Albert Einstein argues for Socialism, and my response

This is the argument of Albert Einstein against capitalism and my response to his argument. I encourage people to read it if they wish.

For his argument, see here: http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/uploads/Einstein%20on%20Why%20Socialism.pdf

My argument:

First of all, Einstein comes in with an argument based on a previous conclusion that competition is bad. He says that the goal of companies is to destroy each other through legal means and that this is inherently evil. He declares that the sole goal of these corporations is to create profit and destroy other companies. One fundamental flaw is that he ignores the consumer and only talks about the capitalists. While companies try to harm each other, one must realize that at the end of the day, whichever company survives is based off of two factors: Asset management and the consumer. If a company does not manage it's assets properly, the company will fail. This doesn't just apply to a company, but it also applies to governments. The difference is, if one company, unless it has a monopoly which would be unlawful in a capitalist society anyways, goes under, there are numerous other companies to choose from. If a government goes under, one does not simply leave the country. The second factor is the consumer. At the end of the day, it is the consumer who decides which company lives and which one goes bankrupt. Companies compete for the goal of making profit, something they can only get if the consumer feels that the company's product benefits them. If the consumer does not like a product, they have numerous other companies to buy from. In a socialist economy, if they don't like the product, they are still forced to buy it along with everyone else. So while companies may be harmed, ultimately, it is the consumer, the majority, which is benefitted.

Secondly, Einstein gets his argument completely wrong on wages. According to Einstein, workers are not payed based on how much work they do and how much they contribute (their worth), but rather get payed the bare minimum. If this argument were true, you would see 99% of Americans on minimum wage. However, this is not the case. Rather, only about 5-10% of Americans are payed minimum wage. The other 90-95% get payed above the minimum wage plus benefits because that is how much they are worth. A lawyer does not get payed minimum wage because he does a ton of work. A cashier gets payed minimum wage because he just stands there and says "fries with that?" while taking people's orders. These people can easily be replaced, therefore, they are not worth more than minimum wage. In a socialist society, however, this would not be any better. In fact, wages would be even more disproportionate based on work. In a socialist society, a cashier and the president of McDonalds gets the same pay, even though the president of McDonalds, despite popular belief among socialists who think running companies are easy, is much more work and is much more important than a simple, replaceable, cashier. Minimum wage has just created a long line of unemployed people who are worth less than minimum wage.

Next, Einstein discusses the flow of capital and how it generally ends up in the hands of a small few. While this may be true to an extent, this doesn't make it unjustified. Capitalism provides everyone the chance for everyone to become rich. Some succeed, others fail. Not everyone needs to be rich though. Capitalism gave rise to the middle class, a class between the rich and the poor. People in the middle class generally live comfortably without having millions, if not, billions of dollars to their expense. If all capital truly went into the hands of a small few, there would not be any middle class. Also, remember in the first paragraph where I discussed how companies succeed or fail based on consumer needs. The rich generally get rich off of those willing to buy their products. If these people become rich, it is solely because people not as rich as them are willing to buy their products. They got rich off of other people allowing them to.

Fourthly, Einstein discusses labor. He states that no way to ensure that everyone willing to work will get a job. However, there really is no alternative to this. In a socialist economy, jobs do not come out of nowhere and are not created for no reason, just the same as a capitalist economy. If a person is only skilled in one area of which there is no demand for more workers, neither a capitalist nor socialist economy will be providing him with a job in that field. Einstein also mentions that the free market brings forth technology that causes unemployment. The only reason such technology exists to put others out of a job is because it is simply cheaper for companies to use technology rather than actual people. This brings us back to the economic worth of an individual. For example, a fast food restaurant decides it can no longer continue paying it's employees minimum wage because it is causing them to raise their prices and lose business. For this reason, they replace the employees with self check-outs. This is not a product of capitalism, this is a product of social programs destroying the lower income earners. There is no reason to pay someone more than they are worth. Remember that when these employees are replaced by cheaper machines, prices go down and the consumers benefit. Einstein states that unlimited competition leads to a waste of labor, but the truth is, that is the only way to keep so many people employed. The more competition there is, the more companies there are, the more people are employed. If there was no competition, there would simply not be enough areas to keep the majority employed since you only need enough employees to create one company. Only with competition can you keep so many people employed.

Lastly, Einstein states that only a planned economy can possibly work for everyone. Every country in history with a completely planned economy has failed. The USSR had the lowest GDP per capita in the world in 1989. North Korea is in famine. East German vs West German development shows how poorly the planned economy turned out for East Germany. A centrally planned economy is based on the assumption that government will always be in your best interest. Even if it is, one single organization cannot address the needs of every individual. Hundreds of thousands of companies, large and small, are what can provide for every individual need because they need to in order to turn a profit. Einstein continues by saying that education should be based more around social goals than competition. This only works as long as people do not realize that they can essentially do nothing and still be winners. The idea is simple. If there are too many people on the wagon and too few pulling it, you will not progress anywhere. Humans are not stupid creatures and they realize that if they can do nothing and still do as well as everyone else, they will do it. Humans are not ants and bees. Humans do not act purely based on instinct. Humans can think for themselves and for that reason, humans cannot conform to socialism.

I will finish this off by saying that Einstein got it completely wrong on his economic ideology.

I don't have time do discuss your whole interpretation of Einstein argument, so I will just focus on a few point for now.

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 07:42

According to Einstein, workers are not payed based on how much work they do and how much they contribute (their worth), but rather get payed the bare minimum. If this argument were true, you would see 99% of Americans on minimum wage. However, this is not the case. Rather, only about 5-10% of Americans are payed minimum wage. The other 90-95% get payed above the minimum wage plus benefits because that is how much they are worth.

1 - Paid*

2 - Minimun wage has nothing to do with what Einstein is talking about. Read about surplus-value and you will understand it better, but basically, it means that every worker, no matter how much he get's paid, will always receive less than he's worth it for sure. Thinking A lawyer, a doctor or even a Mc Donald's employee is producing less money than he's getting paid for is an innocent belief. If that was true, then answer me where does the profit comes from

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 07:42

Capitalism provides everyone the chance for everyone to become rich. Some succeed, others fail.

That's the worst fallacy that keeps being repeated over and over. Meritocracy doesn't exist. Rich kids go to the best school, the best college (considering the poor ones can actually go to college) and have nothing to worry about besides getting prepared to fullfill their role in the marketplace where they will start already at good positions because of networking + education (that was a privilege).

I want to see people talking about meritocracy when they need to study and work (real work, 40 hour a week) as teenagers, while they can't afford a private college and won't go to a public one either, because they couldn't afford a better education when younger.

Eshkruar nga Pinheiro, 21.01.2014 at 08:08

I don't have time do discuss your whole interpretation of Einstein argument, so I will just focus on a few point for now.

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 07:42

According to Einstein, workers are not payed based on how much work they do and how much they contribute (their worth), but rather get payed the bare minimum. If this argument were true, you would see 99% of Americans on minimum wage. However, this is not the case. Rather, only about 5-10% of Americans are payed minimum wage. The other 90-95% get payed above the minimum wage plus benefits because that is how much they are worth.

1 - Paid*

2 - Minimun wage has nothing to do with what Einstein is talking about. Read about surplus-value and you will understand it better, but basically, it means that every worker, no matter how much he get's paid, will always receive less than he's worth it for sure. Thinking A lawyer, a doctor or even a Mc Donald's employee is producing less money than he's getting paid for is an innocent belief. If that was true, then answer me where does the profit comes from

Employers can turn a profit without exploiting workers. Henry Ford, for example, paid all of his workers so that they could make a good living and buy his products. While companies need to turn a profit and are competing to make money, they are also competing for employees. Everyone wants to get paid what they are worth, if not more. Profit comes from companies making money. This doesn't mean that they abuse their employees.

citoj:

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 07:42

Capitalism provides everyone the chance for everyone to become rich. Some succeed, others fail.

That's the worst fallacy that keeps being repeated over and over. Meritocracy doesn't exist. Rich kids go to the best school, the best college (considering the poor ones can actually go to college) and have nothing to worry about besides getting prepared to fullfill their role in the marketplace where they will start already at good positions because of networking + education (that was a privilege).

I want to see people talking about meritocracy when they need to study and work (real work, 40 hour a week) as teenagers, while they can't afford a private college and won't go to a public one either, because they couldn't afford a better education when younger.

You do not need a university education to do well. The founder of Home Depot never went to business school, rather he grew up poor. He still made a massive corporation through hard work.

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 08:25

Employers can turn a profit without exploiting workers.

False. Profit is actually the result of working exploit. Read about surplus value or we can't have a discussion about socialism. It will be you just guessing without concepts.

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 07:42

Capitalism provides everyone the chance for everyone to become rich. Some succeed, others fail.

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 08:25

You do not need a university education to do well. The founder of Home Depot never went to business school, rather he grew up poor. He still made a massive corporation through hard work.

"The exception proves the rule". Your own statement said he had to work [very] hard to achieve that. Still, he was not exactly in the poverty concept I'm talking about. How many others just like him were in the same situation, working as much or even harder and achieved nothing due to lack of opportunity? Meanwhile riches have a way easier path, specially if they already have something to start with. The family's corporation, going from father to son are there to confirm that.

Eshkruar nga Pinheiro, 21.01.2014 at 09:05

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 08:25

Employers can turn a profit without exploiting workers.

False. Profit is actually the result of working exploit. Read about surplus value or we can't have a discussion about socialism. It will be you just guessing without concepts.

I disagree with this concept that this is exploitation. Workers voluntarily work for these companies and they agree to a pay. I would not call a voluntary agreement exploitative. Remember that when public companies profit, they benefit the shareholders. A public law firm, for example, would give it's lawyers a good wage while increasing it's share value so it benefits the shareholder. Realize that it is not only the employer and the employee who are effected by this.

citoj:

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 07:42

Capitalism provides everyone the chance for everyone to become rich. Some succeed, others fail.

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 08:25

You do not need a university education to do well. The founder of Home Depot never went to business school, rather he grew up poor. He still made a massive corporation through hard work.

"The exception proves the rule". Your own statement said he had to work [very] hard to achieve that. Still, he was not exactly in the poverty concept I'm talking about. How many others just like him were in the same situation, working as much or even harder and achieved nothing due to lack of opportunity? Meanwhile riches have a way easier path, specially if they already have something to start with. The family's corporation, going from father to son are there to confirm that.

If they fail then that is a shame, but that is how capitalism works. Rich people have an easier time, but life is unequal. The world wasn't created equal. Also, this isn't just one exception. There are many examples of people who have started off poor and became rich through hard work.

Shall I remind you all that we live in a permanent-class system, where being born into extreme money will always keep you ignorant and comfortable, whereas a 10-generation family working their asses off will never, ever make that same amount of money experienced in one generation?

Tl;Dr, muh shekels, muh freedom tickets.

Eshkruar nga Guest, 21.01.2014 at 11:06

Shall I remind you all that we live in a permanent-class system, where being born into extreme money will always keep you ignorant and comfortable, whereas a 10-generation family working their asses off will never, ever make that same amount of money experienced in one generation?

Tl;Dr, muh shekels, muh freedom tickets.

This is not true. You can blow all the money you inherited out of ignorance. Most NFL players go bankrupt after 5 years. Many people have been born into poverty and became rich through hard work and dedication.

Lol who cares.

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 10:29

Workers voluntarily work for these companies and they agree to a pay. I would not call a voluntary agreement exploitative.

It's not voluntary, it's their only option: to work for those who already hold the production tools (industries, corporations, etc). The only thing workers have to sell are themselves. And what's even worse, they sell themselves to produce more profit to those that already hold the capital, benefiting only them, while workers are stuck forever in the same situation. Capitalism is the system that aims to keep things like they're already are, which lead me to my next topic...

As you said before:

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 07:42

Capitalism provides everyone the chance for everyone to become rich. Some succeed, others fail.

And then:

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 10:29

If they fail then that is a shame, but that is how capitalism works. Rich people have an easier time, but life is unequal.

Now, onto the conclusion:

Capitalism provides the condition to rich people to continue rich, while 99% of the poor will continue poor, but let's call it meritocracy and blame them for not trying hard enough.

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 11:23

Eshkruar nga Guest, 21.01.2014 at 11:06

Shall I remind you all that we live in a permanent-class system, where being born into extreme money will always keep you ignorant and comfortable, whereas a 10-generation family working their asses off will never, ever make that same amount of money experienced in one generation?

Tl;Dr, muh shekels, muh freedom tickets.

This is not true. You can blow all the money you inherited out of ignorance. Most NFL players go bankrupt after 5 years. Many people have been born into poverty and became rich through hard work and dedication.

NFL players inherit nothing. They are the pawns of American Media, and are paid huge sums to act like idiots. Those people are not rich, in comparison to the Halliburton's, Habsburgs, Rothchild's, and the Rockefeller's of the world, which own 99% of fucking everything. Money should not equal time, rather, my time should equal enjoyment and fulfillment, not someone else's fucking wallet.

Oh, it's also illegal to live off the land, for the most part, as well, so therefore I can't leave society behind and live simply. No matter what, in this world, you are fucked unless you decide to stand up and say 'no'. Capitalism is a waste of time, and should be abolished (Communism is terrible as well, keep that in mind).

Eshkruar nga Guest, 21.01.2014 at 12:19

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 11:23

Eshkruar nga Guest, 21.01.2014 at 11:06

Shall I remind you all that we live in a permanent-class system, where being born into extreme money will always keep you ignorant and comfortable, whereas a 10-generation family working their asses off will never, ever make that same amount of money experienced in one generation?

Tl;Dr, muh shekels, muh freedom tickets.

This is not true. You can blow all the money you inherited out of ignorance. Most NFL players go bankrupt after 5 years. Many people have been born into poverty and became rich through hard work and dedication.

NFL players inherit nothing. They are the pawns of American Media, and are paid huge sums to act like idiots. Those people are not rich, in comparison to the Halliburton's, Habsburgs, Rothchild's, and the Rockefeller's of the world, which own 99% of fucking everything. Money should not equal time, rather, my time should equal enjoyment and fulfillment, not someone else's fucking wallet.

Oh, it's also illegal to live off the land, for the most part, as well, so therefore I can't leave society behind and live simply. No matter what, in this world, you are fucked unless you decide to stand up and say 'no'. Capitalism is a waste of time, and should be abolished (Communism is terrible as well, keep that in mind).

What about a mix between capitalism and communism?... Oh yeah, i remeber why....

I have experience the good sides and bad sides of capitalism, at the end is true that you can go from poor to rich and from rich to poor, but the system is made for he rich to remain rich and for the middle class to pay for the poor.

@Pinheiro

They have choice in which company to work for. In socialism, they do not have a choice, they only have the government. Companies, as well as competing for profit, also compete to get workers. People will want to work for whoever offers the better wage. Lawyers will not take minimum wage, for example, because their work is worth much more than minimum wage. They sell themselves voluntarily to work for a company. They, in turn, make money as well as the people who own it. Remember that the top 1% can only make money as long as the populace wants them to. If the populace decides that they are evil and exploitative and unworthy of making money, the company will not make money.

Secondly, I would like to see proof that 99% of the poor stay poor when there are numerous examples of poor people becoming rich! or at least middle class. And the rich do not necessarily remain rich. In Toronto, Henry Pellatt went from being the richest man of the city by far to virtually penniless. The rich only stay rich as LNG as they are responsible.

@Gardevoir

NFL players weren't an example of inheritance, rather an example of blowing all your money despite being rich. Those NFL players look like they do little work to do a lot, but in reality, they are out there entertaining millions of people across the United States and Canada. These players are rich because the populace allows them to be rich. If the populace stopped watching football and stopped giving them money, they would not make money. Capitalism is based off of the voluntary exchange of capital. Habsburgs did not become rich off of capitalism, they became rich off of being royalty and government, the complete opposite of capitalism. Rothschild became rich off of war, something that would not exist in a completely capitalist world because in a capitalist world, there is no need for war.

Your time can be enjoyed, but realize that life isn't all happy, rainbows and unicorns. There are times to take life seriously and work hard. If everyone spent their life having fun and not working, the world would not last more than 5 years due to famine, starvation and death.

Capitalism is not a waste of time, capitalism is putting your time to good use so you and your children can live a good life. There is no better alternative to voluntarily exchanging wealth. Forcing people is a waste of time because it is going against the will of a large portion of the population.

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 07:42

This is the argument of Albert Einstein against capitalism and my response to his argument. I encourage people to read it if they wish.

For his argument, see here: http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/uploads/Einstein%20on%20Why%20Socialism.pdf

My argument:

First of all, Einstein comes in with an argument based on a previous conclusion that competition is bad. He says that the goal of companies is to destroy each other through legal means and that this is inherently evil. He declares that the sole goal of these corporations is to create profit and destroy other companies. One fundamental flaw is that he ignores the consumer and only talks about the capitalists. While companies try to harm each other, one must realize that at the end of the day, whichever company survives is based off of two factors: Asset management and the consumer. If a company does not manage it's assets properly, the company will fail. This doesn't just apply to a company, but it also applies to governments. The difference is, if one company, unless it has a monopoly which would be unlawful in a capitalist society anyways, goes under, there are numerous other companies to choose from. If a government goes under, one does not simply leave the country. The second factor is the consumer. At the end of the day, it is the consumer who decides which company lives and which one goes bankrupt. Companies compete for the goal of making profit, something they can only get if the consumer feels that the company's product benefits them. If the consumer does not like a product, they have numerous other companies to buy from. In a socialist economy, if they don't like the product, they are still forced to buy it along with everyone else. So while companies may be harmed, ultimately, it is the consumer, the majority, which is benefitted.

Secondly, Einstein gets his argument completely wrong on wages. According to Einstein, workers are not payed based on how much work they do and how much they contribute (their worth), but rather get payed the bare minimum. If this argument were true, you would see 99% of Americans on minimum wage. However, this is not the case. Rather, only about 5-10% of Americans are payed minimum wage. The other 90-95% get payed above the minimum wage plus benefits because that is how much they are worth. A lawyer does not get payed minimum wage because he does a ton of work. A cashier gets payed minimum wage because he just stands there and says "fries with that?" while taking people's orders. These people can easily be replaced, therefore, they are not worth more than minimum wage. In a socialist society, however, this would not be any better. In fact, wages would be even more disproportionate based on work. In a socialist society, a cashier and the president of McDonalds gets the same pay, even though the president of McDonalds, despite popular belief among socialists who think running companies are easy, is much more work and is much more important than a simple, replaceable, cashier. Minimum wage has just created a long line of unemployed people who are worth less than minimum wage.

Next, Einstein discusses the flow of capital and how it generally ends up in the hands of a small few. While this may be true to an extent, this doesn't make it unjustified. Capitalism provides everyone the chance for everyone to become rich. Some succeed, others fail. Not everyone needs to be rich though. Capitalism gave rise to the middle class, a class between the rich and the poor. People in the middle class generally live comfortably without having millions, if not, billions of dollars to their expense. If all capital truly went into the hands of a small few, there would not be any middle class. Also, remember in the first paragraph where I discussed how companies succeed or fail based on consumer needs. The rich generally get rich off of those willing to buy their products. If these people become rich, it is solely because people not as rich as them are willing to buy their products. They got rich off of other people allowing them to.

Fourthly, Einstein discusses labor. He states that no way to ensure that everyone willing to work will get a job. However, there really is no alternative to this. In a socialist economy, jobs do not come out of nowhere and are not created for no reason, just the same as a capitalist economy. If a person is only skilled in one area of which there is no demand for more workers, neither a capitalist nor socialist economy will be providing him with a job in that field. Einstein also mentions that the free market brings forth technology that causes unemployment. The only reason such technology exists to put others out of a job is because it is simply cheaper for companies to use technology rather than actual people. This brings us back to the economic worth of an individual. For example, a fast food restaurant decides it can no longer continue paying it's employees minimum wage because it is causing them to raise their prices and lose business. For this reason, they replace the employees with self check-outs. This is not a product of capitalism, this is a product of social programs destroying the lower income earners. There is no reason to pay someone more than they are worth. Remember that when these employees are replaced by cheaper machines, prices go down and the consumers benefit. Einstein states that unlimited competition leads to a waste of labor, but the truth is, that is the only way to keep so many people employed. The more competition there is, the more companies there are, the more people are employed. If there was no competition, there would simply not be enough areas to keep the majority employed since you only need enough employees to create one company. Only with competition can you keep so many people employed.

Lastly, Einstein states that only a planned economy can possibly work for everyone. Every country in history with a completely planned economy has failed. The USSR had the lowest GDP per capita in the world in 1989. North Korea is in famine. East German vs West German development shows how poorly the planned economy turned out for East Germany. A centrally planned economy is based on the assumption that government will always be in your best interest. Even if it is, one single organization cannot address the needs of every individual. Hundreds of thousands of companies, large and small, are what can provide for every individual need because they need to in order to turn a profit. Einstein continues by saying that education should be based more around social goals than competition. This only works as long as people do not realize that they can essentially do nothing and still be winners. The idea is simple. If there are too many people on the wagon and too few pulling it, you will not progress anywhere. Humans are not stupid creatures and they realize that if they can do nothing and still do as well as everyone else, they will do it. Humans are not ants and bees. Humans do not act purely based on instinct. Humans can think for themselves and for that reason, humans cannot conform to socialism.

I will finish this off by saying that Einstein got it completely wrong on his economic ideology.

My argument:
and not a single fuck was given that day

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 13:45

They have choice in which company to work for.

They can choose who will exploit them.

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 13:45

If the populace decides that they are evil and exploitative and unworthy of making money, the company will not make money.

Absolutely not! The media and all the messages we receive everyday by the media won't let most of the people even think about stop doing something. How many times have you read bad things about Mc Donalds, Coca Cola and Nike and yet you keep on buying it because it's the trending mark. If it can produce the cheapest product by using asian and african slaves on their factories, you will keep on buying it.

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 13:45

Secondly, I would like to see proof that 99% of the poor stay poor when there are numerous examples of poor people becoming rich! or at least middle class. And the rich do not necessarily remain rich. In Toronto, Henry Pellatt went from being the richest man of the city by far to virtually penniless. The rich only stay rich as LNG as they are responsible.

America's Economic Dark Side. Widening Social Inequality, Rising Poverty and Joblessness

Social and Economic Inequality in the United States
How income inequality hurts America
New report finds increase in social inequality during US "recovery"

Contrary to what happens with a full liberal government, who aims to follow the capitalist gurus, countries that decided to adopt a more socialist agenda, such as Brazil or Argentina have earned a lot.

BRAZILIAN SOCIETY: THE YEAR AHEAD

citoj:

Since the coming to power of Lula's Partido dos Trabalhadores (Worker's Party -PT) in 2003, both his former administration and President Rousseff's current administration have been credited with lifting 28 million people out of extreme poverty and allowing 36 million to enter the middle class, in a country of almost 200 million.

A report from the World Bank indicates poverty has fallen markedly, from 21% of the population in 2003 to 11% in 2009 with numbers continuing to fall. The Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) also reported that the richest 20 percent of Brazilians saw a decrease in their share of wealth over the past decade, whilst the poorest 20 percent, on the other hand, increased their share of wealth from 2.6 to 3.5 percent during the same period.

In June last 2011, President Rousseff launched a multi-billion dollar social welfare program called 'Brazil Sem Miséria' (Brazil Without Misery) in response to the IBGE's poverty figures. Its aim is to eradicate extreme poverty in Brazil by 2014.The 'Brazil Without Misery' programme plans to extend the reach of the Bolsa Familia, a cash transfer program started by President Lula, and brings together a host of schemes targeting health, education and infrastructure under one umbrella. Rousseff's goal is to include a further 320,000 people by the end of the year.

The government has enacted the "Busca Ativa" (or "Active Search") strategy to ensure that benefits reach families who may not yet have received them due to geographical isolation, lack of information and administrative shortcomings. The Minister for Social Development, Tereza Campello, highlighted the 'need to change the mind-set that it is up to a poor and marginalized person to come to the state, and ensure that the state reaches out to them.'

Or you could join the army..

I know a really cool place to go if you want to talk trash politics <3

Eshkruar nga Pinheiro, 21.01.2014 at 08:08

Meritocracy doesn't exist.

And Communists and Socialists don't believe in Meritocracy either. Which is why National Socialism is superior in every form. It doesn't entirely strip away control from the ownership of factories and production. To do so would be ridiculous as these people have usually created these means through their own merits to some degree and understand its strengths and weaknesses aswell as functions. It is best to leave them in charge and take a majority share. There should remain some healthy competition for efficiency.

Socialists are completely unmeritocratic. Their entire belief system is based upon eahc person having equal value when they clearly do not so don't pretend you value meritocracy. Under National Socialism, school systems are entirely setout as classess and meritocratic. Unlike most Socialist and Communist systems which would just hand a man a tool and get on with it despite his previous experience in other skills, Nat Soc understands skills, labor and that each citizen has different capabilities. So we seek to find their strengths and use them.

We are racial and tribal based because we humans are inherently tribal, we value compatibility, sameness, commonality. The more we trust one another, the more friendly we are, the more charitable we are willing to be, the more efficient our communities become. Homogenous societies are superior in every way becuase of these inherent tribalistic qualities.

The mixture of social conservatism, family values, commonality, tribalism, meritocratic education and sharing some of the efforts with people who built them rather thanc ompletely stripping them of it is what makes Nat Soc better than Communism and Socialism.

Einstein is a hypocrite, a fool and a thief. Whenever he talks sense, he has an agenda behind his words.

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 11:23

This is not true. You can blow all the money you inherited out of ignorance. Most NFL players go bankrupt after 5 years. Many people have been born into poverty and became rich through hard work and dedication.

This is correct. Long generation famillies of wealth continue that line by teaching their children not to squander it and to keep ivnesting for the future. People that win the lottery or working class members who come in to major money through sport or entertainment tend to lose it all within a few years. They have no idea how to deal with their income or its limits. They just spend in the belief it will last forever.

Also... another line of questioning ignored. What is the ethnic majority of NFL players? The same majority holds true among Hip Hop Artists and Boxers. They can never maintain their wealth, they always squander it.

Wealth must be invested. If the genetic line isn't healthy enough from any genetic or ethnic origin, it will not retain that wealth. To claim that famillies like the Rothschild are only powerful and wealthy becuase of luck and upbringing would be lying to yourself. They are genetically superior in adaption to the modern age than most human beings. They aren't who they are through mere nepotism. They grafted for a long time to have what they have. I wont bullshit and claim people like that didn't earn it when they did. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken away.

Eshkruar nga Pinheiro, 21.01.2014 at 15:59

Absolutely not! The media and all the messages we receive everyday by the media won't let most of the people even think about stop doing something.

Like Atwar mods for muting me when I discuss controversial topics.

Eshkruar nga Pinheiro, 21.01.2014 at 15:59

If it can produce the cheapest product by using asian and african slaves on their factories, you will keep on buying it.

Slaves under Socialist dictatorships? Such irony. Oh wait, no true Scotsman, right? China and African Socialist parties aren't true socialists?

Eshkruar nga Pinheiro, 21.01.2014 at 15:59

America's Economic Dark Side. Widening Social Inequality, Rising Poverty and Joblessness

Social and Economic Inequality in the United States
How income inequality hurts America
New report finds increase in social inequality during US "recovery"

This wasn't an issue pre 1960s and you know this. Much of these problems have been caused by entitlements given after the civil rights movement. Most crime, single motherhood and ''inequality'' occured after the 1960s when the US stopped importing Europeans and began opening its borders of the rest of the world. Even now, Haitians, Somalians and Sudanese are being trucked into America. This inequality isn't the cause of Capitlaism. 1920s America and Britian were very capitaistic but most people were self employed. Retail giants came after Globalization and when corporations bought out the government using larger government policies. Without the bigger government policies, globalization would never have occured and the population would still be made up of mostly self employed workers where the owner of a factory earned 5 times more rather than now when they earn a thousand times more.

These problems were created by entitlements given post civil rights. An immigration policy which destroyed communities in the US and a government which incentivizes people not to work and to live lives in apathy.

Eshkruar nga Pinheiro, 21.01.2014 at 15:59

Contrary to what happens with a full liberal government, who aims to follow the capitalist gurus, countries that decided to adopt a more socialist agenda, such as Brazil or Argentina have earned a lot.

Oh my. The same country that recently had its government buildings taken over by its citizens? The same Argentina which has been failing economically for decades? While Chile, the practical Free Market country of South America continues to thrive with the only major intrusion from government being the nationalization of its copper mines and processing.

Social liberalism and Economic socialism do NOT work. Social Conservatism is required to balance the books. Brazil is an economic giant built on the same problems of every other third world hellhole. Brazil is a mess for numerous reasons.

Eshkruar nga Pinheiro, 21.01.2014 at 15:59

BRAZILIAN SOCIETY: THE YEAR AHEAD

citoj:

Since the coming to power of Lula's Partido dos Trabalhadores (Worker's Party -PT) in 2003, both his former administration and President Rousseff's current administration have been credited with lifting 28 million people out of extreme poverty and allowing 36 million to enter the middle class, in a country of almost 200 million

Just like the Labour Government in the Uk during the 50s. Spending your way to buy votes and increase debt. Poverty is a buzzword. It doesn't matter how poor people are as long as they have the community needed to support them. All welfare and entitlements will do is the same thing they have done across every other country that enacts them. It creates entitlement, it promotes feminism, it destroys the family, strips the man of his title as the head of the household. It eventually takes money from the man and gives it to the woman which will cause skyrocketing single mother rates and eventual birth decline while the society is easily manipulated by consumerism and materialism.

Look at the Brazillian Feminists. Look at your welfare. You are heading the same way as us and people like us try yo warn you but you are so busy looking at all the money you are earning, ALL from large companies using Brazillian manufacturing to build their JCBs and engines. You are blind to what it is doing to you and its effects on the culture and of the mindset. It will kill your work ethic and your community but keep pretending you are living the socialist dream because you have more cash to spend on useless shit you never needed in the first place.

Why can't you think more objectively?

Eshkruar nga Tik-Tok, 22.01.2014 at 03:20

Eshkruar nga KYBL, 21.01.2014 at 11:23

This is not true. You can blow all the money you inherited out of ignorance. Most NFL players go bankrupt after 5 years. Many people have been born into poverty and became rich through hard work and dedication.

This is correct. Long generation famillies of wealth continue that line by teaching their children not to squander it and to keep ivnesting for the future. People that win the lottery or working class members who come in to major money through sport or entertainment tend to lose it all within a few years. They have no idea how to deal with their income or its limits. They just spend in the belief it will last forever.

Also... another line of questioning ignored. What is the ethnic majority of NFL players? The same majority holds true among Hip Hop Artists and Boxers. They can never maintain their wealth, they always squander it.

Wealth must be invested. If the genetic line isn't healthy enough from any genetic or ethnic origin, it will not retain that wealth. To claim that famillies like the Rothschild are only powerful and wealthy becuase of luck and upbringing would be lying to yourself. They are genetically superior in adaption to the modern age than most human beings. They aren't who they are through mere nepotism. They grafted for a long time to have what they have. I wont bullshit and claim people like that didn't earn it when they did. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken away.

So if Justin Bieber and his decendants don't squander his wealth that makes him geneticaly superior?

This is the future of Brazil. They have infected your women and will turn them against the Men. The men will become emasculated, easily manipulated while women take more control through the use of state handouts. This is the start of your social decline and it is something you cannot repair. To fail economically is nothing. Investment will return, infrastructure rebuilt. But you cannot repair social damage. Once the culture is dead, it never returns, it can never be rebuilt. Look at this man. THIS IS A MAN. Its perfectly Ok for women to get their tits out but if a man whips out his cock, suddenly, he's the enemy of the state. This is social degradation and it will spread like an uncurable virus with the full backing of the state.


This is your congress. This happy socialist people.. so happy they all paid the Brazillian congress building a visit.


This is Argentina. This is social degradation caused by socialism, funded by capitalism.


This is the face of your happy socialism. It is social decline which will lead to economic decline. This will lead to reaction and eventually, Fascism. It happens every time.

Eshkruar nga Tik-Tok, 22.01.2014 at 04:05

This is the future of Brazil. They have infected your women and will turn them against the Men. The men will become emasculated, easily manipulated while women take more control through the use of state handouts. This is the start of your social decline and it is something you cannot repair. To fail economically is nothing. Investment will return, infrastructure rebuilt. But you cannot repair social damage. Once the culture is dead, it never returns, it can never be rebuilt. Look at this man. THIS IS A MAN. Its perfectly Ok for women to get their tits out but if a man whips out his cock, suddenly, he's the enemy of the state. This is social degradation and it will spread like an uncurable virus with the full backing of the state.


This is your congress. This happy socialist people.. so happy they all paid the Brazillian congress building a visit.


This is Argentina. This is social degradation caused by socialism, funded by capitalism.


This is the face of your happy socialism. It is social decline which will lead to economic decline. This will lead to reaction and eventually, Fascism. It happens every time.

Brazil has always been 3rd world

Eshkruar nga 4Chan, 22.01.2014 at 04:03

So if Justin Bieber and his decendants don't squander his wealth that makes him geneticaly superior?

He is squandering his wealth. He's going to turn into every other celebrity of his age. The stupid ones fall into decline and usually end up druggies. Which one Disney era singer has remained wealthy and stable? Justin Timberlake. All the others and their wealth will decline, his will increase. He's a smart boy with a good family upbringing.

Eshkruar nga 4Chan, 22.01.2014 at 04:09

Brazil has always been 3rd world

That's not even an argument, that's just a statement.

Eshkruar nga Tik-Tok, 22.01.2014 at 04:17

Eshkruar nga 4Chan, 22.01.2014 at 04:09

Brazil has always been 3rd world

That's not even an argument, that's just a statement.

Did my statement say otherwise?

Ba*dum*tsk

I think it's good that you look into these kind of things OP, albeit your view on all this may be a bit naive due to your lack of age/experience. Disregarding the fact that he was a rather smart fella, Einsteins thoughts are also the result of a lifetime of experience in a society you are yet to fully take part in. There was probably 40 years of experience and knowledge between your age now and the age when Einstein formulated these thoughts. There are still very many things left to learn for you, me and everyone else taking part in this discussion so I won't claim my opinion to be 100% right, but you may take it into consideration.

As an example of how employers can run a profit without exploiting workers you take Henry Ford, which is already the first indicator of your simplistic view. The world we live in today is far more complex than the one Ford lived in. Think of it this way: with whom did Ford compete 100 years ago? With whom do they compete today? Globalization changed the game big time. Competition is one of the main pillars of capitalism, which makes it on one hand a very strong and progressive economic ideology, on the other hand though also opens the floodgates for exploitation.
And contrary to what you believe, that the marked may regulate itself through consumer behaviour, e.g. people not buying stuff of companys that exploit workers, this just doesn't happen.
Take your smartphone as an example. I'm sure you own one. It's manufactured with a mineral that is known as coltan and it's available in China, Australia and Kazakhstan. The biggest deposit though lies on African soil. Mainly in the Congolese region of Kivu, which also happens to be the biggest conflict zone of the planet with more than 5 million dead already.
The biggest coltan trader happens to be the German Bayer AG. And where do you reckon they get their coltan from? China, Australia? Developed countries full of taxes, tarifs and regulations which ultimately translate into losing money?
They buy it from rebel militia in Congo, who sell their mineral for dirt cheap out of the hands of men, women and children who work under the worst conditions like ants in the narrowest and most dangerous mines of this world. With the money they get from capitalist companys such as the Bayer AG these militias buy weapons, amunition and explosives to go on about their fighting, pillaging and raping. As long as the war rages, the prices are low.
Once the coltan is received by Bayer it is shipped to either of the two Chinas, where contracted partners of Apple and co start manufacturing the shiny little devices. Their employees work under such extreme conditions that they regularly commit suicide, to which one of Apples suppliers cynically reacted by sealing off the windows of the apartments of their employees. When there's a run on a new Apple product they stuff their factories full with old folks and pregnant women, just about anyone they can get their hands on.

This is all common knowledge. People just choose to not hear about it, because they would not react to it as any human being should. They are consumers, nothing more. Trained to buy whenever Steve Jobs presents them with another piece of shit put into a shiny case.
Our consumerism is the cause of dead people all around the world, provided and actively supported by the companys we buy our goods from. From childrens age on we are so trained on consuming that it virtually has become one of the most integral part of our lifes. We want that new lego kit, we want that barbie puppet, we want that gaming console and it's newest games. Young people nowadays are so distracted by everything our consumer oriented society throws at them that we ended up with a rather dysfunctional society in which people strife for easy "fast food" consumerism instead of the truly important and society-building things in life, like school, studying, good work, starting a family, science, philosophy, ethics and humanism.
People rather consume the latest news on celebrety dating than hearing about yet another burned down textile factory in Bangladesh with hundreds of dead, in which half of their clothes were probably made. A capitalist society isn't merit-oriented, it is consumer-oriented. It is only interested in selling things to consumers. May it be mobile devices, movies or even news. Everything watered down and easy to swallow to make it more sellable to the masses and this undermines our society big time. It stops people from thinking and enslaves them without noticing, while baiting them with lies of an equal society that hands you the right tools to do as good as the man in his shiny Ferrari over there.

Capitalism isn't the only cause of this, but it faciliates greed, vanity and exploitation and that more than ever in our now globalized world. It's an incredibly sick system in which money is worth more than human life and only serves the people who actually own the money.

And now for the last point, as you mentioned East and West Germany: my family happens to be East German. They lived in a truly socialist society and you're right when you say they didn't have as much as our relatives in the West, but they had everything they needed and more. And that's all you need to lead a good life. In the society they lived in everyone had access to free education, world class health care, extremly low rent and living costs, everyone had a job and there were kindergardens for every child. This was the societies pivot, not relentless consumerism. It was a much simpler life than people in West Germany had, but it was by no means worse from an economical point of view. The main flaw it had was the political system, not the economical. So how do you determine a good life? On GDP figures? On wealth? What is wealth? Is it only money? When I ask my parents and grandparents how life in the GDR was, they answer by saying they had less worries. They never were poor. Theirs was just another kind of wealth.

Thus it's really just a matter of perspective and what you determine as the things you need for a living. Personally I'm against capitalism as we practice it right now, but I'm also sceptical towards socialism. Not because of the system itself, but because I don't trust humans as able to handle it accordingly.

Eshkruar nga Tik-Tok, 22.01.2014 at 03:46

Eshkruar nga Pinheiro, 21.01.2014 at 15:59

America's Economic Dark Side. Widening Social Inequality, Rising Poverty and Joblessness

Social and Economic Inequality in the United States
How income inequality hurts America
New report finds increase in social inequality during US "recovery"

This wasn't an issue pre 1960s and you know this. Much of these problems have been caused by entitlements given after the civil rights movement. Most crime, single motherhood and ''inequality'' occured after the 1960s when the US stopped importing Europeans and began opening its borders of the rest of the world. Even now, Haitians, Somalians and Sudanese are being trucked into America. This inequality isn't the cause of Capitlaism. 1920s America and Britian were very capitaistic but most people were self employed. Retail giants came after Globalization and when corporations bought out the government using larger government policies. Without the bigger government policies, globalization would never have occured and the population would still be made up of mostly self employed workers where the owner of a factory earned 5 times more rather than now when they earn a thousand times more.

These problems were created by entitlements given post civil rights. An immigration policy which destroyed communities in the US and a government which incentivizes people not to work and to live lives in apathy.

What are these entitlements after the civil rights movement you are refering to exactly? How did they contribute to social inequality?
As far as I'm concerned this has little to do with the civil rights movement. You are right when you say this was a minor problem pre-1960s, but then the 60s were exactly the time when globalization started to kick in, capitalists faced increased competition and dealed with it by lobbying for massive deregulations- mainly in the finance sector.
Taxes and regulations on companys were dropped, money was detached from any real value and the loans were freed from any whatsoever restriction which results in our current inequality. Nowadays companys pay only a fraction of the taxes (if at all) of what they paid in the 50s.
Worst of all is the deregulation of the finance sector the US and the UK pioneered in wake of their failing manufacturing sector. The 2008 financial crisis was a direct result of this development. This is where the problem lies.

This thread, holy shit. Stupidity has reached a zenith.

Eshkruar nga Guest, 22.01.2014 at 10:47

This thread, holy shit. Stupidity has reached a zenith.

It's just a few normal people and Tik-Tok discussing their beliefs. I can see nothing stupid about it. You're invited to take part though, if you would please elaborate?

Eshkruar nga learster, 22.01.2014 at 11:48

Eshkruar nga Guest, 22.01.2014 at 10:47

This thread, holy shit. Stupidity has reached a zenith.

It's just a few normal people and Tik-Tok discussing their beliefs. I can see nothing stupid about it. You're invited to take part though, if you would please elaborate?

I was referring to Tik-Tok's image. I also took part in this thread already, until it spurred off into "DEGENERATES, OMG FAMILY VALUES, BRASIL IS EFFEMINATE, HILTER DID NOTHING WRONG".

Eshkruar nga Guest, 22.01.2014 at 11:59

I was referring to Tik-Tok's image. I also took part in this thread already, until it spurred off into "DEGENERATES, OMG FAMILY VALUES, BRASIL IS EFFEMINATE, HILTER DID NOTHING WRONG".

Next time express yourself more clearly then. Or just keep it to yourself entirely, as it is not much of a contribution. Tik-Tok seems to be an odd person, but he's clearly not stupid. His right to express his belief is as good as yours, even if you and I do not agree with it. In fact I see the same problems as he does, I just draw very diffrent conclusions. This could make up for a good discussion, if both parties are open-minded about it. That's seldom the case, but then it does not help to call out the whole thread as stupid.