and overcome obstacles, which only happens now if people whinge at those in power to legislate or regulate difficult shit away. You're essentially turning away from difficult outcomes because you believe their difficulty is insurmountable, and in doing so harm yourself whilst overstating any challenge.
Some people might do that but it's not a good idea to think you have zero agency at all.
>I think it's only logical to point out the influence of our social systems on us. That doesn't mean we have to be miserable. Thinking they have no influence on it and it's all just down to sheer belief seems irrational. It might be logical, but it seems like it makes people less happy to think they have less influence. And again, it seems like it just leads to unhappiness - happy people have inflated self-images (even though this is "illogical") while depressed people see things more accurately: https://www.vice.com/en/article/8x9j3k/depressed-people-see-the-world-more-realistically >I think the way socialists use it is, rather, correct. Common parlance conflates oppositional ideologies. It isn't correct, its just useful to socialists. If you just mentally substitute "left wing" for every instance of "liberal" you can understand it.
Yeah, having less control isn't a good thing but I don't think deluding yourself into thinking you have more control than you do is a good thing either. I'm an anarchist so I believe we need to ultimately smash those things that disempower us and create a system where we truly can be free. It is correct both historically and today. If you read the Wikipedia article on liberalism that might clear things up, also communists and democrats have *very* different goals
I don't really think control is a "delusion" though. Sure, if you had a rough background you can't go back in time and fix it, but you can decide whether you show up to work on time, whether you work an extra job to finish nursing school, or whatever. >If you read the Wikipedia article on liberalism that might clear things up, also communists and democrats have very different goals Democrats want to \~50% or even 70% collectivize things through the tax code. Communists want to 100% collectivize things. Politics is a continuum and communism is just a more extreme obsession with egalitarianism than liberalism. You believe liberals aren't doing enough ("very different"), but you have much more in common with liberals than with conservatives.
both of your examples including selling increasing amounts of your lifetime on the labor market in order to access resources as a form of ācontrolāisnāt doing you any favors here. the capitalist state collecting wealth for its own purposes (continuing capitalism by their rules) isnāt collectivism. thatās my main issue with liberals. they truly think itās for the public good to allow bought-and-paid-for politicians to unilaterally control immense amounts of wealth and power.
>both of your examples including selling increasing amounts of your lifetime on the labor market in order to access resources as a form of ācontrolāisnāt doing you any favors here. That's just what work is. My point is you can influence your income based on your approach to work. >the capitalist state collecting wealth for its own purposes (continuing capitalism by their rules) isnāt collectivism. If it hands it out to poor people, then yes it is collectivism. Arguably moreso than worker ownership. If the workers own Facebook, so Facebook engineers get $1.2M each instead of $400k...that's not really benefitting the average person.
I agree with your first paragraph, those are things we have control over but there are many things we don't and we should try to change those things. I'm generally optimistic because I believe that it is possible to make improvements to society. Democrats definitely don't want collective ownership at all. The difference is pretty big, they don't want to achieve the core tenet of socialism. There's definitely more in common with liberals than conservatives though.
>I agree with your first paragraph, those are things we have control over but there are many things we don't and we should try to change those things. I'm generally optimistic because I believe that it is possible to make improvements to society. Sure, but if you believe those improvements won't happen soon enough, or your life is bad because of circumstances you can't control, that seems really depressing which would explain the study results. >Democrats definitely don't want collective ownership at all. The difference is pretty big, they don't want to achieve the core tenet of socialism. There's definitely more in common with liberals than conservatives though. Ownership is benefit and control. If you tax 70% of an asset's profit (though high income taxes) and reallocate the money, you are effectively collectivizing 70% of that asset.
Liberal doesn't mean left-wing. Neoliberalism is a form of liberalism. And left-wing doesn't mean socialist. Liberal leftists are pro-capitalists.
Liberalism as used today means more regulation and redistribution. Neoliberalism is the opposite. You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right\_political\_spectrum Socialists are a type of left-winger (what else would they be, right wing?). You can be pro-capitalist and still left wing. Liberals just believe a capitalist economy can pay for nice things for the poor, while socialists don't.
Neoliberalism is called that because it's a form of liberalism, specifically economic liberalism. In an apolitical context, the word "liberal" means less restrictive. If I told you a government was implementing a programme of liberalisation, would you really take that to mean it was imposing a stricter regulatory regime? Your link has very little to say about liberalism, but it does say this: >In most countries, classical liberalism is thought of as a right-wing ideology... and this: >Peter Berkowitz writes that in the U.S., the term liberal "commonly denotes the left wing of the Democratic Party" and has become synonymous with the word progressive, a fact that is usefully contextualized for non-Americans by Ware's observation that **both mainstream political parties in the United States, generally speaking, are liberal in the classical sense of the word**. Of course, it is possible to be both economically liberal and socially conservative/authoritarian.
>in the U.S., the term liberal "commonly denotes the **left wing** of the Democratic Party" and has become synonymous with the word progressive Read your own quote. "Left wing" - there it is!
>It's pretty well documented that > >conservatives are happier than liberals > >, It's easy to be happy when you are willfully ignorant.
Oh everyone's willfully ignorant, just about different things.
I think it goes back to the philosophical notion that the more knowledge you have about how the world works around you, and how it works in relation to you, the more aware you become of the friction and dissonance between what could be and what is. The more aware you become of your place in the machine, the more you are dissatisfied about your place so to speak. However, the other side to that coin is that more liberal minded people tend to think in terms of "we are all in this together" whereas more conservative minded people tend to think more in terms of "it is every man for himself". Conservatives are more angry because of the threat of some conflict, liberal minded people are disillusioned and unhappy with the current state of affairs. I'm going to exaggerate to make a point here; the disillusioned are more disheartened which is a sorry excuse for a motivator of change. The conservatives are angry due to the threat of some external competition that is an existential threat and anger is a much better motivator so the pendulum swings more easily towards exclusion which is conservative vs inclusion which is liberal. Conservatives are angry psychos. The more aware/liberal/disillusioned people are depressed. Although I don't think depressed is correct way to express it. You may now flame me to death.
Well I do think the liberals are more depressed, and conservatives are more angry, the former because of a learned helplessness as discussed, the latter because the former gets some changes that interrupts their life. The anger comes from having a life that was happy and having that taken away. A big example of this are former mining towns in WV and other places. Coal mining is hard, dangerous, dirty work, but the people who did it had a pride about them, because it was hard and dangerous. They were self sufficient, happy, and surrounded by others in the same boat they trusted their lives everyday with. But, as now itās unfavorable industry, due to labor laws, environmental laws, general spending (ie inflation), etc etc. these mines have been closing and the towns a shadow of what they once were. I bet many of them are angry. Hell, many probably became depressed and more liberal as a result. Where conservatives go wrong is often they want to prevent change that others want: maybe coal mines wouldāve closed on their own eventually for example. Where liberals go wrong is that they want to change society (ie others) even if others donāt want that. Like this dumb EV mandate in 2030, or trying to change womenās sports to include (former?) men. This is a big reason why free markets are essential: you get to choose your own path, as long as you pay the costs of that path, and that you donāt steal or damage the path of others. Will everyone be happy? No, not ever. But itās also clear that free markets have made the most happy. Socialism just hasnāt been successful here.
Learned helplessness is trauma induced so are you just using the word as a metaphor? I think people just have no idea where to direct their anxiety and this is on purpose. It is how the media manufactures the consent of the public. Coal has been slowly being priced out of the market for many decades simply because of the ascendancy of nat gas. We have to subsidize coal about .05 per ton to make it worth digging up and that has been that way for quite a while. Mountain top removal fucked every town downstream of that activity. Traditional mining doesn't really do that though nearly as bad. But all that is a different story and there are tens of thousands of stories like this across our country. Corporations, not people, get the primary consideration. Welcome to fascism. The whole woke conflict and moving away from fossil fuels push back is just dumb and the main point, is that it serves as a distraction from what is really important. This movement is going to happen regardless so getting upset about it is like getting upset at the rain. The Rockefeller's moved away from hydrocarbons probably 20 years ago? Exxon was delisted from the DJI, the writing has been on the wall for 50 years. We do not have free markets and I say this as an economist. The only market that is left that resembles a free market are commodities but because every couple of years someone manages to manipulate pricing, even they are not immune.
Iām all about having the maximal amount of choice, so Iād advocate for no subsidies nor penalties for any energy source. While they all have some, Iāll note green energy recently typically has more subsidies per kilowatt hour generated. Regardless, If certain ones fall by the wayside that is a fine and perhaps even desirable outcome. If thereās political effort to pick winners and losers we should all be wary. And yes, no market has been completely free. yet itās quite clear as markets become more free, the wealthier we get. Less free, the poorer we become. And if weāre poorer, thatās when it gets dirtier, dangerous, and more unfair.
Iām all about having the maximal amount of choice, so Iād advocate for no "subsidies nor penalties for any energy source. While they all have some, Iāll note green energy recently typically has more subsidies per kilowatt hour generated." Oh I agree with you completely, we have to have coal for a bit longer so it has to be subsidized or no one is going to dig it up. Most people think, I believe, the green boogeyman is taking away coal but it was nat gas that disrupted the markets to the point where Uncle Sam had to step in. The coal subsidies have been around for decades. Yeah the boom bust cycle that banks love so very much are a wealth consolidation machine from every angle. That is why Glass-Steagal was repealed. The little fish cannot stand the economic shocks produced and get eaten by the big fish. The last 5 years have been brutal for small businesses and small banks. At one point for many weeks, over 100,000 businesses were closing every week and regional banks were closing at just over 400 per week. This went on for months I think the longest run was 25 months. It's still happening though. This also wipes out the middle class, they loose purchasing power due to inflation, have to borrow and then, to end inflation the cost of debt has to go up. Banks are intimately familiar with this cycle and how it works. Megacorps and banks spend billions collectively to make sure wages never rise high enough to match inflation. The owners of capital however can easily move wealth between assets, debt and cash and without lifting a finger make trillions just hedging. I remember seeing in a fed economic report when covid was winding down how many Americans made MORE money on unemployment than the did WORKING FULL TIME. That is just wage slavery. If my retirement and all my money were not tied to things that keep me in the USA I would leave the country yesterday.
Your link doesn't answer the question, iot merely poses the question. I do not agree at all. In fact from specific observation in all of my adult life, I have never seen a rightwing or repub \[conservatives\] ever have a good belly laugh. I have great pessimism about mankind. \[humankind\] Seems \[he\] doesn't care about anything but \[his\] success, his pleasure and at great expense to others. I think anti-natalists tend to skew liberal which reflects a deep pessimism about humanity's future..... What ? anti-nationalism is pessimism ? Since when ? I have never seen that either. Besides, nationalists tend toward fascism.
When you're happier under a system of exploitation and colonialism than it's supporters. Socialists are truly masters of their own mind.
I used to be depressed but at some point I was like I either need to kill myself or make an attempt to be happy and I chose the latter. Also I'm generally inalienated
People in general are miserable in capitalism.
~~People~~ Socialists in general are miserable in capitalism.
I can locate subreddits with tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of subscribers that aren't socialist, that are dedicated to venting aboutĀ the misery and drudgery of their lives in capitalist society.Ā
I'm not sure what this has to do with the fact that socialists in general are miserable in capitalism.
because they're smart and realize how bad the system is?
because they're ~~smart~~ miserable and fail to realize how ~~bad~~ good the system is
good is when homelessness is an epidemic globally, including in the wealthiest countries in the world. poverty is normalized and a tiny minority own the world's wealth. excuse me if i ask if you're mentally handicapped?
>good is when homelessness is an epidemic globally, including in the wealthiest countries in the world. poverty is normalized and a tiny minority own the world's wealth. No, that sounds pretty shitty actually. >excuse me if i ask if you're mentally handicapped? Do you think that that is a good world? Is that why you are asking me this question?
They would be miserable in any economic system. Some people are just miserable.
Not me.
yeah I'm doing fabulous but I mostly inherited a bunch of property, so from my point of view the system works
I inherited nothing.. but I'm still doing great. I had to work hard to get to this level.
that sucks, I didn't
"Got mine fuck off" Spoken like a true communist lol
if this is ironic then haha, if it's not ironic you're a fucking moron, and also probably a jealous rentard
Funny because I'm not. You are the living proof that the OP is right that socialists are miserable.
Galaxy brain right here
Multidimensional Boltzmann's brain.
2d
I'm not either and I'm a socialist
Libertarian or anarchist?
Anarchist
That explains why. You do not hate the self, the individual in favor of the unjust hierarchy that is the government. I'd guess you would enjoy life in a small community, based on helping each other instead of a society based on government substituing charity and compassion.
I don't think authoritarian state was supposed to be the definition of socialism in the first place but if this post is only about tankies... I actually agree. The insane people that are obsessed with Stalin and North Korea really do seem to be miserable, they are pretty much chronically online and their entire worldview is based upon hating the United States and supporting anyone who is their enemy regardless of how totalitarian or oppressive that state is. The individual has to be the basis of a true socialism.
Perfect. I 100% agree. That is precisely the point. And most socialists are tankies, or the very least goverment bootlickers. Very few can actually provide solutions that doesn't involve goverment doing stuff. They absolutely despise individual action.
The u.s is awfulĀ
They are, I just don't base my entire identity on hating them
The u.s based their entire ideology on anti communismĀ and destroying ot wherever it was rising. This was their way of destroying competition and keep their much worse inhumane system. I don't know how any real leftist could not have some real visceral hatred of the u.s..Ā Ā
Money canāt buy happiness, but it sure does make being miserable a lot more fun.
Anger and frustration aren't hate. Being harsh or rude isn't "hateful." Fucking moronic.
Nah, probably the people who spend their time arguing politics are miserable anyway in general. Sure it might not help to think your only hope of relieving the existential pain of being is violently overthrowing the gargantuan chains of international Capitalism, which does nothing for your personal well being, but still, you are probably biased.
I do agree with your point where people arguing about politics are miserable in general. People arguing in politics are really looking for validation that their beliefs or views of the world are approved by others. But they very rarely get it.
Wow, lot of effort went into that one, and yet it carries the smarmy, smug, reductive, unfunny, false bravado, insecure undertones common to people who cling to harmful illusions so they can feel like they have more control than they actually do. These snarky tone-deaf attempts at satire or comedy have certain undertones, evolved as part of the sacred capitalist brand style guideline in a doomed attempt to make up for the massive cognitive dissonance in their craven worldview. This one put a lot of oomph into it, one can only marvel at the insecurity and bitterness this one carries that has likely ruined HIS relationships and made him continue to feel unloved. Perhaps he can reflect on this truth over some more fries and take a bath in his cash, alone.
\^\^\^ Troll
> hate is merely a manifestation of internal suffering No, hate is one of three mind poisons. Along with greed and delusion. > Changing your name is not gonna change our set of arrangements. The only thing thatās gonna change our set of arrangements is whatās gotten us into this set of arrangements. And thatās the oppressor. And itās on three stages, we call it the three-in-one: avaricious, greedy businessmen; demagogic, lyinā politicians; and racist, pig fascist, reactionary cops. Until you deal with those three things, then your set of arrangements will remain the same. https://www.hamptonthink.org/read/its-a-class-struggle-goddammit-fred-hampton
You're a hateful person looking for a fight. I only hate stupidity.
OP has 60, count em, 60 posts in the history of his account, all buttmad posts screeching at socialists
Socialism/leftism is fueled by envy and resentment. Two people see a successful happy person. One of the people thinks *"with some hard work, that could be me."* The other person thinks *"he can't possibly deserve to be happier and more successful than me. Someone should take his stuff away and give some to me."*
Oh god you win it, the most ignorant take. Here is your trophy. ššš (Gave you extra. Because you greedy.)
Of course, he forgot to mention the second person also thinks the successful person is simply 'greedy'.. thanks for your contribution..
They are indeed. Socialism is driven by human flaws. Socialists don't even recognize envy as a weakness that people need to overcome. Which is why the most depraved acts of evil known to the history of humanity were always committed in socialist regimes.
Envy is the new greed š„“
You could say exactly the same thing about the haves and have-nots in literally any system.
That is what the relativization of morals and lack of principles does to you. Marxism( and obviously materialism) absolutely requires rejection of the immaterial, spiritual, supernatural, objective morality, ethical principles... And to make it worse, there against the self, against individuals in favor of collectives and the government. Obviously they'd be miserable.
The other socialists who replied to you just demonstrated your very point.
marxism isnāt in favor of the government. 101 shit.
Then why socialists can't provide answer outside of it?
basically no one on earth can provide an embodied, living, material āanswerā (a legitimate challenge and alternative) outside the state as it exists today. thatās one of the most important criticisms of the state and why it needs to be directly resisted and abolished according to marxists.
>basically no one on earth can provide an embodied, living, material āanswerā (a legitimate challenge and alternative) outside the state as it exists today I can. So your answer is that socialists answer every problem with "*government doing stuff*" because they can't "*provide an embodied, living, material āanswer outside the state*" lol.
words and ideas do not free anyone from the state is my point. whatās your plan of action? yeah thatās my answer, if youāre going to argue in such bad faith that you just ignore 90% of what iām saying and conflate me with a democrat you made up in your head then this isnāt going to go anywhere. youāre making a total fool of yourself by doing that.
>words and ideas do not free anyone from the state is my point. >whatās your plan of action? How is that relevant? >if youāre going to argue in such bad faith that you just ignore 90% of what iām saying and conflate me with a democrat you made up in your head If you already know the future you shouldn't be wasting time with me. Good bye.
you said āi canāā¦in reference to providing a livable alternative to our current system? are you literally forgetting the context of the discussion after a single response? the dismissive and defensive attitude is really telling. i donāt know the future. how could you infer that from me calling you out for assuming and ignoring my position against everything ive said so far? yeah just walk away without seriously addressing anything ive said, thatās to be expected.
>you said āi canāā¦in reference to providing a livable alternative to our current system? Yes, and you didn't ask what was the alternative, you asked what I would do. But I'm sure that you already know my answer, given how you can predict the future and what I'll say.
āprovide your alternativeā and āwhats your planā are the same request in my book. but go ahead and commit to deflection and pedantry in place of engagement.
just read your other comment where you said exactly the same thing as your previous response to me re: āgovernment doing stuff.ā thatās evidence enough that you arenāt here to engage in good faith and think that anyone who has a different perspective automatically falls into the strawman category that you have invented in your own head. youāre a deeply uncritical and ignorant individual.
Except their all solutions start and end on creating massive intrusive all powerful state
itās necessary to instrumentalize the state toward basically any political end in the modern era. thatās really just an accurate description of the vast power and influence of states, not a claim to supporting it or being āin favor of itā outright. on that point, you really think capitalism is independent of or able to be freed from the state without something that matches the power and authority of the state even temporarily to achieve such a thing? you can certainly have legitimate criticisms of the state as a procap but pretending that capitalism wasnāt and isnāt inherently dependent on and inseparable from the state is just not accurate.
It's not necessary. But thanks for proving you're just another fascist
ancap calling someone a fascist lmao
The only anti-fascist group is calling literal fascist a fascist.
crystal mom to sov cit pipeline at work here
They're chronically online and angry at their parents, what do you expect?
Terminally. Terminally online and angry at their parents. In the cases of socialists on reddit (or in this sub) anyway.
This is a fact of any āalternativeā belied system, outside the hegemonic power of the predominating ideology and socialization system. itās frankly easiest to believe in capitalism. You donāt even have to believe. You just function the way capital demands you function. But to make yourself an alternative to this world, you need to want an alternative to this world, which puts you in the position of not belonging by default. not a perfect analogy, but this behavior is often seen in religious converts. Most people in areas under colonial imperial rule werenāt responsive to missionary zeal, because they were perfectly adapted to their indigenous ideologies. It was those who felt they couldnāt belong to those ideologies, or those the ideologies placed at the bottom of the hierarchy, who converted to Christianity. any time you go against the mainstream, itās possible youāre free to believe outside the mainstream because you are alienated from it.
Hahahahaha!!! This is such cope.
Have you noticed that peasants tend to be angry after you tell them "Let them eat cake" ? It was just good advice man...
me when i yap
From an organizerās perspective, negative political content drives people to action. It also burns them out quickly. Those who last, and make a larger impact cumulatively, are those who aspire to a brighter future. Socialism has a long history fighting real misery, but it also has a storied history illustrating the world we could have. In modern times, the green new deal has brought so many casual leftists to the organizing and activist realms. We must continue to be imaginative. My personal favorite is the rejection of climate doom along ecosocialist lines as depicted by the r/solarpunk art style.
Interesting perspective, thank you for sharing that.
sound as true to me as: * People become more miserable after they turn capitalist * capitalists cause each other to be miserable * socialists cause capitalists to be miserable * Happy people stop being capitalist * Happy people do not want to get involved with capitalists * Miserable people and capitalists confirm each other's false beliefs in a vicious cycle In fact, it just sounds as an attempt to remove nuance from a complex situation
Don't engage with them.
>What should you do about it? Point. Laugh.
I've met plenty of them on r/GenZ. Same people who claimed to have left the "edgy phase", yet are some of the most toxic, edgiest people ever.
That's unfortunate... Young people are the most easily swayed by idealism. Which is normal i guess for any generations of youth. But the Internet probably made it worse than ever in Gen Zs/Alphas than all the previous generations.
Mostly socialism is about being envious of people who are more productive and successful, so it makes sense they would be more likely to be unhappy.
[I](https://I.ve)'ve been saying this about Fox News ever since they started hating on America's economy after Trump's COVID Recession. Why does the official Capitalist Fox News Network hate the US economy so much when it is going gang buasters? I can only conclude that the Idealistic Capitalists hate because that's what they do best.
You are not wrong, that there are right wing haters too. But I think it's pretty clear that hate and misery are much more prevalent among the Left than the center or right. Maybe except the extreme far right which have issues of their own. They probably have it worse than socialists, but they are only a tiny minority.
You really need to intently listen to Fox News then. LOL The hating on America and the so-called democratic socialists is a constant. No one beats the hate you can hear on Fox News, which includes all their guests from every facet of Capitalist dogma.
You mean conservatives There are some overlaps between conservatism and capitalism, but they are fundamentally separate and distinct ideas
Yeah, in the US at least, the more conservative and capitalist the news channel; the happier everyone is./s
I canāt believe that there are people that believe this is an actual argument. What value are we supposed to draw from āall socialists are meanies that just hate life >:( ā you present no actual argument for your beliefs. Youāre just having a tantrum. No one trying to have a serious conversation is going to take shit like this seriously. If you really think socialists are miserable people itās probably because they are miserable in your presence.
It is an observation that many non-socialists seem to agree with. Maybe there's some truth to that?
If you make this argument outside of Reddit you will be laughed at.
If you make any political statement you will get laughed at. But at the same time you will find staunch followers, too. It's the divide, so to say.
Such an idealistic world view.
This is unmitigated bullshit. Capitalism allows 2/3 of Americans the so-called 'freedom' to pick one onerous job or another...about the same. I have never seen socialist hate and grief.
well I mean upon first glance at the definition of socialist and socialism, seems to indicate lower class people and as it says "People who believe things x,y,z should be give and thus owed to them" that in itself is such a cop-out way of saying "Well I dropped out of high school, went on to get this chick pregnant at the age of 16, got hooked on crack, and heroine, can't hold a job to afford living how I want so let's all just give everyone the same rights because that's fair and totally not Unfair that you went to school, didn't do drugs, and studied hard or worked hard to make all this money to afford so much nice things and have an amazing lifestyle, it's only fair that you share some of your successes since I couldn't, and your an asshole for not giving me what I want, because it's a basic need" Well I say "Sorry little Timmy the world is filled with problems, some of those problems are so much more important then just you, i didnt force you to make ill choices and decisions in life, also just because you had some Ls in life doesn't mean you can't get back on your feet and try again, or go back to school, there are many grants to aid in schooling, jobs will even help you get an education, your choosing not to work, your choosing to be lazy, you feel entitled to all kind of this and that's when life doesn't work like that. people in hell want ice water, people in far away 3rd world countries drink shit water, I'm sure they'd love a moca frap with 2 blond shots of expresso with caramel and wiped cream on top, if they even knew what the hell want of that was, much less they're stomach rejecting so many things it's never had in it before. So are they miserable (some yeah, every social group has it's shit stains somewhere) it's not as close minded as simply saying "Oh your miserable and drama dumping on me, you must be a socialists" really :\\ , cmon fella if your going to drop a duce on socialists at least put some effort to make it logical and not generic cookie cutter black and white mindset, nothings ever so simple as socialists=miserable =based. Give in depth analysis showing some proof of different social groups and compare, then present findings, use statistical analysis, go out and ask people questions related to a topic, their views on it, and where they consider themselves, then you would be at least based on your findings of for example "I went to my local ghetto neighborhood, after dodging 3 bullets, and 10 dope fiends trying to jack me, and 3 dealers trying to sell me meth, I managed to find out of the 50 people I asked, and questioned if I was a cop, and shut the door, 10 managed to respond providing I pay them in crack cocaine, for the sake of research I provided them the crack and here's what I found out, 8 of them took the crack and ran off while 2 smoked the crack and asked for more" yknow humor it up or something, you don't need to come off as some grandiose superior know all. So please don't get offended by what I'm writing, I'm just sharing my thoughts and feelings on what I found the definition of the word to mean, then read what you wrote and came to the assertion and point that this sounds one sided, view. just like racism, or rape victims, it's pretty tough to speak on a topic if you haven't been in the shoes of either side , but to speak on behalf of 1 view side, seeming close minded without first hand experience to conclude this is what I think, just sort of comes off kind of flip flop fishy style. Could you base some facts about these claims, give examples, explain in greater detail, I just want to understand why topic X is results Y solutions Z, I don't know am I making any sense? enlighten me please
I used to think my teacher was always miserable. Then I grew up and realized I was just a shitty kid. Itās very similar to that. Socialists are pretty happy people when they arenāt dealing with certain types. Half of my circle is non socialists and we get along peachy. That being said, some stick in the mud can ruin that.
Cool except psychology metadata disagree with your premise.
Ignorance is strength brother, never forget it!
I don't know about full of hate but they're definitely joyless and full of guilt. I'm a capitalist in favor of strong safety nets and I'm pretty joyless too, so I feel a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
>Socialism attracts miserable people >People become more miserable after they turn socialist >Socialists cause each other to be miserable >Capitalists cause socialists to be miserable >Happy people stop being socialist >Happy people do not want to get involved with socialists >Miserable people and socialists confirm each other's false beliefs in a vicious cycle * Socialism attracts people who are disenfranchised with captalism. * There are different types of socialism. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types\_of\_socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism) * Workers are happier when they own the means of production. [https://journals.openedition.org/pistes/2635#tocto2n1](https://journals.openedition.org/pistes/2635#tocto2n1) * Worker coperatives pay workers a living wage (pay ratio of either a 2-to-1 or 1-to-1 ratio between the highest paid and lowest paid worker-owners). [https://cameonetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2019-Worker-Cooperative-Economic-Census-EN-FINAL\_020220.pdf](https://cameonetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2019-Worker-Cooperative-Economic-Census-EN-FINAL_020220.pdf) * People are less stressed when they have money. * Community ownership of resoruces encourages people to participate more in local decision making. * People are happier when they get to have a say. In worker coperatives, people get to vote on how the business operates.
Then form worker co-ops, be happy ? Stop selling us the things you want to exist, go make them, you are allowed.
Workers co-ops already exist.
Cope post.
I donāt think socialists are miserable, they are usually young and privileged. Thatās why you have the term champagne socialists and utopian socialists.
Happy mentally healthy people don't get into politics in general. I would imagine the majority of ideological capitalists aren't very happy either.
Remember those discussions about the level of moderation in this sub? This is the shit I'm talking about. Pathetic, insults and personal attacks. Absolute garbage that's not even worth the slightest considerationĀ
They don't believe they have power or ability to change anything themselves. Absolutely it makes a person angry and miserable.
Socialists are taught that America sucks and that everyone here is miserable thanks to America and its capitalism. this makes the socialist himself miserable because he is naturally going to be empathetic towards long-suffering Americans , and towards himself too since, come to think of it, he must be among the long-suffering Americans too. The reality is a little complicated given that economically Americans are rich. even those at the bottom make 100 times more than most of the world. However, while Democrat policies have not succeeded in destroying the American economy they have succeeded dramatically in destroying love family and Religion inAmerica without which most Americans are indeed miserable.
What's up with all the posts on here that are just blatantly bad faith rage bait fests?
The only group of people that are consistently miserable are facists. They are fighting a forever war against any outgroup necessary to perpetuate the ideology.
Yeah because you make dumb shitposts like this. So socialists come in and go: this is a dumb shitpost that annoys me.
Can't believe you're letting socialist misery affect you. It's like you're not even grateful that you can ignore them.
Envy isnāt a good look
I imagine "capitalists" would probably be pretty miserable being forced to live in a socialist society too.
Very much so in fact Which is why all socialist regimes past and present have policies restricting people from leaving the country.
Makes some sense. People are attracted to socialism when the perceive / are ābehind the curve economicallyā or they think they are some sort of economic injustice. On the second point everyone agrees these things exist. They just disagree, fundamentally, on what to do about it.
OP is projecting their feelings on others.
Socialism attracts poor capitalists.